Council Tax Success Stories

[asky]

Has anyone successfully avoided paying council tax that they are legally liable to pay?

Please dont add to the thread with half truths such as "Ive never paid it" when actually you are exempt for any reason

Im looking for letters from the Council saying you are not required to pay or some other type of substance.
This is a thread from TPUC which didnt stand up to close examination.
http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=6490

asky

[lightindarkness]

If even one Freeman on the land can produce a letter from their Council stating along the lines of "As XXX of the family XXX is a Freeman on the Land, this Council has found that they are not subject to the tax" I will pay $5,000 to the charity of your choice immediately.

I'll give it a week. Since I realize no one here will be able to produce such a document (because Freeman on the Land status doesn't exist and certainly won't get you out of Council) tax, at the end of the week I'll be donating it to my own charity (Humane Society, if anyone cares).

I'd offer up millions, but I don't actually have that much money to donate to a charity of my choice.

[yozhik]

I'd offer up millions, but I don't actually have that much money to donate to a charity of my choice.

So what have your millions been earmarked for?
If not your charity of choice; then what?

;)

[number_6]

No one got a success story?

[scottmurray]

course not

[the maestro]

search, I've read some on here.

[number_6]

search, I've read some on here.



Im looking for letters from the Council saying you are not required to pay or some other type of substance.

Are you saying that on this site there is the type of evidence as described by asky? Where?

[yozhik]

Yes ... come on people ... lets PLAY!

Oh ... but it has to be with asky's ball ...
... and it has to be by asky's rules ...
errr ... and if things suddenly go against asky's team ... he can change the rules ...

oh ... and only asky is allowed to define the rules ... and if you question the rules ... you'll be ridiculed ...


but other than that ... its a fun game ... honest!


wanna play??

[the maestro]

Are you saying that on this site there is the type of evidence as described by asky? Where?

No but I've just realised the entire thread is stupid. Why would the council send someone a letter saying they are not required to pay? That would be like someone going into a shop buying a bag of sweets and then the shop keeper sending out letters to people who haven't bought a bag of sweets from him saying "you are not required to pay for sweets" just to reassure them.

Evidence of people who don't pay is the only evidence you can expect and that evidence is especially strong where the council has tried to enforce payment and failed. I don't think I will indulge this thread any more.

[number_6]

Evidence of people who don't pay is the only evidence you can expect and that evidence is especially strong where the council has tried to enforce payment and failed. .

That, I readily believe. But that instance would not be proof that Council Tax is either unlawful or unenforceable. I imagine that each year there are too many delinquent payers for a Council to chase everyone of them to a satisfactory conclusion. But it would not remove the liability.

[asky]

This is going as I expected

asky

[h2pogo]

Its a bit of a daft thread though..
you cant seriously expect any branch of government to send letters admitting freeman exemption....

[the worm that turned]

Pointless thread. Not ever going to happen. Move along people, nothing to see here and don't you dare take a picture of me!

[number_6]

Its a bit of a daft thread though..
you cant seriously expect any branch of government to send letters admitting freeman exemption....

So do you believe that a freeman exemption is a reality and some individuals have obtained it?

[asky]

It may be a daft thread but there are some even dafter threads where people are posting fake evidence to encourage others to get themselves knee deep in the poo by refusing to pay council tax.

asky

[yozhik]

This is going as I expected

asky

Pessimists and cynics are seldom disappointed.

[the worm that turned]

It may be a daft thread but there are some even dafter threads where people are posting fake evidence to encourage others to get themselves knee deep in the poo by refusing to pay council tax.

asky

Honest people like myself would never condone that. I'm just searching for answers whereas you always seem to be trying to keep the status quo and I'm struggling to think of good reasons why :confused:

just an observation so don't take it to heart

[asky]

worm that turned wrote
I can't hold myself at this point any longer when's the council tax thread coming! Please be soon PLEASE!!!

Then wrote
Pointless thread. Not ever going to happen. Move along people, nothing to see here and don't you dare take a picture of me!

