The United Kingdom is an Entity. Therefore a commerical body

[vanilla]

No, all the information on this that i have found freely available online i have not been able to disprove legally, it all seams to be legally accurate on this matter.

When someone makes a claim, be it legal, philosophical or scientific, the burden of proof is generally accepted to be with the claimant. i.e. it's a bad idea to accept something because you can't disprove it, because there could well be some evidence against it that you just can't find. The better way to go is not to accept it until you can prove it.

Anyway, can you point me towards any relevant information, like, actual concrete information, because as far as I was aware the way that people here used the terms lien and affidavit was, well, just wrong.

I again disagree, they all have a commercial element, money is extracted from the people to fund all such things, making it commercial. Under their rules there is no option for the people to choose if they want to be part of or use any part of such things, they are forced to pay all taxes regardless.

I think we need to clear something up because when you initially said 'commerce' I immediately assumed 'business', and they're quite different things. I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not. It's clear that money changes hands so that services can be provided, but the relationship between a government and the public is different than that between businesses.

Please explain why you are only the registered keeper, and why they are allowed to crush your car without it being unlawful on their behalf?

Again, why would I need to explain it if it's a myth? You're not only the registered keeper, but if you think you have some evidence to support your case, I'm all ears.

They're allowed to crush your car because that's the law. Just like you'll get fined if you piss in the street, or like how they can compulsory purchase your house even though you own it.

You were implying that you seamed to think that was acceptable behavior within the bounds of what we were discussing.

I wasn't imply that, I was just saying that could happen, and if it did you'd have to deal with it.

No, I think my hope for humanity is probably much greater than currently seams to exist within the system that exists. I think outside of a system like this people would have a much greater respect for their fellow men and women. - although i very much doubt you would agree.

I haven't seen every possible system so I don't know.

I think it comes down to what as intelligent creatures we consider right and wrong... and i think you'd find it hard to gather a group that would consider rape, pillage and murder is the right things to do.

This is an important point, and in my opinion why a lot of people here make mistakes. The rationale behind the above statement being "every sensible person must think like I do", when that's not the case at all. Morality varies greatly from person to person, culture to culture, era to era.

Apparently the Vikings loved a bit of pillaging, and the Aztecs made ritual human sacrifices. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews, and in most military conflicts each side believes that killing their opposition is justified. Some people consider the death penalty as murder, some do not. Throughout most of human history, slavery was accepted and sex with your slaves was considered a right, whether they liked it or not, something which still goes on today in Sudan.

We are intelligent creatures, but we don't all consider the same things to be right and wrong.

I believe people should have the choice, if they have benefit from the system and have no issues with it, then stay within it, great. But if you really don't have any benefit, and disagree with most of it, you should be allowed to step away from it with your own free will, and not be forced to be governed by it, after all its not a dictatorship.

Can you not see any sort of downside to society as a whole from individuals being able to opt out of government control in a particular territory?

It surprises me that you spend so much time on this site, if your not trying to find a way to free your self from any part of the system, Don't get me wrong, its been very interesting going into detail with you, but i'm surprised by your commitment to seemingly try to support the system.

While I'm not trying to free myself from this system exactly, I do detest people being misled regardless of the subject. If it ever actually turned out this stuff was real I'd be as interested as anyone else, but at the moment it just looks like a mess of badly thought out arguments, with little evidence to support them. If someone is talking rubbish, it's better that they know, so they can improve their understanding. I hope that if someone catches me talking rubbish (and can demonstrate why), they'd tell me.

[letsbefree]

Anyway, can you point me towards any relevant information, like, actual concrete information, because as far as I was aware the way that people here used the terms lien and affidavit was, well, just wrong.

From all of my understanding of what i've read out there, i've discussed it with friends i have within the legal profession to gauge if my understanding and information is correct, and mostly it is, there are some elaborations of parts of it out there, but in general I am happy that i've formed a good understanding of it from what i have read. Which means that the majority of what i've been reading is factually correct information.

