Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[rumpelstilzchen]

One of his arguments is that he is withholding his council tax, as it is used to fund terrorism by the UK abroad.

Ignoring the fact that CT money does not go towards that, there is a major problem with his argument being successful. Hurst may well think that what the UK does in other countries is terrorism but Hurst does not get to decide in law which behaviour is an act of terrorism and which behaviour is not. He is welcome to his opinion and he can most certainly argue that to the court, but at the end of the day it is not his call. He appears to have a flawed premise. He thinks it is terrorism therefore in law it is terrorism. He needs the court to consider if the UK is taking part in terrorism and to rule that it is.

[notorial dissent]

So , if he was sentenced to "sentenced to prison and pay his arrears in installments" does that mean there was actually a trial elsewhere or did we miss a step in here somewhere?? This is confusing. That he is eventually going to jail I don't think is a question, that much stupid is just inescapable.

[GaryBale]

One of his arguments is that he is withholding his council tax, as it is used to fund terrorism by the UK abroad.

Ignoring the fact that CT money does not go towards that, there is a major problem with his argument being successful. Hurst may well think that what the UK does in other countries is terrorism but Hurst does not get to decide in law which behaviour is an act of terrorism and which behaviour is not. He is welcome to his opinion and he can most certainly argue that to the court, but at the end of the day it is not his call. He appears to have a flawed premise. He thinks it is terrorism therefore in law it is terrorism. He needs the court to consider if the UK is taking part in terrorism and to rule that it is.

The group of people engaged in terrorism are the very same group of people who decide what is terrorism. At best all he can do is highlight the absurdity, but Council Tax hearings are not the place to do it. With Council Tax the defendant is presumed guilty, and the onus is on them to prove they've either paid or not liable under the LGFA. The prosecutor doesn't have to produce any evidence at all, and anything beyond the liability under the act is simply ignored.

He'd still lose if Noam Chomsky turned up to give expert testimony.

[daveBeeston]

I would love it just once for the courts to say to someone who is refusing to pay their council tax "I accept your refusal to pay and the order i make is that all services funded through council tax payments will no longer be available to you, so that means you will no longer be entitled to help from the Police and Fire service, No social care, No Education service, No Housing benefit, No rubbish collection and no social housing. Good luck for the future"

[littleFred]

... does that mean there was actually a trial elsewhere or did we miss a step in here somewhere??

This latest appearence was a committal hearing, under CT(A&E)R 1992 r47. Previously, there would have been at least one (I suspect many) liability order hearings.

[aesmith]

One of his arguments is that he is withholding his council tax, as it is used to fund terrorism by the UK abroad.

Well good luck with that. Firstly he has no evidence to that effect, needless to say because it's untrue. Secondly even if he did it doesn't mean he's not liable. Council Tax liability isn't conditional on the use to which the Council puts it's money.

However the blurb above suggests that liability wasn't even up for discussion - just how he should pay and whether or not he should go to prison.

[Dr. Caligari]

One of his arguments is that he is withholding his council tax, as it is used to fund terrorism by the UK abroad.

Well good luck with that. Firstly he has no evidence to that effect, needless to say because it's untrue. Secondly even if he did it doesn't mean he's not liable. Council Tax liability isn't conditional on the use to which the Council puts it's money.

However the blurb above suggests that liability wasn't even up for discussion - just how he should pay and whether or not he should go to prison.

You mean he won't be waterboarded?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Council Tax liability isn't conditional on the use to which the Council puts it's money.

I think his argument is that as funding terrorism is a criminal offence, paying his CT would mean he is breaking the law.

[littleFred]

... as funding terrorism is a criminal offence ...

But John also says he is in lawful rebellion, so doesn't have to obey any statutes, so couldn't be charged with any criminal offence.

I have some respect for the depth of John's learning. But he misapplies that learning, taking him down contradictory paths.

Logical was never the hallmark of FMOTL.

