TV Inspectors and Gardaí

Finnbar01

A friend of mine has just been paid a visit from a TV inspector. He didn't produce a license because he doesn't have a TV, he's only after moving into his property a few weeks back.

The TV inspector didn't believe him and said he would be back with a search warrant and accompanied by two gardaí.

While I've heard of people being summonsed to court for having no TV License, I've never heard of search warrants and gardaí accompanying the inspector.

Does this happen or was TV inspector full of bluster?

MagicSean

He can request Garda support if he thinks the owner will not cooperate and they can assist in the execution of the warrant.

EDIT: I've never actually seen it happen for a tv licence though.

sellerbarry

Why didn't he just show him around his house to prove it?

Finnbar01

sellerbarry wrote: »

Why didn't he just show him around his house to prove it?

sellerbarry, that's a whole different arguement for another time. Please let's not get into that.

Finnbar01

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

He can request Garda support if he thinks the owner will not cooperate and they can assist in the execution of the warrant.

EDIT: I've never actually seen it happen for a tv licence though.

Thanks Seanbeag1, that's what I was thinking as well.

BTW, how would the inspector get the warrant in the first place. Wouldn't he have to prove that my friend has a TV but no license?

MagicSean

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Thanks Seanbeag1, that's what I was thinking as well.

BTW, how would the inspector get the warrant in the first place. Wouldn't he have to prove that my friend has a TV but no license?

Not sure. I presume he would have to go to a judge with reasonable cause.

Poly

If he doesn't have TV, let the bollox go and get a warrant,fcuk him.

Why should you let strangers into your house if you don't want them in your house?

usernamegoes

My reading of the Broadcasting Act, 2009 as it relates to the powers to search for a TV seems to purport to give the State's agents too much power.

s146(3)-
Quote:
An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable
time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining
whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for
the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place
authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place.

Surely this is ultra vires the power of the legislature to give agents of the State the power to enter and search any premises or specified place, there is no mention of warrant or even reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken.

DB10

this is the state of the country these days, the gardai are mere tax collectors.

They couldnt catch a criminal if confessed to their face.

cursai

DB10 wrote: »

this is the state of the country these days, the gardai are mere tax collectors.

They couldnt catch a criminal if confessed to their face.

Good Job! Well done. Are you from the Atheism forum!

MagicSean

DB10 wrote: »

this is the state of the country these days, the gardai are mere tax collectors.

They couldnt catch a criminal if confessed to their face.

Ah i see you've just decided to troll all Garda threads. No made up stats for this one? Did you get a speeding ticket recently by any chance?

DB10

Im not trolling at all, it is typical of the gardai tax collectors, to be involved heavily in crap like these, while real criminals run wild and corrupt politicians do as they please.

Nobody respects the gardai anymore, its a sad fact but its really true. Judging by recent news alot of them are criminals themselves which comes as no surprise.

MagicSean

DB10 wrote: »

Im not trolling at all, it is typical of the gardai tax collectors, to be involved heavily in crap like these, while real criminals run wild and corrupt politicians do as they please.

Nobody respects the gardai anymore, its a sad fact but its really true. Judging by recent news alot of them are criminals themselves which comes as no surprise.

So you've seen Gardaí enter a premises with a tv licence inspector?

Bosco boy

DB10 wrote: »

Im not trolling at all, it is typical of the gardai tax collectors, to be involved heavily in crap like these, while real criminals run wild and corrupt politicians do as they please.

Nobody respects the gardai anymore, its a sad fact but its really true. Judging by recent news alot of them are criminals themselves which comes as no surprise.

if ever I saw a troll, I can picture you

cursai

DB10 wrote: »

Im not trolling at all, it is typical of the gardai tax collectors, to be involved heavily in crap like these, while real criminals run wild and corrupt politicians do as they please.

Nobody respects the gardai anymore, its a sad fact but its really true. Judging by recent news alot of them are criminals themselves which comes as no surprise.

Are you a shell to sea campaigner or recently out of prison? OOOOOHHHHHHH i cant stand the suspense!

cickybab

Copy & Pasted from another thread. Dont know really what to make of it but its very interesting to read :cool:

---

Defined in Black's Law Dictionary: A statute is a given RULE of a society that is given the FORCE of law by the consent of the governed, do you or did you ever consent and accept to give them the force of law?

