The Freeman Movement and England

[geni]

England had kings but they were all elected. They were not tax gathering slaves to the Papacy. And they were not the sovereignty of the nation. The people were.

Who elected Athelstan?
I don't recall Edward the Confessor exactly falling out with Rome.

[Agatha]

Slightly longer. Common law dates from 1066. Kings of england date to around 924.
That's right, according to Especially, Æthelstan was elected in 924.

[geni]

Agatha (and I hope you don't mind me calling you this ?),

I did NOT say all Englands kings were elected. In fact, I said the very opposite. I said that the head of the state in which we are living is an UNELECTED DYNASTY. (As you can clearly see on this thread).

Secondly, I said the early kings included those who were elected. And I gave you an example in King Saul.

Who probably didn't exist. You want elected kings well there's the pope of course and the poles tried a version of it.

[tsig]

Judge Dredd?

The Law West of the Pecos.

Good story, bad way to plan society.

" According to the myth, Roy Bean named his saloon and town after the love of his life, Lily Langtry, a British actress he'd never met. Calling himself the "Law West of the Pecos," he is reputed to have kept a pet bear in his courtroom (see photo of courtroom above) and sentenced dozens to the gallows, saying "Hang 'em first, try 'em later." Like most such legends, separating fact from fiction is not always so easy. "



http://www.qsl.net/w5www/roybean.html

[geni]

Agreed. It would be like Monty Python was back....

Not really. Such cases tend to be rather predictable outside of death penalty cases. Defendent is disruptive. Judge uses the various powers they have to deal with the problem of a disruptive defendent. Ruleing made against the defendent.

[Agatha]

To be fair to Especially, King John (Lackland) was elected in a sense, in that after Richard I's death, Arthur of Brittanny (who was the next heir) was passed over due to being a child. A council of noblemen chose John. However, given that John was Richard's brother, it wasn't what we would understand by an election.

A similar thing happened (and for the same reason) on the death of Richard II. Henry IV, who had defeated Richard, was chosen over the (minor) heir to Richard's throne.

However, these are post-1066.

[Mojo]

There is no lawful constitution of a state unless the good people of the nation are recognised to be the source of its sovereignty. As for 'absolute monarchies' and dynasties coming from them those silly errors do not need to be revisited in the history of governments.


I see you have added a bit to that since I originally replied to it.

Since there have indubitably been absolute monarchies there is more than one answer to your question, and it depends on the system of government of the country in question.

[geni]

To be fair to Especially, King John (Lackland) was elected in a sense, in that after Richard I's death, Arthur of Brittanny (who was the next heir) was passed over due to being a child. A council of noblemen chose John. However, given that John was Richard's brother, it wasn't what we would understand by an election.

A similar thing happened (and for the same reason) on the death of Richard II. Henry IV, who had defeated Richard, was chosen over the (minor) heir to Richard's throne.

However, these are post-1066.


Or more recently James II was thrown out by parliment as was Charles I. But aparently the laws passed by there parliments are not legit or something.

[dudalb]

Or more recently James II was thrown out by parliment as was Charles I. But aparently the laws passed by there parliments are not legit or something.

They did a LOT more to Charles the I then simply remove him from the throne.......

[Agatha]

They did a LOT more to Charles the I then simply remove him from the throne....... Just a scratch*, a bit of playful banter between friends. ;)

James II & VII was deposed and Parliament chose William-and-Mary, so again in a sense they were elected but not as we would understand an election.

After Charles I we had no monarchy until the restoration. But neither Cromwell or Charles II were elected.


*Obligatory Monty Python reference

[geni]

They did a LOT more to Charles the I then simply remove him from the throne.......

The cout did the rest. Heh Charle's arguments against the court have quite a bit in common with Especially's claims. I don't think they worked for him.

[Ysidro]

Yes, and the unelected monarchy of England invaded the USA and killed lots of Americans. It happened in the War of Independence. Did you forget that ? And who opposed the great USA and its Constitution ? Why, the elite monarchy of England !!

England had kings but they were all elected. They were not tax gathering slaves to the Papacy. And they were not the sovereignty of the nation. The people were.

Big differences, yes ?

Wait... WHUT? England invaded the U.S.A. and violated it's constitution during the War of Independence? Really?

I guess you don't realize that there wasn't a United States of America or a constitution for it until years after the war. The war that is also known as "The Revolution" over here in the states. Because that's what it was. A bunch of english colonists fighting then legitimate forces due to perceived injustice. We won and formed a pretty kick-ass country, but it didn't exist until AFTER the war. There was no "invasion", unless you count the colonial powers pushing back native american tribes. But those folks weren't the USA either.

And on top of that, you think every English king before 1066 was ELECTED?

Please, someone tell me this is just a cunning troll and not someone who has no sense of history! Please! Call it a poe, someone!

[Agatha]

Wait... WHUT? England invaded the U.S.A. and violated it's constitution during the War of Independence? Really?

I guess you don't realize that there wasn't a United States of America or a constitution for it until years after the war. The war that is also known as "The Revolution" over here in the states. Because that's what it was. A bunch of english colonists fighting then legitimate forces due to perceived injustice. We won and formed a pretty kick-ass country, but it didn't exist until AFTER the war. There was no "invasion", unless you count the colonial powers pushing back native american tribes. But those folks weren't the USA either.

And on top of that, you think every English king before 1066 was ELECTED?

Please, someone tell me this is just a cunning troll and not someone who has no sense of history! Please! Call it a poe, someone! Also, someone who seems to find it difficult to distinguish England from the UK.

I'm waiting for him to come back and explain about this judge.

[fromdownunder]

When you are sent your Council Tax bill from a council are you aware the Council itself is a registered corporation ? Are you aware they NEVER tell you exactly what goods and services they are offering you in the first place ? Now, what sort of contract is it they are they offering you ? Exactly ? You never ask them. So they chase you and take you to their place of business.



I do not know how Councils in England work, but where I live I can, if I ask, get Annual Reports from my local council which contains completely audited records of all income and expenditure, including details of what the money was spent on, plus narratives and pretty pictures of major projects and improvements made over the past year. I can also attend council meetings as a ratepayer if I wish, and lobby my elected counciller, who will plead my case if it makes sense.

Federal and State governments are the same, if you are not too lazy to read the budget papers, or contact your local and Federal member.

Of course, if you are not registered to vote, you should not avail yourself of these services.

Norm

[Suddenly]

Common Law is that law binding on a nation from time immemorial which is recognised even by the states and the rulers who today govern it. Judges are involved in establishing Common Law in case after case, so that its power is a matter of plain and documented record. But Common Law is NOT made by judges. Nor is it made by politicians. It is merely confirmed by them and is recorded as having been confirmed by them. So that through these documented examples we can see that it is being observed and respected in our nation.

Regards

See what I mean?

Hmm...maybe I could adapt this FOTL thing to the marriage contract. I have a common law right, since time immemorial, to drink beer while avoiding the dishes! I, D'rok the freeman, have spoken my truth!

(I'll let you know how that works out).

Now you've got it!!! Next step is to find old court cases and such and cobble together totally out of context passages to support your position.

After that, a website where you apply virtually every visual emphesis DEVICE there is to show you are telling the real truth and that people need to listen because you are really serious.

[dudalb]

Just a scratch*, a bit of playful banter between friends. ;)

James II & VII was deposed and Parliament chose William-and-Mary, so again in a sense they were elected but not as we would understand an election.

After Charles I we had no monarchy until the restoration. But neither Cromwell or Charles II were elected.


*Obligatory Monty Python reference

Ever hear Monty Python's song about Oliver Cromwell?
Great stuff.

[Elizabeth I]

A generation ago nobody could have predicted such a generation of couch potatoes could possibly exist. And you voted it in. And you will do it again. Don't you just love governments who make you bailout the entire system ?

I'm pretty sure couch potatoes don't get elected, they just kind of sit around until they turn out that way.

The head of state IS an unelected dynasty, yes?

Wow, Queen Elizabeth is a whole dynasty all by herself? Perhaps you could take some of that money you're going to save by not paying your taxes and usage fees and buy a dictionary.

For your sake, I hope you never find yourself in front of a judge.

I'd pay to read the transcripts...

I'd like the franchise to sell tickets to the trial.

[Lucian]

To be fair to Especially, King John (Lackland) was elected in a sense, in that after Richard I's death, Arthur of Brittanny (who was the next heir) was passed over due to being a child. A council of noblemen chose John. However, given that John was Richard's brother, it wasn't what we would understand by an election.

A similar thing happened (and for the same reason) on the death of Richard II. Henry IV, who had defeated Richard, was chosen over the (minor) heir to Richard's throne.

However, these are post-1066.

My guess is that he is referring to the power of the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot (or Witan, the king's advisory council) to ceosan to cyninge (choose [someone] as king). Mind you, they couldn't choose Eadwacer the butcher because everyone liked him and he was a great guy. It pretty much had to be a member of the royal family. Some historians suggest that this power was rather ceremonial and that the Witan only really had the ability to confirm whoever was next according to primogeniture or whoever the dead king had chosen. Regardless, these kings were hardly elected democratically. Nor was the Witan elected democratically: it was full of temporal and ecclesiastic elites (and those ecclesiastic elites would have been Papists, of course, as Protestants would not be invented for centuries).

For more on the Witan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witan

[RHolmes]

Especially,

"Legalese" is a slang word for technical legal terms. End of story - no shadowy conspiracy to obfuscate. And really - you need to look at what The Law Society does if you think that it invented these technical terms. FOTLer ideas about The Law Society are so wrong it's hilarious.

Many disciplines use technical terms, e.g. medics, physicists, engineers. These terms are not created to confuse; they are useful as a shorthand for those within the discipline. Even FOTLers have their own language: "common law" (which doesn't mean what it means to anyone else), "NOUICOR", the term "freeman on the land" itself. Are these meant to exclude and confuse non-FOTLers, or are they just a useful shorthand?

The use of the word "legalese" can even be seen as a playful bit of self-deprecation on the part of lawyers, who chide themselves for using technical terms instead of making the effort to explain things in everyday language. There is actually a fairly stong movement within the legal community for plain English to be used as much as possible, both in statutes and in dealing with the public. There are good reasons for making the law as understandable and accessible as possible. And on that - I imagine - we'll agree.

[RHolmes]

Mind you, they couldn't choose Eadwacer the butcher because everyone liked him and he was a great guy. It pretty much had to be a member of the royal family.

In a former life, I ran a sterling election campaign for Eadwacer. I masterfully covered over that incident with Beaudurinc the miller's daughters and we were miles ahead in the polls just two days before the election. I was gutted when that Aethelred got in. I always felt he was unready for the job and history has vindicated me.

[Ambrosia]

In a former life, I ran a sterling election campaign for Eadwacer.

People have always tried to buy power I guess.

240 pieces of silver bought you how much back then?

[RHolmes]

Reincarnation. :)

[Especially]

I get an extra chuckle out of this UK brand of FOTL woo. Elevating the common law to the supreme law of the land really just means that the unelected judiciary is supreme. Who makes common law? Judges. Who does judicial review? Judges. Who appoints judges in the UK? The Queen on the advice of the PM. Some freedom!


What are you talking about ? A Constitution should be made by the people themselves. Not by elected politicians or lawyers or judges. That's fact number 1. Judges do not write the Common Law. They merely review it and adhere to it.

Forget the queen. We are talking here about national soverignty. And it's with the PEOPLE.

Is this so difficult to understand ?

[Especially]

Especially,

"Legalese" is a slang word for technical legal terms. End of story - no shadowy conspiracy to obfuscate. And really - you need to look at what The Law Society does if you think that it invented these technical terms. FOTLer ideas about The Law Society are so wrong it's hilarious.

Many disciplines use technical terms, e.g. medics, physicists, engineers. These terms are not created to confuse; they are useful as a shorthand for those within the discipline. Even FOTLers have their own language: "common law" (which doesn't mean what it means to anyone else), "NOUICOR", the term "freeman on the land" itself. Are these meant to exclude and confuse non-FOTLers, or are they just a useful shorthand?

The use of the word "legalese" can even be seen as a playful bit of self-deprecation on the part of lawyers, who chide themselves for using technical terms instead of making the effort to explain things in everyday language. There is actually a fairly stong movement within the legal community for plain English to be used as much as possible, both in statutes and in dealing with the public. There are good reasons for making the law as understandable and accessible as possible. And on that - I imagine - we'll agree.

With respect, the legalese used by the Law Society is a tin of verbal spaghetti. Let the public read for themselves the 'Black's Law Dictionary' and they will see just how devious, how misleading, ordinary words become in the legal industry. It's a theatre. The real sovereignty of the people is with themselves under the Common Law and they do NOT want to be under Commercial Law in their courts on issues where they have NOT consented to statutes.

Take a simple example, the word 'Understand'. In Legalese you must understand this means you 'stand under'. That you 'give way to'. But in ordinary English it means very differently. If you are asked if you 'understand' and you say 'yes' this means you are voluntarily consenting to be under the authority of that system. THIS IS DEVIOUS. The same is true of the police these days. Those revenue offficers. The legal profession is a bunch of money grabbing sharks.

The plain fact is our courts here in the UK are run as commercial corporations and sit under Admiralty (commercial law). Why don't people know this ?

The Common Law of England is not the commercial law of courts - it's the LAW OF ENGLAND ! It is superior to the courts of commerce run by the Law Society. And every honest lawyer and judge knows it.

It's the job of the public to teach you people in the legal industry what the LAW ACTUALLY IS. To warn people everywhere they should know our courts are run not on the law of the land but on COMMERCIAL LAW. Appeal should always be made in such matters to the Common Law of England and the fact that CONSENT is required for each and every Statute made by our parliament.

[Caustic Logic]

Take a simple example, the word 'Understand'. In Legalese this means you stand under. That you give way to. But in English it means very differently. If you are asked if you 'understand' and you say 'yes' this means you are under the authority of that system. THIS IS DEVIOUS.

Fascinating. Can you explain this point in a little more detail? How did you learn of these definitions and how can you illustrate them? Are you under the system upon answering "yes" to "do you understand?" no matter what it is they're asking if you understand? And what happens if you escape their control by sticking to the code? The judge has to honor it, since it's law, right? Sorry, you probably already covered these points, but for the stragglers, huh?

[Lothian]

What is your point with all this. Are you suggesting that people can ignore any written law and escape prosecution by saying that they refuse to consent to be judged. I just don't see where this is going.

[Especially]

Especially,

"Legalese" is a slang word for technical legal terms. End of story - no shadowy conspiracy to obfuscate. And really - you need to look at what The Law Society does if you think that it invented these technical terms. FOTLer ideas about The Law Society are so wrong it's hilarious.

Many disciplines use technical terms, e.g. medics, physicists, engineers. These terms are not created to confuse; they are useful as a shorthand for those within the discipline. Even FOTLers have their own language: "common law" (which doesn't mean what it means to anyone else), "NOUICOR", the term "freeman on the land" itself. Are these meant to exclude and confuse non-FOTLers, or are they just a useful shorthand?

The use of the word "legalese" can even be seen as a playful bit of self-deprecation on the part of lawyers, who chide themselves for using technical terms instead of making the effort to explain things in everyday language. There is actually a fairly stong movement within the legal community for plain English to be used as much as possible, both in statutes and in dealing with the public. There are good reasons for making the law as understandable and accessible as possible. And on that - I imagine - we'll agree.

'Hilarious' ?

OK, let's see. The courts of our land are run by corporations. They operate under Commercial (Admiralty) law. You appear in the 'dock'. A nautical term. You are not being heard under the law of England but under international maritime law. You 'stand under' their authority unless you expressly say you wish to be heard under the law of the land, the Common Law of England.

Who is 'hilarious' ? A person has every right to refuse a commercial contract. He may or may not choose to CONSENT to it. Under the Common Law of England.

Now, correct me if you can. You guys have a real nerve. The legal industry is not operating according to the Common Law of England. It is operating according to the commercial law. Very, very, different.

[volatile]

Funniest thread for months! Thanks, Especially!

[volatile]

There are not enough laughing dogs in the world...

[Especially]

Fascinating. Can you explain this point in a little more detail? How did you learn of these definitions and how can you illustrate them? Are you under the system upon answering "yes" to "do you understand?" no matter what it is they're asking if you understand? And what happens if you escape their control by sticking to the code? The judge has to honor it, since it's law, right? Sorry, you probably already covered these points, but for the stragglers, huh?

Yes Sir,

You are being scammed, swindled, conned, deceived by the legal industry.

There are things you should be aware of. Basic things. One of them is that the law of the land is NOT the law being used in our courts. They are very, very different.

The courts use a system of COMMERCIAL LAW. Now commercial law is also called 'Admiralty Law'. The law of the sea. If you are not aware of this fact you can be and will be deceived. Because their system is deceptive.

May I suggest you obtain (or consult) a standard law dictionary. Take, for example, 'Black's Law Dictionary'. This contains the legalise (and it's not often that the general public see it). This legalise is a form of hiding the fact that the terms you and I use in ordinary life are changed in meaning in their courts. It's amazing stuff.

The word 'understand' is one such case. It means to 'stand under', 'to submit to' in their legalise system. And this is crucially important.

When you enter a court you must understand they are operating commercially. Under the Admiralty Law. If you do not understand this you will lose.

The law of the land is the Common Law and you, innocent person, are appearing in their place of business. Notice how impressive they look in their robes ? Notice how you are called to the 'dock' to testify ? These are admiralty law terms. And you must be aware of them.

Now, these courts have a process. They conduct hearings according to their own law, their 'commercial law'. Vital that you realise this. They do not operate according to the law of the land, the Common Law. I cannot stress this enough.

