Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[Siegfried Shrink]

Since childhood I have always asked about anything I did not know. I learned early that this was not always wise. At age about 6, I asked a dinner lady at school, who did not seem to understand my reply to a question, "Are you deaf" and although this was simply a request for information, no more, I was reported to the headmistress for gross insolence and given some sort of punishment. I learned something at school that day, questions could be dangerous.
After that I relied more on books for my information, but ever since childhood, any time I did not know enough about something it was off to the library to learn more. The topic did not have to be relevant, just interesting.

I considered this to be normal. I still do it. It slowly came to mmy attention that quite often, people had no idea what I was talking about or what some of my words meant. My partner says she still notices this but just ignores it, and she does like to see me talking with specialists who do know what I am on about. A form of spectator sport.

My point if any is 'How is it possible not to try and understand everything about everything', or at least everything that directly effects a person like law and taxes?
More specifically, how is it possible not to notice when things simply do not work, and find out why?

[JimUk1]

A real conundrum for the rebels since they don’t consent to anything!

Oh I don't know about that. They don't seem to have any big problem with consenting to their 'disability entitlements'.

Didn’t realise been stupid through choice counted as a disability?

[Hercule Parrot]

I am interested, what will happen to a person in UK which do not have a birth certificate, do not have a name and legally do not exist on Government IT system drives a car on UK roads, what will happen to him/ her and will she be deported? Deporting to where? Just asking.

When the person is arrested they will be taken to the Police Station, and during booking-in they will be asked to identify themselves. If they refuse, or claim not to know (might be amnesia, head injury, Alzheimer's, or just good old stupidity) then their fingerprints and DNA will be used to search for prior contact on PNC. If no prior record is found, one will be created. It isn't necessary to have a name or address for this, biometrics work perfectly well.

A sensible custody Sgt would now ask the duty nurse to see the person before the criminal process continues. The person might be missing from a psychiatric unit or care home, or have a learning disability. The person might be diverted here to hospital, for further assessment or care. If the nurse reports that the person has capacity and is fit for interview, then that's what happens next.

The person will then be interviewed, and as they have no defence inevitably charged with whatever offence(s) seem proper. DOTIWAL and no insurance, maybe other charges if vehicle is untaxed, unregistered, without MOT (annual roadworthiness test, for our friends o'er the pond).

Normally these relatively minor offences would be listed for a court hearing in a few weeks, and the defendant released on bail until that time. But if the person will not (or cannot) tell the Police his name or address, they are entitled under Bail Act to deny bail. The person will be detained in cells, and presented to the nearest magistrates court on the next working day. Their custody reference number may be used in place of name, but the US convention of John Doe is catching on.

At their initial hearing, the person will be asked to identify themselves. If the person will not (or cannot) tell the court his name or address, then it will not be possible to immediately hear the case against them, or to pass sentence. So the matter will be adjourned for enquiries into the person's identity. Again, Bail may be refused if the person cannot identify their name and address. This is where it gets really interesting.

If the person appears to be a decent sort, then they may be transferred to hospital care for investigation of medical possibilities. Although still legally detained, they will be treated kindly while various scans and tests are carried out. If however the magistrates suspect that the person's denial of identity is intentional, for whatever political or criminal purposes, they will more likely remand the person to prison for two weeks. Maybe the Police or Probation Service will continue trying to identify the person, checking with Inland Revenue, NHS, DVLC, Border Agency etc, but the intention is to persuade the person of their own best interests.

If the person's identity is still unknown at the subsequent hearing, then it's probably rinse and repeat. One door leads to presumption of mental vulnerability, the other door leads to "we can keep this up for a long as you like, smart arse" and back to jail. In reality it won't go on forever, after 3 or 4 hearings pragmatism will force resolution. If the person is still presumed vulnerable the charges will likely be dismissed. If the person is still presumed smart arse, they will be fined, banned from driving, and released. The fine is practically unenforceable against an unknown person, but if they get caught driving again they will probably get a custodial sentence. Their name is not required for this, DNA will identify them as the same individual who was previously banned.

They would not be deported, unless it became clear that they were a citizen or settled resident of another state. Even then they could not be deported unless the SOS deemed that state to be a safe destination. The person might of course choose to leave the UK and travel to another state, but this would be very difficult without ID, passports etc. And if they swam to another state, they would probably be deemed an illegal immigrant and returned to the UK.

The important thing, I'm sure you will agree, is that the person now exists on several Government IT systems and remains inescapably subject to UK law, regardless of his consent. He is on the way to integration in our bounteous society, we'll have him on PAYE before long....