It's clear that money changes hands so that services can be provided, but the relationship between a government and the public is different than that between businesses.

Well i'm not sure that it really is, thats what interests me so much by this, as commerce and profit is what is driving all of these forces. Every entity that operates commercially is designed to operate to make a profit... thats what commerce essentially is. Otherwise it would be a non-profit organisation, which they blatantly arn't. I've seen so many examples of councils ensuring they spend their budget so its not cut the following year, but hopefully increased and no attempts to cut things for the sake of the people.

You're not only the registered keeper, but if you think you have some evidence to support your case, I'm all ears.

It very clearly states on the V5 "This document is not proof of ownership" and you are the "Registered Keeper"

They're allowed to crush your car because that's the law. Just like you'll get fined if you piss in the street, or like how they can compulsory purchase your house even though you own it.

Well its legislation.... But how can any legislation allow destruction of property with out breaching the common law? They can compulsory purchase your house as they are buying it from you... they're not just knocking it down and saying oh yeah you didnt pay us a small sum of money so we destroyed a valuable asset of yours.... Sorry how is that allowed unless it is in fact their property in the first place.

This all crosses over to our other thread, so i'll join that in to this one, as its the same principle with the registration of land.... they are telling you its owned by the crown... But as a Sovereign you have the same ability to actually own land as they do. By registering it you are handing ownership over.

Apparently the Vikings loved a bit of pillaging, and the Aztecs made ritual human sacrifices. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews, and in most military conflicts each side believes that killing their opposition is justified. Some people consider the death penalty as murder, some do not. Throughout most of human history, slavery was accepted and sex with your slaves was considered a right, whether they liked it or not, something which still goes on today in Sudan.

I think this is where we really start to get down to the core of things. If everyone actually considered themselves equal, none of these things would happen. Most of what you have listed is either because they are following a corrupt leader who is ordering them to do it, or they are hell bend on trying to prove they are greater than another person/system/country that they commit these kinds of atrocities. Whereas if everyone considered themselves equals, and every man and woman a brother or sister then the world would be a much nicer place... yes this might be idealistic... but i think that's the crux of the problem... its all a battle over power..... for if we are all equal then what the hell we fighting for?

Can you not see any sort of downside to society as a whole from individuals being able to opt out of government control in a particular territory?

I can see why they don't want people to be free thinking and free.... they wont be their slaves anymore and they wont be making them any money to use in corrupt ways so they can try and wage wars on other countries so that they can try and have more control somewhere else as well..... again if everyone was equal this wouldn't happen.

While I'm not trying to free myself from this system exactly, I do detest people being misled regardless of the subject. If it ever actually turned out this stuff was real I'd be as interested as anyone else, but at the moment it just looks like a mess of badly thought out arguments, with little evidence to support them. If someone is talking rubbish, it's better that they know, so they can improve their understanding. I hope that if someone catches me talking rubbish (and can demonstrate why), they'd tell me.

Yes its good to get every-side of the story, and so yes it is useful for all involved. This isnt want i expect to find here, but its been good to have arguments against it as well, as otherwise it can all just get carried away with the fairies. I personally think it all lies somewhere in between the two. I think its easy to get carried away with it all, but i also think that your view of it is also a little restrictive.

[vanilla]

From all of my understanding of what i've read out there, i've discussed it with friends i have within the legal profession to gauge if my understanding and information is correct, and mostly it is, there are some elaborations of parts of it out there, but in general I am happy that i've formed a good understanding of it from what i have read. Which means that the majority of what i've been reading is factually correct information.

I'm sure there's a saying that's relevant here, something about a stone... and blood...
Any chance I could press you for a little more detail as to where I might find the aforementioned information?

Well i'm not sure that it really is, thats what interests me so much by this, as commerce and profit is what is driving all of these forces. Every entity that operates commercially is designed to operate to make a profit... thats what commerce essentially is.

