TV Licence Man and Policeman are educated to what the LAW is

[Bongo]

Here is a video of 2 men standing up to a warrant claiming they can enter the premises to search for a TV. The warrant has no authority and the man from the BBC tries his best to convince them with a police officer present that it is lawful.

Shameful display by the police even turning up at the premises to give the deception of authority and infringing on peoples rights.

Its a good thing the guys in the video know their rights.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=m1mjTjL6k1Q

[Carmody]

The part that baffles me, is that anyone would want a TV. It's like wanting and coveting child molestation.



PS, the guy who tries to convince that it is lawful is up for a misrepresentation and falsification lawsuit. Big time. They even have it on tape.

[Bongo]

The thing about this that bugs me is... how many other warrants get handed to police officers for other make believe crimes unrelated to a TV warrant for them to issue to people unlawfully to intimidate them into getting their way so they can violate peoples rights.

This video shows that even if a police officer is present, challenge the warrant being given out. Even the police officer admitted after being challenged that he didn't have the authority to break the door down, which translates to, if he had used force to enter the premises then he would have broken the law.

A little bit of education goes a long way.

[airaspect]

I fail to understand why do You applaud these two guys. Policeman handed them a warrant singed up by a judge. It's not like they got pushed around by a brutal police officers - it was just a TV inspection. Of course i don't know British law but it's very plausible that they were obliged to let the policeman in.

Just because the policeman wasn't sure about the law or just decided not to take further actions doesn't mean he was wrong. Could someone elaborate.

[kaon]

Now that really gave me a good laugh Kudos to those guys for standing their ground. That same scenario may not have played out so well in the U.S. as the police don't normally exhibit such patience.

TV's have to be licensed in the U.K. ? At first I thought it may have something to do with cable theft, but I guess not.

[Bongo]

Posted by airaspect (here)
I fail to understand why do You applaud these two guys. Policeman handed them a warrant singed up by a judge. It's not like they got pushed around by a brutal police officers - it was just a TV inspection. Of course i don't know British law but it's very plausible that they were obliged to let the policeman in.

Just because the policeman wasn't sure about the law or just decided not to take further actions doesn't mean he was wrong. Could someone elaborate.

We live in a common law society, these guys were trying to enforce a statute law as if it was a common law. In order for you to be charged with a statute law you have to accept responsibility for the apparent crime committed i.e. not paying a TV licence, speeding tickets & the rest.
Common law is basically, don't hurt anyone & don't steal from anyone, if someone hurts or steals from someone they have broken the law and you can be arrested on the spot by the police no questions asked.
Statute law is parliamentary acts that the politicians come up with regularly that cover everything else, if a police officer sees you breaking one of these he will tell you that you have broken the law without arresting you (because he doesn't have the authority) so that gives you time to take responsibility and once you have took responsibility you can then be arrested. they need you to take responsibility, they need your consent, they will be crafty trying to get it but know your rights and stand up for them.

Research The Strawman Illusion and look in to the legal/lawful side of it and you will start to see how the system works. The law is actually set up like this in a lot of countries, so it would be worth while looking in to Common & Statute law from your country.

Posted by kaon (here)
Now that really gave me a good laugh Kudos to those guys for standing their ground. That same scenario may not have played out so well in the U.S. as the police don't normally exhibit such patience.

TV's have to be licensed in the U.K. ? At first I thought it may have something to do with cable theft, but I guess not.

Unfortunately TV's need to be licensed in the UK because of the BBC. The BBC asks people to pay a TV licence fee because they don't have adverts, they only have about 10 channels (I think, I've not watched TV in years lol) and there are about roughly 80 to 100 channels. they don't send it out on an encrypted channel either they just expect you to pay for it because they say so and if you don't you get treated like in the video.

I think they should send out their channels encrypted so that when people know they have the choice no one will buy them and they will go bust... lol... but I get the idea that that is exactly the reason they don't.