[Gregg]

The important point of this letter is, its just a copy of what was sent to his employer and whatever he thinks about it doesn't matter, its what his employer thinks. I would hazard to guess that most employers are going to send Her Majesty the tax. IN the US I think they even get to pocket a little bit of it for their trouble. Most companies don't give a second thought to telling them they ain't gonna. A business can get into a lot of trouble for sticking their neck out on something like this, more trouble than its worth to them, anyway.

[Burnaby49]

The important point of this letter is, its just a copy of what was sent to his employer and whatever he thinks about it doesn't matter, its what his employer thinks. I would hazard to guess that most employers are going to send Her Majesty the tax. IN the US I think they even get to pocket a little bit of it for their trouble. Most companies don't give a second thought to telling them they ain't gonna. A business can get into a lot of trouble for sticking their neck out on something like this, more trouble than its worth to them, anyway.

IN Canada it isn't a choice. A garnishee from the Canada Revenue Agency is a legal demand to pay. If an employer refused the CRA would be after the employer personally for the money. Some Canadian sovereigns I've reported on Quatloos (forget their names) ended up getting fired over CRA garnishees. Not because of the garnisheees themselves but because of the disruption and problems the employees caused the employers in their efforts to have the garnishee ignored. I seem to recall one actually suing (and losing, obviously) the employer for the forwarded tax.

[Gregg]

I know of someone who was fired by Ford, no small feat, for the repeated legal fights he engaged with the company over IRS garnishments.

[notorial dissent]

Garnishment notices by either the IRS or a competent court are also a MUST comply situation in the US, otherwise the employer can, and will be held liable for the amounts, and in the case of taxes, there are honking nasty huge statutory financial penalties for not complying. Most all employers sensibly comply as a part of normal business. I don't know if they send a signed anything with their demand, just a printed notice with the relevant information and the amount to be withheld that is sent in with the regular tax filings.

[Footloose52]

An Attachment of Earnings order is a must do in the UK also, ignoring it is Contempt of Court.

[Tevildo]

Garnishment notices by either the IRS or a competent court are also a MUST comply situation in the US, otherwise the employer can, and will be held liable for the amounts, and in the case of taxes, there are honking nasty huge statutory financial penalties for not complying. Most all employers sensibly comply as a part of normal business. I don't know if they send a signed anything with their demand, just a printed notice with the relevant information and the amount to be withheld that is sent in with the regular tax filings.

In English law, failure of the employer to comply with the order is a criminal offence under Section 23 of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, leading to a fine, and (theoretically) imprisonment for contempt if the fine is not paid. Note that it's not strictly the same thing as a garnishee order, which would be directed to the debtor's bank rather than their employer.

[hucknallred]

The important point of this letter is, its just a copy of what was sent to his employer and whatever he thinks about it doesn't matter, its what his employer thinks. I would hazard to guess that most employers are going to send Her Majesty the tax. IN the US I think they even get to pocket a little bit of it for their trouble. Most companies don't give a second thought to telling them they ain't gonna. A business can get into a lot of trouble for sticking their neck out on something like this, more trouble than its worth to them, anyway.

I work in a small part of a huge UK company. From time to time these drop through the letterbox. Most of the time the named person doesn't work in my office. I drop the whole thing in the shredder.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I work in a small part of a huge UK company. From time to time these drop through the letterbox. Most of the time the named person doesn't work in my office. I drop the whole thing in the shredder.

Under the 1971 Act you must:
• write to the court (or CAPS for County Court Orders) within ten days of receiving an order if you do not employ the person named in it

Note: Failing to comply with an AEO, or failing to give the required notice within the time limits, are offences under the 1971 Act, subject to a fine that can be imposed on you or your organisation or a term of imprisonment up to 14 days. If you have any questions relating to the Order, or require clarification, you must contact the court or CAPS immediately.

So if you stop posting for a couple of weeks we'll know what has happened

[aesmith]

Suggested treatment for lung cancer ...

Jay Parmessur
cannabis suppository apparently targets lungs more effectively than ingesting x

[hucknallred]

aesmith beat me to it. If I had a Big C scare I'd trust the NHS & not go to PLD or Facebook in general for advice, I bet this is the route Guy Taylor took.

Christian Scott
Yesterday at 17:40

Hi Folks .. Just to say that the Doctors are checking me presently for lung cancer .. if anyone can help .. I need a heavy indica strain of canabis asap .. I am warrington based Peace Love and Light be with us all Amen

Sue Crafter I can't help with CBD, but would strongly recommend you look at the keto, low carb/high fat, paleo & carnivore ways of eatig - some incredible stories of them being extremely effective in combatting cancers.

Craig McNab

https://youtu.be/RI9_d_QxI74

youtube.com
Sodium Bicarbonate Kills These Cancers


Craig McNab The full article is on GHH dated from today. That is Get Holistic Health.


