February 28, 2011

UK National Debt Grows Arms And Legs

Remember the shock and outrage when the UK national debt tripped over to one trillion pounds?

Not a murmur when the next milestone was reached.

Go here and look again.

I suggest you put a cushion on your desk to protect your chin.

Despite this colossal figure, our biggest problem seems to be a government demand that we spend £32 BILLION to shave two minutes off a train journey.

That, or who will comprise the next X Factor panel of judges.

CR.

Evil vs Insane

Mary: Croft has added a correction to a post (of hers) that I linked to here a short time ago.

Here is a snippet:

“EVIL”  VS.  “INSANE”

"I have maintained for years that it is foolish for us to go to court. Frank has convinced me that I have been inaccurate.  What he has relayed to me is stunning news, yet, I ought not to have been surprised when I remember who the controllers (“minions”) really are. Frank is adamant that they are not “evil” because, of course, this is precisely how they want us to think of them. Why?  Because we fear evil––mostly because it is so foreign and enigmatic to us as we, by our nature, are not. Fear is one emotion upon which they thrive. They actually require low frequency emotions––fear, shame, guilt, anger, frustration–– from us, in order to function.

So, let’s stop calling the minions “evil” and call them “insane”.  How do we know they are “insane”?  Our insane world is a result of their insanity. Another good tip-off is that when we state, in court, what is true, they tend to order a “psychological evaluation”. Since what we want for another, we also want for ourselves (and vice versa), at some level of consciousness, they know that this is what they, themselves, require. Since the language of the psychiatrists they choose is designed to trick us, it is important that we ask questions, in order to establish what is really going on. So, in order for us to be certain about what we are being asked, in response to any question, from a psych, at a “psych eval”, we ought to clarify, “Are you asking……?  If we get a yes, only then should we respond.  Answering any question from anyone, without clarifying what is being asked, is crazy (so to speak), but from one of the minions, it is more insanity.

Evidence of their insanity and trickery is that they behave as if they want the opposite of what they really want. They do NOT want us to pay our mortgage, they do NOT want us to obey their alleged traffic laws, and they do NOT want us to go to court."

Please go and read the rest here.

Amazing stuff.

CR.

February 27, 2011

'SPECTACULAR' event - URGENT

This is a special message from Roger Hayes of the British Constitution Group.

 

Please attend if you can.

 

A single 'Spectacular' event - to wake the nation up.

 
We will be engaging in a 'spectacular' event on Monday the 7th March... that is guaranteed to get national media/TV coverage - the event meeting time is at 1pm - Hamilton Square - Birkenhead. Wirral. It will start at 2pm. Details of what we are doing will be released minutes before it will happen.

We will have our own camera crews on the ground... but expect that national TV news crews will soon turn up to cover the event... they would be embarrassed not to cover it (and that includes the BBC) if we have the numbers there to demonstrate the national anger at what's going on. It will be broadcast live on the internet... it should go viral. Australians have already said that they intend staying up to watch as events unfold.

We are asking that people turn up with black umbrellas (nothing to do with the weather) and please be early... if you are not there well before 2pm - our initiative could fail.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT NUMBERS - NUMBERS - NUMBERS. It is essential that we have a good turnout.

Everybody has been saying for some time that we must DO SOMETHING - that will make a significent impact... and that is exactly what this event will do... provided we get the support.

A few of us will be putting our necks on the line... the POWERS THAT BE will be unable to isolate us if we have the support on the ground as things unfold... but the PTB will almost certainly retaliate if we do not have the support.

This event will be both lawful and peaceful. We have deliberately left the publication of this event until the last week to minimise the chance of the PTB getting wind of what is happening.

Please spread the word... if there is one event that can make a difference and for which we need the numbers - this is it. We know it is a Monday... but that is for a very good reason... and for maximum impact.

This event will take place under the banner of 'Lawful Rebellion' - we are all indebted to John Harris and TPUC for getting this initiative off the ground in the first place... so let's now give this a major push.

Thanking you all in anticipation of your support... please spread the message near and far.

Roger Hayes
The British Constitution Group

Work. Buy. Consume. Die.



Or.........

.....unplug.

Do it gently, but firmly.

Make a solemn oath to yourself that from this day, to your last day, you will live.

Most of us just exist.

And we, you, all of us, deserve so much more.

Unplug.

It will not hurt. I absolutely guarantee it.

CR.

*Tip of the beret to Inquiring Minds where I spotted this great video.

February 26, 2011

HMRC. Not Too Bright.

Not just dim, but criminally negligent.

Dave over at Lawful Rebellion sent me this FOI a few days ago. I asked if it was ok to run a piece on it and he kindly said yes.

There are some big numbers in here. I know that we are used to hearing about the USA's $14 trillion debt, and our own £4 trillion debt, so when we talk about billions, we are almost blasé about it.

When it comes to incompetence, I think we should be looking for those responsible. Then we should send them to gaol. For a very long time. These idiots have no business (mis)handling these huge sums of money.

Dave wanted to know how much was lost due to "official error". The staggering figure is below.

Here we go:

"Date - 11 November 2010

Our ref - FOI 2364/10

Dear Mr Ophalus
Freedom of information request

The Department has now considered your request of 17 October made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA.)

Your request

I would like to find out the percentage split in this statement: “Fraud in the benefit and tax credit system is estimated to cost the taxpayer around £1.5 billion a year, while a further £3.5 billion is accounted for by errors by officials or claimants.” So – of this £3.5 billion, what percentage is errors of officials and claimants please?

HMRC response

The information used to provide the statement you refer to is published in the Parliamentary response to Lord Beecham on 28 October 2010, Lords Hansard columns WA330 – WA331. This is available on the Parliamentary website at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101028w0001.htm#10102831000612 I have reproduced the table of information and notes below:

The figure of £5 billion for fraud and error is a rounded figure. The estimate of monies lost to benefit and tax credit fraud and error is £5.2 billion. This is broken down as follows:

Benefits 2009/2010

Fraud - £1.0 billion

Customer Error - £1.1 billion

Official Error - £1.1 billion <<<<<

Tax Credits 2008/09

Fraud - £0.5 billion

Customer Error - £1.6 billion

Notes:

1. The figure for benefits is a preliminary estimate for 2009/10
2. The figures for tax credits are central estimates for 2008/09 (the latest figures available)
3. There are no figures available for administrative error in tax credits
4. When totalled, the individual elements shown in the table above total £5.3 billion. This is due to rounding
5. HMRC is responsible for the delivery of tax credits

The latest estimates of fraud and error in the benefits system can be found at:
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct08_sep09.pdf
The latest estimates of fraud and error in the tax credits system can be found at:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/cwtcredits-error0809.pdf"

Back to me.

I have removed some stuff that didn't seem important. The logo wouldn't transfer easily, and I am reasonably confident that you are happy with this piece being reproduced in English, and that you did not need the links to translations in 143 different languages.

My question is this: will those responsible for this humongous loss of money be fired, or tried and punished? Or will they merely shrug and say "Shit happens"? £1.1 Billion is a lot of money and I need to know that my taxes, as punitive as they are, are being handled properly. It seems they aren't. And all that does is make me resolve NOT to pay them in the first place.