Therefore, when you appear before them the case will start and will be concluded UNLESS YOU SAY FROM THE START THAT YOU WISH YOUR CASE TO BE HEARD UNDER THE COMMON LAW. BECAUSE THE COMMON LAW, ON MATTERS SUCH AS TAX, BILLS, ETC. IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

A magistrate or judge who is told that he wants the case to be heard by the Common Law (the real law) will not like it. He will throw up his hands in disgust. He may accuse you of bringing the court into disrepute. He may even accuse you of bringing the court in to contempt etc. in extreme cases. Because his world is the world of Admiralty Law NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND, THE COMMON LAW.

You insist that you, under the common law, have a right to CONSENT OR NOT CONSENT to any commercial contract being forced on you. That you do NOT consent to the bill. That you are appealing to the Common Law. And are exercising your right NOT to pay the bill, BECAUSE YOU NEVER CONSENTED TO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Regards

[RHolmes]

Especially,

I just knew that you'd retort along the lines of "lawyer who disagrees with me = dishonest lawyer". I must be psychic. Of course, it isn't conceivable that your ideas are back-assward.

Keep splashing in the rockpools, kiddo.

[Lothian]

Especially, What is the point of this. Is the end point people should cite common law to escape taxes.

[Architect]

Especially

I'm puzzled. I don't see why you're here - you've failed to provide any solid evidence to back up your claims about your interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. You refuse to responds to points of technical clarification. You don't seem to understand the difference between the UK and England. You use occasional Americanisms not commonly used on this side of the pond.

Why are you here, if not to debate, and why are you pretending to be from the UK?

[Especially]

Especially,

I just knew that you'd retort along the lines of "lawyer who disagrees with me = dishonest lawyer". I must be psychic. Of course, it isn't conceivable that your ideas are back-assward.

Keep splashing in the rockpools, kiddo.

Then do me and this forum a great service.

Tell us plainly -

1. Does the Constitution of the USA require a man or a woman to pay an income tax ? Can you show me which LAW says so ?

2. Do you agree that the courts which sit in cases of bills are COMMERCIAL COURTS and operate according to Commercial (Admiralty) Law ?

Just answer me those two questions. Because one thing is sure. The lawyers are part of an industry and the LAW OF THE LAND says that every contract being offered must be CONSENTED to by both parties.

True or Not ?

Try teaching us how to suck eggs ?

[Lothian]

Then do me and this forum a great service.

Tell us plainly -

1. Does the Constitution of the USA require a man or a woman to pay an income tax ? Can you show me which LAW says so ?

2. Do you agree that the courts which sit in cases of bills are COMMERCIAL COURTS and operate according to Commercial (Admiralty) Law ?

Just answer me those two questions. Because one thing is sure. The lawyers are part of an industry and the LAW OF THE LAND says that every contract being offered must be CONSENTED to by both parties.

True or Not ?

Try teaching us how to suck eggs ?
Can you start a Freeman movement and America thread for that, perhaps starting with "Hello from Cook County Jail"

[Architect]

Then do me and this forum a great service.

Tell us plainly -

1. Does the Constitution of the USA require a man or a woman to pay an income tax ? Can you show me which LAW says so ?

2. Do you agree that the courts which sit in cases of bills are COMMERCIAL COURTS and operate according to Commercial (Admiralty) Law ?

Just answer me those two questions. Because one thing is sure. The lawyers are part of an industry and the LAW OF THE LAND says that every contract being offered must be CONSENTED to by both parties.

True or Not ?

Try teaching us how to suck eggs ?


This thread is about "England". Why do you keep refering to the USA?

[volatile]

Once I've "exercised" my "right" to be tried under common law, and once the Magistrate or judge laughs at me and then locks me up for contempt of court, to whom do I appeal? To whom is this judge, egregiously in breach of The Common Law, responsible? You keep talking about the "real" law of England. Fine, OK - let's say I believe you and it really is all playing out like you say it is. What next?

[Especially]

Especially

I'm puzzled. I don't see why you're here - you've failed to provide any solid evidence to back up your claims about your interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. You refuse to responds to points of technical clarification. You don't seem to understand the difference between the UK and England. You use occasional Americanisms not commonly used on this side of the pond.

Why are you here, if not to debate, and why are you pretending to be from the UK?


I am not surprised you are puzzled. I have produced lots of evidence. I have refered you to the law dictionaries, to the legalise of the commercial law courts, to the Constitution, to the fact that these courts do not operate according to the law of the land, but to commercial (Admiralty) law. Show me differently. But you cannot. Because it is true.

I am here in London. The time here is 11.37 am.

But it doesn't matter. You are the one who is presenting no evidence. I repeat that the Common Law, the law of the land, is what you must appeal to in court cases of tax, bills and commerce. NOT the law of those courts. Which is there to fleece you, to extort from you money for goods and services which you never asked for in the first place. And in common law the consent MUST be given.

If you don't like this thread, perhaps you can read another ? Because others like it and I am happy to share with you these FACTS of our courts.

The law is your friend. But not the law of the commercial courts. It's totally different.

[Architect]

Especially, whether you are currently resident in London is academic. I asked why you were pretending to be from the UK, and why you seemed unable to understand the important distinction - generally acknowledged on this side of the pond - between "England" and the "UK".

[Lothian]

I am not surprised you are puzzled. I have produced lots of evidence. I have refered you to the law dictionaries, to the legalise of the commercial law courts, to the Constitution, to the fact that these courts do not operate according to the law of the land, but to commercial (Admiralty) law. Show me differently. But you cannot. Because it is true.

I am here in London. The time here is 11.37 am.

But it doesn't matter. You are the one who is presenting no evidence. I repeat that the Common Law, the law of the land, is what you must appeal to in court cases of tax, bills and commerce. NOT the law of those courts. Which is there to fleece you, to extort from you money for goods and services which you never asked for in the first place. And in common law the consent MUST be given.

If you don't like this thread, perhaps you can read another ? Because others like it and I am happy to share with you these FACTS of our courts.

The law is your friend. But not the law of the commercial courts. It's totally different.A fact I would like you to share is the name of a court case where someone has escaped a fine in the UK using these arguments.

[Especially]

Once I've "exercised" my "right" to be tried under common law, and once the Magistrate or judge laughs at me and then locks me up for contempt of court, to whom do I appeal? To whom is this judge, egregiously in breach of The Common Law, responsible? You keep talking about the "real" law of England. Fine, OK - let's say I believe you and it really is all playing out like you say it is. What next?


But you are NOT in contempt of court. You are there to resolve the issue. You are there saying that a bill was issued to you for goods and services which you never asked for in the first place. You are there to explain that these goods and services were never quantified, that you do NOT consent to receiving them, and that the Law of England clearly says you may consent or not consent to receiving them. That you are perfectly within the law. And that you are not in contempt of court but are appealing to the Law of England, and NOT to the commercial law, the Admiralty Law.

This is why, from the very start of a case, you make it clear that you wish to be heard under the Law of England. That you do NOT consent to the bill and have every right, under the Common Law of England, NOT to consent to it.

Now, who is being lawful here ? You DO have a right to choose if someone is forcing a contract on you, don't you ? And if you have no right to choose, no right of consent, then, what sort of court is it ?

[Especially]

A fact I would like you to share is the name of a court case where someone has escaped a fine in the UK using these arguments.

What do you prefer ? To have consent or not to have consent ?

If you want bills for the rest of your life in which you have not asked for the goods and services in question then, under the law of England, you have a perfect right NOT to consent to their supply.

Why not go to websites such as FMOTL ? Or TPUC ?

Really, you should be aware that courts are part of an INDUSTRY. A commercial industry. They do NOT operate according to the Law of the Land. They operate under Admiralty Law. The law of the Sea. A very, very different system.

And yes, all over the country in the UK, people are exercising their lawful right NOT to contract with people for the supply of services they have not solicited in the first place.

[Lothian]

But you are NOT in contempt of court. You are there to resolve the issue. You are there saying that a bill was issued to you for goods and services which you never asked for in the first place. You are there to explain that these goods and services were never quantified, that you do NOT consent to receiving them, and that the Law of England clearly says you may consent or not consent to receiving them. That you are perfectly within the law. And that you are not in contempt of court but are appealing to the Law of England, and NOT to the commercial law, the Admiralty Law.

This is why, from the very start of a case, you make it clear that you wish to be heard under the Law of England. That you do NOT consent to the bill and have every right, under the Common Law of England, NOT to consent to it.

Now, who is being lawful here ? You DO have a right to choose if someone is forcing a contract on you, don't you ? And if you have no right to choose, no right of consent, then, what sort of court is it ?Please reference a case in the UK where a breach of statute law has been won by a defendant citing that statute law doesn't applay as they never consented.

[Caustic Logic]

This thread is about "England". Why do you keep refering to the USA?

He doesn't consent to the American Revolution! That was won under the terms of Admiralty (ie wartime) law, and hence nullified by lack of statutory volition... and such. Look it up!

[Especially]

Especially, whether you are currently resident in London is academic. I asked why you were pretending to be from the UK, and why you seemed unable to understand the important distinction - generally acknowledged on this side of the pond - between "England" and the "UK".

And I am asking you to agree that the courts are run according to commercial/maritime law. Not according to the Law of England, that of the land.

Just confirm this, won't you ?

In the Law of England a man/woman is entitled NOT to consent to statutes being forced on them.

Just confirm this, won't you ?

And then we can have a conversation. But, until then, let's not waste our time.

Regards

[Lothian]

What do you prefer ? To have consent or not to have consent ?

If you want bills for the rest of your life in which you have not asked for the goods and services in question then, under the law of England, you have a perfect right NOT to consent to their supply.

Why not go to websites such as FMOTL ? Or TPUC ?

Really, you should be aware that courts are part of an INDUSTRY. A commercial industry. They do NOT operate according to the Law of the Land. They operate under Admiralty Law. The law of the Sea. A very, very different system.

And yes, all over the country in the UK, people are exercising their lawful right NOT to contract with people for the supply of services they have not solicited in the first place.I was very clear in what I prefered. I prefered you to give me the name of a court case where someone has escaped a fine in the UK using these arguments. If you can't I will draw the obvious conclusion.

And then we can have a conversation. But, until then, let's not waste our time.

[Especially]

He doesn't consent to the American Revolution! That was won under the terms of Admiralty (ie wartime) law, and hence nullified by lack of statutory volition... and such. Look it up!

You are right. Which is why the City of London still has massive controlling interest in the USA. And always has.

The iniquity is this. The law of the USA (and appeal to the Constitution of the USA) is being diluted by the legal industry. People should wake up to the fact that Admiralty Law is NOT the law of the land.

[Especially]

I was very clear in what I prefered. I prefered you to give me the name of a court case where someone has escaped a fine in the UK using these arguments. If you can't I will draw the obvious conclusion.

And then we can have a conversation. But, until then, let's not waste our time.


But you are not interested in facts, are you ? There are THOUSANDS of examples every day of people NOT consenting to paying for goods and services which they never asked for in the first place.

Try the websites

TPUC

and again -

FMOTL

in England

And then tell me the same thing.

Because you must understand something rather quickly. The courts do not sit to hear such cases under any other law than Admiralty Law (commecial law) and their game is so clever that you, an ordinary person, are hardly aware of it. I repeat that every person has a right to consent or not to consent to statutes, according to the law of the land.

Get used to it. The rest is a scam.

[volatile]

This is why, from the very start of a case, you make it clear that you wish to be heard under the Law of England. That you do NOT consent to the bill and have every right, under the Common Law of England, NOT to consent to it.

OK, fine. You've said that already. What happens if the judge locks me up anyway? How do I proceed? To whom do I appeal? If what you say is correct, how is it enforced? In other words - how does this stuff work IN THE REAL WORLD?

[Maja]

And I am asking you to agree that the courts are run according to commercial/maritime law. Not according to the Law of England, that of the land.

Just confirm this, won't you ?

In the Law of England a man/woman is entitled NOT to consent to statutes being forced on them.

Just confirm this, won't you ?

And then we can have a conversation. But, until then, let's not waste our time.

Regards

Are you saying that you are only able to have a conversation with people who have already agreed with your views before it has started?

[Lothian]

But you are not interested in facts, are you ? There are THOUSANDS of examples every day of people NOT consenting to paying for goods and services which they never asked for in the first place.

Try the websites

TPUC

and again -

FMOTL

in England

And then tell me the same thing.

Because you must understand something rather quickly. The courts do not sit to hear such cases under any other law than Admiralty Law (commecial law) and their game is so clever that you, an ordinary person, are hardly aware of it. I repeat that every person has a right to consent or not to consent to statutes, according to the law of the land.

Get used to it. The rest is a scam.

How many of those thousands have won their case in a UK court. Cite one please.

[Especially]

Especially, whether you are currently resident in London is academic. I asked why you were pretending to be from the UK, and why you seemed unable to understand the important distinction - generally acknowledged on this side of the pond - between "England" and the "UK".


England is a nation. It has its own law. It has centuries of documented evidence of what the law is. The UK is a political union nobody voted for. Ruled over by a head of state nobody voted for. And to which all politicians are in sworn allegiance to. The theatre of Westminster. The Common Law of England is the law of England. The rest are statutes, binding on the governed only with their consent.

Simple, right ?

[Especially]

How many of those thousands have won their case in a UK court. Cite one please.


I have already answered you.

Go to websites such as

TPUC

and

FMOTL

You as a human being have the right to consent, or not to consent, to statute laws. So says the Law of England. And for a contract to be binding it must have the consent of both parties. Is this simple, or what ?

Get it yet ?

p.s. Notice our lawyer friends won't tell us they are operating under the Admiralty Law (commercial law) in their industry ? Just a coincidence, of course.

[brodski]

Simple, right ?

Yes, simple, neat... and wrong.

[Lothian]

I have already answered you.

Go to websites such as

TPUC

and

FMOTL

You as a human being have the right to consent, or not to consent, to statute laws. So says the Law of England.

Get it yet ?

I want you to cite a single case. Got it yet ?

[Especially]

Are you saying that you are only able to have a conversation with people who have already agreed with your views before it has started?


No, not at all. Before we have a conversation on issues where we hold different views it's reasonable to ask for us to define our terms. And this I have done. Since the Law of England makes it clear that no contract exists unless both parties consent to it. This is so simple a lawyer can understand it.

I say the courts in England on such cases operate as private, profit making commercial organisations and that they run according to Admiralty (commercial) law. Not the law of England.

And you say ?

[Architect]

England is a nation. It has its own law. It has centuries of documented evidence of what the law is. The UK is a political union nobody voted for. Ruled over by a head of state nobody voted for. And to which all politicians are in sworn allegiance to. The theatre of Westminster. The Common Law of England is the law of England. The rest are statutes, binding on the governed only with their consent.

Simple, right ?


What you say is not, in fact, all correct. However the point I'm pressing you is, quite specifically, your incorrect use of the terms "England" and "UK" when considering constitutional and legal issues. These are not errors that those from the UK would normally make.

You also make very basic errors in understanding English history - history which even those of us from the other home nations can follow.

I therefore call your bluff. Your are not, in fact, English - although it may be that you are temporarily resident here - and are merely trying to port FOTL arguments to the UK scenario.

[Especially]

Yes, simple, neat... and wrong.

And you will show us where it is wrong, yes ?

OK, clock starts ticking.....NOW !

[Architect]

He doesn't consent to the American Revolution! That was won under the terms of Admiralty (ie wartime) law, and hence nullified by lack of statutory volition... and such. Look it up!

That he thinks "England" was one of the parties to the US War of Independence suggests to me that his grasp of history is less than perfect, yes.

[Especially]

What you say is not, in fact, all correct. However the point I'm pressing you is, quite specifically, your incorrect use of the terms "England" and "UK" when considering constitutional and legal issues. These are not errors that those from the UK would normally make.

You also make very basic errors in understanding English history - history which even those of us from the other home nations can follow.

I therefore call your bluff. Your are not, in fact, English - although it may be that you are temporarily resident here - and are merely trying to port FOTL arguments to the UK scenario.


And I say that our courts are being run under Admiralty (commercial law) and not the law of England.

Your reply to this is............................. ?

[Lothian]

....and you cite one case. The clock has been ticking for quite some time.

[Especially]

I want you to cite a single case. Got it yet ?


And I already have. Here are two websites filled with cases.

TPUC

and

FMOTL

This is the third time I am asking you to do some research yourself.

[Lothian]

Seems to me that these arguments are less use than a monopoly "Get out of Jail free" card".

[Architect]

And I say that our courts are being run under Admiralty (commercial law) and not the law of England.

Your reply to this is............................. ?

1. You cite no evidence.

2. "Our"? I don't live in England. Or are you applying the same arguments to Scots Law as well?

[Especially]

....and you cite one case. The clock has been ticking for quite some time.

And how many cases have you cited ?

[Lothian]

And I already have. Here are two websites filled with cases.

TPUC

and

FMOTL

This is the third time I am asking you to do some research yourself.I would rather read the official court decisions. Go to your websites, pick out a single case, your best one and come back here with the court case reference.

[Especially]

1. You cite no evidence.

2. I don't live in England.


Since you do not live in England you are forgiven for not knowing the basics of the legal industry here in England.

I have directed you to two different English websites, filled with evidence.

TPUC

FMOTL

When you have visited them and read the details there please post again and I will be glad to answer any questions.

Regards

[Lothian]

And how many cases have you cited ?

I am not the person claiming that you can avoid a statue law by claiming that you never consented to it.

[Especially]

I would rather read the official court decisions. Go to your websites, pick out a single case, your best one and come back here with the court case reference.

No, I do not consent to your offer. I offer you instead to agree that our court cases are a commercial industry operating under Admiralty Law (commercial law) and not under the law of England.

And since you are sending me away let me send you away too. By recommending you to visit to easy websites -

TPUC

and also -

FMOTL

Do yourself the great favour, lady, of hearing things from at least two sides. Which is, after all, the very basis of a fair lawful hearing. Yes ?

