The Freeman Movement and England - Page 22

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I don't evade questions.

You evaded mine 27 times. Can you provide details of one case where your arguments have been supported by UK Law?

Especially · 4th October 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

You evaded mine 27 times. Can you provide details of one case where your arguments have been supported by UK Law?

I have answered you many times. Which of my MANY arguments do you wish me to support with the law of England ?

Just ask me, and I will happily provide you with further examples. I've already done so by pointing you to various forums.

But choose as you please.

Let others stay in ignorance. But please do not exaggerate.

Thank You

Elizabeth I · 4th October 2009, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

It's not same thing? (congressionally speaking)

No, Congress can propose an amendment but it must be ratified by the states, which can either put the amendment to their own state legislatures, or call ratification conventions:

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

To Propose Amendments

* Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or

* Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

* Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

* Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscons...constamend.htm

So Especially is not only ignorant about England and U.K., he's also pretty dim on the subject of the U.S. Constitution.

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

You can't discuss these issues can you ? You're out of your depth. And it shows.

Let us discuss the issues. Show us one case where the UK courts have accepted that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to it.

Show us that you are not out of your depth by answering this at the 28th time of asking.

LissaLysikan · 4th October 2009, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I won't reply to your false accusations and smears against me.

Liar:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=632

Quote:

Except to note that your education is not good. Please carry on serving the great and healthy bankers of Wall Street, the fraudulent parties in Washington, and spreading democracy in every country you choose to occupy and invade in the name of the USA.

A plane load of atlases will be donated soon. You and others like you are entitled to know the locations of which countries your industrial/military complex is occupying and wrecking in the name of 'democracy' - paid for by your Federal Income Tax. And we know that geography and history is not a big deal for you.

And, thank you for being prepared to listen to both sides on the 16th Amendment. Because one thing is sure - you are amazingly ignorant. By choice.

When are you going to admit you were wrong about the 16th Amendment? I even gave you the text explaining the exact errors in your argument.

Quote:

I am sure, however, you will eventually grow up.

Regards

I hope not - I like being the way I am.

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I have answered you many times. Which of my MANY arguments do you wish me to support with the law of England ?

Just ask me, and I will happily provide you with examples.

I've already done so by pointing you to various forums.

But choose as you please.

Let others stay in ignorance. But please do not exaggerate.

Thank You

You have never answered the question. Provide me with one example where a UK court has upheld your view that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to that law.

This has been asked over 30 times and I am not exaggerating.

Especially · 4th October 2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Let us discuss the issues. Show us one case where the UK courts have accepted that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to it.

Show us that you are not out of your depth by answering this at the 28th time of asking.

I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ? And please don't exaggerate. One minute you've asked me 28 times and the next 30 times. When both are gross exaggerations. Be honest.

DGM · 4th October 2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ? And please don't exaggerate. One minute you've asked me 28 times and the next 30 times. When both are gross exaggerations. Be honest.

Your not reading for comprehension. (S)He can't be anymore specific.

Nice try at a dodge though.

Wildy · 4th October 2009, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

As far as 'evading questions' goes, just ask me one. I will happily answer you. The unelected dynastic office of Her Brittanic Majesty and her feudal overlords will be pleased by your glowing report of Commomwealth Australia and her status.

Feudal overlords? Brittanic Majesty?

Quote:

I don't evade questions. But the answers you might get may differ from your expectations.

So continuously ignoring people when they answer your question regarding the 16^th Amendment and acting as if they didn't does not count as evasion?

Quote:

I have a number of friends in Australia who tell me differently than you do.

Regarding?

Quote:

Still, thanks for your FOX report.

Well I am from Adelaide...

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ? And please don't exaggerate. One minute you've asked me 28 times and the next 30 times. When both are gross exaggerations. Be honest.

One minute I said that I had asked. the next I said that you had been asked. Do you want me to explain the difference?

As for the tax regime. Take your pick. However I do not want a general answer I want a specific one. I want the case reference. I will then read the case myself.

Especially · 4th October 2009, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

You have never answered the question. Provide me with one example where a UK court has upheld your view that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to that law.

This has been asked over 30 times and I am not exaggerating.