[sigma6]

Posted by airaspect (here)
I fail to understand why do You applaud these two guys. Policeman handed them a warrant singed up by a judge. It's not like they got pushed around by a brutal police officers - it was just a TV inspection. Of course i don't know British law but it's very plausible that they were obliged to let the policeman in.

Just because the policeman wasn't sure about the law or just decided not to take further actions doesn't mean he was wrong. Could someone elaborate.

WRONG... you can't exercise authority from a position of ignorance by definition. And even if that was valid the police and the corporate shill left, of their own free will, that's tacit agreement at the very least...(good job) it just freaks me out when people try to convince themselves that they have to open the door to the police and let them in... I see this all the time now, people have so much misinformation from the sophisticated media, they are actually programming themselves.

Try this on, "I don't understand what you are on about, I don't recognize you or anything that you are talking about, therefore I cannot consent to anything..." they clearly stated it was a private corporation, operating under a statutory act.

But actually I am amazed at how 'civil' the police are over there... guess they understand the liability issues better. He was touching on the NAME issue, and that is correct the NAME is NOT to be used for identification, and IT IS CLEARLY STATED on British IDS (remarkably!) BTW Can anyone from the UK give me a direct quote of what it says exactly? (please and thank you)

And he is right that the government is holding the title to the NAME which means anything registered in that NAME the government is liable for, they are liable simply because of the fact that they are holding it. The part a lot are still missing is that the NAME is actually yours... but the Government is holding it. It's the fact that it is yours and the government is holding it that makes them liable. If I was holding your keys, I don't become the owner, and if I should do anything damaging I would be liable. Stating that the NAME is yours and you're also aware that the government is holding what is yours (notice how I avoid the word "own"?) and that they are by definition liable is a big issue...

And please put up that quote Loony, would love for everybody to see it... to spread some awareness. I think a lot of people are having a hard time conceptualizing that the Birth Certificate is NOT EVIDENCE of IDENTIFICATION and never referred to as such in any government documentation, people do it themselves (and thus bind themselves) I better stop here... (lol)

[bogeyman]

When I didn't have a tv they visited me 9 times, I told them in writing, on the phone in person, yet they still kept coming round. I was harassed so much I got a tv!

[Paranormal]

The police aren't here to help. They don't have to help anyone with any crime. I personally am so fed up with Police I won't even speak to them - I'll hang-up the phone and won't answer my door.

[kesom]

as far as i know in the UK the police oath is to protect from theft,injury and damage to you and or your property basically

if you use/give your name you are representing yourself as a company and you are entering into maritime law............thats why the judge gets you to approach the bench when you finally get to court,when you pass into the doc you are basically stepping onto a ship and can be tried under maritime law !

and an act/statute of law can only be imposed if the person acknowledges the act/statute

this is my basic understanding of british law

the law is a tool which is used on the public very frequently in all countries to keep them in line,this we all know but wouldnt it be great if we had a lot better understanding of the law and could use it to our advantage

its such a murky subject when you look into freeman/common/maritime law that you can never be sure if your case is gonna stand up in court when you get there,from what ive seen if they get your signature on anything they'll use it as ID and your screwed

i think once you have even a driving license you are representing yourself as a company and can be tried under maritime law because you would have signed the application in your name and represented yourself as a company/ slave basically !

is there anybody out there that can comment that has genuine knowledge of the law that could clear up and or advise on the law

i know in the US ye have blacks law dictionary for lawyers to study
but for the uk im not so sure how applicable it is

good vid but i'd rather see how the fight ends up rather than the second or third round of a 12 rounder
thanks for sharing

peace K

[Mad Hatter]

Posted by kesom (here)
im not so sure how applicable it is

Admiralty/maritime + law merchant law = UCC (uniform commercial code) = basically the international law of commerce and therefore applies across all UN signatories and do note that international treaties almost always over ride any local laws.

The whole thing is based on CONtracts especially the three cornered types otherwise referred to as Trusts so you will find your remedy by studying these. Note this may take a decade or two as this is the deepest rabbit hole available to fall into...

