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.


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


Angry Exile said...

Fascinating stuff and a useful precedent. I should be in bed but I'm going to look up that Act first. No doubt that judge has by now. :-)

Captain Ranty said...

I have a link to it on here AE.

I think I called the piece "Erm, We Are All Dead".

It all began back in 1540 with an update (entirely in French) in 1666.


Sue said...

Cool. You've got me all excited now. For someone to have been able to actually get a Judge agree is a useful tool.

Let's get this viral too :) especially in light of what I've just posted.

Angry Exile said...

It all began back in 1540 with an update (entirely in French) in 1666.

What, your blog? So are you the Nonny who left a comment on mine from about 7BC? :-)

Angry Exile said...

Couldn't see a link on the post you mentioned but I've googled it anyway. It'll make some weekend reading between the rage and the rainstorms.

Captain Ranty said...


A lot of dipshits will still queue up to pay their taxes and their fines.

It is going to take quite some time before people realise that they are people.


Captain Ranty said...


"What, your blog? So are you the Nonny who left a comment on mine from about 7BC? :-)"

It may have been an earlier version of me.

Reincarnation, eh? Can someone tell the Beeb that repeats are nothing new....


Nick said...

I have just finished reading Freedom is more than a seven-letter word, Veronica: of the Chapman family (as commonly called) and I’m grinning from ear to ear.
Veronica explains, very clearly, our legal fictions.
May I strongly recommend this book to your readers?
Roger’s success with the judge is excellent news. Well done that man.

mescalito said...

this is massive, the game is pretty much up :)

Anonymous said...

How is Cestui Que Vie pronounced?

sest oo e?

Captain Ranty said...

Sesta Kay Vee

Captain Ranty said...

Aye, the jig is up.

It is going to be fun creating havoc.

"You were parked on those double-yellow lines"

"Not me mate. That was my legal fiction. Good luck extracting cash from an artificial construct".

And so on...


nominedeus said...

Excellent news comes when least expected Captain have re blogged this and linked back to you, nice piece there matey, and isn't vindication of ones beliefs worth the wait eh!

IanG said...

This is a very interesting outcome. However, the problem still remains that they will secure judgement against the fiction (Mr Roger Hayes) then send the bailiffs into the home of Mr Roger Hayes and take the goods from Mr Roger Hayes.

That is unless Roger can prove the home is his and the goods are his and not belonging to Mr Roger Hayes and sadly he can't!

For example, it's impossible to buy a car under the name Roger. He would of bought it under the name Mr Roger Hayes and therefore (as we all know), it doesn't belong to him.

Why? Because (& I'll make an assumption here) he would have purchased these items with pounds, shillings & pence and that only exists in the fictional world.

I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, but that's what I've experienced so far.

Dioclese said...

In law, a corporation or incorporated body - be it plc or private limited company - is a seperate legal entity.

However, also in law the directors of that company are responsible for the operation and conduct of that company. There is a seperation in that, for example, a company is not subject to income tax. It is however subject to corporation tax and is also responsible for deduction of tax and national insurance for any person it employs and pays a salary to.

If a fine is not paid by that company, the company can be prosecuted in it's own right. The failure to discharge the liability my result in a petition for the winding up of that company, in which case the directors can be held jointly and severally liable for any misconduct which may also include any evasion of taxation which is a criminal offense.

There is no law that says a director has to be an employee, but every company must have at least one director and a secretary who cannot be the same person.

Let's be clear. A corporation is NOT a legal fiction. It has rights, obligations and liabilities. It may not be flesh and blood, but it nevertheless real and certainly not fictitious!

If you say that the company owns the premises and therefore you are not paying council tax on it, that's fine because the company will then be liable to business rates instead. As regards not being liable to CT, that's nonsense I'm afraid.

As regards parking fines, the driver is legally responsible. If the company pays it for him, that's fine but it is disallowed in calculating corporation tax.

If the company makes a loss, that's fine. There are rules for that. If it has no income, then it is not trading and can be wound up!

Basically this old Act deals with persons being missing or absent from our territorial waters for 7 years without proof of life therefore being declared dead. It does not apply to companies as companies cannot die.

As regards a contract between a person or company and the council for payment of council tax / business rates, any contract requires three things - offer, acceptance and valuable consideration.

When a council tax bill is sent to you, this constitutes an offer. If you allow the council to perform any service for you for which council tax form a charge then this acceptance. The amount stated is the valuable consideration. Refusing to pay does not negate the contract because all three criteria have been met. The contract does NOT need to be in writing.

I have read the article you point to carefully, and on my opinion there is nothing in this case as stated that would contradict my opinion stated here. There are in fact two errors. Firstly MR POGER HAYES should have 'Ltd' or something similar after it to properly address it as an incorporated body. Secondly, a corporation is a 'person' and vice versa, but the company and the human being are very definitely not the same thing.

The writer is correct in saying that MRH is a 'legal fiction' because in this form it is neither the company nor the human! There are three things here - Mr R. H. (the human), MRH Ltd (the corporation) and MRH which doesn't exist because it is undefined!

