Government Extortion

This should not be regarded as legal advice as I am not a lawyer but is offered here for some entertainment value and to inspire some meditation on the principles raised in the interests of general education.

There are schools of thought which suggest that the living breathing sentient man or woman is only one step removed from the authority of God himself as we are his direct creation and have been given dominion over the earth. Beside God there is no authority above us because we are his creation and so it goes that governments and all other man made organisations are beyond exercising any authority over sentient beings, because they are the creation of the sentient beings which have been appointed by the sentient peoples to manage the day to day affairs of administrating society. No one has any authority over that which created them.

In addition governments are corporate legal fictions and as such have no authority whatsoever over the sentient beings that created them. They have no alternative but to deal with sentient beings through the legal fiction that was created at birth via the birth certificate and all such interaction is conducted on a contractual basis under the auspices of the Uniform Commercial Code administered by the Vatican with the rules being strictly observed throughout the world of commerce which is administered under Admiralty Law or the law of the See.

It thus follows that the rules of contractual law must be observed and when contracts are agreed upon, certain elements are by definition required for the contract to be valid, these include: offer and acceptance, valuable consideration for both parties, a clear intention to enter into a lawful contract, a meeting of the minds is also required which implies a full understanding of the terms and conditions, also that there is legality of purpose, one cannot contract outside of the law in order to accomplish an unlawful purpose and the parties must enter in contractual obligations under freely given consent with full capacity to lawfully contract, while the wet ink signatures bare testimony to the existence of a valid contract.

Things that can make a contract voidable are lack of disclosure, misrepresentation, unequal status, negligence, fraud, duress and breach of contract by failure of performance, this being at the option of the offended party who may choose to rescind. So when a fine arrives in the letterbox one must consider it primarily as an offer to contract, which if not addressed with in a certain 72 hour period, of business days it is coveniently considered that the receiver has agreed to the fine by acquiesence, and it becomes payable as it is regarded that acquiesence is agreement.

There are four ways one can potentially react to a fine that arrives in the letterbox, although the sender only mentions two, pay the fine or take it to court but neither are recommended because administrative courts are there to separate you from your commercial energy or in other words your hard earned, they have nothing to do with administering justice and pay no attention to circumstances surrounding the alleged “offence.” So the first option (not recommended) is pay the fine which means you avoid court because you are in honour and no “controversy” exists which means there is nothing for a magistrate to judge. If you wish to argue your circumstances or choose to ignore the fine you are regarded as being in “dishonour” and as such you are regarded as being involved in a “controversy” and will emerge from a court under these circumstances with a much lighter bank account. Fortunately there is another option in which you remain in “honour” and avoid such a “controversy” which will land you in the court for a good old fashioned fleecing.

This path is known as “conditional acceptance” and under this option you agree to pay the fine under the condition that your accuser substantiates their claim by providing proof that it is a legitimate claim, which is quite reasonable, otherwise they could just accuse you of anything and simply await payment. Following is an example of a letter that offers an over view of the sort of questions that one might require answers to and under conditions that one might wish to add to the terms and conditions of the contract that one may have agreed to enter into. In this way a $1,600.00 payable could potentially translate into $6,400.00 receivable as contracted.

8th September 2020 (send by registered post)

Your name (John Henry: of the family Doe
Your address
Town or city, [post code in brackets]

Government rep
Government Department
city, [post code]

Re referance no: 12121313

Dear Shit for Brains,

I wish to advise that this offer to contract is hereby accepted under the following conditions being included in this contract-of-obligation. The requested proofs of claim listed below must be responded to within 30 days to validate your claim and in the event that you fail to provide such proofs within this period then an automatic estoppel applies and the (Government Department) agrees to compensate me at the amount of four times the extent of the claim made against me, given that a failure to provide such proofs implies that those claims are false and fraudulent. This amount will be immediately payable at the conclusion of this 30 day period. In response to your penalty notice dated 29 August 2020 but received at 5pm on September 6th 2020 I wish to advise that I will be happy to settle this matter upon your office providing proof of the claim adressing these issues in particular:

That your government body provides proof that it posseses any legitimate authority to issue fines to anyone.
That proof is provided that this Government Department is a legitimate department of a de jure government.
Provide proof that these demands and the alleged laws or statutes that purportedly support them apply to me as a living, breathing, sentient being.
Provide proof that the living breathing sentient being John Henry: of the family Doe is in any way liable for the affairs of the corporate entity JOHN HENRY DOE.
Provide proof that you have any business addressing correspondence directed to JOHN HENRY DOE to the address of John Henry: of the family Doe as the former entity is not domiciled at the address of John Henry: of the family Doe.
That a valid contract with wet ink signatures exists between your corporation known as the ( Government Department or agency) and the private sentient being known as John Henry: of the family Doe and that such contract has been entered into with full disclosure and informed consent.
That the (Government Department) has suffered a loss as a result of my alleged offence.
That the (Government Department) can compel me as a living, breathing, sentient being to enter into a contract with the (Government Department).
Given that the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Victoria) states: that “All promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void” could the Government Department) provide proof that this law has been superseded.
That the government authority provide lawful and legal proof of their authority to act in a judicial capacity or that they have legitimate authority to issue penalties when the Imperial Acts Application Act suggests otherwise.

Regards, John Henry: of the family Doe

Spread the love

Leave a Reply