"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3759
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

aesmith wrote:Something about "attempted manslaughter" which seems a irrational concept.
I'm with you on this as far as UK law is concerned but some? states have the ability to put attempted in front of any act to create a further offence. Which does of course create some funny concepts, e.g. attempted jaywalking. (Which sounds on a par with loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing.)
I think UK law would be charging some level of assault unless someone actually died, in which case the charge is manslaughter or murder anyway.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:35 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by TheNewSaint »

To cut a long story short, the £5 fee had turned into £616 in the hands of http://www.jbw.co.uk bailiffs/enforcement agents. What would you do in that situation?
Paid it when it was £5. Or appealed the fine.

This stuff really isn't that hard, you guys.
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3759
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

aesmith wrote:On a related subject the post below shows Crabbie having a rant about someone declining his advice regarding a Dartford Crossing penalty (that will be a decriminalised council matter I think?)
Just Googled it and it isn't. It is a fine and I think you will get a PCN for not paying.
Yep £108 if you ignore paying it, so add court fees and bailiff fees and you could get to £600 I suppose.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3759
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

longdog wrote:Another genius in the process of turning £100 and three points into £600 and six points... And for some inexplicable reason he seems to think he's winning...
Brian Williams

M20 variable speed limit. First letter sent back unopened. Then signed my oath. Second letter, requesting drivers name sent back with Conditional Acceptance. Third letter, requesting drivers name sent back with Default and Opportunity to cure.
This letter seems like a good result? My question then. Should I not bother sending the further 2 letters to Mr Policeman, but just wait to see if magistrates do consider doing anything, then start process again?
snip
Kent Police letter
Just realised he lives in Brum and will have to go to a Magistrates Court halfway across Kent to give his side of the story. Should he use the Dartford crossing is the question?
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by Arthur Rubin »

aesmith wrote: Doesn't voluntary manslaughter require either Loss of Control, or Diminished Responsibility to distinguish it from murder? I don't see how either can apply to a corporate body.
At least under (some states in the) US law, a corporation can commit manslaughter. If the action results in injury rather than death, wouldn't it be attempted manslaughter? I don't know.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95
aesmith
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:14 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by aesmith »

Arthur Rubin wrote:
aesmith wrote: Doesn't voluntary manslaughter require either Loss of Control, or Diminished Responsibility to distinguish it from murder? I don't see how either can apply to a corporate body.
At least under (some states in the) US law, a corporation can commit manslaughter. If the action results in injury rather than death, wouldn't it be attempted manslaughter? I don't know.
Corporate manslaughter would be involuntary in UK terms, ie no harm at all was intended, but happened through negligence. Can you have attempted negligence, even in the US?
aesmith
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:14 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by aesmith »

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
aesmith wrote:On a related subject the post below shows Crabbie having a rant about someone declining his advice regarding a Dartford Crossing penalty (that will be a decriminalised council matter I think?)
Just Googled it and it isn't. It is a fine and I think you will get a PCN for not paying.
Yep £108 if you ignore paying it, so add court fees and bailiff fees and you could get to £600 I suppose.
Actually criminal? I'm surprised by that.
longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 4806
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by longdog »

According to Crabbie's fairy tale...
This letter and notice was for 2 crossings about 18 months ago which wasn't paid for, it was the first they had ever heard about it. Anyway the person that got the notice didn't even own and was not driving the said vehicle at the time of the alleged crossing,
It's amazing the number of times the footlers or 'someone they know' encounter these out of the blue demands for money that they 'know nothing about'.

Now if this nonsense were actually true, and I don't believe for a minute it's the full truth, the DVLA would be able to establish who owned (or at least kept) the vehicle at the time of the offence. If they bought the car after the date of the offence the date of acquisition is shown on the V5.

Call me old fashioned if you will but if I received a bill for something I knew nothing about which had happened 18 months ago I'd send a polite letter and a subject data access request and take it from there. I wouldn't give up "because no one would answer the phone."

ETA: This such a difficult situation to deal with it took me 10 seconds on google to find a .gov page about what to do... https://www.gov.uk/driving-fines-letter ... he-vehicle
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3759
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

aesmith wrote:
ArthurWankspittle wrote:
aesmith wrote:On a related subject the post below shows Crabbie having a rant about someone declining his advice regarding a Dartford Crossing penalty (that will be a decriminalised council matter I think?)
Just Googled it and it isn't. It is a fine and I think you will get a PCN for not paying.
Yep £108 if you ignore paying it, so add court fees and bailiff fees and you could get to £600 I suppose.
Actually criminal? I'm surprised by that.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-dartford-crossing-charge
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
King Lud
Cannoneer
Cannoneer
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:18 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by King Lud »

They haven't got a clue this lot. I live in a little village off Watling Street and for a lot of it's history you had to pay a toll to cut through it to get to market or to carry on elsewhere. These guys would have found that those in charge of the roads then would have been less than helpful if they tried to get out of paying.

