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.
I'm not at all knowledgeable on these things although I am struggling to learn. I admit I find it hard going!
The main point I start with is something I garnered from your posts.
If I haven't signed a contract and agreed terms and conditions, then I am not bound by it.
We do not sign a contract for council tax, probably because they would have to tell us where the money will be going and consequently, we could question those terms and conditions if we were not happy.
Similarly, we do not sign a contract for income tax, probably for the same reason. The government would have to account for the money under a terms and conditions clause or I would not sign and agree to it.
I'm still reading The Anti Terrorist book you recommended btw.
One last point.
If the land registry and excess cash of said "human being" was passed to his wife/husband/relative/friend, he would have no assets for the state to seize.
isn't that what all these millionaire politicians and corrupt businessmen do?
What there is in all of this is deliberate obfuscation. Legalese looks like English, sounds like English but the individual words have very different meanings depending on which language is in use.
You have to ask yourself why is Legalese designed this way?
Who benefits from Legalese and why oh why did the English and now the British Parliament create all it's statues and codes in Legalese and not English?
The only logical answer is that a small 'ruling class' benefits directly whilst a wider 'commercial class' is able to benefit indirectly and yet the majority of the humans who live on the British Isles are led to believe that everything is written in English. If a Parliament staffed by members of the Law Society as both elected and employed members can create Legalese statutes and pass them off to the population as English surely that is a fundamental deception.
As it is NO politician or civil servant sees anything wrong with this. They may not be aware of the deception, but I'm sure they are as they all turn up and pass the Finance Act every year just to keep the income tax scam going, but nevertheless it is a Parliament of the people deceiving the people.
If these people and their Parliament, it is by no stretch of the imagination a Parliament of the People, can deceive millions so easily is it not unreasonable to suppose that they can obfuscate the truth on just about anything?
The line between government and Parliament is now so blurred it cannot be seen even with a magnifying glass.
No Parliament can bind a future Parliament and yet the Labour Government has bound the ConDems to all sorts of financial largesse.
These days Parliament has bugger all to do with government.
A name is given to the human being by other humans. If that NAME is NOT registered with the state the state has no idea whatsoever that that NAME exists. The human being exists but the state isn't in the least bit interested in human beings.
A human being could live out an entire life and be totally unknown to the state. I am sure hundreds of thousands do exactly this.
This proves to me that I am NOT MY NAME. I didn't decide what NAME I wanted tobe known as and I DID NOT REGISTER the NAME I was given with the state ergo I the human being has no contract with the state and I am not the property of the state.
This is a bizarre concept to get one's head round but you only have to look at, not into, the world of commerce to realise that there is no such thing as a company. All there is in reality is a company NAME. It is the NAME that is registered at Companies House or on Dun & Bradstreet not a building, not a service, not a human being, not a vehicle, not a product but a NAME.
All a NAME is is a word or group of words but it is the utility used to engage in commerce.
Slight off topic Ranty old chap but worth it IMHO.
TCR, I'm not arguing the finer points of constitutional law, which is all highly abstract (and if you imagine that any of the Royal Family give a toss about us commoners, think again, they are part of the problem), I am working on the basis that what you propose is indeed correct* and this leads me to the conclusion that land 'ownership' is fair game for taxation.
* Whether or not you are correct is a philosophical point as much as anything else.
I am aware that we barely exist for the royal fambly. The feeling is mutual. But for my affidavits of 2009 and the repeats late last year, I must admit we haven't come into contact very much in my five decades.
And (although I am still learning) I very much agree with you on LVT.
I can't take philosophy into the courtroom though. I need something a little more provable than that! :)
Understanding contracts is the very beginning of the journey. It is vital to know what they can and cannot do, and the elements that go together to make a fair contract.
Trusts are where the real answers to our problems lie.
If we can learn and understand these (needlessly) complex arrangements, we are knocking on freedoms door.
The book will help!
If you are going to go off-topic with great stuff like that, then you have a standing invitation from me to do so, whenever you wish!