This answers my question about commerce vs business. Commerce is kind of the wider environment in which businesses operate. I'm not an expert on economics but I'm fairly sure it is more accurate to say that business (rather than commerce) is designed to operate to make a profit.

Otherwise it would be a non-profit organisation, which they blatantly arn't. I've seen so many examples of councils ensuring they spend their budget so its not cut the following year, but hopefully increased and no attempts to cut things for the sake of the people.

You've pretty much disproved your own point there. You said yourself, operating for profit is the distinguishing feature of a a business (commerce), and profit is simply the revenue gained minus the expenses paid out. You correctly point out that councils try to make sure they spend their entire budget. They are designed not to make a profit.

It very clearly states on the V5 "This document is not proof of ownership" and you are the "Registered Keeper"

Right... because the V5 is the registration document. Proof of ownership would be a record of the transaction in which you bought the vehicle, like documentation from a dealership or other receipt.

Well its legislation.... But how can any legislation allow destruction of property with out breaching the common law? They can compulsory purchase your house as they are buying it from you... they're not just knocking it down and saying oh yeah you didnt pay us a small sum of money so we destroyed a valuable asset of yours.... Sorry how is that allowed unless it is in fact their property in the first place.

Because common law isn't the all-powerful thing that people would have you believe. Any legislation made by Parliament can overrule common law. The law says if you don't follow the rules they can crush it.

This all crosses over to our other thread, so i'll join that in to this one, as its the same principle with the registration of land.... they are telling you its owned by the crown... But as a Sovereign you have the same ability to actually own land as they do. By registering it you are handing ownership over.

I know that's not true, but if you believe you have some evidence, again I'm all ears. It's pretty much the first thing mentioned in my Land Law textbook, so I'm feeling quite confident.

I think this is where we really start to get down to the core of things. If everyone actually considered themselves equal, none of these things would happen.

I admit the world would be a great place, but they don't consider themselves equal.

Most of what you have listed is either because they are following a corrupt leader who is ordering them to do it, or they are hell bend on trying to prove they are greater than another person/system/country that they commit these kinds of atrocities.

The way people feel is usually more about the influences of the people close around them. You live in a culture based on Christian tradition, so not surprisingly you have morals which are very similar to those of Christianity. The phrase 'corrupt leader' pops up on this board far too often for my liking, as it's something that would be very difficult to know for sure. It seems more likely to me that quite often corrupt is used as a synonym for "does things I don't like".

Whereas if everyone considered themselves equals, and every man and woman a brother or sister then the world would be a much nicer place... yes this might be idealistic... but i think that's the crux of the problem... its all a battle over power..... for if we are all equal then what the hell we fighting for?

Whether we're equal or not is a moral judgement, and morality is relative. You believe we're all equal, some people don't. No opinion is 'better' than any other opinion.

I can see why they don't want people to be free thinking and free.... they wont be their slaves anymore and they wont be making them any money to use in corrupt ways so they can try and wage wars on other countries so that they can try and have more control somewhere else as well..... again if everyone was equal this wouldn't happen.

But that isn't what I asked... if you're going to argue the case for a radical change in government, you have to consider the bad points as well as the good.

Yes its good to get every-side of the story, and so yes it is useful for all involved. This isnt want i expect to find here, but its been good to have arguments against it as well, as otherwise it can all just get carried away with the fairies. I personally think it all lies somewhere in between the two. I think its easy to get carried away with it all, but i also think that your view of it is also a little restrictive.

I appreciate the time you've taken to consider what I say rather than just ignoring me or booing me off the board because I have a different opinion.

[youngdan]

Who is the old woman that runs this corporation registered in the United States, HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT CIK#: 0001452617
She's up there with one of her alleged dominions COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CIK#: 0000805157 and all of the Australian Banks and the States who create the sovereign bonds that are issued to the Reserve Bank by the Commonwealth so they can rely on my promise to pay, my bond, to support their borrowings.