I know that if I screwed up on even a tiny fraction of the scale shown here, I would be queuing up down at the dole office. And rightly so.

Why do we do nothing? What can we do? What should we do?

Does this happen every financial year? Dave only asked about a specific period, but would we be horrified to learn that it happens each and every year? (I now strongly suspect that it does).

I don't see any point in giving them over half my salary every year just so that they can lose it. 

CR.

Am I Done?

Have I/we taught you enough?

Do you still need me/us?

Can you stand on your own two feet?

These are genuine questions. I have other fish to fry. Do you really need me/us to keep banging on about shit you already know?

Or can I get on with it? All you need to know is here, in one blogpost or another.

I can update you on my progress, but it is time you flew on your own. You have wings, and (hopefully) you know where you are going.

Sometimes, most times, to know, is to do.

Can you do, or do you still need some help?

If you can cope on your own, I am superfluous. I am just a fifth wheel.

With your permission, I will fuck off, and do what needs to be done.

This is NOT one of those wanky, needy posts. I don't care if you like me or loathe me. There is no ego here. Never has been. If you need/want me to keep squeezing out these posts, posts which resonate, (and I know they do), then I will keep on keeping on.

Let me know.

CR.

Step One: Learn The Rules.


Step Two: Win In Court, Every Time.





Watch this.

Watch and listen.

Watch, and listen, and learn.

When you have, you will know all that I know.

Dispute, if you can, anything that Veronica: Chapman has to say.

I already know that you cannot. What Veronica says is mired in common sense and Veronica has studied, and told us, all about the law as it stands today. As it has stood,  since time immemorial.

Be amazed. Then wise up. It is a game.

Veronica is merely explaining the rules.

Learn them, and grow a pair. Man up.

And you will never be unmanned again.

CR.

Tourettes Information

This made I larf. A lot.























Tip of the beret to Jim_Watford on twitter.

CR.

February 25, 2011

Oderint Dum Metuant

Not my catchiest title ever.

What does it mean?

That is a fair question. It is Latin and when translated it says "Let them hate provided they fear". (Another translation is: "Let them hate us as long as they fear us")

The frightening part is where this phrase was photographed.

Look:















Yep. In the windscreen of a fucking police vehicle.

Are you in any doubt that they despise us?

Me neither.

CR.

Friday Funny-God vs Dope



Whoda thunk it?

CR.

February 23, 2011

2011 Census Rebellion!

Folks, Mr Snopes says that my last post was bullshit. I have pulled it for the moment.

Have this one instead!

Click your way over to Lawful Rebellion for the skinny on the 2011 Census.

I am golden. I have Lawful Excuse. Queenie has my affidavits and so far, she has not rebutted them. My instructions are clear: I am distressing and I am distraining. I am obliged to cause problems for parliament until they take action. I am obliged to revoke my allegiance to the monarch until she takes action. Ignoring the Census is but a small part of that distressment.I may end up in court but as I keep saying, this needs to be tested. I am willing.

It is (apparently) against the "law" for me to encourage you to fanny about with those 40 pages of interrogating bollocks, so I advise you to think long and hard before picking a stance on this.

The propaganda machine aka IngSoc will want you to fill them in like good little Borg.

You do have a choice.

Make one.

CR.

Chaos In The Great Arab Jamahiriya

Or just plain old Libya, to most of us.

As most of you already know, I spend a lot of my time in Tripoli and Benghazi. The Gods smiled on me and my last trip was postponed until March 5th. Otherwise, I could easily have been one of the many hundreds of Brits struggling to leave.

Since Friday last, I grew ever more concerned about my friends and business associates in Libya and I have been calling several times a day in the hope that I could talk to them to make sure they are alright. Last night my close friend Hosni called me. He had managed to find a landline that could still make international calls. The line was pretty bad, but what he did tell me was frightening.

The most frightening thing he told me was that these aircraft were seen firing live rounds at ammo dumps around the city:












The first thing aficionados will notice is that it is not a MiG. The Libyan Air Force uses MiG's almost exclusively. In 2003 a brigadier in command of a special forces unit showed me their squadrons of ageing aircraft. He seemed very pleased with them, so I smiled along with him. (How I got to be in a special forces barracks is a story for another day).

This is a Eurofighter, more commonly known as a Typhoon. Specifically, the aircraft seen over Tripoli were bedecked in Italian colours. Make of that whatever you will. Did old Berlusconi do old Muammar one last favour before he gets nicked for the under-age sex thing? (I also freely admit that I may have misheard him. I asked him to repeat the bit about Italian flags but the line broke up).

Hosni tells me that the city is in chaos. When I was there in late January, it was safe to walk anywhere in the city, at any time, night or day. This week it turned into Moss Side on PCP. No sane person walks after dark, nor during daylight, if it can be avoided. Gangs of "pro Gadaffi" supporters are abroad with a range of bang bangs and there is no kiss kiss first. These supporters are being paid up to 3,000 Libyan dinars a day to "maintain order". Hired, armed thugs on £1,500 a day to spread the love. During that bizarre speech last night, Gadaffi said that he had not ordered anyone to fire a single round. This of course is quite true. He has ordered them to fire thousands of rounds at anyone who even smells like a protester.

He also told me that Gadaffi is finished. He said that no-one will ever support him, nor any of his family/tribe again. Saif al-Islam Gadaffi, his oldest son by his second wife, was being tee-ed up to take over. Most Libyans were reasonably okay with this because Saif was said to be a liberal. Saif negotiated the release (to much fanfare) of around 400 political prisoners. He wanted to open up the country to tourism and exploit the natural treasures in Libya. Desert tours, the fantastic beaches, 2000 year old sites like Leptis Magna and Sabratha will cause your jaw to drop. The country is steeped in history, the people are friendly and welcoming, and pretty much everything is cheap, from good hotels to eating out. A coke is 10p and a litre of unleaded is 8p. Four people can have a lovely meal for less than £20. It ought to attract millions of visitors every year but old grumpy twat at the top wasn't up for it. He (Muammar) is a control freak and demanded that the number of tourists be severely restricted. Saif wants to expand on the numbers and allow hotels to serve alcohol. Before the revolution in 1969 Tripoli was very much like any other city: bars, discos, nightclubs. Muammar shut them down but ensured his own liquor supply remained intact.

Hosni says that the country will be fucked for some time to come. Getting rid of The Leader will not be easy, it will be violent and it will be messy. Many thousands more will die on the streets or in their homes if the wider world does what it usually does, which is to wait and see. In this case, quite different from Tunisia and Egypt, he simply will not go. Even if one of his aides does the decent thing and pops two 9mm rounds into his deranged head, there are seven sons to consider. Beyond them, there are hundreds of confidants, the wider family/tribal members that want to stay on the gravy train with a boot firmly positioned over the face of the populace.

This will end badly.

Once it is over, "normality" will be a long time coming. These good people are not ready for our notion of democracy. They haven't ever needed it, why would they embrace it now? The sad truth is that Arabs have always ruled by the fist. The guy with the biggest, nailiest club gets to run the village.

Much like here, really. Only much more overt. Our leaders wield clubs too, but they wrap them up in statutes first.

