Monday, 14 February 2011

Captain Ranty's "Legal Fiction"

Captain Ranty recently posted the following:

Roger [Hayes] decided to not pay his council tax and see where it all ended up. The result is pretty stupendous. He got a judge to agree that he Roger Hayes, the man, was not MR ROGER HAYES, a corporation defined in law.

What does it all mean? In essence, it means that every time you bend a statute, you, the flesh and blood human, is not responsible. Your legal fiction is. I imagine that your legal fiction, like mine, has no money. So the liability for paying your council tax, a parking fine, a speeding fine, your income tax, or corporation tax, falls on your legal fiction, not you, the human.


1. This is what I do for a living, distinguishing between which person (natural or legal) owes what tax and why. It is quite clear, for example, that the legal liability for council tax falls on the occupant; a parking fine falls on the owner of the car; income tax is payable by the individual and corporation tax by the legal fiction known as the limited company.

2. It must also be clear that a liability for a tax is not enforceable against a human being, as such. If somebody turns up at HM Revenue & Customs, cheerfully admits that he has been paid cash in hand all his life and spent it all on wine, women and song and does not have a penny to his name, there is b-gger all that the tax man can do about it. For sure, the man could be declared bankrupt or imprisoned, but that does not recover one penny in tax, does it?

3. Conversely, if somebody else is caught out, having earned the same amount of money cash in hand and has stashed it all in a bank account, then the tax debt is recoverable (whether he gets a prison sentence is by the by).

4. So a liability can only be enforced against assets and not a human being.

5. Now, as it happens, the government upholds another completely artificial legal fiction, to wit the concept of 'land ownership' ('the State' and 'land ownership' are synonymous, of course), which involves matching up a plot of land with a name (which we traditionally assume relates to a human being or other legal entity) and giving that named person special rights and privileges as against all other citizens.

6. But if we follow Captain Ranty's logic through to its obvious conclusion, then surely the name written down at HM Land Registry also relates to the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES rather than the human being who goes by the name of Roger Hayes? Or does he live in a fantasy world where 'land owners' have rights but no responsibilities and the State (which is all of us obeying these silly little customs, like respecting each other's property and not 'the government' in the narrow sense) does everything out of the goodness of its own heart?

7. If we are to argue that a human being doesn't have to pay tax because they are distinct from the legal fiction bearing a similar name (the tax only being enforceable against that legal fiction), would it not be a reasonable quid pro quo for the State to tell that human being that he has no rights over any land registered in the name of that legal fiction?

8. In summary, while I object to the whole concept of taxation of incomes or the free exchange of goods and services (for a number of tediously pragmatic reasons), I fail to see how any human being can object to the State levying taxes on (i.e. charging money for) the legal fiction of land 'ownership'. Render what is Cæsar's unto Cæsar; make the punishment fit the crime; poetic justice; all that sort of thing.

Just sayin', is all.

53 comments:

Steven_L said...

Good point! What you think will happen to this 'lawful rebellion' lot then?

They seem a bit nuts to me. I wacthed some guy on an internet video baging on about this a few years ago.

He went on about how the state usses NPL to brainwash us all then just changed all the words to suit his new reality. Saying that 'statute' was just a contract he isn't a party to.

OK, now council tax is one thing, you go break a nasty section of the Sexual Offences Act and try arguing that one mate!

If you ask me, they've all been brainwashed by some nutter.

Mark Wadsworth said...

SL, I have no idea what will happen. If I were in charge, I'd auction off all the land 'owned' by the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and if MR ROGER HAYES doesn't turn up to claim the proceeds*, I'd hand over the money to local widows and orphans.

It's highly unlike that the Blue-Yellow Wing of the HO Movement would see it like that - they're more likely to agree to scrap Council Tax, TBH.

* I don't see how MR ROGER HAYES, being a legal fiction being unconnected to any human being using that name, can possibly do anything. If Roger Hayes (the human being) rocks up and asks for 'his' money, I'd ask him what the f- connects him to the similarly named legal fiction from which he had distanced himself a few months earlier, for example.

