What is this guy talking about?

[RyanGillam]

Seen this guy on youtube. not sure how I got there. does anyone understand what he is being sued for? Is he claiming he sent HMRC a promissory note and saying its cash and is saying they can't sue him orr?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQKsVxuYgc&feature=relmfu

-edit-

I think I got it! He is a 'free person' and is claiming that he can't be sued as his real name is owned by the UK, and he isn't under their sovereignty. Maybe....I don't know!

The stuff people do to not pay tax.

 

[QuickHomeBuyers]

Does is even looks like he has earned £61k, let alone a tax bill of £61k. Enough said.

 

[MASSEY]

Does is even looks like he has earned £61k, let alone a tax bill of £61k. Enough said.

How does someone who earns 60k a year look?

 

[Blood Lust]

Seen this guy on youtube. not sure how I got there. does anyone understand what he is being sued for? Is he claiming he sent HMRC a promissory note and saying its cash and is saying they can't sue him orr?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQKsVxuYgc&feature=relmfu

-edit-

I think I got it! He is a 'free person' and is claiming that he can't be sued as his real name is owned by the UK, and he isn't under their sovereignty. Maybe....I don't know!

The stuff people do to not pay tax.

When you are born you are a free person. Your parents then register your birth to get your birth certificate which results in a seperate legal personality being created.

So you have you the person and your seperate legal personality with the same name. In Law, and through clever wording, a legal personality isnt treated as a person but a business. Your birth certificate is your share in it.

When you commit a crime you sign a sheet at the police station. Through clever wording you arent signing to confirm your identity you're signing to say you agree to represent your legal personality.

The reason being is a Court cant legally prosecute people they prosecutes legal personalities. A Court can only summon a legal personality to Court too and by attending you have agreed to represent your legal personality.

In essence you cant be locked up, fined or punished for anything as you're a free person unless you adopt your legal personality. Why do you think they are trying to have that Norweigen terrorist declared insane?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Not seen the clip but it's to do with 'freeman on the land' only law that really applies is common law so all the taxes & fines don't apply. Act of parliament are NOT law, but are given the power of law by the legal system that upholds it. When a police officer asks do you understand, the actual meaning is do you 'stand under' the acts etc, they 'trick' you into accepting their authority. The word person in legal terms means a legal entity, doesn't mean a human being. There is a growing number of people adopting this stance.

 

[WJP]

There is a growing number of people adopting this stance.

And there are a growing number of people being told that it's not an accepted legal argument. I haven't seen a single case yet where this has been successful.

 

[maxine]

This was uploaded 9 months ago ... Anyone know how it turned out?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

And there are a growing number of people being told that it's not an accepted legal argument. I haven't seen a single case yet where this has been successful.

That's the point. There is a difference between legal & lawful. There is an example of a guy placing a birth certificate in the dock when the court asks for a person to stand in the dock. Quite funny as they don't know what to do and the judge(s) leave the court without making a decision.

 

[RyanGillam]

This was uploaded 9 months ago ... Anyone know how it turned out?

His appeal was rejected. He phoned up HMRC asking if they would accept a cash settlement, they said yes. He took this to mean they would accept a promissory note. He went to court holding this note, court turned him down.

He also tried to fight a case where he was riding his motorcycle illegally after telephoning the police to say he would be out, but as he is a free person they can't touch him. The police confiscated his bike and he was fighting for damages. He lost that as well.

To be honest I watched a lot of his videos and he really DOES NOT understand the law at all, yet he tries to put himself forward as an expert. not good.

 

[crphillips]

Dunno but this was quite an interesting listen. Interesting view point on the fantasy world we live in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKF-BoiQhI&sns=em

 

[WJP]

That's the point. There is a difference between legal & lawful. There is an example of a guy placing a birth certificate in the dock when the court asks for a person to stand in the dock. Quite funny as they don't know what to do and the judge(s) leave the court without making a decision.

But I doubt that they let him off the hook entirely...it will have just made more work for the courts. What a waste of time and taxpayer's money.

 

[arcon5]

This is all very interesting and very very confusing.

