Is all this FREEMAN, FEE SCHEDULE etc stuff really TRUE?

[frogmanbrabs]

I have on my front door this notice. Tell me Legaleagle your thoughts.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACCESS

10th May 2012

Notice to Agent is deemed Notice to Principal, Notice to Principal is deemed Notice to Agent.

I hereby give Notice that The Implied Right of Access to the Property known as XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

near[XXXXX ] has been removed in respect of the following:

* Any Employee, or Agent or Principal or any other PERSONS Acting on behalf of the CORPORATE COURTS, LOCAL COUNCIL, and

*Any Employee or Agent or Principal or any other PERSON Acting on behalf of Any BAILIFF COLLECTION AGENCY, and

*Any POLICE OFFICER who is Acting for the CORPORATE POLICE and not upholding the LAW for and on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Her People as expressed in the Oath of Office of All POLICE Men and Women.

*Please also Take Notice that the land known as England is a Common Law Jurisdiction and

ANY TRANSGRESSION OF THIS NOTICE WITHOUT Prewritten signed consent Sworn Under Oath in front of a Notary will be dealt according to common law and may Result in a limitless fine, no less than £10,000 for the man, woman and corporation separately.

*By knocking on the door or pushing the bell button you agree to the terms and conditions above.

[legaleagle]

Hi HVYMTL I thought I'd put my opinion on your comments. I will break it down so I don't forget anything.

"I agree with you that the system itself is not corrupt, but if the picture painted by Dean Clifford is right, then the problem is that the vast majority of the police and courts are ignorantly mis-applying the law and stepping outside of their powers (ULTRA VIRES), without even realising they are doing it."
I had not heard of Dean Clifford so put him into google and came across a public speaker with a lot of videos on your tube. I haven't watched much of what he has down (there seemed to be a lot of it) but what I did see (part of Q&A clarifying the facts) he appears to be a very gifted speaker. However what he was saying (in that clip) was not correct although I have to say he is very good at putting stuff across as the truth. The problem is there are a lot of people (including comedians) who are very good at giving stories that appear to make sense to those who want it to. I make a living out of convincing juries to let people off with crimes they are clearly guilty of on the facts(and I make a good living out of it.) The bottom line as I see it that no one has jurisdiction over your mind/soul unless you decide to let them. As for the rest of it the state/courts have jurisdiction over everyone in this country through both common law and statute law and there is no way a court will find against what legislation says like is described in so many of these videos. HOWEVER if your definition of "legislation is not applicable to me" is that you know the courts will punish you but you don't care then ok.

"To clarify, if it is true that the legislative rules of parliament truly apply only to agents / employees of the government when they are on duty and acting in that capacity, then every single conviction of a private individual under those legislations is ultimately fraudulent and achieved through the ignorance of both the person who gets convicted and through the ignorance of the police and courts."
IF it is true. It isn't true unless like in the scenario above you are know you will be punished by the courts anyway.

"I know the magistrates are basically ordinary people so they probably don't have a clue about it and I guess the police have been applying the presumption that legislation applies to absolutely everyone for so long (hundreds of years) that it is not even questioned anymore."
It does apply to everyone, you are of course entitled to ignore it.

"My feeling is that since ignorance of the law is no defence, and that since legislations are written in language which you need a law degree to understand properly, then it cannot stand to reason that everyone must act as it says in the legislations on pain of loss of their property and freedom, therefore the legislation can't really have ever been intended to be used the way they are using it these days."
Now I know that I have got a law degree but the basic core of the legislation is able to be understood by most people. Far easier then using a document like the magna carta anyway. I have covered several times the difference between "ignorance of the law" and "believing something is lawful." This is something that a lot of people cling onto (in my opinion) when much of what they actually talk about (speeding, no seatbelt, non payment of taxes) is understood at a fairly good level by most of the population.