Next step of course is finding a court that is not the equivalent of a star chamber where dems dat has da gunz makes da rulez on behalf of dem dat holdz da gold so good luck with that.

Advanced students may want to look into liens and bonds if not having done so already.

If you wish to see a really elegant example of how to use the system against the system check out the OPPT UCC filings. Basically they have legal paper, of standing (i.e. unrebutted), which has foreclosed on ALL corporations world wide (includes most governments).

Sweet stuff but once again the problem they have is enforcement against those with the gunz n gold...

hmm... taking a cue from sigma6..."I better stop here"....

PS On this thread is a really good vid on how and why we are all so easily swindled by dint of the fact that we simply fail to questions...

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ian-Government

[Akasha]

I showed the OP video to a retired parliamentary solicitor to try and gain some perspective. He said that they probably decided to take a non-confrontational approach at that stage since evidence of obstruction had occurred and would likely be back to pursue that resulting in the offender being "hauled up in front of the judge and being fined for obstruction".....and then get back to the tv licence issue. The communications act 2003 (quoted by the TV licence officer in the video), section 366, subsection 8 states:

8) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of any power conferred on that person by virtue of a warrant under this section; or
(b) without reasonable excuse, fails to give any assistance that he is under a duty to give by virtue of subsection (7).

Subsection 7 states:

(7) Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty—

(a) of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and
(b) in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched,to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out.

The solicitor I spoke to also said that statute law trumps common law. Maybe Rob Menard would be able to persuade him otherwise in a court of law though. I am really not in a position to judge. Any Avalonian lawyers/solicitors able to shed some light on the matter?

[sigma6]

Looney Bogey or anyone from UK, can you please pull out your BC and just post what it says on the BC regarding the Identification...!!!??? Thank you....

[Conchis]

This situation seems almost identical to another post here ( https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...er-protestors- ) that deals with installing smart meters in the US. In the US the people were arrested pretty much on the spot. I won't get into the free person discussion because I have not followed that logic, but the policeman standing at the door has the ability to, and usually will, exercise their physical control over the people under these kinds of statutes. Statutes modify common law. Common law is the law that is followed in the absence of a specific statute that controls a situation.

I was impressed with the officer stating that he was there only to assure that there was not a breach of peace. The idea that private enterprises have access to the police force to enforce these industry specific laws really is just another brick in the wall. One day we can probably expect the copyright police to show up at your house with a search warrant stating that a confidential, reliable informant had seen illegal copyrighted material in your house and they were there to search for it. The Warner Bros. police force. (are they still in business?)

[Bongo]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
Looney Bogey or anyone from UK, can you please pull out your BC and just post what it says on the BC regarding the Identification...!!!??? Thank you....

I've been trying to find it with no luck so far, if I find it I will post what it says.

Posted by Akasha (here)
The solicitor I spoke to also said that statute law trumps common law.

thats not true, the below explains why

Copy & pasted from here
http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8989

First and foremost, there is “Law” and there is “Legal”. The only LAW (in England and Wales) is The Common Law. This comes from our innate Common Sense on “how to live together in peace with our neighbours”.

It was first documented – to some extent – in 1215 – in a document called the Magna Carta. Halsbury’s Laws of England states that quite clearly, and refers to the Magna Carta 1215 as the founding document of the British Constitution.

Do NOT be fooled by the Magna Carta STATUTE of 1297. This is a pale imitation of the 1215 TREATY … and anything the 1297 Statute leaves out/ignores … is still in the 1215 Treaty!

In Law (i.e. the Common Law) Truth is Sovereign. It is the most important thing. That’s why, in a Common Law Court, with a Jury … the Jury is only allowed to hear FIRST-HAND knowledge, and has to swear to “Tell The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but The Truth”. On pain of perjury, if they lie. This system can never be 100% … but it is the best we can do in order to ascertain The Truth.

Because only by ascertaining The Truth, do the guilty get their just desserts, while the innocent go free.

Even today, in High Courts and Crown Courts, we have observed great emphasis, and due diligence, in these aspects of the application of Law.