I thought you had some evidence to post hence your initial exitement
I only started it for you ;)

asky

[white horse]

I always understood that Freeman was a state of mind and an approach to handling the public side of your life. It is about educating yourself about Common Law and opening your mind to life without someone else's rules and boundaries.

It is a bit like declaring to the world that "I am now a communist" - the government is hardly goint to send you a letter allocating to you your share of the ownership of production.

Same as Freeman. Even if the government did recognise that it had a legal foundation, they would never put it in writing that you are exempt from the state?!?! How idiotic.

As far as I can see the entire machinery of government is quasi-legal anyway, they are trying it on with all of us. The LAST thing they want is people researching the legality of state rule over the individual. They are in opposition to the individual wishes of their own population so they are not going to help you to fight them are they?!!?

This thread is clearly constructed as a trap. It's a well worn technique; demand 'proof' for something you are certain does not exist, then wait a week and claim victory. Sheesh! :rolleyes:

[asky]

It's a well worn technique; demand 'proof' for something you are certain does not exist,

I agree with the dont exist bit

asky

[h2pogo]

So do you believe that a freeman exemption is a reality and some individuals have obtained it?

I do believe a bunch of criminals can not lawfuly have any authority...
I do believe by making a notice of understanding you have a better chance of peacefully resisting this criminal authority..

only fool would think these criminals would make any written confession..

[lightindarkness]

So what have your millions been earmarked for?
If not your charity of choice; then what?

;)

I think you responded so quickly in an attempt to troll me you did not read.

Although I *could* offer millions for a Freeman to show me such evidence from their Council that they are exempt due to their Freeman on the land status, it would be illegimate of me to do so because I don't have millions. That doesn't really matter because I know no one can produce such a letter such FMOTL is fake, but it would be wrong of me to pretend that I would give that much money to a charity of my own choice.

But $5,000 is close to my annual amount of charitable giving that I do every year at this time, and it can ALL go to a charity of your choice upon providing proof.

[lightindarkness]

Its a bit of a daft thread though..
you cant seriously expect any branch of government to send letters admitting freeman exemption....

Actually - were it REAL - you certainly would. Government sends letters of exemption all the time to real and legitimate people who have exemptions. My pastor, who makes under the amount of money required to be exempt from state taxes for religious professions, gets a letter from the state every year that he presents to the local government so he doesn't have to pay local taxes either.

The truth is that - if FMOTL was REAL - you'd have no problem getting such a letter. They do it all the time. But alas, its a fake concept with no legal standing.

[yozhik]

Here we go again ... 'legal standing'

:rolleyes:

What exactly do you mean by that phrase?
I'm curious.

[lightindarkness]

Here we go again ... 'legal standing'

:rolleyes:

What exactly do you mean by that phrase?
I'm curious.

The law - which Freeman act like does not apply to them but actually does - sets out a series of exemptions for people who do not have to pay council tax (and local/state/federal tax in the US). This includes exemptions for a wide range of reasons, including making under X amount or being a member of certain professions making under X amount.

All of these people receive letters confirming their exempt status. IF freeman status were real, they would have the same letter and no government would mind sending it to them. But you don't, because its BS.

Legal standing means exactly what it says - demonstrating a sufficient connection to the exemption law to have it apply to you. Its not my definition - and its not what I think - that is THE MEANING OF THE WORD.

[h2pogo]

Actually - were it REAL - you certainly would. Government sends letters of exemption all the time to real and legitimate people who have exemptions. My pastor, who makes under the amount of money required to be exempt from state taxes for religious professions, gets a letter from the state every year that he presents to the local government so he doesn't have to pay local taxes either.

The truth is that - if FMOTL was REAL - you'd have no problem getting such a letter. They do it all the time. But alas, its a fake concept with no legal standing.

but how can a bunch of criminals have lawful authority..

and don't give me the legal standing argument

[the worm that turned]

Pointless thread. Not ever going to happen. Move along people, nothing to see here and don't you dare take a picture of me!

We still here?

[asky]

Yes we are
I thought it was you who wanted this thread started?

asky

[yozhik]

Legal standing means exactly what it says - demonstrating a sufficient connection to the exemption law to have it apply to you. Its not my definition - and its not what I think - that is THE MEANING OF THE WORD.