Thank you. The NAME is at the centre of it all, along with contracts and trusts. All three are needed to bamboozle us all.
I don`t give a camels hump if you`re legally right or wrong Captain, telling TPTB to fuck off works for me.
Wadsworth and that fat barrister bigot can fuck off too!
I have mentioned this previously, but you seem to think the Gov and associated powers are governed by the law, when they patently are not. Even if they were, and you were successful in some or all of your goals, they will simply change the law and make it apply retrospectively, something they have done on numerous occasions previously.
You are wasting your time on lawful rebellion (an oxymoron), banging your head against a brick wall. Now if you were to start banging someone else's head against a brick wall, well, then you just might get somewhere.
Barrister is synonymous with Parasite
“Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away
the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in ye hindered.” — Luke. XI, 52
Great book by by FRED RODELL Professor of Law, Yale University
Written in 1939
Woe unto you, Lawyers
"A lusty, gusty attack on “The Law” as a curious, antiquated institution which, through outworn procedures, technical jargon and queer mummery, enables a group of medicine-men to dominate our social and political lives and our business, to their own gain"
Banging someone's head against a brick wall violates my oath to not cause harm or injury.
As far as I am aware it is unlawful to create a law in order to charge someone with a newly created offence.
We are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. I have seen many examples where this appears not to be the case but if I (and all of us) stopped believing in that premise, all is lost.
Lawful Rebellion is just about the only tool we have left in the box.
Thanks for your support!
Mark and TFB are just commenting though. That is perfectly alright by me. They can call me names if they wish, they can doubt my sanity. I will not lose sleep over that. It's what I expect from TFB (and his friends, TPTB), but Mark is actually supportive of the theory.
Thank you for the quotes and the links.
I have had a lawyer or two (and even a barrister) look at my stuff. They tell me that "although a little ham-fisted, it is technically and lawfully correct, but don't quote me on that", so I know I am going in the right direction. That they want to distance themselves from this is not a shocker.
Imagine telling a baker, for instance, that his way of making bread "looked like bread-making" but wasn't, when examined closely? He'd turf you out, claiming superior knowledge. Try telling a police officer he/she is not actually upholding the law (as their oath claims) but collecting revenue instead? They will lock you up in a heart-beat and use force if "necessary".
They (the legal profession) will protect themselves to infinity and beyond. It's what they do best.
It matters not one jot what you believe is legal, lawful or anything else. You are not equal before the law, you never have been, you never will be. They make it up as they go along.
When I was a kid, playing cricket in the street, with a lamp-post as a wicket, it was common practice to shout 'Arly Barly' upon being bowled out unexpectedly. These were the magic words which suspended the previously agreed upon rules of the game, on the technicality of 'not being ready'. The efficacy of this tactic depended on the level of violence one was prepared to use to back up this marvelous 'legal fiction', with the big kids being ever so much better at it than the little ones.
The Gov will simply shout 'Arly Barly', should you ever succeed in any of your goals (which you won't) because they are the biggest kid, who also control the use of both bat and ball.
As Orwell inimitably put it 'All animals are equal, though some are more equal than others'.
You might need to think twice about the non-violence thing. I don't think it is going to work.
English viking, the State has all the firepower. But look what Gandhi achieved by simple non-compliance. It's a numbers game - if enough people say NO then they will win.
Ghandi 'won' because the British had neither the will nor the men to fight after WWII.
The scum that currently control everything will fight to the last drop of another mans blood.
BTW, hundred of thousands died immediately after the removal of law and order in the form of the British, and goodness knows how many more in the last 60 years. Do you think a guy who lives in shed, on a dollar a day, with not enough food to feed himself, let alone his family, is free?
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?
We don't really have any rights over land registered in the name of the fiction anyway...
we have equitable title not legal title, that's why we cant do fuck all to our property unless they say we can, so that's that point up in flames.
