The Freeman Movement and England

[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]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/144944ac76c011c388.jpg[/qimg]

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.

Regards

Especially.

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. 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. 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 ?

 

[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