They seem to think that everything was charming and rustic, all English people were equal and nobody paid for anything because statutes somehow didn't exist or something. I'm beginning to think that Magna Carta really did die in vain.
morrand
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by morrand »

aesmith wrote:
Arthur Rubin wrote:
aesmith wrote: Doesn't voluntary manslaughter require either Loss of Control, or Diminished Responsibility to distinguish it from murder? I don't see how either can apply to a corporate body.
At least under (some states in the) US law, a corporation can commit manslaughter. If the action results in injury rather than death, wouldn't it be attempted manslaughter? I don't know.
Corporate manslaughter would be involuntary in UK terms, ie no harm at all was intended, but happened through negligence. Can you have attempted negligence, even in the US?
Well, you can have attempted manslaughter, anyway:
18 USC §1113 Attempt to commit murder or manslaughter.
Except as provided in section 113 of this title, whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, attempts to commit murder or manslaughter, shall, for an attempt to commit murder be imprisoned not more than twenty years or fined under this title, or both, and for an attempt to commit manslaughter be imprisoned not more than seven years or fined under this title, or both.
But what is manslaughter?
(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:
  • Voluntary-Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
  • Involuntary-In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.
(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
  • Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both;
  • Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(18 USC 1112)

This is the United States Code, anyway. Individual states may vary.

My old beat-up copy of Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law seems to agree with that definition as it regards UK law, by the way, though Kenny goes on for about 15 pages about different ways to commit manslaughter, and also was writing in 1933.
---
Morrand
aesmith
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:14 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by aesmith »

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
aesmith wrote:Actually criminal? I'm surprised by that.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-dartford-crossing-charge
The terminology all implies decrim, ie the term PCN and no mention of conviction etc. However I can't see it stated either way. Does the PCN have the option of court, like a road traffic fixed penalty?
ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 3759
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by ArthurWankspittle »

aesmith wrote:
ArthurWankspittle wrote:
aesmith wrote:Actually criminal? I'm surprised by that.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-dartford-crossing-charge
The terminology all implies decrim, ie the term PCN and no mention of conviction etc. However I can't see it stated either way. Does the PCN have the option of court, like a road traffic fixed penalty?
I haven't looked in detail but I think it has its own processes so that there is someone you can appeal to but not a court. A bit like parking charges.
In this case, two unpaid tickets from months back are both £108 + toll fee (probably £2.50). So with enforcement costs and a court order for the debt, then £600 is achievable.
The system isn't perfect, I heard of someone getting a charge for non-payment. Yes it was his car, the ANPR cameras read his number plate, only his car was on a trailer being recovered at the time.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 4806
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by longdog »

PLD moves into a new phase as it attracts some of the greatest scamming talent in footlerism...
Robert White

Druanna Ravenmoon good answer welcome to the group.
Name sound familiar?... viewtopic.php?f=49&t=9707
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by Gregg »

Jeebussss Phucktard.... the good Docktor Reverend Druana Raven Moon Fawn Wails Johnston, her of many names. I'm pretty sure I didn't even get all of them here, you could get a graduate degree purely by finding every name she's ever used...
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
The Seventh String
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by The Seventh String »

Burnaby49 wrote:For elucidation on the legal efficacy of the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 check out this post of mine from four years ago when Bernard Yankson used the Act as the cornerstone of his lawsuit against the Canadian government in an effort to get Canada to cough up the $50,000,000 he was owed on his daughter's birth bond.
So didn’t get his $50,000,000. I’m not surprised. And it’s obvious why he failed - that $50,000,000 didn’t belong to him in the first place. That’s his daughter’s birth bond, so if it belongs to anyone it belongs to her, not him. Simple really. :brickwall:

While on the plus side he did get told he’s talking rubbish. to go away and to not even think of wasting anyone’s time with any more rubbish. So overall another glorious victory for FOTLism.

I do wonder why they bother humiliating themselves in court after court when they must realise they don’t stand a chance of winning. It’s like the tax evaders who trot out the same tired “arguments” that have been tried by countless tax dodgers before them and it’s always ended in tears, a big bill and quite often in a prison cell. They must have at least the inkling of an idea that they’re almost certainly heading for disaster. Maybe they just hope they’ll be the lucky one who gets a really, really stupid judge.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by notorial dissent »

Unfortunately a lot of these whackos are real and for true believers. For whatever reason, I think Bernie is one of them. Go wander through his website sometime, it is just chock full of crunchy goodness.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2137
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 7:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by SteveUK »

The rat king trying his failed methods again .
Posted today (evidence file not included in this post)

To: Mr Ken Fraser (Doing business as Manager for Northampton Magistrates Court).
Campbell Square
Northampton.
Northamptonshire.
NN1 3EB

From: David Robinson

Daventry
NN11

Date: 16-10-2017

Served by recorded post.


NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT – NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL.

YOUR REF: 901699988

This is a legal Notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you. It means what it says. I do not use the law society’s ‘Legalese’ terminology therefore there are no hidden meanings or interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein made. If you fail to respond to this 'Notice of Conditional Acceptance' in 'substance' then you shall be deemed to be in absolute agreement with all of the evidenced claims herein made. Please do not ignore it.

A reply to this notice is REQUIRED and is to be made whilst stating the respondents clearly legible FULL PRINTED NAME. Any unidentified reply received shall be deemed as fraudulent coercion to extort monies with menaces. All replies are to be made on the respondents full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury. A response to this 'Notice of Conditional Acceptance' is required in full within SEVEN (7) days from your receipt of it. Failure to reply as said, will represent your full tacit agreement to FACTS presented and evidenced herein.

This matter requires a response from you personally Ken Fraser. Any agent of the non limited business 'NORTHAMPTON MAGISTRATES COURT' (company number 3844295) responding to this 'Notice of Conditional Acceptance' may also be held liable for any crimes or torts that may be committed as a result.

You are clearly the manager of a run for profit business using legislation that does not comply with the common law. Britain is a common law jurisdiction and I shall ONLY consent to appear at a hearing that is authorized, and that abides by the rule of law in a de-jure court not a de-facto administrative hearing.

Having received a letter from an alleged “Clerk to the Justices” dated 13 October 2017, which appears to be a fraudulent and unauthorized “summons” with regard to non payment of Council Tax, written on non headed paper without so much as a wet signature nor printed name attached. I claim the document received is no more than an invite to attend an illegal place of business therefore I am replying under duress of circumstances in order to prevent crime.

It is my intention to remain in honour at all times in dealing with this matter therefore, I hereby CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT liability of the £1070.64 demand made against I, David Robinson for Council tax, on proof being provided in substance, that the Crown (British monarch) has the legal authority to authorize DAVENTRY DISTRICT COUNCIL and /or NORTHAMPTON MAGISTRATES COURT to make such a demand at this time and since the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came into effect.

I shall duly comply with the demands being made against me on proof that the following numbered assertions are evidential in FACT.

1. That, NORTHAMPTON MAGISTRATES' COURT (Non Limited Business) has the legal authority to demand that I, David Robinson attend such a place of business under the authority of a constitutional monarch (Crown) and, that when I do not “appear” that NORTHAMPTON MAGISTRATES COURT also has the legal authority to proceed against I, David Robinson as if I had appeared.

2. That, Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has since been revoked and publicly announced to have revoked by the barons' committee whom invoked it on the 23rd March 2001.

3. That, you Ken Fraser, including all business associates within said Non Limited Business known as NORTHAMPTON MAGISTRATES COURT, are also standing under Article 61's invocation.

It is therefore my legal duty to inform you that I, David Robinson stands fully under the committee of the Barons invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, invoked in strict accordance with the correct protocols of British Constitutional law on the 23rd day of March 2001 (see exhibit A – Daily Telegraph report and exhibit B - transcripts of letters between the crown and barons' committee), and that I DO NOT AND CANNOT CONSENT BY LAW to the demands being made against me, and/or the legal fiction that I DO NOT represent.

Please be aware that to deny the evidential fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 has been invoked, and that it remains is in effect to this very day, would be to deny the supremacy of British Constitutional law over treasonous legislation set down by quislings within Westminster and, if so stated, or written publicly to that effect, would provide evidence of the crime of sedition at common law.

To stand under the barons invocation of said Article 61 is the constitutional DUTY of ALL British and Commonwealth subjects at this time. NOT to do so once fully aware of the facts, would be an act of wilful ignorance to a most important royal command and constitutional tenet. Ignorance is no defence in law. I have a duty to “compel” you Ken Fraser to stand in defence of the realm as demanded within Article 61 (see exhibit C – Article 61 text).