So basically, it's a nice idea guys, but it ain't gonna float!

William said...

When a council tax bill is sent to you, this constitutes an offer.

And if I decline their offer then what?

What you are saying is the council is acting like any other company who bombards my letter box with their 'offers' that I routinely ignore.
If this is the case then the council IS a company so I should be able to ignore theirs as well shouldn't I or are you saying there are two different types of company?

Captain Ranty said...


Quite a few errors in there.

From the top:

"...and is also responsible for deduction of tax and national insurance...".

Not so. They are collecting money from people and they are not being paid for it. This falls squarely into anti-slavery laws. The govt is at fault for forcing companies to do this unpaid work. The threat of penalty is used, illegally.

"A corporation is NOT a legal fiction."

To-mart-oh, to-may-to.

Let's call it an "artificial construct" instead.

"As regards not being liable to CT, that's nonsense I'm afraid."

I said that the human is not liable. The company is operating commercially. They ARE liable.

"As regards parking fines, the driver is legally responsible."

Couldn't agree more. However, the only reason they fine you is because they think you are acting in commerce. MC1215 Ch. 39 is crystal clear on this: travellers using their conveyances cannot be charged for using the highways. "Drivers" and "Vehicles" are both commercial terms. Drivers are described in law dictionaries as "persons" and we all now know that "persons" are corporations.

"as companies cannot die."

I have killed three with my own hands. I killed another two (that wronged me) by having them wound up. They are most definitely dead.

"any contract requires three things - offer, acceptance and valuable consideration."

Almost. They also require two wet signatures, and they must offer full disclosure.

Believe me. This floats. Like a fucking butterfly.


William said...

Forgot to add your knowledge of the 'company' is a well out of date. There is no longer any requirement for a limited company to have a company secretary.
This is because of a change to a statute not a law.


nominedeus said...

wow I have two e.mail notifications directing me here, thanks boys!
Dioclese I see what you are saying ..but my boat floats with the Captain on this, and I will go down with it if I have to. It is high time all this was tested to destruction!

Woodsy42 said...

Excellent outcome so far!
And BTW Captain I have never thought you mental, I think you are correct. But I don't trust the authorities not to twist the rules to their ends so had doubts it could actually work.

westcoast2 said...


So when the Judge says 'Prove your case' to the council, is he saying prove that MR is alive (ref CQV), has contracted, owes tax and is in default?

Wrt Diocese, are you assuming a relationship between MR and Roger other than representative?

Roger may or may not be liable for council tax (separate issue) but the council haven't contracted with him instead the council asked MR for the tax, didn't they?

Isn't this like the council asking you to pay because someone/anyone else is (according to them) in default?

Still trying to get to grips with all this. The implications are enourmous.

Captain Ranty said...

"Isn't this like the council asking you to pay because someone/anyone else is (according to them) in default?"

That is EXACTLY what the council is asking. They contracted with the fiction. They only write to the fiction. They only drag the fiction to court.

Roger has successfully proved that he is not the fiction. He (Roger) never contracted with the council.

And a judge agreed.

Roger says that the judge threw the hot potato at the council, but in so doing, he accepted that Roger is NOT MR ROGER HAYES.

Freefolk have been saying this for years. It is a victory beyond compare.


Captain Ranty said...


There is a chap here that thinks I am delusional:


He is long on insults but short on evidence.

Just another drone. But one that claims to be a libertarian.


mescalito said...

Dioclese - the legal fiction/person is a corporation as evidenced by the definition of a person in black laws 4th edition.

example: but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them.

CrazyDaisy said...

Hoofing news! I wonder what the Establishments next move will be?!


Snowolf said...

You bugger, I haven't time to read this now.

I'll be falling onto the laptop with great gusto once I return home this evening.

Unknown said...

1. A human being - also termed natural person
(At law all human beings are considered natural persons)

2.(person) An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognised by law as having the rights and
duties of a human being.

Blacks Law 8th edition:

A person is any being who is capable of rights and duties. Any being that is so capable
is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a
person, even though he be a man.

Bouviers law dictionary:

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

The Law says that all human beings are natural persons and that you may be a man, but you are only a person if you are capable of rights and duties. Rights and duties in these examples mean legal rights and duties. Meaning those rights and duties that the legal system grant you, not the rights and duties that a Man considers that is his moral right and duty. For example, being a good father and husband would, to most Men, be a duty. But it is not a legal duty, so long as you stay within their law.

The law says "man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms". So if a man can sometimes not be a person it means that the term term "person" must be a fictional title. This is born out in the famous "person case" where in Canada, 1929, Woman were not considered "persons" under certain aspects of the legal system (having certain rights and duties granted to them under the legal system) and had to ask the court to allow them to have natural person status.

So before Woman were granted "person" status they held the status of Woman.


dangermouse said...

So basically, we are in the Matrix. You think you are in the real world and you're not?

Captain Ranty said...


That judge has fucked up with style.

He has no idea that he has opened the gates to hell, for the government and the court system.

