Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

A place for posting Notices of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights

Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

Postby tomrush » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:34 pm

I sent my NOUICOR to the Home Office on January 20th 2010, with a clear time limit of 14 days to raise grievances and other issues substantively. I’m not going to post that up here, because it’s absolutely huge and pretty much based on stuff that can be found elsewhere.

On February 4th, I received a letter from the Home Office, transferring responsibility to the Ministry of Justice. Having given them a good eighteen days to figure something out, I got fed up and issued my Notice of Default and Dishonour on February 22nd (having given them more than enough time, there was no real reason to give them any extra. I’m not a charity).

This went out to both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, but I don't have a copy of the one to the Home Office for some reason.

22 February 2010

To Whom It May Concern,

It is my understanding that my NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT dated 20 January 2010 was forwarded to you by the Home Office. I have included a copy of their letter that states this.

Secondly, I reject any offer of title in advance. I am not a “Mr”, as I am not a Legal Fiction. I am Tom: of the F family (Tom, as commonly called), a flesh and blood human being, and you will address me as such.

You have not responded to my Notice within the time limit, and I therefore must issue:

NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND DISHONOUR

You were issued with a: NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT on 20 January 2010. Royal Mail Tracking #: DV9*******9GB, delivered 22 January 2010
That was forwarded to you by the Home Office on 2 February 2010, according to their letter.

The deadline for your response has long since passed, and as I have received no communication from you as directed, I write to inform you that through your acquiescence, my claims are held to be truth in law and are permanent and irrevocable by estoppel.

I was extremely lenient with the deadline, and this leniency shall not be forthcoming again.


I almost thought they’d never ever respond, when this letter from the Ministry of Justice drops in. To begin with, this reply is completely lacking in substance. It dismisses a lawful Notice with one sentence. Not only that, but it’s stupidly late - forty days late, in fact. However, I do note that Janet addresses me properly. Nice touch, but won't make me roll over.

I respond to it with two letters - the first of which mostly consists of some leading questions lifted from a thread on the David Icke forums, slightly modified to try and elicit a real reaction, instead of programming. Immediately after sending this, more sprang to mind, so that went off two days later.

Number 1:
20 March 2010

Dear Janet,

I take note of your delayed response to my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right.

Unfortunately, your response that “the Government is unable to accept your claims in so far as they would involve your disregarding the law” is unacceptable on my part, for several reasons.

Firstly, if you refer back to the Notice, you will see the following (emphasis added):

“Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within FOURTEEN (14) days of service of this action. Responses must be under Oath or Attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

The response dated 17 March 2010 is no less than 40 days late, on top of the original 14 day time limit, making the entire response time 54 days. During this time, I was lenient, and waited 31 days to receive a proper response. By not responding as instructed, you established a tacit agreement with myself. Following the 31 day period, I issued a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND DISHONOUR, which again established my claims in Law which are permanent and irrevocable by estoppel.

Secondly, the claims that you are making are quite incredible. Based on the correspondence you have sent me, I would like to ask you a few questions. Please respond to them as numbered.

1. Do you claim to have the right to govern others without their consent?

2. Would you accept then that I have the right to govern you without your consent?

3. If there was myself and a couple of friends, (or yourself and all your friends against myself,) and we all wanted to govern you without your consent, (or you all wanted to govern me without my consent,) would that change your belief at all? If so what number of people would be required to reach that threshold?

4. Do you agree that the people in the government must in fact have the actual consent of the people or at the very least believe they do?

5. If your answer to #4 is in the affirmative, then it must be reasonable to believe that there is some lawful and legal mechanism which does in fact either grant that consent or at the very least appear to do so. Is this the case?

6. If your answer to #5 is in the affirmative, do you agree that this mechanism, whatever it is, must have a way to deny and revoke consent in order for that consent to even exist, and if it does not, the people relying upon the appearance of consent can no longer do so?

7. In sales, it is lawful to offer an item repeatedly to someone who has said no already, and many, many sales are made to those who have said no. Therefore, would you agree that consent, or the mere appearance of consent, requires the acceptance of an offer, and that such offers may be lawfully repeatedly extended until they are accepted?

8.
a) Can you be forced to be a part of a group without your consent, if we are all equal?
b) Some people point to a geographical area arbitrarily defined by lines visible only on a map and claim that men exist within those boundaries. If everyone chose to ignore those lines would the boundaries still exist?
c) Can the majority empower the people in the government to do something unlawful which they themselves would not be able to do individually?
d) Would it be lawful for anyone to represent you without your consent or the appearance of it? Could I go to court without your knowledge and plead guilty on your behalf, without your consent, for instance - or could I sell your house as your agent without your consent?

