[Closed] tory gulag PLC

[i]There is no doubt that his success in alerting ever more people to the dangers of the British / EU dictatorship being built by a criminal element now masquerading as British politicians, has caused the state to imprison Roger.[/i]

Yeah, or the fact that he hadn't paid his taxes.

Interesting though, any chance of what might be described as a more 'balanced' view on what happened?

Welease Wodger

and Woderwick

Ah, a quick bit of research finds this:

It looks and reads like a load of old bollox.

Unless of course he was actually arrested and sentenced for not paying a court fine, which is very likely given it sounds like he's not paid his council tax.
In such cases
A: You don't need to be before a jury - it's dealt with at the Magistrates level (maximum possible sentence is six months from memory for any offences dealt with by the Magistrates, usually much much lower especially for fines*).
And
B: It's always been that way for non payment of fines.

I suspect it's freemen related, given the rubbish they spout about not haivng to pay fines imposed by courts, or obey any laws they don't agree with, and I strongly suspect he's been in court and fined, with the explicit warning of what happens if you don't pay the fine.

[edit]
Yup it's freemen related (or whatever they call themselves).
Where a little bit of knowledge and a whole dollop of misunderstanding an BS combines to create an entirely farcical "understanding" of the legal system.
The whole site looks to be about "spreading the word" and conspiracies.

*IIRC usually something like 2-3 weeks max of which maybe a week at most will be served (given the half off for parole, and the fact the prisons like to get people out before the weekend...)
Of course the Freemen don't believe the magistrates have any power, as they haven't sworn their oath in person to the Monarch or some such rubbish.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=59269744#post59269744

So the 'kangaroo court' was in fact a Magistrates Court, and he's been imprisoned, for probably a very short period, for non-payment of a fine.

Any other shocking breaches of liberty that you want to bring to our attention?

So the 'kangaroo court' was in fact a Magistrates Court, and he's been imprisoned, for probably a very short period, for non-payment of a fine.

Any other shocking breaches of liberty that you want to bring to our attention?

Well that's that settled then! Nice work!

Any other shocking breaches of liberty that you want to bring to our attention?

I just thought it to be a very interesting piece of reportage..

And all over STW-land, right-wingers finally let go into their kleenexes with massive sighs of relief.

I thought it was an obviously very biased, hugely misinformed and prettyy disingenuous piece of reporting.

I'm a complete hand-wringing bleeding heart leftie, but I can sniff out BS from whichever side of teh political agenda it comes from. When something oike this sounds so shocking, 99% of the time it's mis-reporting that's to blame.

Sounds like complete pish. Disobeyed a court order to pay an outstanding fine -> contempt of court perhaps?

These Freemen are complete arseholes. Their entire premise is that the courts and parliament are controlled by the elite/illuminati/lizards/Jews/whoever [i]but [/i]that in the last millennium the elite never quite had the time or lawyers to make their scheme to control the world legal in its own terms, which now means the most extreme technical illegality possible can halt their juggernaut on legal grounds. It's just nonsense.

Good British Justice . One day at least a year ago he got his council tax demand and a host of ways to pay it he then months ago got a court hearing and the oportunity to challenge the demand to his twisted little hearts content then he got the chance to appeal or even go to the European court then he got an enforcement notice and the chance to go to court and argue or ask for time to pay and finally he got a commitment warrent and a commitment hearing in an open court and further chance to argue or ask for time to pay and when he refused to pay at the very end he got sent to prison for not paying the taxes that he lawfully owes and that he cannot produce one shred of cogent argument to dispute. I am prepared to bet that far from wanting him whisked off to prison everybody offically invoved has bent over backwards to help him out and offer a route out of prison to him.

Bloody Freemen on the Land shysters, by there own logic they are in rebellion against our lawful soverign Queen Bess II and it is the duty of all loyal citizens to hunt these Traitors down.

Crankboy - don't forget, he never got any of those things, the legal person got served with the papers and the opportunity to go to court, whereas the human who lived in the house registered under the legal fiction of maritime law could not be imprisoned, as he was not a subject of the queen - etc... 😀

Z111 from my extensive attemps to string some coherent logic out of the utter twaddle that is the law according to Freemen, the Maritime law point can only apply to the very first states of America . 😆

So they imprison the guy at great expense rather than sending around the baillifs to clear out his house or freezing his bank accounts and taking the cash. The law really is an ass.

but say for the sake of argument that you [i]really are[/i] perhaps morally appalled by our obscenely privileged and trigger happy overseers.. and you take the decision to draw a line in the sand.. to take a stand

should you be considered a political prisoner or a tax dodger..?

when we liberate political prisoners in other lands that we invade to preserve human rights, are we sometimes glorifying creatively reported parking offenders..?