From what I understand, there are two entities:

- you Mr X as a human being
- Person Mr X as a legal fiction

The latter has formed a contract with the state in which it promises to abide by laws. The former can choose not to represent Person Mr X as a legal fiction and thus not bound by the same laws, just that of common law - they can do this because at the time the legal fiction was created Person Mr X was to young to understand the contract formed and therefore not bound to honor it.

Because the law can only be applied to the legal fiction and not the human being, such things as parking violations cannot be enforced against Mr X - only enforced against Mr X the legal fiction (ie the birth certificate).


This is my take on it as least.

I also find this interview 'interesting':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SAgofVHbd4&feature=relmfu

In this video though, they are after the human Mr X (not the legal fiction) for apparently leaving a pub without paying. The legal fiction is physically unable to do this. So I wonder, is there anything under common law that can be used to punish the human Mr X for this.


If I understand this correctly, then if this was the way we lived, wouldn't this cause havoc and chaos with people not being held accountable for their actions?

I also wonder if these people who use this tactic care to use our legal system for such things as enforcing a debt, protecting themselves under human rights laws, claiming compensation if a doctor is negligent etc... which of course would be hypocritical.


I also saw a video with somebody referring to the fact law and legislation is different,........... :s

Also interesting points about the sentence 'do you understand?' meaning 'do you stand under'

 

[WJP]

It is interesting, but it seems like a pointless debate if it doesn't work in practice (which it doesn't appear to).

And you're right, I bet the people trying to use it would be all too happy to have the protections of the law when it was on their side, but are now quick to deny it applies to them when they're in the wrong.

 

[arcon5]

This speech is also interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=_0F9JkjbuoQ

The only problem is despite his refusal to pay council tax, he is still benefiting from its application. He leaves the house to clean streets, will have his bins emptied regularly, schooling etc

Just as interesting is this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbhMLyTULA&feature=related

It's getting all very complex, but I cannot understand why the judges abandoned the court because of their refusal o swear the oath or whatever it was.

 

[Esk247]

Common Law...go careful because they'll lock you up for working it out

A lot of people use it to fight lesser claims e.g. Council Tax because no contract has been signed yet the state demand it as a tax e.g. you haven't asked for your bins to be cleaned yet they tax you for it, what if you don't want them to clean your bins? What if you don't have children at school? Why pay? that kind of thing.


It's getting all very complex, but I cannot understand why the judges abandoned the court because of their refusal o swear the oath or whatever it was.

I'd like to tell you..but if i did..they'd shoot me

It is quite complex but the idea is not for it to be used on silly claims like running a red light or shooting someone, the point is to protect yourself from government taxes and laws that are brought in for them to snoop on you for absolutely no reason what so ever. it's the whole Libertarian kind of thing.

Go careful because they get a bit funny about this stuff you know. They've left holes in things and they don't like it when people point it out.

 

[WJP]

Common Law...go careful because they'll lock you up for working it out

A lot of people use it to fight lesser claims e.g. Council Tax because no contract has been signed yet the state demand it as a tax

Why aren't the success stories in the news then? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm surprised more hasn't been made of it. I've seen a lot online from people saying they're going to use it as a line of argument, and then nothing following that up (which I presume means they were unsuccessful, because if you're the kind of person to put a video of yourself talking about it online in the first place, you're probably the kind of person to put a video of yourself talking about how successful it was when you win)...

 

[Esk247]

Why aren't the success stories in the news then? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm surprised more hasn't been made of it. I've seen a lot online from people saying they're going to use it as a line of argument, and then nothing following that up (which I presume means they were unsuccessful, because if you're the kind of person to put a video of yourself talking about it online in the first place, you're probably the kind of person to put a video of yourself talking about how successful it was when you win)...

Because unless you know the law..very well..you can make a twit of yourself very quickly. Many people think they understand Common Law and end up getting themselves in hot water.

It is up to the Layman (defendant) to establish the requirement that the court function under Common Law. Then begins the battle. You really have got to be on your game to be successful.

Text from the start of one famous Common Law case:


The recorded exchanges highlight the approach. The clerk arrogantly claims to be able to deny the lay adviser the right to speak in the court and asks for the defendant “Mr Barry” to appear. Lay adviser quickly advises clerk “We claim common law jurisdiction sir.”

Mr Barry, in the form of a birth certificate of Mr Barry, is presented. Clerk says “Oh no!” and abandons the court. He returns later with the magistrates and all are asked to stand by the lady usher.

