Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[AndyPandy]

I'm beginning to think this is the stupidest women on the planet, just about the only person who posts on Eviction Fraud of the Bank's page

.Coral Melissa Penn
3 hrs
So here is the company that Richard Banks is leaving UKAR for the Corporation allegedly Government owned by the people that robbed the Crawfords of their home on the 2nd July 2015 totally unlawful aided and abbetted by Nottinghamshire Police etc and not as originally thought 2 months before the unlawful eviction but over a year (Operation Hooper) UKAR have handed over the mortgage books to this company to manage ? Therefore does this mean peoples mortgages are in theory really paid up now ? Id be grateful for peoples thoughts on this pls...
http://www.computershare.com/uk

So basically UKAR have outsourced their operation and she thinks all the mortgages are now paid off !!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/531131453679786/

[NYGman]

I know Compushare well, they are a service provider, I assure you, they have not paid off any loans

[AndyPandy]

I know Compushare well, they are a service provider, I assure you, they have not paid off any loans

Exactamundo, makes you wonder how someone this daft carries on breathing !

[FatGambit]

I know Compushare well, they are a service provider, I assure you, they have not paid off any loans

Compuserve was the service provider, Computershare is an Australian investment bank come stockbroker come venture capitalists, fingers in many pies type business, they're not related.

[letissier14]

Enjoy

[AndyPandy]

I'd give good money to see one comma or full stop employed.

Hmm Juvenile Court, I wonder if the words sub judice mean anything to her?

Sub judice
under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.

No, probably not.

[mufc1959]

Freetard in armed standoff with the police in Surrey.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ey-village

This'll end well ...

[getoutofdebtfools]

Freetard in armed standoff with the police in Surrey.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ey-village

This'll end well ...

It did, he slipped off without the Police knowing!

Given his cry of "I'm a Freeman of the land" maybe he removed their rights of implied access! By the time he sends out £5,000 contractual fines for each of the officers he'll be a wealthy man

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest- ... Helicopter

[exiledscouser]

Sounds like a right result. What's not to like?

Drugs n guns recovered
Pizzas all round for plod and an hour or several of overtime with consequent boost to the local economy
Star journos bunging locals for their stories
Idiot (who is already well known) avoids getting himself shot and will probably surface in a bit when all the fuss has died down
His wife, adult sons and two pit bulls detained, restoring peace to the village

Seems his neighbors have a low opinion already, sounds all very chavtastic in that house. Move on now, nothing to see here!

[littleFred]

Tiggy and Faljay moan about the rules:

What you must do mwill is make sure you Acknowledge Service of the Claim with the intention to defend with in 14 days of you receiving the claim form - even though at this point you don't know the particulars of the claim you MUST acknowledge it !!

That is a totally unfair rule. How in Hell are you supposed to know what you are defending without any details?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Law is an Ass!!!

People who misunderstand the rules may also have equine characteristics. Faljay is probably a lost cause, but I think Tiggy at least tries to get these things right.

Tiggy: acknowledgement must be within 14 days of service of the particulars of claim, not service of the claim form. True, PoC are often on the CF (and I think they are in this case), but when they are not, it's the PoC that counts. See CPR 10.3. The same with defence: file it within 28 days of the service of the PoC, see 15.4.

[exiledscouser]

Ceylon does much the same.

In this post http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 5pqyWV0_8s

Celyon wrote;
It's the Law:
If it doesn't have a signature it is not a bill.
Bills of Exchange Act 1882 - Section 3

Someone (Rogerdun) points out that

That is incorrect. A bill of exchange requires a signature. If there is no signature it is not a bill of exchange. A bill however does not require a signature.

Quick as a flash, Mark's rapier-like brain responds;

that is incorrect as its a act so not law either

Fish in a barrel.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Ha ha ha. That is brilliant.
Ceylon: It's the law. Er, although it is the law it is not actually a law.

[Forsyth]

And in another thread over on GOODF there's a discussion about Obama banning gold ownership which actinglikeabanker sources from self-declared 'judge' Anna von Reitz, and Society of the Spectacle links to what appears to be the original, and only, source for the item.

