Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[mufc1959]

From the background it looks as if Mr M was reasonably sensible for a while, acknowledging his debt, with HSBC showing some forbearance because of his situation. Then it seems he discovered the woo "... Mr M's position has now changed..." and after that all bets were off.

This is the same ombudsman who did the WeRe Bank decision a few months ago that we discussed in the PoE thread. I hope the poor woman doesn't have to deal with these nutters all the time. Although, from the point of view of deciding the actual complaints, it's probably just a matter of finding different ways of saying "you're bonkers, now f**k off."

[littleFred]

GOOFy prydein has discovered the amazing fact that householders don't allocate the name of their street or even the number of their own house. This job is already done by the local council even before the first person moves into each house.

Gosh, who would have thought it?

Worse, the council have to notify other organisations, like fire brigades and the Royal Mail, of new street names and numbers. Gosh, isn't that shocking? What possible use would a fire brigade have for knowing the location of streets and house numbers?

This is obviously evil and umm... umm... well, prydein doesn't say what is wrong with this arrangement. I suppose it's so obvious it doesn't need to be said.

[rumpelstilzchen]

These people never think things through. Imagine how it would be if every occupier created their own address. I could decide that my house is 146 Acacia Avenue, the neighbour to my left decides on 872 Footle Drive, and the neighbour to my right chooses 2 Fuckstick Walk. And so on. Yeah, that's bound to work pretty well.

[rumpelstilzchen]

If this is not a wind up and is really genuine I think it would be safe to say this GOOF will definitely be unable to sustain their own thread:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Espf8t75dg

Hi

Can I contest Juristiction as although I may be registered as a Corporation, i am not. Therefore is my case a Civil matter between myself, not as a Corporate Fiction, and Lowell (on behalf of Vodafone).


I'm not even sure I understand my own question, so hoping someone here does.

Thanks.

[morrand]

This is the same ombudsman who did the WeRe Bank decision a few months ago that we discussed in the PoE thread. I hope the poor woman doesn't have to deal with these nutters all the time. Although, from the point of view of deciding the actual complaints, it's probably just a matter of finding different ways of saying "you're bonkers, now f**k off."

However, this decision contains what may be the most concise and coherent explanation of the redemptionist scheme (UK variant) that I've seen:

As I understand it, Mr M’s reliance on the Cestui Qui Vie Act 1666 is a theory that this Act declared all English citizens dead and lost beyond the seas unless they objected within seven years of their birth, after which they would be declared dead without reasonable doubt. The state would then claim all the property of its citizens in trust.

The point Mr M makes about deception at the time of his birth is this: there is a belief that all people have two parts to their existence—their body and their legal "person". The latter is represented by the individual's birth certificate. Under this theory, a "strawman" is created when a birth certificate is issued, and this "strawman" is the entity who is subject to statutory law. The physical self is referred to by a slightly different name—for example "John of the family Smith", as opposed to "John Smith".

The argument is that the government secures the value of its fiat currency using its own citizens' birth certificate "bonds", which is money held on trust for the beneficiary, who is the living being. It is suggested that the value of a beneficiary’s "bond" may be millions of pounds, and that debts can be discharged by the beneficiary using money held on trust by the government.

Mr M’s argument is that HSBC created electronic currency using the signature of his “strawman” identity on the loan agreements—and that the money didn’t exist until the contracts were made. So the party named on the document actually created the money from his promise to pay it back, and the bank is simply the assigned company which has the right to make this entry into its electronic bookkeeping. In other words, HSBC has brought nothing to the transaction—which in any event was entered into by Mr M’s name, not his person.

To have dived into the Augean stables of Mr M's filing (I'm making assumptions here, but I think they're well-founded) and made enough sense of them to dismiss them on their merits, fair and square, was no doubt a Herculean task, and it's only too bad that it was just an Ombudsman decision and not something with more precedential value.

[grixit]

Perhaps a judge will simply incorporate it into a judgement.

[notorial dissent]

These people never EVER think things through. Imagine how it would be if every occupier created their own address. I could decide that my house is 146 Acacia Avenue, the neighbour to my left decides on 872 Footle Drive, and the neighbour to my right chooses 2 Fuckstick Walk. And so on. Yeah, that's bound to work pretty well.

FIFU. Such a load of self righteous stupid. If there is something they can misconstrue and be stupid about it all at the same time, they do and will.

Just a further note on the whole Cestui Qui Vie Act farce. First, it doesn't say, at all what the nutbars claim it does, and second, according to the Parliamentary archives website, it has been COMPLETELY supplanted. In other words NO LONGER IN EFFECT.

[TheNewSaint]

It's not that they don't think things through, they don't even read them in the first place:

a theory that this Act declared all English citizens dead and lost beyond the seas unless they objected within seven years of their birth

That's not even what the act says:

If such person... remaine beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themselves in this Realme by the space of seaven yeares together and noe sufficient and evident proofe be made of the lives of such person... in every such case the [person] shall be accounted as naturally dead

It's just a missing persons law that allows the government to declare someone dead after 7 years have passed, and process their estate accordingly. Modern laws are similar to this. It goes on to say that if you are later found alive, you get your stuff back, plus profit and interest. Nothing about bonds, strawmen, creating money, or anything else. None of the alleged powers of the act even exist within the text of it.

