The law is the law

Manc33

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

And you can fark right off, with your arrant Freeman on the Land bullsh!t nonsense. Go on, off you fark.

I am talking about the differences between Common Law and Statute Law.

No, you're talking sh!t.

Thanks for such a thoughtful analysis.

First.Aspect

Manc33 wrote:

This falls under Statute Law which requires consent of the governed to be enforceable.

Ergo you can't just "get done" under it, you do yourself because you don't know legalese, or that there even is another legal language they use against you.

The law isn't the law, only if it is Common Law, involving unlawful crimes.

Something has to be unlawful to constitute it being a crime. Everything else that falls under "Statute Law" isn't unlawful or criminal, because no harm or loss is caused to any third parties. For example you not wearing your seatbelt in your car you paid for driving on roads you paid for with a VED you paid for and only you are involved with it. How many people know you can just tell the cop to stop harassing you and you won't be accepting any offers or forming a contract with him? Thats what it is, an offer to admit your "guilt", you don't have to. Why do you think you always have to sign something too, in these situations, because if you didn't they couldn't prosecute you. You signing it is the only reason they can and it is not unlawful to refuse to sign, you only have to ask that one basic question, did anyone come to any harm or loss.

Then we get the usual "You could fly through the windscreen and hurt someone" when they can't even show one case of it happening. As with a lot of laws then it is based on "what if" as opposed to actual crime. For a start you can't be prosecuted for not doing something. Impossible, unless you buy into the Statute Law crap and basically incriminate yourself, that's the real crime, not even knowing this stuff.

This is completely fantastic. I'm going to stop paying income tax right away. As far as I can tell, I never entered into a contract to pay it in the first place so I shouldn't have to. So I haven't entered into any lemon Tort so there. And thats just liability about it isn't it?

pblakeney

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

And you can fark right off, with your arrant Freeman on the Land bullsh!t nonsense. Go on, off you fark.

I cannot see what fark has to do with this debate. Please explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fark

greg66_tri_v2.0

First Aspect wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

This falls under Statute Law which requires consent of the governed to be enforceable.

Ergo you can't just "get done" under it, you do yourself because you don't know legalese, or that there even is another legal language they use against you.

The law isn't the law, only if it is Common Law, involving unlawful crimes.

Something has to be unlawful to constitute it being a crime. Everything else that falls under "Statute Law" isn't unlawful or criminal, because no harm or loss is caused to any third parties. For example you not wearing your seatbelt in your car you paid for driving on roads you paid for with a VED you paid for and only you are involved with it. How many people know you can just tell the cop to stop harassing you and you won't be accepting any offers or forming a contract with him? Thats what it is, an offer to admit your "guilt", you don't have to. Why do you think you always have to sign something too, in these situations, because if you didn't they couldn't prosecute you. You signing it is the only reason they can and it is not unlawful to refuse to sign, you only have to ask that one basic question, did anyone come to any harm or loss.

Then we get the usual "You could fly through the windscreen and hurt someone" when they can't even show one case of it happening. As with a lot of laws then it is based on "what if" as opposed to actual crime. For a start you can't be prosecuted for not doing something. Impossible, unless you buy into the Statute Law crap and basically incriminate yourself, that's the real crime, not even knowing this stuff.

This is completely fantastic. I'm going to stop paying income tax right away. As far as I can tell, I never entered into a contract to pay it in the first place so I shouldn't have to. So I haven't entered into any lemon Tort so there. And thats just liability about it isn't it?

I can't believe you haven't come across this bunch of complete fruit loops, First of the family Aspect.

Read all about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

It's like a lightning rod for retards and cheapskates.

I especially liked that Manc of the family 33 is prepared to pay his VED. Obv he hasn't yet read the full suite of Freeman memos. Yet.

First.Aspect

Okay, its ringing a few bells now.

I have a dim recollection of a documentary a decade or more ago including interviews with some weird redneck type individuals in a remote part of the US who refused to recognise the federal government. I seem to recall that the issue of fed taxation was of greatest concern to them, which was largely moot in light of their negligible incomes.

I hadn't realised that they'd moved to Manchester to get away from the IRS.