9.
a) What mechanism mentioned in the definition would allow those who did not vote to be governed which does not offend the rule of law?
b) What number of people are required to engage that mechanism?

I look forward to your response regarding the questions. I trust that the matter of the Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right has now been resolved as per the first section of this letter.


Number 2:

22 March 2010
Dear Janet,

Further to my letter of 20 March 2010, I have a few more points to raise. I would be grateful if you could collate these with that letter.

Regarding your response that “the Government is unable to accept your claims in so far as they would involve your disregarding the law”:
In my letter of 20 March, I established that you had already agreed to the terms through a tacit agreement, and permanent and irrevocable estoppel had been obtained on my part.

However, I am interested to know exactly what “law” it is that you believe that I am disregarding, and how. Would you please quote these “laws” in order and refer to the section of my Notice where you believe my claim disregards them.

I will tell you in advance that if these are Statute laws, then it is a simple matter of looking at the definition of “statute”, which is “A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.”

Individuals who become members of a society must have applied to join without duress and without deception. Members so joined are bound by the society’s legislated rules. And members can, by their own free will, resign at any time, without recriminations.

What I have sent you is, in its most simple form, a resignation from your Society. I never applied of my own free will to be part of it in the first place. Having resigned, it would be frivolous and illogical to continue to impose your Society’s legislated rules upon me. I am, however, a law-abiding human - and I abide by the Law-of-the-Land, Common Law, and that is the only Law that I stand under, regardless of whether or not you “accept” it.

I look forward to your response.


Following these, this showed up! (funny how they were able to respond somewhat quickly now...)

Now, this is just absolutely idiotic. Firstly, it’s evident that she didn’t even understand the damn things. She then goes on to drivel about the UK being a “free country” (yeah right) and so on and so forth - coming to the ultimate snub - “we’re not gonna talk to you anymore!”

As we all know, this means one of two things - too frightened to carry on, or totally bewildered.

So, out come the big guns, the following goes off:

6 April 2010

Dear Janet,

I am in receipt of your letter of 31 March 2010.

Firstly, it frankly does not matter to me if you “accept” my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right or not, as it is notice of my intentions and my truth, and I shall abide by it and it alone. I am not a member of your society.

Secondly, as per my letter of 20 March 2010, in which I stated:

“Again, please respond substantially to these questions in the numbered order, without
ignoring any of them. Failure to do so will lead to my treating your response as a de facto
admission of either your manifest absence of authority, or incompetence.”


You have now admitted either your manifest absence of authority, or incompetence.

Thirdly, you wrote the following:

“nor that the United Kingdom is not governed democratically with the consent of the people
as determined by general elections”


Interesting. I have yet to see any general election or referendum where one of the options is to revoke consent. If consent can be given, then consent can, equally, be taken away.

“The UK is a free country, in which citizens and residents...”

The UK consists of an arbitrary line drawn by your society on and around a landmass, in this case, the piece of land commonly referred to as the British Isles. I am neither a citizen or a resident, simply a man on said landmass - therefore your point is entirely irrelevant, is it not?

“accompanying letters do not indicate that the law of the land has actually been, or is
imminently likely to be, broken, the Government does not consider a point-by-point reply, or
any further action, justified.”


Interesting. You declare that answering my entirely valid questions is unjustifiable because I am not about to break the law of the land, which incidentally is Common Law, the law I have stated I am not going to break. Would you rather only criminals send letters? To me, that means that you either cannot answer the questions, or do not want to answer them, as the answers would expose the fact that you have no real authority, hence, my second point.

Fourthly, the trouble with this correspondence is your manifest unwillingness to stipulate the mechanisms, institutions or ideals through which you (or the 'government' you represent) gain the authority, as a human being (or body of human beings) completely equal to me, to in any way hold power over me that I have not consented to. You have mentioned 'democracy' as if that somehow holds a metaphysical 'last word', without explaining exactly how it is that the will of the many objectively subordinates the will of the fewer.

Fifthly, I only need point to the 'will of the many' in, for example, the development of fascism and the atrocities of anti-semitism and racism. I presume you do not believe the will of the many to be an absolute 'good' in these cases - so what, other than your opinion, so enshrines the opinions of the majority in this 'democracy'?

Sixthly, as you have, again, patently neglected to supply justification for your presumed (and certainly only presumed) authority over human beings equal to yourself, I can only in turn presume that you have either no reason, or some bizarre conception of the government as an institution with more 'rights' than other human beings.