 

[Salt & Paper]

Seen this guy on youtube. not sure how I got there. does anyone understand what he is being sued for? Is he claiming he sent HMRC a promissory note and saying its cash and is saying they can't sue him orr?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQKsVxuYgc&feature=relmfu

-edit-

I think I got it! He is a 'free person' and is claiming that he can't be sued as his real name is owned by the UK, and he isn't under their sovereignty. Maybe....I don't know!

The stuff people do to not pay tax.

I went to school with this guy- saw him at Christmas down the pub.... He's certainly a character! And no, as far as I am aware he has not won any case against HMRC, the Police, etc.

He did make a lot of money a few years ago off a number of websites like www.vguitarlessons.com (and others), and I understand he still lives off the proceeds of that.

 

[WJP]

Text from the start of one famous Common Law case:


The recorded exchanges highlight the approach. The clerk arrogantly claims to be able to deny the lay adviser the right to speak in the court and asks for the defendant "Mr Barry" to appear. Lay adviser quickly advises clerk "We claim common law jurisdiction sir."

Mr Barry, in the form of a birth certificate of Mr Barry, is presented. Clerk says "Oh no!" and abandons the court. He returns later with the magistrates and all are asked to stand by the lady usher.

But what was the eventual outcome? And surely lawyers everywhere would be making an absolute shedload of money off the back of this approach if it stood up to scrutiny?

 

[Esk247]

But what was the eventual outcome? And surely lawyers everywhere would be making an absolute shedload of money off the back of this approach if it stood up to scrutiny?

All it says on that case is:

As the magistrates have abandoned the court for the third time and have never had jurisdiction, the lay adviser informs the court he is now the highest authority and leads the Freemen from the court. The only jurisdiction in the court was therefore common law and when the police constables honoured their oath, Case Dismissed under common law! The clerk and magistrates failed in all their attempts to get jurisdiction. The legal fiction appeared in court three times. The lay adviser remained in control of the court.

http://www.larryhannigan.com/walescourt.htm

It only works in the case of Council Tax from what I've seen but it really is on the edge in terms of legality so that's why the legal eagles won't touch it I presume. It's kind of bringing back old loopholes and applying them to today.

 

[RyanGillam]

I went to school with this guy- saw him at Christmas down the pub.... He's certainly a character! And no, as far as I am aware he has not won any case against HMRC, the Police, etc.

He did make a lot of money a few years ago off a number of websites like www.vguitarlessons.com (and others), and I understand he still lives off the proceeds of that.

Oh, now you link me that I remember him. I used to use his guitar lessons a bit back.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Have a read of this

"Kidnapping is a common law offence - a historic crime developed in the courts, rather than being defined exactly by an Act of Parliament."

Clearly there is a difference between common law & an 'act'...........

 

[Blood Lust]

Common Law...go careful because they'll lock you up for working it out

A lot of people use it to fight lesser claims e.g. Council Tax because no contract has been signed yet the state demand it as a tax e.g. you haven't asked for your bins to be cleaned yet they tax you for it, what if you don't want them to clean your bins? What if you don't have children at school? Why pay? that kind of thing.


It's getting all very complex, but I cannot understand why the judges abandoned the court because of their refusal o swear the oath or whatever it was.

I'd like to tell you..but if i did..they'd shoot me

It is quite complex but the idea is not for it to be used on silly claims like running a red light or shooting someone, the point is to protect yourself from government taxes and laws that are brought in for them to snoop on you for absolutely no reason what so ever. it's the whole Libertarian kind of thing.

Go careful because they get a bit funny about this stuff you know. They've left holes in things and they don't like it when people point it out.

You can also refuse to swear on oath on the bible on the grounds that passages inside it tell you doing so is a sin. According to the Bible you arent allowed to swear oaths on it or in Gods name.

I suspect that reveals deeply religious people to the court and those that study its texts such as the masons.

 

[Blood Lust]

But what was the eventual outcome? And surely lawyers everywhere would be making an absolute shedload of money off the back of this approach if it stood up to scrutiny?

Will all persons please stand by the Usher.

Sorry Judge I cant do that because we both know person under law is not a human being but a legal entity.