Steven_L said...

This is the guy I as on about.

"But these laws are statutory instruments ... members of parliament are actually directors of a corporation ... statutory instrument is not law ... it's a contract ..."

Load of codswallop!

Anonymous said...

Well said. If there is any 'legal fiction' it is the idea that corporations and countries are 'people' (ie. they can be treated as people in a legal sense). But that fiction only exists to allow people to sue said corporations or countries. It is, in other words, a good thing.

The idea that there is a legal entity and a physical entity and that these are two different things is nonsense. As is the idea that statutes aren't laws. As is the idea that if you say some magic words in court, they can't touch you. As is the whole freeman of the land thing, really, which is why people who try it always get convicted.

TheFatBigot said...

I've taken the liberty of using the same title in my offering on this subject, hope you don't mind.

richard said...

If "they" say some magic words to you, then you have to go to court, right? Therefore, either usage of the right words must get a result by compelling you to act in a certain way or it doesn't; if not, feel free to ignore any summons, Anon. But if yes, if the right words can indeed be magic, try using some yourself. Standing in Court by the Antiterrorist (youtube) will possibly give you a few clues. They're just guys playing a game - in a court! - to win your money, they use words to do it, and they can be played and beaten at their own game.
As for statutes being laws, they aren't. A Statute is defined as "An Act of Parliament given force of law by consent of the governed." So why do you have to consent? Can you be forced to consent?

JuliaM said...

It's far too wonderful a concept to be true, sadly...

newt said...

I've just taken alook at my property title and cheque book. Both are in christian name and surname. Not a "Mr" in sight. This must be for a reason which may strengthen the good captains argument

Steven_L said...

They'll probably get off with insanity - you don't have to consent to being sectioned you know!

Mark Wadsworth said...

Anon, good point.

TFB, your post is most illuminating.

Richard, it's not so much 'magic words'. it's sending round coppers to arrest you and lock up that is effective.

JM, I'm not bothered whether it's true or not, if true, it might be a defence against some things but it certainly isn't a defence against non-payment of council tax.

Newt, so you're one of these "rights but no responsibilities" people, are you?

Rossa said...

If you read more carefully some of what has been coming out under the term Lawful Rebellion it says clearly that we don't own our land or property. We only enjoy Equity Title.

The proof of that is to try not paying taxes and watch how quickly your house/land can be confiscated.

As you say MW they can only claim your assets. But in this case they are confiscating an asset the State already owns. We own nothing, we only get the use of it.

The basis for this goes back to the 13th century originating in a series of Papal Bulls. The LR are trying to establish that you the real person are not the legal fiction/strawman created at birth when your birth certificate was registered.

The reason why we are all deemed in law to be corporations is that what we call law is based on old maritime and commerce law. This involves contracts between parties and is the basis for all interactions between your corporation and other ones i.e. local council, government etc.

Where it has gone wrong is that most contracts are not legal because they don't comply with contract law. i.e full disclosure, both parties to sign to acknowledge full corporate liability etc. And of course they don't tell you that you the real person is not your corporation - that is the fiction.

Just check your mortgage contract if you have one. It will only have your signature on it. (Mine is like that) That in itself is a breach of contract law, rendering it completely illegal under what passes for law in the country.

Also bear in mind that there is a difference between legal and lawful. Common Law is the only law. Everything else is just statutes, directives, regulations etc. It may be legal only because that is what we have been led to believe. However, it is not lawful.

And that is the problem the Courts have with this. Knowing the difference and being able to act lawfully rather than legally.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Rossa: "... in this case they are confiscating an asset the State already owns. We own nothing, we only get the use of it."

Exactly. So what's your problem with paying rent (i.e. Council Tax or Heaven forfend, Land Value Tax) on what you are getting the use of?

James Higham said...

Conversely, if somebody else is caught out, having earned the same amount of money cash in hand and has stashed it all in a bank account, then the tax debt is recoverable (whether he gets a prison sentence is by the by).