Thank You

[Especially]

I am not the person claiming that you can avoid a statue law by claiming that you never consented to it.

Lothian,

Government, by definition, operates (only) with the consent of the governed. Unless of course you live in a tyranny.

The Statutes of Parliament require the CONSENT of the governed.

These are such simple facts I can only assume you are a lawyer. Or are close to being married to one.

[Architect]

Since you do not live in England you are forgiven for not knowing the basics of the legal industry here in England.

I have directed you to two different English websites, filled with evidence.

TPUC

FMOTL

When you have visited them and read the details there please post again and I will be glad to answer any questions.

Regards

And again you lend the lie to your claim to be from the UK.

Those of us from the UK do, in fact, generally have rather more than a passing familiarity with the basic legal systems operating in the home nations and I should warn you that classes in this form a part of the university-level education system for my profession (laws of contract, tort, and liability - for obvious reasons). I also work extensively in the other home nations.

Of course, as a presumably US citizen (who might be resident here), you might not be aware of this.

Now, back to the substance of your post. You have made an extraordinary claim, albeit largely cut and posted from FOTL websites and rather familiar to us all. What you ahve not been able or willing to do is actually produce any legal substantiation besides a single reference of doubtful value.

Lothian's demand that you produce the evidence to back up your claim is not unreasonable. It is your place to prove youy hypothesis. Do so.

[Architect]

The Statutes of Parliament require the CONSENT of the governed.


Legal evidence for this extraordinary claim?

[Especially]

Can you start a Freeman movement and America thread for that, perhaps starting with "Hello from Cook County Jail"

Certainly. And can you tell me how a person appealing to the law of the land is unlawful ?

Since you can answer no other questions I have repeatedly asked you. And it shows.

[Especially]

Legal evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Architect,

You grew up with certain 'misconceptions'. So did I. So did everyone.

Here is a short introduction to the Law of England.

The Law of England is that law which must be adhered to in the Statutes of Parliament. OK ?

The Acts of Parliament (made by politicians) are STATUTES. Do you know what statutes are ? They are NOT the Law of England. They are STATUTES.

A statute is a document produced by a parliament subject to it being found to be lawful. By the LAW OF ENGLAND.

Yes ?

Am I going too fast for you ?

[Especially]

And again you lend the lie to your claim to be from the UK.

Those of us from the UK do, in fact, generally have rather more than a passing familiarity with the basic legal systems operating in the home nations and I should warn you that classes in this form a part of the university-level education system for my profession (laws of contract, tort, and liability - for obvious reasons). I also work extensively in the other home nations.

Of course, as a presumably US citizen (who might be resident here), you might not be aware of this.

Now, back to the substance of your post. You have made an extraordinary claim, albeit largely cut and posted from FOTL websites and rather familiar to us all. What you ahve not been able or willing to do is actually produce any legal substantiation besides a single reference of doubtful value.

Lothian's demand that you produce the evidence to back up your claim is not unreasonable. It is your place to prove youy hypothesis. Do so.

On the contrary, the people of the UK are among the most dumb, ignorant, arrogant and downright 'dumbed down' people of the modern world. Who cannot tell us where their own sovereignty is to be found. Who consent to political union with the EU despite it being contrary to its own constitution, never having the mandate of its people, and who cannot even tell the difference between the Law of England and a Parliamentary Statute !!! Who enter in to contracts they never asked for, and who obediently pay them. What a nonsense !

Was there ever a more ignorant and fallen nation ? Well did the USA declare its independence from such theatre as an unelected dynasty and the feudal SUBJECTS of the UK. And from stooge parties at Westminster.

You presume to 'teach the world democracy'. It's hilarious !

[Mashuna]

And you will show us where it is wrong, yes ?

OK, clock starts ticking.....NOW !

I think the main errors are here (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=208629)

[geni]

Architect,

You grew up with certain 'misconceptions'. So did I. So did everyone.

Here is a short introduction to the Law of England.

The Law of England is that law which must be adhered to in the Statutes of Parliament. OK ?

Nope. Parliament is supreme. Thus parliment is free to do whatever it likes up to and includeing abolishing itself.



The Acts of Parliament (made by politicians) are STATUTES. Do you know what statutes are ? They are NOT the Law of England. They are STATUTES.


Nope. They are Statute Laws. You cannot legitimately devide the two words. That was why it was the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998.


A statute is a document produced by a parliament subject to it being found to be lawful. By the LAW OF ENGLAND.

No you've already rejected that idea when you went pre 1066 and also rejected the later Anglo-Saxon laws. You are onto the laws of East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex and Wessex now and they don't support you either.

[jimbob]

I thought the prime minister was the head of state the monarchy was just a traditional figurehead? Did I miss something in English history class?

Yes, we all grow up believing that. But the truth is very, very different. If we refuse to swear loyalty to the monarchy (even as members of Parliament) we are fined lots of money every day, until we do.

The sovereignty of the people has gone. It has been transfered to a 'sovereign' nobody elected. And this impersonation has brought us to ruin. Because its corporate government, the feudal system and eventual slavery.

The same is happening in the USA, whose great Constitution is being thrown into the trash can. In the name of a never-ending war on terror. And the people keep right on bailing out the bankers and hoopla for the politicians in Congress.

What happened to the Constitution ? It was stolen and nobody even noticed it. Why, its freedoms are every day laughed at by the elites in power in the USA. It has been put on hold. They can remove your freedoms with hardly a protest. And the same is happening here in England. We need to get back to basics. Fast.
[/QUOTE]


Technically, you might have to swear an oath of allegiance, but not in reality, as Tony Benn said:

"When I took the oath at the beginning of this Parliament, I said, "As a dedicated republican, I solemnly swear ...". My hon Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, "I solemnly swear that I will bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen when she pays her income tax". There are some concessions that we all have to make, and everybody should know that". [Tony Benn MP, HC Deb 23 Jul 1993 Vol. 229 c 656]

I have never felt the need to take an oath of allegiance, nor have I been fined.

The sovereignty of the people has gone. It has been transfered to a 'sovereign' nobody elected. And this impersonation has brought us to ruin. Because its corporate government, the feudal system and eventual slavery.

In that case how was Charles I executed for treason? The English Civil War, and the 1688 "Glorious Revolution" showed the primacy of Parliament. There was a fiction that the king could chose whether to sign any new laws, but Parliament demonstrated that it can depose monarchs who don't do what Parliament wants. The monarchy did have a lot of influence after this time, but the ultimate power rested with Parliament.

[jimbob]

Agreed. It would be like Monty Python was back....

"I can still bite you" ?

Or were you thinking about a different scene?

[geni]

On the contrary, the people of the UK are among the most dumb, ignorant, arrogant and downright 'dumbed down' people of the modern world. Who cannot tell us where their own sovereignty is to be found. Who consent to political union with the EU despite it being contrary to its own constitution,

The UK constitution is whatever parliament says it is.


never having the mandate of its people,

Not required under the UK constitution. "mandate of its people" is a rather french idea.


and who cannot even tell the difference between the Law of England and a Parliamentary Statute !!!

You supposed "laws of england" is not consistent with any legal system practiced in that area. I do understand the difference between common law and statute law but you've already rejected common law and it doesn't work in the way your supposed "laws of england" do.


Who enter in to contracts they never asked for, and who obediently pay them. What a nonsense !

Taxes are not contracts.


Was there ever a more ignorant and fallen nation ? Well did the USA declare its independence from such theatre as an unelected dynasty and the feudal SUBJECTS of the UK.

Actualy there have been very few subjects since the British Nationality Act 1981 entered law.


And from stooge parties at Westminster.


Err you are aware that the US had a Whig Party?

[Especially]

Wow, there's one born every minute, it seems !!

You say 'Parliament is supreme'. WRONG. You have been subjected to so much garbage that you are truly in a dangerous state of corruption. You are again quoting a Statute, not a law. For your information, the Parliament is subject to the Law of this nation. It cannot pass any Statute contrary to the Law of this nation. Indeed, the political parties cannot make laws. The Law of England is the measure of all Statutes. And if it is found to be unlawful the Act of Parliament is dissolved. Such is the true supremacy in this nation. Do not tell us Parliament is 'supreme' when you do not even know that it is subject to the Laws of England. It is the Law of England which is supreme. As anyone sensible will agree. The Parliament is NOT a law unto itself.

The Statutes of Parliament are subject to the Law of England and can be challenged by it. Not the other way around. Once again, the Law of England is the supreme authority in this nation. Not the publications of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or any other party. Similarly, the Constitution of the USA is supreme in the USA. And nothing else. The LAW of the nation is the rule, even of Parliaments.

Now, I say again that the Common Law of England IS the law of England. A fact recogised by a mountain of evidence in legal history.

And you will finally tell us, we hope, whether or not our courts are run according to Admiralty Law, commercial law, and not the Law of England. Won't you ?

Because this is the 6th consecutive time I have asked for this to be confirmed and, so far, nobody has replied.

Wake Up People !!

[volatile]

Your argument relies on the law being correct, and incorrect at the same time. You talk about "mountain of evidence in legal history" (even though you haven't actually cited any directly), but surely that evidence (if it exists) comes from the legal history of the very "admiralty" courts you yourself are saying are invalid!

[Especially]

The UK constitution is whatever parliament says it is.



Not required under the UK constitution. "mandate of its people" is a rather french idea.



You supposed "laws of england" is not consistent with any legal system practiced in that area. I do understand the difference between common law and statute law but you've already rejected common law and it doesn't work in the way your supposed "laws of england" do.



Taxes are not contracts.



Actualy there have been very few subjects since the British Nationality Act 1981 entered law.



Err you are aware that the US had a Whig Party?

What nonsense !! Go back to school. You say that Parliament can write any constitution it likes. What hogwash. Parliament does not make laws. It produces only statutes. Statutes are NOT laws. They all require the consent of the governed. How simple can it be ?

Tell us, 'where is sovereignty found in this nation'. Can you ?

I have news for you. The sovereignty of a nation is in its people. Must I tell you, an Englishman, such a basic FACT ?

Taxes ARE imposed on people by means of contract law. The Council Tax is one such example. And if you do not agree to it you will go to a commercial court held under Admiralty (commercial) law. Where you will meekly pay them, though you may never consent to their goods and services in the first place. What a nonsense ! What a scam it is.

The Council Tax is a product of contract law. Derived from a STATUTE.

And you are free to consent, or not to consent to it. Under the Law of England.

[jimbob]

Especially,

Did Parliament Execute the King in 1649?

How does that not demonstrate where the power resides?

[Especially]

Especially,

Did Parliament Execute the King in 1649?

How does that not demonstrate where the power resides?

It demonstrates where power lay in 1649.

But since 1649 the monarchy has been restored. You may have noticed that fact ? Since which time the body of Oliver Cromwell was dug up and his skull was stuck on the railings in Westminster by his monarchist enemies.

I must ask you, 'where is the sovereignty of a nation found' ? In the monarchy, in the politicians, or with the people ?

Simple question. It seems nobody here wants to tell us.

[Especially]

Your argument relies on the law being correct, and incorrect at the same time. You talk about "mountain of evidence in legal history" (even though you haven't actually cited any directly), but surely that evidence (if it exists) comes from the legal history of the very "admiralty" courts you yourself are saying are invalid!

You are of course right ! The courts operating under Admiralty Law are FORCED to recognise the supremacy of the Law of England (the Common Law) whenever it is invoked. So, you are right. They have no choice but to do so whenever it is appealed to. And yes, their records are filled with this fact being recognised in the history of our nation.

Now you see that when you are in THEIR court you MUST appeal to the Law of England. But you do so YOURSELF. Otherwise their commercial law machinery will run. Contrary to your interests.

[volatile]

You are of course right ! The courts operating under Admiralty Law are FORCED to recognise the supremacy of the Law of England (the Common Law) whenever it is invoked.

Forced by whom? I'm not following you. Sorry, I am brainwashed and all; I guess that's not helping.

If an Admiralty Court judge locks me up for (say) not paying council tax, even if I have requested to be tried under the Common Law, to whom can I appeal? And if the lawyers are all in on it, who can I get to help me?

[Especially]

Your argument relies on the law being correct, and incorrect at the same time. You talk about "mountain of evidence in legal history" (even though you haven't actually cited any directly), but surely that evidence (if it exists) comes from the legal history of the very "admiralty" courts you yourself are saying are invalid!

Yes, since reality is greater than fiction. Our legal records show the supremacy of the Law of England. Even in the records of a system which operates under the law of the sea, Admiralty Law (commercial law).

A person in court must demand that they are heard under the Law of England. Or else your case will come to a swift and negative conclusion.

The plain fact is that Statutes are not binding on people without their consent. If you do not consent you must say so. And it's that simple. The Council Tax (all councils being corporations, as are the courts) is a product of Statute. Of commercial law. And you are lawfully entitled not to consent to any such contract if you choose so. Lawfully. Under the Law of England.

[Rolfe]

Just mentioning that Especially has not PMed me to confirm he knows where my location is.

I think earlier speculation that even if he is physically in London right now he is not English, is correct.

I suspect he may be American.

Rolfe.

[Especially]

Just mentioning that Especially has not PMed me to confirm he knows where my location is.

I think earlier speculation that even if he is physically in London right now he is not English, is correct.

I suspect he may be American.

Rolfe.


And I suspect you may be Greek, Chinese or Latvian. The relevance of which is................. ?

[jimbob]

OK, So in 1649 Parliament was supreme.

What about the act of Settlement.

There are campaigns for Parliament to repeal this and to alter the succession of the monarchy so that the heir would be the first-born child of either sex.

Notice how this is asking for Parliament to decide on the succession.

Personally I am a republican, and I consider the monarchy an anachronism but in practice, the monarchy has many constraints placed upon it.

Face it, the heir can't comment on architecture without being criticised for overstepping the mark (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/london/8102617.stm).

I am not denying that he might have had some influence with the developer, ultimately backed by an absolute monarch. But this was nothing to do with anything broader.

[jimbob]

Just mentioning that Especially has not PMed me to confirm he knows where my location is.

I think earlier speculation that even if he is physically in London right now he is not English, is correct.

I suspect he may be American.

Rolfe.


And I suspect you may be Greek, Chinese or Latvian. The relevance of which is................. ?

The relevance is that you are claiming a knowledge but seem to have no evidence for your expertise. You certainly seemed to be trying to imply that you were English. Not British.

The vast majority of British adults would within a few minutes be able to tell where Rolfe lives. Though just for an experiment I found that google doesn't help, which makes it quite amusing.

[Especially]

Forced by whom? I'm not following you. Sorry, I am brainwashed and all; I guess that's not helping.

If an Admiralty Court judge locks me up for (say) not paying council tax, even if I have requested to be tried under the Common Law, to whom can I appeal? And if the lawyers are all in on it, who can I get to help me?

But an Admiralty Court (and you still have not accepted that courts hearing these cases are operating under Commercial Law, have you ?) must comply/conform to the law of the land. And the person who helps you is yourself. Who, from the outset, demands that your case is heard under the Law of England.

This is not rocket science. It is the law of England. You ask the case to be heard under the Law of England.

Let us say a person receives a bill for Council Tax.

Does such a person have the power to decline the goods and services involved in it ? Of course he/she does. But it's rare. Say a person asks the council to provide them with a list of itemised goods and services on offer. What reply will they receive ? None. Because the scam is to make you believe you have no power of consent. The entire Council Tax system based on Statute. And NOT on law.

The bill is presented to you in a de facto fashion. Can you imagine being presented with an unquantified, unsolicited bill in a restaurant with a demand to pay it ? But that's exactly what happens with Council Tax. You (of course) are not aware that you can consent or decline it.

You may write asking for a complete breakdown of their 'offer'. The chances are they will not reply. Now, this is an example of a commercial contract being forced on you.

You believe it's 'the law'. In fact, it's nothing of the kind, since you have not consented to it in the first place. You may not require those goods and services. You may decline it. Wouldn't that choice be yours to make ? But they present it in such a way that you are unaware of having any choice.

It's rather simple. If you consent to this scam you are liable to pay it. If you do not you decline their 'offer' (because that is what it is). And your consent is vital. In commercial law this is twisted so that your reply is deemed to be consent unless you specifically say you do NOT consent to it.

I mean, simply, that in a contract BOTH parties must consent. And here is a case where your consent has (sometimes) not been given.

Statutes work like that. Again, car parking tickets operate the same way. So do TV licences. The entire legal industry is based on commercial statutes which require your consent. To be lawful. And which you comply with because you think they are the 'law'. Withdraw your consent to them and it comes back to the Law of England. Which clearly states that you must consent to bills/contracts before they are lawful.

The terminology of this industry is designed to confuse us. It's all rather simple. They want to contract with you and if you don't agree they summon you (invite) you to their place of business. The Admiralty Law court (commercial court). At which time you express your willingness to resolve the matter and (at the same time) appeal to the Law of England. Pointing out that you decline their offer. As you have perfect right to do in the law of England.

Case Closed.

[tsig]

And I suspect you may be Greek, Chinese or Latvian. The relevance of which is................. ?

He's not claiming any of those nationalities.

Do you pay taxes? That's the only question worth asking.

[Especially]

He's not claiming any of those nationalities.

Do you pay taxes? That's the only question worth asking.

Taxes for what, exactly ?

If someone sends me a bill for goods and services which I never asked for in the first place I decline it. Don't you ?

Will you grant me that right ??? LOL !!

I mean, am I a man or a mouse ? It seems to me that I have some choice about any offer given to me, right ? I have the power of consent. What is a contract except mutual consent ? What does the law say ? The law says that I have the power to consent or not to consent to any contract.

Or do you want to live in a society where there is no consent ?

