Male Genitals is all I can say to that.

Certainly an interesting set of documents, however they only present what the organisation concerned wants the public to see. For instance we have no knowledge of other circumstances or correspondence which might relate to this specific case, and without those it's impossible to comment accurately, and it certainly can't be taken that just because one person might not have to pay a certain council tax bill because of specific circumstances, that either the law is wrong or that the same applies to other people.

On a more general note I would agree that there are laws which have serious flaws in them which are open to challenge, but unless a case challenging those laws works its way right through the system to a point where a legal precedent can been set by a senior judge finding for the defendant, any illegality in the law can't be taken as a way of not complying with that law.

True Midas, the poster on the other forum seems to know his stuff, its manic jargon to me, but if i read him correctly, he's saying, that when you get sent a council tax bill, its simply a contract for services, he points out that this contract offer can be negotiated (ive not got to the absolute bottom line of negotiations yet), that if you don't pay it, eventually you get sent a summons, but before it goes to court, you make it very clear in writting to the magistrates, that you want to be heard under the law of the land (Common Law), and that the proceedings will be dealt with in such a manner. Im guessing now, that that cannot be achieved in a county court (im waiting for that answer), anyone?

"A county court which sits under the Law of this Land would be able to legally demand that you payed for the supply of these goods and services if they can prove you have contracted to receive them for that period. But if the court is not hearing the case under the Law of this land (the Common Law), and if you have expressly NOT come under the jurisdiction of such a court, then, by the Common Law, you remain, as before, free from any such contract. As already said. Since, under the Common Law, a contract exists only when parties that are bound by it have first agreed on its particulars. And one does not exist if all parties do not agree to its particulars. As already said.

That is why the jurisdicition of such a court hearing must first be clarified if you are summoned to such a court, and this before the hearing starts. In short, you can question the jurisdiction of the court and NOT agree to come under its jurisdiction until this question of its jurisdiction is settled. Since your appeal, from the very start, is that the hearing is heard under the Law of this land. A fact which you can and must express to the Clerk of the Court and to the Magistrate even before the case begins. You may read this out from the public gallery, and/or in writing for the magistrate, or at the point before you would be due to enter the court. Since this lawful statement can and must be taken in to account by the court under the Law of this land.

A court which ignored this and which issued an instruction that was not supported by the law of this land would not, lawfully, be operating under the Law of this land. And, provided you have stated clearly before the case started you are demanding your case be heard under the Common Law of this land, which you stand under, then, in that case, obviously, the case cannot proceed under the law of this land, unless it is heard under the law of this land. And any court which acts contrary to the law of this land when they are instructed by you to act only according to the Law of this Land are acting unlawfully and have no jurisdiction over you. A sovereign human being of this land. Since you are subject to no other Law than the law of this land."

It is likely that all the bases were covered when the law bringing Council Tax to be was drawn up. I accept that other laws may give some unique set of circumstances an individual a "get out clause", but I would bet that for the other 62.5 million people in the UK this would not apply, and trying to do this could be very expensive. You would likely spend more on legal fees than the tax itself.

I may be digressing a little, however I believe our taxes would be a lot less if councils didn't waist our money so badly. In my present job I visit council building very regularly and speak to porters who get to know pretty much. A certain council in the south of England I visit spends 100s of £1000 a year on an excellence department. Well your guess is as good as mine. Last year they spent over £1m employing an outside company to advise them on cost cutting. They ignored every recommendation. Councils should be run like businesses. How many businesses pay all their employees 6 months full sick pay a year and another 6 months at half pay. How many businesses spend 1000s of £s advertising jobs when they know they are going to offer them internally. How many businesses have departments costing millions of pounds such as a diversity and equality department, who's existence is all about thinking up crazy ideas. Some departments are there just to duplicate the work of others. Every other building in the centre of many towns unknown to most people are occupied by council employees. Why is it that our council taxes always go up well above inflation although council employees only get minimal rises. Every week the aforementioned council has in excess of 1 ton of confidential paper shred because they still insist on printing out just about every document rather than saving files to a hard drive. The cost of the paper, the printing and then the shredding runs into millions every year.

They are all now talking about making heavy cuts and things like road repairs and park maintenance may be hit, however I am sure that those people in the diversity and equalities department probably have a job for life.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

It is likely that all the bases were covered when the law bringing Council Tax to be was drawn up. I accept that other laws may give some unique set of circumstances an individual a "get out clause", but I would bet that for the other 62.5 million people in the UK this would not apply, and trying to do this could be very expensive. You would likely spend more on legal fees than the tax itself.