On one hand I am really very sad, as I have been visiting Libya since 2001 and the changes, although slow, were quite dramatic. People genuinely looked a little happier each time I went there. (I later found out that this was because Muammar was one day closer to his inevitable death). I had made great strides whilst working with the various government agencies there and I was on the verge of signing a historic agreement for the company I work for.

But on the other hand, this was bound to happen. Hosni tried to convince me during my last visit that the Libyans would not rise up like their neighbours. I pointed out that the folks in Benghazi would start the ball rolling. "No", he said, "They are still afraid".

Looks to me like they grew a pair.

Tripoli is now the only city in Libya that Unkie Muammar controls*. All the others are in the hands of the protesters and Hosni tells me that peace has returned to them. They (like the Egyptians) are taking care of themselves. Policing, securing, cleaning, markets are open. Anarchy does work, after all.

All we can do now is await Salvation Day for the people of Tripoli.

May it come swiftly, and with as little loss of life as possible.

CR.

*Almost right. See this image for a detailed look at who controls what.

February 22, 2011

10 Census Lies

This is a must-read for all.

NO2ID, those champions of liberty, have prepared a short dissection of the lies ONS are using to compel you to trawl through forty pages of guff, and to force you to donate 45 minutes of your precious time to complete this invasive and unnecessary paperwork.

I am working with the team at Lawful Rebellion to bring you some......alternative options to slavishly giving away your personal information. So watch this space.

In the meantime, ponder this:

10 Census Lies

"The propaganda push for the 2011 census has begun. NO2ID opposes this census because it represents the worst features of database state, the insatiable desire for ever more information, and the presumption that official purposes override privacy.
Here are the ten worst lies you will be told in the coming weeks:

 

1. The Census is essential for government and business planning

On the contrary, it is worse than useless because it is expensive, inaccurate, and quickly out of date.

 

2. Our Census data is trusted and respected worldwide

Even were this true, should we care? Most countries do have some sort of census, but would being respected at doing something essentially useless be worth more than £300 millio.

 

3. It's a great source for genealogy

100 or 200 years ago there was little record of most people's lives, and old censuses may be the only documents available. It is ludicrous to assume the same will apply in 100 years time, and outrageous to suggest it justifies spending public money.

 

4. It's 'good for employment', it provides jobs.

Temporary ones, Yet the money spent would otherwise be spent on something — probably something useful involving permanent jobs.

 

5. Census data is confidential for 100 years.

Not any more. Census forms are kept from the public for 100 years. But EU legislation allows the 2011 census to be shared with all 27 member states, and the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 created powers to share the information with public bodies, and "approved researchers".

 

6. The census results in high-quality information.

No one knows how many people lie in their return. The 2001 census is generally believed to have 'missed' around 900,000 men under 40.

 

7. Everyone should be proud of playing their part in the census.

There is no reason to be proud of being tallied like cattle. There is every reason to oppose the waste and the intrusion. There is a long history of public resentment of the census.
In the 1800s census officers had to be given police protection; in 1911 the suffragettes boycotted it in protest; and in the 50s TV publicity told people it wasn't "another bit of snooping"

 

8. Communities can use census statistics to help gain recognition.

Whether a group is "officially recognised" is a political decision, not the same as individuals being located and categorised. 390,127 people recorded their religion as Jedi in 2001; they have yet to be officially recognised. More seriously, the Board of Deputies says the census underestimates British Jews, precisely because some of that community are nervous of officials knowing where they live.

 

9. Completing the census is straightforward, convenient and secure.

New questions are more intrusive than ever before, requiring details of employer's addresses, the details of any visitors to your house, and where they usually live. This is a direct danger to people who have sensitive occupations. The online version is a perfect cover for phishing attacks.

 

10. Your personal information is protected

Security is only as good as the shortest route to breaking it. Thousands of people will be involved, large commercial contractors and government agencies will process it, and the law newly provides that the data may be accessed for a variety of reasons, not just for making a statistical summary.
It cannot be guaranteed there won't be a security breach, or that data once captured will be used legitimately.

They cannot protect it; they shouldn't collect it."

CR.

February 21, 2011

Light Blogging....














Not feeling so good.



Blogging output adversely affected.




Had a mild pain in my left kidney on Friday. By Saturday evening it blossomed into a monstrous agony. I am walking like a 90 year old. With a snapped spine. It is not a sexy look.












Called in sick for the first time in fifteen years. I will give it another day or so before calling in the shaman to make his ju-ju. The human body is an incredible self-repairing organism.



In the meantime, I am blogging about light. Or have I misunderstood the notion?

Even my personal astrologist appears to agree that I need a short break.

Look:

"You may feel like a sheepherder today who is trying to get the herd back to the homestead, Aquarius. Yet none of the sheep want to move. They are dragging their feet, and despite all your prodding and words of encouragement, they just don't seem to want to go. Don't let yourself starve out in the fields because of a few stubborn animals. Go on back to the ranch, have yourself some lunch, and come out again at a later time."

I'll be back soon. Please use this as an open thread.

CR.

February 19, 2011

WAKE UP!! Ferfuxake.



Not getting the message?

Then you are braindead. Go back to sleep.

Nothing to see here. Nothing at all.

CR.

Forgot This One.

Amazing song.

Disagree. If you dare.



CR.

I Lied. Listen To This Before You Die.



Told you. Lovely song.

CR.

Last Blast



Just listen.

Incredible. Fantastic. Unreal.

CR.

Another Favourite



"Conditions normal" and we're comin' home.

66,000 dead. "Condition's normal". "Little Boy" did the job.

Helluva song. Helluva time. Glad I wasn't aware.

Glad I wasn't there.

CR.

Two Tribes

For arguments sake, let's imagine that the two tribes are the people versus the state.

Guess who wins?



It's us.

Every. Single. Time.

But only if we want to.

Wake up! Stay awake!

CR.

February 18, 2011

Young Ranty


Produced in response to overwhelming demand*. Ranty, aged 14 months. The early bondage was to affect your 'umble Captain in later life.It cost him a small fortune at specialist bordello's.

CR.


*(one commenter asked).

February 17, 2011

And Now For Something Completely Different II

It's been a tough ten days or so. Lot's of posts, lots and lots of visitors new and old, a fair old slagging off for me on various forums, so I thought we'd kick back and do exactly what the bible says we shouldn't do.

Let's go and judge some people.

More specifically, people who get dressed with their eyes closed and then bugger off down to Walmart. (Asda, to you and me).














Toupee shrunk in the wash, mate?













No sense leaving the pets at home, rodent or not.













When you just aren't sure what to wear.













Eeeeeeww!














Redneck vittles.



Sexy, non?













All the rage....in Mississippi.













Roo's a pretty girl then?













Now he's just taking the piss.













Did someone put her head on backwards?

And lastly, for GILFers everywhere, heeeeeere's Granny!













If you want more of these images searing into your brain, pop along to this site.

CR.

Time To Rethink Government?

Our good friend and stalwart, William, posted a link earlier today that I found fascinating.

You will need to leave your comfort zone for a few minutes, but I assure you, it will be well worth it.