And therein lieth the lesson for us all.

NewsboyCap said...

MW,

So what's your problem with paying rent (i.e. Council Tax or Heaven forfend, Land Value Tax) on what you are getting the use of?

If I am buying my house I must also pay rent ?

If I rent my house from the 'council' I must also pay rent on top ?

Correct me if I'm wrong but council tax is for services provided by the council, street lighting, waste disposal etc. Not for the 'use' of the land I reside at, surely ?

formertory said...

Hmm. Where did I put that popcorn?

Mark Wadsworth said...

JH, which illustrates that taxes on income etc. discourage thrift as well as earning it in the first place.

NewsBoy: "If I am buying my house I must also pay rent?"

Yes, it's called 'mortgage interest' and under current rules that's paid out of income after suffering income tax. So that's double taxation.

"If I rent my house from the 'council' I must also pay rent on top?"

For some bizarre reason, if you live in a council house, they send you separate bills for rent and for Council Tax, so in practice yes.

"Correct me if I'm wrong but council tax is for services provided by the council, street lighting, waste disposal etc. Not for the 'use' of the land I reside at, surely ?"

The idea that "Council Tax pays for local services" is a complete and utter myth.

Land 'ownership' is another way of saying that the State creates and protects certain specific privileges for named individuals as against all other citizens (think about it!).

And regardless of how the proceeds are spent, taxes on land and buildings are (conceptually at least) a payment to the State for the benefit of enjoying certain specific privileges against all other citizens, so what you are doing is compensating 'everybody else' for the personal cost to them of respecting that privilege.

FT, enjoy!

Captain Ranty said...

Too many points raised here to answer sensibly within the character limit so I will answer at my place later today.

What you (nay-sayers) really need to chew on are the fundamentals. Legal fiction aside, all taxes are illegal and unlawful. If the foundation blocks are made of putty, it stands to reason that the walls will fall.

I know it's a different argument but it all comes together when you study the law. I have shown my paperwork to lawyers and barristers and they say that I have a case. That, combined with thousands of hours of research, makes me confident of a win.

Of course, the courts will cheat, and you will all queue up to say "Told you he was mental", without even considering that we have a corrupt and unlawful system.

This is a classic (from Steven_L):

"OK, now council tax is one thing, you go break a nasty section of the Sexual Offences Act and try arguing that one mate!"

If you knew anything about the movement at all you would know a) that natural law covers this crime and b) Freemen take an oath not to cause harm, injury or loss to another human.

Freemen cannot and will not "hide" if they have hurt someone. We are more concerned with victimless "crimes". There are several thousand people in gaol whose only sin was to not pay a bill.

More at my place later.

CR.

Mark Wadsworth said...

CR: "Legal fiction aside, all taxes are illegal and unlawful."

Maybe, maybe not, but you haven't addressed my counter point: "Legal fiction aside, land 'ownership' is illegal and unlawful."

As it happens, TFB is a proper barrister and I have at least done an LLB law degree, and I know perfectly well that land 'ownership' rules are highly artificial and can only be dressed up as private contracts by a series of mental leaps, each of which is highly tenuous.

Most of the other rules (i.e. private contracts and crimes) seem fairly sensible and logical.

Captain Ranty said...

Mark,

If TFB is a barrister that explains a great deal. It's not as if he has anything to protect, is it?

You don't even have to be exposed to a courtroom to know that it is mostly charades. It's a game. I think most (if not all) of the vitriol coming from lawyers and barristers and judges stems from the fact that we have discovered some of the rules of the game.

I will address you counter-point in my piece.

But can I ask: what is it about introducing 3,500 new "crimes" in less than ten years that is "fairly sensible and logical"?

CR.

Blue Eyes said...

"all taxes are illegal and unlawful"

???

Only if you don't accept the constitution as it stands. Wars have been fought on this island to determine the extent of the authority of the state. If you fancy operating under a different constitution you are welcome to argue for it, such is the system we have now. But it is obviously bullshit that taxes are unlawful.

