Property Taxes

[squark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEM6s9WqU-I&ebc=ANyPxKqxuGyWlkCLJh_fkdUS0Z-YFSUVv6Fyyxuo41XK44KZVCXKV9yHXZ-oVNMoFjWtclqeHswqL_cSG4zgL39N3b6uTsKjeQ

This is what is possible, if we just worked as a team on the key issues, finding the parts of UK law that are applicable, we could build a defence this strong, which can be applied in UK Courts, leaving them no wiggle room.

We could be enjoying all of the rights laid out and recognised by the UK, in the UN Covenants. That is travel, a home, food, clothes, heat, water, light, culture, security of person and an improving standard of living. No servitude, no council tax, no parking tickets.

Or we can cling tight to our own individual ideas and fail. That's the way I see it. No hard feelings towards anyone, its enough to drive anyone mad or away from law forever.

We have a State party that signed up to this international law, recognising the rights men and women have inherently, not granted by the State but recognised and (supposedly) protected by them. We have a duty to strive for the enjoyment of these rights or we loose them and descend into totalitarianism.

I see it as 10 years reading. Split between 10 people that means we can be free within the year, or not, if it remains a number of individual efforts.

Anyone?

[musashi]

I listened to the you tube video and was only two minutes into it before I found the flaw.
It's the same tired old logic trap and the same half truth I've found in so many freeman arguments. Like many others, the presenter demonstrates an admirable ability to pursue the logic train and demonstrate without a doubt everything he's saying. Alas, none of it applies.
The simile he gives, that of the corporation known as McDonalds demanding labour from us is fine as far as it goes, but the basic premise he begins with that takes him, and us, into the logic trap is wrongly applied. The government was voted in and McDonalds was not.

We go back to Consent;101

We live in a constituency – average number of people; 10,000.
Each constituency has prospective MPs.
If only one of the 10,000 constituents vote for only one of them then he gets the job.
The job is to represent us in parliament and to speak for us there. This is a Power of attorney in fact. He may do anything in law that we can do and what he does is to bind us into contracts with others.
Paying income tax, for example, is a voluntary act he volunteers us for when he votes to pay it at the first sitting of every parliament.
Through him we have agreed to pay it and we are in an invisible contract with the crown.
When we appear in county court for non payment that tells us that there is no law on the statute books that says we have to pay – otherwise it would be a criminal court and not the civil.
We are in contract law, and when we go to court for non payment it is in a Court of the Staple with a contract up for review and enforcement by an administrator acting ministerially as an extension of the crown.
We are in contract law, and all the judges in the world can do nothing about that, and they may take no judicial notice of the Constitution, common law, the rights of man and all the rest of it.
The only law that matters is the law of the contract and we volunteered for that through our representative in parliament. The contract must be broken.

The following is a process I've been lately hawking on the streets.
1. Remove your name from the electoral role.
2. Notice the MP for the constituency you live in of that fact and rescind his power of attorney.
3. Notice HMRC of this and provide copies of the documents.
4. Grab a spliff and put Red Dwarf on.
5. When they come calling with their outrage and their outrageous lies, demand proof of your liability under the new circumstances. As it is a contract, require them to produce the original instrument you signed which created that attachment of equity to you. They cannot.
6. Pick up your spliff and restart the Red Dwarf episode you put on pause.

As for ten years study, we already have an effective response - It's called Magna Carta, Article 61 and Lawful Rebellion.
The Glastonbury LR group has had three complete victories using it with HMRC and I have used it with the police with equal success.
When I go against them I step into statute, rules, regulations policies, citizens charters and bailiff manuals which they are obliged to adhere to. Then I step back into the constitution and the common law.
When they come against me I have only one defence – Magna Carta, Article 61 and my very beautiful Lawful Rebellion. Look at our website, Lawful Rebellion.info
They do not want a court case where our only defence is duress of circumstances by reason of treason by the state and our constitutional obligation to distress it.
If you want a further justification for not fulfilling this invisible contract then look to The Frustrated Contracts Act, 1943.
The activities of a belligerent state prevent me from fulfilling the contract even though I may want to, and I am obliged by the terms of an earlier contract, The Treaty of Magna Carta, 1215 to distress and distrain that belligerent state in every way I can.
Lance.

[musashi]

I meant to add also to my response to this post that a false informal logic has been applied to the end statement that ten years divided by the efforts of ten people means we can achieve something in a year - freedom. This carries a simple mathematical logic, superficially correct and attractive, but is really false accounting.
Each of the ten would have only have one tenth of the material available and would know nothing of the other nine tenths. The division of labour might work well in a pin factory but it's useless here unless all ten become a gestalt entity with a single mind, or communal access to all the others' minds. Outside of science fiction, God Emperor of Dune for example, I've never heard of such a gestalt creature. Ten years study for one man is ten years study for ten men.

If I have a wrong take on this I'd be pleased to be corrected.
Lance.

[squark]

Its first a case of finding where the persons within the UK are separated out from the human beings.

It should be in the constitution, except there is no single document, so reading all the bits becomes necessary.

There is no contract between citizen and state. The relationship is established by operation of law. The law is like a machine stepping through a program. Step one is an action that strips us of our fundamental rights, citizenship, "any person born within the Uk is a UK citizen," its an operation of law. That step limits Human Rights and grants Civil rights. It needs a constitutional challenge, which would be wasted effort if the exception/remedy is already within the law.

Same applied to travelling, where is the bond that insures you, or the exception or lawful excuse, how to prove its existence.

