Council Tax not Lawful?

[gynet]

Ahhhh that explains your total dislike for what I do, as I take it by what you say you work in some form of legal profession, and what I and others like me are trying to do just show what a [problem] the legal profession is to the common man

[Bookworm]

LOL, not at all, I am but a common or garden variety middle-aged housewife and carer for my autistic child, with a maybe slighter higher than average IQ and educational background.

 

And "dislike" is far too strong, "amusement" and "pity" would be more accurate, in the same way I would see someone who has been sucked into a cult (which it reminds me enormously of): I can see it happening, I can't understand how people can get sucked into it, but in the end, I know it does happen and I feel incredibly sorry for the people who have lost their free will, all the time thinking that they're the ones who have free will and have seen the light. In all fairness, I should also know better than to try and argue with one of the zealots, as it doesn't work any more than trying to convert a Jehovah's witness to paganism.

 

Still, I am not hoping to convert you, merely to hopefully stop other people from getting sucked in.

[Allwood]

yoou must pay your council tax, what will these people do if you do not keep them in their jobs and the large guaranteed pensions that goes with it....

 

Councils 'abusing spying powers' | Metro.co.uk

 

Councils 'abusing spying powers' | News

 

Would_you_be_a_council_dustbin_spy? - Silver Surfer Today

 

The only way you need not pay council tax is when you live on a boat or reside in a country in the UK for less that 6 months.

[gwc1000]

gynet wrote:

 

our bith certificates are traded on the stock market as GOV assets which goes in to our own fund ( red number on back of cert is account number)

 

 

This always makes me chuckle. The elusive birth certificate bond.

This idea was concocted by Roger Elvick in America thirty or so years ago and these wacky FOTL lap it up believing their gurus without question.

But FOTL never consider why would anybody invest millions in a birth certificate? What is in it for the investor? The amount of money most people give to the government in taxes during their lifetime would be less than the mythical amount invested in their bonds. A negative return for the investor. But the FOTL believe if they can find the "magic spell" they can access their bonds and the millions within. What is amusing is that people like Winston Shrout charge hundreds of dollars for a seminar where he will divulge the secrets of how to access your own bond, but he has never done it himself. Incidentally Shrout does not accept A4V as payment for his seminars. He only accepts money.

FOTL appears to attract gullible people who are in a vulnerable position and are looking for a way to relieve their problems. They watch a few videos on youtube or attend a John Harris talk and are brainwashed into believing their knowledge of law is superior to the law professionals. They recite definitions from Black's law dictionary as an authority. But what they fail to recognise is that (such as in in the case of "statute") the definition they quote does not even appear in Black's, they fail to recognise that Black's is an American legal dictionary, but more importantly they don't understand that a legal dictionary is just a dictionary. It is not a legal authority that is binding.

[samsmoot]

Ahh...someone who really seems to have a handle on the Freeman thing - how come you're so clued up, gwc1000?

 

BTW, I've just started watching eight hours of Michael Badnarik on Constitutional Law, and he also (like the FOTL) speaks about the individual as Sovereign. Any thoughts on his spiel, gwc1000? Or anyone? Here's the link:

 

Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik : Michael Badnarik : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

[mills1]

Ahh...someone who really seems to have a handle on the Freeman thing - how come you're so clued up, gwc1000?

 

BTW, I've just started watching eight hours of Michael Badnarik on Constitutional Law, and he also (like the FOTL) speaks about the individual as Sovereign. Any thoughts on his spiel, gwc1000? Or anyone? Here's the link:

 

Constitution Class taught by Michael Badnarik : Michael Badnarik : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

 

Cannot help you there samsmoot.

But I must admit to testing the waters, so to say.

Needless to say I received a reply quoting the 1992 Regs;

The person who replied stated that the regs; gave the authority the power to issue a summons.

I had asked how it was that a council tax summons could be for all intents and purposes be seen to have been issued by the council and not a court?

The reply above was received.

So I took the trouble to read the 1992 Regs;

It is only fair, if you are to challenge something it is best to check out the lay of the ground?

So I am awaiting another reply from them, because I have challenged what the person stated was the council's power regarding council tax liability.

Will keep you informed.

