Rights versus privileges.

[aryan57]

It is my understanding (Not in the legal sense of the word) that only natural men and women, flesh and blood living souls have rights and that corporations
being creations of fiction only have privileges. My question is:

From where does a corporation obtain it's privileges and in the case of a council which regularly exceeds it's privileges, how does one or can one hold a corporation to account? Is there somewhere one can complain to? Who grants the corporation the privileges it claims to operate under? Are they perhaps laid down in a charter somewhere?

In my own case, a council has claimed exemptions from complying with lawful documents served upon them and when requested to, has declined to state where they get this exemption from. Perhaps because they cant.

I served on the council an Affidavit and they did not rebutt it within the time period. They claim they are not obligated to recognise the content of the Affidavit

An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce (Heb 6:15-17)
It stands as truth and the matter to which judgement of the law is applied.
Since my Affidavit was unrebutted, can I apply to the couty court for a default judgement?

Any comments welcomed. Cant sleep with all this on my mind.

[christophera]

It is my understanding (Not in the legal sense of the word) that only natural men and women, flesh and blood living souls have rights and that corporations
being creations of fiction only have privileges. My question is:

From where does a corporation obtain it's privileges and in the case of a council which regularly exceeds it's privileges, how does one or can one hold a corporation to account? Is there somewhere one can complain to? Who grants the corporation the privileges it claims to operate under? Are they perhaps laid down in a charter somewhere?

In my own case, a council has claimed exemptions from complying with lawful documents served upon them and when requested to, has declined to state where they get this exemption from. Perhaps because they cant.

I served on the council an Affidavit and they did not rebutt it within the time period. They claim they are not obligated to recognise the content of the Affidavit

An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce (Heb 6:15-17)
It stands as truth and the matter to which judgement of the law is applied.
Since my Affidavit was unrebutted, can I apply to the couty court for a default judgement?

Any comments welcomed. Cant sleep with all this on my mind.

Hmmmm, disturbing. Either they're full blown traitors and criminals and expecting authorities of the court to go along with them or are not the first point of authority or liability having the duty to respond. One of the great fiction tricks is the shell game. That can work with jurisdiction and statuate as well as responsibility, given some time to obsfucate.

[yozhik]

It is my understanding (Not in the legal sense of the word) that only natural men and women, flesh and blood living souls have rights and that corporations
being creations of fiction only have privileges.
Not entirely my comprehension ...

Men, women and children have unalienable rights ... rights that are inherent and cannot be taken.

Persons (corporations), such as citizens, are prescribed rights.
By submitting to being a corporate entity (person) and undertaking obligations and duties, in return (quid pro quo) the person receives rights, privileges and benefits.

Simple example;
a citizen agrees to pay taxes and consent to statute rules, in return the person is entitled to welfare benefits and certain privileges of the society.

Same with a corporation in the sense you use it ... by agreeing to pay taxes and operate according to the statute rules of the state, the corporation enjoys certain benefits and privileges, such as protection against monopolies, regulatory bodies to oversee industry standards, etc, etc

Remember, a lot of the "benefits and privileges" aren't really that beneficial nor a privilege ... but hey, never let the truth get in the way of a great marketing story!


My question is:

From where does a corporation obtain it's privileges and in the case of a council which regularly exceeds it's privileges, how does one or can one hold a corporation to account?
If you mean where does the council obtain its authority?
Statutes.

Is there somewhere one can complain to?
The courts

Who grants the corporation the privileges it claims to operate under? Are they perhaps laid down in a charter somewhere?
Parliament.
Statutes (primary legislation) and/or Statutory Instruments (secondary legislation) ... plus, many statutes give local bodies the authority to craft local legislation, which is overseen and if necessary, enforced with primary legislation.

Think of it in feudal terms (which it is :rolleyes: )
The King (parliament) had overall authority throughout the land, but to assist him, he would have regional Barons or Sherrifs or overlords, who would have some level of autonomy over specific areas (local councils). Sure - there were national laws that they would generally administer, but they also had local rules and regulations that they could enact or remove, at their whim, as well as local courts of justice to administer the rules and mete out punishment. They were not the King's laws, but as long as the King was paid his dues and law and order was essentially kept, he didn't much care for the trifling issues of local matters. However, if the Baron (or whatever title the local overlord had) stepped over the line, then he could be brought before the King for judgement.

