Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[longdog]

Sugar and tinned milk? That's builder's tea. Nice in its place but not an all day quaffing brew.

[grixit]

I do drink it all day when it's cold or rainy. Which means, since i'm in SoCal, i usually drink it in the mornings and at night, while in between i drink something cold.

[Notsogreen]

I

hope it was Yorkshire Tea, or it doesn’t count as a proper brew

My mother was Yorkshire born and raised. Born 1922 in a slum terrace in Hull and grew up there until she went to Lancashire during the war to get a job in weaving. She made what she considered a Yorkshire tea and drank it incessantly. I could handle, at best, one cup of it. It was almost black and was so strong it was like drinking acid. Two cups of it would leave my stomach upset for the rest of the day.

Brewed for an hour, and made to suck it through the dish cloth cold, that’s what I remember about growing up in East Hull in the early 80’s, , whilst the rest of family grew up in the relative poverty of Toronto and Auckland. They don’t know what they missed.

YT is good for one thing, keeping the dentists in business when you need a scale and polish.

As a very young man, at my Grandparents on Hessle Road in Hull, we drank the worlds strongest tea, served with Sterilised milk and sugar, or on high days and holidays, with Condensed milk instead !!!

[Burnaby49]

Rules for steeping: first the flavor comes out, then the caffeine, then the tannic acid. We definitely try to avoid stage 3.

My mother's expertise was in maximizing stage 3.

[mufc1959]

FOTL father, acting without the benefit of any legal advice, tries to stop the Local Authority from registering the birth of his child.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2019/1572.html

The birth of T has not been registered. It is important to clarify that this is not by omission but by design. F is fundamentally opposed to registration for reasons which I will endeavour to explain below. The position of M, as explained by her counsel, Mr Clark, is that whilst she is not prepared to register T's birth herself, she is not opposed to somebody else registering it on her behalf. F is philosophically opposed in principle.
The Father's beliefs as to the legal framework.

F has strong beliefs surrounding the concept of "sovereignty". This is a very particular concept for him. It has nothing at all to do with contemporary debate. It is essentially a personal ideology. F believes that central to the concept is the power and writ of the individual. 'We are each…', he says, 'our own sovereign. We come from the Earth, we are the creations of the universe. We are governed by a Common Law but only to the extent that we depart from three principles. These three imperatives are: to do no harm; to cause no loss; to inflict no injury.' In circumstances where they are proved to have occurred, to the criminal standard of proof, F asserts that what he calls the Common Law is then triggered.

He places great emphasis on The Cestui Cue Vie Act 1666. In the 1666 Act Section 1, F tells me, there are provisions which state 'that if a title or living being does not prove themselves alive after 7 years they are considered lost at sea. This is the means for government to take control of the dead entity's property.' F believes this to be the route by which the government 'help themselves to money and property.' We are in such circumstances considered 'dead entity in the eyes of the law.' In a graphic and powerful metaphor F states to me that we 'come to life and are temporarily risen from the dead when summonsed to court'. The requirement to 'all rise' when the judge enters the court is symbolic of rising for the resurrection. These views may sound unusual and somewhat eccentric. They are, however, genuinely held and I have done my best to summarise them.

It is in this context that when a birth is registered, F considers this to be the equivalent of an 'entry into a ship's manifest', in which the child becomes 'an asset to the country which has boarded a vessel to sail on the high seas.' This facet of admiralty and maritime law is pervasive in F's thinking. The essence of F's objection is his belief that registration will cause his son to become controlled by a State which he perceives to be authoritarian and capricious.

T has been given a name and surname but F strenuously resists registration. This is notwithstanding that a failure to do so is, in a variety of practical ways, likely to serve as an impediment to the promotion of T's welfare as well as to have an adverse impact on F's own legal status.

and (oh dear ...)

F's previous behaviour towards HHJ Atkinson resulted in both he and his partner receiving a custodial sentence.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

When I read that I thought "it's them isn't it?" I was right. It won't surprise anyone the know that they appeared in The comedy court of Common Law thread. We can chalk this down as another CLC !!! success 1!!

