acceptance for value works

[frogmanbrabs]

Just to correct you Umbongo this is England a common law jurisdiction, The UK is a corporation for whom I do not work for and therefore am not subject to their rules.

[vanilla]

Yet I still don't see any evidence.

[umbongo82]

Just to correct you Umbongo this is England a common law jurisdiction, The UK is a corporation for whom I do not work for and therefore am not subject to their rules.

Just to correct you frogmanbrabs, you're talking bollocks. This maybe England (part of the UK but we're all subject to the statutory laws of The UK of GB & NI. Common law is there as a precendent or to clarify parts of statutory law. The UK is not a corporation but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. Evidence please.

[Geronimo]

we're all subject to the statutory laws of The UK of GB & NI.

Subject "lying beneath" Are all people as you say? What happens if a individual says they are not? Dont they have the final say in what they lay beneath or not. Does others wants and needs supersede the individual needs?

[frogmanbrabs]

Just to correct you frogmanbrabs, you're talking bollocks. This maybe England (part of the UK but we're all subject to the statutory laws of The UK of GB & NI. Common law is there as a precendent or to clarify parts of statutory law. The UK is not a corporation but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. Evidence please.[/quote

Just to correct you Umbongo it's English I'm using NOT Bollocks. I don't know what language Bollocks is, is it the language you are using? Check out Dunn and Bradstreet and you will see that United Kingdom is a company registered on there. I do not BELONG to the United Kingdom I am a resident in the country which is known as England previously known as Albion. The United Kingdom was established in 1927 however I'm sure you are already aware of this.

As for Common Law maybe a read of the Magna Carta (That means Great Charter in English) would be useful.
Next you'll be telling me you own me.

[HVYMTL]

Only agents of the government and people who have been decieved into acting as such are subject to the legislations of parliament.

It's all very simple when you remove the layers and layers of misinformation to see through the smoke and mirrors.

The key to it all is simply to understand that courts do not deal in facts, but in presumptions. It might seem difficult to believe after a lifetime of watching court room drama's and such where they whole dramatic emphasis is on the establishment of the truth, but real courts are nothing like that at all, they make presumptions and those presumptions stand as truth unless rebutted.

The trick is they don't tell you what presumptions they are making so unless you know how it works your unable to make the correct rebuttals and thus their presumptions stand as the truth even if they are a load of garbage.

The chief presumption they make is that you are one of their employees, an officer of lower rank than themselves whome they have jurisdiction over. By simply rebutting that presumption you automatically revert to your true position and status as the master with them as the servants.

"I am not agent of the government and I was not acting as such at the time of the complaint" - bullseye!

If you make sure that that information and your knowledge of it and it's validity is known right from the start, then you won't even get summonsed. (assuming its a statutory offence)

[frogmanbrabs]

Well said HVYMTL it's just a shame we can't wake up the sheeple and bring this to their attention.

[vanilla]

Well said HVYMTL it's just a shame we can't wake up the sheeple and bring this to their attention.

It's a shame there's no evidence to support it.

[HVYMTL]

So your saying Dean Clifford is a liar? Do you have any evidence to support that?

[PiercyBear]

Read this thread and many others, its quite clear who's a troll on the pay roll. Who never adds anything of substance just plain old grief? Its obvious.

When someone posts a claim of something working without any supporting evidence, why is it anyone asking for a shred of evidence gets immediately jumped on?

Funny how Sbu asks for some evidence and is then jumped on about an implied word? lol Get a new line G, Its wearing thin.

Don't ever back up the OP with evidence G, just bash the dissenter as usual. Boring.