A senior court will have to strike down his ruling at some point. The charade must go on. Until that happens, I am going to have some fun.


Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for that.

In earlier editions of Blacks Law, a person was defined with the word "person".

As in: Person-a person is a corporation.

How can you define something using the very thing you are trying to define?

Dog-a dog is a four-legged creature.

Doesn't make sense.

Also, a l;ot of this garbage goes back to slavery days when a black person (in the USA) was defined as "three-quarters of a human being".

I ran a piece on here proving that slavery was not abolished by the 13th Amendment.

Legal fictions were created so that slavery could continue. Our legal fictions are the new slaves.

They confounded us using our own language. Very clever, no?

Until we wised up.


Captain Ranty said...


You the human is very much in the real world. Your fiction exists only as a vehicle for commerce. They (TPTB) cannot engage with the man so they created a fiction to fine, to tax, and to punish and control.

Just for clarity, when you break a natural law, you cannot hide behind your fiction.

Freemen take an oath not to cause harm, injury or loss to their fellow humans, and they swear not to make mischief with their contracts.

TPTB make no such oath. Neither do banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders and the like. Their contracts never meet the requirements of the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882. The Act is very clear, all contracts must contain full disclosure. Almost all contracts today (particularly involving finance and loans), do not. Which makes them worthless in law.


dangermouse said...

I'm struggling to see how the Judge has fucked up. Let me explain. I've been in a Court of Appeal where what was said did not reflect what those Judges put in their decision - it was way off! And I presume to protect some social policy. Who knows.

Unless a Judge hands down a decision, I cannot see the relevance of something they say, admit or dont say?

We cant walk into court and start saying that this Judge "said" something. It's hearsay.

On the plus side, it is very obvious that if this gets pursued, Decisions will have to be handed down and thats where the fun begins.

William said...

"The Act is very clear, all contracts must contain full disclosure. Almost all contracts today (particularly involving finance and loans), do not. Which makes them worthless in law."

Which is why I have spent over two years asking for a copy of my Credit Card Agreement from Barclays and they have never taken me to court for non payment. They allege I owe the over £10K but they CANNOT PROVE IT so they cannot go to court!

They have sent me to in house 'solicitors', in house debt collection agency, Natwests debt collection agency and are now trying to turn questions into complaints but crucially they have never sent me the document proving a contract exists and neither have they taken me to court and neither have they informed any 'credit reference agencies' that an alleged debt exists.

The fact court is not on the agenda shows the courts also operate in commerce, at least it does to me.

All is not what it seems. Rub the fog from the window because fog is all it is!

Unknown said...

To right Captain, It's all bollox.
Using legal fictions allows them to unashamedly usurp our God giving rights, as Men. In that they think that rights can only be granted by them. Feck them, I am a Man, a living soul and that is it. I'm not a person, or any fiction, even if it means I'm not a human being so be it. Their system is a cartoon world or a movie set of actors. Poor actors at that, because when you espouse the bullshit for what it is these, so called, serious actors are then seen as bumbling comedians who still try to cling on to the pretence by employing their keystone cops. They have to much invested in their bullshit to act with honour and step down gracefully.

Captain Ranty said...


Common law = case law.

Case law = judges determinations.

For over 800 years judges have decided cases. Let's imagine that X has wronged Y. They go to court to get a judge to help them sort it out. The judge decided that Y is right and a precedent is created. One month later, W gets in a ruckus with Z, and they head to court. The judge is different but he looks at the records and finds that a mighty similar case involving X and Y happened a month earlier. Rather than reinvent the wheel, the judge uses the earlier finding to rule in the new case. Saves him the problem of wading through all the law books to reach a decision.

And so, common law is added to.

We can absolutely say that Judge P said this or that. Judge T is obliged, in law, to examine the findings of Judge P. It isn't hearsay if a judge has issued a ruling and recorded it in the relevant database.


Captain Ranty said...


Don't be too hasty in dumping your legal fiction.

Used correctly, it is an awesome weapon.

Roger's case proves that absolutely.

Use their rules to win the game.


Jiks said...

I've heard of this tactic being used successfully in the States before but not here in the UK till now.

As you say this is huge! I must confess I don't have the balls to try this myself at this stage but will follow this closely.

I presume the council will take it to court of appeal as the next stage? Interesting times, as they say...

Captain Ranty said...


The Canadians have had more success than any of us. Google the World Freeman Society and have a look at some of their successes.

The good news is that you don't need balls of titanium. Just a pen, a sheet of paper, an envelope and a stamp.

When the council next sends you a demand, simply ask them to prove that you owe the money. They cannot. They will send the demand to your legal fiction. Explain to them, gently, that your legal fiction cannot write, cannot think, cannot feel, and that it has no money. Nor the capacity to send it to them.

Easy peasy. No bravery required.


Anonymous said...

"Common law = case law.

Case law = judges determinations."

And what happens if the judge decides to apply a statute law or says that you (both the physical you and your "legal fiction") have to pay your council tax? Does payment of council tax then become common law?

