Opinions ranged from "WOW!" to "Bollocks!". Having thought about little else for a few days, I reckon we should think about the ways this new information could help (or hinder) us.
First, just so that you know how popular the article was, here is a snapshot taken a few minutes ago, of visitor numbers:
(Click image to embiggen).
I'd like to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to read it. I especially thank those who took the time to leave intelligent and thoughtful comments. I should also like to thank those mighty and not so mighty blogs that linked to the piece. In no particular order they were: Holby, Leggy, Dick P, GV at Calling England, Autonomous Mind, Max Farquar, The Unhived Mind, Alternativeaction Blog, Nominedeus, and half a dozen other forums that sent readers to this blog. I will long remember those twin towers up there, so thanks again to all.
Second, a quote, from Rothchild agent Colonel Edward House, which I have interfered with, slightly. I have changed "American" to "Briton", "America" to "Britain", and "President" to "Prime Minister". Believe me when I say we are treated exactly the same, both sides of the pond. A portion of their taxes go to the Crown, just like ours do. One source for that information can be found here. (Scroll about halfway down the page).
"[Very] soon, every Briton will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.
By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every Briton will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.
They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Britons, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every Briton a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance."
Without realizing it, every Briton will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every Briton will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the Prime Minister of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against Britain."
Third, let's examine what we know from Roger's article.
He went to court for non-payment of his council tax. He argued that he was not liable for the payment, but that his all-capitals legal fiction was. The judge arsed around for a bit and then agreed that Roger could act as representative for his legal fiction. This is historic because no other judge has admitted to the existence of such a thing. It stands to reason, does it not, that if Roger can represent MR ROGER HAYES, then MR ROGER HAYES exists. It cannot be otherwise. The judge then hurled this at the council lawyer and said, "You sort it out". I have stated several times, on several blogs, that if the council lawyer has two functioning brain cells, he will run away, and keep running. I genuinely expect one of two things will happen: a) Roger will receive a letter saying that he does not owe the money, or b) he will never hear another word about it. (In our experience, b is more likely).
However, the feline has left the enclosure, and now we need to think about ways in which to use this to our advantage. It isn't black and white so it deserves some decent brains to work out how, why, and when we can use our legal fiction to take bullets for us, the humans shackled (involuntarily) to this commercial device.
Should we feel guilty if ever we do use this as a defence against unfair/illegal taxes or unfair/illegal fines? Sure. But only when someone gives me credible evidence that all governments feel guilty about loading up those taxes purely because they couldn't/wouldn't stop borrowing money or that they felt bad about stealing our money (yes, you, if you were one of the 392 MPs that had your face buried in the expenses trough), or that Blair and Brown (in particular) feel guilty about condemning our grandchildren to a lifetime of paying back debt because they screwed up the finances. Or that Blair feels guilty about taking us to war, and charging us via taxation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Or that Brown feels guilty about first telling the world he is dumping our gold, and once the price had crashed, continued to do what he said. This one idiot cost our country billions.
Up and down the nation we are being ripped off. Chief Executives of our councils are earning double what we pay our prime minister. Now that iDave has introduced some
So no, I will not feel guilty cutting out some of my expenses. I will use this ruling (if it turns into one, or even if it doesn't) to my advantage.
Next up: the confusion such a ruling brings.
In the comments of "Cat Leaves Bag", brighter visitors asked "If your house is mortgaged in the fictions' name, whose exactly is it?". A great question and I don't know the answer. If we imagine for a minute that all home-owners charge down to their local county court and say "I am not my fiction. I am Joe: of the Bloggs family, I want to know if I own my home", then maybe the powers that seek to be will have to do something. Similarly, if a significant number of taxpayers say "Hold the bus! I am not paying tax anymore. You stitched me up and chained me to a legal fiction", what can the government say, or do about it? The only thing they can do is confess. They will be forced to tell us what we already know: that we ARE attached, forever, to a legal fiction because that is the only way we humans can act in commerce. We all HAVE to be corporations. That is how they fool us in court, and that is how they control us absolutely.
As we have learnt on this very blog, we are slaves. We are indentured to the Crown, and in turn, the Crown is owned by the Vatican, thanks to Unam Sanctum, that papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. The pope said that (on behalf of God), the Roman Catholic Church owned 'every living thing' on earth. And, as we have also learnt here, the old maxim applies: "He that does not disagree, agrees". Back in 1302, no-one disagreed. (Learn more about that papal bull here)
Let me know what you think. My little brain hurts.
This is like wishing for a superpower and then waking up one morning to discover that you possess one.
What the hell to do with it? That is the question of the day.
Lastly, for newcomers to the blog, I entered Lawful Rebellion on 15th July 2009. I revoked my allegiance to HM Queen and swore allegiance instead to the Barons Committee that formed in 2001. In short, my being in Lawful Rebellion means that I have no monarch, I have no government, I do not have to obey any statutes. Moreover, I am obliged to "distress and distrain" the monarch and her government until the wrongs are righted. (You can read my instructions up above, in the banner). I delight in doing so, but I am saddened that I have to do this duty. This new ruling is a useful weapon to add to my growing arsenal of defences should I ever end up in the kaka, but it is something very powerful for everyone to use, should they so choose.
Over to you.