Its amazing how people are so against anyone or anything to do with freeman/lawful rebellion, with all the arguments aside all we want to do is create a fairer system for us all.
is that such a bad thing?
do people like being shafted by extortionate taxes?
to people like picking up the bill for fraudulent bankers?
'... unlike TFB who opines that I am "occasionally deranged". '
I'd say you are occasionally deranged, but whether you are also mistaken is something else entirely. ;-)
'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.' - my emphasis.
I think a post on what would be needed to make taxation legal would be interesting. I have mixed feelings on taxation. On the one hand morally it's theft if there is no option not to pay it - there's no doubt of that in my mind. So turning this from 'illegal and unlawful' to completely legit and above board doesn't sound like much of an improvement. If I'm down a dollar I'm down a dollar regardless. On the other hand I lean towards minarchy and recognise that even a minimal 'nightwatchman' state - or Break Glass In Emergency Government as I like to think of it - needs a bit of money coming in to perform even its very limited functions. I don't have an issue with this coming from various consumption taxes providing the opportunity exists for a die hard refusenik or a very low income earner to get by without paying anything at all. For example, and I'm going to use an Aussie one because I can't think of a UK one off the top of my head, Luxury Car Tax. If I was to go out and order anything over about $55,000 I'd pay LCT on it. If I object to paying LCT, which I do but might not if I was properly loaded, I can choose a car that's cheap enough not to attract it or is a used vehicle on which it's already been paid. What is unavoidable and therefore boils my piss is that stamp duty is payable on all car purchases whether new or old, and that means the guy who can afford an ancient $2,000 car pays at the same rate as the guy who can afford a new $200,000 car. Okay, one's federal and one's state, but that's by the by. It would not bother me if a tax like LCT was technically illegal since it's optional anyway, while legalising a technically unlawful tax that hits everyone isn't a help.
Or are you getting at something else?
We are all equal under the law but are unequal according to the rules of the game. You cannot legislate to commit murder or steal, if anyone believes you can then please piss off to North Korea where I'm sure you will be much happier.
Taxation of earned income from your labour is unlawful without the consent of the individual living soul. As an individual each one of us creates and have the right to keep the fruits of our labour. No other person, human , fiction or anything else has any right to place a lien on your labour without a lawful contract.
As for owning land, I don't believe anyone can, certainly not by right. What we do have is a right to a home, a sanctuary that is where we can feel safe and bring up our children, the furthest extent to which we can draw the boundary of this home is as a nation. We have a right to exist, to live in a place we we can get along without fear, let or hinderence in accordance with our laws and customs.
That's what I think anyway.
I'm not sure if you are addressing me, but I'll say 'hello' anyway.
I'm not against anybody sticking it to the Gov, in whatever way they can. I hope you are successful, but I'm sure you won't be.
I think a better way of 'sticking it' to them is to methodically and carefully falsify and obfuscate your personal data, on all levels, as much as possible, WITHOUT them knowing. Pay cash, barter, etc, but keep it under your hat.
Wearing a big sign saying 'I'm going to stick it to you' just makes them worse.
Ultimately, I prefer the piano-wire and lamp-post method of 'negotiation', the only method proven by history to effect real change. Even then, the effect is only temporary, as the heart of mankind is thoroughly defective, and power corrupts.
I would have accepted "unhinged", "Radio Rental", "As nutty as squirrel-shit" but deranged? Never!! Never I say!!!
I was aiming for something different. I was aiming for legitimacy.
Here we have the Mother of all Parliament, allegedly a model for all of those that came after, and it is FUBAR. We had a decent(ish) system and the pollies fucked around with it. Once they started they just couldn't stop.
They messed with the Royal Assent thing, rendering Her Maj useless, then they fucked around with the Peers, rendering the HoL useless, and at the same time they grabbed all the "power" for themselves. And we stood by and did fuck all. Actually, we did do something: we bankrolled the whole affair.
Deranged I may be, but I know that our defence has to be paid for, our police, our fire-fighters, our nurses, our hospitals and our schools, etc, but, I really draw the fucking line at having only around 17% of my salary left for me and mine after the direct and indirect taxation/theft takes place. Do they NEED 83% of my earnings?