Captain Ranty said...


Roger's case is unique because he is the first to say that he is not his fiction, and the judge hurled the problem at the council. This is a legal issue.

Judges apply statutes to people very day of the week. Their determinations enter case law every day of the week.

Council Tax was illegally enacted by a Statutory Instrument. It wasn't even an Act in it's own right. Statutes (in their entirety) can never become common law.

Parliaments cannot create natural law. They can only create a poor facsimile. Remember that statutes are only given the force of law, they are not laws in and of themselves. Statutes should be treated as rules for society. Nothing more.


James Higham said...

Cap'n Corporation - well done, lad. That fits well into the sovereignty scenario too.

Anonymous said...

This is huge. It does not mean you will not get banged up for nicking some bods new motor.

But it does confirm that the legal person exists extra-corporially (as it were).

Presumably one could move one's legal person to (say) the Caymen Islands whilst the body remains in the UK (like some company head offices). There are thus all sorts of possibilities relating to tax, legal jurisdiction, etc.

Can't wait to see how it pans out!!

Amusing Bunni said...

Wow, that is very interesting stuff! I would want Roger as my lawyer. I would have loved to be in that courtroom. I wish him good luck!

Anonymous said...

This won't pan out. Because it's utterly wrong. From top to bottom, this whole post is rubbish.

This has all the hallmarks of the "Legal to kill Welshman with an arrow" stuff that gets trotted out by the tabloids.

The Act you rely on? Er...Rubbish. The only thing still active is a rule about being absent at sea for 7 years and having debts written off.

Do me a favour - you're a blogger, a bored little keyboard warrior. I saw your tweet - "Oh I've got 1,000 unique visitors".

Applause. Pity you've not got so much as 1 thing right in this laughable entry.


Captain Ranty said...

Here come The Borg.

Killing Welshmen? What the fuck are you on about?

A keboard warrior? Hardly. But as a famous Tweeter you somehow outrank me? Yip de fucking doo.

Your link is supposed to tell us what? It tells me that you googled the Act and provided a link. It does not prove that you understand the Act, nor that you read it. I did.

Do us all a favour, eh? Fuck off.

Keep paying illegal taxes and fines like a good little drone.


Anonymous said...

With respect, a right of reply.

I did not call myself a "famous" anything. Like the substantive point of your post, an invention of your little mind.

The link proves you wrong, up and down. Can you tell me how being absent from these isles for 7 years is going to help me when the council tax demand turns up on my doorstep? I would love to know, can you be my character witness?

The internet is full of folk like you who think the system will fall because one keyboard warrior has dusted off an outdated text book and re-invented the wheel. Here's news for you - without taxation, society falls, not just the "state".

Go back to watching CSI re-runs and leave the sane majority living their decent law-abiding lives.

Captain Ranty said...

"without taxation, society falls, not just the "state"."


In Brunei no-one pays income tax. Same in Libya. Yet both societies are functioning very well indeed. I could find another ten states like that, but so could you, if you wanted to.

Do your research, drone.


Anonymous said...

Oh I see, those well known centres of democracy and human rights, Brunei and Libya! Well, of course, that's exactly how I want my life and that of my family and friends to end up. Just like Libyans! What a safe-haven for development and enlightenment that is!

I know how you must feel - defensive to the last because this little "power to the people" dream has finally come true for you, that ambition burning away at your heart and now it's falling to pieces because some people have pointed out the major flaws.

Well done on the self-promotion. Zero marks for knowledge of the legal system, and absolute zero for your aim for the UK to eventually become like Brunei....

Keyboard warrior.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Was thinking capt, if the judge threw the case back to the council, surely somebody else could hint to the judge to do the same thing. As the judge walked away from it, the council cannot be feeling very confident in trying to get the money from john, wonder if the council will pursue this any further ?.

Don't expect to see it in news papers eh !, bet that judge made a few phone calls !

William said...

There is nothing better than an anonymous Sunday Troll which appears as if by magic when a curtain is slightly parted!

You'd think 'they' were watching wouldn't you!

Captain Ranty said...

Anon 20:44,

Obviously you have never been to either nation.

No CCTV watching every move you make in Tripoli, not every email is recorded, none of my phone calls are tapped or trapped for transcribing later, no active terrorism, freedom of religion, safe to walk the streets at any time of day or night, petrol at 8p a litre, 10 baguettes for 20p, and a happy, educated & willing workforce. Yes, I can see what a fucking haven for freedom the UK is now. Thanks for putting me straight.

If I am defensive it is because some cunt turns up from twitterland to tell me I am wrong. I have put in thousands of hours of research time and I am lucky enough to have an intelligent and loyal following. I am proud that this post has attracted over 1000 visitors. This is information that we all need.

And you turn up and offer derision?

Then you proceed to offer fuck all in the way of an argument.

I am not interested in self-promotion. If I was I wouldn't be fucking anonymous, would I? On this blog I have no ego.

There is no censorship here either. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how warped it is.

Either argue sensibly or fuck off back to those huge 140 character speeches.


Captain Ranty said...

Anon 21:18,

If the council are smart, they will take the loss on the chin and do nothing.

The alternative will be scaring the crap out of councils up and down the land.


Dioclese said...

I seem to have opened a can of worms!

My point was simply that 'Mr' and 'Mr Ltd' are not the same person and all charges must be addressed to the correct entity. Either can represent the other, but they are not the same person.

Also in the case of council tax, you are ignoring the law that says it is payable, which goes beyond the simple law of contract.

In practice, of course, it is difficult to not accept the services offered by the council! Examples - street cleaning, refuse collection, lighting, road maintenance, rights of way, etc etc.

Every time you walk off your front door you are likely using a right of way maintained by the council. Ipso facto, you are accepting the offer of their services.

Not quite the same as refusing to open junk mail...

Captain Ranty said...


I could trace the lad, but I won't bother. He isn't worth the effort.

When this goes national, and it will, drones like him will use the ruling just like everyone else.

I have said many times that I don't mind chipping in. We must take care of the poor, the sick, and the old. But we do NOT need 7 million public employees to support 650 idiots in Westminster.

10% tax or less would make me happy. If we give them more they just waste it.


Captain Ranty said...


I welcome your comments. They are helpful, where others are not.

One point:

"Also in the case of council tax, you are ignoring the law that says it is payable, which goes beyond the simple law of contract."

Where exactly is this "law"? I have searched high and low and I cannot locate it. I know of a statutory instrument but there is no law. An SI is not law. Any MP, no matter how gormless, can add an SI to a statute.

I can clean my own street, dump my own rubbish, string up my own lights, and even maintain my section of the road for a fraction of the cost the council charges me.


Dioclese said...

Re Company Secretaries :

Sorry William - you are correct as relates to PRIVATE companies which we are referring to here. Let's clear this up:

Companies Act 2006 From 6th April 2008 the provision for enabling private companies to choose whether they wish to have a company secretary will come into force.

A private company will have the option whether or not they maintain their company secretary. If the company decide they no longer need a company secretary they will need to inform Companies House via WebFiling or on the 288b form.

The company will be required to amend the Articles if there is a specific reference to the company having a secretary. However if the Articles only refer to the secretary’s duties there is no need to make an amendment. The company must submit a written or special resolution together with an updated version of the Articles.

A PRIVATE company can have a sole director and no secreatary, but not a PUBLIC company.

The Secretary can be human or corporate. From 1st October 2009, secretaries who are an individual person will be able to file a service address for the public record and corporate secretaries will be required to give details of where they are registered and the registered company number, if applicable.

I think that covers it!

Dioclese said...

You're doing better than me CR because I can't get my fucking council to adopt my road!

Try the Local Government Finance Act 1992?

William said...

Mr D
Public Company

Under the Companies Act 1985, companies are incorporated as either private ("limited") or public ("Plc"). They are distinguished by different standards of regulation in the Companies Act 1985 and other legislation. Public companies require a minimum capital investment of £50,000 and are designed for use as more substantial companies with wide share ownership. A public company may be listed. Private companies are the category which represents the remainder of companies.

Setting all argument aside for a moment...
If you accept that a council is a corporation then what form of company is it?
It has or appears to have no shares or shareholders so is it actually a public company limited by guarantee or is it a private limited company.

If it is a public company then there has to be shareholders.

As with everything else it's not at all clear exactly what is going on. The fact that the charge is raised on the address but is paid by the name on the electoral roll is also a very grey area and digging into it is like digging gravel.

You are suggesting that the council has us all by the balls as soon as we walk out of our front doors.
I contend otherwise.

The council sends us an offer to contract in late March every year. It is dressed up as a 'how we spend your money booklet' (aka terms and conditions) and an invoice of charges (aka the council tax bill).
I am no expert but there are striking similarities between this document combination and a credit card agreement.

Perhaps all that is required is simply declining the offer. It is no good just ignoring it as they will say they sent it out to you and it wasn't returned and spring the tacit acceptance trap.

Banks send you offers of loans and credit cards every week but they don't spring the tacit acceptance trap because it wouldn't stand in court and proof of sending is not proof of receipt.

I am convinced that the human being has a name attached to it just after birth by a human representing the state (the registrar) and another human who registers the name (normally a parent but it doesn't have to be). This name has a number and if the human it is attached to gets to be 16 years old the state assuming it can find the name's location sends out another number attached to the name this one is the NI number.

No birth registration, no birth number, no NI number at 16 but the human still has a name and is known by that name by friends and family.

The registered name is only of any use to the state IF it is attached by numbers to a human being. A human being who has no say in any of it mainly because when the deception is being perpetrated the human being cannot talk, read or write!

NewsboyCap said...


Please be gentle & considerate with ANON @ 20:44.Remember he is brainwashed, ignorant and wants to be a 'good boy'.He doesn't want to upset 'Nanny',he might be punished if he does.He believes everything 'Nanny' tells him.
You must do this,you can't do that,Nanny knows best.
Anon@ 20:44 Grow some,be responsible for your actions,if you have family look after them yourself,don't expect someone else to pay. And understand that your not on this Earth to work so someone else can take your/your family's hard earned, with menaces, just because they say they can.

