Council Tax not Lawful?

[mills1]

Lawful Rebellion | Toolbox: Non-payment of Council Tax

 

 

Any thoughts?

[Conniff]

A show piece and a 5 minute delaying tactic. This doesn't show that council tax is illegal or avoidable just that in that court at that time prodedure was not unholdable.

[Bookworm]

Any thoughts? why, yes actually...

 

:-D

Edited May 23, 2010 by Bookworm

[Conniff]

Your image shows as being moved or deleted Bookie.

[kiptower]

I can see it, its there with tailgate down

[Bookworm]

Your image shows as being moved or deleted Bookie.

That's because the link contained a swear filtered word, so the kink wouldn't post properly, I had to delete it and re upload it wth a different name. Bad bookie.

[postggj]

now we have every ones attention

 

 

does a summons sent to the defendant in a liability case,

 

be it council tax or csa

 

does the court seal need to be on the summons to be legal

[Conniff]

That's because the link contained a swear filtered word, so the kink wouldn't post properly, I had to delete it and re upload it wth a different name. Bad bookie.

 

I pasted it in a browser and filled in the blanks, but ok now can see.

[mills1]

now we have every ones attention

 

 

does a summons sent to the defendant in a liability case,

 

be it council tax or csa

 

does the court seal need to be on the summons to be legal

 

I think the point they were making was that the summons was not sent by the court, they were saying that only a court can summons you, not the council.

Reading the text before the video clip explains what they are saying.

Hardly a delaying tactic if legal precedent is set.

Displaying a birth certificate was proof that the person was in court, that was a good one.

Funny how the three coppers could only stand there as the layman became the highest authority in the court.

[Bookworm]

I have seen it before, read it before, read the lengthy debate before, and it is utter and complete garbage. There is no legal precedent set except in their deluded minds. It's all part of the extremely tedious, self-congratulory, part fanatics, part gullible "Freeman of the land" myth.

[Conniff]

Hardly a delaying tactic if legal precedent is set.

 

It's a delaying tactic in that if there is a problem with the system, they will have it changed within 24 hours.

 

Whoevers name was on the birth certificate will 'not' have gotten away with not paying council tax. The difference between can't pay and wont pay is that the 'wont pay' go to prison.

 

As Bookie says - it's all been tried before and it just don't work, the so called do gooders think they are being cleaver, but usually get charged with other offences beside what they originally mythically thought they were getting away with.

[Bookworm]

Correct. And I believe that the end result was that he still ended up paying it anyway.

[Conniff]

Correct. And I believe that the end result was that he still ended up paying it anyway.

 

And probably with extra costs

[mills1]

Correct. And I believe that the end result was that he still ended up paying it anyway.

 

Can you provide a link that shows that ?

So it was just a publicity stunt?

Can anyone confirm that a council can issue a summons?

The only gullible people seem to be the ones who continue to pay council tax

[Bookworm]

It was a while back, and it was discussed on CAG, but that's as far as I remember at the moment, I'll see if I can find it.

[Bookworm]

Sorry, I did a search and couldn't find the documents themselves, links seem to have been removed from all the sites (wonder why? )

 

I did find a couple of comments from people pointing out that the case had not been dealt with in court because the defendant had agreed to pay by instalments, which is what I remembered, but unless you can find a copy of the actual paperwork still standing, can't help further I'm afraid.

[samsmoot]

Loved it!

 

Bookworm reckons the whole freeman-on-the-land thing is utter garbage and nonsense - and I wouldn't like to argue too strongly against that viewpoint.

 

But on the other hand, is there no value whatsoever in looking at what some of these people are doing? I find some of the things they have done fascinating from a legal standpoint - insisting on the Oath of Office being produced, for instance - that sounds like a lot of fun! And what about insisting on asserting their common law rights when confronted with any authority purporting to act under 'Admiralty'/commercial/statute law - seems to have a bit of an impact.

 

There is another thread on CAG talking about this stuff and I posted some links to some interesting freeman videos which I can put here if anyone asks.

[mills1]

Loved it!