Here's a snippet:

"When we in New Zealand looked at our revenue gathering process, we found the system extremely complicated in a way that distorted business as well as private decisions. So we asked ourselves some questions: Was our tax system concerned with collecting revenue? Was it concerned with collecting revenue and also delivering social services? Or was it concerned with collecting revenue, delivering social services and changing behavior, all three? We decided that the social services and behavioral components didn’t have any place in a rational system of taxation. So we resolved that we would have only two mechanisms for gathering revenue—a tax on income and a tax on consumption—and that we would simplify those mechanisms and lower the rates as much as we possibly could. We lowered the high income tax rate from 66 to 33 percent, and set that flat rate for high-income earners. In addition, we brought the low end down from 38 to 19 percent, which became the flat rate for low-income earners. We then set a consumption tax rate of 10 percent and eliminated all other taxes—capital gains taxes, property taxes, etc. We carefully designed this system to produce exactly the same revenue as we were getting before and presented it to the public as a zero sum game. But what actually happened was that we received 20 percent more revenue than before. Why? We hadn’t allowed for the increase in voluntary compliance. If tax rates are low, taxpayers won’t employ high priced lawyers and accountants to find loopholes. Indeed, every country that I’ve looked at in the world that has dramatically simplified and lowered its tax rates has ended up with more revenue, not less."

The whole essay can be found here.

If things don't change, they'll stay the same. If politicians would allow themselves to think about what is really best for the nation, and for you and me, they would investigate and implement some (or all) of the ideas in the essay. The New Zealanders did, and were happily surprised by the outcome.

I appreciate that government agencies and government employees have a vested interest in the status quo. It doesn't matter to them that they are running a hugely inefficient system, they just want what's due to them. Change frightens people. But change is not always a bad thing.

I know that I am tilting at windmills, pretty much in everything I am attempting to do, but I will carry on regardless. It is costing me pennies, I am in no danger, and I believe I am on the right path. Negative comments abound on the interwebs about me, the Freeman philosophy, Lawful Rebellion, but I am not dissuaded.

If people will just stop to consider the alternatives available, then that is okay. That is about as much as I can reasonably ask for. New thinking is needed.

The linked essay is evidence of that.

The blogpost is, as always, only half of the story. Your comments, good, bad or indifferent, make up the other half.

Let me know what you think.

CR.

Bankers, Or Gamblers? You Decide.



Before I watched this video I would have said "Leave the private bankers alone. They are basically good people, and we should not interfere in private business. By all means, cut the bonuses for the bankers running the banks WE own, but the rest are none of our business".

My mind is changed.

Watch the video. If it doesn't piss you off, watch it again. It comes from here. Go look. Sign the petition.

We don't seem to care about our liberties being eroded, day by day, we don't seem to care about giving away our sovereignty to a gollum in Brussels, we certainly don't care about being captured on CCTV 300 times a day, and nor do we care that the police kill over 100 of our countrymen in their holding cells each year.

We all seem to care a great deal about money though.

Will this video motivate, agitate, or stir people in action?

I hope so.

CR.

Tip of the beret to Mescalito for this brilliant find!

February 16, 2011

Got Nukes?



Oddly compelling viewing, this.

While you are watching, I want you to picture an incalculable number of radiated particles floating around in our atmosphere. Then I want you to ponder the explosion of cancers in the last 60 years.

But whatever you do, don't link the two.

It was something else what caused them.

Got it?

The vast majority of these explosions will have been subterranean, but a significant number were airborne detonations. I read somewhere that there are enough radiated dust particles, if inhaled,  to kill us all 15 times over.

Have a lovely day.

CR.

Welcome To AmCan?

While our eyes were on Egypt, another big event took place on February 4th.

It looks like America and Canada have merged. In a Lisbon Treaty-esque move, both countries have interfered with their constitutions but little of this historic signing made it to the MSM. On its face, it looks like a simple trade agreement, but we have heard that story before, haven't we children? 

(Report begins):

The United States announcement of this  “merger” between these two North  American Nations was made February 4th by a posting on the WhiteHouse.Gov  website of President Obama and  which, in part, says

“Today, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper   have directed the creation of a United States-Canada Regulatory   Cooperation Council (RCC), composed of senior regulatory, trade, and   foreign affairs officials from both governments. In recognition of our  $1  trillion annual trade and investment relationship, the RCC has a  two-year  mandate to work together to promote economic growth, job  creation, and  benefits to our consumers and businesses through  increased regulatory  transparency and coordination. They have  directed that the first meeting of the RCC be convened  within 90 days  by the relevant agencies in the United States and  Canada.” 

Concealed in the “diplo-speak” wording of this historic agreement, however, is the complete overturning of the sovereignty of both the American and Canadian peoples laws and regulations they have lived  under  for centuries, but which will now be “melded” together with no votes allowed by either of them ever again. The shock and uproar in  Canada over their Prime Minister, Steven  Harper, signing away their sovereignty to the United States is   unprecedented, but the same cannot be said of the American people who, according to Canada’s National Post, have not been allowed to know  about  it, and as we can read from their article titled “The security  perimeter imaginarium of Dr. Harper (link herewhich, in part, says: “The New York Times didn’t mention the  Harper-Obama agreement  (though it did quote some remarks the Prime  Minister made about Egypt).  There was a story inside the Wall Street  Journal, but if any other U.S.  media reported on the meeting and press  conference, I can’t find it. There  is no hint that the US Congress is  interested either.”

Equally as shocking were the Canadian  government’s deliberate actions to keep this merger secret from their  own citizens, and as we can read as  reported by the Toronto Star News Service in their article titled “Canada kept U.S. border talks under wraps" (link here) and which, in part, says: “The federal government deliberately  kept negotiations on a border  deal with Washington secret while it  planned ways to massage public  opinion in favour of the pact,  according to a confidential communications  strategy. The  14-page public relations document recommended that talks keep a “low  public profile” in the months leading up to the announcement by Prime   Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama. At the same  time,  the government would secretly engage “stakeholders” — interested  parties  such as big business groups and others — in a way that  respected “the  confidentiality of the announcement.” In  advance, the government departments involved — including  industry,  foreign affairs, international trade and citizenship and  immigration —  were to “align supportive stakeholders to speak positively  about the announcement,” according to the strategy prepared by Public  Safety  Minister Vic Toews’ officials.”

One of the “supportive stakeholders” in  the merger of Canada with the  US is called the Canadian Council of Chief Executives ( link ) who in their  statement supporting it said, This is the kind of  government action  that we in the business community have been seeking  for years. Canada’s Pacific Free Press, however, has slammed this  merger for what  it really is, a capitalist corporate takeover of both  the United States  and Canada, and as we can read as reported in their  article titled “New Harper/Obama Border Deal about Corporate Power – Not   Security and Trade" ( link