It's worth pointing out that while the UK Freemen might be the run-of-the-mill tinfoil hat wearers with anti-Semite instincts that we're all used to, their US cousins are rather more heavily armed and dangerous: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kane

but say for the sake of argument that my initial post, and the article I linked to, weren't utter gash...

when we liberate political prisoners in other lands that we invade to preserve human rights, are we sometimes glorifying creatively reported parking offenders..?

[i]but say for the sake of argument that you really are perhaps morally appalled by our obscenely privileged and trigger happy overseers.. and you take the decision to draw a line in the sand.. to take a stand

should you be considered a political prisoner or a tax dodger..?[/i]

In these circumstances, you are a tax dodger. You dodged the tax because of a particular principle, a principle you are free to hold, stand by and publish in whatever inflamatory mannere you like, and by standing by that principle you need to accept the consequences.

If the imprisonment was specifically because of the principle you stood for, then you could class yourself as a political prisoner.

should you be considered a political prisoner or a tax dodger..?

Ah you mean like Lord Ashcroft. The plucky political prisoner, fighting the system from inside.

11th January 2011 in the county court of Birkenhead, this is how events unfolded in the court room (Me= Roger Hayes).

Judge: Can we first find out who is in the court... is MR ROGER HAYES in the court?

Me: Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: Are you MR ROGER HAYES?

Me: No sir, I am the third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES... you may address me as Roger.

Judge: I will not address you as Roger, I will call you MR HAYES

Me: Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE – court protocol dictates that a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose – the Judge then referred to me as ‘the gentleman’ but avoided referring to meas MR HAYES).

Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES is not represented in court.

Me: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not represented in court.

(NOTE. This would mean that the case would have to be dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared)

Judge: I can see that that the council has representation in the court.

Me: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law... if council has third party representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so is MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.

Me: Yes it is.

Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.

Me: A PERSON is a corporation.

Judge No it isn’t.

Me: Define person.

Judge: I don’t have to.

Me: Then let me do it for you sir. A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary) Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?

Judge: I am familiar with many laws.

Me: Sir, I asked if you were familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.

Judge: Let’s hear from the council.

Me: Sir we can only move on to the council’s presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES is represented in court.

Judge: Fine.

And the case continued.... with me (Roger Hayes) acting as third party representative for the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and with the judge eventually telling the council to go away and prove its case. The Judge was obviously very keen to avoid a charge of denial of due process i.e. a challenge to his competence. It was much easier for him to side with me and pass the buck back to the council.Smart judge.

So what does this all mean? Well In very simple terms, it is SEISMIC i.e. extremely significant. It means that the court has accepted that the council’s claim is against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and not me the flesh and blood man Roger Hayes. The court has also accepted that I (Roger Hayes) can act as a third party representative to defend the claim against MR ROGER HAYES.
The legal fiction cat is now truly out of the bag (although for me this is the second time I have achieved this in court). If the council goes on to win its case, then the court will find against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES, but significantly, they will not have found against me Roger Hayes... because as the court agrees... MR ROGER HAYES is a corporation... which isn’t me. One important thing is now clearly established - I, Roger Hayes, am not liable for council tax. AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

lifted from [url= http://www.davidicke.com/ ]davidicke.com - exposing the dreamword we believe to be real[/url]

Big Bul Slimmer - is it just me that hears the voices of John Cleese and Terry Jones reading that 😆

Crankboy - To be fair, I support their assertion that the Magna Carta gave them the right to rebel against the Queen - but I fail to see why they have then failed to demand that four barons bring it to attention of the twenty five barons/knights of the of the Garter, and then swear allegiance to said Barons and follow their orders 🙄

and to be fair the reliance on Magna Carta (as a document affirming the common law rather than statute law) pretty much shoots down the rest of their arguments as it proves they are subject to the law of the land, rather than the law of the sea 😀

Mind you, perhaps there's something to be said for relying on maritime law

konabunny - member

ftfy etc

oh thanks for that konabunny..

but we already declared the article a farce waaay back up there ^^^ somewhere..

I'll rephrase my question..

if one was to feel morally obliged to buck the status quo on the grounds that were suggested in the article (forgetting the freeman tangent for a second), can anyone suggest a more appropriate way than refusing to support the system financially..?

couldn't ftfy because it was incomprehensible

awww poppet

Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.

Me: Yes it is.

Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.

Me: A PERSON is a corporation.

Judge No it isn’t.

Me: Define person.

Judge: I don’t have to.

Me: Then let me do it for you sir. A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary) Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?

Judge: I am familiar with many laws.

Me: Sir, I asked if you were familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.