Zaphod said...

This is great news! I know it's not over, plenty of hurdles ahead, but it's one hell of an advance!

In my own attempt to sue HMRC (for destroying seized goods before admitting their mistake), they have challenged the court's jurisdiction. At a jurisdiction hearing last week, I fought their barrister to a standstill. The judge has adjourned to let them try to think of a better argument.

I am Stan said...

Great news Capitan,

Dioclese, do try to keep up old boy!


Dioclese said...

Have pity on me Stan - I am old man!!

CR - I don't disagree with you, I just don't think you'll win. (sadly!)

not sure said...

If the 'artificial construct' is found guilty by the judge and is ordered to pay the council, won't everything that has been purchased by (or using) this construct be an asset?

So, for instance, my house is registered to my construct at Land registry, and my car is registered at DVLA. Are they mine (the freeman) or the construct's?

If the court decides to take them from the construct, and I say they belong to me, then what prevents someone else declaring that he owns the construct and I have no rights to it or it's assets?


orkneylad said...

Captain Ranty,

This is awesome news, I shall be following with much interest!

Captain Ranty said...

Not Sure,

I just tried to answer that same question over at the Libertarian Alliance blog.

It is not a complete answer because I haven't yet started to think about Steps 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6, and because I don't really know.

Here it is:


Yes, that would be true.

I think I know where you are heading with the question and I freely confess that I do not have a suitable answer.

What I have learnt is that contracts-all contracts-must have certain components.

1. Offer and Acceptance
2. Equal consideration
3. Full disclosure
4. Two wet signatures (exceptions to this are electronic signatures & verbal contracts)
5. Legality

The most vital of these is full disclosure. Both parties must be aware of all benefits/responsibilities when entering into a contract.

I mention this because we are all roped into the fabled Social Contract. It is an agreement between us and the state. If the state have not given full disclosure (in this case, that we all have a legal fiction) then the old maxim “Once a contract is breached, it is ended” swings into play.

As I have said here and elsewhere, the ramifications are huge. That is why it is an important ruling for all of us.

On investigation, it turns out that I do not own my house. The Crown does. I do not own my car. The DVLA does. (I am merely the registered keeper). Every time you register something-your children, your car, your shotgun, for example-title passes to whoever you registered the item with.

The law, and statutes (for they are very different) are a minefield.

Well worth creeping over though. Some finds are quite incredible.


Rob said...

So depending on your time available could you not de-register your property as full disclosure was not given when the property was disclosed.

It is interesting that it was only as recently as the 1970's that all purchased houses were put on the Land Registry automatically.

Many inherited properties are still not on the land registry. I wonder if the Rothschilds properties are on the Land Registry?

Mongo said...

Hola Captain Ranty,

Great blog sir, going on my list.


Anonymous said...

put this on the DT.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Mongo.

I'll add you to mine as well.

You have to be more Awkward though!

I do like that picture you have up.


Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Anon!

(I answered you over at LA blog).


Captain Ranty said...


Home ownership is murky. I don't think we own them. The Crown has first claim.

Scary shit this, innit?

We know nothing.


still not sure... said...

I think I can see where you're coming from here:
"It is an agreement between us and the state. If the state have not given full disclosure (in this case, that we all have a legal fiction)"

But - is it an agreement between us and the state or the state and our construct? If you say the construct is not you, and claim no rights to the assets or duties, as in this court case... that is different from saying the contract between you and the state has been broken.

In other words - either you (real you and construct) entered a contract but a lack of full disclosure means the state has broken the contract and it is void... or you deny that you are the construct, and so you've never entered into the contract, but hold no claim to the assets of the construct. But you can't claim that you've both entered into a contract and never entered the contract.

Captain Ranty said...


Yes, I see what you mean.

It is an agreement between the state and our construct. It cannot be otherwise. It is their only way of engaging with us.

The human cannot enter into a contract. It has to be via the construct.

There are such things as "invisible contracts", I wonder if this falls into that bracket?

All I know for sure is that this construct of ours can be manipulated now. We can use it to our advantage, not theirs.

I just haven't figured it all out yet!


Anonymous said...

(Click image for embigulation).

Embigulation, love it, I First saw this word in my all time fave simpsons sketch, the genesis tub :

SUPERB news by the way, we all need to find this precedent and USE IT!

not sure said...

"I just haven't figured it all out yet!"

Always nice to see honesty nowadays rather than entrenched argument!

I'm not sure there is an answer, it will always be down to opinion as to what trumps what. I'm glad that it's being researched and challenged though because I'd like to see the balance swing back this way a little!

nominedeus said...

Surely the entire world of the construct's contracts falls with the admission anywhere and at any time, that there is a construct made by them (fraudulently ie without full disclosure), and all property of any kind gained by them through this fraudulent deception has to revert to the ownership of the human who's construct was so constructed, for their purposes, and not the purposes of the human who's construct it should rightly and freely be?

