Attack the tax - legal challenge to property tax

Juicee

Hello

You may be aware that the attack the tax group are taking the government, revenue and county councils to court over the legality of the household charge and property tax. The key argument they make is that the information that shall be provided in the declaration of liability (as prescribed in the household charge regulations) is:
a- name of owner
b- address of property,
c- owner's address for correspondence
d- pps number of owner,
e tax ref number if owner is a company
f- whether the property is connected to
i-a water mains
ii- a private well,
iii- a group water scheme or
iv- not connected to a water supply

no signature or date is prescribed. A declaration without these has no legal or lawful force. They say this is the reason Peter Anthony Keegan (who was the first peson to be summoned to court over non declaration of liability for household charge) hasn't been prosecuted in 5 court appearances and won't be.

I've seen the odd discussion on boards and elsewhere and people seem to be saying that the case will be thrown out and called frivolous or something along those lines (ATT plan to appeal to supreme court and Europe) but specifically what in your legal opinion is unsound about their basic argument about the declaration of liability?

Thanks

Juicee

Juicee wrote: »

Hello

You may be aware that the attack the tax group are taking the government, revenue and county councils to court over the legality of the household charge and property tax. The key argument they make is that the information that shall be provided in the declaration of liability (as prescribed in the household charge regulations) is:
a- name of owner
b- address of property,
c- owner's address for correspondence
d- pps number of owner,
e tax ref number if owner is a company
f- whether the property is connected to
i-a water mains
ii- a private well,
iii- a group water scheme or
iv- not connected to a water supply

no signature or date is prescribed. A declaration without these has no legal or lawful force. They say this is the reason Peter Anthony Keegan (who was the first peson to be summoned to court over non declaration of liability for household charge) hasn't been prosecuted in 5 court appearances and won't be.

I've seen the odd discussion on boards and elsewhere and people seem to be saying that the case will be thrown out and called frivolous or something along those lines (ATT plan to appeal to supreme court and Europe) but specifically what in your legal opinion is unsound about their basic argument about the declaration of liability?

Thanks

Are you a shareholder in Acorn?

Highlighted terms kinda give the game away about your ideas on this to be fair.

NoQuarter

You should ask here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=93

endacl

Is this a freeman thing? Freeman things are funny.

Juicee

Just to be clear, my question has nothing to do with the freeman movement.

I'd be interested in hearing people's views on the validity and legality of the declaration of liability, given that the required information that shall (which I assume for the moment means must) be provided, (as per the household charge regulations section 5) does not include a signature or date.

Here it is:

5. (1) A declaration shall be made to the relevant local authority in writing or electronically via www.householdcharge.ie.

(2) A declaration shall contain the following information:

(a) the name of the owner of the residential property (“property”) in respect of which the declaration is made;

(b) the address (and, if necessary to identify it, a description) of the property;

(c) the address for correspondence of the owner of the property;

(d) the personal public service number of the person who, in the case of an individual, is the owner of the property;

(e) the tax reference number of a company which is the owner of the property; and

(f) whether the property is connected to—

(i) a public water main,

(ii) a group water scheme and, if so, the name of the group water scheme,

(iii) a private well,

or

is not connected to a piped water supply.

Thanks

LowKeyReturn

I don't see declaration of liability simply a declaration, defined as;

“declaration” means a declaration for the purposes of section 5(1) of the Act.

Section 5(1) is as you have listed and does not require a signature or date.

I'm not following you I'm afraid.

Putting that aside and assuming you are correct, the e-commerce act might cover situations where the declaration has been made online.

Could you please show me where it states the declaration as defined in this SI must have a signature and date?

SB2013

I'm having difficulty understanding how this would work. I understand that the company is limited liability but if the assets of the company aren't large enough to cover the predicted costs of the defence would the case still go ahead?

LowKeyReturn

SB2013 wrote: »

I'm having difficulty understanding how this would work. I understand that the company is limited liability but if the assets of the company aren't large enough to cover the predicted costs of the defence would the case still go ahead?

Wasn't Lancefort or something similar on point?

ResearchWill

SB2013 wrote: »

I'm having difficulty understanding how this would work. I understand that the company is limited liability but if the assets of the company aren't large enough to cover the predicted costs of the defence would the case still go ahead?

