FMoTL - COUNCIL TAX.LEGAL OR LAWFUL?

[newmoses]

Several times in the past few years I have been asked whether or not a person legally has to pay council tax?

.I have been aware of something called a freeman of the land?.

 

As far as I am aware, council tax is legally to be paid under a 1992 act which name I forgot.

I think it is something like the government finance act 1992.

Please correct me if i am wrong.

 

I came across a Freedom of information request to Havant county council.

The person concerned argued that he is not liable for council tax.

The council argued that he is.Here is the askers reply to the council, who did not reply back to him

 "

 Only last week, I was told that someone does not pay council tax, gas/electricity, or tv licence fees?.

Is this correct, and is there an obscure law that I am not aware of??.

 

Dear Nigel Smith,

Thank you for your reply.

As you stated this tax comes under the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

All acts require consent to be given the force of law, they are rules and regulations of society.

 

They are not law.

There is no law requiring anybody to pay tax of any kind.

All taxes are made out to a legal body, Mr,Mrs whoever and not to the human being.

This is why many judgements made in court with regards to council tax usually fall apart at the very beginning if the person defending themselves understands the law.

 

Because the tax is against a piece of paper (birth certificate) and if there is no human to represent the legal fiction then there is nobody to pay.

You presented many legal arguments for the tax but no lawful argument.

As you are aware all acts fall under marine law (law of the sea) and have no power on land where common law (law of the land) is the power.

These acts all require consent, and to say otherwise is being untruthful is it not?

 

Your council is a registered company, with the objective one would assume of making money.

If you wish to take money from somebody for a service under law that would require a contract, without a contract we do not know what service we are receiving for money paid. A company can only use company rules (legal acts) against another company (a person Mr.Mrs...)to enforce the collection of monies.

 

Also as mentioned statutes are rules and regulations of society, and society is a group of like minded people acting together.

A birth certificate is taken as proof of membership to the UK society, but should one wish to withdraw from this society as one can do from any group they are a member of, then the rules of that society no longer apply.

 

If taken to court and tried under common law not statute law, you would find that the case would be short if it was heard at all. as has been the case with many people i know.

 

Would you agree with what is stated?

I look forward to your reply on this matter".

Yours sincerely,

 

David

[BankFodder]

It is very dangerous to follow any advice which is given by Freemen of the Land. Steer well clear.

[newmoses]

I have always been suspicious of people wether male or female who claim they do not pay council tax, tv licence , gas/electricity etc.Especially where they claim this law says this, and that law says that etc, which is why when I am asked if a person has to pay coincil tax etc, I say yes.

[brassnecked]

FMOL is a one way street to bailiffs and police (to keep the peace, but they generally side with the bailiffs the police being clueless about bailioff powers for Council tax) attending your home to Take Control of your goods.  FMOL tends to refer to maritime Law and how the state owns you through your Berth (birth) certificate etc.

[ss002d6252]

What usually happens, and I've seen more than a few in my years working in council tax, is that they make a fuss right up until enforcement action is taken and then they disappear off in to the ether without any further updates. Typically because their master plan has failed and the council have bankrupted them or they've ended up with a suspended sentence hanging over them.

[brassnecked]

Not in Wales, imprisonment for non payment of Council tax has been abolished.

[ss002d6252]

On 23/02/2020 at 21:46, brassnecked said:

Not in Wales, imprisonment for non payment of Council tax has been abolished.

True, but as he's using an English authority, Havant, imprisonment is still an option

[brassnecked]

Yes that is true, but its only ever supposed to be for "Wilful Non Payment" not a can't pay due to financial pressure, sadly the magistrates as in the Welsh case committed to prison first instead of asking questions so acted unlawfully by not checking all the facts.

[ss002d6252]

18 hours ago, brassnecked said:

"Wilful Non Paymen

Wilful refusal or Culpable Neglect.

 

The Woolcock case was an error by the Magistrates on the basis that they did not undertake a means enquiry prior to issuing the original suspended sentence. If that had been carried out correctly the situation may well have ended up with a sentencing exercise that was legal on the facts as the court saw them. We'll never fully know though as the case was thrown out by the higher courts without being remitted back for another hearing.

[brassnecked]

Looks like as far as Wales is concerned imprisonment for Council tax is now highly unlikely.

[ss002d6252]

On 04/03/2020 at 11:18, brassnecked said:

Looks like as far as Wales is concerned imprisonment for Council tax is now highly unlikely.

For Wales it is, due to them abolishing it, but the same legal arguments would apply in England - I've not come across any cases where the Woolcock matter has made any difference as the courts are being far more careful than they were. If I remember rightly the Welsh courts were handing down proportionally more committal/suspended committal cases than in England.

Craig

[brassnecked]

Yes they were, they were using it as punishment almost for being poor, treating all as won't pays, so Welsh Government stepped in.

[newmoses]

I now know the person who has been saying they do not ever pay council tax, parking fines, gas, electricity bills, tv licence etc.

I will not disclose their name.

