doahh

You are correct, the me-me-me approach is flawed as is our current approach. I may not have the answers but the problem is there none the less and needs to be acknowledged so it can be remedied. Maybe it could work better under suitably controlled private system that was not so greedy for profit. The window cleaners around my area always seem to remember which windows to clean without a problem. If a neighbor starts causing problems then the remedy would be through the courts. There is no need for a freeman society to go undefended. Some level of basic taxation would be needed and that would include the defense of the realm but does not necessarily need to cover the costs of going to war. I don't see any way around the issue of some form of taxation, it is the way it is used for wars that do not profit us, benefits for corrupt MP's and a Police force that seems to be very interested in generating revenue that is the problem.

and as was mentioned earlier, if the Nazi party was the ruling group you would be happy to send Jews/homosexuals/Communists/'people called Saberu' to the gas chamber? It is all very well following corruption when you are on the winning side but as the Jews found out, it can turn on you very quickly. It is not a good model for society.

Interestingly on Sky News (CBS News) was an item about a town in the Netherlands that has just done away with all traffic signals and signs. They claim that when people become responsible for their own actions they take more care and accidents have been reduced. That would also tend to suggest that driving without insurance may make people think twice about being reckless and that would reduce accident. This is a great report for the ideas of the Freeman who think that claim personal responsibility is the way to go.

Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by a non-owner and how does Allodial title mean they have no rights? If land is Allodial and you are the outright owner why would you need planning permission? If you got the permission of the neighbors then would that not be enough? I am asking as I know a person who owns Allodial title on some land and is planning on building without planning permission. He seems to kow about the topic and I hope to chat with him to find out more about it myself. My Uncle was a housing solicitor all his life (he is 83 years old now) and I asked him about Allodial title. He went away and looked it up and said that all land in Scotland is Allodial title now except land owned by the Crown and the Church. The other exception is land that was previously Feuhold, he himself pays Feuduty at a rate of about £30 a month. I am unsure how Feuhold land can be turned into Allodial title but it seems to me that if you want Allodial title to your land then Scotland is the place to get it.

I have never had to pay a parking ticket but the Bill of Rights 1688 says this: They gave you a fine (the parking ticket) before you were Convicted by a court and so the conviction is illegal and void - hence the fine is illegal. I am under the impression that the councils are taking a shortcut by ignoring the courts in order to save money. That however is illegal and it may even be possible to raise a counter claim against them for committing an illegal act if you lost time in going to court or dealing with their paper work.

A lot of people are like children because of the low standard of education (both technical and moral) - did the education they received from the state therefore prepare them for the world as you seem to be claiming? If they are like children then they have not been properly educated, so why are you grateful for their education? People are assumed to know the law and as we know ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the education they received did not give them the ability to stand in court then it is either the education system that is too low quality or the courts that are too complicated. I am sure you can see the irony in the Law Societies writing laws that are too complicated for normal people who then have to pay the Law Society to defend them against the laws they wrote. A lovely little money spinner if ever I heard of one. Someone paid for the hospital in which you were born, I have no problem in paying for services that I use. The point is not to get something for free but to ensure people don't take from me what is not theirs by right of claim. I am even happy to pay tax but I would like to know what I am paying for. Hence I, like the guy arguing that Council Tax is illegal, would like a Signed Bill with itemised costs (as required under the Bills of Exchange Act). Then if they put something on it like 500 rounds of high caliber machine gun ammunition for use in Iraq then I can say 'no thanks' but I will pay for my bins and road repairs etc. That would then provide good and immediate feedback into what the people want their society to do. The people who went off to 'shed their blood' probably only had to do so because of the system of territorial control that we have. The Federal Reserve created the Great Depression which spread to Europe. This led to mass unemployment in Austria which is the social group first drawn to Hitler. It is because of the system that wars start and therefore you have nothing to thank the system for. Take our monetary system, without the printing presses the government would have to raise money for war from taxes. That would not be a popular way except in the occurrence of extremely serious conflicts. That is exactly what the Freeman (such as the guy in court over Council Tax) are trying to do. They are trying to live outwith the jurisdiction of the UK Corporation but within the countries of England/Scotland and Wales. Remember that I do not believe that jurisdiction has anything to do with the land. You are under the jurisdiction of the Trust document (MC1215 or MC1297 etc) if you agree to stand under that document. The Freeman don't stand under the MC1297 (Statutory Trust), they stand under the MC1215 (Common Law Trust) - or some of them do at least, others stand under their own trust documents.