The defendants could if they wish seek security for costs.

Bigdeadlydave

fcuk off with this freeman rubbish

LowKeyReturn

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

fcuk off with this freeman rubbish

New charter in action? :pac:

Bigdeadlydave

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

New charter in action? :pac:

Sorry to be so blunt, I dont think people should pay it, but lying to people about this is a joke, you have people (self employed people especially) signing up to this and sending the form back with a sticker being told that they will get their tax cert because they wont have to pay it while the challenge is ongoing, THIS IS A LIE and could ruin peoples already precarious businesses.

The guy running this is clearly a freeman, runs a freeman site, and runs freeman schools/courses.

LowKeyReturn

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Sorry to be so blunt, I dont think people should pay it, but lying to people about this is a joke, you have people (self employed people especially) signing up to this and sending the form back with a sticker being told that they will get their tax cert because they wont have to pay it while the challenge is ongoing, THIS IS A LIE and could ruin peoples already precarious businesses.

The guy running this is clearly a freeman, runs a freeman site, and runs freeman schools/courses.

No derogation intended!

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I don't see declaration of liability simply a declaration, defined as;

“declaration” means a declaration for the purposes of section 5(1) of the Act.

Section 5(1) is as you have listed and does not require a signature or date.

I'm not following you I'm afraid.

Putting that aside and assuming you are correct, the e-commerce act might cover situations where the declaration has been made online.

Could you please show me where it states the declaration as defined in this SI must have a signature and date?

I have not listed the household act i have listed the regulations, they are two separate documents. 5(1) of the regulations refer to 5(1). Of the act which says:

5.—(1) The owner of a residential property who, on a liability date,is liable to pay a household charge to a relevant local authority, or is entitled to a waiver from payment of a household charge under subsection(4)of section4, in respect of the year in which that liability date falls, shall make and provide to the relevant local authority a declaration stating that he or she is so liable or so entitled, as the case may be.

Also, further down the page in the regulations it says:

These Regulations set out certain procedural and related matters for the purposes of carrying the €100 household charge into effect. These include the times for payment of the household charge for a single payment and for payments by instalments, the making of the declaration of liability, the information to be provided in the declaration, the methods by which payment shall be made, prescription of the fees and expenses payable to the Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) in the performance of its functions related to the household charge and for data sharing and exchange between local authorities and the LGMA. In addition, the Schedule to the Regulations prescribes the unfinished housing estates to which a waiver from payment of the household charge applies in 2012.

So there can be no doubt that the declaration referred to in 5(1) of the regulations (and the act) is indeed the declaration of liability.

Re your point about the e commerce act, I'm afraid I'm not following you.

The E commerce act gives legal standing to e signatures. as i understand it, when you click the relevant button (eg "pay now", "commit" etc), this has the same legal standing as a written signature.

But can you show me the law says that you must click the button (or sign your name) to declare your own liability for household charge / property tax?

SB2013

Juicee wrote: »

I have not listed the household act i have listed the regulations, they are two separate documents. 5(1) of the regulations refer to 5(1). Of the act which says:

5.—(1) The owner of a residential property who, on a liability date,is liable to pay a household charge to a relevant local authority, or is entitled to a waiver from payment of a household charge under subsection(4)of section4, in respect of the year in which that liability date falls, shall make and provide to the relevant local authority a declaration stating that he or she is so liable or so entitled, as the case may be.

Also, further down the page in the regulations it says:

These Regulations set out certain procedural and related matters for the purposes of carrying the €100 household charge into effect. These include the times for payment of the household charge for a single payment and for payments by instalments, the making of the declaration of liability, the information to be provided in the declaration, the methods by which payment shall be made, prescription of the fees and expenses payable to the Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) in the performance of its functions related to the household charge and for data sharing and exchange between local authorities and the LGMA. In addition, the Schedule to the Regulations prescribes the unfinished housing estates to which a waiver from payment of the household charge applies in 2012.

So there can be no doubt that the declaration referred to in 5(1) of the regulations (and the act) is indeed the declaration of liability.

Re your point about the e commerce act, I'm afraid I'm not following you.