Just to say, I am very up to date with my payments.

Cheers.

[mills1]

yoou must pay your council tax, what will these people do if you do not keep them in their jobs and the large guaranteed pensions that goes with it....

 

Councils 'abusing spying powers' | Metro.co.uk

 

Councils 'abusing spying powers' | News

 

Would_you_be_a_council_dustbin_spy? - Silver Surfer Today

 

The only way you need not pay council tax is when you live on a boat or reside in a country in the UK for less that 6 months.

 

 

I think the problem is in what the council's say is within their rights in collecting the council tax.

They claim, as in the case I hightlight, that they have the right to issue a summons!

Reading the 1992 Regs; they can " apply " for a summons to be sent by the court.

The summons someone receives will probably not be from the court, directly, but from your council.

How is that right?

[Bookworm]

The summons someone receives will probably not be from the court, directly, but from your council.

I've never fallen foul of the council in this matter, so can you clarify for me where the "probably" comes from, or more accurately, what makes you think that this may happen?

 

The only time I got in trouble with my council was over some ground charge I am supposed to pay and I let it run for 6 yrs before they started getting serious about it, and the letters came from their solicitors, and there is no doubt that the summons would have come from the courts.

 

I am intrigued. :-?

[mills1]

I've never fallen foul of the council in this matter, so can you clarify for me where the "probably" comes from, or more accurately, what makes you think that this may happen?

 

The only time I got in trouble with my council was over some ground charge I am supposed to pay and I let it run for 6 yrs before they started getting serious about it, and the letters came from their solicitors, and there is no doubt that the summons would have come from the courts.

 

I am intrigued. :-?

 

Only what I have had myself, but was quickly sorted out when they ( the council ) realised the error of their ways.

The supposed " summons " to attend court was on council paper.

Have you read the 1992 Regs; ?

You may become more intrigued.

[Bookworm]

Do you still have a copy of the "summons"? Could you scan and post it (without your personal info on it, of course).

 

It's obviously hard to comment without all the facts, but it could be that your LA took a very naughty shortcut, which is not to say that others do, but that's speculation on my behalf. Having said that, N1 can be printed off your computer (I myself have a few blank ones on my hard drive, lol), it is always possible someone would print one off and send it directly instead of getting it filed with the court first, as I say, I don't know all the facts so I can only surmise here and there, that's why I'd be interested to see what they actually sent you, if that's not too much trouble.

 

And I might have or might not, I honestly can't remember, have you got a link so I can check? Thanks.

[Bookworm]

Do you still have a copy of the "summons"? Could you scan and post it (without your personal info on it, of course).

 

It's obviously hard to comment without all the facts, but it could be that your LA took a very naughty shortcut, which is not to say that others do, but that's speculation on my behalf. Having said that, N1 can be printed off your computer (I myself have a few blank ones on my hard drive, lol), it is always possible someone would print one off and send it directly instead of getting it filed with the court first, as I say, I don't know all the facts so I can only surmise here and there, that's why I'd be interested to see what they actually sent you, if that's not too much trouble.

 

And I might have or might not, I honestly can't remember, have you got a link so I can check? Thanks.

[Conniff]

She may become intrigued, but I bet you can't con her.

[ss002d6252]

The summons are printed and posted by the local authority on behalf of the court but the court still have to ratify the issuing of the summons to make it legal.

 

The council provide a list to the court of the summons to be issued and they will issue their approval before they can be issued.

 

The reason the council issue them is to save the actual work of printing and posting the summons from the court.

 

Having said that, N1 can be printed off your computer

 

You dont need an N1 for council tax summons applications via the magistrates court.

[gwc1000]

Ahh...someone who really seems to have a handle on the Freeman thing - how come you're so clued up, gwc1000?

Hi.

For the last eighteen months I have taken an active interest in the FOTL and have got amongst them so to speak. I started out with a disbelief of their theories but approached them with an open mind.

I found that in the main they are complete wack jobs. They become brainwashed in a similar manner to a religious cult and believe they have found "the real truth". Disbelievers are treated with derision and insults. Often FOTL attempt to intimidate and bully those that question their beliefs and a common ploy is to attempt to instill a sense of inferiority into their opposers minds by claiming that they are not awake or are slaves. "Sheeple" is one of their favourites.