It's amazing how fast these arguments fall apart under the tiniest bit of scrutiny.

[notorial dissent]

If I read the cite references properly, the last remnants of the Act were shoved into legislative and historical oblivion in 1948 when the last of it was repealed or replaced.

[littleFred]

"Lawyer and activist" Chris Coverdale is bunged in prison for not paying council tax. That page also has an article by Chris Coverdale that explains why people can't be prosecuted for not paying council tax.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I have a bit of a beef with his argument.
He cites:
Regina ‘v’ Gul UKSC 64 (2013) Paragraphs 26 and 28
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf

and then he quotes:

“Action outside the United Kingdom which involves the use of firearms or explosives, resulting in danger to life … is terrorism. The definition would … appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved (officially or unofficially) by the UK Government.”

Paragraph 28:

28.
As a matter of ordinary language, the definition would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved (officially or unofficially) by the UK government.

The judge only says "it would appear". He is not definite. But in the next sentence:

29.
It is neither necessary nor appropriate to express any concluded view whether the definition of “terrorism” goes that far, although it is not entirely easy to see why, at least in the absence of international law considerations, it does not. For present purposes it is enough to proceed on the basis that, subject to these considerations, the definition of terrorism in section 1 in the 2000 Act is, at least if read in its natural sense, very far reaching indeed. Thus, on occasions, activities which might command a measure of public understanding, if not support, may fall within it: for example, activities by the victims of oppression abroad, which might command a measure of public understanding, and even support in this country, may well fall within it.

Again, he is not definite and states he is not expressing a concluded view.

[Firthy2002]

John Hurst should take heed.

[notorial dissent]

John Hurst should take heed.

Should, but won't if he runs true to form, and no reason to expect him not to.

[SteveUK]

This numpty has decided to intervene in his/her parents affairs. They've been happily paying the mortgage without issue, but idiot child now thinks its all fraud. No doubt some FMOTL "solutions" will have the retired parents out on the street soon enough.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 5&t=104811

[#six]

This numpty has decided to intervene in his/her parents affairs. They've been happily paying the mortgage without issue, but idiot child now thinks its all fraud. No doubt some FMOTL "solutions" will have the retired parents out on the street soon enough.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 5&t=104811

from the link

I just want to see my mom's face when I tell her her home doesn't have a mortgage anymore.

and fixed

I just want to see my mom's face when I tell her her home she doesn't have a mortgage home anymore.

[#six]

Has this guy ever com up on the radar? Like our George he seems to have a vendetta with HMRC & the DVLA amongst others.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-895503

Having recently concluded my communications with HMRC earlier in the year(2016) I decided to study Hmrc's rules and regulations. A vast tome which even the HMRC employees have trouble understanding never mind the ordinary man and woman on the street.

However, my problem is that HMRC seem to be classing me, a human being, as a corporation. I, as a human being, can't earn income.I have NEVER earned income in my life. Income is purely the domain of corporations which is clearly stated in your huge tax manual . I, as a man can only earn remuneration or wages or receive reward for my labour which CAN NOT be taxed. Only income can be taxed. Again,I have never earned income in my life. I am a man. I am not a corporation.

HMRC are taking my remuneration unlawfully. Is HMRC classing me as a corporation? If HMRC are classing me, a human, as a corporation or company how are you doing it?? Where are the rules that allow you to take a man or woman's remuneration??

and

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-906300

Many thanks for trying to answer my last FOI. You failed to answer any of my questions. I now know that the answers may
not be held on public records or whatever so I will put just one question to HMRC and hope it is held on file somewhere: When you wish to communicate with me at HMRC are you classing me as a person or a sovereign human being???

and

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ment-67590

I drive a small efficient van which I am forced, by statute to pay £225 per annum road tax. Meanwhile a large mobile crane which can lift 500 tons and weights well over 100 tons on the road and gets 2/5 miles per gallon only pays £165. This is clearly very wrong and a rip off which must and will come to an end.

I want to know if the DVLA will accept my legal and lawful IOU. for road tax?. I wish to impress upon your attention that Lord Denning in the courts of appeal repeatedly said that "all IOU's must be accepted as cash." Once again. Are you at the DVLA going to accept my lawful and fully legal IOU for road tax?

[notorial dissent]

Another semi-literate barracks lawyer putz, who likes to play at semantics with the big kids who actually do have the vocabulary. This will so end well, it always does.....

I will admit I am curious as to the disparity in the licensing fees, but I am also more than certain there is more to it that this genius bothers to mention.

The one trying to screw up his parent's lives really bothers me. That is just stupid above and beyond the pale.

[Firthy2002]

Assuming his figures are accurate, the crane will be covered under a trades licence which for 12 months is £165.
His van will come under the regular taxation scheme for joe public.

Source

[NYGman]

Assuming his figures are accurate, the crane will be covered under a trades licence which for 12 months is £165.
His van will come under the regular taxation scheme for joe public.

Source

I also have a feeling that a limited use crane, that isn't typically driven thousands of mile a year, may well output far less pollution, than a family car, which may rack up thousands of mile a year. So even though the comercial crane is taxed at a lower rate, if based on total pollution, this may be inverted.

[notorial dissent]

I'm curious as to what they base the rates on. Here it is value and in some cases weight and mileage. Commercial is treated entirely different, and more expensive, than non.