If your society’s statutes were not designed to entrap good people, then abiding solely by the Common Law, the law of the land, would not be at odds with your statutes. Your reluctance to “accept” my Notice proves that you are in the business of controlling and manipulating good people.

These letters are going to be published as a sign of the UK Government's unwillingness to disclose information (hence attempting to gain consent without full disclosure) and reticence in doing anything but patronising its 'subjects'.

In closing, as I am not a member of your society, I will not be abiding by your statutes. Any attempt to gain jurisdiction over me is now, and will be, denied. As always, failure to respond, as per the maxim in law “qui tacet consentit” (silence implies consent), will mean that your department entirely agrees to the contents of this letter. You have 10 days to respond to each paragraph, as numbered.


But then suddenly, this shows up from the HOME OFFICE! HOW LONG?! That two month response time is amazing.

Ten days later, and nothing from the Ministry of Just us, so, this went off, concluding my moderately amusing paper ping-pong match.

16 April 2010

Dear Janet,

This is to inform you that the 10 day time limit stipulated in my letter of 6 April 2010 has expired, and you and your department have entirely agreed to the contents of said in accordance with the maxim in law, “qui tacet consentit” (silence implies consent).

Thank you for your support regarding this matter - it is greatly appreciated.
User avatar
tomrush
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:28 am
Location: Sovereign State of Mises, C.O.B.S.

Re: Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

Postby huntingross » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:12 pm

Good post Tom....I couldn't get your "reply" links to work though.

So the MoJ have abandoned the field, no surprise.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

Postby woodman » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:34 pm

I've quoted the text below from the Ministry of Justice response for those who can't access the links.

Dear Tom of the _______ Family,
Thank you for your letters of 20 and 22 March in response to my reply 17 March to your “Notice of Understanding and intent and Claim of Right”. I apologise again for the lateness of that reply, however the Government does not accept your assertions in relation to this, nor that the United Kingdom is not governed democratically with the consent of the people as determined by general elections.

The UK is a free country, in which citizens and residents are entitled to live by their own opinions and beliefs unless that leads them to transgress the law (statute law or common law) in any way.

Insofar as your “Notice of Understanding and intent and Claim of Right” and accompanying letters do not indicate the law of the land has actually been, or is imminently likely to be, broken, the Government does not consider a point by point reply, or any further action justified.
I must inform you that any further letters you send to the Department on similar lines will be placed on file without response.
Yours Sincerely

J.Hawkes (Ms)
Senior Policy Adviser


Pretty clear to me, if you don''t vote in general elections, you haven't given your consent to be governed :grin:

:peace:
‘Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, no one but ourselves can free our minds’- Robert Nesta Marley (1945 - 1981)

‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing’ - Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
User avatar
woodman
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Two Dogs Fightin'

Re: Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

Postby tomrush » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:43 pm

Based on the unreliability of the links, I'll attach the files in order:

Screen shot 2010-04-17 at 22.39.20.png

Screen shot 2010-04-17 at 22.40.16.png

Screen shot 2010-04-17 at 22.40.48.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
tomrush
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:28 am
Location: Sovereign State of Mises, C.O.B.S.

Re: Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

Postby tomrush » Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:44 pm

And the final one:

Screen shot 2010-04-17 at 22.38.41.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
tomrush
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:28 am
Location: Sovereign State of Mises, C.O.B.S.

Re: Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

Postby hawklord » Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:36 am

good post glad to see a post well constructed giving all the right info and copies of responses cant wait to read next instalment
hawklord
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

Postby tomrush » Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:20 am

hawklord wrote:good post glad to see a post well constructed giving all the right info and copies of responses cant wait to read next instalment


I can only hope there'll be a next instalment - I tried to provoke her into responding with that last letter. We'll see what happens!
User avatar
tomrush
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:28 am
Location: Sovereign State of Mises, C.O.B.S.

Re: Myself, Home Office, & Ministry of Justus play ping-pong

Postby Veronica » Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:16 pm

Great stuff, Tom.

And an eye-opener for anyone who still thinks that these minions have a functioning brain-cell.

Not ONE questioned actually answered in anything that approaches "substance".

Well ... it's their lookout. We (this Country, Our Nation, We The People) are coming to getcha! You can't say you were never warned.

Here's a sample of what's to come ... straight out of the pages of history ... my favourite picture of all time:
(Actually it makes me cry as well ... tears of joy!)

Image

(Can't wait for ones of B Liar, Cameron, Brownose, Straw, Griffin et al! "History" is a big dustbin for all of you THIEVING BASTARDS. You stole our Minds ... but we found where you'd hidden them!)
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England


Return to NOUICORs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest