Quatloos!

notorial dissent wrote: ... scams are more or less based on intentional or actual function illiteracy, specifically the includes/states business or the deliberate misreading ...
... twisting and torturing words until they have a different meaning than the one in the dictionary, or that words ONLY have one meaning, which again comes down to illiteracy.

If you look at most of the posts on the 'replacement' goodf site, and there aren't many, they consist of one or two wannabe gurus doing just that. They call it 'research' but basically they are taking random statutes and looking for reusable definitions. They ignore the fact that a definition in one statute is effective only in that Act.

morrand wrote: Oh, I don't know. Could be, I suppose. More likely it'll start with some notion that "debts contracted under EU law are void now that the UK is out of EU," and anyone trying to enforce those debts is committing treason, as imposing foreign law on British subjects under Magna Carta, and so on. There would be a nice continuity from the current foolishness into that.

That's nothing short of brilliant.

morrand wrote:Balderdash. A quick visit over to HMRC gives me this information:

You’ll need to send a tax return if, in the last tax year:

• you were self-employed - you can deduct allowable expenses
• you got £2,500 or more in untaxed income, for example from tips or renting out a property - contact the helpline if it was less than £2,500

...........
Claiming tax relief

Fill in a tax return to claim money back from HMRC for:

• donations to charity ....
• work expenses over £2,500 - if they’re less and you don’t need to send a return for any other reason, contact the helpline instead

The point is that tax has already been deducted from your salary under PAYE, then the tax return might conceivably allow you to claim some of it back. Not as easy as just not paying in the first place.

Burnaby49 wrote:They called the two entities Principal (legal man) and Agent (natural man).

Ah, so that's where the common sovcit incantation NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT comes from. I always wondered where that came from.

TheNewSaint wrote: Ah, so that's where the common sovcit incantation NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT comes from. I always wondered where that came from.

There is a common-law maxim that "Notice to agent is notice to principal," based on the theory that it's the agent's job to inform the principal of what the agent learns in the course of his job. So if a tenant of a rental property informs the on-site superintendent that there's a loose floorboard on the stairs, and someone later trips on that board and is injured, the nonresident landlord is liable for negligence because he was put on notice.

The converse-- that "notice to principal is notice to agent" is not the law anywhere except in SovCit's fevered imaginations.

TheNewSaint wrote:

Burnaby49 wrote:They called the two entities Principal (legal man) and Agent (natural man).

Ah, so that's where the common sovcit incantation NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT comes from. I always wondered where that came from.

Might just be an unrelated coincidence. The notice to principal/agent thing was big in the 3/5 letter bullshit that people like Chief Rock Sini General promoted years ago. The Fiscal Arbitrators came later and might have taken the principal/agent thing from that.

ExiledScouser wrote:

Remember too that we are in the "silly season" (or should that be "unsilly") so don't worry, it'll all kick off again shortly!

Unbeknownst to us, it was already kicking off as this new thread was born. Wise words indeed Exiled Scouser.

Dr. Caligari wrote:

TheNewSaint wrote: Ah, so that's where the common sovcit incantation NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT comes from. I always wondered where that came from.

There is a common-law maxim that "Notice to agent is notice to principal," based on the theory that it's the agent's job to inform the principal of what the agent learns in the course of his job. So if a tenant of a rental property informs the on-site superintendent that there's a loose floorboard on the stairs, and someone later trips on that board and is injured, the nonresident landlord is liable for negligence because he was put on notice.

The converse-- that "notice to principal is notice to agent" is not the law anywhere except in SovCit's fevered imaginations.

Strangely enough when I write to a named individual within an organisation I take it as read that I am addressing the organisation through their agent and they always seem to work on the same basis without being told. Mind you... I'm not a semi-literate oaf who fills his correspondence with fancy words wot I dont no the meening ov. Even my most vitriolic letters of complaint manage to stay polite and largely free of threats of imminent hanging, drawing and quartering

David Robinson

Thanks Colin....i've been getting battle wearly lately and there is something going on in the ethter, that is causing high pitched sounds in my ears...not sure if its just me but its bloody annoying.


David Robinson

Thanks Ian....I'll check the spelling ...my eyes are getting worse these days and i'm sure my brain is struggling more too...I find I have to correct more posts and that dyslexia is becoming more of an issue... sometimes I wish I didn't know whats going on knowledge can be quite a burden.

High pitched noise in the ears and changed eyesight are signs of high blood pressure. I'd go to the doctor if I were you Dave.

Dr Longdog.

There has been no charge for this service.

longdog wrote:

David Robinson

Thanks Colin....i've been getting battle wearly lately and there is something going on in the ethter, that is causing high pitched sounds in my ears...not sure if its just me but its bloody annoying.

I think he should get that checked out, it may be tinnitus, in which case, good luck, as there is no cure...

NYGman wrote:

longdog wrote:

David Robinson

Thanks Colin....i've been getting battle wearly lately and there is something going on in the ethter, that is causing high pitched sounds in my ears...not sure if its just me but its bloody annoying.

I think he should get that checked out, it may be tinnitus, in which case, good luck, as there is no cure...

With me it was hypertension. Both it and blurred eyesight went away once my BP went back down to the normal range.

Maybe the Scots will stumble on to something;

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbew ... he-law-707

The closing statement sums it up nicely

I called Peter Nicholson—editor of the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland—to check the Sovereigns’ claims and find out whether their line of defense is just as ineffective as their freemen brothers’. He told me they're talking bullshit.

aesmith wrote: I can't quite make up my mind about him, whether his Darling Buds of May type fantasy stories are all complete nonsense, or just mostly ALL nonsense.

put that right for you, aesmith.

SteveUK wrote:The closing statement sums it up nicely

I called Peter Nicholson—editor of the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland—to check the Sovereigns’ claims and find out whether their line of defense is just as ineffective as their freemen brothers’. He told me they're talking bullshit.

Please Steve, the issue isn't whether or not it's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. That's a given. 96 is your fix, three letter scheme, legal vs natural man, birth bonds, strawmen, WeRe Bank, it's all gibberish. But in the past there was always someone with a new blindingly stupid semi-original idea to keep the deluded masses engaged.

The issue is where the new nonsense is going to come from. The well of idiotic creativity has apparently dried up and once your Magna Carta fools get their asses kicked and Rheka is finally out what's going to provide you with entertainment? You've already tapped Canada dry for ideas, we have nothing left for you. We can only hope for a new Ceylon waiting in the wings with a new bag of tricks.

Indeed , there isn't too much craziness gathering in the lines. On the other hand, we've got Rekha, Neelu and Crabbie's imminent implosions.

The 'white knights' are a possible source, although its rehashed LR junk.

What we need is a really viable scam . Preferably involving prom notes, non existent gold reserves or dodgy cheques.

Hmm......

The Holy Grail of SovStupid is an Englishman, arguing in a UK courtroom, quoting the US Declaration of Independence. When I see that,,, well, I dunno what I'll do, but I'm sure its coming eventually.

notorial dissent wrote:I'd say they could come steal from us, but they've been doing that right along with spectacularly poor success and track record. Somehow an Englishman in an English court appealing to the UCC/Bill of Rights/Title26/etc doesn't strike me as horribly functional, ...

I've no idea what "Title26" is, so can't comment, but what's the objection to appealing to the Bill of Rights?
Wikipedia maintains that the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. Quite convincing, except of course that Wikipedia is probably run by the Rothschilds, and those two Parliament Acts are treasonous.
As for quoting the UCC well that's plain daft, in any courtroom, anywhere in the world, ever.