And there is finding where human beings are included in the bank or whatever act, so they can access their security of person, through the promises that bind her Majesty to the covenants, the fact that the Chancellor holds a bond or other instrument as a constructive registered holder, and that we are the real holder or beneficiary and the evidence required to prove it, Little things like that, that are contained in Canadian Law, discussed by eternally aware, and must, be expressed in uk law due to the same obligations being placed on her Maj in the UK as are in Canada.

The state parties shall, through their constitutional process, or other means introduce such laws as to guarantee these rights.....or something similar it says. They were obliged to do it.

[squark]

I will take another look at Lawful rebellion.
I did not like the idea of hunting down barons for the right to enjoy MY fundamental freedoms.
They belong to the individual after all.
They exist without the state.

[musashi]

It was written - Conceal nothing and watch the fools search forever.

You mention "the fact that the Chancellor holds a bond or other instrument as a constructive registered holder, and that we are the real holder or beneficiary and the evidence required to prove it,"
I have heard a huge amount about this over the years and am still waiting for the tiniest shred of evidence that this actually exists. Or that a chancellor is constructive holder, or holder on due course, of this instrument.

I prefer Wittgenstein’s injunction " Don't look for the meaning of a thing - look for its use."
There are those who will search for meaning and there are those who will look for the use and work back from there. Names and titles and references change and take on new meanings - but the function remains unchanged.
But, as they say, there are as many paths to God as there are souls of men. Perhaps this is also true of freedom.
Lance.

[squark]

Everyone has the right to security of person, it has to be something.
It can be, as is being enjoyed, in Canada through the work eternally aware has done.

Listen to eternally aware and you will see how subtly the law is constructed to conceal these things. That is why i suggested a team work approach would be useful.

I am not staying in servitude, that's for sure.

Operation of Law is my new favourite phrase. We are placed into servitude by operation of Law.

[musashi]

I ask people what the four elements are and they tell me - earth, air, fire and water.
I ask if they are sure and they say yes. Everyone knows them. These are the elements.
I then ask if they are aware that it is only a theory, not a truth or description of reality, but an idea laid down in 500 bc by Greek philosophers attempting to describe the world and our reality and relationship to it. I refer them to Parmenides, Heracleites and Empedocles the sources of this idea of the elements. The moment some clever bastard comes up with a better one it'll all change. Just like morality.

So much of what we think we know as truth is not what it seems - and the matter of rights are the same. There are no such things as rights - God given or otherwise, All there is is agreements between men. The rights we talk about are actually agreements between men. It's a contract between men. The terms of the contract may be changed and that's what politicians do. We have rights as defined by contract, by agreement between men.

Truth is not absolute, if it was then every man and country on earth would be living it. But British culture is not Mexican culture and we have different beliefs on the rights of man. We also have different moral high ground. Every society that ever existed is a social experiment and the rights within it are experimental also, subject to change and are not absolutes.
Much of the taken for granted beliefs in our lives today are the ideas of people like Weber and Durkheim and Rousseau and other social philosophers from another century.
Lance.

[Dreadlock]

"Right" is a very interesting word. In summary it means doing that which is ordered and so by demanding rights from someone you are in fact acknowledging subjugation to them.
Websters 1828:

RIGHT, n. Conformity to the will of God, or to his law, the...
2. Conformity to human laws, or to other human standard of truth, propriety or justice.

As we live in a Christian country, whether we are Christians or not, English law is based on the bible and it is assumed that God exists along with God given rights or orders.
Now we need to decide to whom we wish to conform. God or other men. We can consent to subordination to other men either by contract, as you "rightly" say musashi, or threat of violence, or simply through ignorance.

The concept of "God" is extremely useful. It allows for appeal to a higher power which no man can deny, in a religious country, and the order or "right" of nature is self evident to an extent.
In short man can change his rights, to which you alluded with reference to other cultures, but the rights of God/nature are immutable.

Much safer to conform to the latter rather than the former - at least in my opinion.

I have always been most obedient when most taxed with disobedience. But my right hand is not the right hand of Melinda. The right I revere is not the right adored by sycophants ; the Jus vagum, the capricious command of princes or ministers. I follow the law of God (what is Laid down by him for the rule of my conduct) when I follow the LAW of human nature; which, without any human testimony, we know must proceed from God: and upon these are founded the rights of man ; or what is ordered for man. I revere the Constitution and constitutional laws of England; because they are in conformity with the laws of God and nature: and upon these are founded the rational rights of Englishmen. If princes or ministers, or the corrupted sham representatives of a people, order, command, or lay down any thing contrary to that which is ordered, commanded, or laid down by God, human nature, or the constitution of this government; I will still hold fast by the higher authorities. If the meaner authorities are offended, they can only destroy the body of the individual; but can never affect the right, or that which is ordered by their superiors.

1857 - Tooke, John Hirne - Epea pteroenta; or the diversions of Purley

NOte: Melinda is/was an island of mostly left handed people. That hand therefore being their right hand.

[musashi]

I cannot disagree.
If you take away “Thus saith the Lord.” then you have no absolute moral standard on which to model your behaviour and evolution becomes the basis for racism, humanism, socialism, communism, Nazism and the New World Order.
The moralities of these organisations are flawed; they are created by men, are not egalitarian and are always destructive to all other sectors of humanity. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others quoted Darwin extensively and employed his pal Galton's Eugenics theories to justify killing unfit people. People like polio victims, or not wonderfully bright people, or non blondes and so on.
That's where Nietzsche comes in, I'm afraid, with his ubermensch and untermensch..

It's been said that if God did not exist we would have to invent him. Perhaps this is what was meant by the speaker.
Lance.