Whilst the spin has us believing we have evolved; we haven't.
The "society" we live in is essentially feudal.
Slavery is also alive and well ... but thats another thread ;)

In my own case, a council has claimed exemptions from complying with lawful documents served upon them and when requested to, has declined to state where they get this exemption from. Perhaps because they cant.

I served on the council an Affidavit and they did not rebutt it within the time period. They claim they are not obligated to recognise the content of the Affidavit

An unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce (Heb 6:15-17)
It stands as truth and the matter to which judgement of the law is applied.
Since my Affidavit was unrebutted, can I apply to the couty court for a default judgement?

Any comments welcomed. Cant sleep with all this on my mind.
An affidavit of truth is a form of testimony; one of three forms of testimony that is valid in a court dealing with commercial matters.

Your remedy is in the courts ... and I believe that if it is a valid affidavit and not flawed in its form, then it can and will be deemed unrebutted testimony and will be upheld ... UNLESS ... the court decides to practice law rather than decide on it, pervert the course of justice and make judgement that is not supported by the testimony.

Then you will have other remedies to use, should that issue arise. :)


Again, NONE of this is legal advice.
It is 100% a summation of my readings and my comprehension of the matter.
I'm probably WAY off base and totally misguided, delusional and just plain wrong in my humble, layman opinions.
I look forward to someone ... anyone ... correcting the error of my ways and pointing me in the right direction. :)

[alisa2]

Affidavit is usually not enough- Here in the U.S. we do what is called Notary Protest because the notary is an officer of the state and adds a witness to the protest. After the agency defaults the notary takes over and certifies the dishonor. The Notice of Dishonor states:

The Dishonor, officially determined by me, constitutes an administrative and commercial notarial certificate of dishonor/default judgment against (official's name), and is complete upon ministerial ratification by any other judge.

[aryan57]

Thank you freeman friends for excellent thinking material. I feel that in order to get the council to recognise lawful documents, I need to apply for what is called a Declaratory Judgement or Judicial review of their decision making process (or should that be their lack of decision making process). If I do nothing, then the thing goes by default and I have come too far for that.

I expected that the Affidavit would have an effect but it seems to have had none. Perhaps they do not comprehend what the effect of an Affidavit is meant to be. Surely, I must be able to get some form of judgement in my favour that they have to recognise it's effect and comply with it? Otherwise, the whole process is a wasted exercise. Maybe its a big game of bluff and counterbluff.

Have been studying the courts service page today. It seems to me that it could be heard in the Adminstartive court or a claim made under the Human Rights ACT. Any thoughts welcome. Thnaks again friends.

[yozhik]

Thank you freeman friends for excellent thinking material. I feel that in order to get the council to recognise lawful documents, I need to apply for what is called a Declaratory Judgement or Judicial review of their decision making process (or should that be their lack of decision making process). If I do nothing, then the thing goes by default and I have come too far for that.

I expected that the Affidavit would have an effect but it seems to have had none. Perhaps they do not comprehend what the effect of an Affidavit is meant to be. Surely, I must be able to get some form of judgement in my favour that they have to recognise it's effect and comply with it? Otherwise, the whole process is a wasted exercise. Maybe its a big game of bluff and counterbluff.

As alisa2 eluded to in the US system, a notary in the UK can attest to the dishonour process, following a sworn notarised affidavit.

So the notary becomes the independent witness to the affidavit, the serving of the affidavit and the non-response (dishonour) to the affidavit. Hence the huge advantage of getting it notarised from the get go.


Have been studying the courts service page today. It seems to me that it could be heard in the Adminstartive court or a claim made under the Human Rights ACT. Any thoughts welcome. Thnaks again friends.

Hmmm ... given your quoting of the Maxim; an unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce, and given it is an action involving the Council, which I can only assume is of a commercial nature, then I would also assume your remedy is in equity and of a commercial flavour. Not sure if this would come under the Human Rights area ... but really not sure ... just taking a wild swing.

[alisa2]

Aryan57,

How does council go about collecting the tax if you don't pay? Do they send notice of levy or garnishment to your employer?

Also, what is tax based on ? Your income, wages or what?

[yozhik]

Aryan57,

How does council go about collecting the tax if you don't pay? Do they send notice of levy or garnishment to your employer?

Also, what is tax based on ? Your income, wages or what?

Council tax is based on property value and location ... a strange banding system.
Nothing to do with labour ... its a property tax.