The E commerce act gives legal standing to e signatures. as i understand it, when you click the relevant button (eg "pay now", "commit" etc), this has the same legal standing as a written signature.

But can you show me the law says that you must click the button (or sign your name) to declare your own liability for household charge / property tax?

i think the question here is where is the law that says it's needed. That is the basis of your claim but you have not shown any evidence of its requirement.

LowKeyReturn

SB2013 wrote: »

i think the question here is where is the law that says it's needed. That is the basis of your claim but you have not shown any evidence of its requirement.

This is what I'm wondering. Could you please point out where / what basis a declaration of liability requires a signature and date please?

Ref e-commence act - I'm afraid I'm not following you either.

Juicee

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Sorry to be so blunt, I dont think people should pay it, but lying to people about this is a joke, you have people (self employed people especially) signing up to this and sending the form back with a sticker being told that they will get their tax cert because they wont have to pay it while the challenge is ongoing, THIS IS A LIE and could ruin peoples already precarious businesses.

The guy running this is clearly a freeman, runs a freeman site, and runs freeman schools/courses.

I've already said that this thread has nothing to do with the freeman movement.

I am asking a question about specific parts of the household act and regulations.

Re :people not having to pay the tax while the litigation is ongoing, see section 156 of the property tax act, which states:

(3) Subject to subsection (5), any liability to the household charge that remains undischarged on 1 July 2013 shall—
(a) be treated as a charge of €200 to local property tax that is 30 due and payable on that date, and
(b) cease to be treated as a household charge liability under the Act of 2011.

(4) The charge of €200 referred to in subsection (3) shall be pay- able to the Revenue Commissioners and all of the provisions of this 35 Act that relate to the collection of local property tax shall apply to
the charge as if it were an amount of local property tax.

(5) Subsection (3) shall not apply in respect of any liability to the household charge that is the subject of legal proceedings taken by a local authority or a relevant board under the Act of 2011 where those proceedings have been commenced before 1 July 2013 and are still in being on that date

They have set up the Acorn plc as an SPV (special purposes vehicle) in order to take the legal proceedings.

Can you explain why you believe ATT are lying with their sticker?

Juicee

SB2013 wrote: »

i think the question here is where is the law that says it's needed. That is the basis of your claim but you have not shown any evidence of its requirement.

My god I'm flabbergasted ...you quoted it in this very post.. (No 15).

:-s

Are there any legal professionals who could give an opinion on this?

ResearchWill

Juicee wrote: »

I have not listed the household act i have listed the regulations, they are two separate documents. 5(1) of the regulations refer to 5(1). Of the act which says:

5.—(1) The owner of a residential property who, on a liability date,is liable to pay a household charge to a relevant local authority, or is entitled to a waiver from payment of a household charge under subsection(4)of section4, in respect of the year in which that liability date falls, shall make and provide to the relevant local authority a declaration stating that he or she is so liable or so entitled, as the case may be.

Also, further down the page in the regulations it says:

These Regulations set out certain procedural and related matters for the purposes of carrying the €100 household charge into effect. These include the times for payment of the household charge for a single payment and for payments by instalments, the making of the declaration of liability, the information to be provided in the declaration, the methods by which payment shall be made, prescription of the fees and expenses payable to the Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) in the performance of its functions related to the household charge and for data sharing and exchange between local authorities and the LGMA. In addition, the Schedule to the Regulations prescribes the unfinished housing estates to which a waiver from payment of the household charge applies in 2012.

So there can be no doubt that the declaration referred to in 5(1) of the regulations (and the act) is indeed the declaration of liability.

Re your point about the e commerce act, I'm afraid I'm not following you.

The E commerce act gives legal standing to e signatures. as i understand it, when you click the relevant button (eg "pay now", "commit" etc), this has the same legal standing as a written signature.

But can you show me the law says that you must click the button (or sign your name) to declare your own liability for household charge / property tax?

The real question is what's a declaration, not really what it must contain. It will come down to statutory interpertation, one thing the court will look at is what is the purpose of the act and the regulation, the answer is to have relevant property owners declare their interest and certain other information. It is common for all written declarations to be signed. I believe there is no requirement to set out that a declaration be signed and dated as it would be presumed it will be signed and dated.