[Lothian]

No, I do not consent to your offer. I offer you instead to agree that our court cases are a commercial industry operating under Admiralty Law (commercial law) and not under the law of England.
I think we both agree with each other on this but what I want to know is whether the courts also concur.

Like you I want these scumbags who refuse to pay their taxes punnished. It is all very well pointing me to the websites where these tossers boast about their selfishness but before me, you and the others form a medieval mob and torch the ******* I want to know that when we defend ourselves by refusing to consent to be judged by statute the courts will accept it.

So give me one case where refusing to consent to be judged by statute has allowed the defendant to walk free.

Unless you have that it is all rather academic.

[Ysidro]

Of course, as a presumably US citizen (who might be resident here), you might not be aware of this.



Please don't assume he's a US citizen just because he doesn't understand UK law and history. After all, he's already proven he doesn't understand US law and history either.

[jimbob]

Especially if you aren't English*, why are you referring to the British Parliament as "our parliament"

*You are obviously not implying that you to belong to any of the other nations within the Union

[Especially]

I think we both agree with each other on this but what I want to know is whether the courts also concur.

Like you I want these scumbags who refuse to pay their taxes punnished. It is all very well pointing me to the websites where these tossers boast about their selfishness but before me, you and the others form a medieval mob and torch the ******* I want to know that when we defend ourselves by refusing to consent to be judged by statute the courts will accept it.

So give me one case where refusing to consent to be judged by statute has allowed the defendant to walk free.

Unless you have that it is all rather academic.

Lothian,

Let's first establish the facts. You now agree that the Council Tax is the product of a Parliamentary Statute. It is NOT a law. It is an OFFER given to you to contract with the local council for goods and services. An offer being made under Contract Law. And you are entitled to receive these goods and services or not, under ordinary commercial law.

Your consent is required. But you pay it anyway. You may choose to ask what goods and services are being offered. But let us say you never do. Fine. Pay it. But others do not want these goods and services and they point out that they do not want them. They decline the offer.

But the system does not leave them alone. It harasses them. It issues a 'warrant' to their place of business. The court of Admiralty Law (the law of the sea). Which they, ignorantly, are unaware of. They think it's a court of the land. It's not.

And this court (unless you ask them to do differently) will try the case under commercial/contract law.

That is why, from the outset, in such cases, you must explain you wish the case to be heard under the Law of England. Since the law of England clearly says that a contract must be consented to by BOTH parties or it is unlawful.

Isn't this fair and reasonable ? And do you not agree that in matters of contracts the consent of both parties must exist ?

If you agree to this the issue is closed.

Regards

[geni]

Wow, there's one born every minute, it seems !!

You say 'Parliament is supreme'. WRONG. You have been subjected to so much garbage that you are truly in a dangerous state of corruption. You are again quoting a Statute, not a law.

Statue law is law. This has been established by common law courts for century after century (it's also been established by scots law courts).


For your information, the Parliament is subject to the Law of this nation. It cannot pass any Statute contrary to the Law of this nation.

Actualy it can. This was established during the regency crisis although there are older cases that make the same point.


Indeed, the political parties cannot make laws.


Parliment however can and does.


The Law of England is the measure of all Statutes. And if it is found to be unlawful the Act of Parliament is dissolved. Such is the true supremacy in this nation. Do not tell us Parliament is 'supreme' when you do not even know that it is subject to the Laws of England.

There hasn't been a Law of england since 1542.


It is the Law of England which is supreme. As anyone sensible will agree.

I know a lot of sensible people. A worrying number of which could talk the hind leg off a donkey about UK consititional law. Parliament is supreme. Legaly parliament could abolish common law fairly quickly. It could do much the same for courts.

The Parliament is NOT a law unto itself.

It can be if it wants to be.


The Statutes of Parliament are subject to the Law of England and can be challenged by it. Not the other way around. Once again, the Law of England is the supreme authority in this nation. Not the publications of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or any other party.

Laws are passed by parliment not by parties.


Similarly, the Constitution of the USA is supreme in the USA. And nothing else. The LAW of the nation is the rule, even of Parliaments.

The UK has no equiverlent of the US constitution. Raiseing the issues suggest a profound ignorence of the UK system.


Now, I say again that the Common Law of England IS the law of England. A fact recogised by a mountain of evidence in legal history.

Nope. The law of england is English and Welsh law which could be considered common law as modified by statute law.


And you will finally tell us, we hope, whether or not our courts are run according to Admiralty Law, commercial law, and not the Law of England. Won't you ?

The question doesn't even make sense under UK law. Admiralty Law abd commercial law are simplty subsets of the general law and English law hasn't existed in nearly five centuries. English and welsh courts are run under the laws of england and wales which are common law as modified by statute law (very modified these days).

[Especially]

Especially if you aren't English*, why are you referring to the British Parliament as "our parliament"

*You are obviously not implying that you to belong to any of the other nations within the Union


Why are you so concerned about my nationality ? I am merely teaching you the fact that the Laws of England are NOT the Statutes of Parliament. And that you are being suckered with bills which are adminstrated under courts operating under commercial/Admiralty law. Against which, if you demand it, you may appeal to the law of the land. That of England. Which expressly says that a contract must be consented to by both parties or it is unlawful.

I am sure you are able to understand these simple facts if you really want to.

[Especially]

Statue law is law. This has been established by common law courts for century after century (it's also been established by scots law courts).



Actualy it can. This was established during the regency crisis although there are older cases that make the same point.



Parliment however can and does.



There hasn't been a Law of england since 1542.



I know a lot of sensible people. A worrying number of which could talk the hind leg off a donkey about UK consititional law. Parliament is supreme. Legaly parliament could abolish common law fairly quickly. It could do much the same for courts.



It can be if it wants to be.



Laws are passed by parliment not by parties.



The UK has no equiverlent of the US constitution. Raiseing the issues suggest a profound ignorence of the UK system.



Nope. The law of england is English and Welsh law which could be considered common law as modified by statute law.



The question doesn't even make sense under UK law. Admiralty Law abd commercial law are simplty subsets of the general law and English law hasn't existed in nearly five centuries. English and welsh courts are run under the laws of england and wales which are common law as modified by statute law (very modified these days).

Well, I beg to differ. The legal profession want us to be totally confused and it's our job to educate them.

There IS a law in England. It's the Common Law. The Common Law existed long, long before 1542. The Common Law of England is used every single day in law. Don't you know this ?

But there is another system. The system being used by courts of Admiralty Law. The commercial law/the law of the sea. You surely admit this. Don't you ? It's THESE courts where cases such as Council Tax are heard.

Now, in law, both parties of a contract must consent to the contract. Yes ?
What happens if one party does not ? Well, in such a case, there is no contract. Right ? I exercise my right NOT to consent in such cases. And that is the law of England. But you want to remove the consent of one party from this contract and to pretend it doesn't matter, yes ?

[geni]

What nonsense !! Go back to school. You say that Parliament can write any constitution it likes. What hogwash. Parliament does not make laws. It produces only statutes. Statutes are NOT laws. They all require the consent of the governed. How simple can it be ?

Parliment hasn't been sucessfuly overthrown since 1660 and that was through militry force.


Tell us, 'where is sovereignty found in this nation'. Can you ?


The crown.


I have news for you. The sovereignty of a nation is in its people. Must I tell you, an Englishman, such a basic FACT ?

Thats not true under UK law. It's true under a number of legal systems mostly influence by napoleon but not UK law.


Taxes ARE imposed on people by means of contract law. The Council Tax is one such example. And if you do not agree to it you will go to a commercial court held under Admiralty (commercial) law. Where you will meekly pay them, though you may never consent to their goods and services in the first place. What a nonsense ! What a scam it is.

Admiralty and commercial are seperate entities and unless you live in pakistan or are at sea you are not subject to anything resembling Admiralty law. Comercial law is limited to civil law while not paying your taxes falls under criminal law.

[Lothian]

That is why, from the outset, in such cases, you must explain you wish the case to be heard under the Law of England. Since the law of England clearly says that a contract must be consented to by BOTH parties or it is unlawful.

Isn't this fair and reasonable ?Point me to a case where someone has explained they wish the case to be heard under the Law of England. Since the law of England clearly says that a contract must be consented to by BOTH parties or it is unlawful.

One case. Isn't this fair and reasonable ?

[Especially]

Point me to a case where someone has explained they wish the case to be heard under the Law of England. Since the law of England clearly says that a contract must be consented to by BOTH parties or it is unlawful.

One case. Isn't this fair and reasonable ?

An astonishing request ! You mean our courts are operating every day here in England but you don't know a single case where they hear cases under the Law of England !!!

Wow ! So, under what law are these courts operating if it's not the Law of England ?

I think you see the answer (because I've already given it to you). The courts operate under Admiralty/Commercial law. Right ? And what we are talking about here is the right of a person to decline a contract offer. Not to consent to it. Which is fair and reasonable in a society where consent matters, don't you agree ?


Thanks

[Especially]

Parliment hasn't been sucessfuly overthrown since 1660 and that was through militry force.



The crown.



Thats not true under UK law. It's true under a number of legal systems mostly influence by napoleon but not UK law.



Admiralty and commercial are seperate entities and unless you live in pakistan or are at sea you are not subject to anything resembling Admiralty law. Comercial law is limited to civil law while not paying your taxes falls under criminal law.


You can invent as many legal systems as you like. But this nation is under the law of England. Unless, of course, you are suckered in to the commercial law scam being run by the Admiralty law courts/commercial courts. Who cannot care a fig for your consent or not. It's an industry !!!!!!! THE LEGAL INDUSTRY. And is has nothing to do with the law of England.

[Lothian]

An astonishing request ! You mean our courts are operating every day here in England but you don't know a single case where they hear cases under the Law of England !!!

Wow ! So, under what law are these courts operating if it's not the Law of England ?

I think you see the answer (because I've already given it to you). The courts operate under Admiralty/Commercial law. Right ? And what we are talking about here is the right of a person to decline a contract offer. Not to consent to it. Which is fair and reasonable in a society where consent matters, don't you agree ?


ThanksOur courts? Are you English or Welsh?

So am I correct there is not a single case of someone in the UK successfully arguing that they have not consented to a statute law.

[brodski]

Wow ! So, under what law are these courts operating if it's not the Law of England ?

English and Welsh Law, which may be the law of England, but it is not the Law of England as you use the term.

[geni]

Well, I beg to differ. The legal profession want us to be totally confused and it's our job to educate them.

So the people who actualy have to deal with the law every day don't understand it?


There IS a law in England. It's the Common Law. The Common Law existed long, long before 1542. The Common Law of England is used every single day in law. Don't you know this ?

No common law covers england and wales since 1542. Pre that time it was more limited to england but since such common law was only introduced in 1066 it's a bit odd that you support it.


But there is another system. The system being used by courts of Admiralty Law. The commercial law/the law of the sea. You surely admit this. Don't you ? It's THESE courts where cases such as Council Tax are heard.


Um no. High Court of Admiralty hasn't sat in full in nearly a century.


Now, in law, both parties of a contract must consent to the contract. Yes ?
What happens if one party does not ? Well, in such a case, there is no contract. Right ? I exercise my right NOT to consent in such cases. And that is the law of England.

Statue law, Common law, Anglo saxon law and roman law all accept taxation as legitimate and seperate from contract law. Will you now appeal to celtic law?

[Especially]

Our courts? Are you English or Welsh?

So am I correct there is not a single case of someone in the UK successfully arguing that they have not consented to a statute law.

I am saying the very opposite. I am saying that when the Law of England is appealed to (which expressly says consent must exist in both parties of a contract) the lack of consent of any one party nullifies the 'contract'. Since one party does NOT consent to it.

The absurdity of the situation is that the system is so corrupt you are not even aware you are not being heard under the law of England but of Admiralty/commercial law. A fact you should be made aware of. Since your consent matters. And so does mine.

Or else we end up as zombies with no consent for anything.

Which is precisely why, in such cases, we appeal to the law of England when in an English court. The whole system is a threatre for the unwary victims of 'laws' which are not laws at all. Statutes.

[geni]

You can invent as many legal systems as you like. But this nation is under the law of England.

No this nation is under:

English and Welsh law
Scotish law
North Irish law
and technicaly Udal law

It depends where you are.


Unless, of course, you are suckered in to the commercial law scam being run by the Admiralty law courts/commercial courts. Who cannot care a fig for your consent or not. It's an industry !!!!!!! THE LEGAL INDUSTRY. And is has nothing to do with the law of England.

Civil law and criminal law are supurate issues and not paying your taxes falls under criminal law.

[Lothian]

I am saying the very opposite. I am saying that when the Law of England is appealed to (which expressly says consent must exist in both parties of a contract) the lack of consent of any one party nullifies the 'contract'. Since one party does NOT consent to it.I am very familiar with contract law. You are arguing that statute laws do not apply to people who do not consent to them. I am asking for you to provide one case where someone has successfully argued this in court.

[geni]

I am saying the very opposite. I am saying that when the Law of England is appealed to (which expressly says consent must exist in both parties of a contract) the lack of consent of any one party nullifies the 'contract'. Since one party does NOT consent to it.

Contract law is civil law (which is not the same as a civil law system). Taxes are criminal.


The absurdity of the situation is that the system is so corrupt you are not even aware you are not being heard under the law of England but of Admiralty/commercial law. A fact you should be made aware of. Since your consent matters. And so does mine.

Criminal court cases in the UK are in no way consistent with those held under civil law.


Which is precisely why, in such cases, we appeal to the law of England when in an English court. The whole system is a threatre for the unwary victims of 'laws' which are not laws at all. Statutes.

You can appeal to whatever you like. Won't keep you out of gaol.

[Especially]

Parliment hasn't been sucessfuly overthrown since 1660 and that was through militry force.



The crown.



Thats not true under UK law. It's true under a number of legal systems mostly influence by napoleon but not UK law.



Admiralty and commercial are seperate entities and unless you live in pakistan or are at sea you are not subject to anything resembling Admiralty law. Comercial law is limited to civil law while not paying your taxes falls under criminal law.


Dear friend,

I now realise you are badly misinformed. The sovereignty of a nation is with its people. Since the people choose who will govern them. Theirs is national sovereignty, under the law. If you do not know this you know nothing.

The unelected dynasty is NOT the source of sovereignty. We have learned this over, and over, and over again. The 'sovereign' is a mere symbol of the feudal system which has made you (and you can check it on your passport) a SUBJECT of her feudal rule.

And finally, Sir, the supreme law of England is the Law of England. Since the law of England must be complied with, even by those rogues who today operate according to Admiralty Law, and this they MUST do if you appeal to it. Under the law of England.

These things are all very simple. But they represent, I suggest, a real challenge for you to appreciate.

Put it this way. Nobody forces me into a contract without my expressed consent. Is that fair and reasonable to you ? And I am happy to tell you I have the support of the Law of England. Which expressly says so.

You may choose, however, to be suckered, if you please.

Regards

[Especially]

Contract law is civil law (which is not the same as a civil law system). Taxes are criminal.



Criminal court cases in the UK are in no way consistent with those held under civil law.



You can appeal to whatever you like. Won't keep you out of gaol.

Taxes are not criminal if you unknowingly consent to pay them.

A criminal court case is not a commercial court case.

I am not in jail. For the simple reason that I appeal to the Law of England and am happy to be a lawful person. Who consents or does not consent to what is placed before me. As is my right in the law of England. Because, in my world, consent matters. And I exercise it or do not exercise it, as I see fit. Under the law. While you are happy to be governed by statutes. While you toy around with different law systems, knowing none of them, and being duped from cradle to grave by commercial courts and a commercialised legal industry.

The dumbed down masses never suspect that their own Constitution, their own laws are being torn to pieces by these counterfeits. They think it's the 'law'.

Let them remain ignorant if they so choose. Just keep paying.

Regards

[geni]

Dear friend,

I now realise you are badly misinformed. The sovereignty of a nation is with its people. Since the people choose who will govern them. Theirs is national sovereignty, under the law. If you do not know this you know nothing.

No thats what forigeners think. Britian has always differed in it's legal situation.


The unelected dynasty is NOT the source of sovereignty. We have learned this over, and over, and over again. The 'sovereign' is a mere symbol of the feudal system which has made you (and you can check it on your passport) a SUBJECT of her feudal rule.

Under common and statue law the crown is the source of sovereignty. The crown invented common law so why should you expect things to be otherwise?


And finally, Sir, the supreme law of England is the Law of England.

"supreme law" doean't make sense under the English and welsh legal sysem.


Since the law of England must be complied with, even by those rogues who today operate according to Admiralty Law, and this they MUST do if you appeal to it. Under the law of England.

Nothing resembling Admiralty Law has applied to any of the mainland UK since the Cinque Ports lost their powers back in the 16th century.


These things are all very simple. But they represent, I suggest, a real challenge for you to appreciate.

Put it this way. Nobody forces me into a contract without my expressed consent. Is that fair and reasonable to you ? And I am happy to tell you I have the support of the Law of England. Which expressly says so.

Contract law isn't relivant to the majority of the issues you raise.

[volatile]

But an Admiralty Court (and you still have not accepted that courts hearing these cases are operating under Commercial Law, have you ?) must comply/conform to the law of the land. And the person who helps you is yourself. Who, from the outset, demands that your case is heard under the Law of England.

OK, but say the judge says "What's this crapola you're spilling me here, Volatile! To gaol with you; this is all nonsense".

Who do I appeal to? If the Admiralty Court summarily send me to gaol (even if I've demanded my case be heard under the Law of England), what's my recourse? You're asking that I appeal to this corrupt system, using uneducated lawyers, in the thrall of despotic Jesuit politicians, to save myself from the very same system? Really, how does this work in practice? Tell me what I should do if, having failed to pay my council tax and demanded I be tried "under the Law of England", I end up in gaol anyway?

I really don't understand. If these people are as corrupt as you say they are, why would they accede to my demands anyway? :confused: You'll need to spell this out for me... as I said, I've clearly been brainwashed.

