The Freeman Movement and England

[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.

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_Constitution

 

[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).

Regards

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.

 

[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 !!!
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.