The law is the law

dhope

Manc33 wrote:

Don't forget a padded cell for the two cops that didn't arrest the van driver with no number plates (the guy that de-registered his van with the DVLA and re-registered it in his own name).

If you're a troll then you're a virtuoso and I doff my cap.

Manc33

Yeah as part of the trolling I hired all these actors to do this video:

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

No vehicle excise duty disc, no number plates... no crime is taking place.

Keep buying into a bogus system if you really "must" sorry "MUST" (may).

No one here is talking about legalese and how it is constructed to catch people out, this is what makes me laugh, you point only at one side of it and ignore the other side, its called cherry picking or flawed research.

Because you have nothing you just post silly pics, or paste a wall of junk that isn't applicable to the UK.

I can't say I blame anyone for that when there is no counter argument, but why post silly pics lol, it shows you care enough to respond - so you are reading about this stuff regardless, if you're replying to it. :roll: That's all I am interested in anyway, spreading the word and all that, not convincing people, some people never would be convinced.

I used to have the exact same attitude myself until I started learning about the subject. Its always easier to laugh than to learn but you could just learn more about it instead of laughing, which changes nothing.

If you ask an authority figure if they are acting under oath and they skirt around the issue and never answer it, are you insane just because you want the authority figure to answer? You actually think this lol, stop enslaving yourself! It is because of people's ignorance and just giving up what is rightfully theirs that we are in this mess.

Like I said about US independence, only 3% of people ever seem to stand up to anything oppressing them, the other 97% laugh and call it all a conspiracy theory, whilst getting their arses saved by the 3%. :roll:

If the Government put a report out on the BBC saying please go live in a dungeon, its great... they could get people doing it. Half the people replying to me would fall for it. If they sort of pitched it the right way and spent about 5 years listing all the advantages then doing the report, easy lol, people will do absolutely anything and follow anything no matter how spurious or financially damaging.

I remember a while back my insurance ran out and someone said "You better move it off the street, they can check now" lol check what. People are their own worst enemy man, I mean people actually go around all day thinking that crap? You are alive you know... but I don't think some people do know.

So the bottom line is don't stand up for your rights, do everything you're told... and yet I am the one supposedly trolling?

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

Yeah as part of the trolling I hired all these actors to do this video:

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

No vehicle excise duty disc, no number plates... no crime is taking place.

Keep buying into a bogus system if you really "must" sorry "MUST" (may).

No one here is talking about legalese and how it is constructed to catch people out, this is what makes me laugh, you point only at one side of it and ignore the other side, its called cherry picking or flawed research.

Because you have nothing you just post silly pics, or paste a wall of junk that isn't applicable to the UK.

I can't say I blame anyone for that when there is no counter argument, but why post silly pics lol, it shows you care enough to respond - so you are reading about this stuff regardless, if you're replying to it. :roll: That's all I am interested in anyway, spreading the word and all that, not convincing people, some people never would be convinced.

I used to have the exact same attitude myself until I started learning about the subject. Its always easier to laugh than to learn but you could just learn more about it instead of laughing, which changes nothing.

If you ask an authority figure if they are acting under oath and they skirt around the issue and never answer it, are you insane just because you want the authority figure to answer? You actually think this lol, stop enslaving yourself! It is because of people's ignorance and just giving up what is rightfully theirs that we are in this mess.

Like I said about US independence, only 3% of people ever seem to stand up to anything oppressing them, the other 97% laugh and call it all a conspiracy theory, whilst getting their arses saved by the 3%. :roll:

If the Government put a report out on the BBC saying please go live in a dungeon, its great... they could get people doing it. Half the people replying to me would fall for it. If they sort of pitched it the right way and spent about 5 years listing all the advantages then doing the report, easy lol, people will do absolutely anything and follow anything no matter how spurious or financially damaging.