A given rule of a society - but which society? - The Law Society. (which is a registered company)

The beautiful part of this whole deception, is that neither you or I are part of The Law Society, nor are we recognized as being competent enough to translate or comprehend the Legalese Language, which is the language that these Statutes and Acts are written in. Now, if you and I are not part of The Law Society, and we are considered as "unable" to competently comprehend or translate this Legalese Language, then how can such Legislation be applied to us in any form?

The truth is that these Statutes and Acts are merely "Contracts", that are given the "force" of Law "only" by Consent of the governed, because the only form of governance that is lawful in our sovereign republic is a representative one. Representatives are elected by those whom they represent, and it is those who elect the representatives who are bound to those whom they elect. If I am not represented, and I do not elect anyone to be my representative, then how can such government claim I am bound to them and their demands if they cannot prove that they legally and lawfully represent me or my well being. It is unfortunate that this legislative system has been manipulated and abused by governmental systems in order to enforce a "nanny" state, whereby our every interaction is regulated in one form or another, or we are literally guided in one sspcific direction or another. All of this is done to promote monetary circulation and an out dated system.

Statutes and Law are two completely different things, however, we have as a society been conditioned to accept them as being one and the same when they are clearly not. However, failure to differentiate between Law and Statute is gross negligence and under common law is equivilent to fraud, since statutes are merely "rules" given the "force" of law. Having the "force" of law and "Being Law" are "not" the same.

I will use the same example I use all the time, The Television Licence. The Wireless Telegraphy and Broadcasting Act, states: that you "must" hold a valid TV licence in order to watch TV if the said TV is capable of picking up RTE. "Must" is a legalese tem that is synonimous with "may" and it does not denote "Obligaiton", because if this statute did state "obligation" then such obligation would have to be "proven" by way of producing evidence of the obligation claimed by the third party.

I stopped paying my TV Licence two years ago and have not paid for it since, I have argued with them relentlessly for over a year demanding that they "document and verify" the "obligaiton" they claim I have to them by producing a sworn affadavit under oath and attestation, for some reason the TV Licence people got very nervous by this and to this day have failed to provide any proof of the claim they made of my alleged "obligation" to them.

Everything in the Legal system and the Political System is based on contracts that have been made on behalf of the people either at a time when the people were not born, or were too young to be given the option of consenting or not, and the political institution itself holds to a belief that "all" of the people of the nation are "obliged" to accept these contracts whether or not they like it. This is simply not true and can be very easily disproven by asking whoever is enforcing the statute to "document and verify" the obligation that they claim they hold over you.

It might be a good idea to learn some of the very valuable "maxims in Law" that exist such as:

Nobody is "oblliged" to accept a benefit against their will.

Now consider this: the 2001 fraud offences act states, anyone who decieves another for the purpose of gain for himself, herself or another is guilty of an offence.

When you have An Post telling you that statute and law are the same thing and they personally do not differentiate between law and Act when they are clearly not the same thing, they are committing to deceive you for the purposes of making a profitable gain for themselves and for RTE, hence they are breaking the 2001 fraud offences act themselves. When they tell you that you are "obliged" to pay them based on an unfounded demand that can neither be documented or verified they are also breaking this act themselves.

Here is a copy of a letter I sent regarding the TV Licence:

Dear Tom Jones,

I am acknowledging reciept of your letter addressed to _______ dated 25/06/2009, noting all names and titles in CAPITALS to be Fictional, and of corporate Status. I am the third party interested in this entity.

I also wish to communicate with you in regards to our recent telephone call. In our call you said to me, that your legal advisor informed you that the TV Licence was LAW. I am sure you can understand where I am coming from here in regards to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, and it's status as a Statute and NOT a LAW it is still known as an ACT, and is therefore a Statutory Legislation.