“The Corporations behind this deal own the politicians who signed   it, and the media that are telling us ‘how good it is’. The  CCCE is the secretive umbrella group that represents Corporate  Canada.  The CCCE is the banks, big oil, the drug companies and  manufacturers  and retailers and all the rest; the people and corporations  who own  our country. Many believe they ARE the government of Canada. They  are  the ones behind this deal. Also in the Border Deal: A new ‘Council’  will ‘harmonize’  regulations between Canada and the United States  (google: Regulatory  Cooperation Council): The Corporations want  ONE SET of business-friendly rules for Canada  and the United States,  they want control of the rules and regulations that  govern us, and  that is what this deal is largely about. Where is the Corporate  Media? Where is the CBC? All silent – under  Corporate orders.  Where are the Unions? The Environmental Groups? The Council of   Canadians? The Social Groups. The other Political Parties? We are  allowed  to hear nothing from them either. This powerful new  agreement will further undermine our democracy,  it is all about  Corporate Power and Wealth. Here in Victoria BC, our main Corporate  radio station, CFAX, tells  us the new border deal will be good for  security and trade and nothing to  worry about. That is just Corporate  Propaganda, but only that one message  is put out. The border  deal will ‘protect us’ from terror. That’s how it’s  being ‘sold’, but  in fact we are getting in bed with the number one  terrorist nation in  the world today, the United States of America; a  nation that is also  bankrupt and may be nearing social upheaval. Even  worse, this deal  gives more power to Corporations which have neither heart  nor soul and  who will happily see us ruined if it means increased Profit  for them;  we know this because it is what they do everywhere in the world.  Why  is Stephen Harper signing us into secret deals with these lunatics? The new agreement will make it easier to cross the border.  This is  the other selling point for the deal, but of course the  ‘tightening’ of  the Canada/US border was done to give us ‘a problem’  that they are now  going to solve with a new border around us – which  was the Corporate Plan  all along. These are the kinds of games  these lunatics play.”

The great British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) once  said:

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them  pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”, and which, sadly, appears to be the case with this historic merger between  the  US and Canada as those who know and care won’t be heard, but those who do will reign in tyranny over those who live their lives in  ignorance. And yes it is true, and worth repeating, These are the kinds  of  games these lunatics play”.  

(Report ends).


If you take a closer look at their currencies, you may find it odd (or coincidental) that parity between the US$ and the Canadian $ was achieved around this time.

Heads up, American and Canada: You've Been Lisboned!

CR. 

PS-Tip of the beret to Bob L who sent me the story.







February 15, 2011

In Defence Of Freemen

Yon "Cat Leaves Bag" post continues to cause ripples.

Two of those ripples appeared last night. One by Mark Wadsworth who I like and respect despite never having met him, and the other by The Fat Bigot who I link to, but don't know much about. Mark says that he (TFB) is a barrister, but whether that is material is for you to decide. I cast no aspersions, unlike TFB who opines that I am "occasionally deranged". Perhaps he is a psychiatrist as well.

The whole court case ended up centring on the existence of a legal fiction. If Roger says his account is accurate, (I have spoken to him in the past, but not about his court case), I believe him. Roger knows how important this is to many thousands of people and he would not deliberately mislead. I say that with conviction.

Of course, that is part of the problem: those who lambaste him, don't know him, so it is easy to have a pop at someone you have never met, particularly on the internet.

Like many others, I contend that we have a legal fiction or artificial construct or a corporation or, if you prefer, a trade name. I have also come to believe that it is vital to have one. It is illogical, and impossible, to engage in commerce without one. Commerce is based on contracts. Contracts need certain elements to make them enforceable in law. One of these is "Full disclosure". That makes sense because if both parties are unaware of the finer details, the contract is unfair and unenforceable. Are we all in agreement on that?

Now, TFB states, among other things, that:

"...for example, I'll bet you a pig to a pork scratching that the human being has acknowledged himself to be Mr Roger Hayes hundreds if not thousands of times and has benefited from doing so..."

No-one is disputing that.

However, would Roger, or any one of us, have acknowledged that if we knew that we had a fiction? Show me one single businessman that did NOT use his corporation to his own advantage, if you can. The businessman did this because he was in control. He knew the corporation existed and engineered his success around that fact. We have these fictions, these corporations, and we are unaware of the fact. We have no idea how to use them to our advantage, and suddenly, a judge has at the very least, admitted that this fiction exists. Remember this maxim, tattoo it on your arm if needs be: "He who does not disagree, agrees". By stating that the council was permitted to have third-party representation, the judge has allowed that Roger must be afforded the same right. Logically, it cannot be otherwise. Will it all come back to court for a solid ruling? I doubt it very much indeed.

What it all boils down to is this: your trade name/legal fiction is entitled to benefits. You, the man, have inalienable rights. Because the full disclosure rule has been set aside, we tend to trade rights for benefits. This is never wise. Unless, I suppose, you are fully dependent on the state, in which case, jam today may well be your philosophy. Millions of people depend on the state. Whose fault that is, is a separate debate, but I have decided that the state is guilty of avarice, stupidity, and duplicity. It is for those reasons alone that I fight my fight. Using their very own rules it is possible to step aside, and say, "You've had all you're getting from me. From here on in, I want to keep as much of my sweat equity as I can".

Many of the comments at Mark's place are based on ignorance. I say this with no malice. I was ignorant once too, or rather, I was less ignorant than I am today. TFB's piece seems to delight in telling us that we (and I doubt he just means Freemen) are classed as "nutters" by the judges and their familiars. There is nothing surprising in this. We are not the same species. The legal world lives in, by, and for itself. It has long been the case. They are secretive, and they hold themselves to be somehow mightier than we mere mortals. They have practised their art for thousands of years, is it surprising to anyone, that they would rubbish our research or our tactics in court? I know that judges are oath-sworn. Is it ridiculous to ask a judge if he or she is acting on their oath during your courtroom appearance? TFB seems to think so. And he must know best because he is a barrister. What I have learnt is that councils, when getting uppity about non-payment of council tax, for instance, will call you to court. Full of trepidation, you show up, you are called to a room in the court building, only to learn that you are sat facing Maggie from Accounts. They merely rented a room in the court building because a) they can b) it is convenient or c) as an intimidation tactic. Or all three, for all I know. What they don't 'fess up to is that they have no legal training whatsoever. None. And here you sit, trying to find justice with a clerk in the accounting department. Full disclosure my arse.

Mark takes a different tack than TFB does, and quite rightly makes this point:

2. It must also be clear that a liability for a tax is not enforceable against a human being, as such. If somebody turns up at HM Revenue & Customs, cheerfully admits that he has been paid cash in hand all his life and spent it all on wine, women and song and does not have a penny to his name, there is b-gger all that the tax man can do about it. For sure, the man could be declared bankrupt or imprisoned, but that does not recover one penny in tax, does it?

Which is impossible to fault.

He then says:

 6. But if we follow Captain Ranty's logic through to its obvious conclusion, then surely the name written down at HM Land Registry also relates to the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES rather than the human being who goes by the name of Roger Hayes? Or does he live in a fantasy world where 'land owners' have rights but no responsibilities and the State (which is all of us obeying these silly little customs, like respecting each other's property and not 'the government' in the narrow sense) does everything out of the goodness of its own heart?

Mark is exactly right. And I don't (yet) have an answer for the first part of his statement. Mark overlooks the fact that Freeman philosophy, more, our way of life, forbids us from encroaching on others. We do respect others' property rights and we mean them no harm whatsoever. The state does nothing "out of the goodness of its own heart". It has no heart. It is a thing. It does not live, and it does not breathe.

And lastly, from Mark:

7. If we are to argue that a human being doesn't have to pay tax because they are distinct from the legal fiction bearing a similar name (the tax only being enforceable against that legal fiction), would it not be a reasonable quid pro quo for the State to tell that human being that he has no rights over any land registered in the name of that legal fiction?