The only problem, in point of fact, with High/Crown Courts, is that the Judges think they can “direct the Jury to a Verdict”. This is the only bit when it all goes wrong. The British Constitution defines a Jury verdict as sacrosanct and “untouchable” … because the Jury is “making the Law” for that particular circumstance.

The Common Law – THE Law – can ONLY be made by Juries (after hearing VERBAL FIRST-HAND testimony, sworn under penalty of perjury) OR by WRITTEN FIRST-HAND testimony, sworn under penalty of perjury) in a Statement of Truth.

It is not possible “make Law” in any other way.

That’s Law … and LAWFUL. (Remember: The Truth is Sovereign)

Now we come on to “Legal”.

First of all, since the British Constitution and Common Law were ‘founded’ in 1215, then the first recognised “Parliament”, in 1295, was created UNDER The Common Law.

Thus ALL Parliaments exists UNDER The Common Law, and ARE SUBSERVIENT TO The Common Law.

Any Act/Statute that deviates from the principles of the British Constitution is NULL & VOID, in Law.

“Fixed Penalty Notices” are, therefore, null & void and totally UNLAWFUL, by definition … because the Magna Carta 1215 specifically says that “No property shall be removed from anyone - unless based on the Verdict of a Jury”.

Actually most of the Acts/Statutes, that have been passed by various Parliaments over the years, EITHER deviate from The Common Law (and are, therefore, null & void) OR they support The Common Law, and are thus REDUNDANT.

An Act of Parliament/Statute is “Legal”.

Whereas, in Law, Truth is Sovereign, in the case of “Legal” the Truth really doesn’t matter a damn. And that's what makes "Legal" and "Lawful" complete OPPOSITES.

Magistrates so-called ‘Courts’ and County so-called ‘Courts’ operate in “Legal” and – within that room – The Truth doesn’t matter a damn. All that matters is ONE or THREE PSYCHOPATH’S INTERPRETATION of “Legals/Rules” – which will be bent out of as much shape as may be necessary – in order to screw you and rubber-stamp AGAINST you. (The reason is: Instead of standing up for yourself, you should be rolling over, and playing dead … just like they expect you to. And, if you don’t, they will ****ing-well make sure that you roll over and play dead!)

Magistrates ‘Courts’, and County ‘Courts’ are no more “Courts of Law” than a Tennis Court or a Squash Court. In point of fact they are (what is known as) Star Chambers. Historically, a Star Chamber was where you were taken in order to have your life destroyed by a Psychopath. The room would have a Star painted on the ceiling. “Star Chambers” are actually banned (and have been for a very long time) … so they call them a “County” or “Magistrates” Courts.

Clever innit? All they need are “words” … and one thing they are is Master Wordsmiths.

You cannot be in “Contempt of Court” in a Magistrates or County Court … simply because it’s not a Court. IN POINT OF FACT, the functionaries of the Star Chamber (Judge, Magistrates, Clerk, Security, Usher etc.) are THOROUGHLY GUILTY of Contempt of a REAL Court (of Law).

I saw a recent email wherein a Police Sergeant had written to someone as follows:

“The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution. The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown and created a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament). The Bill of Rights also enshrined into English law (for at that time there was no United Kingdom) the prohibition on any impeachment for words or deed made in Parliament.”

That is a complete load of bollocks, and shows that the Sergeant knows very little about Constitutions, and even less about Law. And someone on this list will be telling the Sergeant so).

The FACTS are:

Constitutions are fundamentally FIXED, and INVIOLATE. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THEM! In order to modify the Constitution (something a Nation always does with extreme care & caution), it is necessary to hold a Constitutional Conference ... whereby ALL aspects of the Constitutional Amendment are very carefully considered by Constitutional EXPERTS (not 630+ poxy MPs!). It has already been said that "One tampers with a Constitution at one's extreme risk".

When was the last time you heard of the convening of a Constitutional Conference? You didn't hear of one? Well, that would be about right, because there hasn't been one in my lifetime, either.