If we could slide gently back to the drawing board and re-think taxation but this time, limit what the bastards could take, I would be jiggy with that. Why have they never made Income Tax permanent? Why do they have to keep it going under "Emergency" rules? We were told (or at least my grandaddy was) that income tax was introduced to pay for the war(s). Well, according to news reports, we finished paying our war debts back in 2006.
"There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war, but the Americans did expect the return of some durable goods such as ships. Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies after the war, so the administration charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest. The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year)."
So why the fuckety fuck are we still being nailed?
And why won't they legitimise taxation?
I second what Archie said.
That mirrors my thinking perfectly.
English Viking, no I was just commenting on what the Captain had said in the OP. But hello all the same.
I'm currently not sticking it to any government in any way, shape or form except that I've taken my labour and money out of the UK where they can't get at it. I get the occasional letter asking me if I'd like to carry on giving them money in the form of NICs, and even a tax return for the first couple of years. The tax returns created some annoyed long distance phone calls but eventually stopped coming, and I ignore the NIC enquiries. Even if CR is 100% wrong about everything they still have no claim on me.
The difficulty in my position is that both the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Victoria do, although I'm tied to neither and can move to a different state or return to the UK if I want to. However, I choose to come to Australia knowing in advance and reasonably well what the tax system was like here. I wasn't forced and it could be argued that if I'm so against the way they run the country that I'd consider violence even for a moment then I should never have got on the plane. There's also the matter that even married to an Aussie citizen they didn't have to let me in their country, and I have no wish to do the migrant's equivalent of accepting a welcome into someone's home and then taking a shit on the coffee table.
Whether there are any Ranty style legal avenues open to me at present I'm unsure without doing an awful lot of research, but violent acts here simply are not an option for me even if I was inclined, and with the Non Aggression Principle as a guide I'm not. I might see things differently if I was still in the UK, though I'd be more inclined towards Rantyesque antics than the piano wire. Here I feel that I agreed to certain things by coming and that for now at least I have an obligation to do things a certain way.
We are in the same boat. I too became so heartily sick of being bullied and robbed that I felt forced to leave my own nation and take refuge in another. I'm not a refugee though, I pay my way with two jobs and claim no benefits whatsoever. If I felt the way I do about living here as I do about the UK, I would do as you suggest - leave.
Someone asked me if I missed England the other day. I told them that I had begun to miss it long before I left. It doesn't exist anymore.
I was talking about the UK Gov (By Gov I mean a vast array of liars, traitors, thieves, little-Hitlers, pencil pushers, past and present). I resent them greatly for ruining my country and eradicating my culture. I believe large numbers have committed Treason (Blair in particular) and should be tried and executed if convicted. Piano wire, gallows, two in the head around the back of the chemical shed - don't care. Others should be stripped of all assets and forced to live on a council estate with a minimum wage factory job. Others should be made 'Home-Helps' for our ever-increasing pension population. Mass deportations of 'undesirables'.
I really believe that is what it will take. Probably preceded by a civil war, when the muzzies really kick off.
'We were told (or at least my grandaddy was) that income tax was introduced to pay for the war(s).'
I thought it was the Napoleonic Wars, which doesn't alter the point so much as make it even worse. I would guess it was not 'permanent' for two reasons, one psychological and one (maybe) legal. The first is that people are less likely to kick up about something they think is temporary. Grumble grumble but at least it's not forever grumble mumble - wrong, but we're not telling you that when you're content to think the end is around the next corner, just out of sight. The legal reason - and this is absolute speculation - is that it might be necessary to keep it that way so that it can be easily adjusted each year to suit the government at the time. I stress that's speculative and could be utter bollocks. The psychological reason I'm more confident of but I could never prove it. It just seems like a good button to press and I'm a suspicious bastard.