So I believe the courts will throw out the argument, but in reality we don't know till the ahC and then SC decide, until then we are all guessing.

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

This is what I'm wondering. Could you please point out where / what basis a declaration of liability requires a signature and date please?

Ref e-commence act - I'm afraid I'm not following you either.

Are you saying that a written declaration that is not signed or dated is valid?

hfallada

This reminds of the Americans that claim tax are unconstitutional and believe they should and dont pay for them. But are often the people that tell the government to keep their hand off their medicare

Juicee

ResearchWill wrote: »

The real question is what's a declaration, not really what it must contain. It will come down to statutory interpertation, one thing the court will look at is what is the purpose of the act and the regulation, the answer is to have relevant property owners declare their interest and certain other information. It is common for all written declarations to be signed. I believe there is no requirement to set out that a declaration be signed and dated as it would be presumed it will be signed and dated.

So I believe the courts will throw out the argument, but in reality we don't know till the ahC and then SC decide, until then we are all guessing.

Thanks, this is the first reply that makes a shred of sense (or is not obnoxious/offensive)

So you reckon that the requirement for a signature/date is implicit in law?

Personally I would disagree but as you say, it will need to go the full legal route before we know.

But this raises another question: is it legal to compel a person to sign a declaration?

Juicee

ResearchWill wrote: »

The defendants could if they wish seek security for costs.

According to ATT, their own costs will be minimal as they are not represented by barristers or solicitors. That is a good point about defence costs. ATT say in their video they have put up their own property on this (no further detail provided) and I suppose they hope to get enough €2 shareholders and donations to cover these costs. They also believe that if enough shareholders sign up, the case will be considered one of public importance and they could be awarded costs if they lose. (Like the recent Marie Fleming case)

ResearchWill

Juicee wrote: »

Thanks, this is the first reply that makes a shred of sense (or is not obnoxious/offensive)

So you reckon that the requirement for a signature/date is implicit in law?

Personally I would disagree but as you say, it will need to go the full legal route before we know.

But this raises another question: is it legal to compel a person to sign a declaration?

The answers I give are with out any research into declarations, there is by the way a statutory declarations Act 1938, which does require declarations to be signed, but this is not a statutory declaration.

The issue will require looking at other requirements for a declaration and if such law while expecting a signature actually states it, an example the upcoming non use f motor vehicles bill 2013 section 13, I can see no requirement to sign such a declaration but the system could not work unless it is so signed.

The Act and Regs don't compel a person to submit any declaration it only makes it an offence not to submit a vald declaration. With out it signed how can you go after a person afterwards if there is false information they will just say a but how do you know I submitted that delaration its not signed.

To be honest I really can't see the HC and the SC going with the "I don't have to sign a declaration cause the Act does not say I do" the court will look at the purpose and function and the meaning of a declaration and the making of a deleration. Simple interpertation you can only declare something by stating it orally to a person or more usually signing such declaration, I can think of no written declaration that does not require a signature.

ResearchWill

Juicee wrote: »

According to ATT, their own costs will be minimal as they are not represented by barristers or solicitors. That is a good point about defence costs. ATT say in their video they have put up their own property on this (no further detail provided) and I suppose they hope to get enough €2 shareholders and donations to cover these costs. They also believe that if enough shareholders sign up, the case will be considered one of public importance and they could be awarded costs if they lose. (Like the recent Marie Fleming case)

They do not come under the general public importance test, as they have a interest in the case. The quirk in the case you mention is that the Plaintiff would not get the benifit of the relief sought but her husband (no prosecution if he assisted) would and the matter was also of general public importance. I doubt these guys would get a cost order or no cost order on losing, if they really believed that they would have taken the case in their own names.

LowKeyReturn

Juicee wrote: »

Are you saying that a written declaration that is not signed or dated is valid?

I've asked you this three times now. As you've chosen to call me obnoxious are you being evasive or just thick?

Juicee

ResearchWill wrote: »

The Act and Regs don't compel a person to submit any declaration it only makes it an offence not to submit a vald declaration.

Is this not effectively the same thing?