You are asking a nonsense question.

A Statute has the 'force of law only with the consent of the governed'. It is NOT law.

Don't you even know that ? Where did you get your education from ?

Especially · 4th October 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

One minute I said that I had asked. the next I said that you had been asked. Do you want me to explain the difference?

As for the tax regime. Take your pick. However I do not want a general answer I want a specific one. I want the case reference. I will then read the case myself.

Dear Lothian,

You are confused. Please repeat after me -

1. Statutes are NOT Law.

2. Statutes have the 'force of law only with the CONSENT of the governed'

3. The 'laws' of Parliament are STATUTES.

Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times told you similar things here on this thread.

Thank You

LissaLysikan · 4th October 2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

A Statute has the 'force of law only with the consent of the governed'. It is NOT law.

Could you provide a reference for this? So far no one has been able to find any evidence that YOUR ASSERTION that a statute requires consent has any resemblance to reality.
You, not being a person of authority nor empowered to speak for any of the governments of the nations under discussion, cannot arbitrarily make such declarations and expect them to be accepted. You must realize that in order to accept your word we need to see some proof that your word has meaning.

Marduk · 4th October 2009, 09:54 AM

ok let me say that I do agree the UK has problems, heres my top three
1. more women than men
2. too close to france
3. beer too expensive

the reasoning
1. there are 30.3 million females compared with 28.9 million males, this means I have to service 1.4 million women and I'm getting worn out (+ i also like men and there aren't enough good ones to go round)
2. the french
3. too much tax (some weeks I have to decide between beer and condoms)

if these three problems were rectified this place would be Eden

DGM · 4th October 2009, 09:55 AM

By definition:

Quote:

Main Entry: stat·ute
Pronunciation: \ˈsta-(ˌ)chüt, -chət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French estatut, from Late Latin statutum law, regulation, from Latin, neuter of statutus, past participle of statuere to set up, station, from status position, state
Date: 14th century
1 : a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government
2 : an act of a corporation or of its founder intended as a permanent rule
3 : an international instrument setting up an agency and regulating its scope or authority

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statute

Especially · 4th October 2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

By definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statute

Yes, and if you wish to go to a law dictionary (such as Black's Law Dictionary) you will see that Parliamentary Statutes are NOT law. They have the force of law ONLY on consent of the governed.

Because we do not yet live in a dictatorship. Simple, yes ?

D'rok · 4th October 2009, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ?

I'll play.

Let's talk about the Council Tax. Can you cite an instance where a freeman has successfully withdrawn his/her consent to the Council Tax by appealing to the "Law of England" as you define it, where "successfully" means that a UK court has recognized the freeman's right to do so?

LissaLysikan · 4th October 2009, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Yes, and if you wish to go to a law dictionary (such as Black's Law Dictionary) you will see that Parliamentary Statutes are NOT law. They have the force of law ONLY on consent of the governed.

Because we do not yet live in a dictatorship. Simple, yes ?

I'm waiting for your reference for this. How long are you going to lie and evade the question?

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Dear Lothian,

You are confused. Please repeat after me -

1. Statutes are NOT Law.

2. Statutes have the 'force of law only with the CONSENT of the governed'

3. The 'laws' of Parliament are STATUTES.

Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times told you similar things here on this thread.

Thank You

Especially.

I am not confused. I want you to provide me with the reference of a case which supports your contentions that statutes do not apply to those who do not consent to them.

Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times asked you similar things here on this thread.

Especially · 4th October 2009, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Especially.

I am not confused. I want you to provide me with the reference of a case which supports your contentions that statutes do not apply to those who do not consent to them.

Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times asked you similar things here on this thread.

Lothian,

Read this. If you agree with it please tell me. If you do not it's a waste of time going round and round in circles when you do not even know what law is and what a statute is. Here it is, just for you -

STATUTE

Definition -

''A legislative rule of society given the force of Law by consent of the governed".

This is the commonly used definition of the word 'Statute'. (What are commonly called 'laws' of Parliament'). It raises some questions as most of us live our lives according to the rules of our various statutes and Acts they derive from, and yet in no part of that definiton does it suggest that it is a Law. Rather it is a rule. Aren't rules made to be broken? I would certainly say so; the more rules you break, the more you have to pay to the court!

Rather than finding the precise source, lets discover whether this much used definition is acceptable. So, can this much quoted definition be either disproved and discarded or confirmed and accepted?

First, let’s look at a sourced definition of “statute”.

Statute. An act of the legislature as an organized body. Washington v Dowling, 92 Fla 601, 109 So 588.

The written will of the legislative department, expressed according to the form necessary to constitute it a law of the United States or of the state, and rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms and solemnities.

In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law. 50 Am J1st Stat § 2. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1212)

Let’s now use this as our base to work from …

In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law.

act,n. A thing done or established; a deed or other written instrument evidencing a contract or an obligation. A statute; a bill which has been enacted by the legislature into a law, as distinguished from a bill which is in the form of a law presented to the legislature for enactment. Anne 5 ALR 1422. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 16-17)

legislature. Broadly, any body having legislative power. 49 Am J1st States § 28. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 724)

regulation. Control or direction by restriction or rule of something permitted or suffered to exist. 30 Am J rev ed Intox L § 22. Any rule for the ordering of affairs, public or private, whether by statute, ordinance, or resolution. Kepner v Commonwealth, 40 Pa St 124, 129. Ballantines, 3rd edtion, Page 1081)

state. A body politic or society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength, occupying a definite territory, and politically organized under one government. McLaughlin v Poucher, 127 Conn 441, 17 A2d 767. … a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanction and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. Coyle v Smith, 221 US 559, 55 L Ed 853, 31 S Ct 688. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1210)

Summary

An act of the legislature = legislative
An administrative regulation = a rule
The state = a political community, organized under a government, established by the consent of the governed.

In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature (legislative), an administrative regulation (rule), or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state (political community established by the consent of the governed) gives the force of law.

Connect the dots -

STATUTE

A legislative rule, given the force of law by the political community established by the consent of the governed.

Compare this to -
A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.

//

OK ?

uk_dave · 4th October 2009, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

OK ?

Please just quote a case where someone has succesfully avoided paying council tax because in court they have claimed to have not consented to it being charged or just admit that you just have a nice little fantasy going.

C'mon Especially. Surely you yourself have been down this road, right? You've refused to consent to being taxed, gone to court and said the magic words and won, right? Where can we read the specifics of your case?

Especially · 4th October 2009, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

I'll play.

Let's talk about the Council Tax. Can you cite an instance where a freeman has successfully withdrawn his/her consent to the Council Tax by appealing to the "Law of England" as you define it, where "successfully" means that a UK court has recognized the freeman's right to do so?

I can do even better than that. I can show you the court case documents which show Council Tax being appealed against and withdrawn.

Read this stuff closely

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Lothian,

Read this. ..............Ea

Especially. Read this. I have read many QC opinions and found many to be persuasive that have crashed and burned in court. Similarly I have read many that I have found unconvincing which have sailed through.

I am not interested in legal argument. I want a UK legal decision which backs up your claims that statute does not apply to those who consider they have not consented to it.

Summary

I want a case. If you don't have one, just admit it, I am sure we can still move on constructively.

Especially · 4th October 2009, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Please just quote a case where someone has succesfully avoided paying council tax because in court they have claimed to have not consented to it being charged or just admit that you just have a nice little fantasy going.

C'mon Especially. Surely you yourself have been down this road, right? You've refused to consent to being taxed, gone to court and said the magic words and won, right? Where can we read the specifics of your case?

Why not read this typical case ?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html

Now, ask yourself, what sort of society do you want ? A society which is able to consent or one which cannot ?

uk_dave · 4th October 2009, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I can do even better than that. I can show you the court case documents which show Council Tax being appealed against and withdrawn.

Read this stuff closely

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html

Did YOU read it?

I like posts 7 & 10

Especially · 4th October 2009, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Especially. Read this. I have read many QC opinions and found many to be persuasive that have crashed and burned in court. Similarly I have read many that I have found unconvincing which have sailed through.