[geni]

I am not in jail. For the simple reason that I appeal to the Law of England and am happy to be a lawful person. Who consents or does not consent to what is placed before me. As is my right in the law of England. Because, in my world, consent matters. And I exercise it or do not exercise it, as I see fit. Under the law. While you are happy to be governed by statutes. While you toy around with different law systems, knowing none of them, and being duped from cradle to grave by commercial courts and a commercialised legal industry.

So how many times have you refused to pay your council tax?


The dumbed down masses never suspect that their own Constitution, their own laws are being torn to pieces by these counterfeits. They think it's the 'law'.

Post Regency crisis basicaly anything parliament does is constitutional.

[volatile]

By the way, Rolfe - I'm most definitely English and am stumped as to your location!

[D'rok]

Judges do not write the Common Law. They merely review it and adhere to it.

Let's dissect this a little shall we? How about we take a look at one area of common law. Let's say we look at torts. In particular, let's look at the tort of negligence. Even more particularly, let's look at the concept of duty of care within the tort of negligence.

Can you tell me when and how the concept of duty of care entered into the tort of negligence in English common law?

Please bear with me. This little exercise will go a long way to determining just how the common law is made.

[Rolfe]

I haven't seen anything this funny since Robbie the Pict refused to pay his road tax.

Rolfe.

[Especially]

Let's dissect this a little shall we? How about we take a look at one area of common law. Let's say we look at torts. In particular, let's look at the tort of negligence. Even more particularly, let's look at the concept of duty of care within the tort of negligence.

Can you tell me when and how the concept of duty of care entered into the tort of negligence in English common law?

Please bear with me. This little exercise will go a long way to determining just how the common law is made.

Sir,

You are slightly confused.

The Common Law has nothing to do with the legal industry. Let me repeat this because it will serve you well if your interest is in the law. The Common Law has nothing to do with the legal industry. It was outside of it. And is still outside of it.

Now, you can discuss any aspect of the English common law. But you must come outside of your bubble to see it right. You must forget the legal industry and talk honestly about the law of England.

I tell you the Common Law is NOT 'made' by anyone. Not by judges, not by lawyers. Let me repeat this also. The Common Law has nothing, nothing to do with judges, lawyers or politicians. It is the condensed wisdom of all ages. It is the Golden Rule. Applied as a general principle from time immemorial. The principle of 'doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves'. That principle does not belong to you. It belongs to the people. It is their law. Not the law of the legal industry. The hallmark of the common law (its DNA, if you like) is that it is an expression of that great principle.

So, in answer to your question, what the legal profession have done with torts is not relevant. They have used the Common Law because they cannot ignore it. They have manipulated it and defined it according to their own rules. But the Common Law remains greater than the legal industry.

The tort of negligence is derived from the Golden Rule, is it not ? But what are your torts when, in fact, the legal industry is full of rogues ? When every honest judge is well able to know that the Golden Rule is the supreme expression of what is law. Exposing all that is not. A child can understand what the lawyers cannot.

Because the law, (so-called) these days, is a paradigm unto itself. Because the legal industry has nothing to do with the law.

You should teach people that the courts are in the hands of rogues. Why not ? You are interested in the law, aren't you ?

[D'rok]

The stupid is strong with this one.

[Especially]

No this nation is under:

English and Welsh law
Scotish law
North Irish law
and technicaly Udal law

It depends where you are.



Civil law and criminal law are supurate issues and not paying your taxes falls under criminal law.


Wrong.

They are not 'my' taxes. And, as for paying taxes, who does not pay them if they consent to do so ?

This is the civil law. Not criminal law. You are again wrong.

[Especially]

The stupid is strong with this one.

Thanks for your contribution. You have me queing up to pay lots of money to people for services I never asked for, which were never quantified, or costed, or ever required by me. And I am so dumb that I pay them without my consent, believing them to be 'laws'.

When somebody tells you they are commercial contracts which you can accept or refuse under the law of the land you think they are stupid. When you are told these bills are only products of contract law and are heard in courts that have nothing to do with the law of the land, you are still not convinced.

You are living proof of Pavlov's theory. Just keep paying man. You deserve it.


Regards

[jimbob]

So the reason why people are sent to prison for tax evasion is that they don't ask to be tried under "Teh English Lawz"?

[geni]

Wrong.

They are not 'my' taxes. And, as for paying taxes, who does not pay them if they consent to do so ?

How many times have you failed to pay the taxes the Collecting authority that covers the area where you reside claims are due from you?



This is the civil law. Not criminal law. You are again wrong.

Argument by assertion logical fallacy.

[D'rok]

Thanks for your contribution. You have me queing up to pay lots of money to people for services I never asked for, which were never quantified, or costed, or ever required by me. And I am so dumb that I pay them without my consent, believing them to be 'laws'.

When somebody tells you they are commercial contracts which you can accept or refuse under the law of the land you think they are stupid. When you are told these bills are only products of contract law and are heard in courts that have nothing to do with the law of the land, you are still not convinced.

You are living proof of Pavlov's theory. Just keep paying man. You deserve it.


Regards

When the FOTL woo-bell rang, did you begin to slobber and wag your tail? Apparently so.

This is the best thread since realistice re-bar.

[Especially]

So the reason why people are sent to prison for tax evasion is that they don't ask to be tried under "Teh English Lawz"?

The reason why people are sent to prison for tax evasion differs in each case. Would you like me to review every such case in the entire history of England ? Surely not ! That is not fair and reasonable, is it ?

Which tax are you talking about ? If you have contracted with them to pay tax you must pay tax. Is that difficult to accept ? If you have declined their offer of business and have said so, you are, under the law, not liable for it. Because you have declined their contract. Does that sound fair and reasonable to you ?

So, unless you can be specific you have the best answer your question deserves.

[Especially]

When the FOTL woo-bell rang, did you begin to slobber and wag your tail? Apparently so.

This is the best thread since realistice re-bar.


Yes, this thread just gets better. Your Pavlovian servitude is really wonderful. And you pay it all. Because you never stopped to give your consent, did you ?

We get the government we deserve. Because we choose to remain ignorant.

[geni]

I tell you the Common Law is NOT 'made' by anyone. Not by judges, not by lawyers.

It was made by judges starting 1066.


Let me repeat this also. The Common Law has nothing, nothing to do with judges, lawyers or politicians. It is the condensed wisdom of all ages. It is the Golden Rule. Applied as a general principle from time immemorial.

Under common law 1066 is time immemorial. This was later modifed to 1189.


The principle of 'doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves'. That principle does not belong to you. It belongs to the people. It is their law. Not the law of the legal industry. The hallmark of the common law (its DNA, if you like) is that it is an expression of that great principle.

Common law accepts no such principles and amougn other things allowed matters to be settled through wager of battle.

[Especially]

How many times have you failed to pay the taxes the Collecting authority that covers the area where you reside claims are due from you?




Argument by assertion logical fallacy.

You use the word 'claim' and you are right. If a person claims taxes from me which I have not consented to pay you have my answer. And since I always, always reply to such demands lawfully after considering them you have your answer. Under the law.

As far as the difference between civil law and criminal law is concerned, you may not know they are different things.

But a websearch will confirm this to you. Just type

CIVIL LAW

and

CRIMINAL LAW

They are different parts of the same legal INDUSTRY.

Regards

[Especially]

It was made by judges starting 1066.



Under common law 1066 is time immemorial. This was later modifed to 1189.



Common law accepts no such principles and amougn other things allowed matters to be settled through wager of battle.

No, the opposite is true. In 1066 the FEUDAL system began in England. With its slaves, serfs and stooges to the papally approved, tax gathering, unelected monarchy and its elites. That is NOT the Common Law.

Common Law existed before the time of Christ. In fact, the Golden Rule was so compatible with the Common Law it became part of the Law of England. And still is. But don't tell the legal industry - they have forgotten it and only exist to pervert it.

As for battle, that is boring. Try the Golden Rule and put your toy soldiers in their box.

[Lothian]

If you have contracted with them to pay tax you must pay tax. Is that difficult to accept ? If you have declined their offer of business and have said so, you are, under the law, not liable for it. Because you have declined their contract.

So, unless you can be specific you have the best answer your question deserves.Can you specifically point to someone who has declined the offer to pay a tax required under statute and who has had their case upheld in court.

[geni]

No, the opposite is true. In 1066 the FEUDAL system began in England. With its slaves, serfs and stooges to the papally approved, tax gathering, unelected monarchy and its elites. That is NOT the Common Law.

Common Law existed before the time of Christ. In fact, the Golden Rule was so compatible with the Common Law it became part of the Law of England. And still is. But don't tell the legal industry - they have forgotten it and only exist to pervert it.

Before the time of christ means celtic law. Which allowed for kings, taxes, slavery amoung prisoners of war, and elites in various forms (such as say druids). It also appears to have allowed for human sacrifice.



As for battle, that is boring.

But allowed under common law. Quite effective by all accounts even if it did tend to result in draws.


Try the Golden Rule and put your toy soldiers in their box.

"the Golden Rule" doesn't feature in celtic law.

[geni]

You use the word 'claim' and you are right. If a person claims taxes from me which I have not consented to pay you have my answer. And since I always, always reply to such demands lawfully after considering them you have your answer. Under the law.

How many times have you not paid them?


As far as the difference between civil law and criminal law is concerned, you may not know they are different things.

But a websearch will confirm this to you. Just type

CIVIL LAW

and

CRIMINAL LAW

They are different parts of the same legal INDUSTRY.

Nope. I am legaly free to defend myself under criminal law and plead my own case under civil. There is no requirement that I employ a lawyer.

[D'rok]

Yes, this thread just gets better. Your Pavlovian servitude is really wonderful. And you pay it all. Because you never stopped to give your consent, did you ?

I give my consent every time I cast my vote. And I cast my vote every time. I also give my implied consent every time I use any public works like roads, bridges and schools.

Since you have withheld your consent for these things, I expect you to place yourself under voluntary isolation in whatever private property you own and subsist entirely under your own labour or from the charity of other individuals. This means that you must disconnect yourself from the grid if it is publicly owned where you live. It also means no garbage pickup. But if you live off of your land alone, as you must seeing as how you did not consent to help pay for the road outside your property, composting can go a long way. It will be a hard life, but simple, and you will be free.

I also expect you to get the hell off the Internet. You are spewing your nonsense over a global communications network that is, in no small part, a public work of infrastructure in each country.

If you do not do at least these basic things to remain consistent with your rhetoric of "consent", we can all safely conclude that Freeman means freeloader, or, more accurately, ignorant sociopath.

Or you could pay your taxes and enjoy the benefits of civilization.

We get the government we deserve. Because we choose to remain ignorant.Willfully ignorant in many cases. Let's have an example.

From you:

1. The common law = the golden rule
2. Judges review and adhere to the common law
3. The tort of negligence is derived from the golden rule

But, also from you:

1. Judges have nothing to do with the common law
2. All judges are rogues
3. The golden rule expressed legally as the duty of care is not the common law

Can't you at least keep your delusions internally logically consistent?

[volatile]

At the risk of repeating myself: what I should do if, having failed to pay my council tax and demanded I be tried "under the Law of England", I end up in gaol anyway?

[Especially]

Before the time of christ means celtic law. Which allowed for kings, taxes, slavery amoung prisoners of war, and elites in various forms (such as say druids). It also appears to have allowed for human sacrifice.




But allowed under common law. Quite effective by all accounts even if it did tend to result in draws.



"the Golden Rule" doesn't feature in celtic law.

No, 'before the time of Christ' did not mean Celtic Law. And what was Celtic Law anyway ? I am saying that the Common Law existed widely before the Christian era. Because that is a plain fact. The Saxons lived under the Common Law. So did large areas of Denmark. Both of which lived in England long, long before 1066. In fact, large areas of England were under Danelaw. And others under the Anglo/Saxons. They too were 'freemen' and were not bound to any lord. Until, gradually, serfdom was forced on them. Entire areas of England were made up of free men.

The Norman Conquest was resisted by entire areas of Britain. Such as the North of England. Wales another. The Normans were not interested in Common Law. They wanted lordship of England through their own elites. That's not Common Law either. They wanted lots of taxes to be collected and sent to their master in Rome. That's not Common Law either. It's feudalism. And if you can't tell the difference between feudalism and common law, well, what can I say ?

The Common Law was in England long, long before the papally approved invasion and occupation of England. The monarchy made a deal with the papacy to stay in power. It's called Magna Carta and its a record of the corporate takeover of England. It has nothing to do with freedom. In fact it made men subjects of their own land. Ever read your own passport ? You are a SUBJECT of the unelected monarchy. The successors of the Norman Invasion.

[volatile]

"'Doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves', but don't pay taxes, ever. Does that sound like it has a moral quandry in there somewhere?

[Lothian]

At the risk of repeating myself: what I should do if, having failed to pay my council tax and demanded I be tried "under the Law of England", I end up in gaol anyway?Reflect on the FACT that it was YOUR RIGHT to demand trail by the GOD GIVEN common law and your ignorant jailers are thieves who fail to understand the LAW of the common united states of England and the UK as laid out in the Great Britain constitution.

[volatile]

Reflect on the FACT that it was YOUR RIGHT to demand trail by the GOD GIVEN common law and your ignorant jailers are thieves who fail to understand the LAW of the common united states of England and the UK as laid out in the Great Britain constitution.

So I'm screwed, then?

Thanks a lot, Essentially.

[Especially]

"'Doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves', but don't pay taxes, ever. Does that sound like it has a moral quandry in there somewhere?

Volatile,

Let me not be vague in my reply. Let me be specific.

Can you show me the exact law in the USA which says that a man/woman must pay federal income tax ?

And can you show me the law in England which says a man/woman must pay Council Tax ?

I promise to give you a lawful reply if you will justify these two basic cases with the law that relates to them.

[Especially]

Reflect on the FACT that it was YOUR RIGHT to demand trail by the GOD GIVEN common law and your ignorant jailers are thieves who fail to understand the LAW of the common united states of England and the UK as laid out in the Great Britain constitution.

The solution is simple. Next time you are given a bill do yourself the favour of asking what, exactly, you are being asked to pay for. And, when you have received the reply, and when you have considered whether you want those goods and services, you can consent to having them, or not, as the case may be.

Which, unless I am much mistaken, is fair and reasonable, yes ? I mean, you want to have consent, don't you ?

Nothing like observing the law of England is there ?

[volatile]

Volatile,

Let me not be vague in my reply. Let me be specific.

Can you show me the exact law in the USA which says that a man/woman must pay federal income tax ?

And can you show me the law in England which says a man/woman must pay Council Tax ?

I promise to give you a lawful reply if you will justify these two basic cases with the law that relates to them.

What law says a man/woman must pay Council Tax? The Local Government and Finance Act 1992, as it happens (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920014_en_1.htm). I suppose you're going to tell me that this a STATUTE and not a LAW, though. Awesome. Can you tell me what I should do if, having failed to pay the tax the court said was due, they lock me away (even after stating that I wish to "be tried under English law")? Seriously, if I try this and end up in prison, who do I call to report the judges to?

Anyway: that wasn't what I was asking. The point is this: how can you consistently and coherently be in favour of "doing unto others...", but against the means by which it gets done? That's a fundamental contradiction.

[RHolmes]

Aw, come on Especially - I think it's only fair that you point us to some documentary evidence showing us what is contained in this mythical "common law" to which you keep referring.

Are Alfred the Great's Dooms still enforceable as "common law" or were they horrid statutes as well?

Oh, and if I end in court on a criminal charge, do you recommend ordeal by fire or ordeal by water? Or were they not part of the proper "common law" either?

[Especially]

Reflect on the FACT that it was YOUR RIGHT to demand trail by the GOD GIVEN common law and your ignorant jailers are thieves who fail to understand the LAW of the common united states of England and the UK as laid out in the Great Britain constitution.

God forbid that we should think commerce is ruling things these days, right ?

[Lothian]

The solution is simple. Next time you are given a bill do yourself the favour of asking what, exactly, you are being asked to pay for. And, when you have received the reply, and when you have considered whether you want those goods and services, you can consent to having them, or not, as the case may be. And what happens to people liable under section 6 of Local Government Finance Act 1992 who decides not to consent to pay the council tax charge?

[Especially]

Aw, come on Especially - I think it's only fair that you point us to some documentary evidence showing us what is contained in this mythical "common law" to which you keep referring.

Are Alfred the Great's Dooms still enforceable as "common law" or were they horrid statutes as well?

Oh, and if I end in court on a criminal charge, do you recommend ordeal by fire or ordeal by water? Or were they not part of the proper "common law" either?

It's not worth arguing about. Do you want to contract with these people who are sending you bills for goods and services or not ? If you do, great. But if you do not, that's fine too. The choice is yours. It's called consent.

Now, is that fair and reasonable or not ?

[jimbob]

Ever read your own passport ? You are a SUBJECT of the unelected monarchy. The successors of the Norman Invasion.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/144944ac76c011c388.jpg

[Lothian]

It's not worth arguing about. Do you want to contract with these people who are sending you bills for goods and services or not ? If you do, great. But if you do not, that's fine too. The choice is yours. It's called consent.

Now, is that fair and reasonable or not ?What happens to people who do not give consent to pay council tax. I have asked you lots of times to show me a court case where someone has won with the argument you suggest is legally valid. Volatile has on a number of occasions specifically asked what happens to people who don't pay.

What is fair and reasonable is that you answer these simple questions.

[Especially]

And what happens to people liable under section 6 of Local Government Finance Act 1992 who decides not to consent to pay the council tax charge?

Lothian,

Please take a deep breath, sit down and consider this. Here are some facts. You can check each of them for yourself.

