That Household Tax

Sully

So I spotted this on Facebook;

How you don’t have to legally pay Household Tax!!-
You wont get a bill because the charge is a Statute. People need to understand this: A Statute is a “legislated rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.”(Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition). Who are those it governs? Us, the public.
This household charge is a Statute, otherwise known as an Act of Government and only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it which means that your legally obliged to pay if you consent or in other words go on to householdcharge.ie and register.
Your silence and inaction will also give the appearance of consent. If you do not consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever.
The courts know this and the last thing they will do is tell you. In fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity they can.
On the other hand, if you tell them, they will accept it because they know it is actually true.
According to the above definitions a statutory instrument is a contract. If you register for this “charge” you are consenting to this statuate ie: signing the contract. This is why the Government are ASKING the people to register and not just billing them instead.

Apparently this is also being distributed in leaflets also. How accurate is the information they are spreading?

Paulw

Totally false rubbish that will end up with you in court. :rolleyes:

Midnight Sundance

Yeah I was only thinking bout the exact same question earlier!

Our man in Havana

This is already in the Freeman Mega Bullcrap thread.

MagicSean

Statute isn't binding? I'm off out robbing so.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Loving the way people will readily accept legal advice through Facebook, written by someone who doesn't know the difference between your and you're

sh1tstirrer

Paulw wrote: »

Totally false rubbish that will end up with you in court. :rolleyes:

Please explain your reason that it is rubbish.

sh1tstirrer

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

Please explain your reason that it is rubbish.

"Act of Government and only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it"

So, by that logic, the following not apply to me if I do not consent:

1. Section 4 Rape under the 1990 Act

2. Theft under Section 4 of the 2001 Act

3. Poisoning under Section 12 of the 1997 Act.

That's why it's bull****. Once you extrapolate this stuff out even a little bit from the narrow scaremongering and populist nonsense where it thrives the entire rhetorical position disintegrates under the glare of basic common sense.

Sully

It still doesn't explain why though. Also other stuff being spouted includes the charge that would stay on a house would only last for 12 years and would need a court case before it would stick for that period.

Sully

Sully wrote: »

It still doesn't explain why though.

Explain please.

Sully

Deleted User wrote: »

Explain please.

I'm not being smart but it doesn't address what they say. On what legal grounds specifically is it wrong, bar quoting other very serious laws based on the same idea.

MagicSean

Sully wrote: »

I'm not being smart but it doesn't address what they say. On what legal grounds specifically is it wrong, bar quoting other very serious laws based on the same idea.

It's a misinterpretation. They assume consent as an individual option whereas it is actually a consent from a majority of citizens, which is given by our publicly elected representatives on our behalf. It's the foundation of our system of government.

Avatargh

Sully wrote: »

I'm not being smart but it doesn't address what they say. On what legal grounds specifically is it wrong, bar quoting other very serious laws based on the same idea.

Are you serious? You can't read this and figure out what is crazy?

Ok. Lets look at it: "A Statute is a “legislated rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.”(Blacks Law Dictionary 4th edition). Who are those it governs? Us, the public." That's not particularly crazy, but it's not necessarily correct either. It's a pretty broad philosophical statement. Anyway, we could work with that...revolutions seem to work and so on.

Now: "This household charge is a Statute, otherwise known as an Act of Government and only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it which means that your legally obliged to pay if you consent or in other words go on to householdcharge.ie and register." What explanation do you need about this? So, ok, its "in" a Statute not "a" Statute, and it only carries force of law if we consent? Jesus, I mean...how about applying this to the rest of your life. Suddenly I don't "consent" to drink driving laws, or maybe other tax laws etc. It hardly needs explanation.


Then: "If you do not consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever." Fair enough...think that if you want. Equally, gravity doesn't affect me unless I consent and like the man said, I believe I can fly.

Then: "The courts know this and the last thing they will do is tell you. In fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity they can". And so the nut-job element reveals itself. Its not simply that they have a good idea, or a decent way of thinking, but that its all a conspiracy and the courts know all these "secrets" but they won't tell you!

Then: "On the other hand, if you tell them, they will accept it because they know it is actually true." This is an empirical statement. It is not a theory. The person is describing a fact - if you say all this, the Court will accept it. That's a lie.

Then: "According to the above definitions a statutory instrument is a contract. If you register for this “charge” you are consenting to this statuate ie: signing the contract. This is why the Government are ASKING the people to register and not just billing them instead." Again, an empirical fact not based on anything.

This is all absolute and utter rubbish.

There is a nice theory underlying it that, perhaps, governance truly needs consent of the people to be legitimate, but that's hardly new. These nuts, however, seek to transpose the theory into actual law and to tell anyone who will listen that this isn't just an idea but, in fact, law which will "work" in Court. This ends up getting normal (and also gullible and thick) people into trouble when they walk into Court on their drink driving charge, with about ten of these nut jobs in tow and proudly tell the Court that "I don't consent".

In any event, even if you respect the theory its all very optional. If you believe governance is about consent, then these people can't account for why they won't consent to law's they don't like, but consent to use the public roads, drink water provided for by the State and so on.

This is childish stuff. It is its own explanation.

Avatargh

Deleted User wrote: »

Once you extrapolate this stuff out even a little bit from the narrow scaremongering and populist nonsense where it thrives the entire rhetorical position disintegrates under the glare of basic common sense.

Best summary I've read.

Our man in Havana

There really should be a "Control of Freemen Act" to deal with these nutters.

234

Our man in Havana wrote: »

There really should be a "Control of Freemen Act" to deal with these nutters.

Not that they would consent to it.

Carawaystick

How does the fact govt. are using the word for "family" (Teaghlach) as "household", while refusing to allow gay marriage hold up?

Did the Supremes misunderstand this when they were deciding whatever case back in the day?