[notorial dissent]

Actually, if "John" had ANY depth of learning, he would know exactly where the council tax money goes, and he would then know that his theory is a crock, but that isn't what he wants to believe to justify his behavior, so therefore he deliberately ignores what the council tax actually is and where it goes. I don't know about the UK, but where I come from that is called intellectual dishonesty. There is exactly NO reason that he shouldn't know that what he is claiming is hooey so therefore he is intellectually dishonest, and if he is dishonest about that he is dishonest about everything else.

[littleFred]

... that is called intellectual dishonesty.

Agreed. Intellectual dishonesty is a hallmark of FMOTL. Heck, dishonesty of all types.

John Hurst (like many others) has absorbed information. He then cherry-picks to excuse his evasion of responsibility, and isn't bothered about inconsistency. Eg:

1. A statute requires me to pay council tax. But I'm in lawful rebellion so don't need to obey statutes.

2. A statute requires me not to fund terrorists, and I declare that councils are terrorists, and I must obey statutes.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It's the old Menard pick'n'mix argument.
The footle believes he can choose which statutes he consents to and which ones he does not consent to.
One question that assists them in making that choice is: in which direction is the money going?

[rogfulton]

One factor which assists them in making that choice is: in which direction is the money going?

Seems more like the only factor, or at least the overriding one.

[notorial dissent]

... that is called intellectual dishonesty.

Agreed. Intellectual dishonesty is a hallmark of FMOTL. Heck, dishonesty of all types.

John Hurst (like many others) has absorbed information. He then cherry-picks to excuse his evasion of responsibility, and isn't bothered about inconsistency. Eg:

1. A statute requires me to pay council tax. But I'm in lawful rebellion so don't need to obey statutes.

2. A statute requires me not to fund terrorists, and I declare that councils are terrorists, and I must obey statutes.

I will amend my comments a bit to say that I agree that the entire basis of fotl and goofy is pure dishonesty, but the ones who actually can and do research and have actually looked at what is really out there as opposed to the ones who just take it by the spoonful, well really shovelfull, from someone else are the intellectually dishonest ones.

[grixit]

To: Our Residents
From: Your Council
Subj: Collected Funds

We know everyone was expecting us to upgrade the after school center. But we decided to buy bombs for the IRA instead.

[aesmith]

What about this whacko Rambling stuff about how to cheat on benefits ..

DO NOT FEEL GUILTY ABOUT CLAIMING BENEFITS...

A really simple version on how the Financial System works is this...

All of our Benefits come from a Trust fund that is created when we register with the system....The Birth Certificate is the Paper work that represents Our Trust Fund.

Think of this "Trust Fund" as Money in your building society account you have saved up but not yet Spent.

The Money from the Trust fund is then Invested on the stock Market...(@7% annual growth)

When I first left school We did a training course 1 day per week and the speaker there said..." We are all Insured for £1 Million "

Our National Insurance Number is the Number used by your local Bank to charge Our Trust fund or Birth Certificate Bond for the amount paid into your current account.
.. etc ..

It's tempting to say you couldn't make it up, but of course someone has right down to the detail of the percentage fictional return on this fiction.

[Firthy2002]

Whilst it is generally advisable to "show your worst day" for such assessments, outright lying and exaggerating is another thing.

[SteveUK]

this one has the lot. a few choice extracts....
"Mr M has agreed to settle “all liens” on his property if HSBC pays him £70,000."
"HSBC because it created the money it loaned to him
from a promissory note linked to the “cestui qui vie trust” of a corporate fiction created by a
fraud on his parents which took place at the time of his birth. "
and inevitably.......
"I am sorry to disappoint Mr M, but my decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint."


http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/v ... eID=131148

[notorial dissent]

What a staggering amount of stupid to be confined to one simple adjudication request, all of it based on hooey.

[aesmith]

Judging from the first paragraph it sounds as if "Mr M" likes to call himself Baron M of the Family M or similar nonsense ..

"I am aware that Mr M does not refer to himself as “Mr M”, but as this decision will be published (as we are required by law to do), I am using this description to prevent him from being identified, and for this purpose only. It has no bearing on the form of address Mr M prefers to use, and I hope he will not take offence that I have anonymised his identity in this way."