The point being that you have not been educated (deliberately) to understand and use the construct so acts of fraud can be committed upon you/and your construct, therefore both you and your construct have simultaneously entered into contracts which you could not have entered into because the contracts that you have supposedly entered into cannot be established to actually be contracts in the first place due to their duplicitous non disclosure....

my head hurts now, thanks Captain!

Anonymous said...

Bloody marvellous, Captain! Facebooked!

NewsboyCap said...


not sure said @17:46 I'm not sure there is an answer, it will always be down to opinion as to what trumps what.

Please look up the Good Captain's HIERARCHY post,we 'Human Beings' trump every officer,authority, corporation,construct etc.It's not opinion, it's real.We just have to convince ourselves.

Oh, and a few others.......

not sure said...

"all property of any kind gained by them through this fraudulent deception has to revert to the ownership of the human who's construct was so constructed, for their purposes, and not the purposes of the human who's construct it should rightly and freely be?"

good point!

I guess it comes down to the definition of property ownership (and resolution of disputes) before constructs were made.

mescalito said...

Can precedents be set in county courts???

i think only high courts can???

Anonymous said...

Just seen a message from someone who is de-registering their car and declaring that it is in fact a privately owned conveyance that helps to exercise their common law right to travel without let, hindrance or levy (which means it is subject to common law and not the legal system)

The person is putting up their details later on TPUC and I'll get the link.

I dont know anyone whose done that before!


DAD said...

Re Anon 08:22

Many have tried, and failed.


Anonymous said...

Let's see what happens. It's one thing asking and quite another thing actually doing it. I'm rooting for him. I wish I had a car I could do that with.

This link has been started today and the progress will be updated.



William said...

Dad provides an interesting link. The FOI request perfectly illustrates that the people who work for the state haven't the slightest clue about what is really going on.

If you keep or use a vehicle, it is a legal requirement that it is registered to you

The law requires keepers to notify DVLA as they acquire and dispose of vehicles and Vehicle Registration Certificates (V5C) are issued to them to help this process.

So its a LEGAL requirement to comply with the LAW they say but what they mean is its a legal requirement to comply with a STATUTE.

This statement also assumes that the keeper is always the owner and then...

"Many registered keepers are in possession of vehicle(s) and responsible for their day to day use on the road, but do not own the vehicle."

So what this DVLA is doing is making a decision on who the registered keeper is based on the name on a registration document THEY attach to each VEHICLE

I could buy 5 brand new taxis for example and as I have handed over the cash and I have a written contract to prove it that fact is indisputable. Also indisputable is the fact the taxis are MY property and I am free to do as I please with my property. They do not belong to anyone else, they are MINE. I can let someone else register the cars and use them for business or pleasure. It's up to them.

But according to the DVLA IF I don't register them in my own name I am no longer responsible for my own property. The DVLA can take them off the street whenever the person who they have in their database as a registered keeper transgresses a STATUTE.

The vehicle doesn't belong to the registered keeper, it doesn't belong to the DVLA I have paperwork PROVING it belongs to me. DVLA aka THE STATE are stealing my property. It is theft by statute.

And yet the people of Britain refuse to see what is going on right under their noses.

Anonymous said...

If only this all turns out to be true, as a human I don't think it will, my contructed fiction is keeping everything crossed in the hope of victory, if only that TPTB will have to be kosha with us humans/fictional constructs.

Anonymous said...

This comment is unrelated to your current blog subject but I would like to share something and see if anyone would comment. I want to make a statement before the events actually happen as I believe they will.
We have seen the “necessary defence cutbacks” resulting in systemized emasculation of this country’s military power. When you examine the spending on defence and consider we have reputedly the 4th largest spend in the world as per our defence budget and then you suddenly that our military HAS to be degraded before the subsequent plan for european military integration (in order to “save it”) into a morphed eu entity can happen. Thus the REAL reason for the cuts is to enable/implement that very integration.
We have plenty money in UK, it’s just being steadily sucked up by the eu.
Now take a few more steps and witness the growing stories in the MSM of “necessary Police cuts due to the economic situation”…an economic disaster planned & perpetrated by the same ruling traitors anyway.
Witness the numbers in police cuts being bandied about with related hand-wringing & “concerns” of the effect on the streets this will inevitably cause. Of course it’s a no-brainer that crime will surge dramatically due to less numbers of police etc.
But rest assured, our glorious leaders will gallop to the rescue and trumpet the solution:
Surprise surprise! Waiting in the wings, fully trained and uniformed up ready to rock-n-roll, our very own home based…….Europol!!! (European Para-Military police force, reporting to the eu of course)
Based and trained in Hastings these past (how many) months/years under the evil eye of the eu and primed to explode onto our streets at a moment’s notice but wait, how to justify/explain this process to the sheeple?
Easy peasy. Rampant uncontrollable crime and disorder will have the masses crying out for rescue and viola this is it……. Europol, Coming soon to your neighborhood.
Don’t believe me? Let’s wait a little while and see.
Yours in disgust,

Just Woke Up said...