So you spread lies and untruths but don't actually believe it enough to do it yourself? You are what is commonly known as a shitstirrer. A trait that has never been highly thought of. Take the number plates off your car and keep driving it, have the courage of your convictions. Somehow I think not because you are just an attention seeker.

Manc33

I wouldn't know exactly what to say in court, because I have not learnt enough about legalese whereas people I point out in these videos do know what to say, I'm really impressed with it.

Could you go to China and start talking to people? Nope.

It involves learning another language. Legalese is perhaps harder than Chinese to learn because it isn't a direct translation, you have to remember this English word means this other English word in legalese, extremely confusing and designed to be.

Ian.B

Manc33 wrote:

[stuff]...., easy lol, people will do absolutely anything and follow anything no matter how spurious or financially damaging....[more stuff]

Well, so it would seem

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Because you have nothing you just post silly pics, or paste a wall of junk that isn't applicable to the UK.

I make the score: one youtube video showing part of a day which I am willing to bet ended rather less rosily for the driver than the video suggests, plus your improbable tale of debt evasion, vs, a reasoned and properly researched judgment (which I very much doubt you have read) of a respected and senior Canadian judge, and err, the real world (pesky inconvenience, but there you go).

And as for the Judge being Canadian, and the judgment not being applicable in the UK, may I remind you of this:

Manc33 wrote:

It hardly matters with it being the US.

The point of it was to show that when a "receipt" is produced, it carries the value of itself.

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

I wouldn't know exactly what to say in court, because I have not learnt enough about legalese whereas people I point out in these videos do know what to say, I'm really impressed with it.

Could you go to China and start talking to people? Nope.

It involves learning another language. Legalese is perhaps harder than Chinese to learn because it isn't a direct translation, you have to remember this English word means this other English word in legalese, extremely confusing and designed to be.

So you're saying it doesn't work then. If you bothered to read Greg's post you will recall the judge said the 'experts' wouldn't appear in court as they know they will lose. They then blame the litigant for getting it wrong or using the words in the wrong order or some other BS excuse. They, and people like them, are parasites and scroungers that are trying to avoid paying for what is their responsibility morally, if you don't believe in laws then at least you should accept that morally you are responsible for your own debts. The world would be a better place without these idiots.

Manc33

I am not talking about "beliefs".

So does Black's Law Dictionary just not exist at all then?

The legal system doesn't have its very own spiel they use called legalese to confuse the average "person"?

It doesn't matter what anyone believes, it matters what is a fact of life and the fact is we have two legal systems running side by side. Well one is a legal system dealing with people that buy into the ruse, one is a genuine system dealing with unlawful crime.

I saw this one last night, a good laugh...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxYxR3ZW944

Compare that (from 1984) to now when we have people like Noel Edmonds wising up...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrH0O9QGOuY

Look at the difference in attitudes between 1984 and now.

You can persuade people to give in all the time and not stand up for themselves, but its irrelevant, its just more propaganda lol. All a bully ever does is makes the victim think he has no chance. Well after so much bullying it kinda becomes noticeable. To say it is some theory when it is pointed out is as naive as it gets. Living in a bubble is one thing but to have to live in it to a huge extent... that is disturbing.

Its a good job we don't need "everyone" to wise up, because that has never happened at any point in recorded history. Our freedom is a self regulating thing, I mean we get oppressed, some people are always going to notice it, while others pretend it isn't real by laughing at it.

If even Noel Edmonds these days is putting his career on the line to speak out (which can't be applauded enough) then we must be getting somewhere. People aren't standing for it anymore, conspiracy theory or no conspiracy theory. If you cannot get past thinking everything is a conspiracy theory then you probably just can't wise up. Not sure what I would do in that situation, cut my losses, see it for what it is and start learning about all this stuff.

Make sure to check Statute Law to clarify that clicking the above links is legal.

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

I am not talking about "beliefs".