Consequently, the Constitution stands as written, and I suggest the Police Sergeant (a) Reads it very carefully, and (b) Starts to abide by it ... instead of expecting it to morph into whatever he - or Parliament - currently desire it to be.

"Parliament has nothing whatsoever to do with the British Constitution. (Do you SERIOUSLY think we could leave Constitutional matters to the 630+ expenses-fiddling jokers in the House of Commons?????) .

"Parliament" was created UNDER the Common Law. And was, therefore, created UNDER the British Constitution - the founding document for the Constitution (according to Halsbury's Laws of England) being the Magna Carta 1215.

"Parliament" is, therefore SUBSERVIENT TO the Common Law and the British Constitution. This means that - if any Act of Parliament is passed that contravenes the British Constitution, then that Act is NULL & VOID in LAW

I’ve already given the example of Fixed Penalty Notices which contravene the Common Law and thus the British Constitution. Therefore any implementation of that Act is a CRIMINAL ACT

… FACT!

Now let’s come to the recent case in Worcester. The Judge (Nigel Cadbury) was taken on, a parlayed with. As usual he ignored everything that was said to him, and declared the action (by Guy: of the Taylor family) to be ‘vexatious’. Well, Guy was a bit miffed about another so-called Judge (QC/Purple Robe) attempting to take away Guy’s INALIENABLE Rights. “INALIENABLE” means “IN-A-LIEN-ABLE”, in other words to be capable of being in Commerce.

During this so-called “Hearing-when-no-one-was-actually-Listening”, Cadbury claimed (and this is the second time he’s claimed it in our presence) to “have Common Law Jurisdiction”.

This shows he knows absolutely NOTHING, and here’s the reason why:

Putting aside the fact that Statutes aren't "Law" ... it is IMPOSSIBLE for a SINGLE HUMAN BEING to have "Common Law jurisdiction".

Why?

Because: England & Wales are "Common Law jurisdictions" ... which means that the Common Law applies in those two COUNTRIES.

A COUNTRY can BE 'a Common Law jurisdiction'.

But the application of the Common Law requires a Jury. In other words ... if a COUNTRY IS "a Common Law jurisdiction", then crimes are determined by TWELVE HUMANS ... called a Jury ... or by Statements of Truth signed under pain of perjury.

"Common Law jurisdiction" is something a COUNTRY IS (or IS NOT)

"Common Law jurisdiction" is not something that any single Human Being can 'have'.


The whole point about the Magna Carta 1215 Treaty, was to take “making the Law” OUT of the hands of ONE SINGLE PERSON (i.e. the King, or his subordinates, the Sheriffs and their lackeys the Bailiffs - or some other Tyrant), and place “making the Law-of-the-Land” in the hands of 12 ‘impartials’ i.e. “a Jury of one’s peers”.

The idea (and it was a good idea) is that The Law is all about “living in peace with one’s neighbours” and a Jury would have a good idea how that was done, by simply listening to their in-built Common Sense.

If the Jury – having heard all the evidence & circumstances – reckoned that they would do the same thing themselves – in those same circumstances – then the Accused was NOT guilty. If the Jury reckoned that the Accused “shouldn’t have done that … because they, themselves, wouldn’t have done that”, then the Accused was guilty of a crime.

And this took the whole thing out of the hands of some Psychopathic King (or his Courtiers/psychopathic craven suck-ups).
Grand Juries

The “Creators of Legals” (i.e. “Parliament”) cannot get rid of Grand Juries, and so in the early 1930s they ‘subsumed’ them. They subsumed the idea of a Grand Jury in favour of Magistrates Star Chambers, and the forerunners of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – and a certain amount of interaction from Police Forces.

Which means that we are back to a few naïve or psychopathic people who can determine who actually gets prosecuted, and for what, and how. (We are back to “The Rule of Man”, rather than “The Rule of Law”).

However, Grand Juries are NOT dead. They are a Common Law mechanism, and can be ‘resurrected’ to replace Magistrates Star Chambers & the CPS.