The Rookie

Watch some of the YouTube videos, they are great, the FoTL arguments rarely seem to be accepted by courts.

The best one is the Australian video where a car driver is shouting how he doesn't agree to contract with the police just as his side window is put in.....hilarious.

While I have some sympathy with Ricks view, the correct way is to lobby for the law to be changed, not rant about it!

Manc33

The cases where it works are the cases where the judge follows the law.

The fact that it has ever worked in any case proves the people that believe it aren't fruitloops.

However much you might desperately desperately desperately desperately want them to be, for whatever personal reasons - you don't want to feel silly yourself because you would never consider that any of this might be actually true, that's fair enough - been there, outgrown that. :roll:

To think "You're a fruitloop if you think you ought to be free" is akin to some sort of metal sickness anyway, regardless of law. Who the hell thinks that way! Ask yourself why is the assumed normality to not be free and why is that acceptable?

Stop laughing at something you know nothing about and instead, research it.

First.Aspect

Would it be naive of me to ask for an example of when this has actually worked?

Manc33

First Aspect wrote:

Would it be naive of me to ask for an example of when this has actually worked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919BGXnih8c

Why didn't they pull him there and then?

Just because people don't research how you are coerced into handing over money (via "legalese") in the form of "fines", takes nothing away from the fact that it still all has to be done going off your consent.

You can't be "forced" to have number plates, because it falls under Statute Law where no harm or loss is caused by you not having them.

It has just been made to appear as though you have no choice, because that way it sells a lot of number plates and keeps everyone thinking it is normal.

Marketing 101 is make people think they "need" something.

rick_chasey

As a side note [tw@t alert] I was reading in the economist [/tw@t alert] that this kind of stuff will become more common as crime continues to fall.

It's at its lowest for a loooong time.

Manc33

So the Economist was hinting that because crime is falling it has to be created? Probably to "keep the numbers up" (money) in other words the collection of fines from people is a business masquerading as a free public service.

I am glad this sort of thing is catching on, at last. That's basically all I have said all along - how can more funding be justified without crime? How can schools ask for more funding unless kids are coming out with a sub-standard education? How can big pharmaceutical companies sell you a second pill if the first one has no side effects?

Apply to anything that influences anything.

Once you realise we're being ruled over by people that knew every human weakness centuries ago you can start to see why we live in the world we live in, where nothing works anymore and so on. For example planned obsolescence is all perfectly legal. The term didn't even exist 50 years back - back when people were real people, but now we do put up with it and that's all they were ever planning on doing, having it so it is the norm for nothing to work, its just a phase on the way to complete slavery, because no one will stop it and anyone that does is called a conspiracy theorist.

When the US "won" independence (we allowed them to win on the surface and simply continued to run their finances in the background, but thats another issue) only 3% of the people stood up to the British - it begs the question, what were the other 97% doing... calling it a conspiracy theory probably, laughing at the notion that they might be getting oppressed, when they absolutely were. What's most annoying is that the 3% that understood what was happening in their own country saved the other 97% from a life of endless taxation, when they were clueless oblivious people that laughed in the beginning.

All truth has to go through three stages when you're willingly being ignorant to it...

1. First it is laughed at. "Haha where's your tin foil hat"
2. Next it is violently opposed. (Because it starts to appear to be true and people HATE that)
3. Next it is accepted as being self-evident. (When it cannot be denied any longer)

Its just that this whole phase takes decades and could realistically take months or even weeks. Imagine if people in December 1963 thought Kennedy wasn't killed by Oswald. Maybe back then they could have caught the real perpetrators. Look how long it takes people just to start to look at things differently. We're running on the spot for the most part.

rick_chasey

Manc33 wrote:

So the Economist was hinting that because crime is falling it has to be created? .

No it wasn't.

Manc33

Rick Chasey wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

So the Economist was hinting that because crime is falling it has to be created? .

No it wasn't.

Previously...

Rick Chasey wrote:

As a side note [tw@t alert] I was reading in the economist [/tw@t alert] that this kind of stuff will become more common as crime continues to fall.

It's at its lowest for a loooong time.

What is it saying then?