UK
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=Her+Majesty%27s&match=contains&CIK=&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=include&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany

Aust
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=commonwealth+of+australia&match=&CIK=&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany

[vanilla]

Who is the old woman that runs this corporation registered in the United States, HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT CIK#: 0001452617

HM treasury runs it. If you read the documents linked on the page you posted, you'll see the request for "no-action relief" (which is specifically for government entities) related to the part nationalisation of the banks.

"The No-Action Letter provides an alternative set of recordkeeping guidelines where the government entity’s participation through an intermediary in 'an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940'"

[Thomas]

From all of my understanding of what i've read out there, i've discussed it with friends i have within the legal profession to gauge if my understanding and information is correct, and mostly it is, there are some elaborations of parts of it out there, but in general I am happy that i've formed a good understanding of it from what i have read. Which means that the majority of what i've been reading is factually correct information.

I'm sure there's a saying that's relevant here, something about a stone... and blood...
Any chance I could press you for a little more detail as to where I might find the aforementioned information?

Well i'm not sure that it really is, thats what interests me so much by this, as commerce and profit is what is driving all of these forces. Every entity that operates commercially is designed to operate to make a profit... thats what commerce essentially is.

This answers my question about commerce vs business. Commerce is kind of the wider environment in which businesses operate. I'm not an expert on economics but I'm fairly sure it is more accurate to say that business (rather than commerce) is designed to operate to make a profit. At others expense if you understood economics and not the market system that's misconstrued for economics.

Otherwise it would be a non-profit organisation, which they blatantly arn't. I've seen so many examples of councils ensuring they spend their budget so its not cut the following year, but hopefully increased and no attempts to cut things for the sake of the people.

You've pretty much disproved your own point there. You said yourself, operating for profit is the distinguishing feature of a a business (commerce), and profit is simply the revenue gained minus the expenses paid out. You correctly point out that councils try to make sure they spend their entire budget. They are designed not to make a profit. As above.

It very clearly states on the V5 "This document is not proof of ownership" and you are the "Registered Keeper"

Right... because the V5 is the registration document. Proof of ownership would be a record of the transaction in which you bought the vehicle, like documentation from a dealership or other receipt.
But that is not allodial title to the vehicle or home etc.

Well its legislation.... But how can any legislation allow destruction of property with out breaching the common law? They can compulsory purchase your house as they are buying it from you... they're not just knocking it down and saying oh yeah you didnt pay us a small sum of money so we destroyed a valuable asset of yours.... Sorry how is that allowed unless it is in fact their property in the first place.

Because common law isn't the all-powerful thing that people would have you believe. Any legislation made by Parliament can overrule common law. The law says if you don't follow the rules they can crush it. That is legislation, not Law.

This all crosses over to our other thread, so i'll join that in to this one, as its the same principle with the registration of land.... they are telling you its owned by the crown... But as a Sovereign you have the same ability to actually own land as they do. By registering it you are handing ownership over.

I know that's not true, but if you believe you have some evidence, again I'm all ears. It's pretty much the first thing mentioned in my Land Law textbook, so I'm feeling quite confident. A home should at least have allodial title and be available to everyone.(but there is more)

I think this is where we really start to get down to the core of things. If everyone actually considered themselves equal, none of these things would happen.

I admit the world would be a great place, but they don't consider themselves equal. Then they are breaking the Law.

Most of what you have listed is either because they are following a corrupt leader who is ordering them to do it, or they are hell bend on trying to prove they are greater than another person/system/country that they commit these kinds of atrocities.

The way people feel is usually more about the influences of the people close around them. You live in a culture based on Christian tradition, so not surprisingly you have morals which are very similar to those of Christianity. The phrase 'corrupt leader' pops up on this board far too often for my liking, as it's something that would be very difficult to know for sure. It seems more likely to me that quite often corrupt is used as a synonym for "does things I don't like". There never has been a none corrupt leader for thousands of years.