"TPTB make no such oath. Neither do banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders and the like. Their contracts never meet the requirements of the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882. The Act is very clear, all contracts must contain full disclosure. Almost all contracts today (particularly involving finance and loans), do not. Which makes them worthless in law."

Interestingly I received an FOI response from my local council stating that no-one - can I repeat that - NO-ONE in the council is obliged to sear any oath of office. They also have no problems if any council employees have sworn oaths to other bodies, govts, or institutions even if those entities are not acting in the interests of the very people who pay the dreaded council tax. I understand the council (and police) gains authority by means of a royal charter. If no employee has to swear this oath this leaves an interesting constitutional and legal issue.

My MEP has also confirmed that he was not obliged to offer any oath of allegiance to take up his post.

Who do these people work for and is there any honour and constitutional responsibility left in this world?

My understanding is that the whole issue of oaths opens up the issue that we ceased to have a Sovereign Monarch after the signing of the Treaty of Nice. Are judges swearing oaths to a corporate entity that no longer exists? Hmmm

Dr Evil said...

Hello, Captain,

I have been folowing your adventures for a while now. I find this case fascinating. Especially since quite a few pensioners have been jailed for not paying council tax or only paying part of it. Also there is the knock on effect for all of us regarding the implications.

Kepp it up!

Anonymous said...

CR: Great post! Such an interesting topic. I've been following it for a while now. My thoughts are that if you have a social insurance/security number it is evidence of an employer/employee relationship with the state/province due to the fact that only employees can pay into a pension.(Really its about trust and credit) I've even heard(ref for yourself)the aforementioned was a supreme court ruling in the place of Canada. Its a contract we've signed willingly into and are bound to the rules as an employee. I agree with the difference between Men and LEGAL PERSONS. It seems if you do not claim your rights and perfect them then forever you shall have none less the benefits provided by the state. We are collateral for a loan or our private intellectual property (labour) has been pledged should I say.
Its all about Titles...ever heard possession is 9/10ths of the law? That's because the place where you registered your property (labour, children, private conveyance) holds Legal Title to your goods in Trust. 10%. We, the Equitable holder must 'submit' to the requests of the legal holder of title, but are allowed to possess, trade for value and have right of use 90%. Trustee/beneficiary relationship. Could one obtain both Legal and Equitable title? (Total/allodial Title)If so, what would stop one from crafting ones own rules and to that effect,not submitting to another s? If the state has Legal Title over your LEGAL PERSON in Trust and they do, you have to follow the rules. So...Quit! Don't like your boss? Quit! are you, in any way, without a doubt, obligated to work for someone you don't like? I should think not. Create your own nation, write your own rules. Familiarize yourself with Admiralty Law, Commercial Law (UCC) Contract Law, Copyright Law, to name a few... as these are some of the rules to their game. We all have the right to Self-determination. All ramblings aside - great post
Just rantings and thoughts for entertainment only. Not LEGAL advice.

Keep up the great work!!

JJ said...

How could this be applied to the smoking ban?

Captain Ranty said...

Some terrific comments on this post and I thank each and every one of you for your thoughts.


The theory has it that your fiction transgressed the statute. You, the man, did nothing wrong. If hauled into court, hurl your birth certificate on the table and tell them to deal with that. Without creating joinder, the court has a hard time dealing with a piece of paper. They made these stupid rules, watch as they squirm trying to deal with it.

Of course, they will bully and coerce. Stand your ground.


Anonymous said...

Not wishing to pee on your bonfire and congratulations on your superb legal chicanery but why don't you want to pay council tax? If you are benefiting in any way from the services that your local authority provide (which you can't not be) don't you have a moral obligation to cough up like everyone else? If your home was suddenly over-run with vermin who would call the council to come and deal with the infestation? Mr Roger Hayes or just plain Roger Hayes? And what right to call upon the services of the Local Authority would either one have if he/it hadn't contributed towards the provision of these services? Just asking...

Captain Ranty said...


I haven't asked my local council for a single thing in over 25 years. If my home was invaded by vermin I would call a pest control firm and pay them myself.

My stance is slightly different from Roger's. I am in Lawful Rebellion. I am obliged to withhold taxes and support for the government until the monarch undoes the damage she caused by violating every single one of her coronation oaths.


Anonymous said...

I have found a legal opinion on Council Tax enforcement thatUI am sure will be 'of interest'. I can't just post it up as is and I can't see any way of emailing it in ? Help !

Captain Ranty said...


Wing it to me here:

captainranty at btinternet dot com



Anonymous said...

Hey guys! Could someone please give me a reference a solid reference for a valid contract.

1. Offer and Acceptance
2. Equal consideration
3. Full disclosure
4. Two wet signatures (exceptions to this are electronic signatures & verbal contracts)
5. Legality

I'm creating an affidavit and need a solid indisputable source for this. Please shoot me an email at classicalgoodness at hotmail dot com.

Thank you to whomever can help.