Whilst it is perfectly okay to have published those comments contemporaneously in respect to that case (and indeed that judgement is still online), I would strongly caution anyone from linking their names to this case on here.

...in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

[ArthurWankspittle]

First I'm sure it is an offence (but not sure at what level) to fail to register a birth. Second, I thought the court or legal process appointed a representative for the child to argue the child's interest. I presume at some point the child would be ordered to be registered in its best interest. I'll read the case link now.
Also love the :

F's previous behaviour towards HHJ Atkinson resulted in both he and his partner receiving a custodial sentence.

Now I've read the case, yes the Local Authority is having its powers to act in this situation confirmed by court opinion. It appears the Local Authority can register the birth.

[dannyno]

Now got wider coverage:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... high-court

[fortinbras]

The refusal to register a birth has become a fixation among some American neo-anarchists, who also talk about the children being free of govt intrusion and jurisdiction because unregistered.

They are not only wrong but they are making things very difficult for themselves and their unregistered child. For starts, the birth certificate establishes the parental connection to the child and this become very important if the parents need to document their relationship - for example, in making medical decisions, entering the child in school, etc. Absent a birth certificate the parents will have difficulty proving they can make the crucial decisions about their child.

The birth certificate is usually necessary to enter the child in school. It is definitely necessary to get the child a passport - at any age. Similarly to get the child a Social Security card - and the SSN for the child is necessary for the parents to claim the child as a dependent in the tax returns. In years to come that unregistered child will have trouble getting a passport, getting a driver's license, registering to vote, and ultimately establishing his age for a pension. Yes there are work-arounds for a person whose birth certificate cannot be produced but they are tedious and cumbersome, and in some situations simply impossible.

It may seem at first a clever idea to avoid registering a child's birth, but ultimately it creates problems for parents and the child, going decades into the future.

[AndyPandy]

So Paul Mitchell on Council Tax is a fraud FB page is attempting to ‘rebut’ a Final Charging Order on his property by the Council for failure to pay Council Tax

He thinks he’s had a victory because the Judge adjourned the 10 minute hearing and has set a 3 hour hearing that he’s been warned will be ‘at his cost’ - he’s thinking of crown funding for the costs, which are of course, against crowd funding rules.

Paul Mitchell
NEWSFLASH. DJ adjourned and listed for 3 hrs worth. Ordered claimant to produce the evidence to the claim. Congratulated me on the eloquence and construction of my arguement. So its not dismissed but i know i cant afford costs against me so may look to crowd fund. DJ said he could not rule fairly in a 10min hearing. I thought that was fair comment. Luckily my anger management issues were kept in order. Peace

This is his ‘witness statement’, I’m not a Barrister but seriously, I could rebut the majority of this. What he’s not getting is that each Council is a prosecuting authority in their own right so can issue summonses and can bulk issue liability orders. I think this is possibly going to be far more costly for Mr Mitchell then the original council tax bill.

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/CTChar ... cB_wa8bmxR

[JimUk1]

Congratulated me on the eloquence and construction of my arguement

These people really do suffer baldy with Dunning-Kruger.

He can’t spell ‘argument’, but his ’arguement’ was eloquent and thespian like, Jesus

And, oh dear, talk about getting confused with civil debt recovery and council tax arrears-

I would ask the Court to consider as to what jurisdiction applies in the Magistrates Court as its quite clear that Civil Procedures apply in the County Court system. However it is the validity and the lawful and legal form of the Liability Orders that the Claimant party has submitted that should be questioned as they are constructed not

Bullsh*t bingo and he has a full house in that document.

[AndyPandy]

Congratulated me on the eloquence and construction of my arguement

These people really do suffer baldy with Dunning-Kruger.

He can’t spell ‘argument’, but his ’arguement’ was eloquent and thespian like, Jesus


And, oh dear, talk about getting confused with civil debt recovery and council tax arrears-

I would ask the Court to consider as to what jurisdiction applies in the Magistrates Court as its quite clear that Civil Procedures apply in the County Court system. However it is the validity and the lawful and legal form of the Liability Orders that the Claimant party has submitted that should be questioned as they are constructed not

Bullsh*t bingo and he has a full house in that document.