I am not interested in legal argument. I want a UK legal decision which backs up your claims that statute does not apply to those who consider they have not consented to it.

Summary

I want a case. If you don't have one, just admit it, I am sure we can still move on constructively.

Lothian,

I gave you the handbook. Now you must learn to drive yourself.

www.NoCouncilTax.com

Consigning Council Tax To The History Books!

http://www.nocounciltax.com/?p=15

LissaLysikan · 4th October 2009, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Lothian,

I gave you the handbook. Now you must learn to drive yourself.

www.NoCouncilTax.com

Consigning Council Tax To The History Books!

That is a link to a bunch of people that don't like council taxes, not a reference that supports anything you've said.

Oh - and a really badly done page, too.

tsig · 4th October 2009, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

As far as 'evading questions' goes, just ask me one. I will happily answer you.

I don't evade questions.

Do you pay taxes?

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Lothian,

I gave you the handbook. Now you must learn to drive yourself.

www.NoCouncilTax.com

Consigning Council Tax To The History Books!

That is a blog. I want a case reference where we can see the ratio.

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Do you pay taxes?

Especially is first in the queue to pay the man.

D'rok · 4th October 2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I can do even better than that. I can show you the court case documents which show Council Tax being appealed against and withdrawn.

Read this stuff closely

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html

Holy crap that is one hundred percent comedy gold!

Dude paid his council tax and the council withdrew the liability order.

Victoire pour la liberté!

Especially · 4th October 2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Did YOU read it?

I like posts 7 & 10

Life is choice ! Choose your life. You HAVE choice. It's called CONSENT.

Get used to it !

Elizabeth I · 4th October 2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Holy crap that is one hundred percent comedy gold!

Dude paid his council tax and the council withdrew the liability order.

Victoire pour la liberté!

A bas le roi!

A bas les aristos!

Especially · 4th October 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Especially is first in the queue to pay the man.

I always comply with the Law. Because, Lothian, the law IS the law. And you should know what the law IS, and what it is not. You have CONSENT. (You are what it's all about. Your own personal sovereignty. Don't throw it away). Get used to it. It may shock you. But it's called 'freedom'. The alternative is NO CONSENT, DICTATORSHIP.

Right ?

uk_dave · 4th October 2009, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I always comply with the Law. Because, Lothian, the law IS the law. And you should know what the law IS, and what it is not. You have CONSENT. Get used to it. It may shock you. But it's called 'freedom'. The alternative is NO CONSENT, DICTATORSHIP.

Right ?

So you've never used the magic words to avoid paying tax?

tsig · 4th October 2009, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

Why not read this typical case ?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html

Now, ask yourself, what sort of society do you want ? A society which is able to consent or one which cannot ?

I'd like one where you consented to answer the questions asked instead of the ones in your head.

tsig · 4th October 2009, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Especially is first in the queue to pay the man.

No doubt.

Audible Click · 4th October 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

You ARE going to make a positive contribution here, yes ?

Are you? We've yet to see any cites of court cases that prove any of the points you've been trying to make. All of your verbal jujitsu doesn't mean a thing without proper evidence.

Lothian · 4th October 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Especially

I always comply with the Law. Because, Lothian, the law IS the law. And you should know what the law IS, and what it is not. You have CONSENT. (You are what it's all about. Your own personal sovereignty. Don't throw it away). Get used to it. It may shock you. But it's called 'freedom'. The alternative is NO CONSENT, DICTATORSHIP.

Right ?

But according to you statutes are not the Law. Do you pay statutory taxes?

Especially · 4th October 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

So you've never used the magic words to avoid paying tax?

You are so busy avoiding the law that you confuse it with statutes. And you honestly believe you are smarter than the law itself.

Well, great, go ahead. That's your choice.

4th October 2009, 09:34 AM	#842
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Lothian You evaded mine 27 times. Can you provide details of one case where your arguments have been supported by UK Law? I have answered you many times. Which of my MANY arguments do you wish me to support with the law of England ? Just ask me, and I will happily provide you with further examples. I've already done so by pointing you to various forums. But choose as you please. Let others stay in ignorance. But please do not exaggerate. Thank You
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 4th October 2009 at 09:37 AM.

