I am the guy who asked An Post for the Two Party Contract whereupon my consent was given to consent to such Statutory Acts. To date, no reply has been recieved.

I also wrote to RTE and complained about the license advertisement that said "It's The Law" my complaint was based on the fact that "It's NOT the LAW" and I explained why. I also informed them that failure to differentiate between statute and law was gross negligence and was equivilent to the common AND civil law offence of FRAUD. of course they never replied to me.

BUT.....

I noticed the advert on TV has been changed....it no longer says "it's the LAW" it now says nothing of the sort, and instead the guy in the advert says "You could face a POSSIBLE court appearance and a fine".

hmmm....makes me wonder.

Views: 3696

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

well done! keep up the good work!
Great stuff!
Ha ha! I love it! I wish I had a TV to draw attention to myself now.
Hey Zeitgeist-Ireland man, it's impossible to register on Z-I. It won't recognize my neither hotmail or gmail address, and I can't make contact to let you know, until I register. There are friends of mine on facebook that have the same problem.
Ok so An Post told me that they don't have to differentiate between Statute or LAW as far as they were concerned whether consent be given or not......

Cue the ZI-man sending ANOTHER letter, this time a little more agressive. Now they can play intimidation games, but so can i. lol. i used one of the templates submitted by Dan Mc that I though was just perfect!

Dear Jim Brady,

I am acknowledging reciept of your letter addressed to _______ dated 25/06/2009, noting all names and titles in CAPITALS to be Fictional, and of corporate Status. I am the third party interested in this entity.

I also wish to communicate with you in regards to our recent telephone call. In our call you said to me, that your legal advisor informed you that the TV Licence was LAW. I am sure you can understand where I am coming from here in regards to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, and it's status as a Statute and NOT a LAW it is still known as an ACT, and is therefore a Statutory Legislation.

You told me that An Post personally did not differentiate between Statutory Legislation and LAW whether based on consent or not. I wish to remind you sir that you are obliged by law to differentiate between the two, as failure to differentiate between a statute and a law is Gross Negligence and is equivilent to the common law crime of Fraud. Without committing to accusations or allegation it must be noted, that it is also a serious offense if true.

Statutes are recognized as Statutory legislation as opposed to LAW for a reason. A Statute is a Commercial Contract, enforced upon the public for the benefit of a privately owned corporation, a Statute is NOT LAW and CANNOT be given the Status of LAW by the personal opinion of any other third party corporation simply because they financially benefit from enforcing it.

A Statute can only be given the FORCE of law by CONSENT of the governed. I am NOT trying to upset anyone or rock anyone's boat here, I am simply attempting to understand why An Post feel they can enforce a Statute as LAW when the two differ substantially.

Please see the following letter below:

I _____________ a living soul agent for the legal entity _____________, do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge with God as my witness.

I am in receipt of your notice dated 25/06/2009 ref : _________. addressed to the legal entity (all caps fiction)______________ regarding an outstanding debt in the amount of €160


I conditionally accept your notice of alleged debt upon receiving the following :

1. Proof of debt , Validation of the actual debt (the actual accounting of the debt).

2.Full disclosure of the alleged debt. (a lawful requirement of any contract).

3. Verification of your claim against me (a hand signed sworn affidavit.).

It may be wise to take note of the following are the terms of a lawful contract:

1. Full disclosure (A Lawful requirement of ANY contract)
2. Equal consideration (Both parties must bring something to the table)
3. Lawful terms and conditions (The basis of ANY contract)
4. Signatures of the Parties/Meeting of the Minds (corporations cannot sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).
5. A copy of a two party contract, signed by two people, showing proof of an agreement between both parties to conduct business together.
6. A Statement of LAW showing where consent to any statute that is mandatory and without obligation to consent.

I demand that all of the above conditions be met and presented in Affidavit format sworn under oath or attestation, under penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability. Due to the urgency and seriousness of this allegation, I will give you seven (7) days to respond or forfiet by dishonor. If I do not receive such a response conforming to the above criteria within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that the debt is null and void and non-existent.


Sincerely and without malice, afterthought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Signed by : __________ (agent).

Please note a read reciept request has been submitted for this email.
Very nice, i like it. Can't wait to hear their response, have you sent it yet?
THIS JUST IN FROM RTE SOLICITORS:

Dear Mr Keogh,

Thank you for your email which was passed to me by our Information Unit. Given the nature of your correspondence, I referred it to our Legal Department. I would direct you to their response below.