But when you study it closely as I have done it soon becomes apparent that their beliefs regarding law are incorrect. They claim statute law is not law and believe they may withdraw consent to statutes. But there has been as far as I can tell no court case where the court's decision was that a freeman is not bound by statute law. Anecdotes are provided claiming success but no names, no court dates, no judgments are ever supplied. They fail time after time in court but herald failure as a victory because in their minds it lends proof to their belief that all courts are corrupt.

I note that the poster within this thread who supports FOTL displays typical behaviour. They can never answer direct questions or supply proof so they divert from the topic and quote pseudo-legal nonsense as if it is fact in an attempt to give the appearance of superior knowledge.

They send out umpteen notices to government departments with a time limit (such as seven days) for the department to respond, and in the absence of any responce within that time claim that their assertions have been accepted by the other side. Complete twaddle.

Then of course they will without fail produce their "fee schedule" such as we have seen in this thread. They refuse to accept that the fee schedule is not enforceable and believe that governments will leave them alone because TPTB fear the fee schedule will be implemented. They really are that mad.

Incidentally the poster Bookie mentioned did lose his vehicle and was prosecuted. Foolishly he took Leicestershire police to court to claim his fee schedule of approx £27000, and the case was struck out. Costs of about £4000 were awarded against him. In the end he went to jail. So he lost his car, received a fine, had a huge bill for costs, and saw the inside of a prison cell. A success in the eyes of FOTL because it proves how corrupt the "damn ebil gubbermint" really is.

[Conniff]

a common ploy is to attempt to instill a sense of inferiority into their opposers

 

How can a piece of shlt instill inferiority into anyone, you can't get lower or more inferior than what comes out the read end.

[samsmoot]

Thanks for the response, gwc1000.

[gynet]

just some fuel for thought

001-GOING AFTER THE WRONG PEOPLE.pdf

[mills1]

She may become intrigued, but I bet you can't con her.

 

Who is trying to Con her? you're looking in the wrong place Con-niff

Anyway Bookworm, it was some time ago, a lot of shredding has happened since.

However here is a portion from the 1992 regs:

 

Liability orders: preliminary steps
33.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), before a billing authority applies for a liability order it shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice ("final notice"), which is to be in addition to any notice required to be served under Part V, and which is to state every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application.
 
(2) A final notice may be served in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due.
 
(3) A final notice need not be served on a person who has been served under regulation 23(1) with a reminder notice in respect of the amount concerned.

Application for liability order
34.—(1) If an amount which has fallen due under regulation 23(3) or (4) is wholly or partly unpaid, or (in a case where a final notice is required under regulation 33) the amount stated in the final notice is wholly or partly unpaid at the expiry of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the notice was issued, the billing authority may, in accordance with paragraph (2), apply to a magistrates' court for an order against the person by whom it is payable.
 
(2) The application is to be instituted by making complaint to a justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he has not paid the sum which is outstanding.

(3) Section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980[14] does not apply to such an application; but no application may be instituted in respect of a sum after the period of six years beginning with the day on which it became due under Part V.
 
(4) A warrant shall not be issued under section 55(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 in any proceedings under this regulation.
 
(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,


the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

 

(6) The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.

 

(7) An order made pursuant to paragraph (6) shall be made in respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum payable, and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order.


(8) Where the sum payable is paid after a liability order has been applied for under paragraph (2) but before it is made, the court shall nonetheless (if so requested by the billing authority) make the order in respect of a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in making the application.