[tien an]

Council tax is based on property value and location ... a strange banding system.
Nothing to do with labour ... its a property tax.

Yeah, and for £1,200/annum (in my case), they empty your rubbish bins for you too.

Why don'tcha come and live over here; it's great! (and there's less room).

Heavenly Peace,
tien an.

PS Great thread. Thanks.

[alisa2]

Council tax is based on property value and location ... a strange banding system.
Nothing to do with labour ... its a property tax.


Well, that's the worst kind of tax because it attaches to a real piece of property that you (Aryan) don't own and never will own because you don't have allodial title to land- In other words, you're paying a stipend to the king, who allegedly owns the land the property sits on. An affidavit does nothing but blow smoke.

In order to stop paying a stipend to the king on this property you'll have to find a way to take the property off the tax rolls so the Tax Assessor can't assess the tax. Also, you won't be able to sell the property free and clear to the next person until you pay the tax. Keep in mind that interest and penalties are compounded daily until you pay the tax.

You can argue about this in court until the cows come home, but it won't matter to the court or council because they have the power to keep you from selling the house until the tax is paid.

At least that is how it works in the U.S.

[bsmurph83]

to elaborate on the previous post/s, learn about claiming your strawman/commercial redemption and becoming the holder in due course, rather than the 'owner'. owners don't own shit. read on:

‘OWNER’ VERSUS ‘LEGAL TITLE HOLDER’

‘Banks do not own ANYTHING, banks LIEN everything. When are you going to STOP OWNING it and start ‘LIENING’ it because if you are ‘Owning” it you are a debtor. If you are LIENING it you are a creditor. If your strawman wants to own it then let him do his thing, but YOU had better be RECORDING A LIEN. If you are NOT recording a Lien then you are NOT IN CONTROL of the asset.’ – Jack Smith

‘TITLES ARE SPLIT when it comes to a Trust. You have got ‘LEGAL TITLE’ and ‘EQUITABLE TITLE’. A ‘LIEN HOLD INTEREST’ is LEGAL TITLE and ownership/Equitable interest is just EQUITY OWNERSHIP Title. The HIGHER TITLE is the LEGAL TITLE, the Trustee position, not the owner/equity use Title which is a BENEFICIAL INTEREST position.

If you can have an Allodial Title as though it were ON THE LAND you can have BOTH Titles residing in the SAME PARTY but under THEIR system the presumption is, that condition does NOT exist and the reason that it doesn’t exist is because in the PUBLIC DOMAIN there is NO LAWFUL MONEY. It takes LAWFUL MONEY to have Allodial title. Since you do NOT have lawful money you cannot exchange SUBSTANCE FOR SUBSTANCE therefore you cannot have an allodium in the property receipts by PRESUMPTION in the public domain. So that in the public domain the best you can have is a LIEN HOLD INTEREST. If YOU as a living man filed a LIEN and your strawman was the ‘Owner’, is that NOT the equivalent to Allodial Title? Because to them it’s the same person’s name, but the living man on the UCC Filing records a ‘Lien Hold’ and the strawman in the County recorders office claims an “Ownership’. So haven’t you got in the same name, both sides of the Title but COLOURABLY its split as to appear in Admiralty which is in harmony with their system! – HAVING FUN YET?‘ – Jack

‘There’s LEGAL TITLE and there’s EQUITABLE TITLE. The ‘Legal Title’ would and could be held by whoever can prove that they have a RIGHT to hold ‘Legal Title’. ‘Equitable Title’ is given as a ‘COLOUR OF TITLE’ to whomever ASSUMES to be acquiring any property be the use of the ‘DE-FACTO’ money (Legal Tender). Remember that ‘De-facto’ money is not lawful money, it’s actually not money at all, but it’s used AS A MONEY because all it does is it PROMISES to pay but it NEVER pays and (No Ticky, No Wash), If you don’t pay substance you DON’T acquire substance – you get what you pay for!

So since you paid with a promise then the Title comes with a ‘Future promise’, maybe. The END RESULT is that the one who buys property in this commercial environment is ONLY getting a ‘COLOURABLE TITLE’ because he NEVER presumably gave substance and because of that the ‘Owner’ has merely an ‘EQUITABLE INTEREST’. So the government steps in and ASSUMES ’Legal Title’ to ALL property under the premise that they are going to act in the capacity as a TRUSTEE to hold it ‘In Interest’ for whomever the Legal Title holder may be, if he ever shows up and PROVES A CLAIM.
So Since 1933 (when the Fed had bankrupted the US and fucked the entire planet) the government has been ‘Legal Title Holder” on all property. You, the ‘owner’ or ‘Purchaser/Buyer’ is MERELY an ‘Equitable Interest Party’. The “Legal Title holder’ has more POWER than the ‘Equitable Title holder’ has. The ‘Legal Title holder’, the Trustee, the government can assume duties such as controlling Rules & regulations over which the property is used, maintained and disposed of, which is why the government always writes these ordinances and statutes for land use, automobile use, health use because after all YOUR BODY is purchased too.

And so EVERYTHING in the society since 1933 is ‘LEGALLY CONTROLLED’ by the State, under the presumption that the state is the Trustee because the ‘REAL OWNER’ has not shown up, because if he did he has to be able to PROVE LAWFUL OWNERSHIP and unless he can show that he acquired it with substance, he can’t prove it. The whole nation then became a DEMOCRACY and from Capitalism to Socialism, because after all if Title is in the name of the State instead of the name of the individual owners or Title holders then that’s basically Socialistic/Communistic, as a POLICY.’ – Jack Smith

[aryan57]

I am really grateful for the goldminemine of thoughts posted here, I certainly have much to chew on now. To correct a wrong impression (my fault), it's not about Council Tax, but about my son,s claim for Housing Benefit.

All the way through, information has only been disclosed by the council with great reluctance. My Notary tells me that dealing with the council has always been difficult, time consuming and an exercise in pure frustration.

My thoughts are that I should apply through the small claims court for a Declaratory Judgement, against the council, to force them to pay attention to the content of my Affidavit and to give the words weight and power. They claim to have an exemption from complying with the law. Are we not all entitled to equal protection. After all, it is said that he who does not assert his rights, has none. In all this, I am relying on what I read from a 17 page document entitled The Commercial Maxims, available on the internet, since I believe that all interactions between men and women are described as commerce.

[alisa2]

Aryan,

Would a freeman on the land claim housing benefits from the corporation ?

We all became slaves or serfs of the state when we applied for the social security slave number and one will never get away from that requesting housing benefits. It's the price you pay for being a freeman on the land.

[yozhik]

They claim to have an exemption from complying with the law.

I wish them well with THAT philosophy.
:D

[yozhik]

Aryan,

Would a freeman on the land claim housing benefits from the corporation ?

We all became slaves or serfs of the state when we applied for the social security slave number and one will never get away from that requesting housing benefits. It's the price you pay for being a freeman on the land.

1. At no point has Aryan's son claimed to be a Freeman. From memory, Aryan is acting as Power of Attorney ... Aryan, correct me if I'm wrong.

2. A FOTL can certainly claim housing "benefits"; if in the NOICOR states it as a right, rather than a benefit.

[alisa2]

1. At no point has Aryan's son claimed to be a Freeman. From memory, Aryan is acting as Power of Attorney ... Aryan, correct me if I'm wrong.



2. A FOTL can certainly claim housing "benefits"; if in the NOICOR states it as a right, rather than a benefit.


Power of attorney ? LOL. Power of Attorney means acting on behalf of someone else. Big deal.

A right rather than a benefit is a right under the 14th Amendment. Corporations and slaves (persons) have rights under the 14th Amendment. I don't know what it is in other countries, but here in the U.S., corporations and slaves have CIVIL rights as opposed to natural rights. Your civil rights can be found in Statutes.

[yozhik]

Power of attorney ? LOL. Power of Attorney means acting on behalf of someone else. Big deal.

A right rather than a benefit is a right under the 14th Amendment. Corporations and slaves (persons) have rights under the 14th Amendment. I don't know what it is in other countries, but here in the U.S., corporations and slaves have CIVIL rights as opposed to natural rights. Your civil rights can be found in Statutes.

Maybe you should take a moment to turn the volume down on your aggression and do some background on aryan57's circumstances in this battle.

Here is the thread;
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65150

The Power of Attorney in this situation IS a big deal.
It is most certainly NOT something to scoff and laugh at.

I don't know what put that chip on your shoulder, but there really is no need to be so confrontational in your approach. Seriously ... what's up with that?

As has been discussed on other threads ... you can view a "benefit" as a trinket given by a corporation for being a good little puppy, or you can also view it as the corporation paying you instalments of what is owed to you, as sovereign and creditor.

