Fee Schedule - Reasonableness test

[FreeSpirit]

Hi,

I've asked the question before but as yet haven't had an answer - is a fee schedule not subject to normal tests of reasonableness? Also does the charge not have to be proportionate to your loss? I can't see that a court will ever view costs on the scale shown in some Fee Schedules as reasonable and thus are likely to just throw the claim out - and would this not then set a common law precedent which would be binding on everyone else?

Little mention seems to made of precedents. My understanding is that these are common law and carry more weight than the statute they are set upon. Thus, if the statute itself is not lawfully binding, is the precedent that follows it, as common law, not lawfully binding unless it contradicts other ancient common law rights that carry a higher authority (e.g. Magna Carta 1215)?

I would be grateful if an administrator or someone with extensive knowledge of common law could answer this.

[FreeSpirit]

Also, shouldn't the Fee Schedule be for UNLAWFUL questioning, detainment, arrest, inprisonment etc?

[addy5]

Any claim against anyone would need to be lawful for it to be upheld, so if you're claiming a monetary loss it would seem reasonable you evidence the loss, in monetary terms so the court could ajudicate over the reasonable sum demanded and the lawfullness of the claim. Some would argue that as money has no value any amount(or perhaps just a large amount) can be put down and lawfully enforced but I'm sceptical. Fee Schedule are a part of Common Law so must fall under Common Sense too. If you were a trade earning £200 a day, and was unable to perform your trade for one day because of an unlawful action against you it seems likely a claim of £200 would be in order, reasonable, and most importantly provide for your precise liquidated damages as thats what you might have earnt had not been disseized in someway. Would a claim for say £5000 for the same trade be judged in the same light? Well, what does Common Sense tell you about that? (not withstanding money potentially not having any value, which if you were to go along that route why file a valueless monetary claim in the first place?

I'm no expert and these are just my thoughts on the subject...

[kevin]

Hi,

I've asked the question before but as yet haven't had an answer - is a fee schedule not subject to normal tests of reasonableness?

In my opinion the answer is yes, but that's only an opinion.

[huntingross]

You all could be right.....but then you'd be discussing the ligitimacy of Notices full stop.

If you issue a Notice including a fee schedule and the Notice is not rebutted, you would expect delivery on the content of the Notice as much as default on the Schedule.

But this is also just my opinion.....the recipient doesn't get to cherry pick your notice.

[consumerpada]

Yes.

[FreeSpirit]

You all could be right.....but then you'd be discussing the ligitimacy of Notices full stop.

If you issue a Notice including a fee schedule and the Notice is not rebutted, you would expect delivery on the content of the Notice as much as default on the Schedule.

But this is also just my opinion.....the recipient doesn't get to cherry pick your notice.

Hi All,

Thanks for everyone's contribution. This could end up being quite a debate ... indeed it may only truly be answered by a 13 man jury in a court-de-jure. I think it's important to get these things right, as far as possible, if we are to win the war (not just the battle!). This has all set me thinking ...

It seems the general consensus of opinion is costs/fees claimed must be reasonable, which makes sense ... and I welcome and fully respect HR's opinion, quoted above. IF common law dictates that law is common sense, and ... it dictates that all measures/claims be reasonable ... it seems to me all claims must be proportionate to the crime committed against a human being. I can't behead you for stealing a potato and I can't claim £1 million from you because you damaged my £2000 car. Therefore my Fee Schedule should be proportionate.

With regard to what HR says and the way I see it; you can't write your responsibilities out of a lawful contract - e.g. you can't say "I'm not responsible if I'm negligent" or "I won't be held responsible if I end up murdering you". These terms would be deemed unlawful and unenforceable. They would be ignored. I worry that if Fees are ridiculous, and not proportionate, then they would be dis-regarded and may weaken the Freeman's case - it may look as though he is purely seeking a financial profit, rather than justice. In the initial stages of this war for Freedom, appearance will be everything. Thinking maybe I should scale back my fees a bit ...

What do people think about charging "up to" £500 per hour, £20,000 per individual etc? Could this be a "reasonable" solution?

[kevin]

personally I agree with all you've said, the trouble is what is reasonable is one persons opinion, what do you think the payment should be if 5 or 6 men jump on you, wrestle you to the ground, tazer you, pepper spray you, handcuff you, drag you down the street and throw you in the back of a van, kidnap you away and keep you locked in a 6ft-10ft cell indefinitely?

what compensation should you get for this?

I think letters/notices should be charged at something like what solicitors charge, my personal private time writing to idiot companies is worth just as much if not more

[Sophia]

I think the punishment for the physical psychological and spiritual violence you have just described should be enough to bankrupt the organisation or individuals that perpetrated it, so that they can't afford to do it again. There is no excuse for one man to have the right to do this to another.

[FreeSpirit]

Kevin and Sophia,

I completely agree with what you're saying - that kind of treatment is completely unacceptable (when disproportionate anyway - if I was wielding a machete and threatening to take peace officer's heads off with it the behaviour you've described might seem less unreasonable! ) and I would say it is almost impossible to arrive at a number, a financial sum, that would be a fair exchange for having been made to endure the treatment you've set out. I do not underestimate the potential for permanent psychological damage (including the possibility of depression and suicide) that might arise out of such treatment and, as differing sums will appear reasonable to different people, so too will that treatment affect people differently, arguably meaning people should receive different levels of compensation. Thus surely the answer can only truly be ascertained by a court de jure of our peers relative to exactly what took place and the injuries (mental, physical and spiritual injuries and compensation for loss) that were inflicted?

I'm not suggesting any figure is likely to be small - but would I need to be able to demonstrate (or at least provide argument as to why) the figure I have given is reasonable, or would the court/defendant have to show that my claim was unreasonable?

What do you guys think? should I set out minimum charges ... in the same way as Parliament sets out minimum penalties/sentences ? Or minimums and maximums like sentencing guidelines ? Maximums without minimums seem a bit pointless - if I say up to twenty thousand pounds per individual I might (in theory) end up with just a pound ... and that would only add to my pain!