You told me that An Post personally did not differentiate between Statutory Legislation and LAW whether based on consent or not, this denotes dictatorial enforcement which is unlawful. I wish to remind you sir that failure to differentiate between a statute and a law is Gross Negligence and is equivilent to the common law crime of Fraud. Without committing to accusations or allegation it must be noted, that it is also a serious offense if true.

Statutes are recognized as Statutory legislation as opposed to LAW for a reason. A Statute is a Commercial Contract, enforced upon the public for the benefit of a privately or semi privately owned corporation, a Statute is NOT LAW and CANNOT be given the Status of LAW by the personal opinion of any other third party corporation simply because they financially benefit from enforcing it.

A Statute can only be given the FORCE of law by CONSENT of the governed. I am NOT trying to upset anyone or rock anyone's boat here, I am simply attempting to understand why An Post feel they can enforce a Statute as LAW when the two differ substantially.

Please see the following letter below:

I _____________ a living soul agent for the legal entity _____________, do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

I am in receipt of your notice dated 25/06/2009 ref : _________. addressed to the legal entity (all caps fiction)______________ regarding an outstanding debt in the amount of €160


I conditionally accept your notice of alleged debt upon receiving the following from you :

1. Proof of debt, Validation of the actual debt (the actual accounting of the debt).

2. Full disclosure of the alleged debt. (a lawful requirement of any contract).

3. Verification of your claim against me (a hand signed sworn affidavit.).

It may be wise to take note of the following are the terms of a lawful contract:

1. Full disclosure (A Lawful requirement of ANY contract)
2. Equal consideration (Both parties must bring something to the table)
3. Lawful terms and conditions (The basis of ANY contract)
4. Signatures of the Parties/Meeting of the Minds (corporations cannot sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).
5. A copy of a two party contract, signed by two people, showing proof of an agreement between both parties to conduct business together.
6. A Statement of LAW showing where consent to any statute that is mandatory and without obligation to consent.

I demand that all of the above conditions be met and presented in Affidavit format sworn under oath or attestation, under penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability. Due to the urgency and seriousness of this allegation, I will give you seven (7) days to respond or forfiet by dishonor. If I do not receive such a response conforming to the above criteria within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that the debt is null and void and non-existent.


Sincerely and without malice, afterthought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Signed by : __________ (agent).

*****I have not recieved a response to date*******

So instead now I have a document that informed An Post that I would conditionally agree to the debt they claim only if they can offer me proof that I am under obligation to them. Sicne they did not respond, I now have a tacit agreement by their own acquiescence that the debt never existed in the first place. My response to their letters now, is simply to return their letter back to them unopened with the following label over the address window of the envelope:

Return to sender, I do not recognize you, I do not understand your intent, I do not have an international treaty with you, No assured value, no liability.

This basically tells them that until they can prove their claim against me, and until they can show me a contract whre I agreed, I am not liable. Remember, anyone who makes a claim, must be able to prove that claim or the claim cannot exist. To date, An Post have not sent me another letter.

MagicSean

I'm surprised Freemen can even use the internet. They would need to subscribe to a provider by agreeing to a contract with conditions making them subject to legislation. This would in turn make them a person subject to all legislation.

charlemont

DB10 wrote: »

Im not trolling at all, it is typical of the gardai tax collectors, to be involved heavily in crap like these, while real criminals run wild and corrupt politicians do as they please.

Nobody respects the gardai anymore, its a sad fact but its really true. Judging by recent news alot of them are criminals themselves which comes as no surprise.

I agree completely what your saying but you cant tar them all with the same brush, The whole system is corrupt so im sure plenty of Guards just don't give a damn anymore.

Im living in an apartment and have Freeview so my name wouldn't be on any list giving to the TV Licence people from Sky Chorus etc.

cickybab

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I'm surprised Freemen can even use the internet. They would need to subscribe to a provider by agreeing to a contract with conditions making them subject to legislation. This would in turn make them a person subject to all legislation.

McDonalds have free WiFi :eek:

Zambia

cickybab wrote: »

Copy & Pasted from another thread. Dont know really what to make of it but its very interesting to read :cool:

Playing it fast and loose with the word "interesting" there champ.

MagicSean

cickybab wrote: »

McDonalds have free WiFi :eek:

That would indeed be the peak of hypocrisy