Breaking the law by paying my council tax?

[britishnick]

Originally Posted by jlord

Is terrorism defined in the act?

I agree that the main problem for these arguments will be convincing anyone that 9/11 or other terrorist attacks were really inside jobs. From my experience the evidence that they are inside jobs is not very convincing to people who are not already sympathetic to that position. It's very convincing to those sympathetic to the argument, but not very convincing to everyone else. So unless you happen to get a truther judge I don't see one being swayed by the evidence, and I doubt there are many truther judges around.

You saying judges aren't intersted in truth? I've never heard of this going before a JUDGE on his/her oath... only 'official' capacity has been rigged investigations.
Yes terrorism is defined. It's the most easy to comprehend statute I've read
Here's my little bit of research:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=155130

I didn't even realise that there was an 'inside job' position when I first saw the evidence... so I spent months doing my own research and coming tomy own conclusion. inside job.

[jlord]

Originally Posted by britishnick

You saying judges aren't intersted in truth?

I'm using "truther" to mean someone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Many of these people refer to their cause as the truth movement and to themselves as truthers. I'm not saying judges are not interested in the truth, just that it's probably unlikely to find many judges who are "truthers."

And the point I was making was that regardless of what the truth is, at this point the arguments advanced by truthers are typically not convincing to non-truthers. They are very convincing to people in the movement but gain little ground with everyone else. So I wouldn't expect the arguments would have a very good chance of convincing a judge.

I've never heard of this going before a JUDGE on his/her oath... only 'official' capacity has been rigged investigations.

It has been before judges in the USA. I don't proclaim to have any extensive knowledge in US law but I know people have tried to sue Bush saying it was an inside job, get out of military service based on it being an inside job, people have sued air transport officials on that basis, etc. None have been succesful in convincing a judge that it was an inside job.

[uprising]

Originally Posted by britishnick

UPRISING - Do you have the attachemnts mentioned in the letter?

My last post is a copy of the attachment/letter.
I have only removed Tony's address and phone number.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by jon galt

... what he feels is reasonable cause would be at odds with the courts. ...

Why would it be or should it be?

This seems a completely genuine reason to refuse to pay council tax - for him anyway - it would not automatically work for other individuals and/or other councils.

His main problem is going to be the Magistrates' Court. He needs to have this heard in at least the County Court, because magistrates are only there to convict everyone who walks in through the doors. They don't even have any legal training or knowledge. Perhaps he needs to push for a judicial review, with plenty of publicity (which he won't get, of course, since the MSM are controlled/bought).

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by iq_145

Why would it be or should it be?

This seems a completely genuine reason to refuse to pay council tax - for him anyway - it would not automatically work for other individuals and/or other councils.

His main problem is going to be the Magistrates' Court. He needs to have this heard in at least the County Court, because magistrates are only there to convict everyone who walks in through the doors. They don't even have any legal training or knowledge. Perhaps he needs to push for a judicial review, with plenty of publicity (which he won't get, of course, since the MSM are controlled/bought).

the law is in place to stop terrorists raising money through things like charities.

his interpretation is at odds with what parliament intended the law to be used for. parliaments intent is one of the things a court will look when making a decision.

i dont see a court upholding that he has reasonable cause to suspect that his tax is being used to fund terrorism. given that he does not even say what his reasonable cause to suspect is. fe if i believed what he said 100% i dont think that the courts would agree that i have reasonable cause not to pay council /income/any tax. i could be wrong tho.

also the schedules of the act give exceptions and exemptions(assuming the police are involved with terrorism) such as
schedule 15

Cooperation with police.
(1)
A person does not commit an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 if he is acting with the express consent of a constable.
(2)
Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a person does not commit an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 by involvement in a transaction or arrangement relating to money or other property if he discloses to a constable—
(a)
his suspicion or belief that the money or other property is terrorist property, and
(b)
the information on which his suspicion or belief is based.

the act also is cross referenced and states that it is an extension of other acts fe the prevention of terrorism act 1989, that further define what terrorism and terrorist organizations are.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by jon galt

the law is in place to stop terrorists raising money through things like charities.

his interpretation is at odds with what parliament intended the law to be used for. parliaments intent is one of the things a court will look when making a decision.

i dont see a court upholding that he has reasonable cause to suspect that his tax is being used to fund terrorism. given that he does not even say what his reasonable cause to suspect is. fe if i believed what he said 100% i dont think that the courts would agree that i have reasonable cause not to pay council tax. i could be wrong tho

His claim is that his local police department is complicit in the terrorist act of 7th July 2005 in London. Having reasonable grounds to believe this, he is prohibited from paying money, via tax, donation or otherwise, to the council, knowing that some of that money will go to the police department that he believes were involved, directly or indirectly, in the terrorist crime in question.