Whereas if everyone considered themselves equals, and every man and woman a brother or sister then the world would be a much nicer place... yes this might be idealistic... but i think that's the crux of the problem... its all a battle over power..... for if we are all equal then what the hell we fighting for?

Whether we're equal or not is a moral judgement, and morality is relative. You believe we're all equal, some people don't. No opinion is 'better' than any other opinion. In Law we are all equal, in legislation we are not.

I can see why they don't want people to be free thinking and free.... they wont be their slaves anymore and they wont be making them any money to use in corrupt ways so they can try and wage wars on other countries so that they can try and have more control somewhere else as well..... again if everyone was equal this wouldn't happen.

But that isn't what I asked... if you're going to argue the case for a radical change in government, you have to consider the bad points as well as the good.

Yes its good to get every-side of the story, and so yes it is useful for all involved. This isnt want i expect to find here, but its been good to have arguments against it as well, as otherwise it can all just get carried away with the fairies. I personally think it all lies somewhere in between the two. I think its easy to get carried away with it all, but i also think that your view of it is also a little restrictive.

I appreciate the time you've taken to consider what I say rather than just ignoring me or booing me off the board because I have a different opinion.

[vanilla]

At others expense if you understood economics and not the market system that's misconstrued for economics.

Why did you just say you don't understand economics? It's not a zero-sum game, and the usual reason that people claim that is so they have an excuse to hate the system.

But that is not allodial title to the vehicle or home etc.

Allodium applies to land and the buildings and fixtures thereon, not motor vehicles.

That is legislation, not Law.

As long as the judiciary use that legislation, it is law.

A home should at least have allodial title and be available to everyone.(but there is more)

That's your opinion.

Then they are breaking the Law.

You believe that holding a certain opinion is a crime? Which law are they breaking?

There never has been a none corrupt leader for thousands of years.

That's also your opinion. I wasn't aware that you knew the mind of every leader in history, but you should probably take that show on the road.

In Law we are all equal, in legislation we are not

See above.

[Thomas]

Thomas wrote:At others expense if you understood economics and not the market system that's misconstrued for economics.

Why did you just say you don't understand economics? It's not a zero-sum game, and the usual reason that people claim that is so they have an excuse to hate the system.

It was you who said that you did not understand economics. And it's not a zero sum game, it's a negative sum game for the majority.

Thomas wrote:But that is not allodial title to the vehicle or home etc.

Allodium applies to land and the buildings and fixtures thereon, not motor vehicles.

Oh, dear oh dear, Garbel.

[ljtherock]

@ Vanilla...

Earlier within this thread, you used the excuse that God is not proven to exist. You used this in order to combat anothers point in resepct of claimed authority or thereabouts.

Using your reasoning, one could also state the vice versa.
So as simply as claiming God may not exist, it could also be reasoned that God may exist. In which case your pale holds no water.

You also claim that swearing allegiance to the queen does not hold that you also stand under her Oath, surely you realise that this cannot be so.
If the one you swear allegiance to stands under her Oath, then others of allegiance stand under it also, otherwise they cannot be true in their allegiance.
Of course I will consider otherwise if you can furnish the proof that this is not so, perhaps a peice of your favourite legislation that you could point to?

One other point...

You stated that some would insist that God and religion are one and the same, or something to that effect.
If this is true then please answer, "What religion was Adam" ?

[vanilla]

It was you who said that you did not understand economics. And it's not a zero sum game, it's a negative sum game for the majority.

That's clearly rubbish. Look at the wealth of the average man 50, or 200, or 2000 years ago and you'll see that it has increased over time. The idea that someone has to lose for someone else to gain is nonsense.

Oh, dear oh dear, Garbel.

That's a solid argument, I'll need some time to figure out the nuances and construct a proper rebuttal.