To quote Tom Hanks in "The Terminal"; "what is choose?"


HOWEVER, the claiming of the Housing Benefit is not the main issue in this case. It's allegations being made against someone who is claiming the benefits, for obvious reasons when you actually comprehend the specific issues ... and the disgusting behaviour of the Council in not providing any proof of their claims and allegations nor do they respect the circumstances and the legal PoA hald by aryan57.

[aryan57]

Yes, Yozhik, you are correct, I am acting only out of regard for my duty to my son. For myself, I believe that if I claim a benefit, I also claim the
disadvantage. The US and the UK no doubt have many subtle differences.

I have spent the day writing the paper I will send in with the court papers.
I wish to keep it as short and concise as possible. I welcome all comments.

Application for Declaratory Judgement


The applicant, xxx xxx xxx, on behalf of his son, xxx xxx xxx, in his capacity as appointed representative and holding a valid Power of Attorney makes Application for a Declaratory Judgement.

The applicant believes that a matter must be expressed to be resolved (Heb 4:16, Phil 4:6, Eph 6:19-21,) and that he who fails to assert his rights has none.

The applicant requests a Declaratory Judgement against the xxx xxx xxxx Council Housing Benefit Team (the Team) who decline to recognise the power and authority of an Affidavit served upon them, and which the Team have not rebutted. The Team must have accepted the Affidavit as containing true and correct statements of fact or it would have been rebutted.

The applicant believes that an unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in commerce. (Heb 6: 16-17)

In view of written statements made by a member of the team, a Declaratory Judgement is sought to force the Team to show or direct the applicant to where he may find the exemptions from complying with lawful demands that are claimed by the Team.

Applicant believes that the Team acted in a dishonourable manner by returning documents served upon the Team, then sending applicant a letter claiming to have received an undated letter from the applicant, and then not responding to a letter from the applicant asking for a copy of the said undated letter. The applicant believes that the Team attempted by this tactic to avoid complying with the lawful documents served upon the team demanding a full disclosure of facts claimed to be in their possession.

By completing his Affidavit and serving it upon the Team, the applicant honestly believes that he has substantially fulfilled the requirements of the Social Security Act 1992, as amended and has fully complied with The Act.

The applicant believes that he is bound by his conscience and should not be forced or coerced by circumstances beyond his control, into breaking his solemn obligation of trust and care to keep private and confidential information private, and he that can not be compelled to allow sensitive information to enter the public domain where he will have no control over how that information may be used, stored, filed, collated or at some future date, sold as part of a private contract for gain.

Here endeth the lesson (LOL)

As I say, all comments welcome and best wishes to all my fabulous freeman friends.

[alisa2]

Maybe you should take a moment to turn the volume down on your aggression and do some background on aryan's circumstances in this battle.

Here is the thread;
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65150

The Power of Attorney in this situation IS a big deal.
It is most certainly NOT something to scoff and laugh at.

I don't know what put that chip on your shoulder, but there really is no need to be so confrontational in your approach. Seriously ... what's up with that?

As has been discussed on other threads ... you can view a "benefit" as a trinket given by a corporation for being a good little puppy, or you can also view it as the corporation paying you instalments of what is owed to you, as sovereign and creditor.

To quote Tom Hanks in "The Terminal"; "what is choose?"

Hey, bud, there's no confrontation or chip on the shoulder here. Look in the mirror for chip- it's staring right at you.

There's nothing about a Power of attorney that changes anything. If Aryan's son is of age or not disabled, then what is the power of attorney for, to represent his strawman? LOL.

[yozhik]

Hey, bud, there's no confrontation or chip on the shoulder here. Look in the mirror for chip- it's staring right at you.

There's nothing about a Power of attorney that changes anything. If Aryan's son is of age or not disabled, then what is the power of attorney for, to represent his strawman? LOL.

Again ... more unwarranted aggression.
Why?

Is it something you enjoy?
Seriously ... I just don't "get it".

Is it at all possible for you to just post a view, without confrontation and without aggression? Like ... a normal "conversation"?

It's really unpleasant.

Yes ... aryan57's Power of Attorney for his mentally ill son, is to represent his son's strawman.

How is that funny?
What's comedic about that?

[alisa2]

Is it something you enjoy?
Seriously ... I just don't "get it".


Unwarranted aggression ? According to who? You? I gave you the truth and you perceive it is aggression.