As Roger is arguing that point, you will need to read (or re-read) his opinion on that. I am not yet in a battle with the council over council tax. I am frying other fish, for now. My bugbear, is that all taxation is illegal and unlawful. It needn't be, of course, but the fact is that the set-up today is all the way wrong.

I've said this before but I may as well repeat it. The way our legislation is made is like so:

1. An MP tables a Bill...
2. ...the House of Commons debates it, if they like it, they send it onwards...
3. ...to the House of Lords. There may be a bit of to-ing and fro-ing between the two houses, a change here or there in the wording...
4. ...but when all are happy, it goes to queenie for her autograph...
5. ...and alakazam! we have a new piece of legislation.

All of this is fine. It makes sense. Three separate entities have had the opportunity to look at, examine, cogitate, and spit out a new Act. All well and good.

Except that the Parliament Act of 1911 said that the HoC and the HoL does not need queenies autograph. It is assumed, the Act says. They based this assumption on the lie that no monarch had refused to give Assent in the past. Several did, several times. Now, we either make "law" the way I described above, or we don't. If we don't, then we surely need to be told, or preferably, hold a referendum on the way our legislation is brought into being? Until that happens, and whilst politicians are churning out legislation, including ALL legislation concerning taxation, I am happy to ignore it. Lawfully.

So, parliament deliberately weakened queenies standing.

Next, the Labour government in 1999 passed a vile piece of legislation called the House of Lords Act. This act said that hereditary peers could not take their seats despite having Letters Patent. (This Act caused the Barons Committee to be formed in 2001 and Article 61 of the Magna Carta was invoked).

So, parliament deliberately weakened the House of Lords' standing.

Which, when viewed with a clear head means that everything pumped out by parliament since 1911 is......mince. However well-meaning. An example: I take my driving test, and the examiner tells me I have passed. On investigation it turns out that the "examiner" is merely a cleaner at the testing centre, without a driving license himself. Have I passed my test, or would you rightly insist that I was retested? If the foundation is wrong, everything is wrong.

I am a Freeman, (because I say so), and I am a Lawful Rebel. I have several unrebutted affidavits in place to support these statements. The solution lies in Lawful Rebellion. Neither the state nor the monarch has told me to cease and desist. In law remember, he (or she) that does not disagree, agrees. I have yet to test this in court but I long for the day. How can they deny me a defence which was provided for in an 800 year old Treaty? Many wrongly assume that MC1215 is a statute. It is not. It was written 50 years before we even had a parliament. For those that argue that it was not a Treaty between the King and the People, rather it was a Treaty between the King and the Barons, fair enough. For that reason I have revoked my allegiance to the monarch and sworn it instead to the Barons Committee. Never forget that I am using their rules. I didn't fabricate any of this. None of this is about money, per se. It is about my obligation, my duty, to "distress and distrain in all possible ways". I pay my way in life. I always have. I can afford to pay HMRC what they say I owe them tomorrow. In cash, if they so desire. But first, they have to prove to me that I owe them anything.

I'll finish with this thought:

If parliament can (and did) dilute the monarchs' power of assent, if parliament can (and did) dilute those who use decades of experience to help us to enact good legislation, why would it not fool us over something as simple (or horribly complex) as a legal fiction?

Please tell me that I am all the way wrong. If I am, I will accept that with good grace and I will bother you good people no more.

CR.

February 14, 2011

So, Where Do YOU Live?



I spotted this video over at The Final Redoubt and I couldn't resist bunging it on here.

It either explains much, or it will confuse the hell out of you.

It does explain the Crown quite well, so it really is worth five minutes of your time.

Do enjoy!

Tip of the (British?) beret to Harry Hook.

If you want a transcript of the audio, (the man speaks at a fair old clip), go look here.

CR.

Ranty Is Reading




All I can say is: buy it. Buy it today. Or sooner, if you have a time-machine.

By page 45 you will have discovered the solution to our problems. As ever, to get where we are going, we need to plan the route. If you lot bought the book you could help me iron out the kinks.

Salvation lies within, but if I announce it here, I would be stealing AT's thunder, and I will not do that.

Meanwhile, I am researching like a man possessed. I thought I was having fun before, from here on in it will be orgasmic. Join me. (But bring your own tummy-wipes).

CR.

PS-you can find details here on how to purchase both of his books.

February 13, 2011

I Want To Know

Why....

The government can increase our national debt to over £1 trillion but are allowed (by law) to bankrupt people for running up debt of just £750?

The government fines people £50 for dropping a cigarette end that will biodegrade in 6 years or less yet they will happily bury nuclear waste which has a half-life of 500,000 years?

The government will fine people £50 for smoking in a bar yet allow MPs and their guests to smoke in the bars where the legislation was created?

The government will, for decades, chip in to prop up dictators and then switch sides when the public get uppity?

The (present) government speaks ever so sweetly of liberty when they are not in office yet when they have the power to undo 13 years of oppression they move with the speed of a striking slug?

The government feel able to take money from us with threats of menace and on the other hand label it as theft when an entrepreneur tries the same tactic?



Of all human traits the one that sickens me the most is hypocrisy. Why do we excuse it when someone becomes a "lawmaker"? Are they somehow above us? They may think they are but a quick glance at my "Hierarchy" piece confirms that they are not.

Why do we put up with them? When will we have our Day of Rage?

These questions disturb me. They keep me up nights. This piece was inspired by something Ron Paul said in the video I linked to today: "Governments should NEVER be allowed to do anything that you are not".

And yet they do stuff daily that they punish the slaves for.

Please add your own examples of hypocrisy in the comments.

CR.

The Brushfires Of Freedom



I like Ron Paul. I like him more each time I hear him speak.

Set aside some time to watch this video if you can. I particularly liked his comments from 17:30 onwards. That's my sort of government.

Tip of the beret to Anon 12:04 in my last post for the find.

CR.

February 12, 2011

The Slaves Are Deshackling

Whether we know it or not, we are witnessing historical events unfold.

The slaves are waking up, and they are realising that they do not like the boss. Instead of taking the tried, tested (and failed) uniquely British route of writing a stern letter to ones MP, they are taking to the streets. In massive numbers. It is working.

And that is, was and always will be the secret: we outnumber the boss, and his sycophantic followers, by millions upon millions. We, the people of this sovereign nation, terrify them. They know that we will rise up when we (finally) learn that writing stern letters just doesn't work any more. (If it ever did).

Did you spot the pattern during the Tunisian, then the Egyptian protests? World 'leaders' queued up on the tellybox, first to support people like Ben Ali, then Mubarak, and when they saw which way the wind was blowing, they switched allegiance to the people of both nations. They (we) support these despots for as long as it suits them (us). I say us because it is our money that our leaders bung these guys. They keep them sweet for all sorts of reasons: they claim that they stabilise a region, or that they must be supported to keep the desperately needed hydrocarbons flowing.

As soon as they noticed that the people weren't going home, even when the "parent rule" was invoked. (I honestly almost wet myself laughing when I heard the newly crowned vice president (Omar Suleiman) say, live on air, "We ask that all parents tell their children to leave Tahrir Square, and come home"). You naughty young people, you! Fancy thinking for yourselves! That will never do. Uncle Omar's days are numbered though, I do hope someone has told him. I also hope that someone has explained to the Egyptians that democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be. They had the perfect system for about 18 days. It's called anarchy.