4th October 2009, 09:35 AM	#843
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,267	Amending the U.S. Constitution Originally Posted by DGM It's not same thing? (congressionally speaking) No, Congress can propose an amendment but it must be ratified by the states, which can either put the amendment to their own state legislatures, or call ratification conventions: Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified. To Propose Amendments * Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or * Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.) To Ratify Amendments * Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or * Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscons...constamend.htm So Especially is not only ignorant about England and U.K., he's also pretty dim on the subject of the U.S. Constitution.
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

4th October 2009, 09:40 AM	#847
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Lothian Let us discuss the issues. Show us one case where the UK courts have accepted that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to it. Show us that you are not out of your depth by answering this at the 28th time of asking. I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ? And please don't exaggerate. One minute you've asked me 28 times and the next 30 times. When both are gross exaggerations. Be honest.
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 4th October 2009 at 09:43 AM.

4th October 2009, 09:43 AM	#848
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,345	Originally Posted by Especially I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ? And please don't exaggerate. One minute you've asked me 28 times and the next 30 times. When both are gross exaggerations. Be honest. Your not reading for comprehension. (S)He can't be anymore specific. Nice try at a dodge though.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 4th October 2009 at 09:45 AM.

4th October 2009, 09:45 AM	#849
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,923	Originally Posted by Especially As far as 'evading questions' goes, just ask me one. I will happily answer you. The unelected dynastic office of Her Brittanic Majesty and her feudal overlords will be pleased by your glowing report of Commomwealth Australia and her status. Feudal overlords? Brittanic Majesty? Quote: I don't evade questions. But the answers you might get may differ from your expectations. So continuously ignoring people when they answer your question regarding the 16^th Amendment and acting as if they didn't does not count as evasion? Quote: I have a number of friends in Australia who tell me differently than you do. Regarding? Quote: Still, thanks for your FOX report. Well I am from Adelaide...
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

4th October 2009, 09:30 AM	#841
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Especially I don't evade questions. You evaded mine 27 times. Can you provide details of one case where your arguments have been supported by UK Law?

4th October 2009, 09:36 AM	#844
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Especially You can't discuss these issues can you ? You're out of your depth. And it shows. Let us discuss the issues. Show us one case where the UK courts have accepted that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to it. Show us that you are not out of your depth by answering this at the 28th time of asking.

4th October 2009, 09:39 AM	#845
LissaLysikan Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: A forest in Georgia, US Posts: 211	Originally Posted by Especially I won't reply to your false accusations and smears against me. Liar: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=632 Quote: Except to note that your education is not good. Please carry on serving the great and healthy bankers of Wall Street, the fraudulent parties in Washington, and spreading democracy in every country you choose to occupy and invade in the name of the USA. A plane load of atlases will be donated soon. You and others like you are entitled to know the locations of which countries your industrial/military complex is occupying and wrecking in the name of 'democracy' - paid for by your Federal Income Tax. And we know that geography and history is not a big deal for you. And, thank you for being prepared to listen to both sides on the 16th Amendment. Because one thing is sure - you are amazingly ignorant. By choice. When are you going to admit you were wrong about the 16th Amendment? I even gave you the text explaining the exact errors in your argument. Quote: I am sure, however, you will eventually grow up. Regards I hope not - I like being the way I am.

4th October 2009, 09:39 AM	#846
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Especially I have answered you many times. Which of my MANY arguments do you wish me to support with the law of England ? Just ask me, and I will happily provide you with examples. I've already done so by pointing you to various forums. But choose as you please. Let others stay in ignorance. But please do not exaggerate. Thank You You have never answered the question. Provide me with one example where a UK court has upheld your view that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to that law. This has been asked over 30 times and I am not exaggerating.

4th October 2009, 09:47 AM	#850
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Especially I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ? And please don't exaggerate. One minute you've asked me 28 times and the next 30 times. When both are gross exaggerations. Be honest. One minute I said that I had asked. the next I said that you had been asked. Do you want me to explain the difference? As for the tax regime. Take your pick. However I do not want a general answer I want a specific one. I want the case reference. I will then read the case myself.

