tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post1178501449755189316..comments2023-09-10T16:35:32.651+01:00Comments on Captain Ranty-Lawful Rebel: Cat Leaves BagCaptain Rantyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-83934252779055486912012-02-11T16:45:05.441+00:002012-02-11T16:45:05.441+00:00Hey guys! Could someone please give me a reference...Hey guys! Could someone please give me a reference a solid reference for a valid contract.<br /><br />1. Offer and Acceptance<br />2. Equal consideration<br />3. Full disclosure<br />4. Two wet signatures (exceptions to this are electronic signatures & verbal contracts)<br />5. Legality<br /><br />I'm creating an affidavit and need a solid indisputable source for this. Please shoot me an email at classicalgoodness at hotmail dot com.<br /><br />Thank you to whomever can help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-2876177337058493332011-05-24T17:47:20.938+01:002011-05-24T17:47:20.938+01:00Anon,
Wing it to me here:
captainranty at btinte...Anon,<br /><br />Wing it to me here:<br /><br />captainranty at btinternet dot com<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-33115856521351149972011-05-24T17:35:11.624+01:002011-05-24T17:35:11.624+01:00I have found a legal opinion on Council Tax enforc...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 !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-91557124935907251012011-02-27T00:13:40.399+00:002011-02-27T00:13:40.399+00:00Anon,
I haven't asked my local council for a ...Anon,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-76524884961207644932011-02-26T19:28:39.068+00:002011-02-26T19:28:39.068+00:00Not wishing to pee on your bonfire and congratulat...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...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-83712471883457357602011-02-24T09:33:46.730+00:002011-02-24T09:33:46.730+00:00Some terrific comments on this post and I thank ea...Some terrific comments on this post and I thank each and every one of you for your thoughts.<br /><br />JJ,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Of course, they will bully and coerce. Stand your ground.<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-50977921703324685022011-02-23T22:58:05.971+00:002011-02-23T22:58:05.971+00:00How could this be applied to the smoking ban?How could this be applied to the smoking ban?JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05239651363530826401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-343647713078630942011-02-21T17:05:01.898+00:002011-02-21T17:05:01.898+00:00CR: Great post! Such an interesting topic. I'v...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. <br />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<br /> ~Disclaimer~<br />Just rantings and thoughts for entertainment only. Not LEGAL advice.<br /><br />Keep up the great work!!<br />Thankyou<br />HighFidelityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-9007576640699631312011-02-09T14:20:12.022+00:002011-02-09T14:20:12.022+00:00Hello, Captain,
I have been folowing your adventu...Hello, Captain,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Kepp it up!Dr Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00176521760477086914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-82801859765278445372011-02-09T00:36:20.124+00:002011-02-09T00:36:20.124+00:00"TPTB make no such oath. Neither do banks, cr..."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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />My MEP has also confirmed that he was not obliged to offer any oath of allegiance to take up his post.<br /><br />Who do these people work for and is there any honour and constitutional responsibility left in this world?<br /><br />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? HmmmJust Woke Upnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-25047665872605437132011-02-08T16:56:41.757+00:002011-02-08T16:56:41.757+00:00This comment is unrelated to your current blog sub...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.<br />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.<br />We have plenty money in UK, it’s just being steadily sucked up by the eu.<br />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. <br />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. <br />But rest assured, our glorious leaders will gallop to the rescue and trumpet the solution:<br />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)<br />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? <br />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.<br />Don’t believe me? Let’s wait a little while and see.<br />Yours in disgust,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-17804393556197793322011-02-08T12:26:56.283+00:002011-02-08T12:26:56.283+00:00If only this all turns out to be true, as a human ...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-26054758949986647922011-02-08T11:24:12.315+00:002011-02-08T11:24:12.315+00:00Dad provides an interesting link. The FOI request ...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.<br /><br />If you <b>keep or use a vehicle,</b> it is a <b>legal requirement</b> that it is registered to <b>you</b><br /><br />The <b>law</b> requires <b>keepers</b> to notify DVLA as they acquire and dispose of vehicles and Vehicle Registration Certificates (V5C) are issued to them to help this process. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />This statement also assumes that the keeper is always the owner and then...<br /><br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />And yet the people of Britain refuse to see what is going on right under their noses.Williamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-20427509710383443772011-02-08T11:07:47.243+00:002011-02-08T11:07:47.243+00:00Let's see what happens. It's one thing ask...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. <br /><br />This link has been started today and the progress will be updated. <br /><br />http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28410<br /><br />Thanks<br />DMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-13404444937507208152011-02-08T08:33:56.733+00:002011-02-08T08:33:56.733+00:00Re Anon 08:22
Many have tried, and failed.