Is it at all possible for you to just post a view, without confrontation and without aggression? Like ... a normal "conversation"?

What is normal conversation ? I gave you the truth. I am a straight-shooter, and I don't have to explain myself to you.

It's really unpleasant.

Awwwwwwwwww go cry to your mama.

Yes ... aryan57's Power of Attorney for his mentally ill son, is to represent his son's strawman.

How is that funny?
What's comedic about that?[/QUOTE]

I am done with this thread. Thanks for the laugh.

[yozhik]

Yes ... aryan57's Power of Attorney for his mentally ill son, is to represent his son's strawman.

How is that funny?
What's comedic about that?

I am done with this thread. Thanks for the laugh.

Says it all ...

Sorry, but anyone who finds this situation laughable or a sense of comedic relief ... well ... enough said.

Straight shooter?
Certainly not the words I would choose to describe that kind of character.
:mad:

[aryan57]

Thanks Ailsa2, remind me never to set foot in California, i might bump into you if I am really unlucky but then you might give me a good laugh instead so it wouldnt be all bad. I am actually very pleased to have given you a good laugh, we all need one. Dont forget to keep taking your meds. Moses had to take the tablets, I recommend you do too.

I have no aggression in me, just a burning desire to achieve justice and the best possible outcome for my son and to do my bit to make this world a better place for all to live in, even for those who dont share my take on things.

Bye for now.

[yozhik]

Unwarranted aggression ? According to who? You? I gave you the truth and you perceive it is aggression.
Truth is truth.
It can be delivered with aggression or it can be delivered with empathy.
In fact, there is a multitude of emotions truth can be delivered with.
I did not perceive your truth to be aggression; I perceived your attitude with which your delivered your truth to be aggressive and therefore unwarranted aggression.

... and yes; "unwarranted aggression" according to me.


What is normal conversation ?
Do you REALLY need this explained???

I gave you the truth. I am a straight-shooter, and I don't have to explain myself to you.
Yes - you delivered your truth ... yes - you market yourself as a "straight shooter" ... geeeeeeeeez ... we get it already :rolleyes:.

Telling the truth and being a "straight shooter" is not an open licence to being rude, belligerent and offensive. Ghandi told the truth too ... can't recall him being overly aggressive ...

No - you don't have to explain yourself.
I've never asked you to explain yourself.
I merely questioned your questionable attitude and behaviour.


Awwwwwwwwww go cry to your mama.
Are you serious?
You actually want to debase this entire forum by taking it down to THAT level??
No thanks ... I gave up schoolyard/playground spats a LONG time ago.
That's your domain to yourself; you're welcome to it.
Enjoy.

Yes ... aryan57's Power of Attorney for his mentally ill son, is to represent his son's strawman.

How is that funny?
What's comedic about that?

I am done with this thread. Thanks for the laugh.
Bye.

[scottmurray]

The council as a company would technically be governed by companies house
they are however regulated by the finacial services authority
under some special municipal act(they dont have the same responsibilities about transparency as other limited liability companies or publishing directors details)and all steps are taken to hide the fact that they are in fact a company with a legal obligation to make a profit for their owners who, in most cases and upon closer scrutiny appear to be the local police authority.

The real name historically was the municipal corperation.in days of old those who opted to pay the insurance to the corperation were given a brass plack to put at the door so if your house was on fire the fire brigade knew you had paid your dues before acting for you.
The name change to council was the subtle offensive when it was decided to convince people that there was absolutley no choice in if you pay or not.

It is clear to see innuendo and suggestion are the key factor in this huge deception,but rest assured like all the other elements of this,the biggest conspiracy........the eveidence is hidden in plain view and as a point of law just like the fixed penalties if you look at the paperwork with a rough knowledge of contract law you will see for yourself that IT IS YOU who have to apply TO PAY, IT IS YOU THAT MUST ACCEPT THEIR OFFER TO PAY your council tax / speeding ticket etc etc we all must have a choice for if we do not then we do not live in this wonderfull democracy that it is claimed we do.....we would with no choice be living in a dictatorship the same sort of set up our governors claimed as justification to invade another soverign county..iraq
That said the law says nothing about suggestion or innundo being used to dupe us into being co erced.
wheres the crime?wheres the problem?i mean you have accepted the offer ,you even asked to be obligated................. EVER HEARD THE TERM BUYER BEWARE?????but the second you see the scam sirs you are deemed inteligent enough to self govern. and to be honest it aint really no big deal.

OK Imagine in 50 years people like us are sitting about claiming that google is in fact a company that makes a profit ......well thats about the best way to sum up what this lot have pulled off .....im absolutley in awe of their genius and how they have pulled it off.

[yozhik]

Nice post. :)

[oghene]

The council as a company would technically be governed by companies house
they are however regulated by the finacial services authority
under some special municipal act(they dont have the same responsibilities about transparency as other limited liability companies or publishing directors details)and all steps are taken to hide the fact that they are in fact a company with a legal obligation to make a profit for their owners who, in most cases and upon closer scrutiny appear to be the local police authority.

The real name historically was the municipal corperation.in days of old those who opted to pay the insurance to the corperation were given a brass plack to put at the door so if your house was on fire the fire brigade knew you had paid your dues before acting for you.
The name change to council was the subtle offensive when it was decided to convince people that there was absolutley no choice in if you pay or not.

It is clear to see innuendo and suggestion are the key factor in this huge deception,but rest assured like all the other elements of this,the biggest conspiracy........the eveidence is hidden in plain view and as a point of law just like the fixed penalties if you look at the paperwork with a rough knowledge of contract law you will see for yourself that IT IS YOU who have to apply TO PAY, IT IS YOU THAT MUST ACCEPT THEIR OFFER TO PAY your council tax / speeding ticket etc etc we all must have a choice for if we do not then we do not live in this wonderfull democracy that it is claimed we do.....we would with no choice be living in a dictatorship the same sort of set up our governors claimed as justification to invade another soverign county..iraq
That said the law says nothing about suggestion or innundo being used to dupe us into being co erced.
wheres the crime?wheres the problem?i mean you have accepted the offer ,you even asked to be obligated................. EVER HEARD THE TERM BUYER BEWARE?????but the second you see the scam sirs you are deemed inteligent enough to self govern. and to be honest it aint really no big deal.

OK Imagine in 50 years people like us are sitting about claiming that google is in fact a company that makes a profit ......well thats about the best way to sum up what this lot have pulled off .....im absolutley in awe of their genius and how they have pulled it off.

Nice interesting post. If you have time could you explain how contract law applies to speeding tickets and council tax.

[aryan57]

Great post from Scottmurray on the legal status of councils, thanks very much.

I have been along to the County Court Offices today to pick up a claim form and anything else of interest I could find. So I say to the young girl clerk that I need a claim form. Whats it for? I want to make a claim for a Declaratory Judgement. Blank look, she just did not have a clue what I was saying. So I explained how the process is supposed to work and she gave me several forms. Also picked up leaflet EX50 about court fees. Found out I may be able to get a waiver on the fees.

The only bit I could find in the leaflets that seemed relavent was headed Judgement summonses: To issue an application for a judgement summons = £95. Tons of info on family courts, debt, divorce,bankruptcy, tribunals, etc but nothing about seeking an order that the council must obey the law, observe the force and power behind the wording of Affidavits, and stop making things up as they go along. I am trying to work out how to fill in the forms in the right way so my claim does not fail right at the start. I seem to remember a quote that justice is not to be denied for want of a form. Anyone else heard this I wonder?

[Ian2day]

This is what I wrote on rights back in 97.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin - YouTube

Freemen of the rolls are exempt to the charge of council tax. Freemen of the rolls children can inherit the priviledge or they can earn it via the serving of an aprenticeship.

[bsmurph83]

This is what I wrote on rights back in 97.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

Freemen of the rolls are exempt to the charge of council tax. Freemen of the rolls children can inherit the priviledge or they can earn it via the serving of an aprenticeship.

this george carlin guy is a funny bastard. i was pissing myself. i agree with him on the conceptual level that rights are merely concepts and ideas. on the practical level i would rather live in a global community that affords validity to such concepts are the 'right' to food, clean water, clothing, shelter, and so on, and the 'right' to not be forced to receive vaccinations and the 'right' to dissent, and so forth. there has to be a conciliation between the conceptual world and the nuts and bolts practicalities which we face daily.

still, nice one, george. think i'll go watch some more of him...

[exhausted]

Not unless the person want the house bad enough to pay the tax for you or you can up the price. You can join Pre-paid legal for $17.00 and get all the legal advice for free for $17.00 a month I love it. Keep the faith. :)