The Local Government Finance Act (1992) is Statute. It is not the Law of England. It is not the law of Scotland. Or Wales. Or Northern Ireland. It's a piece of leglislation made by the Parliament. It's an Act of Parliament. But it's NOT the law.

Why not ? It's not the law because all Statutes made by Parliament require the consent of the governed to be acted on. Without exception. And that's what Statutes are. They are the products of Parliament. But the Parliament does not make laws. It makes Statutes.

The Parliament can make all kinds of things. It can (contrary to law) go to war. It can occupy another nation. Illegally. But the actual LAW is something else. And it's the law I am speaking of. Not statutes.

The Local Government Finance Act (1992) allows CORPORATE bodies to contract with people in respect of local goods and services. Which we know as the Council Tax.

Their method is simple. They assume you consent to their bills and they send you a bill. You will notice that it's not quantified. Your bill is presented as something you 'MUST' pay. It looks like 'the law'. In fact, it's their offer under contract law to provide you with goods and services. Which you can consent to receive, or not, as you please.

Most people accept it automatically. Partly because they believe 'it's the law' and partly because they genuinely want these goods and services. But other people don't want these goods and services and they exercise their right not to consent to receiving them. By writing back and declining their offer.

The system is so rigidly controlled that they will then write back to you offering to discuss the matter further at their place of business. This is called a Summons. And you are summoned to appear at their place of business. It's all made to look really threatening.

At their place of business (a court of the Maritime Law/Commercial Law) you will be pressured to conform to their demand. Whether you have consented to their offer or not.

And, to prevent becoming a victim of their legalese you state, in advance, and at the hearing, that you do not consent to their offer because you do not wish to contract with them for these goods and services. That you are there to resolve the matter amicably and according to the law of England.

It may sound strange to you. But no more strange than your discovery that this court is made up of corporate employees operating under a law which is not the law of the land.

So, at the end of the day, the Statutory Power requires your consent and you are simply exercising your lawful right to decline it.

You DO have the power of consent, don't you ? To a commercial offer of contract ?

If you are unsure about this may I suggest your read the law of England which expressly says that both parties must consent before any contract can exist.

Regards

[uk_dave]

What happens to people who do not give consent to pay council tax.


They get taken to court and everyone laughs at them for being so bloody stupid and then everyone gets pissed at them for wanting something for nothing and then no one has any sympathy for them as they get hauled off to jail..... though actually I do doubt that any 'freemen' have gone to jail...because ultimately they are fantasists who want to believe that they have the secret of not paying tax, but when it comes to reality their principles go out the window and they cough the money up like good little citizens.

[Especially]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/144944ac76c011c388.jpg

So you are not a subject of the United Kingdom ?

Care to show us the inside cover of a British Passport ?

[volatile]

Right. So... as I keep asking... to whom do I complain if I do all you say but still get locked up anyway? In other words - what good is all this information? Of what utility?

Or do you think that the simple utterance of a series of words - "I wish to be tried under The Law of England" will cause the judge to throw his hands in the air, curse that I've uncovered the whole dastardly trick, and let me go about my merry tax-dodging ways? Like in a fairy tale, where a specific form of words causes consistent and predictable reactions on those who hear them?

If the system is as despotic as you insist, why would they even CARE that I said "I wish to be tried under the Law of England"? Why wouldn't they, by your own reasoning, just ignore me? And if they did - which seems likely, given your characterisation - what could I do about it? To whom could I complain?

[tsig]

Taxes for what, exactly ?

If someone sends me a bill for goods and services which I never asked for in the first place I decline it. Don't you ?

Will you grant me that right ??? LOL !!

I mean, am I a man or a mouse ? It seems to me that I have some choice about any offer given to me, right ? I have the power of consent. What is a contract except mutual consent ? What does the law say ? The law says that I have the power to consent or not to consent to any contract.

Or do you want to live in a society where there is no consent ?

I see you have completely avoided the question.

I was not attacking your manhood.

Now do you pay any taxes?

The answer to this question will determine the answer to you man/mouse conundrum.

[jimbob]

The reason why people are sent to prison for tax evasion differs in each case. Would you like me to review every such case in the entire history of England ? Surely not ! That is not fair and reasonable, is it ?

Which tax are you talking about ? If you have contracted with them to pay tax you must pay tax. Is that difficult to accept ? If you have declined their offer of business and have said so, you are, under the law, not liable for it. Because you have declined their contract. Does that sound fair and reasonable to you ?

So, unless you can be specific you have the best answer your question deserves.


OK:

So show me any case where someone successfully used the claim that they should be tried "under the common law of England"* to defend themselves (or their client) against charges of tax evasion.



*or whatever it is you are claiming?

[Lothian]

Lothian,

Please take a deep breath, sit down and consider this. Here are some facts. You can check each of them for yourself.

The Local Government Finance Act (1992) is Statute. It is not the Law of England. It is not the law of Scotland. Or Wales. Or Northern Ireland. It's a piece of leglislation made by the Parliament. It's an Act of Parliament. But it's NOT the law.

Why not ? It's not the law because all Statutes made by Parliament require the consent of the governed to be acted on. Without exception. And that's what Statutes are. They are the products of Parliament. But the Parliament does not make laws. It makes Statutes.

The Parliament can make all kinds of things. It can (contrary to law) go to war. It can occupy another nation. Illegally. But the actual LAW is something else. And it's the law I am speaking of. Not statutes.

The Local Government Finance Act (1992) allows CORPORATE bodies to contract with people in respect of local goods and services. Which we know as the Council Tax.

Their method is simple. They assume you consent to their bills and they send you a bill. You will notice that it's not quantified. Your bill is presented as something you 'MUST' pay. It looks like 'the law'. In fact, it's their offer under contract law to provide you with goods and services. Which you can consent to receive, or not, as you please.

Most people accept it automatically. Partly because they believe 'it's the law' and partly because they genuinely want these goods and services. But other people don't want these goods and services and they exercise their right not to consent to receiving them. By writing back and declining their offer.

The system is so rigidly controlled that they will then write back to you offering to discuss the matter further at their place of business. This is called a Summons. And you are summoned to appear at their place of business. It's all made to look really threatening.

At their place of business (a court of the Maritime Law/Commercial Law) you will be pressured to conform to their demand. Whether you have consented to their offer or not.

And, to prevent becoming a victim of their legalese you state, in advance, and at the hearing, that you do not consent to their offer because you do not wish to contract with them for these goods and services. That you are there to resolve the matter amicably and according to the law of England.

It may sound strange to you. But no more strange than your discovery that this court is made up of corporate employees operating under a law which is not the law of the land.

So, at the end of the day, the Statutory Power requires your consent and you are simply exercising your lawful right to decline it.

You DO have the power of consent, don't you ? To a commercial offer of contract ?

If you are unsure about this may I suggest your read the law of England which expressly says that both parties must consent before any contract can exist.

RegardsEspecially.

Please take a deep breath, sit down and consider this.
The question I asked was what happens to people liable under section 6 of Local Government Finance Act 1992 who decides not to consent to pay the council tax charge?

I didn't ask for a history lesson or what you think the law allows.

Please answer the question. If you are unsure about what I am asking I will try make it clearer. If someone in advance, of the hearing, says that they do not consent to their offer because they do not wish to contract with them for these goods and services. That they are there to resolve the matter amicably and according to the law of England. What happens then? Do the court say "Curses and botheration, you are right this isn't a law at all. Sorry for hassling you" or does something else happen?

[Especially]

They get taken to court and everyone laughs at them for being so bloody stupid and then everyone gets pissed at them for wanting something for nothing and then no one has any sympathy for them as they get hauled off to jail..... though actually I do doubt that any 'freemen' have gone to jail...because ultimately they are fantasists who want to believe that they have the secret of not paying tax, but when it comes to reality their principles go out the window and they cough the money up like good little citizens.


But who is wanting 'something for nothing' ?

The opposite is true. The man/woman is simply declining a commercial offer made under commercial law.

What is difficult to understand about this ?

They DO have the right to decline an offer or to consent to it, don't they ?

Whether you laugh at them or not. Since they may be laughing at you for being so dumb. The courts themselves are not even operating under the law of the land. Does that ring a bell yet ?

But why explain something that is already as clear as daylight ? You have the power to consent, or not consent, in contract law. As is recognised by the Law of the land itself.

Therefore, let's stop being silly. The right exists to consent, or not consent, to statutes and to commercial contracts. Of course it does. Unless, of course, you are one of the sheep. I may choose not to join the Moonies even if they keep knocking on my door. Is that fair and reasonable ?

Are we really living in the Soviet Union ?

Regards

[tsig]

I am saying the very opposite. I am saying that when the Law of England is appealed to (which expressly says consent must exist in both parties of a contract) the lack of consent of any one party nullifies the 'contract'. Since one party does NOT consent to it.

The absurdity of the situation is that the system is so corrupt you are not even aware you are not being heard under the law of England but of Admiralty/commercial law. A fact you should be made aware of. Since your consent matters. And so does mine.

Or else we end up as zombies with no consent for anything.

Which is precisely why, in such cases, we appeal to the law of England when in an English court. The whole system is a threatre for the unwary victims of 'laws' which are not laws at all. Statutes.

Could you quote the chapter and verse of English Law that backs up what you say?

I keep looking thru my copy of the UK constitution( a mighty slim document) and can see no such assertion.

[Lothian]

Are we really living in the Soviet Union ?

Look I know you have been having tremendous difficulty with the difference between England, England and Wales, the UK and Britain but surely even you can work this one out.

[Maja]

The Common Law has nothing to do with the legal industry. Let me repeat this because it will serve you well if your interest is in the law. The Common Law has nothing to do with the legal industry.

I tell you the Common Law is NOT 'made' by anyone. Not by judges, not by lawyers. Let me repeat this also. The Common Law has nothing, nothing to do with judges, lawyers or politicians.

Discussions don't work that way, Especially. You can't convince people that your statements are true just by repeating them. Typing random words in all caps and using multiple exclamation marks also doesn't make what you're saying more believable; in fact, as far as I'm concerned, it makes them less believable.

When somebody tells you they are commercial contracts which you can accept or refuse under the law of the land you think they are stupid. When you are told these bills are only products of contract law and are heard in courts that have nothing to do with the law of the land, you are still not convinced.

You are living proof of Pavlov's theory. Just keep paying man. You deserve it.

So you are insulting another forum user because he/she didn't accept your statement as true just because you told them it was true, without any proof?

I've been reading both Freeman threads with great amusement, because I find this theory so bizarre. If it were true it wouldn't affect my life at all, because I live in continental Europe and my country doesn't have and has never had a common law. So this is, for me, purely entertaining in the same way Dan Brown novels are entertaining:o. And for the sake of entertainment, Especially, I wish you would present your case more strongly -- using evidence, not merely repeating statements.

[Especially]

Could you quote the chapter and verse of English Law that backs up what you say?

I keep looking thru my copy of the UK constitution( a mighty slim document) and can see no such assertion.

Let me make it even more simple.

1. The Council Tax system operates under commercial law.

2. The law of contracts clearly states that BOTH parties must consent before a contract exists

3. If one party or the other does not consent to contract then no contract exists between them.

Which part of this embarrasingly simple message do you still not understand ?

Thank You

:)

[Especially]

Discussions don't work that way, Especially. You can't convince people that your statements are true just by repeating them. Typing random words in all caps and using multiple exclamation marks also doesn't make what you're saying more believable; in fact, as far as I'm concerned, it makes them less believable.



So you are insulting another forum user because he/she didn't accept your statement as true just because you told them it was true, without any proof?

I've been reading both Freeman threads with great amusement, because I find this theory so bizarre. If it were true it wouldn't affect my life at all, because I live in continental Europe and my country doesn't have and has never had a common law. So this is, for me, purely entertaining in the same way Dan Brown novels are entertaining:o. And for the sake of entertainment, Especially, I wish you would present your case more strongly -- using evidence, not merely repeating statements.

You find the theory 'bizzare' ? What theory ? The fact that commercial contracts do not exist without the consent of both parties, perhaps ? I cannot make you see if you choose to wear dark glasses and hide in a darkened room. The consent of both parties must exist or there is not commercial contract. What part of this simple message do you not understand ?

As for insults, please be fair and read the insults of the person who first wrote to me. That is fair, reasonable and right.

Thank You

[volatile]

Let me make it even more simple.

1. The Council Tax system operates under commercial law.

2. The law of contracts clearly states that BOTH parties must consent before a contract exists

Is "the law of contracts" you're talking about there "The (Common) Law of England"? Or "Admiralty Law"?

[volatile]

*Ahem*

To whom do I complain if I do all you say but still get locked up anyway?

[tsig]

Sir,

You are slightly confused.

The Common Law has nothing to do with the legal industry. Let me repeat this because it will serve you well if your interest is in the law. The Common Law has nothing to do with the legal industry. It was outside of it. And is still outside of it.

Now, you can discuss any aspect of the English common law. But you must come outside of your bubble to see it right. You must forget the legal industry and talk honestly about the law of England.

I tell you the Common Law is NOT 'made' by anyone. Not by judges, not by lawyers. Let me repeat this also. The Common Law has nothing, nothing to do with judges, lawyers or politicians. It is the condensed wisdom of all ages. It is the Golden Rule. Applied as a general principle from time immemorial. The principle of 'doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves'. That principle does not belong to you. It belongs to the people. It is their law. Not the law of the legal industry. The hallmark of the common law (its DNA, if you like) is that it is an expression of that great principle.

So, in answer to your question, what the legal profession have done with torts is not relevant. They have used the Common Law because they cannot ignore it. They have manipulated it and defined it according to their own rules. But the Common Law remains greater than the legal industry.

The tort of negligence is derived from the Golden Rule, is it not ? But what are your torts when, in fact, the legal industry is full of rogues ? When every honest judge is well able to know that the Golden Rule is the supreme expression of what is law. Exposing all that is not. A child can understand what the lawyers cannot.

Because the law, (so-called) these days, is a paradigm unto itself. Because the legal industry has nothing to do with the law.

You should teach people that the courts are in the hands of rogues. Why not ? You are interested in the law, aren't you ?

I see you mean the True Golden Rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But do it first"

[Especially]

Look I know you have been having tremendous difficulty with the difference between England, England and Wales, the UK and Britain but surely even you can work this one out.


Since I live in England I assure you I have no difficulty understanding what the Law of England is. And since you live (I assume) in Scotland I hope you have no difficulty in the law of Scotland.

Especially when this issue is one of commercial law, which applies to us equally and which, I assure you, is yours to consent to or not. As is fair, reasonable and lawful.

The Soviet Union nothwithstanding !!! :)

[Especially]

I see you mean the True Golden Rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But do it first"

Exactly ! You assert the Golden Rule. You remind them of contract law. You remind them of commercial law. You remind them of the law of England. You remind them you do not consent to any such contract. That you do not want their goods and services. And they respond with understanding and leave you alone with your choice.

Sounds fair and reasonable to me ?

But are you in the Soviet Union ?

:boggled:

[fromdownunder]

But who is wanting 'something for nothing' ?

The opposite is true. The man/woman is simply declining a commercial offer made under commercial law.

What is difficult to understand about this ?

They DO have the right to decline an offer or to consent to it, don't they ?



Are you actually suggesting that there are people who do not use any public services at all?

Do you go to the library?
Do you use roads or footpaths?
Does your rubbish get picked up?
Do you use tha intratubes
Do you ever swim in a public pool?
Do you ever leave your property?
Do you have full private health cover, or do you leech off the public system?
Do you or your children go to school. If so a fully paid for private school, or a State paid public school?
Do you go into bookshops, never buy anything but spend hours thumbing through the magazines for a free read?

Norm

[Especially]

*Ahem*

To whom do I complain if I do all you say but still get locked up anyway?


Locked away for declining to contract under commercial law ?

Oh, really !!! You must do better than that, don't you think ? I have every right in law to decline a commercial offer.

[Especially]

Are you actually suggesting that there are people who do not use any public services at all?

Do you go to the library?
Do you use roads or footpaths?
Does your rubbish get picked up?
Do you use tha intratubes
Do you ever swim in a public pool?
Do you ever leave your property?
Do you have full private health cover, or do you leech off the public system?
Do you or your children go to school. If so a fully paid for private school, or a State paid public school?
Do you go into bookshops, never buy anything but spend hours thumbing through the magazines for a free read?

Norm

Well, if the cost of each was supplied to the man/woman, perhaps they would consent to using them. But that's their own choice, isn't it ? The bottom line is simple. Commercial contracts require the consent of both parties and if one party does not wish to contract that is their lawful right.

[tsig]

No, the opposite is true. In 1066 the FEUDAL system began in England. With its slaves, serfs and stooges to the papally approved, tax gathering, unelected monarchy and its elites. That is NOT the Common Law.

Common Law existed before the time of Christ. In fact, the Golden Rule was so compatible with the Common Law it became part of the Law of England. And still is. But don't tell the legal industry - they have forgotten it and only exist to pervert it.

As for battle, that is boring. Try the Golden Rule and put your toy soldiers in their box.

English Common Law is just the Golden Rule? Careful that your judge isn't a masochist.

[Lothian]

Since I live in England I assure you I have no difficulty understanding what the Law of England is. And since you live (I assume) in Scotland I hope you have no difficulty in the law of Scotland.

Especially when this issue is one of commercial law, which applies to us equally and which, I assure you, is yours to consent to or not. As is fair, reasonable and lawful.

The Soviet Union nothwithstanding !!! :)Your assumption is wrong. I live in England. In England we have lots of laws, and I understand a lot of them.

Now back to the main point you were going to tell us what happens to people who decide not to consent to the council tax. You know; the way you keep avoiding this question suggests that you don't know or more likely that you do know and you realise that your arguments have no merit.

[Especially]

*Ahem*

To whom do I complain if I do all you say but still get locked up anyway?