ResearchWill wrote: »

To be honest I really can't see the HC and the SC going with the "I don't have to sign a declaration cause the Act does not say I do"

The ATT people are of a similar opinion, they believe their case will only get proper legal scrutiny when it gets to Europe...

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I've asked you this three times now. As you've chosen to call me obnoxious are you being evasive or just thick?

The irony...

Juicee

ResearchWill wrote: »

They do not come under the general public importance test, as they have a interest in the case. The quirk in the case you mention is that the Plaintiff would not get the benifit of the relief sought but her husband (no prosecution if he assisted) would and the matter was also of general public importance. I doubt these guys would get a cost order or no cost order on losing, if they really believed that they would have taken the case in their own names.

Personally I think it would boil down to the number of people who are part of he campaign..

ResearchWill

Juicee wrote: »

Is this not effectively the same thing?



The ATT people are of a similar opinion, they believe their case will only get proper legal scrutiny when it gets to Europe...

No its not you can't be forced to sign something, but it can be an offence not to sign and submit it.

How will they get it to Europe, I don't really see it as a human rights issue the interpertation of Irish tax legislation, unless they are claiming the tax itself is an attack on some human right (bit difficult to run that argument) I don't believe the ECJ has competence on Irish statutory interpertation. So I'm not sure they can get it near and European Court. Again showing their lack of knowledge on the whole thing.

I have practiced in Human Rights Law for a decade I have not got one case to either court in Europe yet. I have a friend a barrister 15 years in practice and a solicitor friend the same 15 years, they are taking their first case to the ECJ. Taking a case to either the ECHR or the ECJ for most lawyers is a once or twice in a lifetime event.

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I've asked you this three times now. As you've chosen to call me obnoxious are you being evasive or just thick?

But to answer your question, yes I think a declaration with no signature ore date is invalid. Do you think it's valid?

ResearchWill

Juicee wrote: »

Personally I think it would boil down to the number of people who are part of he campaign..

They could have name 10 or 20 each who promise to pay into a pot 5 or 10k or 100 each paying in 1k. If they really believe it put the money down. Also if there was any real chance if success any number if solicitors and barristers would take the case on pro bono.

LowKeyReturn

Juicee wrote: »

But to answer your question, yes I think a declaration with no signature ore date is invalid. Do you think it's valid?

I asked you to point me in the direction of where you get this from, you for some reason took that as an attack. I had no opinion and was quite willing to listen to the arguments put forward and attempt, for what its worth, put my own interpretations forward. Having followed this forum for quite sometime there is little point in disputing ResearchWill's interpretation it is almost always correct.

Juicee

ResearchWill wrote: »

No its not you can't be forced to sign something, but it can be an offence not to sign and submit it.

How will they get it to Europe, I don't really see it as a human rights issue the interpertation of Irish tax legislation, unless they are claiming the tax itself is an attack on some human right (bit difficult to run that argument) I don't believe the ECJ has competence on Irish statutory interpertation. So I'm not sure they can get it near and European Court. Again showing their lack of knowledge on the whole thing.

I have practiced in Human Rights Law for a decade I have not got one case to either court in Europe yet. I have a friend a barrister 15 years in practice and a solicitor friend the same 15 years, they are taking their first case to the ECJ. Taking a case to either the ECHR or the ECJ for most lawyers is a once or twice in a lifetime event.

Thanks, that's interesting info on the process of getting a case to Europe. If you look at their high court summons, the first claim is that the hhc and lpt acts are contrary to the irish constitution and international law ( this is mainly to do with the legality of the declaration, as i understand it). If they believe international law is broken I guess this is their validation to get the case to Europe.. I'm not clear on who decides whether the case can be heard in Europe or what the process is there.. FYI, I only heard about this thing myself a couple of weeks ago so am still very much in learning mode myself..

gctest50

Juicee wrote: »

But to answer your question, yes I think a declaration with no signature ore date is invalid. Do you think it's valid?

Whatever about that, wouldn't these parts be a problem to them ?

Juicee wrote: »

(5) Subsection (3) shall not apply in respect of any liability to the household charge that is the subject of legal proceedings taken by a local authority or a relevant board under the Act of 2011 where those proceedings have been commenced before 1 July 2013 and are still in being on that date

since they are neither a local authority or relevant ?