OK ... so can you provide the definition, that isn't yours or what you think, of 'legal standing'.
"demonstrating a sufficient connection to the exemption law to have it apply to you."

... is a little obtuse.

[white horse]

I agree with the dont exist bit

asky

Ok... that's the next stage... quote a reply out of context.

Just because proof of something does not exist, does not mean it does not exist...

Follow?

[lightindarkness]

We still here?

Those pesky little facts keep slapping Freemen in the face.

If Freeman on the Land was REAL then you would be able to get a letter telling you that you were exempt from Council tax. Would be very easy, EVERYONE ELSE who has exempt status gets one.

Where are all the letters?

Couldn't be that Freeman on the land status isn't real...nah... :rolleyes:

[white horse]

Those pesky little facts keep slapping Freemen in the face.

If Freeman on the Land was REAL then you would be able to get a letter telling you that you were exempt from Council tax. Would be very easy, EVERYONE ELSE who has exempt status gets one.

Where are all the letters?

Couldn't be that Freeman on the land status isn't real...nah... :rolleyes:

That's not because it isn't real it's because it isn't recognised

[the worm that turned]

If being a free man on the land isn't REAL as certain members choose to promote then what you are accepting is that we are SLAVES on the land.

Sleep well

[malvern]

The council are just the thirdparty who collect the so called tax .......... it's HM Customs who deal with the account ................

i have no such letter ...........because they have stopped writting to me.


freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[number_6]

i have no such letter ...........because they have stopped writting to me.


Hi, malvern. May I ask some questions if that's ok?

Are you in full time employment?
How long ago did the Council stop writing to you?
Were the previous letters you received pertaining to the house you live in now, and are you on the electoral register there?
When was the last time you paid council Tax for the property you are in at the moment, and how long have you lived there?
Have the Council taken action in the magistrates'?

I do understand if you would rather not answer, but it would give a clearer picture rather than your cryptic one line. :D

[malvern]

it's not about the ego or getting away with something.............. it's about standing in honour .............your own

my contracts are private and i wish to keep it that way ... a few close freinds are aware of the full facts.


freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[yozhik]

Classic battle here :)

number_6 bases his personal BELIEFS on what he PERCEIVES can be PROVEN, according to his subjective measurement.

malvern bases his personal KNOWLEDGE on what he has EXPERIENCED first hand.


Where's the popcorn?
:rolleyes:

[malvern]

Where's the popcorn?




lol :D



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[number_6]

Classic battle here :)

number_6 bases his personal BELIEFS on what he PERCEIVES can be PROVEN, according to his subjective measurement.

malvern bases his personal KNOWLEDGE on what he has EXPERIENCED first hand.


Where's the popcorn?
:rolleyes:

But, it possibly would have helped to have had answers to the questions.

[number_6]

number_6 bases his personal BELIEFS on what he PERCEIVES can be PROVEN, according to his subjective measurement.


OK, I'll make a claim. I haven't paid any CGT for seven years. But I refuse to answer questions why. Case proved.

[yozhik]

But, it possibly would have helped to have had answers to the questions.

Who?
Who would it have helped?

Not malvern; whether or not he answered the questions would make no difference to him.
Not those who take malvern as a man of honour and accept his word as his bond and truth; his testimony of his first hand experience is evidence enough.

So who would it help, number_6?
How would it help them?

I'm curious ...

[number_6]

So who would it help, number_6?
How would it help them?

I'm curious ...

It would help those who are looking for proof that liability for Council Tax is avoidable. Somebody merely stating that the Council do not persue them for Council Tax is not the same as the Council admitting that liability is avoidable because Council Tax cannot be enforced.

[yozhik]

Somebody merely stating that the Council do not persue them for Council Tax is not the same as the Council admitting that liability is avoidable because Council Tax cannot be enforced.

OK ... well if this is your statement, then how can malvern help?

IF, as you contend, malvern has stated; the Council do not persue them [him] for Council Tax ...

and

IF, as you contend; [malverns statement] is not the same as the Council admitting that liability is avoidable because Council Tax cannot be enforced.

THEN ... how can malvern help answer your questions?

Thats illogical.
You state the situation is not the same and yet ask questions of malvern about his situation to answer a dissimilar situation?

You have prejudged the situation, as shown by your statement that the situations are dissimilar; your questions are nefarious and not asked in good faith.
They are not asked by you 'to help'; they are asked to entrap.

[number_6]

It's very simple. When such claims are made on forums such as this, if you are permitted to dig deep enough more often than not it transpires there is a much simple explanation of why the person making the claim finds himself in the situation he describes.
Such as in malvern's case. Is it his property? Is it in somebody elses name? Does he even work? Does the DSS pay his Council tax? Without the full picture the claim is meaningless.

[yozhik]

It's very simple. When such claims are made on forums such as this, if you are permitted to dig deep enough more often than not it transpires there is a much simple explanation of why the person making the claim finds himself in the situation he describes.
Such as in malvern's case. Is it his property? Is it in somebody elses name? Does he even work? Does the DSS pay his Council tax? Without the full picture the claim is meaningless.

You've already concluded the situation 'is not the same'.
stating that the Council do not persue them for Council Tax is not the same as the Council admitting that liability is avoidable

Your decision has been made; your questions are redundant.
So move on ...

Find a situation when it IS the same, so your questions are relevant.

[number_6]

But the whole point of this thread is asking for evidence where although the Council claim an individual is liable for Council Tax, that individual has succeded in avoiding the tax, and the Council conceding that there is not a legal argument for persuing Council tax revenue.
So malvern has derailed the thread?

[yozhik]

But the whole point of this thread is asking for evidence where although the Council claim an individual is liable for Council Tax, that individual has succeded in avoiding the tax, and the Council conceding that there is not a legal argument for persuing Council tax revenue.
So malvern has derailed the thread?

First hand testimony of not paying council tax was offered as evidence; you have concluded it is not the same.

You'd be very hard pressed to find a man guilty of intentional derailing, for contributing to a thread with an on-topic post, which you have then subjectively concluded 'is not the same' ... however, you have subsequently asked questions of the poster, under the guise of posing aforementioned questions to determine if it is the same. [yeah right]

So, if his post was an intentional derailment; what does that make your redundant questions pertaining to a post regarding an event you have prejudged as dissimilar?

Guilty of derailment by association?
Aiding and abetting?
Or a fresh derailment?

:rolleyes:

[number_6]

In response to malvern's post I asked for clarification on his situation. If his post was derailing I was not aware at the time hence my request for further information.
malvern refused to offer more, that's ok, I left it and said no more.
But then you entered and asked why I required further information, so I responded to your questions.
And now you accuse me of derailing by association?

[girlgye]

I can't believe this dick wipe has taken THE most popular thread on this and TPUC and is resurrecting an old topic which we are on top of to an exact science to diverse and distract us again. Never mind draw shameless attention to himself.

In the sound of Family Fortunes WACK WACK XXX

[number_6]

What a surprise. girlgye our resident troll enters stage left in yet another attempt to destroy a thread.

[asky]

girlgye wrote
THE most popular thread on this and TPUC

Which I exposed as a fake and my exposure has not been rebutted.
And in freeman ideology I think we all know what that means

asky

[asky]

Bump

I will take it as a no then.

asky

[john white]

it's not about the ego or getting away with something.............. it's about standing in honour .............your own

my contracts are private and i wish to keep it that way ... a few close freinds are aware of the full facts.


freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

Indeed

Critics are a source of constant amusement to me :)

"There are none so deaf as those who will not hear"

[asky]

Still a no then.

Thanks John

asky

[number_6]

Critics are a source of constant amusement to me


Never a dull moment for you then.

[john white]

But the whole point of this thread is asking for evidence where although the Council claim an individual is liable for Council Tax, that individual has succeded in avoiding the tax, and the Council conceding that there is not a legal argument for persuing Council tax revenue.
So malvern has derailed the thread?

I'm very certain YOU have to pay the council tax you are told to pay number 6

Until you are prepared to do something about that, it will continue to be so indefinitely

It is not enough simply to "ask": that gets someone so far: but no further

It is necessary to do, to act, to experience, and through doing so, to know

At the same time, privacy is not a meaningless concept when it comes to commerce: there is good reason not all true facts are placed on the INTERNET, of all places. One does not wish to facilitate identity theft or other fraud

It is also necessary to recognise the psychology of those administering the system. Expecting those people to admit they are "defeated" in their attempt to enforce their will in writing or other evidential proof is simply naive

Meanwhile, those who do the due diligence and take the required risk achieve better results than those who bend over, spread, and take it

This is a very realistic appraisal of how it is

[number_6]

I'm very certain YOU have to pay the council tax you are told to pay number 6

Until you are prepared to do something about that, it will continue to be so indefinitely

But, I don't have an issue with paying Council Tax.
Perhaps it is because I can easily afford it.

[yozhik]

Still a no then.

Thanks John

asky

You're a master at 'putting words in people's mouths'.
Its not big and its not clever.

Ever thought of contributing something constructive to the threads, rather than snide remarks?

[yozhik]

But, I don't have an issue with paying Council Tax.
Perhaps it is because I can easily afford it.

Perhaps ...




I'm beginning to think the Randi forum is like an old gentleman's club ...
Where men with too much money and too little morals meet to mock the poor, ridicule those less fortunate and laugh at the infirm, whilst secretly coveting a members badge for the CFR.
The kind of people who think giving to charity once a year grants them amnesty from their multitude of wrongs against their fellow man.
Conversation revolves around polo, long legged secretaries, how many poor people they crushed today and expressing disbelief at the fact that they missed out on their invitation to the Bilderberg meeting this year ... again ... but that chap with questionable parentage was there ... again [damn it all].

:rolleyes:

[number_6]

Perhaps ...

Perhaps what?

[yozhik]

Perhaps what?
.

Perhaps it is because I can easily afford it.

[john white]

But, I don't have an issue with paying Council Tax.
Perhaps it is because I can easily afford it.

LOL its not the money

It's the service

We deserve what we will accept

[karl j]

Seems to me that Asky and No 6 have ample time and admittedly lots of money to be able to pay and do what they want, it would seem they made and/or are continuing to make money from the current system and i can only assume that our Freeman principles will interfere or right out prevent them from making further money, i can only infer that this is the reason for their everpresent interest in our 'business'.

[asky]

i can only assume that our Freeman principles will interfere or right out prevent them from making further money

I wish I was a lawyer or judge with this freemen theory becoming more prevelant.

By using the freeman argument you end up with around 4 court appearances before you have to pay up.

Just think how much money you are generating for the legal proffession :rolleyes:

The whole freeman myth could well have been started by a group of lawyers over a pint.

asky

[number_6]

LOL its not the money

It's the service


So you are happy and willing to pay Council Tax if you get the level of service you consider necessary?

[number_6]

i can only assume that our Freeman principles will interfere or right out prevent them from making further money, i can only infer that this is the reason for their everpresent interest in our 'business'.

It would appear that you assume too much.

[karl j]

It would appear that you assume too much.

Well with no evidence to the contrary assumptions is all we have... :p

[john white]

So you are happy and willing to pay Council Tax if you get the level of service you consider necessary?

I'm happy to contribute to my community:)

Why wouldn't I be?

[number_6]

I'm happy to contribute to my community:)

Why wouldn't I be?

I am pleased to know that.
It does appear that some here would rather pay nothing, I feared that you may have held that belief. Thanks for clearing that up.

[scottmurray]

[
The whole freeman myth could well have been started by a group of lawyers over a pint.
or the governors of the state looking to save cash in these difficult times,put that blue thumb print on that paper and the state aint got to protect you no more......be interesting to see how many so called freemen are in receipt of some sort of protection from the state.

[lightindarkness]

So..I still don't see any evidence. How strange. IF freeman on the land was real, this would be such a simple process.

I wonder why no evidence is around?

[asky]

john White wrote

I'm happy to contribute to my community

Why wouldn't I be?

How much would you say is a reasonable amount for the services you recieve John?


asky

[john white]

john White wrote



How much would you say is a reasonable amount for the services you recieve John?


asky

What the services actually cost is a good start

[asky]

OK John
They cost what they are currently being billed at.

Is that too much?

asky

[yozhik]

OK John
They cost what they are currently being billed at.

Is that too much?

asky

Do you have proof/evidence to support and substantiate this statement?

[asky]

It was a hypothetical statement to try and get the resident philosopher to actually say something of substance.

You obviously didnt get that

asky

[yozhik]

It was a hypothetical statement to try and get the resident philosopher to actually say something of substance.

You obviously didnt get that

asky

you expect an answer of substance for a hypothetical and leading question?
where is the quid quo pro in that offer?
:rolleyes:

[asky]

At least we got out of him that he agrees with Council tax ;)

I wonder how his sidekick malvern feels about that.

I would like to be a fly on the wall outside the next supermarket they target.

asky

[john white]

At least we got out of him that he agrees with Council tax ;)



Did you?

LOL

[asky]

John White wrote
LOL its not the money

It's the service

We deserve what we will accept

Anybody can read that as you would be happy to pay if the price was right John.

Dont try and wriggle out now or you will look foolish

asky

[karl j]

Anybody can read that as you would be happy to pay if the price was right John.
Dont try and wriggle out now or you will look foolish


John White wrote
Quote:
We deserve what we will accept

Actually this is what i saw..... and i presume what John meant ;)

[number_6]

So you are happy and willing to pay Council Tax if you get the level of service you consider necessary?

I'm happy to contribute to my community:)

Why wouldn't I be?

My interpretation was that john white did not object to the principal of paying council tax.
Perhaps by "contribute" he may have really meant something else.

[karl j]

My interpretation was that john white did not object to the principal of paying council tax.
Perhaps by "contribute" he may have really meant something else.

I see your now getting the point... :D

[number_6]

It's a typical john white reply.
He always shies away from giving an unambiguous answer.

[karl j]

It's a typical john white reply.
He always shies away from giving an unambiguous answer.

Unambiguous to those that cannot read it properly, i believe i read his answer perfectly well...

I noticed you don't like my tagline anymore and took it down.... shame, i was enjoying the limelight... :p

[yozhik]

asky ... just an aside ...

if you're going to use a direct quote in your signature, you really should cite the source
:rolleyes:

[asky]

It was only there to remind you of my answer next time you thought about asking me why I am questioning something ;)

asky

[yozhik]

It was only there to remind you of my answer next time you thought about asking me why I am questioning something ;)

asky

Keep in mind, it goes both ways :)

[h2pogo]

It was only there to remind you of my answer next time you thought about asking me why I am questioning something ;)

asky


its your logic that is flawed..
is it logical to be govern by a bunch of criminals..and pay them money and refuse to see there is a lawful remedy..
it is not just illogical it is unlawful and immoral.

[asky]

h2pogo wrote
refuse to see there is a lawful remedy..

You may feel you have found a remedy but its certainly not lawful

asky

[h2pogo]

h2pogo wrote


You may feel you have found a remedy but its certainly not lawful

asky

is it unlawful to claim i have rights??

[h2pogo]

is it unlawful to refuse consent to be governed by treasonous murdering fraudulent criminals??

[asky]

ITS UNLAWFUL TO BREAK THE LAW.

asky

[h2pogo]

so you concede i am not breaking the law

[h2pogo]

and you concede this unlawful government cant have any lawful authority..

[asky]

No, the government makes the law and as such has lawful authourity.

Stop trying to pass of how you think things should be as how things actually are.

asky

[h2pogo]

is the government is above the law then

[asky]

is the government is above the law then

You sound like Ali G :)

The government is because it is a large entity and as such couldnt be guilty of a crime in itself.
No person is above the law (maybe the Queen but thats debatable)

asky

[h2pogo]

you sound like a pre war german:)

a corporation is a person.the government is subject to the law..
i will just have to disagree with you on that one.

[asky]

So over 1400 viewings have not resulted in one successful claim of council tax avoidance.

can we please have it stickyed?

It will save people wasting anymore time in futile attempts at avoiding council tax and getting themselves in trouble with inane methods


asky

[yozhik]

No, the government makes the law and as such has lawful authourity.

asky

Woah, woah, woah ... back the truck up.

the government makes the law and as such has lawful authourity.

That statement fails all rules of logic.

A ... the government makes the law
B ... the government has lawful authority

To get from A to B, your argument is a classic case of begging the question; your conclusion relies on the assumption that the antecedent is true AND even if true, it then relies on an unproven IF-THEN relationship between A & B.

I'm drawn to your signature;
I'm just demanding more verifiable info, with citations of source, that stand up under scrutiny ... as opposed to subjective, connect-the-dots assumptions, presumptions and opinions based on flawed logic.

:rolleyes:

[yozhik]

h2pogo wrote


You may feel you have found a remedy but its certainly not lawful

asky

'lawful excuse' is not lawful?

How does that work?

[asky]

lawful excuse is lawful
I didnt say it wasnt

What I did say was "I am a freeman on the land and as such am exempt from statute law" is not lawful excuse.

Freeman on the land is a fictional title dreamt up by barnpots trying to excuse stupid and irresponsible behaviour.

asky

PS This is a thread about the lack of Council Tax success stories so lets get back to topic

[yozhik]

lawful excuse is lawful
I didnt say it wasnt

What I did say was "I am a freeman on the land and as such am exempt from statute law" is not lawful excuse.

Freeman on the land is a fictional title dreamt up by barnpots trying to excuse stupid and irresponsible behaviour.

asky

PS This is a thread about the lack of Council Tax success stories so lets get back to topic

Would you accept the following as lawful?

"I am a Freeman On The Land, a title claimed by a lawful Claim of Right, having established lawful excuse by Claim of Right and thus have lawfully established that my consent has not been given to statutes, including but not limited to those pertaining to the payment of council tax."

If 'no'; why?

[asky]

Would you accept the following as lawful?

"I am King Zoltan from the planet Droban, a title claimed by a lawful Claim of Right, having established lawful excuse by Claim of Right and thus have lawfully established that my consent has not been given to statutes, including but not limited to those pertaining to the payment of council tax."

ASKY

[yozhik]

Would you accept the following as lawful?

"I am King Zoltan from the planet Droban, a title claimed by a lawful Claim of Right, having established lawful excuse by Claim of Right and thus have lawfully established that my consent has not been given to statutes, including but not limited to those pertaining to the payment of council tax."

ASKY

Is that your answer?
Seems like diversion/deflection/avoidance to me.

Your mirrored question is a logical fallacy; a typical "do you still beat your wife?" fallacy of interrogation argument, which assumes the validity of a presupposition.

... and I do not have to detail what that presupposition is; you are VERY aware of its existence and use it regularly.

[asky]

my quotation carried just as much weight in law as yours
That was my point

asky

[yozhik]

my quotation carried just as much weight in law as yours
That was my point

asky

By which reasoning, it could logically be argued you are stating that both are lawful, given that you have offered no reply to the actual question, but instead [again] deflected the question.

I thought you were the one who didn't avoid questions and 'fence sit' asky ...
Your 'game' is obvious and predictable.

Would you accept the following as lawful?

"I am King Zoltan from the planet Droban, a title claimed by a lawful Claim of Right, having established lawful excuse by Claim of Right and thus have lawfully established that my consent has not been given to statutes, including but not limited to those pertaining to the payment of council tax."

ASKY

Is that your answer?
Seems like diversion/deflection/avoidance to me.

Your mirrored question is a logical fallacy; a typical "do you still beat your wife?" fallacy of interrogation argument, which assumes the validity of a presupposition.

... and I do not have to detail what that presupposition is; you are VERY aware of its existence and use it regularly.

[britishnick]

so as not to hi-jack

try these banana's out for size:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058628733#post1058628733