 

Bookworm reckons the whole freeman-on-the-land thing is utter garbage and nonsense - and I wouldn't like to argue too strongly against that viewpoint.

 

But on the other hand, is there no value whatsoever in looking at what some of these people are doing? I find some of the things they have done fascinating from a legal standpoint - insisting on the Oath of Office being produced, for instance - that sounds like a lot of fun! And what about insisting on asserting their common law rights when confronted with any authority purporting to act under 'Admiralty'/commercial/statute law - seems to have a bit of an impact.

 

There is another thread on CAG talking about this stuff and I posted some links to some interesting freeman videos which I can put here if anyone asks.

 

 

If you google the guys name a shed load comes up, just been doing some reading myself, interesting.

Council tax is a tax, government debt, not a civil debt like hire purchase etc.

Wirral council have apparently admitted that it is unlawful.

[mills1]

Sorry, I did a search and couldn't find the documents themselves, links seem to have been removed from all the sites (wonder why? )

 

I did find a couple of comments from people pointing out that the case had not been dealt with in court because the defendant had agreed to pay by instalments, which is what I remembered, but unless you can find a copy of the actual paperwork still standing, can't help further I'm afraid.

 

 

Thanks anyway

[Bookworm]

Yes, but if you look at the sited you have found, they ALL quote the same one incident, with the same interpretation copied and pasted at infinitum, and then the faithful join in with their Hasannahs and halleluias. In the end however, there is nothing that ever gets proven, it's all smoke and mirrors.

 

Sam, it's interesting for me - briefly - for its novelty value and I never dismiss something out of hand. The problem is that as soon as you start really digging, it all falls flat. As you start expanding your search, you realise that it all is self-repeating and never actually provides any proof. Rumours, yes. Self-congratulating rants, yes. Actual proven court wins? No. Not one. The one(s) they try to claim as victories and precedent setting like the one mentioned in this thread turn out to have been carefully edited and trimmed to suit their purpose when they are nothing of the sort.

[samsmoot]

I always have respect for your opinions, Bookworm, and it does seem that the evidence is lacking, but I still have this niggling feeling that they may be onto a thing or two. For instance, they say everything is run on a for-profit basis - the courts, police forces, the government etc - and that they are all registered as 'companies' which is evidenced by a companies search on Dunne & Bradstreet. This isn't general knowledge, but is it true? Just one of the odd assertions they make that makes me wonder.

[Bookworm]

Well, define "for profit" for starters. If it's merely a term to set that they're not charities fo example, that means nothing. And even if they do make a profit, so what? They still have a role/duty/powers set by parliamentary rule.

 

As for D&B, wouldn't it make more sense to search, in the UK, quite simply, on the Companies House database, which is after all the recognised one here? Just asking, I haven't done it myself. But D&B, again, so what? it may be that D&B use a different cataloguing system for their own records, who knows?

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence btw, but you are quite right not to take everything without querying, not even from me ;-), but I have to say that my niggling feeling from the start was "that doesn't sound right" and when I dug in, it just got confirmed. Compare this with my feeling about the bank charges stuff, when I first read about it, I got a bit excited, read more and more about it, and the deeper I was digging, the more things were firing up in my brain, thinking that this made complete sense, even though at the time, there were hardly any positive results. But I do trust my own instincts a lot in these type of things and I have to say the whole FOTL just doesn't add up for me. The main flaw is that on one hand, they discard or argue a right to reject the laws that don't suit them as being irrelevant to them, but then expect the courts which they say have no jurisdiction to uphold their assertions. You can't have it both ways , you either work within the system or if you reject it, you get yourself onto a private area where you create your own rules etc... and even then, there is so much you could do before a higher set of laws would apply.

 

IMO, of course!

[Conniff]

i couldn't agree more and taking this title as the main subject, ask one of these tree hugging nutters if the crap they are posting stands up ie let them show the world that they do not now get demands from the council for council tax and have in fact not paid any.

[Bookworm]

Heyyyy, don't call them tree huggers, there's nothing wrong with liking trees! (although I don't personally hug them, I just like them platonically!)

[Conniff]