I think that these protests, and the subsequent overthrowing of dictators can be summed up in one word: communication.

Clever tyrants would never allow their slaves to communicate. Clever tyrants control the airwaves (radio, television, the internet, and even cellular phone networks) because if the slaves can't communicate, they will never be able to coordinate, to gather, and to voice their displeasure at the shenanigans of the elite. The rich fat cats at the top of the totem pole, the longer they stay in office, the more their arrogance grows. They rely on their familiars to tell them what is happening outside the palace, and the lickspittles do what lickspittles have always done: they tell the MFIC whatever he wants to hear.

Anger is now growing in sub-Saharan nations. Bob Mugabe, the syphilis-ridden mong in charge of Zimbabwe has had his goons block stories on Tunisia and Egypt, (and Yemen and Jordan and Morocco) lest his slaves hear that there is an option. Beyond the ballot box, which in Africa is fiddled more than old Yehudi's favourite instrument, there is another way. Peaceful protest, staggering courage and superhuman patience. That's all the Tunisians and the Egyptians used. No bombs, no bullets, no violence. Because they knew the police and the army had bigger bombs, more bullets and extensive training in being violent.

This blogpost/report suggests that there are several countries seeking their own freedom. Countries like Libya, Sudan, Gabon, Uganda, Cameroon, Congo, Nigeria, Angola and Senegal.

All will blow eventually, but now that some of their citizens have been shown the way, I think that "eventually" will be an awful lot closer than it was yesterday.

A salutary lesson is here for us all: if we desire change, democracy and its (largely) failed usage of the ballot box is not the only way.

And no, our situations are not comparable. We do not have a super-alert government team keeping an ever closer eye on us, we do not suffer regular beatings & killings by the police, we do not have corrupt politicians feathering their own nests, we do not have the money supply artificially inflated as a control mechanism, we do not have an unaccountable but wealthy elite governing us....oh, wait.

Yes. Yes we do.

Is it because our chains aren't all that visible yet?

One of these days......

CR.

February 11, 2011

February 10, 2011

No Votes For The Lags

So, erm, can we leave the EU now?

Thems are the rules. If we don't let our paedo's, our thieves, blaggards and axe-murderers vote, then we should be kicked out of the EU.

And I, for one, agree.

We must be punished! Expel us, expel us, expel us!! We deserve it. Parliament, (usually inept, I know), looked at your stupid rules and for once, God love 'em, the feckless MPs made the right decision.

The full, heart-lifting story is right HERE von Rumpouy!

See how the Brits cocked a snook at your pathetic organisation? They defied you, they did!

C'mon then. Do your duty and kick us out of the EU!

Free us from your shitty little club.

CR.

Yemenis Protest-But They Stop At Noon

To go and chew qat.

Perhaps there is a lesson here for western governments?

Upset the slaves by all means, but in order to quell dissent, simply legalise a mild narcotic. Job done.

When I first visited Sana'a, I thought everyone was disfigured. They all had one cheek grossly distended. These poor, poor people, I thought. Is there nothing the doctors can do for this odd disfiguration? Then my driver told me that they weren't disfigured, they were chewing qat. He offered me a wad but I politely turned him down. I had him take me back to the hotel bar where I got pleasantly pissed on gin & tonic. I smoked like a chimney whilst listening to a Yemeni murder songs in nine different languages. My ears bled.

Qat, for the uninitiated, looks like this:












The lumpy face looks like this:

















The whole story can be found here.

Here's a wee snippet~

"I'm going to the souk right now to buy qat. I'll have lunch, and then I'll chew qat with friends," said Ahmed Saleh, as he left an opposition protest. "In Yemen, people protest in the morning, but in the afternoon they go to chew qat."

Well Ahmed, you and your countrymen are going to have to make a decision: get some real protesting done or be stuck with the guy in the big palace. I've seen his house and like Ben Ali, like Mubarak, and like all other dictators, he ain't movin' until you guys get your act together.

Leave the qat alone for a couple of weeks and win your country back.

If the qat rules you absolutely, it doesn't matter what the boss is doing, does it?

CR.

February 09, 2011

If I Go Off Air

Don't worry.

Some strange shit is happening. Among other things, for the last 36 hours I have been unable to access my "Captain Ranty" accounts. (This has NEVER happened before). My email is fucked, and I cannot read the emails you guys have been sending. All other email addresses I set up using the same root details are fine. So far. This looks like a targeted attack. It may be paranoia but, whatever anybody else tells you, paranoia is just fine. Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness. Something is wrong.

I think the "Cat Leaves Bag" piece drew too much attention.

They may be close to shutting me down (I wonder why?), but if I do disappear, worry ye not. I will resurface and I will let you know that it is me.

Enough of you who know who I am know how to reach me if you are concerned. For those of you that do know my real identity, please reach out at regular intervals and I will confirm that all is okay.

Failing that, the usual request applies: avenge my death. I am not suicidal. I have a wonderful family, I have no money/sexual/legal issues and I have every reason to go on living. If I...go quiet, be suspicious.

Sorry to sound dramatic, but you never fucking know.

Be well,

CR.

"To Me!", Cries Hillary

File this one in the "Something or Nothing" folder.

"In an unprecedented move, apparently one that has never happened before, nearly all U.S. Ambassadors to all nations have been called back to Washington for a summit conference. This event, mostly unreported, concluded on 4-Feb-2011. politico.com reports, “Ambassadors from almost all 260 U.S. embassies, consulates and other posts in more than 180 countries are expected to convene at the State Department for what’s being billed as the first meeting of its kind.” huffingtonpost.com, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is convening an unprecedented mass meeting of U.S. ambassadors.”"

I lifted the quote, and the piccie below, from here.














 (Click pic for enhugement).

Wassup Hils? Why do you really need all those ambassadors to come home?

Just askin'.

(Before the tin-foilers do).

CR.

February 08, 2011

Let's Skin That Cat

My last post, concerning our "legal fiction", created a bit of a stir in the blogosphere and even caused a minor ripple in the MSM.

Opinions ranged from "WOW!" to "Bollocks!". Having thought about little else for a few days, I reckon we should think about the ways this new information could help (or hinder) us.

First, just so that you know how popular the article was, here is a snapshot taken a few minutes ago, of visitor numbers:



















(Click image to embiggen).

I'd like to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to read it. I especially thank those who took the time to leave intelligent and thoughtful comments. I should also like to thank those mighty and not so mighty blogs that linked to the piece. In no particular order they were: Holby, Leggy, Dick P, GV at Calling England, Autonomous Mind, Max Farquar, The Unhived Mind, Alternativeaction Blog, Nominedeus, and half a dozen other forums that sent readers to this blog. I will long remember those twin towers up there, so thanks again to all.

Second, a quote, from Rothchild agent Colonel Edward House, which I have interfered with, slightly. I have changed "American" to "Briton", "America" to "Britain", and "President" to "Prime Minister". Believe me when I say we are treated exactly the same, both sides of the pond. A portion of their taxes go to the Crown, just like ours do. One source for that information can be found here. (Scroll about halfway down the page).

"[Very] soon, every Briton will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.

By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every Briton will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.

They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Britons, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.

They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every Briton a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance."