Don't know much about this stuff

Juicee

gctest50 wrote: »

Whatever about that, wouldn't these parts be a problem to them ?



since they are neither a local authority or relevant ?

Don't know much about this stuff

I think the board of acorn plc are considered a relevant board, but correct Me if I'm wrong..

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I asked you to point me in the direction of where you get this from, you for some reason took that as an attack. I had no opinion and was quite willing to listen to the arguments put forward and attempt, for what its worth, put my own interpretations forward. Having followed this forum for quite sometime there is little point in disputing ResearchWill's interpretation it is almost always correct.

I wasn't referring to you as being obnoxious (until you started asking Me if I'm thick) but your earlier posts didn't make much sense IMO

Can you please reiterate the question you are asking me?

ResearchWill

Juicee wrote: »

Thanks, that's interesting info on the process of getting a case to Europe. If you look at their high court summons, the first claim is that the hhc and lpt acts are contrary to the irish constitution and international law ( this is mainly to do with the legality of the declaration, as i understand it). If they believe international law is broken I guess this is their validation to get the case to Europe.. I'm not clear on who decides whether the case can be heard in Europe or what the process is there.. FYI, I only heard about this thing myself a couple of weeks ago so am still very much in learning mode myself..

Claiming a breach of the constitution and or the ECHR is not enough they must state what article of each that is breached and how.

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I asked you to point me in the direction of where you get this from, you for some reason took that as an attack. I had no opinion and was quite willing to listen to the arguments put forward and attempt, for what its worth, put my own interpretations forward. Having followed this forum for quite sometime there is little point in disputing ResearchWill's interpretation it is almost always correct.

Well common sense tells me a declaration isn't worth anything if its not signed, but one of researchwill's earlier posts refers to a 1938 act that's states this, so I'm sure you will hold that in high regard....

LowKeyReturn

Juicee wrote: »

I wasn't referring to you as being obnoxious (until you started asking Me if I'm thick) but your earlier posts didn't make much sense IMO

Can you please reiterate the question you are asking me?

You assert that a declaration of liability must be signed and dated. On what do you base this assertion?

Juicee

ResearchWill wrote: »

Claiming a breach of the constitution and or the ECHR is not enough they must state what article of each that is breached and how.

Makes sense to me. I'd imagine they plan to do so... I intend to try and get an understanding of this myself...

LowKeyReturn

Juicee wrote: »

Well common sense tells me a declaration isn't worth anything if its not signed, but one of researchwill's earlier posts refers to a 1938 act that's states this, so I'm sure you will hold that in high regard....

So on the one hand you refer to an act that states something and accept this and on the other look at another act and reject it? Again not an attack I'm trying to understand the logic.

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

You assert that a declaration of liability must be signed and dated. On what do you base this assertion?

Common sense and this

Can you explain how an unsigned declaration has validity? As researchwill says,

"With out it signed how can you go after a person afterwards if there is false information they will just say a but how do you know I submitted that delaration its not signed"

LowKeyReturn

I think we need to discount common sense. It strikes me as one of those 'people say' and 'statistics prove' type statements.

You also seem to be forming an opinion as you go along. There's nothing wrong with that, it's what I'm trying to do. To scoff at others for doing exactly what you are doing does seem a tad hypocritical however.

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I think we need to discount common sense. It strikes me as one of those 'people say' and 'statistics prove' type statements.

You also seem to be forming an opinion as you go along. There's nothing wrong with that, it's what I'm trying to do. To scoff at others for doing exactly what you are doing does seem a tad hypocritical however.

Look earlier on there were a few posts by others that were genuinely obnoxious - you yourself quoted the obnoxious posts and were using these as a call for this thread to be banned or merged with the freeman mega merge, look at your posts # 11 and 13.

Your tone has changed since then.

I am here to learn not fight.

I have no doubt tha a declaration is worthless unless signed.

I ask you again:

"With out it signed how can you go after a person afterwards if there is false information they will just say a but how do you know I submitted that delaration its not signed"

Juicee

Juicee wrote: »

I am here to learn not fight.

I have no doubt that a declaration is worthless unless signed.

These two are not compatible.