 

Apparently, the person involved is using the Bill of Rights Act 1688& 1689.

I think I have found what they are using.

Here is a copied and pasted section:-

Provisions of the Act[edit]

The Declaration of Right was enacted in an Act of Parliament, the Bill of Rights 1689, which received the Royal Assent in December 1689.^[20] The Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by declaring that:^[21]

 

• the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with^{[nb 3]} laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
• the commission for ecclesiastical causes is illegal;
• levying taxes without grant of Parliament is illegal;
• it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
• keeping a standing army in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;^{[nb 4]}
• Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
• election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
• the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
• excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
• jurors in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
• promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void;
• for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
•  The main piece I believe they are using is this section,third line from the bottom:- "promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void";
•  I am assuming that they believe they do not have to pay a parking charge notice, unless they have been convicted.If they do not admit to being the driver of the vehicle that had a council parking charge notice placed on it, then they have not been convicted and therefore do not have to legally pay the fine.The council will not take them to court, because the council know that a civil court cannot try them and so cannot get a conviction.Am I guessing correctly?.The same person is making comments on facebook saying that they have dealt with councils for many years, and won every case that they try to bring against them.
•  I worki as a Civil Enforcement Officer.I once put a pcn on this persons car for parking on the pavement, adjacent to the double yellow lines.
•  I was told a few days later by my supervisor not to issue to that particular vehicle.I can only assume that it is because of this issue regarding not being convicted,so no monies can be extratced from that person.
•  I don't want to see people looking at the FB posts, and thinking they don't have to pay parking fines, council tax, etc, until they are convicted,then end up being taken to court,losing,then owing £hundreds.
•  Does the TMA 2004 supercede the Bill of Rights?.
•  Is the Bill of Rights the get out clause?.
•  Do parking fines, council tax etc have to be paid under a given law?.
•  Incidentally,it makes no difference to me wether a person pays a parking fine or not, as I am not on commission, and I get paid regardless of any outcome from a parking fine.
•  I just don't want people to read into this persons FB posts wrongly, and end up with egg on their face so to speak.

[brassnecked]

Be careful of Freeman On The Land stuff it doesn't work.

[newmoses]

Can anyone answer this please?

According to the Bill Of Rights 1689, Parking Charge Notice's (PCN) are illegally and unlawfully issued. There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."

It was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but you may view the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).

62. "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes." The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . ."

63. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ."

This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday 15 July 2002.

I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 2004 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court.

 

 Has the Bill of Rights 1688 & 1689 been superceded by the TMA 2004?.

Has the TMA 2004 been passed by Parliament or the House of Commons, or both?.

 Is the TMA 2004 lawful legislation?

 Is the Bill of Rights 1688 & 1689 still lawful?.

 I can only assume that councils use the term Parking Charge Notice, rather than Parking Fine, so that the section in the B of R act,mentioning fines are illegal unless a conviction is obtained, fro being the get out clause.

 If I am issuing pcn's illegally, then I shouldn't be doing it.If however,I am not issuing pcn's illegally then I am happy continuing in my role as a Civil Enforcement Officer.

[dx100uk]

freeman of the land twaddle NM...

 

stay well clear.

 

dx

 

[brassnecked]

PCNs didn't exist in 1689, and much has changed, No Civil Enforcement officerf is breaking any law issuing a correctly applied PCN. Freeman On the land is chock full of dodgy inapplicable guff, like a Birth certificate is  really a Berth certificate similar to permission to dock a ship, conflates maritime law ith other stuff, and usually gets the person using it in deeper trouble, especially where bailiffs are concerned.

[London1971]

Oh god, Freeman of the land. It’s as bad as conspiracy theories. 

[brassnecked]

make sure you ask that bailiff for the wet ink signature on the bailiff warrant, and other guff, youtube is full of the stuff.

[ericsbrother]

Ther Bill of Rights recognised a compact between the King, Parliament and the people. Since that time the monarch and the peopel have kept their sides of the deal but parliament has ignored the constraints placed upon them.

My advice is to overthrow parliament under the Treason Act and get the militray to perform the functions of goverment until you can replace parliament. I'sm sure that everyone will be behind you and the queen will lend you her army if you explain things.

There is another flaw with this though, Toby Liar abolished the Treason Act to prevent himself from dangling on a rope so you cant do stage one lawfully

I loathe the abuse of power by the govt and its appendages but what alternative do we have? allow the idiots who chuck things about on the streets to play king for a day? Dodgy parking tickets is the price we pay for being a mature democracy

[brassnecked]

So we exercise our right to defend ourselves from the PPC's and enjoy it when they get spanked by a DJ for a roboclaim with no merit and blatant abuse of process.

[ericsbrother]

And that would be easier if parliament and the courts hadnt decided to act in the interests of big business and try and make all contracts based on commercial law rather than consumer law. Why? nearly all judges have a commercial law background so it is what they understand. Like politicians, only certain people can afford to take that step towards the greasy pole, let alone climb it