Without realizing it, every Briton will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every Briton will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the Prime Minister of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against Britain."


Nice, eh?

Third, let's examine what we know from Roger's article.

He went to court for non-payment of his council tax. He argued that he was not liable for the payment, but that his all-capitals legal fiction was. The judge arsed around for a bit and then agreed that Roger could act as representative for his legal fiction. This is historic because no other judge has admitted to the existence of such a thing. It stands to reason, does it not, that if Roger can represent MR ROGER HAYES, then MR ROGER HAYES exists. It cannot be otherwise. The judge then hurled this at the council lawyer and said, "You sort it out". I have stated several times, on several blogs, that if the council lawyer has two functioning brain cells, he will run away, and keep running. I genuinely expect one of two things will happen: a) Roger will receive a letter saying that he does not owe the money, or b) he will never hear another word about it. (In our experience, b is more likely).

However, the feline has left the enclosure, and now we need to think about ways in which to use this to our advantage. It isn't black and white so it deserves some decent brains to work out how, why, and when we can use our legal fiction to take bullets for us, the humans shackled (involuntarily) to this commercial device.

Should we feel guilty if ever we do use this as a defence against unfair/illegal taxes or unfair/illegal fines? Sure. But only when someone gives me credible evidence that all governments feel guilty about loading up those taxes purely because they couldn't/wouldn't stop borrowing money or that they felt bad about stealing our money (yes, you, if you were one of the 392 MPs that had your face buried in the expenses trough), or that Blair and Brown (in particular) feel guilty about condemning our grandchildren to a lifetime of paying back debt because they screwed up the finances. Or that  Blair feels guilty about taking us to war, and charging us via taxation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Or that Brown feels guilty about first telling the world he is dumping our gold, and once the price had crashed, continued to do what he said. This one idiot cost our country billions.

Up and down the nation we are being ripped off. Chief Executives of our councils are earning double what we pay our prime minister. Now that iDave has introduced some cuts grazes to public expenditure, councils are cutting services. They still want the same six figure salaries while dumping good people on the dole. Oh, and they will still want us to cough up an average of £1500 per year in council tax for fewer services.

So no, I will not feel guilty cutting out some of my expenses. I will use this ruling (if it turns into one, or even if it doesn't) to my advantage.

Next up: the confusion such a ruling brings.

In the comments of "Cat Leaves Bag", brighter visitors asked "If your house is mortgaged in the fictions' name, whose exactly is it?". A great question and I don't know the answer. If we imagine for a minute that all home-owners charge down to their local county court and say "I am not my fiction. I am Joe: of the Bloggs family, I want to know if I own my home", then maybe the powers that seek to be will have to do something. Similarly, if a significant number of taxpayers say "Hold the bus! I am not paying tax anymore. You stitched me up and chained me to a legal fiction", what can the government say, or do about it? The only thing they can do is confess. They will be forced to tell us what we already know: that we ARE attached, forever, to a legal fiction because that is the only way we humans can act in commerce. We all HAVE to be corporations. That is how they fool us in court, and that is how they control us absolutely.

As we have learnt on this very blog, we are slaves. We are indentured to the Crown, and in turn, the Crown is owned by the Vatican, thanks to Unam Sanctum, that papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. The pope said that (on behalf of God), the Roman Catholic Church owned 'every living thing' on earth. And, as we have also learnt here, the old maxim applies: "He that does not disagree, agrees". Back in 1302, no-one disagreed. (Learn more about that papal bull here)

Let me know what you think. My little brain hurts.

This is like wishing for a superpower and then waking up one morning to discover that you possess one.

What the hell to do with it? That is the question of the day.

Lastly, for newcomers to the blog, I entered Lawful Rebellion on 15th July 2009. I revoked my allegiance to HM Queen and swore allegiance instead to the Barons Committee that formed in 2001. In short, my being in  Lawful Rebellion means that I have no monarch, I have no government, I do not have to obey any statutes. Moreover, I am obliged to "distress and distrain" the monarch and her government until the wrongs are righted. (You can read my instructions up above, in the banner). I delight in doing so, but I am saddened that I have to do this duty. This new ruling is a useful weapon to add to my growing arsenal of defences should I ever end up in the kaka, but it is something very powerful for everyone to use, should they so choose.

Over to you.

CR.

February 05, 2011

Cat Leaves Bag

And it will have a spectacular effect on every single one of us.

Roger Hayes, who heads up the British Constitution Group, has made legal history. It is going to take some time to trickle down so I thought I would give it a push.

You have heard me banging on about legal fictions, and that "persons" are defined in law dictionaries as "corporations" and not men/women of flesh and blood. I have oft repeated that it is vital to separate the two, particularly if you transgress a statute and end up in a court-room.

Roger decided to not pay his council tax and see where it all ended up. The result is pretty stupendous. He got a judge to agree that he Roger Hayes, the man, was not MR ROGER HAYES, a corporation defined in law.

I'll let Roger explain himself:















(Click image for embigulation).

What does it all mean? In essence, it means that every time you bend a statute, you, the flesh and blood human, is not responsible. Your legal fiction is. I imagine that your legal fiction, like mine, has no money. So the liability for paying your council tax, a parking fine, a speeding fine, your income tax, or corporation tax, falls on your legal fiction, not you, the human.

Which is pretty cool. Because I have been saying that for the last few years. Most people have assumed I am a Mental.

I may well be, but vindication is sweet.

Not that I needed the extra help, but I will use this as yet another defence in my case against HMRC.

This is big news folks. Can you imagine the ramifications? This is huge.

I think those walls are going to come tumbling down faster than my movement ever imagined possible.

CR.

PS- for those interested in reading the CQV Act 1666, follow one of these links.

February 04, 2011

UK Uprising



If ever a video needed to go viral, it's this one.

It comes to us from the utterly brilliant mind of Max Farquar. A couple of you have sent me links with a nudge for me to check it out. Including a note this morning from our old pal Gotty.

I have some instructions for you:

1. Turn up the volume and press play. Even if you are in an office. Risk a bollocking.

2. Let these images remind you that we live in chains. Most are invisible, but they exist nevertheless.

3. Share the link with all of your friends. If you don't have any, share the link with complete strangers.

4. Fucking. Wake. Up.

5. Repeat as necessary until we are ALL awake.

EDIT: William is a regular commenter here. I like him, and I respect him. So much so, that I want to share his thoughts on the UK Uprising video. It will not please everyone, and for that I make no apology. Just read his opinion, and disagree. If you can.

CR.

February 03, 2011

One Gurkha Versus 40 Bandits

The gurkha won.

I don't think I have ever used the word awesome on this blog before.

I am using it today.

Go here and read this heroic tale.











This is the man who took on, and beat, FORTY bad guys. Absolutely stunning.

I have a suggestion. Let's sack all those useless coppers and replace them, at a ratio of 1:40 with our retired gurkhas. Naturally, they will not need stab-vests, tasers, truncheons, Health & Safety Guidelines in their top pocket, a thieving group like ACPO to "administer" them, two-way radios, Blackberries, or even blue serge. The gurkhas can dress however they wish. You will never know when they are nearby, armed only with a kukri.

Crime will be eradicated overnight.

Tip of ye olde beret to William for this fantastic story.

CR.