Locked away for what, exactly ? Declining a commercial offer ?

Is this the Soviet Union after all ?

:)

[fromdownunder]

Let me make it even more simple.

1. The Council Tax system operates under commercial law.

2. The law of contracts clearly states that BOTH parties must consent before a contract exists

3. If one party or the other does not consent to contract then no contract exists between them.

Which part of this embarrasingly simple message do you still not understand ?

Thank You

:)

I understand all of this, except that it is simply wrong. Council taxes are not a contract between you and the Council. They are fees payable under an Act of the Parliament. Since you have declined to register to vote, you have no right to argue against what people who are responsible enough to excersise their democratic rights, have agreed to.

Not paying these taxes does not come into Contract Law, it comes under Crimminal Law. What is it about this that you do not understand.

Get out of the sytem if you don't like it, but do not try to use "magic words" to leech off honest people.

Norm

[volatile]

Locked away for declining to contract under commercial law ?

Oh, really !!! You must do better than that, don't you think ? I have every right in law to decline a commercial offer.

And what if the corrupt Admiralty judge laughs at my defence, and locks me up anyway? Seriously... I'm interested in who I can call upon in cases where my "OBVIOUS" right under The Law of England is infringed. Or are you seriously suggesting that the corrupt, Jesuit bastard judge will let me go simply on repetition of the words you cite?

[Especially]

Your assumption is wrong. I live in England. In England we have lots of laws, and I understand a lot of them.

Now back to the main point you were going to tell us what happens to people who decide not to consent to the council tax. You know; the way you keep avoiding this question suggests that you don't know or more likely that you do know and you realise that your arguments have no merit.

Lothian,

You may have much knowledge but little understanding. Let's tread carefully in the hope that between us we can have knowledge and understanding. Which is, after all, the point of conversation, isn't it ?

If a person does not consent to contract with a commercial offer they will politely decline it. I am sure you have this experience and so do I.

Far from avoiding the question I feel, honestly, that I am now in gramophone record mode.

(Fortunately, the record is the music of J.S. Bach).

Regards

[tsig]

So I'm screwed, then?

Thanks a lot, Essentially.


No you have the hot, glowing knowledge that you are right.

Iron bars do not a prison make but they'll do in a pinch.:D

Looks like E is all wind and no sail.

[volatile]

Locked away for what, exactly ?

Locked away for infringing the law the evil, corrupt judge imposes on you, because he is evil and corrupt (and ignorant of the Law of England). Or do you think that your mouthing the magic words will dissuade him from his evilness, like a spell in a fairy story?

[fromdownunder]

Well, if the cost of each was supplied to the man/woman, perhaps they would consent to using them. But that's their own choice, isn't it ? The bottom line is simple. Commercial contracts require the consent of both parties and if one party does not wish to contract that is their lawful right.

You can't even answer simple yes or no questions, I must assume that you have used some of the services I listed, but simply do not wish to pay your share. Which in Australian terms would be called scabbing off others. And as I, and others have said , Council tax is not a contract within the meaning of Contract Law.

Norm

[tsig]

Volatile,

Let me not be vague in my reply. Let me be specific.

Can you show me the exact law in the USA which says that a man/woman must pay federal income tax ?

And can you show me the law in England which says a man/woman must pay Council Tax ?

I promise to give you a lawful reply if you will justify these two basic cases with the law that relates to them.


“ The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion

[Lothian]

Lothian,

You may have much knowledge but little understanding. Let's tread carefully in the hope that between us we can have knowledge and understanding. Which is, after all, the point of conversation, isn't it ?

If a person does not consent to contract with a commercial offer they will politely decline it. I am sure you have this experience and so do I.

Far from avoiding the question I feel, honestly, that I am now in gramophone record mode.

(Fortunately, the record is the music of J.S. Bach).

RegardsI am not sure you could tread any slower. What happens to people who decline the offer of paying council tax? Honestly, you are ignoring this question.

[Wildy]

In a former life, I ran a sterling election campaign for Eadwacer. I masterfully covered over that incident with Beaudurinc the miller's daughters and we were miles ahead in the polls just two days before the election. I was gutted when that Aethelred got in. I always felt he was unready for the job and history has vindicated me.

Perhaps you should have provided him with some better counsel...

[Especially]

And what if the corrupt Admiralty judge laughs at my defence, and locks me up anyway? Seriously... I'm interested in who I can call upon in cases where my "OBVIOUS" right under The Law of England is infringed. Or are you seriously suggesting that the corrupt, Jesuit bastard judge will let me go simply on repetition of the words you cite?

I mean you consent to being heard under the law of the land.

Thanks

[geni]

No, 'before the time of Christ' did not mean Celtic Law.

There is no record of any previous legal system in the area that now makes up england


And what was Celtic Law anyway ?


Laws used amoung the celtic people.


I am saying that the Common Law existed widely before the Christian era. Because that is a plain fact.

No it isn't. Common law was the legal system introduced into England post 1066


The Saxons lived under the Common Law.


No they lived under ango-saxon law which was basicaly a modification of saxon law.


So did large areas of Denmark.


Danelaw? That was vikeing law based not common law.


Both of which lived in England long, long before 1066. In fact, large areas of England were under Danelaw.

England didn't exist at that point.


And others under the Anglo/Saxons. They too were 'freemen' and were not bound to any lord. Until, gradually, serfdom was forced on them. Entire areas of England were made up of free men.

Mercia had kings from the start as did Sussex. Can't go back much further without hitting the romans.


The Norman Conquest was resisted by entire areas of Britain. Such as the North of England. Wales another. The Normans were not interested in Common Law.

They invented it.


They wanted lordship of England through their own elites. That's not Common Law either. They wanted lots of taxes to be collected and sent to their master in Rome. That's not Common Law either. It's feudalism. And if you can't tell the difference between feudalism and common law, well, what can I say ?

Common Law is a system of law. Feudalism is a system of goverment.


The Common Law was in England long, long before the papally approved invasion and occupation of England. The monarchy made a deal with the papacy to stay in power. It's called Magna Carta and its a record of the corporate takeover of England. It has nothing to do with freedom. In fact it made men subjects of their own land. Ever read your own passport ? You are a SUBJECT of the unelected monarchy. The successors of the Norman Invasion.

The Magna Carta was for the most part a power grab by the lords against the king.

[volatile]

I mean you consent to being heard under the law of the land.

Thanks

And what happens if the judge locks me up anyway, being corrupt and evil? What recourse do I have? To whom do I complain?

[Especially]

I am not sure you could tread any slower. What happens to people who decline the offer of paying council tax? Honestly, you are ignoring this question.


People who decline the offer to pay the council tax are exercising their right of choice. Actually, I think it's called the Community Charge.

Life IS choice, isn't it, Lothian ?

Seriously, in a free country we may accept or decline commercial offers. Why, you may even grow to like it !

Speaking of which (and as a peace offering) - this magnificent work -

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=verbier+orchestral+suite&emb=0&aq=f#

[GlennB]

Let me make it even more simple.

1. The Council Tax system operates under commercial law.

2. The law of contracts clearly states that BOTH parties must consent before a contract exists

3. If one party or the other does not consent to contract then no contract exists between them.

Which part of this embarrasingly simple message do you still not understand ?

Thank You

:)

This is great !

Next time I see a one-way street I shall drive down it the wrong way, on the grounds that I have not explicitly given my assent to the "one-way street contract".
I might even get drunk first !!! :faint:
And they can't touch me !!!!!
bwahahahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!

[leafman91]

Lothian,

Please take a deep breath, sit down and consider this. Here are some facts. You can check each of them for yourself.

The Local Government Finance Act (1992) is Statute. It is not the Law of England. It is not the law of Scotland. Or Wales. Or Northern Ireland. It's a piece of leglislation made by the Parliament. It's an Act of Parliament. But it's NOT the law.

Why not ? It's not the law because all Statutes made by Parliament require the consent of the governed to be acted on. Without exception. And that's what Statutes are. They are the products of Parliament. But the Parliament does not make laws. It makes Statutes.

The Parliament can make all kinds of things. It can (contrary to law) go to war. It can occupy another nation. Illegally. But the actual LAW is something else. And it's the law I am speaking of. Not statutes.

The Local Government Finance Act (1992) allows CORPORATE bodies to contract with people in respect of local goods and services. Which we know as the Council Tax.

Their method is simple. They assume you consent to their bills and they send you a bill. You will notice that it's not quantified. Your bill is presented as something you 'MUST' pay. It looks like 'the law'. In fact, it's their offer under contract law to provide you with goods and services. Which you can consent to receive, or not, as you please.

Most people accept it automatically. Partly because they believe 'it's the law' and partly because they genuinely want these goods and services. But other people don't want these goods and services and they exercise their right not to consent to receiving them. By writing back and declining their offer.

The system is so rigidly controlled that they will then write back to you offering to discuss the matter further at their place of business. This is called a Summons. And you are summoned to appear at their place of business. It's all made to look really threatening.

At their place of business (a court of the Maritime Law/Commercial Law) you will be pressured to conform to their demand. Whether you have consented to their offer or not.

And, to prevent becoming a victim of their legalese you state, in advance, and at the hearing, that you do not consent to their offer because you do not wish to contract with them for these goods and services. That you are there to resolve the matter amicably and according to the law of England.

It may sound strange to you. But no more strange than your discovery that this court is made up of corporate employees operating under a law which is not the law of the land.

So, at the end of the day, the Statutory Power requires your consent and you are simply exercising your lawful right to decline it.

You DO have the power of consent, don't you ? To a commercial offer of contract ?

If you are unsure about this may I suggest your read the law of England which expressly says that both parties must consent before any contract can exist.

Regards
Eh...no... in excersizing your lawful right to decline consent, should that not equate to denouncing citizenship? Like a contract. You don't follow the contract, you don't get the goods. You can't just sign for a car and drive off without fulfilling the contract you've just signed. Otherwise, the company take your car back. Simple. Same deal with citizenships. You don't want to live under the laws as made by Parliament, you can go live somewhere else. You can't accept a contract and then completely ignore it, and yet still keep the benefits.

Anyway, I thought that by definition, or convention at the least, statutes of Parliament overruled common law, as statutes of parliament were considered as primary legislation. Common law operates under the courts and deal with precedential case law only. The only thing that is higher than primary legislation is human rights, as laid down by the UN. In the case of a Statute contradicting law, the argument is taken to the UN and to an extent international politics.

Call 'em fictions if you must, but also provide proof for that.

[tsig]

Let me make it even more simple.

1. The Council Tax system operates under commercial law.

2. The law of contracts clearly states that BOTH parties must consent before a contract exists

3. If one party or the other does not consent to contract then no contract exists between them.

Which part of this embarrasingly simple message do you still not understand ?

Thank You

:)

This "law of contracts" is part of English Common Law? Can I see a copy or is it only written on the hearts of True Englishmen?

I see no evidence that you are following your own teachings so why would anyone else?

[Especially]

And what happens if the judge locks me up anyway, being corrupt and evil? What recourse do I have? To whom do I complain?

Life is choice. Remove choice and we are in a tyranny.

[RHolmes]

People who decline the offer to pay the council tax are exercising their right of choice. Actually, I think it's called the Community Charge.

Life IS choice, isn't it, Lothian ?

Seriously, in a free country we may accept or decline commercial offers. Why, you may even grow to like it !

Speaking of which (and as a peace offering) - this magnificent work -

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=verbier+orchestral+suite&emb=0&aq=f#

Ah, you're a Bach man!

Now we can be friends. :)

[tsig]

*Ahem*

To whom do I complain if I do all you say but still get locked up anyway?

I hear the Mods at JREF are mighty and powerful so you can complain to them.

You'll still get locked up but you can blame Lisa.

[Especially]

This "law of contracts" is part of English Common Law? Can I see a copy or is it only written on the hearts of True Englishmen?

I see no evidence that you are following your own teachings so why would anyone else?


If you need a book on commercial contracts I am sure I can oblige you. Rule Number 1. A contract requires the consent of both parties.

There ! That was easy, wasn't it ?

[Maja]

You find the theory 'bizzare' ? What theory ? The fact that commercial contracts do not exist without the consent of both parties, perhaps ? I cannot make you see if you choose to wear dark glasses and hide in a darkened room. The consent of both parties must exist or there is not commercial contract. What part of this simple message do you not understand ?
No, not that "theory". The fact that commercial contracts do not exist without the consent of both parties wasn't disputed by anyone in this thread. I meant the theory that the common law is the only real law and that what we perceive as "law" is really the "Admiralty law", as I'm sure you understood anyway, but tried to answer with a very childish logical fallacy instead. This discussion would be so much better if someone argued your side by actually giving proof and answering questions.

As for my "wearing dark glasses and hiding in a darkened room", I told you that this theory would have nothing to do with my life even if it were true, because, as I told you, I belong to the majority of the world that has never had a common law. I suppose we all use the Admiralty law othen. It would be entertaining to learn how landlocked countries like Switzerland, Andorra, Slovakia or Serbia got under the Admiralty law...

[Especially]

:)I hear the Mods at JREF are mighty and powerful so you can complain to them.

You'll still get locked up but you can blame Lisa.

Spoken like a person who is not only out of their depth but has finally realised it :)

[tsig]

Exactly ! You assert the Golden Rule. You remind them of contract law. You remind them of commercial law. You remind them of the law of England. You remind them you do not consent to any such contract. That you do not want their goods and services. And they respond with understanding and leave you alone with your choice.

Sounds fair and reasonable to me ?

But are you in the Soviet Union ?

:boggled:

And when the judge has the bailiff lock you away then what?

I'm not sure what the SU and it's legal system has to do with this discussion.

[Especially]

No, not that "theory". The fact that commercial contracts do not exist without the consent of both parties wasn't disputed by anyone in this thread. I meant the theory that the common law is the only real law and that what we perceive as "law" is really the "Admiralty law", as I'm sure you understood anyway, but tried to answer with a very childish logical fallacy instead. This discussion would be so much better if someone argued your side by actually giving proof and answering questions.

As for my "wearing dark glasses and hiding in a darkened room", I told you that this theory would have nothing to do with my life even if it were true, because, as I told you, I belong to the majority of the world that has never had a common law. I suppose we all use the Admiralty law othen. It would be entertaining to learn how landlocked countries like Switzerland, Andorra, Slovakia or Serbia got under the Admiralty law...

If I was to tell you how landlocked countries came under the international law of business you would not be amused. You would be shocked. Because that is exactly what has happened.

[Lothian]

People who decline the offer to pay the council tax are exercising their right of choice. Actually, I think it's called the Community Charge.

Life IS choice, isn't it, Lothian ?

And when they exercise that choise will they be imprisoned?

And can you think again. Is it called the Community Charge?

[Especially]

And when the judge has the bailiff lock you away then what?

I'm not sure what the SU and it's legal system has to do with this discussion.

Locked away for declining the offer of a commercial contract ? This really IS the Soviet Union, isn't it ?

:)

[fromdownunder]

No it isn't. Common law was the legal system introduced into England post 1066



This is the primary problem. Common Law does not mean what Especially thinks it means. He just does not know any better, because he has been brainwashed.

We know what it means, but FOTLers wave the words around like some magic talisman, do not define it (except in some vague sort of way which makes it mean "what I say it means") and simply use it as some sort of excuse to not pay for things.

The last, being of course, the bottom line, and their only reason for existance.

"I 'aint payin' no stinkin' taxes"

Except of course, that it does not work in the real world, as Especially continues to refuse to understand what works in a real Court of law. He is simply spouting rhetoric from (apparently) the only two other websites he ever visits - FOTL websites.

Norm

[Especially]

And when they exercise that choise will they be imprisoned?

And can you think again. Is it called the Community Charge?

When a man or a woman exercise their choice not to contract with a corporation on one of their commercial offers (an offer administered under a court of commerce and not the law of the land) they will of course be imprisoned. Thus proving we are living in the Soviet Union.

[Especially]

Ah, you're a Bach man!

Now we can be friends. :)


Yes Sir, Herr Bach, the greatest miracle in all of music !!!

:)

[Especially]

This is the primary problem. Common Law does not mean what Especially thinks it means. He just does not know any better, because he has been brainwashed.

We know what it means, but FOTLers wave the words around like some magic talisman, do not define it (except in some vague sort of way which makes it mean "what I say it means") and simply use it as some sort of excuse to not pay for things.

The last, being of course, the bottom line, and their only reason for existance.

"I 'aint payin' no stinkin' taxes"

Except of course, that it does not work in the real world, as Especially continues to refuse to understand what works in a real Court of law. He is simply spouting rhetoric from (apparently) the only two other websites he ever visits - FOTL websites.

Norm

May I correct you ? When I was younger and vulnerable to all kinds of influences I was very brainwashed. Even to the point of accepting unelected despots and corporate scams. The sheer breathtaking arrogance of it. But one grows older and finally learns what choice is. What our consent is. What the law really is. It's something of a revelation. To be free, I mean. And to be under the law. Since there is only one law that makes us truly free. And we already have it.

[tsig]

If I was to tell you how landlocked countries came under the international law of business you would not be amused. You would be shocked. Because that is exactly what has happened.

Shock us then already.

[RHolmes]

Yes Sir, Herr Bach, the greatest miracle in all of music !!!

:)

I agree 100%. Damn - I shall have to be polite to you from now on! However wrong your ideas about the law, I cannot bring myself to be mean to a man with such exquisite musical taste. :)

Incidentally, a few pages back, D'rok dealt rather well with the issue of consent. (He was quite brusque though - tut.)

[Especially]

This is the primary problem. Common Law does not mean what Especially thinks it means. He just does not know any better, because he has been brainwashed.

We know what it means, but FOTLers wave the words around like some magic talisman, do not define it (except in some vague sort of way which makes it mean "what I say it means") and simply use it as some sort of excuse to not pay for things.

