UK- Freeman on the land wins court case.

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
not sure when this was won, it's fairly recent I think. basically, a man is taken to court over non payment of council tax (of which there is NO legal obligation to pay, BTW) He wins it, by being represented by a layman. It gets thrown out within 15 minutes (of video)

Which you can see here
vimeo.com...

So, this guy has legally got away with not paying council tax. You can too.

[edit on 5/8/2010 by Acidtastic]




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
One of the reasons I come to ATS... S N F sir! This ai will remember! Fantastic! Best laugh i have had in ages


[edit on 5-8-2010 by Yissachar1]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
None of that made any legal sense.

All they did was obfuscate, filibuster, declare themselves the winners and walk off, the liability order was still awarded and by now the bailiffs have probably already been around to collect the outstanding £308. In what way did this “freeman” win?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
None of that made any legal sense.

All they did was obfuscate, filibuster, declare themselves the winners and walk off, the liability order was still awarded and by now the bailiffs have probably already been around to collect the outstanding £308. In what way did this “freeman” win?
Well it certainly wasn't a court win. was it


The magistrates disbanded, the police were called by nobody was arrested (becasue no crime had been committed) Everything there made perfect "legal" sense, if you're palying them at their own game.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 



Well it certainly wasn't a court win. was it


Well yes it was; he was given a liability order for £308 to be collected by bailiffs if he didn’t cough up voluntarily. The whole point of allowing him the court appearance was so he could defend against this order; if the order was given then he clearly didn’t win.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
common law is dead, it wont be long before they close this loop hole in the system!!!

ive heard of many a freeman who thought they knew how to outsmart the system get thrown in jail.

This guy just got lucky, but he wont be for long.



"(of which there is NO legal obligation to pay, BTW)"

btw there is every legal obligation to pay tax, i dont know where you get that statement from.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by tankthinker]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by tankthinker]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tankthinker
 


(of which there is NO legal obligation to pay, BTW)"

"btw there is every legal obligation to pay tax, i dont know where you get that statement from."

Is it possible for you to produce this legal obligation or law that states your claim?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tankthinker
 


Common law is not dead, it was just put on the back burner.

en.wikipedia.org...

Lots of information there and elsewhere.

A lot of the ppl bringing it back up are novices thou and can
get themselves in a bind.

I highly recommend you find one of the formal successful lawyers
who has some grey hair go over it and solidify the case very
well before taking it into court room.

There are some radio talk shows that go over it a lot and it is
getting new life breathed into here in the US as a lot of ppl are
tired of seeing most of their determinations end up with the
vulture lawyers.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MAJESCOTT
 


The Capital Allowances Act 2001 (effective from April 2001)
The Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (effective from April 2003)
The Income Tax (Pay as You Earn) Regulations 2003 (effective from April 2004)
The Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (effective from April 2005)
The Income Tax Act 2007 (effective from April 2007)
The Corporation Tax Act 2009
The Corporation Tax Act 2010
The Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010

The obligation to pay council tax specifically is contain in the Local Government Finance Act 1992


Btw, common law is just a term used to describe law as created by the judiciary rather than the legislature. It does not represent a different category of laws to statutes or anything like it; they are the same thing except for their means of creation.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Common Law can not be killed because it's roots are within the Community .

To oppress the Common Law would amount to TOTALITARIANISM .

As for the Freeman question , well , let me ask you all ; Who wants to be their own master or their own sovereign ?

If you do want it , then , you can have it lawfully and legally .


No one is being forced to be a CITIZEN of SHIP U.K , it is all business as usual , literally .



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Thank you for the information you provided, however according to Thirst for Justice website www.prolognet.qc.ca... it is quoted that:

"On October 3, 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case involving the Lord Nelson Hotel of Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the Attorneys-General of Nova Scotia and Canada. The case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act. In a seven-judge unanimous decision, the highest court in our land ruled that power transfers cannot legally take place. The Federal Government was given until 1962 to remove itself from all such power-transfer agreements, including the Income tax business, and scrap the Income Tax Act...

Clearly, the Federal Government has no constitutional right to engage in the Income Tax business, or any other type of direct taxation, whether on behalf of itself or on behalf of the provinces. Therefore, the Income Tax Act is, in itself, unconstitutional, and need not to be obeyed... "

A must read!



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
To clarify he still owes the council money. The Baliff has now been given the debt. The Baliff has limited powers in which when they knock at the door you dont have to answer it. After a certain time as long as they never got into your place of living they will send the bill back to the council who will then can send the unpaid bill to the courts and ask for a jail sentence to be imposed.

[edit on 5/8/2010 by loner007]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Commonlaw was a privledge put in by the elite to keep the freedom fighters at the time off their backs

its going to be closed up any day now, do you really think that the elite are going to let people run around taking away their true power.

good luck with that, as far as i can see everyone crying "commonlaw" is going to be labeled on the black list as Class A terrorist when the time comes.

Good luck!



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


Or they could just slap an attachment of earnings order on him and it will be taken weekly/monthly from his pay packet or benefits. either way he will pay.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I don't understand how this could work in actuality.

If you're a ''freeman'' in the UK, and you decided to grow illegal substances in your garden, stockpile an arsenal of weapons, and openly purchase and store a plethora of bomb-making equipment, then do you think the authorities would let you do it ?

As far as I can see, all ''freemen'' should be allowed to do those things on their own property if they were genuinely free, because none of those things are actually harming anybody else, so the State shouldn't be able to get involved in interfering with any of these activities.

I think the idea of a ''freeman'' is not really achievable, or certainly not achievable in anything more than being able to waive a few parking tickets.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I think the idea of a ''freeman'' is not really achievable, or certainly not achievable in anything more than being able to waive a few parking tickets.


Not even that.

I've made the mistake of following some of those links. Flippin' heck. It's like all the worst bits of the lower-quality conspiracy sites wrapped inside psuedo-legal waffle. They seem to be obsessed with the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666without appearing to have read it or researched the context in which it was passed


The rest of the arguments seem to be that the law does not apply because I've thought of a much more important "higher law" that suits me better. All I need to do is to click the heels of my ruby slippers... ehhh... I mean "declare the law does not apply" and Robert is your mother's brother.

In fairness, law is pretty much an issue of consent. It started from the biggest guy in the tribe giving you orders, and you can consent to follow or get thumped. Communities would set down rules for interaction and you could consent or be outcast. Eventually things got more "enlightened" and you could choose to consent or go to jail. The only natural law is simply that whoever has the biggest stick can set the rules. The "law" is about regulating the relationship between the people with the biggest stick and the people with the smaller sticks. If you really wish to return to natural law only then you will lose, because there are some pretty big sticks out there to thump you with.

I've been accused of being the "problem" because I'm part of the system. Gosh, all these people on the "inside" being a problem, you'd almost think they had all spent years studying and training (or perhaps you prefer the term indoctrination, which conveniently ignores the way that most law is taught) and had formed good solid academic and philosophical reasons for understanding why things work the way they do. If only someone with a vague grasp of history and the law would come and enlighten us!

The whole thing seems to be based around a very strange interpretation of what "common law" along with some rather spurious connections - it must be an admiralty court because it has a "dock"? There are a number of legal theories surrounding the development of law that do tie in with some of the ideas they are talking about, but not in the way they seem to think. It's almost as if they listened to an academic debate about legal development and came away with some half-remembered ideas - a bit like when you go to see a comedian and go home to tell your friends all the bits of the act that you can remember, messing up the punchlines in the progress.

Overall I'm not very impressed. I'm not sure this thread will be very good for my blood pressure


edit on 14-9-2010 by EvillerBob because: Just because



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


This is what I thought.

I have been doing some research on this matter, and it does appear to be a bit of a unfounded idea, or at least people barking up the wrong tree.

If this were properly achievable, then it wouldn't just be a few people that claim to have ''freeman'' status, there would be a whole industry informing and advising people on this matter.

While the video in the OP is entertaining, the defendant doesn't appear to do anything, other than waste the court's and police's time, and he still ends up having to pay the fine, despite all the ''freeman'' rigmarole !



edit on 14-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: Added text.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
reply to post by EvillerBob
 



If this were properly achievable, then it wouldn't just be a few people that claim to have ''freeman'' status, there would be a whole industry informing and advising people on this matter.





edit on 14-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: Added text.


But there is a big industry growing up around this. The lay advisor in the video was acting for altruistic reasons, surely?

Plus, if you look, there are people making money out of this and unfortunately not all are as clued up on the law as they should be. I admit I'm a newbie in this area, but am trying to learn as much as I can because my freedom is the most important thing to me. As they say, better to die on your feet than live on your knees.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sceptical me
But there is a big industry growing up around this. The lay advisor in the video was acting for altruistic reasons, surely?
Plus, if you look, there are people making money out of this and unfortunately not all are as clued up on the law as they should be.


If becoming a ''freeman'' is genuinely achievable, then there will be many people that offer their help without wishing to make a mint out of it.

However, we know that somewhere down the line there would be an opportunist who would turn this into a huge money making scheme.

So, the question arises: Why aren't there advisers that are clued up on this making an absolute packet ?

You'd make an absolute fortune if you held courses on this subject, as just about every adult in the country would be interested in this service.

Why aren't there people conducting a widespread press campaign advertising this service ?

The very fact that there's not suggests to me that this ''freeman'' malarkey is not for real.




edit on 4-10-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Here is a site that some of you may be interested in having a look at.

www.tpuc.org





 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join