Unfortunately, I do not really have any faith in the democratic process, I am of the opinion that it is there to profit the powerful. Insurance is a highly profitable business and the people who control such companies are far more likely to nobble the politicians who called for a removal of compulsory insurance than to allow it to be removed. I have read the Statute law database regarding driving without insurance. Until recently you could post a bond of £15,000 that would act as insurance, it has now been altered to be £500,000. I am not sure that this is a sensible statement. I did not ask for the roads to be build, the society of the UK simply did it and now you think I should obey their laws? If I built a wall around your house and then charged you to go through my gate should you also obey all my other rules, such as you should bow and scrape before me? I would be of the opinion that Freeman are not interested in committing an act of fraud as that would be against common law.

There are gradients of 'siezing control' and so I find your point extremely difficult to answer. If my perfect world were implemented then I could be considered as siezing control but that would not make the world a worse place by default. The problem is that the current 'territorial groups' idea of money and law is heavily skewed in there favor. The monetary system is designed to profit the powerful as is the legal system (take Blair removing the treason laws for politicians when people attempted to press charges for the wars in Iraq). I would be proposing a system that treated everyone fairly and did not leave 25,000 a day to die of starvation in the third world, even though it means I must accept a reduction in my quality of life. It doesn't really come down to territorial control but fairness. Some people would always feel aggrieved about an event, that is unavoidable. This thread was about Council Tax but I have never had a signed bill of exchange detailing what I am paying for, even under statute law that is illegal. The only way they can get people to pay is by the use of force, which in the end is what it comes down to. I accept that I need to pay for schools, hospitals etc. if I want to use them but if I don't want to use them then I should be allowed to take the risk. Hopefully I am educated enough to make my own decision and decide what risks are suitable. As for shared items such as road and pavements that I am almost forced to use then the situation gets more complex and I don't have a solution - payment needs to be made but I am unsure of a fair system for this. However, The government does not treat us that way, they treat us as children (I have read in law that we are considered 'imbecile children' by the judge in a court if we use a solicitor) and tell us what is best for us. They impede themselves upon my freedom by force and abuse my trust in them (where is that signed bill of exchange please Mr. Council Officer?).

I agree that a solution is exceptionally difficult to come up with. However, just because it is difficult is no reason that I should be forced to leave the land of my birth. Where would I go? These problems are world wide (and not by my fault as they are millennium in the making) and I can not simply go to go 'where it is better'. The idea, as far as I am concerned is to find a way to reform the monetary and legal systems of the society that we choose to belong to. Just because there is no solution at the moment is not a reason not to try to find a solution. Unfortunately I think that most people do not even understand the basic arguments of freedom - maybe that is by design of our education system which would then be simply another way to control the people. I would have thought that is exactly the issue at hand. The UK government is controlling the territory of England, Scotland and Wales and forcing people to pay a Council Tax they have not agreed to - which is what started this thread in the first place. An excellent point, I often forget to turn the tables in an argument. Another excellent point that I shall endeavor to remember.

I have to agree with Star's answer. Additionally, I think you are making the mistake that because a society exists in a particular location then that location belongs to the society. If my fictional Knitting Society met on a piece of common ground ('common' as in common law) then that would not make the land mine - it is shared between the people and can be used for whatever needs they have (such as grazing cattle). In the same way, just because the society of the UK exists in England, Scotland and Wales does not mean the society owns the land. The society is not the land, it is a construct of man and that is the only place it exists - in the mind. You can not point to society - you can only point to a building, a person or a lake. The society does not exist outside the mind of the person (whether that person is a human-being or a dog - remember that person is a class of life, that which has personality and not just a human-being as I think is often assumed).

The MC1215 is a common law document that forms part of the constitution of the UK which is why it is not on the statute book. The MC1297 is the statute version of the MC1215 with a couple of alterations (mainly the removal of article 61 - the right to lawful rebellion). The MC1297 is a statute rule that is simply a private rule of the society of the UK (see the bit about trust documents below). This is essentially the freeman argument, that if I leave the society of the UK then your society's rules do not apply to me, i.e. statute rules do not apply. Look at the order of creation: Human Beings => Common Law => Society => Parliament => Statute Rules => Citisens affected by statute laws Human Beings created Common Law and it is common law that allows the creation of society's. Common Law comes before Statute rule and so overrides it - IMO. The 'subsequent generations' were not wrong as such. As far as I understand it the MC1215 is a trust document that human beings can stand under as their rules but it is based on common law. The MC1297 is another trust document that human beings can stand under if they so wish to do so. A human being should have a choice under which trust he stands (he can even create his own) and the rules of that trust are the ones that apply to that man. As long as the trust document does not violate common law then there should be no problems. When the two trusts interact (a parson from the MC1215 interacts with a person from the MC1297 trust) then it should be no different to the way people from different countries interact. I expect the reason for the names of these trusts being so similar is to confuse people into thinking that they still stand under the MC1215 when in fact they do not unless they explicitly state that they do. We are told the rules of our society by birth and we follow them by conditioning, by following Statute rules we are assumed to be standing under the MC1297 which is a Statute Trust and then punished according to those rules if we break them. The argument of the Freeman is that they should be able to stand under another trust and have their rights and beliefs upheld - the right to freedom of religion, though and belief is given in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has been ratified by the UK which is the MC1297 trust. In theory they should therefore allow people to stand under the MC1215 trust if they so wish to do so. This is very similar to the way people have been cheated into thinking that fiat currency has value other than that of a promise to pay. As we know promises can be broken but if the money was backed by a commodity then it would always have value. A similar con that has been used with money has been used with law. The issuance of law is now in the hands of private individuals (The Law Society of England and Wales - The Law Society of Scotland) and is not in the hands of the people as Common Law was. I am not a member of the Law Society and so why should I follow their rules? I gave the example of a knitting society earlier, if I set up the Knitting Society and you were not a member why should you follow the rules of my Knitting Society? It is the same argument with the Law Societies. The only people who should follow the rules of the Law Society (who create 'our' Statute rules) are members of the Law Society and maybe the people who stand under the MC1297.