The last, being of course, the bottom line, and their only reason for existance.

"I 'aint payin' no stinkin' taxes"

Except of course, that it does not work in the real world, as Especially continues to refuse to understand what works in a real Court of law. He is simply spouting rhetoric from (apparently) the only two other websites he ever visits - FOTL websites.

Norm

A 'real' court of law ?

You are of course refering to the court of Admiralty Law (commercial law) ? But I am refering to the court of the law of England.

So you see who is deceived and who is not.

[volatile]

Life is choice. Remove choice and we are in a tyranny.

Eh? Sorry, you've gone a bit high-concept for me. I'm simple and brainwashed, remember? You'll have to spell it out for me. Assume I do everything you say I need to do in order to be considered under the Law of England. What happens if the judge locks me up anyway? I mean - he's corrupt and Jesuit and evil, right? So, utterly, what's the point of this form of words which, unless you think they literally have magic powers, won't ever achieve what you think they will?

Do you think the words have magic power?

[Lothian]

When a man or a woman exercise their choice not to contract with a corporation on one of their commercial offers (an offer administered under a court of commerce and not the law of the land) they will of course be imprisoned. Thank you.

I presume that you are not trying to get people imprisoned. What is your point?

A freebie for you. Us Brit's don't call the council tax the community charge. The community charge was known as the Poll tax. You might want to look it up.

[Especially]

Shock us then already.

I fear I already have. And, anyway, if you do not know ABC how will you know XYZ ?

:)

[tsig]

:)

Spoken like a person who is not only out of their depth but has finally realised it :)

Nah, since I'm under Admiralty Law I must be out to sea.

So far you have provided no proof whatsoever of your assertions.
There's no evidence you practice what you preach.

[D'rok]

Incidentally, a few pages back, D'rok dealt rather well with the issue of consent. (He was quite brusque though - tut.)

You mean brusque like the Goldberg Variations, don't you? ;)

[Especially]

Thank you.

I presume that you are not trying to get people imprisoned. What is your point?

A freebie for you. Us Brit's don't call the council tax the community charge. The community charge was known as the Poll tax. You might want to look it up.

On the contrary, we are all imprisoned but hardly know it. This is just one example. And people are getting back their own sovereignty.

Thank you for your 'freebie'. I was hoping you would offer me some more of that wonderful Bach !

The Community Charge certainly was known as the Poll Tax. You are right. And the first world war was the 'war to end all wars'. And, unless I am mistaken, the sovereignty of this nation transumuted into a sovereign who costs millions a year and who nobody ever elected. But they still believe it. And they believe Parliaments make laws. All these things are said to be true.

Such are the semantics of deception.

[RHolmes]

You mean brusque like the Goldberg Variations, don't you? ;)

But of course!

[fromdownunder]

A 'real' court of law ?

You are of course refering to the court of Admiralty Law (commercial law) ? But I am refering to the court of the law of England.

So you see who is deceived and who is not.

Which court which only applies the "law of England" (your words, not mine) would that be?

Norm

[tsig]

Eh? Sorry, you've gone a bit high-concept for me. I'm simple and brainwashed, remember? You'll have to spell it out for me. Assume I do everything you say I need to do in order to be considered under the Law of England. What happens if the judge locks me up anyway? I mean - he's corrupt and Jesuit and evil, right? So, utterly, what's the point of this form of words which, unless you think they literally have magic powers, won't ever achieve what you think they will?

Do you think the words have magic power?

Apparently all you have to do is say "I'm not in the S. U."

Let us know how that works out for you. And no, the JREF does not have a prison outreach ministry so calling on the Mods is futile.

But you can still blame Lisa.

[Especially]

Nah, since I'm under Admiralty Law I must be out to sea.

So far you have provided no proof whatsoever of your assertions.
There's no evidence you practice what you preach.

None you have seen, for sure. But you must practice it yourself to know that it is completely correct. I cannot make you see what is already as clear as daylight.

[tsig]

I fear I already have. And, anyway, if you do not know ABC how will you know XYZ ?

:)

How can we know unless we are told and who should tell us but you who have all this knowledge?

[Especially]

How can we know unless we are told and who should tell us but you who have all this knowledge?

The international laws of commerce are truly international. Did you not know this ? Perhaps we can make another thread on it ?

[Especially]

Apparently all you have to do is say "I'm not in the S. U."

Let us know how that works out for you. And no, the JREF does not have a prison outreach ministry so calling on the Mods is futile.

But you can still blame Lisa.

Prison outreach ministries that reach as far as your attitude are highly valuable things, for sure ! :)

[Wildy]

"'Doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves', but don't pay taxes, ever. Does that sound like it has a moral quandry in there somewhere?

Considering that he's quoting Jesus, I would have thought "render unto Caesar" would have been a valid reason to pay tax.

[Especially]

Thank you for the conversation. I have some calls to make.

Meanwhile -

J.S. Bach
Cantata 130

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=verbier+orchestral+suite&emb=0&aq=f#q=bach+cantata+130&emb=0

[tsig]

None you have seen, for sure. But you must practice it yourself to know that it is completely correct. I cannot make you see what is already as clear as daylight.

No, No, you first. I must insist. You are the one saying it will work yet those who say it won't must prove your point?

Sounds like you lack the courage of your convictions.

[Especially]

Considering that he's quoting Jesus, I would have thought "render unto Caesar" would have been a valid reason to pay tax.

And what, exactly, is Caesar ? It seems to me that a man cannot serve two masters.

[fromdownunder]

The international laws of commerce are truly international. Did you not know this ? Perhaps we can make another thread on it ?

Are you now suggesting that import tariffs, export subsidies, trade agreements and contracts are identical in all international trade? That some countries do not protect vulnerable industries through taxing imports? That some countries do not subsidise exports through their (according to you) illegal tax laws? I'd like to see evidence of that.

Keep digging that hole.

Norm

[fromdownunder]

Apparently all you have to do is say "I'm not in the S. U."



You left out the clicking your heels three times bit.

norm

[volatile]

Anyone want a chuckle? http://www.fmotl.com/HowToGetOutOfDebt.htm

:-D

ETA: http://www.fmotl.com/SOCPAScam.htm

Comedy goldmine.

[tsig]

The international laws of commerce are truly international.

And Bluebirds are blue.

Still with the assertions. Proof of any kind would be nice.

Proof= any instance where adhering to FOTL doctrines has allowed anyone to ignore taxes. Ever.

[Especially]

Are you now suggesting that import tariffs, export subsidies, trade agreements and contracts are identical in all international trade? That some countries do not protect vulnerable industries through taxing imports? That some countries do not subsidise exports through their (according to you) illegal tax laws? I'd like to see evidence of that.

Keep digging that hole.

Norm

I am saying (as you surely know) there is an International Code for Commerce.

But make another thread and we can discuss this if you like. If no such code existed there could be no international commerce. And it exists in maritime and non-maritime nations.

[Lothian]

On the contrary, we are all imprisoned but hardly know it. This is just one example. And people are getting back their own sovereignty.
Ok, we have established that your arguments don't work (as in don't keep you out of jail). Some people may elect to exchange their liberty for their sovereignty but I don't see it a big vote winner.

There is an argument that we are all imprisoned and that the law (as commonly applied) keeps us captive, but most people want the laws we have and don't want people sponging off the rest of us. They are happy to exchange a loss of freedom for the benefits.

If you were right and there is no legal justification for taxes people would soon insist that taxes were enforced. I don't know if you have had the chance to speak to many Brits but we like or free education, our NHS, our bins emptied etc. and we think that people should, subject to means testing contribute to them if they are to remain at liberty in our society.

Perhaps rather than wasting time arguing over your understanding of a law that you accept is not applied you tell us what your alternative is to compulsory taxation.

[volatile]

*Ahem*

Assume I do everything you say I need to do in order to be considered under the Law of England. What happens if the judge locks me up anyway?

[fromdownunder]

If no such code existed there could be no international commerce.

Rubbish! Have you never heard of smuggling goods over borders?

Keep digging that hole.

Norm

[D'rok]

Anyone want a chuckle? http://www.fmotl.com/HowToGetOutOfDebt.htm

:-D

Good lord. That URL should be HowToCommitCreditCardFraudReallyBadlyAndProbablyEn dUpInJailOrWithALienOnEverythingYouOwn.htm

[volatile]

Good lord. That URL should be HowToCommitCreditCardFraudReallyBadlyAndProbablyEn dUpInJailOrWithALienOnEverythingYouOwn.htm

I thought the parenthetical "somehow" in the sentence "If you (somehow) end up in court" was touchingly sweet! Didn't you?

[tsig]

Good lord. That URL should be HowToCommitCreditCardFraudReallyBadlyAndProbablyEn dUpInJailOrWithALienOnEverythingYouOwn.htm

But they would only lock up your legal persona. :jaw-dropp

[Elizabeth I]

Especially, let me lay out a hypothetical scenario for you. There will be a question at the end, which I hope you will be honest and brave enough to answer.

Here's the scenario:


You receive your property tax statement, or your income tax form, or whatever document the statute-givers use to communicate with you that they believe you owe them money.


You demand that they present an itemized invoice of services for which you are paying.


Being evil persons operating under Admiralty law instead of common law, the statute-givers refuse your quite reasonable demand.


Because you have been given no explanation of the benefits you will receive in return for your tax payment, you refuse to pay.


Being evil persons with all the force of the police and the military behind them, the statute-givers come to your house, and, despite your explanations that you are subject to common law, not statute, you are arrested, handcuffed, and taken off to jail. The statute-givers have the guns, you see.


After some time in jail, you are brought to trial. You refuse to answer to your name, you refuse to "stand under" Admiralty law, you take [I]every step the Freeman philosophy prescribes for how a Freeman should behave under these circumstances.


However, the judge is an evil person, an occult Jesuit Mason Knight of Columbus Jew who answers only to Her Royal Majesty Elizabeth Windsor, the Queen of England, and the Pope in Rome; and the jury (if there is one) is composed of brainwashed sheep who don't understand that statute is not the same as common law. So you are found guilty of tax evasion, even though you have spoken all the correct words, you have refused to submit to the corrupt Admiralty court, and, again, you have followed every step in the Freeman guidebook. You are sentenced to a term in prison.


The statute-givers and their corrupt police still have the guns, so you are taken to prison. You, again, say all the correct phrases, you announce that you are not subject to statute but only to common law, you explain that you declined to enter into a contract to pay taxes.


None of it works, because you are in the clutches of a corrupt system (or maybe just well-intentioned but uninformed people who haven't had the whole thing completely explained to them.)


So, in spite of the fact that you have done everything you believe you should have done, here you are in prison for an extended stay.


That was the scenario.

Here's the question: what do you do now? What is the next step under the Freeman plan? To whom do you appeal?

[fromdownunder]

This thread has been so much fun tonight, it has kept me up until 4:30AM. I must now reluctantly go to bed. I'm ******. I hope the hilarity continues, and I will return for more fun sometime tomorrow.

One last comment though, so as I will not be infracted.

Apart from the sheep that really believe in their FOTL masters (and finish up in jail, as evidenced in the other thread), do people generally follow this IN PRACTICE, as opposed to people who do it as some form of intellectual masturbation.

Norm

[fromdownunder]

But they would only lock up your legal persona. :jaw-dropp

Sorry, one more post before bed. One of the few times I am truly ROTFLMAO. Thanks.

Norm

[volatile]

Especially, let me lay out a hypothetical scenario for you.

Thanks for taking the time to lay out in detail that which I have been asking for a few pages now! :) I look forward to hearing the response.

[Especially]

Elizabeth 1,

In reply to your question -

In spite of the fact that you have done everything you believe you should have done, here you are in prison for an extended stay. That was the scenario. Here's the question: what do you do now? What is the next step under the Freeman plan? To whom do you appeal ?

The missing part is you have not told us the charges. Don't you think you should provide them ?

There are none. Since no man or woman has made any contract with them in the first place.

[Elizabeth I]

Thanks for taking the time to lay out in detail that which I have been asking for a few pages now! :) I look forward to hearing the response.

So do I, but let's neither of us hold our breath. I look so unattractive in cyanosed blue. :D

ETA: Aaaand we're answered (above). With a dishonest sidestep. I think we can close the book on Especially.

p.s. I did offer a hypothetical charge: tax evasion.

[D'rok]

I thought the parenthetical "somehow" in the sentence "If you (somehow) end up in court" was touchingly sweet! Didn't you?



You bet! Same with "(I did say … "In theory")" after assuring the faithful that their credit rating would remain intact.

But they would only lock up your legal persona. :jaw-dropp

It's like trying to kill Lord Voldemort when he's get his soul locked up in a magical FOTL horcrux. Can't be done!

[volatile]

Elizabeth 1,

In reply to your question -

In spite of the fact that you have done everything you believe you should have done, here you are in prison for an extended stay. That was the scenario. Here's the question: what do you do now? What is the next step under the Freeman plan? To whom do you appeal ?

The missing part is you have not told us the charges. Don't you think you should provide them ?

Read it again - "So you are found guilty of tax evasion". The court, despite your magic words, deems you guilty of tax evasion. So what do you do? What, ultimately, do you hope to achieve by following the FOTL philosophy, given that words are not magic, and, by your own logic, those against whom you struggle are corrupt and evil?

[jimbob]

Elizabeth 1,

In reply to your question -

In spite of the fact that you have done everything you believe you should have done, here you are in prison for an extended stay. That was the scenario. Here's the question: what do you do now? What is the next step under the Freeman plan? To whom do you appeal ?

The missing part is you have not told us the charges. Don't you think you should provide them ?

There are none. Since no man or woman has made any contract with them in the first place.


Because you have been given no explanation of the benefits you will receive in return for your tax payment, you refuse to pay.

Being evil persons with all the force of the police and the military behind them, the statute-givers come to your house, and, despite your explanations that you are subject to common law, not statute, you are arrested, handcuffed, and taken off to jail. The statute-givers have the guns, you see.

I think that tax evasion or or something similar would be the charge.

Assume that you are tried for tax evasion, then will you follow Elizabeth I's argument and answer her question?

[fromdownunder]

Assume that you are tried for tax evasion, then will you follow Elizabeth I's argument and answer her question?

Still awake. No he will not. He has not got an answer. He can only go by what his FOTL masters have told him. And they do not have an answer either.

Norm

[Elizabeth I]

Read it again - "So you are found guilty of tax evasion". The court, despite your magic words, deems you guilty of tax evasion. So what do you do? What, ultimately, do you hope to achieve by following the FOTL philosophy, given that words are not magic, and, by your own logic, those against whom you struggle are corrupt and evil?

I think that tax evasion or or something similar would be the charge.

Assume that you are tried for tax evasion, then will you follow Elizabeth I's argument and answer her question?

Still awake. No he will not. He has not got an answer. He can only go by what his FOTL masters have told him. And they do not have an answer either.

Norm

And, if you think about it, the actual charge is beside the point. The issue is that, despite someone's having done everything he should have done under Freeman belief, he is still at the mercy of the existing system and locked up at their pleasure. That being the case, what does he do next?

[Especially]

Ok, we have established that your arguments don't work (as in don't keep you out of jail). Some people may elect to exchange their liberty for their sovereignty but I don't see it a big vote winner.

There is an argument that we are all imprisoned and that the law (as commonly applied) keeps us captive, but most people want the laws we have and don't want people sponging off the rest of us. They are happy to exchange a loss of freedom for the benefits.

If you were right and there is no legal justification for taxes people would soon insist that taxes were enforced. I don't know if you have had the chance to speak to many Brits but we like or free education, our NHS, our bins emptied etc. and we think that people should, subject to means testing contribute to them if they are to remain at liberty in our society.

Perhaps rather than wasting time arguing over your understanding of a law that you accept is not applied you tell us what your alternative is to compulsory taxation.

But we have established no such thing ! I am not in jail because I have broken no law. And nor are you. Those who break the law are in jail. So can we stop arguing about irrelevancies ?

Under the law a person is entitled to consent or not consent to commercial contracts being offered to them, even those which come in the form of a bill. You seem to accept this. Which is great. In that case what law has been broken ? None.

You have to invent some malicious system. Because only a malicious system would jail a person who is appealing to the law. Yes ?

In that case, don't you see you are arguing in circles ? If the malicious system exists we should not contract with it. But if it does not exist why should we worry about it ?

It also seems to me that people have the right to contract to have their bins opened, or to use the NHS, or to swim in swimming pools, or use public libraries if they wish to pay for them in that way and do not have their own alternatives. Isn't that fair and reasonable ?

What exactly is the problem here ?

A man or a woman can choose these things. They may consent to them. Great ! But they may not. Great ! In that case, what's the problem ? Why the coercion ? Why the fiction of it being 'the law' when, in fact, it is nothing but a commercial contract dressed up as 'the law' ?

You see my point ? We are living in the Nanny State and I don't want to live in the Nanny State.

[Especially]

*Ahem*

Assume I do everything you say I need to do in order to be considered under the Law of England. What happens if the judge locks me up anyway?

You have not told us under what law a judge would lock a person up who simply declines the goods and services being offered to them.

You are saying we have no choice, no consent at all. Aren't you ?

But that is NOT true. We do have choice. And whatever you choose is fine with me.

[Especially]

And, if you think about it, the actual charge is beside the point. The issue is that, despite someone's having done everything he should have done under Freeman belief, he is still at the mercy of the existing system and locked up at their pleasure. That being the case, what does he do next?

But you are completely ignoring the point.

Do you wish to live in a society where a person can be locked up simply by declining a commercial offer ? When his/her appeal is based on his/her right under the law to consent or not to that same offer ?

Do we ever stop to think about the automaton-style arguments being advanced here which remove from you your own liberty ? We are unthinkingly becoming robots. With no real choices at all. That is dangerous, tyrannical stuff, isn't it ?