Can't one use the law themsen? Can a county court rule under Common Law? Im led to believe no, so how can you be charged?

Originally Posted by newspresenter

Can't one use the law themsen? Can a county court rule under Common Law? Im led to believe no, so how can you be charged?

County Courts can and do rule on Common Law...From what I understand, and I could be wrong here...that it needs to be a District Judge sitting though not a recorder.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

It is likely that all the bases were covered when the law bringing Council Tax to be was drawn up. I accept that other laws may give some unique set of circumstances an individual a "get out clause", but I would bet that for the other 62.5 million people in the UK this would not apply, and trying to do this could be very expensive. You would likely spend more on legal fees than the tax itself.

That is possible, individually.
However it would be interesting if this group took the whole issue to judicial review.

Hi,

I believe that TPUC make some very good points - I am NOT saying they are always right but since Justice must be seen to be done is a founding principle of British law they mere fact that they question leading we hope to review and clarity can only be good for us and for Justice.

Unfortunately any morality on the law is on the skids as British Justice based upon Natural Law is fast passing into history with the malign concepts of EU Corpus Juris which removes adversarial law based upon a presumption of innocence and separation of the state, the law, the enforcement and the citizen. Habeas Corpus pertains in these United Kingdoms but its equivalent EU version is fairly meaningless and there is no protection from double jeopardy.

I welcome the questioning of the law as when/if it is upheld it is all the tighter and tidier and more likely to be seen as just.

That Neil Herron's attention to metrication and motoring law has shown some huge loopholes is unarguable and that John has identified areas that require clarification is important, as if nothing else it has woken up an area of the populace who were otherwise complacent to their well being and the subjugation to the body politic.

Sadly there are some who fail any concept of due rigor as with the likes of the Constitutional Movements with individuals like Albert Burgess who refuse to seek legal opinion of any value, presumably in the realisation their hobby and notoriety would rapidly cease.

I believe, though I wish there weren't, that there are some very deep faults in the legal logic of the Freeman assiciations but as I have said, the more involvement in law making on the part of the public and the less political involvement the better.

Can anyone tell me howmany Snivil Cervants were in the Foreign Office in 1890 at the peak of the British Empire administering approximately 1/3 of the world population and 25% of the land mass - currently Birmingham City Council has 47,000 employees!

The task in the 1890s was carried out without the help of Mr. Biro, with dip pens, no type writters, no phones and no computers - no Political Correctness, no maternity leave, no state health system, no state pensions and cost a fraction of the cost of Birmingham!

Let us all support the questioning of law - eradicate the self serving Party political scam, Leave-the-EU and work towards less and better law, less and better Government & Reclaim OUR Future.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins

Can anyone tell me howmany Snivil Cervants were in the Foreign Office in 1890 at the peak of the British Empire administering approximately 1/3 of the world population and 25% of the land mass - currently Birmingham City Council has 47,000 employees!

The task in the 1890s was carried out without the help of Mr. Biro, with dip pens, no type writters, no phones and no computers - no Political Correctness, no maternity leave, no state health system, no state pensions and cost a fraction of the cost of Birmingham!

I can't tell you how many there were back in the days of the height of the British Empire, but this graph shows the number of British Civil Servants since 1902.



Source: www.civilservice.gov.uk

Hi,

surely there can not need to have been mre than a trippling of flat feet due to WWII, but why am I not surprised to see so many sheltering in The Snivil Cervice.

Minded that we had just suffered the ignominy of winning against the Boers in 1902 but making the pragmatic decision to hand over to the Boers due to the disproportionate costs of maintaining a status quo in a hostile Country solely serviced by sea - one has to wonder if a mere 50,000 Snivil Cervants was adequate but it would seem that never in the history of man has so little of value been done by so many for so much as nowadays where the cost exceeds that of 1945 when any gamble that paid of was worth while.

We need a fraction of the number of Snivil Cervice parasitic jobs worths to administer ever less laws.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

I'm not quite sure where you addressed the topic in hand, but...
Snivil Service, Greg, that is so funny, you ARE a card!

ALL tax is illegal. I consistently get stopped tax but I have never been asked if it would be OK. If I deducted money from your earnings and spent it how I like I would be arrested.

Hi,I am new to these forums and am astonished by this post.Is it really possible to legally avoid this criminally imposed tax by the method stated.Would the relevant council have a duty to inform you that they have sent a summons,for example,if the person concerned had moved from the address concerned and was therefore not told about the summons.If so,why is it not being widely used to stop these rodents extorting money from the population.

Hi,I should have mentioned that I was referring to the replies from Wirral Council.

Tax is one of the greatest tools of the state.