Juicee

Deleted User wrote: »

These two are not compatible.

How so?

Juicee

Juicee wrote: »

How so?

No doubt implies you aren't open minded that you may be completely incorrect and subscribing to a nonsense voodoo legal mumbo-jumbo.

Juicee

Deleted User wrote: »

No doubt implies you aren't open minded that you may be completely incorrect and subscribing to a nonsense voodoo legal mumbo-jumbo.

While you in the other hand have contributed nothing but ad hominem attacks to this thread.

Perhaps you could answer this question about declarations:

"With out it signed how can you go after a person afterwards if there is false information they will just say a but how do you know I submitted that delaration its not signed"

LowKeyReturn

Juicee wrote: »

Look earlier on there were a few posts by others that were genuinely obnoxious - you yourself quoted the obnoxious posts and were using these as a call for this thread to be banned or merged with the freeman mega merge, look at your posts # 11 and 13.

Your tone has changed since then.

I simply stated I wasn't being derogatory to another poster. My tone has changed - I am getting annoyed. I actually made a mistake by not reading your post correctly where you may have simply implied I was being unclear rather than obnoxious. That said I asked it you where being evasive or thick. Lets assume you were being the former and I'll assume unintentionally.

Juicee wrote: »

I am here to learn not fight.

Grand so lets but the silliness behind us.

EDIT: I see how you have misinterpreted post #11 - The charter allows flaming of Freeman discussions; it was simply a reference to that rule. That said I can be flippant and am sometimes not taken in the spirit intended.

Juicee wrote: »

I have no doubt tha a declaration is worthless unless signed.

Okay but I'm still not clear why. I've read the 1938 and 1835 acts. I'm not sure they apply. That said it's not crazy to assume they back up your question about Anthony Keegan, perhaps not literally but perhaps it raises the question.

Juicee wrote: »

I ask you again:

"With out it signed how can you go after a person afterwards if there is false information they will just say a but how do you know I submitted that delaration its not signed"

I don't really have a fully formed opinion on this. It's what I've been trying to get by asking questions. That said in this instance I'd say it's because the act does not require it.

Perhaps I might clarify what I think is being said here.

(i) PT not valid because signature not required on declaration
(ii) Take to court - probably lose due to the court siding with the government and not being impartial. (I don't agree but hey lets say this for the sake of argument.)
(iii) Appeal made to Europe in some form.

So if Europe say it wasn't valid surely all that will happen is it will be refunded and the money (plus the legal costs) put on the next round of taxes which will be better drafted or am I missing something here?

Juicee

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I simply stated I wasn't being derogatory to another poster. My tone has changed - I am getting annoyed. I actually made a mistake by not reading your post correctly where you may have simply implied I was being unclear rather than obnoxious. That said I asked it you where being evasive or thick. Lets assume you were being the former and I'll assume unintentionally.



Grand so lets but the silliness behind us.

EDIT: I see how you have misinterpreted post #11 - The charter allows flaming of Freeman discussions; it was simply a reference to that rule. That said I can be flippant and am sometimes not taken in the spirit intended.



Okay but I'm still not clear why. I've read the 1938 and 1835 acts. I'm not sure they apply. That said it's not crazy to assume they back up your question about Anthony Keegan, perhaps not literally but perhaps it raises the question.



I don't really have a fully formed opinion on this. It's what I've been trying to get by asking questions. That said in this instance I'd say it's because the act does not require it.

Perhaps I might clarify what I think is being said here.

(i) PT not valid because signature not required on declaration
(ii) Take to court - probably lose due to the court siding with the government and not being impartial. (I don't agree but hey lets say this for the sake of argument.)
(iii) Appeal made to Europe in some form.

So if Europe say it wasn't valid surely all that will happen is it will be refunded and the money (plus the legal costs) put on the next round of taxes which will be better drafted or am I missing something here?

Yes I too have no doubt that if the tax was defeated they would look to get the money in some other way (I would hope it'd be from those who could afford it rather than struggling homeowners, unlikely as that sounds)

Perhaps defeating the government in a high profile case in europe would bring about more significant changes to who we allow to govern us (again unlikely) but its better than rolling over and taking this unfair tax (and those to follow it) without a fight