"Furthermore, in just the last few years alone thousands of new legislations have been poured into the system by our joining the EU, and there is just no way that it can be reasonable to expect private individuals to have reviewed that legislation in order to observe it and remain on the right side of the law, so how can it be reasonable to believe that legislation applies to ordinary citizens?"
You are right about that, makes my life a nightmare! but most of the legislation that comes from europe is a restriction on what the government can do. It comes in the form of directives which are instructions to countries to do something, NOT ordinary people. And most of the legislation created is to sort out existing legislation which changes parts of the existing legislation but not often the main part the public need to be aware of.

"if it actually does apply, then the system has to be corrupt and evil.

If we are to say that the system is good and proper then we must conclude that ignorance of the law and it's proper usage is systemic throughout our police and courts and that wall of ignorance is the only problem.

Personally I believe the latter to be the case rather than the former, because if the former is the case then the system is in fact a tyrannical dictatorship which is stealing money and freedom from the public with impunity, and therefore if it is right that Saddam Hussein should be hung for running a tyranny on the backs of his people then it is also right that most of our politicians should face the noose as well.

Ignorance of the law is no defence."
The last part I have grouped together as I broadly agree with your theory that if we had a tyrannical dictatorship (I don't think we have) then those responsible should be bought to task.

I will however say that many of the opinions expressed by people like Dean Clifford and indeed the media are (in my opinion) part of the reason there is such fear about the courts system, which is a shame as many people could find a lot of help within the court system, like for instance many of the people on this site who ask "how do I stop bailiffs taking my things and those of my families, as I haven't got the money to pay my debt." The short answer is seek assistance from the courts who will put into place an order detailing what you can and can't pay. This is just as binding on the bailiff as a court order to remove you possessions is on you.

[legaleagle]

frogmanbrabs. That would give you evidence that you had removed the implied right of access to your property (although I'd remove the corporate part in relation to the police if you don't want them for non urgent business.) It will perhaps give pause to such people (and most likely your local postman ) But it will obviously have no effect where they are not relying on there implied right of access.

[frogmanbrabs]

So if the rozzers kick my door in and storm the place with no Lawful reason I want at least 10 grand off them but you don't think it will work is that what you're saying?

[legaleagle]

Well if the police did indeed kick you door down with no lawful excuse with or without the sign you would have a legal argument. The sign would confuse some and prevent you from getting the first stages of the proceedings. But once they get a court order they could still enter your property and do what is on the order. This is because the power of entry is in the order.

[HVYMTL]

So legaleagle, you confirm that legislation applies to everyone, and therefore that we live in a dictatorship!

A dictatorship where new rules can be drafted and put into force without the vast majority knowing about them or having any say in them, and which allow the system to deprive people of their rights, property and liberty without their consent under the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence.

How can that be considered a fair, reasonable, and lawful way to organise a country?

Clearly at one time it was a requirement on the Monarch to refuse to put in effect any legislation which undermined the rights and freedoms of the people, but for a very long time now the Monarch has simply signed every new piece of legislation into law.

Please be aware, in making that claim as far as I and probably most of the people on this forum are concerned you are indicting the Monarch and our political rulers of treason and crimes against the people of this country in establishing and maintaining a dictatorial tyranny which is devoid of respect for the people's rights and pays no mind to their right not to consent to being ordered around as slaves.

Please do us all a favour and use your understanding of the law to defend the right of the system to create and enforce rules without limit upon the public without their knowledge or consent.

For instance, let's examine the newly created legislation which states that people can be fined for having rubbish in their gardens. How can it be lawful for such legislation to be put in place dictating to people what they can and cannot do with their own private property?

[legaleagle]

Right let me start by saying again that I don't agree with every piece of legislation nor have I ever said I do.
Dictatorship has of course many meanings but I am taking that you are meaning a the opposite to democracy. Which is when people have the right to vote on things, which in practice means the right to vote for there leaders (unless you are suggesting a country wide vote on every issue, a costly measure considering many maintain they shouldn't be taxed.) Now if you agree that a democracy the people electing who they want to lead them then that is what we have in this country. So I think dictatorship is rather far fetched. If you want to see a dictatorship there are many examples around the world (someone mentioned Saddam Hussein) or you could look at the reality of life during the time the magna carta was made where each Baron created the rules for those below him.

As I have stated the people do have a chance to have their say, for example in the form of writing articles criticising the government (no very common in dictatorships) or in the elections called about once every five years to decide parliament. (not counting the local elections.) They also get to sit as jurors, can watch almost any trial they choose and if they so wish can apply to be a magistrate.

As you stated at one time the monarch could do what they liked, this was changed by our forefathers who have left us with a figurehead monarch.

I am aware that many of the people on this and many other sites accuse all sorts of people of all sorts of crimes. That is your right to hold that opinion.

And as for not a fair system I ask you what is? Do you have a system that will protect the 61,87,200 people (according to the 2010 census) that live in the UK and will keep everyone happy?

[HVYMTL]

I mean dictatorship as in the ability for people in high office behind closed doors making up ever more ingenious ways to criminalise and penalise people for victimless crimes, writing down legislations which require a degree in law to understand and yet are applicable to everyone regardless of whether they understand or are even aware of them.

I consider a democracy to also be a form of dictatorship if the majority decide to impose rules on the minority which violate their rights and freedoms. Republics and Monarchies are supposed to exist to prevent that very set of events from occurring.

What would I consider fair? A system where the government is able to order it's agents and only it's agents around as it pleases because it has their consent to being bound by the rules set out for them through the fact that they are being paid to be on duty. A system where the government only intervenes in the private affairs of private individuals if they have actually committed a crime with a victim, not merely behaved in a way which the government has written down as being against the rules.

Such a system would be one of a free people, and if your saying that that is not what we have, then your saying that we are not free, we are slaves to a system which manipulates and controls us like children, and that for whatever historical reason it has come about we have locked ourselves into a gigantic prison system.

I don't see anyway that you can justify how one group of people can possibly dictate rules of conduct to another group of people, elected, monarchs or otherwise. Dictators tell people what they have to do, therefore by your own arguments we live in a Dictatorship.

[legaleagle]

Please then have a look at my thread "where does common law come from" in case law and precedents and venture your opinion on my last post.

[HVYMTL]

I've got no problem with common law and the fact that we are all as adults liable to each other for our actions, I just don't agree that it is right or in keeping with the spirit of the law for parliament to dictate through legislations how private individuals have to behave on pain of being punished for disobedience like a nation of slaves.

You've not given any sort of argument to support the notion that it's right or fair that we should be dictated to like this, so I can only conclude that you can't find such an argument, possibly because no such argument can exist because it fly's in the face of reason, morality and the spirit of the law.

There are some cases where I agree there has to be standards, for instance I want to be sure if I walk into a restaurant that the food has been prepared in a hygienic manner, so it ought to be an offence for restaurant kitchens to be dirty and unhygienic, but if it is such and I still consent to eat the food knowing that, whose business is it but mine and the restaurants?

In such a case a non-dictatorial way to handle the problem is to create a standard which restaurants can adhere to and advertise as such with penalties for failing to do so (which would be a form of fraud / mis-selling), which the public are made aware of so they as ADULTS can decide for themselves what they are willing or not willing to accept. So if some greasy spoon roadside cafe is dirty as hell that's fine as long as they don't try and suggest that they mean the legislated restaurant cleanlyness standard... maybe no one will want to eat there but that is their choice, because they are adults.

And I still don't see how it is that government thinks it has the right to dictate that my garden must be free from rubbish, it's my private property, how dare they decide that they have the right to decide how I may and may not use the space?

The same goes for my car, it's my private property, so how can they say they have the right to dictate how I use it, given that if I used it badly, I would be the only one who is liable for the damage I cause with it?