Whether we believe his evidence or not is irrelevant to our withholding of council tax unless we happen to live in the same region as he does. His evidence only relates to the North Yorkshire force, as far as I understand it. And, since this whole argument is based upon giving funding to a group that is assisting terrorists, other councils are not included without similar evidence.

In my opinion, he has good cause, assuming that his evidence is strong, but the court system will probably steamroller through its duty to the state, irrespective of truth or cause.

[aulus agerius]

Originally Posted by iq_145

Why would it be or should it be?

This seems a completely genuine reason to refuse to pay council tax - for him anyway - it would not automatically work for other individuals and/or other councils.

It will not work for anyone unless there is evidence, admissible in court, sufficient to convince a judge that "reasonable cause" exists. Simply claiming that you have reason to believe the county council is covering up acts of terrorism is not enough to should "reasonable cause to suspect"

His main problem is going to be the Magistrates' Court. He needs to have this heard in at least the County Court, because magistrates are only there to convict everyone who walks in through the doors. They don't even have any legal training or knowledge. Perhaps he needs to push for a judicial review, with plenty of publicity (which he won't get, of course, since the MSM are controlled/bought).

Council Tax cases are not hearing in the county court. As with almost every other sort of case where someone wants to break new legal ground, he'd better be prepared to loose before the magistrates and appeal.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

It will not work for anyone unless there is evidence, admissible in court, sufficient to convince a judge that "reasonable cause" exists. Simply claiming that you have reason to believe the county council is covering up acts of terrorism is not enough to should "reasonable cause to suspect"

I never for one moment said that it was enough. This guy, by the very nature of his previous employment, was privy to information that the ordinary man in the street is not. If it is his opinion that this information gives him reasonable cause to suspect, then he is obliged to obey the statute and not contribute to the group that he has reason to believe is aiding terrorists to carry out and get away with terrorist atrocities. He is simply obeying the law.

Originally Posted by aulus agerius

Council Tax cases are not hearing in the county court. As with almost every other sort of case where someone wants to break new legal ground, he'd better be prepared to loose before the magistrates and appeal.

Fair enough. He will need to be prepared for appeals all the way up to the let's-save-the-banks 'Supreme' Court.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by iq_145

Whether we believe his evidence or not is irrelevant to our withholding of council tax unless we happen to live in the same region as he does. His evidence only relates to the North Yorkshire force, as far as I understand it. And, since this whole argument is based upon giving funding to a group that is assisting terrorists, other councils are not included without similar evidence.

Yorkshire police also receive funding from tax collected by revenue and customs.

[jlord]

Does the anti-terrorist law apply to freemen?

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by iq_145

His claim is that his local police department is complicit in the terrorist act of 7th July 2005 in London. Having reasonable grounds to believe this, he is prohibited from paying money, via tax, donation or otherwise, to the council, knowing that some of that money will go to the police department that he believes were involved, directly or indirectly, in the terrorist crime in question.

Whether we believe his evidence or not is irrelevant to our withholding of council tax unless we happen to live in the same region as he does. His evidence only relates to the North Yorkshire force, as far as I understand it. And, since this whole argument is based upon giving funding to a group that is assisting terrorists, other councils are not included without similar evidence.

In my opinion, he has good cause, assuming that his evidence is strong, but the court system will probably steamroller through its duty to the state, irrespective of truth or cause.

He lives in South Yorkshire. How does he make out South Yorks Police were complicit in 7/7?

(and why is this thread in FoTL anyway?)

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by iq_145

I never for one moment said that it was enough. This guy, by the very nature of his previous employment, was privy to information that the ordinary man in the street is not. If it is his opinion that this information gives him reasonable cause to suspect, then he is obliged to obey the statute and not contribute to the group that he has reason to believe is aiding terrorists to carry out and get away with terrorist atrocities. He is simply obeying the law.

Actually, Tony Farrell has never ever said he was privy to any "inside" info on terrorism. He was a civilian working for the police and basically a statistician. He based all his info on his private "research" on the internet and it mainly covered 9/11. This is all pretty well documented - as are his christian beliefs, beliefs in the NWO etc.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/intell...ngs-1-3591839#

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07...terror-threat/

[smoke n mirrors]

Originally Posted by britishnick

There used to be a website www.makewarshistory.org.uk which had templates to send to you employer to offer to hold the tax money in escrow, the site has been since removed.
Here u can see reference to it in Dec 2009 [url]http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49766[/url
and here http://www.wholetruthcoalition.org/author/belindamckenzie

I have a friend who did it who was eventually asked / told to leave with a lump sum. they are a large company.