To me it is saying rather than lay off all the cops that aren't needed as crime falls, or putting them onto more useful investigations like all the pedophilia that doesn't get investigated when reported (oh dear, just too busy) they have to invent new "crimes" to continue to justify there being the amount of cops there are.

Its straightforward, its business.

rick_chasey

That police are able to spend more time very time intensive and less obvious crimes like catching people flying young girls out for FGM and things like that (with some success), as well as more 'petty' things like road traffic offenses, because stuff like murders and burglaries, gang crime etc, the stuff that often takes up a lot of their time, is occurring less frequently.

TBH, if you want to know what it's saying, go and read it...

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

So the Economist was hinting that because crime is falling it has to be created? Probably to "keep the numbers up" (money) in other words the collection of fines from people is a business masquerading as a free public service.

I am glad this sort of thing is catching on, at last. That's basically all I have said all along - how can more funding be justified without crime? How can schools ask for more funding unless kids are coming out with a sub-standard education? How can big pharmaceutical companies sell you a second pill if the first one has no side effects?

Apply to anything that influences anything.

Once you realise we're being ruled over by people that knew every human weakness centuries ago you can start to see why we live in the world we live in, where nothing works anymore and so on. For example planned obsolescence is all perfectly legal. The term didn't even exist 50 years back - back when people were real people, but now we do put up with it and that's all they were ever planning on doing, having it so it is the norm for nothing to work, its just a phase on the way to complete slavery, because no one will stop it and anyone that does is called a conspiracy theorist.

When the US "won" independence (we allowed them to win on the surface and simply continued to run their finances in the background, but thats another issue) only 3% of the people stood up to the British - it begs the question, what were the other 97% doing... calling it a conspiracy theory probably, laughing at the notion that they might be getting oppressed, when they absolutely were. What's most annoying is that the 3% that understood what was happening in their own country saved the other 97% from a life of endless taxation, when they were clueless oblivious people that laughed in the beginning.

All truth has to go through three stages when you're willingly being ignorant to it...

1. First it is laughed at. "Haha where's your tin foil hat"
2. Next it is violently opposed. (Because it starts to appear to be true and people HATE that)
3. Next it is accepted as being self-evident. (When it cannot be denied any longer)

Its just that this whole phase takes decades and could realistically take months or even weeks. Imagine if people in December 1963 thought Kennedy wasn't killed by Oswald. Maybe back then they could have caught the real perpetrators. Look how long it takes people just to start to look at things differently. We're running on the spot for the most part.

You have wandered a long, long way from the herd. A very long way indeed.

pblakeney

Baaaaaa.

Manc33

Spooky!

turbotommy

Manc33 wrote:

So the Economist was hinting that because crime is falling it has to be created? Probably to "keep the numbers up" (money) in other words the collection of fines from people is a business masquerading as a free public service.

I am glad this sort of thing is catching on, at last. That's basically all I have said all along - how can more funding be justified without crime? How can schools ask for more funding unless kids are coming out with a sub-standard education? How can big pharmaceutical companies sell you a second pill if the first one has no side effects?

Apply to anything that influences anything.

Once you realise we're being ruled over by people that knew every human weakness centuries ago you can start to see why we live in the world we live in, where nothing works anymore and so on. For example planned obsolescence is all perfectly legal. The term didn't even exist 50 years back - back when people were real people, but now we do put up with it and that's all they were ever planning on doing, having it so it is the norm for nothing to work, its just a phase on the way to complete slavery, because no one will stop it and anyone that does is called a conspiracy theorist.

When the US "won" independence (we allowed them to win on the surface and simply continued to run their finances in the background, but thats another issue) only 3% of the people stood up to the British - it begs the question, what were the other 97% doing... calling it a conspiracy theory probably, laughing at the notion that they might be getting oppressed, when they absolutely were. What's most annoying is that the 3% that understood what was happening in their own country saved the other 97% from a life of endless taxation, when they were clueless oblivious people that laughed in the beginning.

All truth has to go through three stages when you're willingly being ignorant to it...

1. First it is laughed at. "Haha where's your tin foil hat"
2. Next it is violently opposed. (Because it starts to appear to be true and people HATE that)
3. Next it is accepted as being self-evident. (When it cannot be denied any longer)

Its just that this whole phase takes decades and could realistically take months or even weeks. Imagine if people in December 1963 thought Kennedy wasn't killed by Oswald. Maybe back then they could have caught the real perpetrators. Look how long it takes people just to start to look at things differently. We're running on the spot for the most part.