Still, unless I still misunderstand the goal I'm still not sure granting tax legitimacy helps. If the status quo is illegitimate and then becomes kosher then the game's over and they win forever, don't they? Whereas if you can establish illegitimacy and create the precedent needed for far more people to follow there's a fair chance at making the bastards stop. Then a tax system that's both reasonable and legitimate might be on the cards.
It started around the time of the Napoleonic Wars but WWI and WWII happened not too long after. I reckon they just carried it on.
I think you are justifiably suspicious and that reason is as good as any I've heard. I'd love to be able to prove it.
The goal remains proving that tax is illegal but I have muddied the waters by entering LR. LR is crystal clear: do nothing to help the bastards until they right the wrong. I already have lawful excuse to withhold my taxes and have picked on one (smallish) outstanding debt to take them to the wire with. The law says a man can have as many defences as he deems necessary in court. I have around seven. But the one that makes me bullet-proof is LR.
What is needed here-to force change-is massive numbers of sovereigns all saying "No". Once a tipping-point is reached, change is inevitable. The Egyptians and the Tunisians showed us that. What they have coming next is anybodies guess, but the one thing no-one can take away from them-not ever-is that they made the bad men go away.
We need to make the bad men get their shit together. We need to rebuild long before we knock anything down. As long as people like me question the validity of the tax laws, people like me will go on questioning the validity of the tax laws.
One of us will blink. Eventually.
But it won't be me.
English Viking, yes, we're on a similar wavelength now, though I'd still be reluctant to take violent action except in response to violence (taxes as a form of violence is getting a bit into angels on pinheads territory - I can see the argument but I'm not sure it justifies violent retaliation). It might be that the only difference is that I'd probably have stayed in the UK if my wife had been willing to, and if the UK had turned into what Tony and Gordon made it she might have been prepared to stay. She'd be the first to concede that Australia is no utopia - it's an over taxed, over regulated nanny state where many things are over priced, some of which you'd think ought to be very, very cheap. But all of that applies to the UK, usually to a greater extent. Other things come out about even, no chavs but bogans instead, good weather (okay, not lately) vs a large number of animals and plants that want us to die screaming in agony. Overall it's not paradise, it's just better than where we were. But that was never the main reason I came anyway. Mrs Exile was. In the time I've been away it's become EuroZone Atlantic West Two or some such bollocks so even if Australia hadn't felt like home it would have become so by default. I'd like to think that at least can be reversed.
Cap'n, I think I'm getting you now. A thought's just occurred to me. Two in fact. First, if income tax was an emergency measure in fucking 1800 or something then the bloody Egyptians have shown us something by kicking off after a fraction of that time. Second, if Mubarak is looking for a job I'd suggest that of Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - if he can fuck off enough Egyptians to provoke a mass anti-government move then maybe he'd be as dickish in the UK and people would do the same.
I'm intrigued by the notion that contracts require full disclosure.
I thought the core of your case is that you are bound by the common law, if that is so you are bound by the limits the common law has set to the duty to give disclosure when entering into a contract. Very few types of contract require full disclosure at common law.
An interesting comment on Mark's blog, but not taken-up was ...
"I've just taken a look at my property title and cheque book. Both are in christian name and surname. Not a "Mr" in sight. This must be for a reason which may strengthen the good captains argument"
It might be worth looking at this. Certainly my British chequebook says "J A MXXXXX ESQ".
All in capital letters, but no Mr.
I do not own property in the UK and so I cannot confirm Newt's property title findings.
If the Council tax bill was addressed to Mr JOHN MXXXXX (the legal fiction) would the court be able to gain access to the bank account of J A MXXXXX ESQ ?
Are they different 'people' (usuing 'people' in the general sense)
The thing that is really starting to bother me about all these issues is this. Has there ever been a golden time where parliament / the monarch ever looked out for our best interests? It seems to me that it's always been they choose what's best for them. We all hark on about the freeman
Movement and how we should just say no and take the power back, (reinstall the trilateral decision making we used to have, funny that one isn't it, we get rid of trilateral politics while the trilat commission takes ovef the world) but really this is just a means to an end.