More can be read just by googling for the 1992 regs

[gynet]

A few Links for the Attention Of BookWorm

 

MMMMMMMMMM not private companys our leaders always tell the truth

 

Just a security issue sorted

 

https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=10001&catalogid=70001&searchType=BSF&productId=0&manPartNumber=&busName=Alistair%20Darling&city=&country=GB&IPAddress=81.141.245.185&encryptedSignature=2d4e27b43e958bd0eb5cf252228afc4dc351c66dac8d377e89173fdced482cf3bd39bd2637b486949d69a685c57b32cdd16c7d446e09c423b86acb5d0999aa33fee086a9165e8c8bb26e76797bfafa7b8a9410890ea7b1ba4c46e923857d2a36d86e3d92a3216a6e32688f45e92659b369b327c91d291b23325772cce9523ee6

 

https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=10001&catalogid=70001&searchType=BSF&productId=0&manPartNumber=&busName=Members%20of%20Parliament&city=&country=GB&IPAddress=81.141.245.185&encryptedSignature=108b9b029ee464c26e855a79f7b3619e56b24b059089b553bc84ae1f76f0cb7fd2f09058aa4b2d60394ae78b77bb269c2f0e7ca90e3e22ab03815dbf717907a9b1b80ccd45a25fa00660ea334dd4dc2c52f94a53bbca7a2acf78eb77e50196a96ac8c90dcd1b90a302d2cd961519c258177cc60d1c92aa5ca381ce731515ff6f

 

https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=10001&catalogid=70001&searchType=BSF&productId=0&manPartNumber=&busName=Metropolitan%20Police%20Authority&city=&country=GB&IPAddress=81.141.245.185&encryptedSignature=1073a3cad845c61b22bb5c4638dce1b7b11349373df76cad2e591456599ccae442f1c74a99e2afc413ab44522b82072f105a6bf9fc2650c9ba0ca4e3fc2d968cb97c78ee62b44bf72a152de15400358fbd08d0f587a43ef28b5791a232c0dc9e3016fa8d0ad07f870fbb92b05686c4b5a03d5199be66c624e43e269b8b145b9a

 

https://smallbusiness.dnb.com/ePlatform/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=10001&catalogid=70001&searchType=BSF&productId=0&manPartNumber=&busName=Home%20Office&city=&country=GB&IPAddress=81.141.245.185&encryptedSignature=5ef1dc46609e65fc0c7a282961fe09458a5701af624b9fcb6168524ffa95c2719f8b827fd2789620cd5e98fc1d9524498dd3d2db90ec8e9d43530635bf4e4a0206a5d72635045df7e0e2fe8f286874c0f76a9452df3a3a0edbe3b0713f8a7d8d72e864d504a955101231c947c9b19161f40f94342e0d010967a6490be62dc11c

 

 

 

As I said before truth is not truth to anyone unless self gained

dun links.doc

Edited June 25, 2010 by gynet

[Bookworm]

All I'm getting is blank pages. :-?

 

Oh no, "they" must have suppressed the Truth! Again!

[gynet]

small format issue

[Conniff]

All I'm getting is blank pages. :-?

 

Oh no, "they" must have suppressed the Truth! Again!

 

 

Don't worry about it Bookie - it's all yank crap anyway and has no standing at all in OUR country.

 

gynet why are you continuing to post foreign rubbish of no relevence?

[gynet]

If you had done any research in to this subject at all you would know i is not a US thing.

 

I is based on Common Law English Law

So dont be to quick to jump in till you can say you have put the hours in may I suggest the Book Of Dooms as a started.

 

An As for the Us again If you Had done any home work It is English Owned and us Law has a Bar ,

 

Now again this is all checkable the Bar is a UK boys club for the Barristers

 

SO ask this why is a UK boys club running US Law

 

Just question rather than shrugg it off as this is important what is happening with our finance every month this county Borrows 9.6 Bill

to cover its ass from the Bankes again provable look up RDS's from the EMF as the EMF private bank if floating our so call leaders so ask this Who has Control the man with the title or the man holding te purse strings

[gynet]

Take a look at this Yes it is US based but what makes it intresting is the writer was a senator and a Banker

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please don't take us all for fools I agree with you on a lot of points I am very pro LAW but when it is used to protect not to tax

 

If the Hanging debate came up I would support this, this is a lawless land only because they fine rather than punish

I hope one day you will see not all of us follow the flock I work totally alone and research everything for myself.

 

I have documents that would shock you But due to the way I came by them I cant Publish But all I ask Is a little respect and dignity for trying to make a difference to your grand kids when this all comes crashing down. and they are left wit the Pieces.

Who Creates Money-Who Should Create It (1935).pdf

Edited June 25, 2010 by gynet

[Bookworm]

Oh dear lord, now he's a prophet.