10/10 for awesomeness. Really made me laugh, cheers

Manc33

TurboTommy wrote:

10/10 for awesomeness. Really made me laugh, cheers

The irony lol...

Manc33 wrote:

All truth has to go through three stages when you're willingly being ignorant to it...

1. First it is laughed at. "Haha where's your tin foil hat"
2. Next it is violently opposed. (Because it starts to appear to be true and people HATE that)
3. Next it is accepted as being self-evident. (When it cannot be denied any longer)

Back when trains were invented, people thought you'd die if you went over 30 MPH. They thought the fencing at the sides of tracks would hypnotize people. People thousands of years ago thought an echo was the devil shouting back at them. People used to think decaying food was "magic" happening to it.

All because no one conceived of the possibility... sounds familiar.

Eventually it sorts itself out and becomes accepted.

I know one thing for certain, you can't claim people are "fruitloops" that are winning cases in court. I think the best you can hope for there is to be calling the judge a fruitloop... and even then it doesn't really work because he is a judge and he is only ever following the law. In cases where a "fruitloop" wins the case, the judge was only following the law.

So I think we can conclude that the law doesn't work anything like the average Joe on the street thinks it does. Whether you wise up to this or not depends on how you look at it. If you'd rather ignore and laugh at it, go ahead lol, but that's one hell of a strange sense of humour you've got there. I guess when the financial news comes on you laugh at that too? What about an earthquake?

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

I know one thing for certain, you can't claim people are "fruitloops" that are winning cases in court. I think the best you can hope for there is to be calling the judge a fruitloop... and even then it doesn't really work because he is a judge and he is only ever following the law. In cases where a "fruitloop" wins the case, the judge was only following the law.

So I think we can conclude that the law doesn't work anything like the average Joe on the street thinks it does. Whether you wise up to this or not depends on how you look at it. If you'd rather ignore and laugh at it, go ahead lol, but that's one hell of a strange sense of humour you've got there. I guess when the financial news comes on you laugh at that too? What about an earthquake?

or, and i'm just putting this out there, obey the laws? why not have number plates on your car? why not drive within the speed limit? just because there may be a loop hole to get out of it, most laws are not a bad thing for people to follow.

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

or, and i'm just putting this out there, obey the laws? why not have number plates on your car? why not drive within the speed limit? just because there may be a loop hole to get out of it, most laws are not a bad thing for people to follow.

I agree with some policies under Statute Law, in that it is probably more sensible to follow it, as guidance, but that doesn't mean it is then acceptable to have to suffer an unlawful financial loss whenever you're not following that guidance.

That time a 16 year old girl left a wooden lolly stick on a wall and some busybody warden tried to fine her £30 for it. What about all the twigs falling off trees all over the UK? That's alright because you can't extort money from trees. Well, it doesn't matter if a girl leaves a wooden stick on a wall either then does it! It hardly compares to the mess trees make.

It's like having a worker at a factory and the boss says "Every time you make a mistake I am going to fine you £1,000". He can live in his own little world thinking it is some sort of "law" but it never is, its just a policy, if you're daft enough to think you've got to follow every single thing under Statute Law no matter how absurd, that's your own lookout.

As time has gone on I have complained less and less about it because I realized it isn't something forced on people as such, they just don't understand the lingo etc, but who would. The law is made so it is hard to understand for a reason - because 99% of it is bunk. All the cases where no harm or loss occurred and no one rang the cops to report you, its bunk. Its revenue. Its policy enforcement, as opposed to dealing with crimes.

I find it interesting that you'd call this a loophole - if anything, the legal system itself is using a loophole to dupe people with legalese. The people are meant to keep the Government in check not the other way around. Like if they are duping everyone, people should know about it. If you fell behind on your council tax they would be on it like flies on chit so I don't see why it should be any different when its the other way around. These people are supposed to be public servants, they used to be and back then people had way more respect for cops. The only people that disliked cops, were criminals, the proper ones that actually hurt people and steal.