We need radical unimaginable change beyond our comprehension. We need ascension.
Go and listen to 4 archives on talkshoe;
You need episodes 7,8,9, and 10 a few hours listening but it will enlighten you on a few things.
For your interest why do we claim the "NAME" when it is the property of the STATE, our birth certificate tells us that is so, it is Government copyright and is not to be used for identification purposes.
Go listen everyone I think you will find it very interesting.
In fact, I feel bound only by natural law.
"Do no harm" is all the law I need.
A huge chunk of my working week involves dealing with Company Law and the Contracts we issue, so full disclosure is uppermost in my mind.
Offhand, I am not certain just how many common law contracts I have signed. I will return to this point when my memory is refreshed though.
If I have a problem with the Freemen, it is this:
Some go out and buy a 60" plasma on the never-never, or run up huge credit card debt and then, when they end up in the kaka, they turn to us for help.
Let me be clear: I am conscious of the fact that every time I use a credit card, I have to repay the money. If I make a big purchase from a company, I need to pay for that item. When I open (and use) a bank account, I am aware that if I do not curb my spending, I will end up in debt.
In short, I have no beef with my private contracts (unless they are obviously fraudulent) and I honour them all. I keep my side of the bargain.
I have issues with the government. It is those "contracts" I want to find a remedy for. Just lately, it seems that everything we ever do (or did) for the government involves an actual, or invisible contract in which they did not disclose all of the ramifications.
The worst of these seems to be that damned "social contract". From where I'm sitting, this particular contract opens us all up to pretty much anything the government wants to put in place.
To answer your question, you might want to get a definition of "esquire".
Banks get access to private bank accounts all the time. Ask any victim of the CSA or someone who did not or would not pay a fine.
They call it garnishing, I believe.
I'll go and listen.
Will report back when I have.
And yes, our NAME belongs to the govt. That may be why we only get a copy of our birth certs. Although some do say that the reason is because the original is entered into a book. (A manifest? An accounting of the Live Stock?).
Can of worms, eh?
Is not everything pre-paid due to the terms of the bankruptcy in 1933 or thereabouts? The Corporation did go bankrupt around 33 right?
Radical, unimaginable change would be stupendous. Some say that will happen at 11am on 21/12/12.
I hope so.
We can't even get 1 million of us to say no, firmly but politely to our overlords.
That radical change is out of sight at the moment.
Got some crawling, then walking, to do before we are ready for that.
Okay Capt hope you enjoy the talkshoe, I certainly found it food for thought, and I will be interested to see what you think about the subject when you have heard them all.
I have heard about it, I have blogged about it, and yet my search for this near-mythical pre-payment account (as logical as it sounds) does not appear to exist.
1933 was when we came off the Gold Standard and moved onto fiat currency. Proof of the UK's bankruptcy is also hard to find.
Unless you have the proof? If the sources are reliable (I need at least three) I will publish whatever you have on it.
Sorry cannot remember the links and I do not back up as well as I should, who does, but Income Tax cannot legally be enforced for more than 365 days.
Now you would think that an omnipotent Parliament would simply enact a new statute to put an end to the annual farce but crucially IT doesn't.
You have to ask why.
I don't have the answer but it makes the 'making the new laws at will' argument null and void.
Income tax is not LAWFUL. Indeed as far as I can see no form of taxation is lawful. When anything legal is created there has to be a remedy created at the same time. The bastards use legalese to hide the remedies in plain site.
The truth is whatever is made by man can be unmade by man be it statute, code and religions.
My reading of the UCC suggests, I have yet to figure it all out so it can only be a 'work in progress', that it actually prohibits companies from entering into contract with any other entity EXCEPT another company.
If anyone can contradict this assessment please do.
If my assessment is correct then the only logical answer is my registered name IS my company.
What would really help though is asking someone without a registered name aka birth certificate number/national insurance number how they get on in the statute world. It surprises me that none have found there way to any blogs, sites or forums... yet.
I should say the name registered on my behalf and attached to me by other human beings not 'MY' name.
Ranty my place now for link to TNS they are broadcasting rodger hayes court case today
Rodger has basically put the court on its beam ends and it was recorded by someone....????
it is supposed to be played tonight on TNS radio the judge was threatened with arrest, the police were called by us the witnesses the whole place was in uproar, you need to be on this if you can m8 seriously rodger is giving them all sorts of problems.
Just heard it. He agreed to pay the full amount in 14 days and thanked the judge for his time
Another triumph for the freemen on the land.
Has anyone got a link to the tns broadcast???
What you seem to have missed is that the court (if it actually can be called that) has been fought to a standstill and the judge (if he actually is one) has agreed in principle that the council paperwork may have been issued by an illegal and/or unlawful court
Roger ends up dictating the terms to the judge!(or didn't you notice that bit?)
This IS a victory for the freeman, indeed for every man/woman for the 'court' has had to admit that there may well be an issue with whether the council's 'issuing court' is a court at all.
Wake up and smell the roses m8! victories at this stage and level are about points of law being established they may appear small to you or even non existent but nonetheless they are still there, has he been bankrupted...no, has he as yet paid them anything..no, has he established that this 'court' will not abide by its own rules in proving its jurisdiction...yes!,Has a sitting judge found himself to be uncomfortably close to having his 'collar' felt...yes!,
So let us not judge too soon the value of the day, this after all is but a skirmish in a much longer war!
Also, it is easy enough for you to sit back and deprecate the actions of others in their fight for their own and eventually 'your' rights, what are you doing towards such ends...don't bother to answer that it was a rhetorical question.
I tried to listen to the TNS broadcast but I couldn't make it work.
Thanks for updating us Suedenimon.
have you got the link ranty man?
Follow the TNS link in Sued's story.
Capt admire your courage taking on the establishment shows real grit and determination. with me not being the brightest spanner in the box I am trying to get my head round all the information that you post.
"I am trying to get my head round all the information that you post." - Jacobite
So am I mate!
It is contradiction wrapped in rumour surrounded by duplicity.
It can be a tough maze to get through.
The thing is that "money" is the property of the creditor, which is the Bank of England, so the invisible contract in using the "money" means that there is a lien associated with everything purchased with that "money". Income tax is a part of that contract for the creditor allowing you to use their debt notes. In which case you cannot own anything in the true sense of the word.Your house is not your house even if you've paid the mortgage off. You are a debtor whether you are a freeman or a slave unless you are self sufficient and have no use for money, not many people fall into that category I'll bet. In the meantime I'm happy to play the games and use their rules to my advantage, I sent out the affidavits and refer to myself as a freeman but you can't be truly free until the a government does its proper job and issues the currency of the land, provides a small army to protect these lands and very little else - someday maybe? Dream on!
I don't see how money is related to income tax.
How did it work before income tax was collected?
Each £ in circulation owes money. The BoE do not produce the stuff for free. They add between 3%-5% interest to every pound. So before it hits the street it is already a "debt" note.
That's the point. What you think of as "money" is a debt owed to the bank of england. Every pound in circulation was borrowed into existance. The deal is The bank lends money to the government at interest and the income tax goes towards paying the interest.
Since only the capital is lent into existence there is no way to pay the debt back ever. Income tax is not collected to pay for public services it is collected to service the debt.
If the government issued debt free money then there would be no need for income tax.
Ah. I see.
So we ARE on the same page!
You summed it up better than I did.
it is here if you want it people
You have misunderstood what I was asking.
Is JOHN MXXXXX ESQ = Mr JOHN MXXXXX ?
I do not need to avoid paying my council tax in the UK. I do not pay it because I do not live there. I live in France and pay my Local and National taxes here.
Oh, then the answer is yes. Please forgive my misunderstandingment. Blame the vin rouge.
They probably play a similar game in France too. Most first world countries do this.
Post a Comment