Parliament has the right to advise the crown on what laws to enact, and has the sole right to determine what taxes may be levied. You may not like it but it is FACT!

Mark Wadsworth said...

CR, I once did take somebody to court and the whole thing is indeed a charade, the whole legal system is run for the benefit of lawyers and the judges will twist the facts to fit the decision they made long before the case opened.

That is quite a separate issue to the topic of charging for the privilege of land 'ownership'.

PS, I did my law degree between 1997 and 2001, the rules weren't quite so stupid back then.

Anonymous said...

Rossa,

A good list of Freeman myths, there, all of which have been debunked:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

Richard,

Why should these guys who are 'playing a game' in court to 'win your money' bow down before a Freeman's muddled version of common law (which they confuse with natural law)? The judges are the ones with authority and since they choose to wickedly oppress everyone else, who is going to make them treat Freemen any differently? The Queen? God? The ghost of Christmas past?

Freemen blame their 100% failure rate on lawyers and judges not knowing the 'real' law or deliberately ignoring it. This is the circular argument of a conspiracy theorist, but even if it was tru - and Lord knows it isn't - what is the point of trying something that is never going to work and is going to get you into more trouble?

That is, unless you can cite an example of it working...

H said...

"I have shown my paperwork to lawyers and barristers and they say that I have a case. That, combined with thousands of hours of research, makes me confident of a win."

Having a case and having a good case are worlds apart! Still, maybe those thousands of hours of research will pay off. Or not.

Anonymous said...

CR said: "Legal fiction aside, all taxes are illegal and unlawful."

No, they're not. They're passed by parliament and parliament can make or repeal any legislation it wants and you have to obey it whether you like it or not.

"I have shown my paperwork to lawyers and barristers and they say that I have a case. That, combined with thousands of hours of research, makes me confident of a win. Of course, the courts will cheat, and you will all queue up to say "Told you he was mental", without even considering that we have a corrupt and unlawful system."

That's being confident of a win?! Typical circular reasoning of the conspiracy theorist. If you win, you were right. If you lose, you were right.

Anonymous said...

CR said:

1. "I have shown my paperwork to lawyers and barristers and they say that I have a case."

2. "If TFB is a barrister that explains a great deal. It's not as if he has anything to protect, is it?"

Therefore:

1. Barrister who agrees with me must be right because he's a lawyer

2. Barrister who disagrees with me must be lying because he's a lawyer

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

No bias or ad hom attacks in that link at all. Nosirreebob. It was written cogently and coherently.

And this...

"Freemen blame their 100% failure rate on lawyers and judges not knowing the 'real' law or deliberately ignoring it"

...comes directly from your own imagination. Failures are high but the figure is not 100%. And Freemen, (the honest ones) will admit to their own mistakes more often than simply blaming those officers of the court. A simple mistake is deadly. Let's not forget that the law (either natural, common or statute) is based entirely on the English language. Little latitude is given to laymen.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

A question you need to ask yourself is this:

Is parliament lawful? I think you will be surprised by the answer.

And:

"If you win, you were right. If you lose, you were right."

I prefer:

If I win, I was right. If I lose, I was badly prepared.

There is no conspiracy here. 99.99% of the population would never read a statute. I have read dozens. You might be a little surprised at how contradictory they are. Taken in isolation they are not particularly riveting but when you start to compare....some strange things reveal themselves.

The best place to hide a tree is in a forest. The best place to hide quirky statutes is in the statute Roll.

If you can read, you can figure it out for yourself.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

Even the lawyers I spoke to would deny the conversation. They are breaking with convention.

What they didn't deny was that a case could be made. They wished me luck but advised caution by saying "The deck is stacked. The house wins. Almost every time".

Depressing, but not hopeless.

I know the consequences of my actions and I take full responsibility for them.

What I will not do is lie down because the "majority" think I am wrong. This is worth testing in court. And if I do win, I am certain that others will follow.

Even you, perhaps.

CR.

Scott Wright said...

"A question you need to ask yourself is this:

Is parliament lawful? I think you will be surprised by the answer."


The stance I have to take on parliament and its right to levy the taxes it does on me is that it functions on the basis of contract law (in common law) and that by taking the money of "The state" i.e. tax credits, child benefits, free half day nursery place between age 3-4, free school place age 5+ for my children FAR FAR in excess of the taxes I pay then I am bound by that contract to pay my taxes and to obey the statute law.

What I will concede though is that those at the other end of the income scale who pay far more in taxes than that which they receive from "The state" have no means of opting out of "the system" and not paying taxes in exchange for not expecting anything from "The state." Whilst that does not exist then "The state" is illegitimate.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Wadsworth

This merely exposes the state as the unreal fiction it is, and questions our relationship with it as human beings. The 'authority' it claims over us is getting perilously close to ownership.

Are we livestock?

DP

Mark Wadsworth said...

DP, under existing rules, we are more or less livestock - you pay half what you earn to the government in income tax etc, and of what's left you pay another half to privatised tax collectors (banks or landlords) for the basic human right of being allowed to live somewhere.

And 'the State' is not a fiction, it is nearly all of us abiding by common rules (with police etc to punish the minority who don't).

My fundamental point is, if the 'government' is to collect taxes from anything, why not collect it by levying a user charge on the one thing that governments do very well, and that is protecting 'land ownership'?

richard said...

Yes, we are human livestock in a big Statist farm.
Mark says "Richard, it's not so much 'magic words'. it's sending round coppers to arrest you and lock up (sic) that is effective."
Do what I say or we'll send the boys round, eh? Luckily it doesn't (often) work like that.
Anon "The judges are the ones with authority" - No, they fill out a form on directgov. Any bell-end can do it. Here's the link if you want to apply.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Becomingamagistrate/index.htm
"That is, unless you can cite an example of it working..."
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/courts/Red-faced-prosecutors-forced-admit-error/article-2754199-detail/article.html

Mark Wadsworth said...

Richard, this is not a "Statist" farm in the way that you mean it.

It is in fact a "Home-Owner-Ist" farm, where the government does anything it can to tax private enterprise to death in order to subsidise banks, landowners and themselves, throwing a few crumbs to the homeowners (the luckier members of the 'livestock' class) along the way to ensure they get enough votes to keep themselves in power*.

Problem is, the normal homeowners are so stupid that they think that they are winning out from all this, whereas nearly all of them are losing out.

* Most idiots political decision making goes something like this:
a) "Oooh! My house has gone up in value! Aren't I lucky! Remind me to vote for this lot again!", and

b) "Oooh! My house fell in value this year, I must remember to vote for the other lot this time!"

richard said...

Mark, I agree with you. I am a homeowner and am paying a vast fortune in mortgage repayments compared with the comparatively cost of the materials and labour which went into creating my house. It is, as you say, a trap. But to what purpose? I would clarify my definition of Statism - an institution which is run by a small tribe of people with a monopoly on the use of force and who therefore help themselves to other people's money with impunity, and whose institutions inevitably increase in size as they decrease in efficiency. State education is poor compared to private, state medicine is poor compared to private and so on. They are aware that this is unpopular, immoral and coercive so they steps (such as the one you mention) to keep themselves in power.
Remember, there is no such thing as government - it's not real, it's an imaginary title bestowed upon what is merely some men with guns. "Throwing a few crumbs" is exactly right, and it's finely calculated - enough to stop the people chasing them down the streets with pitchforks whilst at the same time creating a sense of dependance on the State.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Richard, in that case you and I are broadly agreed. But you haven't addressed my basic point that land 'ownership' is in fact fair game for taxation (or certainly far more so than turnover, wages, profits etc).

Anonymous said...

Richard,

The link you provided took me to a story about a man who was arrested for driving without a license or insurance. It was later shown that he was driving on a private road and thus had not broken the law. The fact that he spouted some freeman of the land bollocks as well had no bearing on the fact that he was innocent.

Have another go.

Captain Ranty said...

My response is here:

http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-defence-of-freemen.html

CR.

richard said...