The best thing is is the Council have employed Counsel, a 3 hour hearing plus preparation time etc etc is going to cost a fortune, this is his application to set aside a charging order so it’ll all come down on him.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The best thing is is the Council have employed Counsel, a 3 hour hearing plus preparation time etc etc is going to cost a fortune,

I'd say £2k easy.

[AndyPandy]

The best thing is is the Council have employed Counsel, a 3 hour hearing plus preparation time etc etc is going to cost a fortune,

I'd say £2k easy.

I was thinking closer to £3.5k, 10 hours work @ £350 per hour, it’s bound to be more than the Council Tax Order which they’ll just add onto the Charging Order, Idiot.

[longdog]

I would ask the Court to consider as to what jurisdiction applies in the Magistrates Court as its quite clear that Civil Procedures apply in the County Court system

The law says council tax liability is heard in the magistrates' court. Next stupid and legally illiterate arguement?

[ArthurWankspittle]

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/CTChar ... cB_wa8bmxR

I assume he actually went to the Money Claim Centre to contest this apparently.
Get a spell and grammar checker.
2 Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to money claims.
3 BS splitting imaginary hairs about the name of the council.
4 Wrong or someone would have noticed by now (excludes FMOTLs).
5 Likely wrong and anyway why is it their job to find your court papers?
6 & 7 same as 3,4 and 5.
8 Why is a county court going to consider the jurisdiction of a Magistrates court in a money claim hearing?
9 as 3
(boring.....)
10 through 16 BS, no proof offered, and same as 4.
17 Might actually be a defence if true.
18 through 24 same as 10 through 16.
Believing some paperwork is fake is not proof.

[noblepa]

The refusal to register a birth has become a fixation among some American neo-anarchists, who also talk about the children being free of govt intrusion and jurisdiction because unregistered.

They are not only wrong but they are making things very difficult for themselves and their unregistered child. For starts, the birth certificate establishes the parental connection to the child and this become very important if the parents need to document their relationship - for example, in making medical decisions, entering the child in school, etc. Absent a birth certificate the parents will have difficulty proving they can make the crucial decisions about their child.

The birth certificate is usually necessary to enter the child in school. It is definitely necessary to get the child a passport - at any age. Similarly to get the child a Social Security card - and the SSN for the child is necessary for the parents to claim the child as a dependent in the tax returns. In years to come that unregistered child will have trouble getting a passport, getting a driver's license, registering to vote, and ultimately establishing his age for a pension. Yes there are work-arounds for a person whose birth certificate cannot be produced but they are tedious and cumbersome, and in some situations simply impossible.

It may seem at first a clever idea to avoid registering a child's birth, but ultimately it creates problems for parents and the child, going decades into the future.

I heard a story on NPR (National Public Radio in the US) about a girl in her late teens, maybe twenty years old, whose parents had never registered her birth.

She could not get a driver's license, register to vote, or even hold a job (no social security number, either). She spent a couple of years in court and finally got some sort of court order that allowed her to do these things. I suspect she will be dealing with that problem for the rest of her life.

[longdog]

I did a bit of research into this the last time it came up and it seems that in the UK you simply go before a high court judge with as much evidence and witnesses as you can drum up. If the judge is satisfied that your baby photos of a holiday in Bognor and the word of your silver haired old granny are good enough he just orders the register of births amended.

It's just one of those sweeping powers we give to high court judges to make court orders on pretty much any subject unless there's a law which specifically says they can't.

[JimUk1]

After browsing “council tax is a fraud” on YouTube, it appears a new Fmotl splinter group maybe emerging? (Or possibly brought up before)-
https://youtu.be/MzuXkNQjXfk

Seems they are called “United Tribes of The World” and also “The Kings Bench”.

I’m not sure what’s going on but it seems closely related to children been taken into care, with the usual bs unlawful waffle.

Seems his name is, John Wanoa-

https://youtu.be/UPpq9oq_8xE

This is getting strange as google hits say John Manoa is King of New Zealand?

https://m.facebook.com/pages/category/L ... ale2=en_GB

[John Uskglass]

John Wanoa

Well known to readers of Hoaxtead.

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/?s=wanoa