The contractual agreement within the treaty of Magna Carta, that the crown would command the common people to peacefully rebel against itself (the crown) if it were at anytime in breach of the constitutional laws of the realm, was an agreement to ensure that the common people always had redress against a tyrant. That provision was sealed at Runnymead on the 15th June 1215 and still stands as law to this very day as evidenced herein, despite what any senior management or alleged authority figure may claim. Obviously Elizabeth II would not have replied to the barons' petition if Magna Carta 1215 was not in effect. The law of course demands that we do not aid and abet crime and that we are each individually liable for the informed choices that we each make.

I have legally denounced any presumption of allegiance to the crown. In 2010 I transferred my allegiance from the crown to the barons committee in accordance with my individual duty under British law.

The barons whom were led by Lord Ashbourne when petitioning the office of sovereign at noon on the 7th day of February 2001 and, whom later invoked Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta on the 23rd day of March of the same year after redress for treason was not received, are now the highest body of authority within the realm according to British constitutional law. I, David Robinson therefore claim that I cannot by law pay monies into the coffers of DAVENTRY DISTRICT COUNCIL nor can I consent to said “summons”. The law FORBIDS me to do so.

Furthermore, it is not my fault that Elizabeth II did not provide redress to the barons' petition and as a result they, (the barons), subsequently invoked said Article. I do not intend to break the law and if forced to do so by coercion and force, then you Ken Fraser shall be held personally liable. “Any Act done by me against my will is not my act” (maxim in law).

Whereas you may be unaware of the evidential thus provable fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked on said date, and which stands to this day as the political position of the British Isles and Commonwealth, please be aware that you are required to do due diligence on this extremely serious matter before replying to my herein claims and assertions.

TAKE NOTICE THAT: Caroline Davies reported the fact that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked within a report made within the Daily Telegraph on 24th March 2001, therefore it is on public record (I have attached a copy of the transcript as evidence along with a copy of a letter of authenticity – “Peers Petition Queen on Europe” - See Exhibit A).

Please be aware this document may be used in evidence.

ANY illegal claims made against I, David Robinson by persons within 'DAVENTRY DISTRICT COUNCIL' or 'NORTHAMPTON MAGISTRATES COURT' or any third party thereof, shall be counter-claimed within a properly convened court-de-jure of Twelve (12) impartial subjects deliberating on the facts under the constitutional law of the land, specifically in accordance with my common law rights under Magna Carta 1215 (Article 29) - (“The body of a free man is not to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way ruined, nor is the king to go against him or send forcibly against him, except by judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”). To deny anyone due process of law would be an act of treason at common law. All legal hearings are heard in open forum for “justice must be seen to be done”.

I, David Robinson do have lawful excuse to reject, “distress and distrain” the crown and its minions peacefully and, I take “leave” to do so entirely lawfully under the protection of British constitutional law. I strongly urge you to investigate the facts referred to herein.

If I receive no reply in SUBSTANCE to this Notice (which means addressing PRECISELY the numbered points made herein, in full) within the reasonable time provided, it shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including ANY third party interlopers) that you/they are in ABSOLUTE agreement with the claims made and evidenced herein and, that no further claims can be legally made against I, David Robinson now or at any future time, unless and until redress of the barons petition in 2001 has been properly received and announced publicly by said barons.

I hereby attest and affirm that I am of sound mind and capable of conducting my own legal affairs and, that all that I have written herein is the truth, evidential, and is as to my understanding the truth in law.

Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will. Stated on my full commercial liability and on penalty of perjury, with no admission of liability whatsoever and with all my natural, unalienable common law rights reserved.

Sworn and subscribed on the date of: 16-10-2017

Signed: ______________________________________

Witnessed by:

1: ____________________________________

2: ______________________________________

3: ______________________________________
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????
longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 4806
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by longdog »

I have a large number of theories named after me (in my own mind) such as Doggy's Third Theorem which states "The hoppiness of a beer is inversely proportional to the amount of hoppiness claimed on the pump" and similar important scientific discoveries such as "All kebabs purchased after 10pm will contain exactly the same amount of mystery meat regardless of the price paid"

I propose a new theorem... Any letter which contains the text "This is a legal Notice. Please read it carefully. It informs you. It means what it says. I do not use the law society’s ‘Legalese’ terminology therefore there are no hidden meanings or interpretations beyond the simple English statements herein made." will contain at least 57.8% incomprehensible gibberish.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:35 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Post by TheNewSaint »

I hereby CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT liability of the £1070.64 demand made against I, David Robinson for Council tax, on proof being provided in substance, that the Crown (British monarch) has the legal authority to authorize DAVENTRY DISTRICT COUNCIL and /or NORTHAMPTON MAGISTRATES COURT to make such a demand at this time and since the invocation of Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 came into effect.
That shouldn't be too hard. Surely there is an act, with total assent, authorizing such. Not that Dave will accept the answer, of course.