Yes you are. You believe these things are true, people that have law qualifications and understand 'legalese' are telling you they are not true. Laws are complicated, that's why they need to use big words you don't understand, that's why people that have studied law and understand it get paid a lot of money.
I repeat, if it's all true do it.

chris_bass

Manc33 do you pay tax? and if so, why if you don't have to?

Do you drive? do you pay VED? do you have number plates? if so, why?

Wunnunda

There is more than a touch of the Tooting Popular Front about all this, isn't there?

veronese68

Wunnunda wrote:

There is more than a touch of the Tooting Popular Front about all this, isn't there?

You mean all mouth and no trousers?

Manc33

I'm not trained up on what to say though so no, I would just lose the case by contracting somehow without knowing I had, which is my whole point, that legalese is there to catch people out and make criminals out of people that aren't. There's not much point in going to court 50 times a year on the off chance you might win a few times. That isn't to say it doesn't "work" but you'd have to know exactly - the the word - what to say. I can't just memorize stuff like that, well not when I am trying to anyway.

dhope

Manc33 wrote:

I'm not trained up on what to say though so no, I would just lose the case by contracting somehow without knowing I had, which is my whole point, that legalese is there to catch people out and make criminals out of people that aren't. There's not much point in going to court 50 times a year on the off chance you might win a few times. That isn't to say it doesn't "work" but you'd have to know exactly - the the word - what to say. I can't just memorize stuff like that, well not when I am trying to anyway.

Would have thought there would be some no win no fee type lawyers around for just such a purpose if it were in any way feasible.

"Been caught out by a pesky law? Prefer to pretend they don't apply to you? Phone 0800-MUPPET and if we don't win the case you'll get it free, man"

Manc33

That would be supply before demand.

We are still in the "lets laugh at this stuff" phase at the moment.

Maybe in 20 years or something. By that time the system might have been pruned back a lot anyway and there would be no need for such a service, simply from new politicians coming through that want to change the system. They would get killed for trying it, so it would have to be done gradually, which ironically is exactly the way the bad guys do it and why no one notices, or people that do notice ignore/laugh at it.

merkin

This is all well and good, but...
What make bike was the girl riding?

First.Aspect

Manc33 wrote:

I don't care what Wesley Snipes did, he probably just didn't know what to say. If there are cases where people won I don't have to care really. Some tried the position and it didn't work, some tried and it did work. It would be my guess that the ones failing said the wrong thing or didn't say something they needed to and the ones succeeding knew what they were doing.

Using the argument that doing this is "bypassing" law is asinine considering that is all Statute Law does, bypasses Common Law in most cases because people aren't educated about the differences between Statute Law and Common Law.

If it didn't matter they would have merged the two legal systems a long time ago.

So, look I'm confused. When you refer to "people", which of these are you referring to;

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

That would be supply before demand.

We are still in the "lets laugh at this stuff" phase at the moment.

No that would be because lawyers speak 'legalese' and know they would be laughed out of court and never be able to work again. Go and ask a real lawyer with real qualifications in law from a recognised law school, not some fool that did a correspondence course with the University of Timbuktu.
And we're laughing at the fool that claims this is true but doesn't have the backbone to prove it. You claim to know it's true, but don't speak the legal language to argue your case. Therefore you also lack the legal knowledge to know it's true. Again I tell you people that are qualified in law are telling you it's not true. You say it's true but by your own admission don't know what you're talking about.

pblakeney

Veronese68 wrote:

You say it's true but by your own admission don't know what you're talking about.

Since when has this stopped anyone spouting forth?

The Rookie

Manc33 wrote:

I'm not trained up on what to say though so no,

This is the rub though, the so called guru's who claim they know what to say never turn up in court, when it fails they blame the poor sod who trusted them for not using the right words in the right order, sonce circa 2000 when the movement started they keep refining these 'right words in the right' order to get it right, and still can't manage it.

Look at most the FoTL forums and they have almost been barren for the last two years, most people have wised up to the fact that it is pseudo legal mumbo jumbo, many of the interpretations used don't stand up to even the most rudimentary study, like 'understood' apparently really meaning 'stood under' for example, which it doesn't, never has done, and I dare say never will do except for the convenience of someone trying to make up their own language to suite their own ends but sounding something like English - Klingon would have more credibility!

In reality it's about as sensible as, and in may ways similar to, a pyramid saving scheme where the few at the top make a killing from selling something to the mugs at the bottom with no real chance for the mugs at the bottom to get anything back when it all goes pear shaped.

A Manc trying to avoid their responsibilities, nothing like playing to stereotype!

Manc33

So a bunch of people can just come along and say "This word doesn't mean this" even when it does in a law dictionary?

Why would they have a law dictionary, that is not used for reference?

What are you saying then, lawyers and judges can use legalese but no one else can?

If a member of the public uses it then its a "pseudo-legal" argument but the lawyers can use it to their hearts content?

The Rookie

Manc33 wrote:

So a bunch of people can just come along and say "This word doesn't mean this" even when it does in a law dictionary?

It doesn't give that meaning of understand in the law dictionary, nor many of the other bizarre interpretations used by FoTL guru's.

First.Aspect

Manc33 wrote:

So a bunch of people can just come along and say "This word doesn't mean this" even when it does in a law dictionary?

Would it naive of me to ask for an example?

Btw, I think this "legalese" of which you speak is actually something known as "latin".

Do you have any objection to medical mumbo jumbo or botany? Or just law? And those scientists, eh? They use secret symbols ("greek") to confuse everybody and hide that they can't even prove that the world is round.

And yes, we are stuck in the laughing at you stage. I think you are a comic genius.

veronese68

A complicated subject uses big words a simpleton can't understand. What a shocker.

davis

I've just skim-read most of this thread... Would someone mind telling me if I've understood the actual events, by seeing if my analogy fits:

Manc33 wrote:

I've just read that perpetual motion is actually possible, and real. I read a few articles on it, and, despite not really understanding the physics involved or the terms used, I'm convinced it's true. You're all naysayers for doubting me, and anyone who hasn't managed it yet has just misunderstood the instructions.

Literally everyone else on the internet. Ever. wrote:

Well, no. It's not possible. It's been proved by very clever people who make consistent arguments that get peer approval, but, if you really still believe it's possible, go and do it, and let us know how you get on.

Manc33 wrote:

Obviously, I can't prove it; I'm not a physicist. It's still true though

...ad absurdium

The Rookie

For me it's easy to understand, it relies on the UK being a corporation not a country, the supporting evidence for that is that some credit agencies have decided to list it as a corporation (with no 'country' listing for any country)....seems to fail at that hurdle for me!

veronese68

davis wrote:

A very good analogy

surrey_commuter

The Rookie wrote:

For me it's easy to understand, it relies on the UK being a corporation not a country, the supporting evidence for that is that some credit agencies have decided to list it as a corporation (with no 'country' listing for any country)....seems to fail at that hurdle for me!

but can I pay my gas bill into my bank acct?

veronese68

Surrey Commuter wrote:

but can I pay my gas bill into my bank acct?

Try it and let us know how it works for you.

dhope

davis wrote:

I've just skim-read most of this thread... Would someone mind telling me if I've understood the actual events, by seeing if my analogy fits:

Manc33 wrote:

I've just read that perpetual motion is actually possible, and real. I read a few articles on it, and, despite not really understanding the physics involved or the terms used, I'm convinced it's true. You're all naysayers for doubting me, and anyone who hasn't managed it yet has just misunderstood the instructions.

Literally everyone else on the internet. Ever. wrote:

Well, no. It's not possible. It's been proved by very clever people who make consistent arguments that get peer approval, but, if you really still believe it's possible, go and do it, and let us know how you get on.

Manc33 wrote:

Obviously, I can't prove it; I'm not a physicist. It's still true though

...ad absurdium

Bet you don't believe in homoeopathy either :roll: