tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post9171182223430579347..comments2023-09-10T16:35:32.651+01:00Comments on Captain Ranty-Lawful Rebel: Land Ahoy!Captain Rantyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-40536533245527176522009-12-10T13:29:34.029+00:002009-12-10T13:29:34.029+00:00Hey! It's not advice, remember? It's for e...Hey! It's not advice, remember? It's for entertainment purposes only....<br /><br />CR,Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-40065537125383004302009-12-10T13:08:17.563+00:002009-12-10T13:08:17.563+00:00much obliged for the excellent advice, sir!much obliged for the excellent advice, sir!richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-80607244154342977082009-12-10T10:14:55.551+00:002009-12-10T10:14:55.551+00:00Hi Richard,
On the second question I agree. I wou...Hi Richard,<br /><br />On the second question I agree. I would use A4V for any demands for payment from government, police or local councils etc, but on the private side (mortgages, loans, credit cards etc) I would stick to the contract element, as you have.<br /><br />Now that this new method has arisen I will not use A4V again. The affidavit covers everything.<br /><br />As to your first question, I see it like this: some Freemen want to walk away entirely, and for them, a full divorce from their strawmen is a must. I need to travel to do my job so I am being more selective. I recognise that the strawman exists and I want to take control. This gives me the option of using the strawman to my advantage whenever necessary. In short, I want to maintain a choice.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-78802318633388444992009-12-10T00:06:41.724+00:002009-12-10T00:06:41.724+00:00hello again Captain.
please could you help to clar...hello again Captain.<br />please could you help to clarify two questions, the first of which has arisen from watching freeman on the land HONOUR/DISHONOUR on youtube.<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGg40mHaRFw&feature=related<br />the question is, if our Strawman acts as a de facto license to operate on the sea of commerce, wouldn't becoming a freeman mean that you are not licensed to make commercial interactions ie engage in lawful contract?<br />the second question relates to AFV with regard to my previous request for a signed agreement etc. AFV as i understand it wouldn't be applicable for me to use, as i have made a conditional offer (to keep me in honour). is this correct? <br />cheers!richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-21675926896308910822009-12-07T09:44:53.597+00:002009-12-07T09:44:53.597+00:00Richard,
From what you tell me you are doing the ...Richard,<br /><br />From what you tell me you are doing the right things.<br /><br />I would urge you to research the Bill of Exchange Act. <br /><br />They send you invoices for a reason. You assume they are proper bills and pay them. If they sent you a proper bill you could treat it very differently.<br /><br />Regarding Income Tax and NICs, watch this space. I will have a remedy in place in the next 6-8 weeks and I will share the details here.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-53716333032269871272009-12-06T23:29:02.437+00:002009-12-06T23:29:02.437+00:00my last letter gave them 28 days to send a signed ...my last letter gave them 28 days to send a signed invoice and a signed copy of the credit agreement, otherwise i would understand that they had no further claim of right, on the grounds that they could not produce a legally-enforceable contract. i also advised them that i would hold them liable for any loss or inconvenience arising from a ruined credit rating.<br />i don't understand the difference between bills and an invoice; i have received notices of "arrears" and penalties which have been applied to my account, which i have ignored. i believe that i am entitled to do so, as they are not supposed to apply fees etc to an account which is in dispute. <br />i will research the other paths you have signposted - what have i got to lose? although i can't see a way around PAYE and NI for people like me who aren't self-employed, the steps to avoid illegal debt are certainly going to receive some thorough research. cheers!richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-65693232917233131642009-12-05T19:45:11.210+00:002009-12-05T19:45:11.210+00:00Richard,
The affidavit you construct and serve wi...Richard,<br /><br />The affidavit you construct and serve will be unique to you, and it removes all liabilities attached to your strawman. No taxes, no statutes, no parking fines are just a few of the "benefits" you walk away from. The money you now no longer send to the government is used more wisely, as now you can (and should) provide insurance for your own healthcare, etc. You can save more for those rainy days, and you even have enough to pay for the Fire & Rescue service to come and put a fire out, should that happen. In effect, you hand back all the "priveleges and benefits" and take care of yourself, like all grown-ups should do.<br /><br />Regarding your "tick in the box", this can be counted as a signature in this electronic age but where is their corresponding tick? It cuts no ice in a court: a contract is one in which there is consideration and compensation. You take goods or services and you promise to pay, but there has to be equal consideration. Both parties take a risk, and to signify the solemnity of such an undertaking, both parties MUST sign the paper. This is why you will win if you perservere. Stop asking for invoices and start asking for bills. The two are not the same. But do keep asking for them to supply a contract with two wet signatures. They do not have one and in a court of law they have lost. Tell them that the ONLY way you will pay is when you see the original contract (not a copy) and I say without fear of contradiction, that they will walk away. You have them. They already know this but they are assuming that you are ignorant. Prove them wrong.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-56974503814219114832009-12-05T18:46:16.724+00:002009-12-05T18:46:16.724+00:00thanks for the reply, Captain.
this is remarkable...thanks for the reply, Captain. <br />this is remarkable stuff indeed. <br />so - if i get a notarised affidavit which says i'm a human being and not subject to statutes, anyone who wishes to pursue an action against me based upon statute law (rather than Common Law) has to go to court and disprove the affidavit before proceeding?<br />in a previous conversation i described how i have offered to pay a debt only on production of a signed contract and invoice, which hasn't been forthcoming. i didn't sign a contract, but ticked a box online, and there is no signature from me or a bank representative on the agreement copy they sent. therefore the contract is unenforceable, as i understand it, because of the lack of signatures. <br />nevertheless, the company has added fines and interest to my alleged debt. have they (the loan company) any recourse against a human being who is not in possession of a notarised affidavit?<br />so far all i've received are millions of calls from an indian call-centre, and letters marked "arrears" - i have informed them that i will pay any money i lawfully owe upon production of the signed contract and invoice. my credit rating is taking a bashing too, but they put the APR up from 5% to 22% (even though i never missed any payments) that it seems to me like loan-sharking. <br />anyway, i'll keep researching the affidavit thing, cheers!richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-51898834706730104432009-12-05T17:00:02.687+00:002009-12-05T17:00:02.687+00:00Richard,
I sort of mentioned it obliquely in this...Richard,<br /><br />I sort of mentioned it obliquely in this very post:<br /><br />"These statutes are not laws, they are given force only if the governed consent to them. ("Consent" is the key word, and you will read it here often). Common Law is the Law Of The Land. Nobody, no government, no administration, not even God himself, can revoke, change, amend, or remove those laws".<br /><br />The Lisbon Treaty, or as it shall be now known, The Treaty on European Union, is just a statute. It is just as meaningless as all the others to a Freeman.<br /><br />If you did not consent to its introduction, then it does not have the force of law.<br /><br />In short, no. No-one can revoke common law. They can, and probably will, rely on ignorance to enforce their statutes on Joe Public, as they have done for hundreds of years.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-88400455641483275602009-12-05T16:45:16.346+00:002009-12-05T16:45:16.346+00:00Captain, please could you answer a quick question....Captain, please could you answer a quick question. with the imposition of the Lisbon treaty, are we still in a Common Law jurisdiction? apologies if you have covered this subject elsewhere.richardnoreply@blogger.com