Does he post on here?

soverign Queen Bess II and it is the duty of all loyal citizens to hunt these Traitors down.

Shes a German, it is the duty of all Englishmen to hunt down and restore the true English Monarch to the throne of England.

I think the judge uses the alias TJ

Edukator - the law is not an ass in this case there was a means inquiry at the committal hearing to establish if they could use Ballifs or attach to earnings or garnishee the bank account. You can't just send the prisoner down you need to establish culpable neglect and go through the alternatives first. He will have claimed to have no assets and refused to pay.

I'm not sure a right lot of my council tax was spent on the war in Iraq or Afganistan so i don't think you get to be a political prisoner for refusing to pay the tax that empties your bins.

Well, by status quo, you really mean 'the Law'. If you think the law needs to be changed, you can petition your MP, stand as an MP, start a pressure group, start an No.10 petition etc etc, all the ways that laws have been successfully challenged and changed over the years.

Importantly, you can bitch and moan about it as much as you like, without fear of being sent to prison for that bitching and moaning.

mleh, not much of a surprise

the courts can run 24hrs if youve robbed a bottle of water in a riot

commit fraud in the billions and , erm well were not really sure that mr banker will see any prison time

Big Bul Slimmer - is it just me that hears the voices of John Cleese and Terry Jones reading that

if one was to feel morally obliged to buck the status quo on the grounds that were suggested in the article (forgetting the freeman tangent for a second), can anyone suggest a more appropriate way than refusing to support the system financially..?

I think if someone feels morally obliged to end financial support of the system, then they should do so in full understanding of the costs, not whining about some trivial stupid fictitious law that allows them to weasel out of responsibility.

And the Cestui Que Vie Act has bugger all to do with council tax unless the Freeman vanishes for 7 years.

If you think the law needs to be changed, you can petition your MP, stand as an MP, start a pressure group, start an No.10 petition etc etc, all the ways that laws have been successfully challenged and changed over the years.

[i]You seem to have missed out "owning several newspapers" and "making large donations to political parties" as other effective means of exerting political influence.[/i]

Well, yes, obviously, but I didn't think anyone needed to be taught how to suck eggs... 😉

Party litigants are mostly time-wasting-loons like this IME!

Utter waste of court time, and with the David Icke stamp of loon-approval.

Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.

Me: Yes it is.

Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.

Me: A PERSON is a corporation.

Judge No it isn’t.

Me: Define person.

Judge: I don’t have to.

Me: Then let me do it for you sir. A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary) Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?

Logical fallacy.

A corporation is a LEGAL PERSON (i.e. it has legal personality).
A natural person (i.e. a human) is a LEGAL PERSON.

A natural person is NOT a corporation.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

First they came for the Rapists, and I did not speak out--
Because I think rape is wrong.

Then they came for the burglars, and I did not speak out--
Because I think taking others property is wrong.

Then they came for the Freemen on the Land, and I did not speak out--
Because I think that in a democracy part of the social contract is paying your fair share of the tax burden and anyway they were only going to jail for a week it wasn't as if they were being herded into concentration camps or anything.

Then they didn't come for me--as while I object to much the state does I confine my protest to lawful demonstrations and fight my cases in court within the law and pay my taxes.

But what if the very basis of the state was unlawful?

Oh dear, this is all getting a bit....

[img] [/img]

The basis of any state is outside law. All states evolve out of anarchy even if a group of people formed by mutual agreement to found a state it's rules and laws would be imposed upon the first and all subsiquent babies born into it.

[i]A corporation is a LEGAL PERSON (i.e. it has legal personality).
A natural person (i.e. a human) is a LEGAL PERSON.

A natural person is NOT a corporation. [/i]

Wood floats
Ducks float

ergo, ducks are made of wood 🙂

First they came for the Rapists, and I did not speak out--
Because I think rape is wrong.

Then they came for the burglars, and I did not speak out--
Because I think taking others property is wrong.

Then they came for the Freemen on the Land, and I did not speak out--
Because I think that in a democracy part of the social contract is paying your fair share of the tax burden and anyway they were only going to jail for a week it wasn't as if they were being herded into concentration camps or anything.

Then they came for me-- but I was out riding my bike so they left a note reminding me my car tax was overdue.

FTFM(e)

Anyone else think that news site looks very like the daily mash?

As he is so keen to be treated as a corporation, he will presumably have no objection to being lawfully liquidated.

what if the very basis of the state was unlawful?

ohnohesback - Member

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Well with socialists and trade unions, the whole ideology is based on standing together, the sum is greater than the parts.

.....but only if you pay your union fees 🙂

Well with socialists and trade unions, the whole ideology is based on standing together, the sum is greater than the parts.