Agreed it is a difficult issue to untangle and fighting through the courts would take a lifetime. I would assume that the MC1215 is the real one, I have read that it is un-repeal-able but could not point to the section that holds that clause of the top of my head (it is apparently written in the MC and then stamped with the King's seal) - I would need to read the MC again to see if that were true or not. I also re-read the council tax article a bit and see that nowhere in the provided evidence does it state 'The collection of council tax if unlawful' as is claimed in the article in at least two places. The evidence does not support the claim and it looks like this site is simply ramping their agenda and throwing in at least one blatant lie to boot. They claimed the email stated that the collection was unlawful and the email does not state that at all. All the evidence says is that the legal action was dropped and no costs would be chased. As an earlier poster on this thread point out, it could have been dropped for many reason other than it being unlawful.

I have been doing a bit of reading about this over the last several months and I have never seen any evidence that such a thing exists for UK Citisens. In fact I did an FOI request on this very issue where it is denied (see http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/birt...outgoing-28966). There is a lot of folk lore and urban myth build into the belief system and the worst is that a lot of people simply believe whatever they read. I tend to look up the things that are claimed and make up my own mind on the matter but like anything that takes a lng time to uncover the most likely story. While the ideas are often simply wishful thinking (such as the Birth Certificate Bond for UK Citisens) there is also a lot of interesting questions raised. Take the example of authority over another. There are two ways to gain authority over another: 1) The use of force, do as I say or I will hurt you - I can then be considered to have authority over you; 2) Permission based - you give me written permission to act on your behalf (as in power of attorney) and I can now represent your interests as if I were you with you being liable for the result. The government do not have my permission to act on my behalf and therefore to have authority over me they must use force. If they are using force then I have a duty to fight back, we apparently live in a free society, but are we free to leave that society? For me that is one of the main arguments of the Freeman. A lot of the Freeman stuff comes from the USA and Canada and is not necessarily applicable to UK law. Untangling what is relevant for law in the UK is a big job and has really only just begun.

Signing a Affidavit is just a formality and a courtesy. We live in a society - if I set up a knitting society and you were a member and then decided not to be, you would not need to tell me you were not a member any more. You would simply stop turning up to meetings and paying your membership fees. Why is leaving the society of the United Kingdom any different? Telling the queen that you don't want to be a part of her society is simply a courtesy, nothing more. In fact the affidavits that I have seen enter into lawful rebellion under article 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215AD. If they stand under the trust of the MC1215 then the people will return to the society ruled by the monarch when the traitors in parliament have been dealt with. The withholding of tax under such a clause is the right of the member of the society that is formed by the trust document but the member never actually leaves the society. To leave a society you just leave it unless you are contractually obliged to give notice - did you ever sign a contract to be a member of the UK? Not being a member of the UK is of course a problem. No recourse to electricity, gas or schooling etc. by law and so it may not be an easy ride - especially as the government will not accept you leaving easily, they want your labor too much. It is not for the faint hearted. And if you accept this then you are a slave to the states whim and have a duty to fight back (so Ghandi would say) - in whatever way you can. I also saw a the result of a Metropolitan Police investigation into the accusation of Tony Blair being a traitor. The Met Police specifically stated that ALL people who paid tax were guilty of the war crimes being charged but that the courts would be lenient if you stopped paying tax as soon as you found out that crimes had been alleged. As for the council tax, taxation comes from the Feudal system as far as I know. Only the serfs who swore an oath to the landlord (now the government) had to pay tax to their lord. If you have never sworn an oath to the government then you probably should not be paying tax, the government have overextended their jurisdiction using force and the OP link shows that some people are fighting back (unless someone can provide proof that it is a con).

Care to explain? I get the impression you either disagree or think that is what is going on already.

There is also a problem where, if you force people to work for dole then you can't really make them work more hours than they would get paid minimum wage for. So if the dole was £60 a week then you could ask them to work 12 hours a week for it. If you don't do that then the top bankers would find it more profitable to bankrupt the country and then get a free labor force thrown in to boot. This would be an ideal route to the beginnings of legal slavery and the marginalization of those who have done nothing wrong except to find themselves out of work. The true doleites would be unlikely to be productive on the farm anyway. I think the problem of the unemployed is that those on minimum wage are always going to be just about at subsistence level. If we are going to have a benefits system then it also needs to provide a subsistence level of lifestyle and so there can never be a benefit to working unless you have a good job. The only option that I can see is to raise minimum wage to £10 an hour to make it worth working or scrap the benefit system (at least in its current form). The two are incompatible with each other without a strong moral thread running through society which the UK may be lacking.

I agree the first one looked like a s!ithole from the photo but the seconds one also amused me. It is about as en-suite as they come.

Well, this is a little off topic but I believe the if you ask the judge if he has an oath, which he must have to be a judge, then the confirmation that his oath exists converts him from a Levitical judge into a Melchisedec judge. A Melchisedec judge cannot practice law from the bench (and may not even get paid for his work but I need to confirm that for modern day judges) and as such can not make things up to suit his purpose or else he risks his bonded status which in turn costs him his career. I got this information from the internet and so would have to agree that the internet leaves us as a connected community who can share information and knowledge and get support when in difficult situations. There is no way I would have been able to get the above information without the internet. I haven't proved this works personally but have little reason to doubt it due to the number of times I have seen it mentioned by serious, self-educating students of law who do claim to have used it (Winston Shrout - www.winstonshroutsolutionsincommerce.com etc).

I asked to be added to the mailing list at the http://www.secretofoz.com/ and got this in response:

There was a link to a video a while ago either here or on GEI: Think Free : Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception that mentioned about doing this in America. If you were to write back to them and say you do not accept their change to the terms, what would they do? Can they not up the cost or would they just tell you to go else where for your service? I would have though you would get nowhere but maybe you know more?

Personally, I don't think that the government would have lasted any longer if it had not participated in the global boom. Something else would have taken them down, be it scandal or underspending on public services. Does anyone know the longest serving government that the UK has had? I expect that it is not much longer than 3 or 4 terms. I think there is another reason why governments don't last longer than this but I haven't got a clue what it is. Maybe they get too comfortable and then get carried away with the power, maybe the problems they face are simply unsolvable in anything less than 200 years and so people think they have failed, then boot them out. I also think the cycle is anything but unavoidable. I am certainly not an expert but I would like to see an attempt to regulate the money/credit supply properly without allowing it to go out of control. I think that even if politicians/bankers have previously had a system that works they then want to improve it. In improving it they would change it and then it would break. I think fixing the problem may only be possible without the central banks and the chance of getting rid of them is minuscule. As Mayer Anselm Rothschild said: What can politicians do in 3 or 4 terms in order to destroy the deliberate cycle of boom and bust that the central banks engage in? I think there charter is a minimum of 20 years each time. Does anyone know if these boom and bust cycles happened before the central banks came to power (BoE - 1694)? Could they provide an example or link to information?

I am probably being a little naive but I thought that if the debt of £250,000 was not paid back by the borrower then the bank still had a £250,000 loss on their books. I thought it was only cancelled out by the paying back of the debt with the bank taking the interest as profit at the end.

That really is shocking. How a 22 year old can manage to de-fraud the US government out of that type of money is unbelievable. The contract between the government and his company must not have even stated the type and numbers of weapons to be provided. I especially liked the way that his business partner (a masseur) said he would talk to the authorities for immunity from prosecution; I wonder if he is hoping to be able to keep his share of the loot. Prison for the both of them is the only solution in this case but I expect they will be let off and allowed to live a life of unrivalled luxury on tax payers money.

The government exist partly in order to ensure that society functions smoothly. That means they have a duty to ensure adequate potential for employment and a stable economy. If they have failed so dismally in their duties and if they are going to be so tough on the people how tough do you think the people should be on them? If people have earned the possessions they have and would prefer to work then there is no reason they should not be granted a reasonable standard of living. The government has no right to destroy a country and then force it's people into poverty. Vive le revolution! I'll have a 2-3 of ringside seats for that as well, all for me

They may not be borrowing now but when the economy begins to recover they will begin to borrow then. I don't believe the government have the backbone to remove the money from the economy when thing improve, so I think we will see this becoming lent through FRB, just not immediately.