http:...Re Anon 08:22<br /><br />Many have tried, and failed.<br /><br />http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/de_registering#incoming-113170DADhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07380616722854929936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-29979085190543413222011-02-08T08:22:14.039+00:002011-02-08T08:22:14.039+00:00Just seen a message from someone who is de-registe...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) <br /><br />The person is putting up their details later on TPUC and I'll get the link. <br /><br />I dont know anyone whose done that before!<br /><br />DMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-2619317658892858972011-02-08T00:17:47.014+00:002011-02-08T00:17:47.014+00:00Can precedents be set in county courts???
i think...Can precedents be set in county courts???<br /><br />i think only high courts can???mescalitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04207493196035132323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-45449935244471152492011-02-07T23:08:45.838+00:002011-02-07T23:08:45.838+00:00"all property of any kind gained by them thro..."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?"<br /><br />good point!<br /><br />I guess it comes down to the definition of property ownership (and resolution of disputes) before constructs were made.not surenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-56800201336095049492011-02-07T21:57:21.872+00:002011-02-07T21:57:21.872+00:00Captain,
not sure said @17:46 I'm not sure th...Captain,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Oh, and a few others.......NewsboyCapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-37784636558257869732011-02-07T21:05:55.430+00:002011-02-07T21:05:55.430+00:00Bloody marvellous, Captain! Facebooked!Bloody marvellous, Captain! Facebooked!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-85856898233403320272011-02-07T17:58:42.516+00:002011-02-07T17:58:42.516+00:00Surely the entire world of the construct's con...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?<br /><br />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....<br /><br />my head hurts now, thanks Captain!nominedeushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06880828700080164569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-74466329995464686192011-02-07T17:46:52.064+00:002011-02-07T17:46:52.064+00:00"I just haven't figured it all out yet!&q..."I just haven't figured it all out yet!"<br /><br />Always nice to see honesty nowadays rather than entrenched argument!<br /><br />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!not surenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-7619113614575516712011-02-07T17:17:31.476+00:002011-02-07T17:17:31.476+00:00(Click image for embigulation).
Embigulation, lov...(Click image for embigulation).<br /><br />Embigulation, love it, I First saw this word in my all time fave simpsons sketch, the genesis tub :<br /><br />SUPERB news by the way, we all need to find this precedent and USE IT!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-71573910883233921762011-02-07T16:04:02.071+00:002011-02-07T16:04:02.071+00:00SNS,
Yes, I see what you mean.
It is an agreemen...SNS,<br /><br />Yes, I see what you mean.<br /><br />It is an agreement between the state and our construct. It cannot be otherwise. It is their only way of engaging with us.<br /><br />The human cannot enter into a contract. It has to be via the construct.<br /><br />There are such things as "invisible contracts", I wonder if this falls into that bracket?<br /><br />All I know for sure is that this construct of ours can be manipulated now. We can use it to our advantage, not theirs. <br /><br />I just haven't figured it all out yet!<br /><br />CR.Captain Rantyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07839241144954596066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3271194216217582823.post-12544049866409431162011-02-07T15:53:18.501+00:002011-02-07T15:53:18.501+00:00I think I can see where you're coming from her...I think I can see where you're coming from here:<br />"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)"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.still not sure...noreply@blogger.com