And if he hadn't spouted bollocks he would have been fined, the police wouldn't have "suddenly" discovered their error.
You missed the point. The court case could not proceed because of what the defendant said, and the private road was THEN mentioned as a face-saving exercise. If he had paid the fine would the police have mentioned it? Didn't think so.
So here's a fine example, apparently not good enough for you, even though it was for the court.
Perhaps you didn't read the following from the link?
"Unfortunately this was a private road....." (but) The admission came only AFTER a man, refusing to answer to the name Alan Sanchez, questioned the authority of the court."
and (again with the important bit in caps in case you miss it)
"The court, UNABLE TO PUT CAHRGES TO A MAN WHO DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HE WAS THE ACCUSED, instructed Adam of the Family Sanchez as Commonly Known to leave."

"The judges are the ones with authority" says you - so why the "unable?"

Case dismissed, eh?









You didn't read i
"Case dismissed!"

richard said...

Hiya Captain, ta for the link. In fairness to Anon and others I am finding it quite difficult to master the discipline of recognising things for what they really are, rather than what we've all been told since childhood. Thanks for your help in helping me to develop a new and interesting perspective on these matters, and please - keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

The case COULD proceed, but in time-honoured freeman tradition, the FOTL disrupted proceedings. There was no intention of dropping the case, at the article makes clear:

"Legal advice was then sought as to whether to issue a warrant for Alan Sanchez's arrest or to set a trial date in his absence."

Either of which would have resulted in a conviction had he been guilty, but he wasn't and during the delay the prosecutor noticed that it was a private road. Case closed.

The fact that this idiot pretended to be Adam Sanchez instead of Alan Sanchez is irrelevant. He would have got the same result if he'd disrupted proceedings by saying 'wibble', which would make about as much sense as the FOTL defence.

Anonymous said...

Look what I've found...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15CzybH_mzc

Mad bloke goes into court, lies about his name, talks gibberish and is asked to leave. A great advert for lawful rebellion. And judging by his comments on Youtube, he's still mad but has learned his lesson:

"please if any one is on the path to trying this out,do not follow any 1 but learn .i was in total dishounour and have learned much since this court case,if any 1 is thinking of going down this path.it could be a good idea 2 contact batman 57 on talk shoe.good luck remember love and truth.

alansanchez0007 3 months ago
the nxt court case i go 2 i will go in2 court with love and humble myself b4 my brother or court.

alansanchez0007 3 months ago
spoke 2 batman and he has opened my eyes,the court is my brother,humble your self show love honour,and stay in the master position by asking questions?skype batman for very interesting knowledge?

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

You confuse the Freeman movement with Lawful Rebellion. The two are not the same.

(Although I happen to be both a Freeman and a Lawful Rebel).

A Freeman writes an affidavit, has it witnessed by a Notary or three friends, and sends it off to a court, the Home Office, (I did that), a Chief Constable, the PM, or no-one at all. He/she can, if they wish, keep the affidavit until it is needed to settle a dispute. An unrebutted affidavit is the single most powerful document in law.

A man or woman who enters Lawful Rebellion informs the monarch (via sworn & witnessed affidavits) that they no longer owe allegiance to that monarch. In our case, it is because the monarch has violated her Coronation Oath and has committed treason (knowingly or unknowingly). Queenie has committed no less than six acts of treason since 1972. Lawful Rebellion is an ancient right for patriots to correct that error. You should be aware that the crime has been reported at 72 police stations all over the UK. Six are investigating.

CR.

Bayard said...

CR, there are nigh on 100 comments on your blog and 33 comments on this one and nowhere can I see an answer to the point that "Roger" may not be liable to pay the council tax because the tax is due to be paid by a "legal fiction" called MR ROGER HAYES, however it is the "legal fiction", not "Roger" who owns the property on which the tax is levied and therefore the council can relieve the "legal fiction" of the property it owns, sell it , take the tax owing out of the proceeds of the sale and give the balance back to the "legal fiction", leaving "Roger" out of the loop altogether, or have I missed something?

Captain Ranty said...

Bayard,

You have missed nothing.

I am still scratching my head over who or what owns what.

It's a two-pipe problem, that's for sure.

If Roger does have it confirmed that he has a legal fiction, we are back to the true owner thing again. BUT, if he bought his house, or entered agreements without knowing that his fiction was liable, then the contracts were fraudulent: they did not offer full disclosure.

Mental, innit?

CR.

Steven_L said...

I just love the irony of that Mark Harris guy telling them the state is using NPL to program them into believing all he words mean something they don't!

The force can have a strong influence over the weakminded

Captain Ranty said...

Steven,

Do you mean John Harris?

Do you mean NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming)?

How do you think they train police cadets?

Even Common Purpose cannot train their freaks without resorting to the Delphi Technique.

Honestly, how do you suppose they take a roomful of 30 people at 9 am and ensure they all leave at 5 pm thinking exactly the same thing?

And no, there is nothing conspiratorial about that either. It's just the way it is.

CR.

Steven_L said...

Yes I mean him.

Many, many thousands of people don't pay their council tax for one reason of another.

Most of it is written off. You might get brushed into the 'can't be arsed' or 'too much work' pile but you might equally find youself in the 'I'm gonna get him' tray.

Because that is how petty law enforcement really works!

SumoKing said...

I don't understand how you arbitrarily say common law = contract = law when the common law happily imposes duties without there being a contract, the concepts of delict and tort for example

And of course if you are going to get into a natural law argument then you have to look at the jurisprudential thought on 'what is law', Aquinas of course describes natural law as an article of reason made by him who has care of a state and promulgated.

So I am not sure that you can say that 'law' made by parliament is not law just because you in effect stamp you feet and say there is a Roger Hughes Limited

Also, the 'The Cat is out of the Bag' headline is horrifically misleading, the court hasn't accepted the argument or made a decision, it has merely done what courts constantly do in that it has humored a litigant in person.

Mark Wadsworth said...

SL, as it happens, the collection rates for Council Tax and Business Rates are about 98%, very little is brushed under the carpet (the frauds and fiddles are with Council Tax benefit and with BR exemptions).

Sumo, if you want his answers to those question, you'll have to pop over to Cap'n Ranty's.

fraggle said...

I've tried graspingthis concept before and always get stuck at the difference between lawful and legal, namely that if the arguments they employ against *legailty* prevail over it, then they would also prevail over law. I haven't seen any meaningful definition of common law that does not require a conjured authority (usually the monarch for some reason) or natural law (which then ends up undefined). Q for CR: you argue (I think it was you anyway!) in the OP that judges establish *law* by making rulings. By what authority do they do that? By what authority do other judges take those as binding?

At the end of the day, this sort of discussion is actually about the nature of what a society is. The best definition I can come up with for that is a group of people, some of whom will use force or threat of force to ensure that the group behaves in a certain manner.

CR: Freemen cannot and will not "hide" if they have hurt someone.

The pointless claim of 'will not hide' is not interesting, what is interesting is your claim that they *cannot* hide. If a court cannot deal with them *legally*, what makes it so they can be dealt with *lawfully*?

Steven_L said...

I thought the court sent it back to the prosecution to prove their case?

Who knows what'll have happened after that? Plenty of lazy, risk averse or just overly bureaucratic council bureaucrats out there.

They'll probably still be slagging the judge off now.

H said...

"Queenie has committed no less than six acts of treason since 1972."

Surely, if the Queen does it, it's not treason. By definition.

Anonymous said...

To registered an item (house, land, car, even your children) is to pass control & even ownership to the authority concerned. Which then means they can put conditions & financial charges on your use of such items. The reason this is possible is because your person (legal fiction) is a member of thier society (bourne out by your birth certificate, national insurance number, ect, & your lack of belonging to another lawfull society with published rules & a clear goal) & have live under thier rules(acts & statutes). Under these rules you never actually own anything, you are just an employee & you pay rent & dues for everthing ("taxes" if you like).