Then one could place a Complaint to the Foreman of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury has the power to DEMAND ANY INFORMATION THEY REQUIRE (“National Security” would not count/be irrelevant - BECAUSE A GRAND JURY DELIBERATES/DISCUSSES IN SECRET!), in order to determine whether or not someone should be indicted on the basis of the Complaint. The original idea was a Grand Jury of 23, such that a Majority Verdict of 12 was possible. On the basis of a Majority of 12, someone would be indicted, and stand Trial in front of the regular (Pettit) Jury of 12 … who would have to reach a unanimous Verdict in order to convict.

That was the system (and is still the system in America).

And there is no reason why it shouldn’t be the system once again. Members of the Grand Jury would need to be elected, and thus accountable - such that if they fail to honour Complaints made to them, they can be chucked out for failure to do their job. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A NON-PAID POSITION (i.e. expenses only) in order to reduce the possibilities for 'back-handers'.

[sigma6]

if I find it I will post what it says

Boingggggg!!!???

I would be carrying a copy of the BC at ALL times. But there you have it. It looks like we are going back to the fundamentals. The BC is NOT identification, it's indemnification. But YOU have to stop using it as identification...

Is there ANYONE from the UK that can type out verbatim the sentence on their BC to illustrate the point about not using the BC as identification??? There's at least one dude/dudette from the UK with a BC!?

[vje2]

Bogeyman

I hear you loud and clear!
I myself was harrassed big time, visits, letters etc... at the end I decided not to pay any attention.
I eventually rented out my flat and left.
I have not watched tv in years , nor do I owned a TV!

[Bongo]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

if I find it I will post what it says

Boingggggg!!!???

I would be carrying a copy of the BC at ALL times. But there you have it. It looks like we are going back to the fundamentals. The BC is NOT identification, it's indemnification. But YOU have to stop using it as identification...

Is there ANYONE from the UK that can type out verbatim the sentence on their BC to illustrate the point about not using the BC as identification??? There's at least one dude/dudette from the UK with a BC!?

Patience is a virtue mate

give me half a chance to find it

[Akasha]

Posted by Loony (here)

Posted by Akasha (here)
The solicitor I spoke to also said that statute law trumps common law.

thats not true..................

Regardless, I suspect (to quote Mad Hatter) those with the "gunz n gold" will ensure it trumps it, lawful or not.

Are you familiar with the FMOTL site which you quoted from, Loony? If so, does Veronica document any success in court in the implementation of what she is professing or is her site just hypothetical?

Cheers.

[sigma6]

It always gets down to jurisdiction, and we bind ourselves into jurisdiction by "identifying" ourselves. I don't think this thread or any thread can cover the scope. A lot of people think we are being cryptic or withholding info. Nothing of the sort. I am thinking now, looking back that 5 years of personal study is a minimum requirement. I think it is easier today. Because the knowledge is more organized and the focus is starting to converge on the fundamental issues. The down side is there are way, way, way too many, what I call, mid-level "gurus" And this is all about getting the best information. So I will stick with Names I know, people with 10+ years, and who have put themselves out there and are still researching and sharing the knowledge. It will save you years. For me the focus is on understanding the EVERYTHING there is to know about the Birth Certificates (long form, short form) and how that extends out to everything that becomes your identity. I have gone full circle starting there and coming back to there.

That's why it would be really great if ANYONE from the UK would post one sentence on their BC... ANYONE? don't put this all on Loony, would be a great starting point... Anyhow seriously contemplate the FACT, that the Birth Certificate is NOT a form of identification, and what that means. To skip over that and rush head long in is pure foolishness in my opinion... It's not about fighting them, it's about understanding your relationship to the NAME and your rights once you are able to separate your self as a living man from the corporation you operate in the public. Just to understand this fundamentally even first before getting technical about it... I could write several paragraphs as a brief outline... but it would be nice to start with what the BC is....

Anyone from the UK with a BC on this forum? not asking for your personal information... (lol) just the sentence making reference to ... "does not identify the bearer..." etc... Come on lads! (and lasses! would be much appreciated...