Thats because cops used to need "probable cause" before they even talked to you... now they just seem to go around harassing people on the off chance they did something a Statute said not to do. If you know what to say you can just not consent.

The best case was a guy in the US was sent a tax bill for something like $17,000 (years and years "owed") so he deposited the $17,000 "receipt" in his bank. His argument was that the Government, by creating the paperwork, had inadvertently created a sheet of paper that had brought $17,000 into existence, pretty clever huh! So he just cashed it in and even then he didn't pay the tax off with it. In fact from what I remember of the story he somehow ended up with $34,000 because he repeated the process when they sent him another "bill" (in effect a $17,000 note). All he did was used the law to his advantage. He didn't break any laws in fact on the contrary, it took place in a courtroom.

surrey_commuter

Does anybody else find Manc33's posts indecipherable? the words he uses all seem to be reasonably correct as does the punctuation but by the end I find myself oblivious to what I have just read.

cruff

Manc33 wrote:

That time a 16 year old girl left a wooden lolly stick on a wall and some busybody warden tried to fine her £30 for it. What about all the twigs falling off trees all over the UK? That's alright because you can't extort money from trees. Well, it doesn't matter if a girl leaves a wooden stick on a wall either then does it! It hardly compares to the mess trees make.

This is the most preposterous argument I have ever heard. Ever.

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

.

The best case was a guy in the US was sent a tax bill for something like $17,000 (years and years "owed") so he deposited the $17,000 "receipt" in his bank. His argument was that the Government, by creating the paperwork, had inadvertently created a sheet of paper that had brought $17,000 into existence, pretty clever huh! So he just cashed it in and even then he didn't pay the tax off with it. In fact from what I remember of the story he somehow ended up with $34,000 because he repeated the process when they sent him another "bill" (in effect a $17,000 note). All he did was used the law to his advantage. He didn't break any laws in fact on the contrary, it took place in a courtroom.

Interesting. So, they sent a demand and, law aside, he managed to pay that demand into a bank who said, yes, that seems fine, we'll arrange to get that $17,000 which someone else has billed you from from them so that we're not out of pocket.

Interesting, do you have a link? :idea:

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

A lot of stuff.....

So you'd be fine if everyone just dropped lollypop sticks on the floor?

the boss can not fine you for making a mistake unless you are doing it on purpose, that is because workers are protected by..... laws! if the worker was not up to their job there are procedures to follow and if at the end of them they still were no good they could be fired.

I would love to see a link to that $17,000 tax bill case. So, given that i am sure this is true, I assume you also do this with the tax you have to pay? or any bill for that matter? I mean it would be stupid not to, right?

cruff

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

A lot of stuff.....

So you'd be fine if everyone just dropped lollypop sticks on the floor?

the boss can not fine you for making a mistake unless you are doing it on purpose, that is because workers are protected by..... laws! if the worker was not up to their job there are procedures to follow and if at the end of them they still were no good they could be fired.

I would love to see a link to that $17,000 tax bill case. So, given that i am sure this is true, I assume you also do this with the tax you have to pay? or any bill for that matter? I mean it would be stupid not to, right?

I suspect that any link to this will come from one of the tinfoil hat sites that specialise in nonsense. If this example is actually proven to have happened (and that's a massive 'if') then it's 99.9% likely to have come from a decision made by some backwards-a55 court in a county of about fifteen people by a judge employing the analytical thought processes utilised during a game of Kerplunk. The verdict would have been quickly overturned on appeal and the judge shepherded away to the old folks home by two nice gentlemen in white coats.

bendertherobot

I'm not even all that interested in what some Court said. I'm more interested in why a bloke rocks up at the US equivalent of HSBC with his US equivalent of a letter from HMRC demanding $17k and tries to pay it in as a cheque......................

dhope

bendertherobot wrote:

I'm not even all that interested in what some Court said. I'm more interested in why a bloke rocks up at the US equivalent of HSBC with his US equivalent of a letter from HMRC demanding $17k and tries to pay it in as a cheque......................

Because it never happened. But you know that :twisted:

bendertherobot

Hush now...........

elbowloh

So the law isn't the law?

This thread is hilarious!