Craig McNab Just note alkalising is the best thing as it creates oxygen which kills cancer.

Craig McNab Check out Rick Simpson hemp oil. Lots of testimonials.

John Vint Go to ncbi . Gov it’s a medical website, type in dandelion root extract, read the medical reports , it kills all types of cancer including melanoma and pancreatic cancer costs nothing to make as well , go check it out

Liz James Howitt Alkalise your body with blackstap molasses and bi-carb of soda in water every day. Change your diet and NO sugar! Hope this helps, check out youtube about people who have cured themselves. Keep strong and kick cancers ass!!

All the above advised before weed up the jacksie.

[longdog]

Two gems from the Council Tax is Unlawful And So Is Blah, Blah, Blah group where it appears some cretin has done a Subject Data Access Request while simultaneously claiming he's not him... And being told to fuck off then by the council...

Darren Lee

Yeah, they can't, They can only deal with corporations. I actually did have my clc card accepted as id at a hospital. But i think this was just purely down to the poor young girl not realising what it was and thinking it was some kind of Government id card lol

In my 53 years I've made many trips to hospital ranging from the mundane to the emergency to the times I spent in the loony-bin but I've never been asked for ID. Is this something new or is it just Darren chatting shite?

In a similar vein from the same idiot...

Darren Lee

Yep. I'm just waiting for my first random stop by the police since i've had my card. They can't claim i'm refusing to provide id, as it has my photo and legal fiction name on it, but it will be hilarious seeing their faces, trying to work out what the hell it is lol

What is it with this nut and ID? First he gets asked for ID in hospital, which I've never heard of, and now all of a sudden he's lining himself up for martyrdom the next time the police demand his ID. For the benefit of my colonial readers who don't already know this... Which is probably nobody... People in the UK don't as a rule carry any form of ID beyond their bank cards and the police have absolutely no right to demand ID from anybody. Under certain circumstances, either arrest or a traffic stop, they have the right to demand your name but they don't have any right at all to ask for any ID.... Ever.

There may be times when carrying your driving licence will marginally shorten a traffic stop but they're still going to check with DVLA and they're still going to check for tax, MOT and insurance so probably not. Nobody except perhaps tourists carry their passport and there's not really any other form of 'official' ID.

[TheNewSaint]

People in the UK don't as a rule carry any form of ID beyond their bank cards and the police have absolutely no right to demand ID from anybody.

That's surprising to hear. I went to a football match last time I was over there, and I had to show ID to claim tickets from Will Call. I had a passport, but would they have accepted something like a debit card from a UK resident?

[longdog]

People in the UK don't as a rule carry any form of ID beyond their bank cards and the police have absolutely no right to demand ID from anybody.

That's surprising to hear. I went to a football match last time I was over there, and I had to show ID to claim tickets from Will Call. I had a passport, but would they have accepted something like a debit card from a UK resident?

Ah... Businesses can ask for ID of their choice in those circumstances but that's a completely different issue. I think they usually accept sight of the bank card used for payment.

[The Seventh String]

In my 53 years I've made many trips to hospital ranging from the mundane to the emergency to the times I spent in the loony-bin but I've never been asked for ID. Is this something new or is it just Darren chatting shite?

“NHS hospitals have a duty to identify and charge overseas patients for hospital treatment they receive. Hospitals are required to check documentary evidence of entitlement to prove that you are ordinarily resident in the UK.”

Source - https://www.leicestershospitals.nhs.uk/ ... -entitled/

And simply appearing to be British and sounding British doesn’t count as proof.

“Hospital appointments and treatment are free to people who are living in the UK lawfully and permanently. All NHS Trusts have a duty by law to establish, without discrimination, if all patients are entitled to free NHS care. Patients not entitled to free NHS care will have to pay.
To help us decide if you are entitled to free NHS care, you are requested to bring a proof of identity and a proof of address with you to your new outpatient appointment (please refer to the list of acceptable documents below). If the patient is aged 16 years or under, the parent or legal guardian must bring documents to show that they are lawfully resident in the UK.”

Source - https://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/reso ... entity.pdf

These requirements go hand in hand with the immigration law requirements on landlords and employers to carry out ID checks on new employees and tenants.

[longdog]

I can only repeat that I have NEVER been asked for ID in hospital. I have an appointment next week and have just checked the letter. It doesn't say anything about ID.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I suspect taking the appointment letter with you would be considered adequate. I do not know about others but I take mine in case the system has lost the appointment or some other SNAFU has occoured. I have never been asked for ID but like a mossy rock I probably look as if I am part of the mountain.

[Footloose52]

I had a hospital appointment for outpatient treatment earlier this year and the papers sent to me said I should take ID. I wasn't asked for it ....