Notable contributors to the report are Mary Chris Moss (who SOS even copies into their post), Juan T. Richez, Phillip D. Bagg. Donna Kara Lott and a supporting cast that ends up really scraping the barrel with a B. Russell Sprout (but does get bonus points for "The rich in this country, people like Glenn Beck...").

So, question for today: do they not read what they're linking to, are they unable to comprehend what they're reading, do they just not have any sense of humour (or sense) at all, or are actinglikeabanker and Society of the Spectacle just trolling GOODF big time?

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 0&t=101165
http://skinnyreporter.com/obamagoldban.html

[Bones]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 44w273.htm

Nita needs to dig deeper, she had not found gold but a turd - read the comments about Carmel Butlers claims

http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/200 ... e-law.html

Have a guess how this ended up ? Go on, can you guess what happened ?

[Normal Wisdom]

One sentence from the comments in the second link above sums up the position so that even Tom should be able to understand it ...

"Borrowers borrowed money. If they cannot repay it they still owe it."

[Firthy2002]

I have no words.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I have no words.

Someone actually tried this 30+ years ago with income tax. The judgement was you pay tax into a pool that the government does stuff with. You don't like what it does with it, vote for a different government. You have no right to decide where your tax money is spent. (Although I'd love to give it a go as most sovcits would forget that the government pays them their benefits and would effectively decide to give themselves a massive cut in income.)

[Burnaby49]

I have no words.

Someone actually tried this 30+ years ago with income tax. The judgement was you pay tax into a pool that the government does stuff with. You don't like what it does with it, vote for a different government. You have no right to decide where your tax money is spent. (Although I'd love to give it a go as most sovcits would forget that the government pays them their benefits and would effectively decide to give themselves a massive cut in income.)

A similar issue actually resulted in a Tax Court case in Canada. At least in that one the protester based a refusal to pay on actual legitimate moral principles. A Quaker doctor paid 85% of her income tax but gave the remaining 15% to some charity that promoted peace. She said that Canada put 15% of its taxes collected into the military (a grossly exaggerated percentage) and, as a Quaker, her conscience wouldn't allow her to support this so she was withholding the 15%. She claimed that the Income Tax Act, by forcing her to fund the military, violated her Charter rights under section 2.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association

The Tax Court said tough luck, she owed the whole amount. Her taxes were legitimately owing under the Income Tax Act regardless of her beliefs. It wasn't up to individuals to decide how the government spent taxes collected. Her religious rights were not violated because her taxes, and everyone else's, go into a general revenue fund and all government spending is distributed from this. So while the government spent money on the military she didn't.

In any case her logic made no sense. Since all taxes collected are just mixed into the general revenue fund her money, regardless of amount, funds all government programs. So if she paid only 85% of taxes assessed some of that would still go to the military. If she only paid $1.00 the military would still get a portion. The only way not to indirectly fund the military is to not pay taxes at all.

[Firthy2002]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E5tipIRaWc

A very wise person once told me "if you can't justify your actions under scrutiny, you probably shouldn't be doing them".
If you don't question everything, you'll be lead down the garden path.

[KickahaOta]

In any case her logic made no sense. Since all taxes collected are just mixed into the general revenue fund her money, regardless of amount, funds all government programs. So if she paid only 85% of taxes assessed some of that would still go to the military. If she only paid $1.00 the military would still get a portion. The only way not to indirectly fund the military is to not pay taxes at all.

It would make no sense even in a fantasy world where income wasn't mixed together into a general fund. Suppose that we gave a taxpayer the authority to say "All 100% of my money must go into non-military services." Her assumption is that this would mean that the military would receive less money. But there would be no principled reason why the government couldn't just say "All right. These other taxpayers over here haven't expressed a preference, so we'll allocate an increased amount of their taxes to the military to balance things out." The net result would be exactly the same, except for increased bookkeeping expenses which would drive everyone's taxes up. So there is no reason to allow the meaningless gesture.

"Ah," she might say, "but what if everybody demanded that their money not go to the military?" Well, if that much of the population is really united behind that goal, there's still no reason to allow the mechanism; just vote out the rascal representatives why try to fund the military, and vote new rascals in.