4th October 2009, 09:47 AM	#851
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Lothian You have never answered the question. Provide me with one example where a UK court has upheld your view that statute does not apply to people who do not consent to that law. This has been asked over 30 times and I am not exaggerating. You are asking a nonsense question. A Statute has the 'force of law only with the consent of the governed'. It is NOT law. Don't you even know that ? Where did you get your education from ?
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669

4th October 2009, 09:49 AM	#852
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Lothian One minute I said that I had asked. the next I said that you had been asked. Do you want me to explain the difference? As for the tax regime. Take your pick. However I do not want a general answer I want a specific one. I want the case reference. I will then read the case myself. Dear Lothian, You are confused. Please repeat after me - 1. Statutes are NOT Law. 2. Statutes have the 'force of law only with the CONSENT of the governed' 3. The 'laws' of Parliament are STATUTES. Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times told you similar things here on this thread. Thank You
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 4th October 2009 at 09:54 AM.

4th October 2009, 09:53 AM	#853
LissaLysikan Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: A forest in Georgia, US Posts: 211	Originally Posted by Especially A Statute has the 'force of law only with the consent of the governed'. It is NOT law. Could you provide a reference for this? So far no one has been able to find any evidence that YOUR ASSERTION that a statute requires consent has any resemblance to reality. You, not being a person of authority nor empowered to speak for any of the governments of the nations under discussion, cannot arbitrarily make such declarations and expect them to be accepted. You must realize that in order to accept your word we need to see some proof that your word has meaning.

4th October 2009, 09:54 AM	#854
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	ok let me say that I do agree the UK has problems, heres my top three 1. more women than men 2. too close to france 3. beer too expensive the reasoning 1. there are 30.3 million females compared with 28.9 million males, this means I have to service 1.4 million women and I'm getting worn out (+ i also like men and there aren't enough good ones to go round) 2. the french 3. too much tax (some weeks I have to decide between beer and condoms) if these three problems were rectified this place would be Eden

4th October 2009, 09:55 AM	#855
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,345	By definition: Quote: Main Entry: stat·ute Pronunciation: \ˈsta-(ˌ)chüt, -chət\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French estatut, from Late Latin statutum law, regulation, from Latin, neuter of statutus, past participle of statuere to set up, station, from status position, state Date: 14th century 1 : a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government 2 : an act of a corporation or of its founder intended as a permanent rule 3 : an international instrument setting up an agency and regulating its scope or authority http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statute
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

4th October 2009, 09:57 AM	#856
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by DGM By definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statute Yes, and if you wish to go to a law dictionary (such as Black's Law Dictionary) you will see that Parliamentary Statutes are NOT law. They have the force of law ONLY on consent of the governed. Because we do not yet live in a dictatorship. Simple, yes ?
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 4th October 2009 at 09:58 AM.

4th October 2009, 09:58 AM	#857
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Especially I will gladly repeat my answer already given here many times. Can you be more specific ? Since if your question is general the answer will inevitably be general. Are you talking about Council Tax, ten pin bowling licences or the tax on inheritance ? I'll play. Let's talk about the Council Tax. Can you cite an instance where a freeman has successfully withdrawn his/her consent to the Council Tax by appealing to the "Law of England" as you define it, where "successfully" means that a UK court has recognized the freeman's right to do so?
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

4th October 2009, 09:59 AM	#858
LissaLysikan Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: A forest in Georgia, US Posts: 211	Originally Posted by Especially Yes, and if you wish to go to a law dictionary (such as Black's Law Dictionary) you will see that Parliamentary Statutes are NOT law. They have the force of law ONLY on consent of the governed. Because we do not yet live in a dictatorship. Simple, yes ? I'm waiting for your reference for this. How long are you going to lie and evade the question?

4th October 2009, 09:59 AM	#859
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Especially Dear Lothian, You are confused. Please repeat after me - 1. Statutes are NOT Law. 2. Statutes have the 'force of law only with the CONSENT of the governed' 3. The 'laws' of Parliament are STATUTES. Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times told you similar things here on this thread. Thank You Especially. I am not confused. I want you to provide me with the reference of a case which supports your contentions that statutes do not apply to those who do not consent to them. Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times asked you similar things here on this thread.

4th October 2009, 10:07 AM	#860
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Lothian Especially. I am not confused. I want you to provide me with the reference of a case which supports your contentions that statutes do not apply to those who do not consent to them. Do you understand now ? And if you do not understand, please tell us, because I have dozens of times asked you similar things here on this thread. Lothian, Read this. If you agree with it please tell me. If you do not it's a waste of time going round and round in circles when you do not even know what law is and what a statute is. Here it is, just for you - STATUTE Definition - ''A legislative rule of society given the force of Law by consent of the governed". This is the commonly used definition of the word 'Statute'. (What are commonly called 'laws' of Parliament'). It raises some questions as most of us live our lives according to the rules of our various statutes and Acts they derive from, and yet in no part of that definiton does it suggest that it is a Law. Rather it is a rule. Aren't rules made to be broken? I would certainly say so; the more rules you break, the more you have to pay to the court! Rather than finding the precise source, lets discover whether this much used definition is acceptable. So, can this much quoted definition be either disproved and discarded or confirmed and accepted? First, let’s look at a sourced definition of “statute”. Statute. An act of the legislature as an organized body. Washington v Dowling, 92 Fla 601, 109 So 588. The written will of the legislative department, expressed according to the form necessary to constitute it a law of the United States or of the state, and rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms and solemnities. In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law. 50 Am J1st Stat § 2. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1212) Let’s now use this as our base to work from … In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law. act,n. A thing done or established; a deed or other written instrument evidencing a contract or an obligation. A statute; a bill which has been enacted by the legislature into a law, as distinguished from a bill which is in the form of a law presented to the legislature for enactment. Anne 5 ALR 1422. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 16-17) legislature. Broadly, any body having legislative power. 49 Am J1st States § 28. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 724) regulation. Control or direction by restriction or rule of something permitted or suffered to exist. 30 Am J rev ed Intox L § 22. Any rule for the ordering of affairs, public or private, whether by statute, ordinance, or resolution. Kepner v Commonwealth, 40 Pa St 124, 129. Ballantines, 3rd edtion, Page 1081) state. A body politic or society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength, occupying a definite territory, and politically organized under one government. McLaughlin v Poucher, 127 Conn 441, 17 A2d 767. … a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanction and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. Coyle v Smith, 221 US 559, 55 L Ed 853, 31 S Ct 688. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1210) Summary An act of the legislature = legislative An administrative regulation = a rule The state = a political community, organized under a government, established by the consent of the governed. In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature (legislative), an administrative regulation (rule), or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state (political community established by the consent of the governed) gives the force of law. Connect the dots - STATUTE A legislative rule, given the force of law by the political community established by the consent of the governed. Compare this to - A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed. // OK ?
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 4th October 2009 at 10:08 AM.

4th October 2009, 10:13 AM	#861
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Especially OK ? Please just quote a case where someone has succesfully avoided paying council tax because in court they have claimed to have not consented to it being charged or just admit that you just have a nice little fantasy going. C'mon Especially. Surely you yourself have been down this road, right? You've refused to consent to being taxed, gone to court and said the magic words and won, right? Where can we read the specifics of your case?
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

4th October 2009, 10:14 AM	#862
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by D'rok I'll play. Let's talk about the Council Tax. Can you cite an instance where a freeman has successfully withdrawn his/her consent to the Council Tax by appealing to the "Law of England" as you define it, where "successfully" means that a UK court has recognized the freeman's right to do so? I can do even better than that. I can show you the court case documents which show Council Tax being appealed against and withdrawn. Read this stuff closely http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669

4th October 2009, 10:15 AM	#863
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Especially Lothian, Read this. ..............Ea Especially. Read this. I have read many QC opinions and found many to be persuasive that have crashed and burned in court. Similarly I have read many that I have found unconvincing which have sailed through. I am not interested in legal argument. I want a UK legal decision which backs up your claims that statute does not apply to those who consider they have not consented to it. Summary I want a case. If you don't have one, just admit it, I am sure we can still move on constructively.

4th October 2009, 10:15 AM	#864
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by uk_dave Please just quote a case where someone has succesfully avoided paying council tax because in court they have claimed to have not consented to it being charged or just admit that you just have a nice little fantasy going. C'mon Especially. Surely you yourself have been down this road, right? You've refused to consent to being taxed, gone to court and said the magic words and won, right? Where can we read the specifics of your case? Why not read this typical case ? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html Now, ask yourself, what sort of society do you want ? A society which is able to consent or one which cannot ?
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 4th October 2009 at 10:18 AM.

4th October 2009, 10:18 AM	#865
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Especially I can do even better than that. I can show you the court case documents which show Council Tax being appealed against and withdrawn. Read this stuff closely http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html Did YOU read it? I like posts 7 & 10
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

4th October 2009, 10:20 AM	#866
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Lothian Especially. Read this. I have read many QC opinions and found many to be persuasive that have crashed and burned in court. Similarly I have read many that I have found unconvincing which have sailed through. I am not interested in legal argument. I want a UK legal decision which backs up your claims that statute does not apply to those who consider they have not consented to it. Summary I want a case. If you don't have one, just admit it, I am sure we can still move on constructively. Lothian, I gave you the handbook. Now you must learn to drive yourself. www.NoCouncilTax.com Consigning Council Tax To The History Books! http://www.nocounciltax.com/?p=15
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 4th October 2009 at 10:26 AM.

4th October 2009, 10:24 AM	#867
LissaLysikan Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: A forest in Georgia, US Posts: 211	Originally Posted by Especially Lothian, I gave you the handbook. Now you must learn to drive yourself. www.NoCouncilTax.com Consigning Council Tax To The History Books! That is a link to a bunch of people that don't like council taxes, not a reference that supports anything you've said. Oh - and a really badly done page, too.

4th October 2009, 10:24 AM	#868
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,779	Originally Posted by Especially As far as 'evading questions' goes, just ask me one. I will happily answer you. I don't evade questions. Do you pay taxes?

4th October 2009, 10:25 AM	#869
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by Especially Lothian, I gave you the handbook. Now you must learn to drive yourself. www.NoCouncilTax.com Consigning Council Tax To The History Books! That is a blog. I want a case reference where we can see the ratio.

4th October 2009, 10:26 AM	#870
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by tsig Do you pay taxes? Especially is first in the queue to pay the man.

4th October 2009, 10:26 AM	#871
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,237	Originally Posted by Especially I can do even better than that. I can show you the court case documents which show Council Tax being appealed against and withdrawn. Read this stuff closely http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-council.html Holy crap that is one hundred percent comedy gold! Dude paid his council tax and the council withdrew the liability order. Victoire pour la liberté!
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

4th October 2009, 10:29 AM	#872
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by uk_dave Did YOU read it? I like posts 7 & 10 Life is choice ! Choose your life. You HAVE choice. It's called CONSENT. Get used to it !
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669

4th October 2009, 10:29 AM	#873
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,267	Originally Posted by D'rok Holy crap that is one hundred percent comedy gold! Dude paid his council tax and the council withdrew the liability order. Victoire pour la liberté! A bas le roi! A bas les aristos!
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

4th October 2009, 10:32 AM	#874
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Originally Posted by Lothian Especially is first in the queue to pay the man. I always comply with the Law. Because, Lothian, the law IS the law. And you should know what the law IS, and what it is not. You have CONSENT. (You are what it's all about. Your own personal sovereignty. Don't throw it away). Get used to it. It may shock you. But it's called 'freedom'. The alternative is NO CONSENT, DICTATORSHIP. Right ?
Especially Banned Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 669	Last edited by Especially; 4th October 2009 at 10:34 AM.

4th October 2009, 10:34 AM	#875
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Especially I always comply with the Law. Because, Lothian, the law IS the law. And you should know what the law IS, and what it is not. You have CONSENT. Get used to it. It may shock you. But it's called 'freedom'. The alternative is NO CONSENT, DICTATORSHIP. Right ? So you've never used the magic words to avoid paying tax?
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866