G24 Ltd using debt recovery agency

Sirdan

Axles wrote: »

Read this Bollock!

Statute Law:� A Statute is a rule created by a representative governing body of a society designed to create common goals, which carries the force of law by the consent of the governed. A Statute only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever. And the courts know this. You may not, but they certainly do and the last thing they will do is tell you. In point of fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity. On the other hand, if you tell them, they will accept it because they know it is actually true.

Yes seen that it's utter tripe what is should say is this :--

"In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law."

or in other words :-

"In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature (legislative), an administrative regulation (rule), or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state (political community established by the consent of the governed) gives the force of law."

That's how democracy works ..the state (government) is by consent and as such they make the statutes...

If what you say were true and as it is easily found on the net ..every case that did not break Common Law would have a 100% perfect defence.
Those of us living in the real world know that is simply not the case ..if this defence were available so readily why is it not in common usage ??

Furthermore to return to the original point this is all totally irrelevant to Private Parking as these invoices are not governed by statutes per se.

esmerobbo

"A statute law requires the consent of the people"!

Is you David Icke??

esmerobbo

I remember a poster on CAG using this argument over car tax and the related fines. He got off with the fines and the clamping fees!

Mind you he didn't get his £15K car back when they sold it!

Axles

Quote

..if this defence were available so readily why is it not in common usage ??


Unquote


I suppose because the majority of people are ignorant of it. You on the other hand are also a know it all ingnoramus.:beer:

If you ever do end up in a court for a statute law, why not just tell them at the last resort that you dfon't consent to the statute. What would you have to lose.

Axles

esmerobbo wrote: »

"A statute law requires the consent of the people"!

Is you David Icke??

Instead of throwing insults why not prove me wrong!

Axles

esmerobbo wrote: »

I remember a poster on CAG using this argument over car tax and the related fines. He got off with the fines and the clamping fees!

Mind you he didn't get his £15K car back when they sold it!

Not 5 minutes after writing and posting your insult about me being David icke you actually endorse what I said.

What does that make you.:rotfl:

esmerobbo

As Sirdan has said its irrelevant as private parking tickets are only statute in LaLa land!

Rather then call respected members names, post up a case were this defence has been used successfully!

esmerobbo

How is having a £15K car seized and sold off endorsing what you said. He did not acknowledge statue law and lost his car. If that's being not guilty count me out!!

When I said he got off yes he didn't pay them but the nice bailiffs came and took the car in lieu of them!

Sirdan

"That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void…Quite clearly states that all fines given without first being tried in a court of law are void and subsequently so are all forfeitures. So why are many people paying fixed penalty fines and allowing forfeitures of their property before conviction?"

That's right only a court can fine you which is why Fixed Penalties etc allow you the right to not pay and to have your day in court..where you may lose based on statutes whether you consent to them or not !

" No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

Yes the law of the land ..that'll be the "statute law" that you referred to then ?

Axles

This is in answer to Esmerbobbo but also applies to Sirdan

Asked and delivered. Now if you aren't interested that is up to you, but don't go asking me to chase my tail. If you do not believe this research it yourself rather than just dismissing what someone tells you!!!!!

BTW I am not allowed to post with links so have had to remove three lines from the top of this below.


Hey everyone,
Last year i was pulled over by 2 police constables from the Bradford Constabulary, they used their routine nonsence and threats to try force me to accept a fine and I refussed. they threatened me with court and I refused to accept their paperwork, then the old nutshell came; the threat of taking me to the station booking me in then letting me go so that my day was ruined and it would cost me to get back to my car in which my wife was sat waiting. So I accepted their offer to go to court under protest and duress as I was given little choice under threat of going to the station and wasting my time that I could not spare.
4 months later I received the summons and I sent it back return to sender lol this didnt go down too wel and they sent me a letter telling me there was a warrent out for my arrest. I called them up and asked how can you send a threat of a warrent when i havent been charged with anything, I told them I was not in receipt of any summons. They then re-issued a summons and had it hand delivered to me by 2 police women that new me so I had been served it properly lol.
I attended court last Monday the 13/6/11. On letting the court usher know i was there he proceeded to ask me what my plea was, lol I reminded him of his job he was there to show me into the court and not to be my judge jury or incarcerator. Then he said he needs to know so i am in the right court, lol I told him i have been asked to attend court 2 and thats where i am going to be so you dont need any other information . he accepted andleft me alone.
When my name was called I entered the court room with a smile on my face and greeted the magistrates with a GOOD MORNING, they replied Morning, now they know im polite and courtious lol.
The police prosecution Told the court that I was charged with Driving without an MOT, the magistrate asked me how I plea. My reply was very simple:
I plea not guilty on the grounds that
a) I was not and have not been charged with anything,
b) That the Road traffic act 1988 is not LAW it is a government legislation.
the prosecution told me in a brisk and stern voice it is a statute its on the statute books,
I smiled and said calmly yes I know it is , however it still isnt LAW its colour of law or bylaw, and the Blacks Law Dictionaries definition of a statute is:
a legislative rule of society that is given the force of law by the consent of the governed.
I proceeded to state that My understanding is that it is not a LAW it is nothing more than a rule and it requires my CONSENT thus stating that I can withdraw consent at any time, and for the court I am stating that I do not consent to this statute.
There was a bit of confusion at this point and the prosecution was talking in whispers to the court clerk, I promptly interupted telling the magistrates that the court clerk is here to give advise to you the magistrates not to the prosecution as that is against the protocol of ensuring I have a fair hearing. they stopped talking imidiately and with a glare at me the prosecution said, your honour I move to have an adjournment of 5 minutes or so as I require the need to make a phone call. I smiled and said do you want me to come back tomorrow if you need time to figure it out hahahaha , so court was adjourned and 10 mins later i entered the court again to hear what was to be the next move. The prosecutio said the CROWN doesnot agree to Mr Dempsey statement, so I ask is the QUEEN here can I speak with her, or did you call her up because I would like to hear what she said from her own mouth, or is it that you dont mean the QUEEN you mean the legal fiction of the CROWN itself which holds no power in LAW.
The magistrates smiled at me I smiled back. The prosecution then carried on saying that to go to trial with a jury would be expensive and not knowing the outcome for Mr Dempsey is too risky as it is not an endorsable offence an we feel that it isnt in the publics interest to take this matter further. So basically he knew he cant win and a jury means press and press means people get to know the truth, so they avoided the issue totally.
The next thing that came out the Magistrates mouth was the court moves to DISMISS the case against Mr Dempsey.
VICTORY for the common man and once again in the words of the infamous Rob Menard, there is remedy in their own words, all you have to do is look for it and you shall find it.
Peace and Love to all those whom walk the rightous but very hard path for Justice against the corrupt and greedy corporate.