I wrote a thread about this some time ago too - totally agree that paying taxes is illegal under their own rules.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=155130

Good luck to him. Seriously fair play to the man, I hope everyone witholds their council tax til this is righted

Cheers for the info BritNick.

I totally agree with you and others about the British government being terrorists, and their support of Israel is more than good enough grounds for such a claim which can easily be evidenced. Although they would deny the facts, logic and reason any normal person uses to determine that fact. Then there are all the other actions they get involved in and support of terrorist organisations like the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians for example. They have many ongoing projects along the same lines around the world.

Personally I think with holding of tax would be better based on the Act of Treason, which the United Kingdom has been subjected to since the government took us into the Common Market/EU. This is by far the easiest thing to evidence. If they are willing to fight it in a court the argument for the tax protesters position would be perfect for exposing the treasonous government, and the queen who has broken her oath.

.

[madandbad]

Personally I think with holding of tax would be better based on the Act of Treason, which the United Kingdom has been subjected to since the government took us into the Common Market/EU. This is by far the easiest thing to evidence. If they are willing to fight it in a court the argument for the tax protesters position would be perfect for exposing the treasonous government, and the queen who has broken her oath.
if you really want to go after queenie id think using tort law and a commercial lien might provoke an interseting response.

[britishnick]

labouysse - I too would be interested in seeing his specific reasoning...

Originally Posted by jlord

Does the anti-terrorist law apply to freemen?

I'd have thought you'd have been round here loing enough to figure that simple one out.

The statute no

the principle yes. Ones rights ends where anothers begin and all that.

Cause no harm, loss, injury.

Paying someone to commit murder is nawty in most peoles book.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Actually, Tony Farrell has never ever said he was privy to any "inside" info on terrorism. He was a civilian working for the police and basically a statistician. He based all his info on his private "research" on the internet and it mainly covered 9/11. This is all pretty well documented - as are his christian beliefs, beliefs in the NWO etc.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/intell...ngs-1-3591839#

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07...terror-threat/

South Yorkshire police, not North Yorkshire; my apologies.

The Star article that you reference describes him twice as "an intelligence expert," and points out that he claims to have been the force's top analyst for 12 years.

I don't know what his "christian beliefs" have got to do with this issue, but I do agree that it would be nice to learn and consider his evidence against his local police force (and former long-term employer).

[britishnick]

one of the things that Tony Farrel was pointing out was that the growing number of people who do not believe the official story (given the compelling and damning evidence available globaly) that this mass of people may well represent a new threat to the government, regardless of whether it's true... even though he believed it was true.

fromteh interview it sounds like they're saying he was got rid of becuase they didn't want any other narative coming out, other than it was islamic terrorists.

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

[uprising]

Originally Posted by iq_145

South Yorkshire police, not North Yorkshire; my apologies.

The Star article that you reference describes him twice as "an intelligence expert," and points out that he claims to have been the force's top analyst for 12 years.

I don't know what his "christian beliefs" have got to do with this issue, but I do agree that it would be nice to learn and consider his evidence against his local police force (and former long-term employer).

That would be the threat assessment he did, link at top of this page-
http://www.richplanet.net/tonyfarrell.php

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by uprising

That would be the threat assessment he did, link at top of this page-
http://www.richplanet.net/tonyfarrell.php

No it isn't that is one he did after his interviews on Richplanet.

The original is mentioned in this;

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07...terror-threat/

"On July 8th he handed over a very short version of the ‘Strategic Assessment Matrix,’ which averred that the real terrorist ‘threat’ to society was almost entirely of the state-sponsored kind, and it alluded to both 9/11 and 7/7 in this context. Other threats from other ‘domains of criminality’ were, his brief report claimed, ‘insignificant’ by comparison."

In other words he saw the big threat to law'n order in South Yorkshire as "false flag terrorism" and thought things like car crime, burglary, assault, as "insignificant".

Anybody got any crime stats for South Yorkshire?

[uprising]

Originally Posted by labouysse

No it isn't that is one he did after his interviews on Richplanet.

The original is mentioned in this;

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07...terror-threat/

Nobody said anything about the original

" it would be nice to learn and consider his evidence against his local police force (and former long-term employer)."

I thought we were talking as regards his refusal to pay his council tax, surely Tony would be using an updated version and other information.
Why stick with something he wrote two years ago?