Regards,

Gerri McCaffery

Licence Fee Unit

RTÉ

Donnybrook

Dublin 4

Tel: +353 1 2082382



e-mail: Gerri.McCaffery@rte.ie





Mr Keogh,

Thank you for your query. I wish to inform you that the legal requirement to have a television licence is set out in the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1926 – 1988 and that these Acts are indeed law in Ireland. You do not seem to accept this contention in your e-mail, and I have therefore set out below an explanation of how the Wireless Telegraphy Acts do enjoy the force of law. Each of your points is addressed in turn.

Firstly, you state that: “I wish to inform you that the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1972, IS NOT LAW! it is a STATUTE, and statutes are NOT LAW.”

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1972 is a statute, but is properly called an Act of the Oireachtas. An Act of the Oireachtas is an Act enacted by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas is the Parliament of Ireland, which is comprised of Dáil Éireann, Seanad Éireann and the President of Ireland.

The Constitution of Ireland (Bunreacht na hÉireann) contains the basic law in Ireland, and it states that the only body that can make law in Ireland is the Oireachtas. Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution states:

“The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State”

It is clear from Article 15.2.1 that only the Oireachtas can make laws. The procedure for making laws is contained in Articles 20 – 27 of the Constitution. The procedure is as follows: a proposed law is contained in a Bill (e.g. The Wireless Telegraphy Bill). This Bill must be debated and approved by the Dail and Seanad; and thereafter signed by the President. Once a Bill has been signed by the President it becomes an Act of the Oireachtas and is then a law. This is clearly stated in Article 25.4.1 of the Constitution:

“Every Bill shall become and be law as on and from the day on which it is signed by the President under this Constitution, and shall, unless the contrary intention appears, come into operation on that day.”

In 1972, the Wireless Telegraphy Bill was debated and approved by the Dail and Seanad; and thereafter signed by the President on the 3rd April 1972. Once signed, it became the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1972 and became part of the law in Ireland by virtue of Article 25.4.1 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1972 is a law.

Secondly, you state: “Statutes can only be given the FORCE of law by the CONSENT of the governed.”

Acts of the Oireachtas (including the Wireless Telegraphy Acts) enjoy full force of law and enjoy consent of the People by reason of the fact that the Oireachtas debated and approved them. The People elect members to the Oireachtas, and the Oireachtas is therefore representative of the People. Such laws as are passed by the Oireachtas enjoy the consent of the majority of the People. Thus, the Wireless Telegraphy Acts enjoy the consent of the People. This is the nature of parliamentary democracy.

Thirdly, you state: “You are deliberately decieving the public that Statutes are LAWS when THEY ARE NOT.”

There is no deception by RTE. Acts of the Oireachtas (including the Wireless Telegraphy Acts) are laws in Ireland by virtue of the Constitution.

Fourthly, you suggested: “An Post have already contradicted themselves three times when questioned about this, the WTA 1972 pertains to TELEVISION DEALERS and mentions NOTHING about householders and is an ACT and NOT A LAW. When I brought this up, they then diverted to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 instead, but I also questioned this and again they diverted to the 1956 and the 1988 Acts. When questioned about these they failed to respond.”

I am not privy to your correspondence with An Post; however, you are correct in saying that the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1972 pertains to television dealers. The reason this Act is important in relation to television licences is that section 1(1) of the 1972 Act contains the definition of “television set” for the purposes of a licence. Acts sometimes deal with various issues and can be difficult to make sense of.

The law that states that it is an offence to have a television without a licence is contained in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 (section 3). This section has been amended several times in subsequent years by other Acts, but section 3 contains the basic law on the requirement to have a television licence:

“no person shall keep or have in his possession anywhere in the State or in any ship or aircraft to which this section applies any apparatus for wireless telegraphy save in so far as such keeping or possession is authorised by a licence granted under this Act and for the time being in force.”

This Act and all the subsequent Acts enjoy the full force of law in Ireland by virtue of the Constitution.

You should note that all citizens of Ireland have an obligation to obey the laws of State as enacted by the Oireachtas. Article 9.3 of the Constitution provides:

“Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.”

You therefore have a duty to obey the law including Acts of the Oireachtas.

Lastly, you state: “I now formerly request, that you provide me within 7 working days by recorded registered post the section of LAW ( and NOT STATUTORY LEGISLTAION) whereupon I am obliged to mandatorily consent to these RANSOM statutes. Failure to provide the requested information within 7 working days will deem you to be in forfeit by dishonour and I will formerly request that RTE and An Post cease from harassing me in regard to paying RTE a Ransom for my OWN television set.

I also inform you that submissions and sending of copies of the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, which are NOT LAW will NOT be accepted. I request the section of LAW and NOT statutes.

I own my TV, it is NOT REGISTERED and the state and RTE are NOT THE TRUSTEES of my apperatus.”

As demonstrated above, the law on the requirement to have a television licence is contained in the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1926 – 1988, in particular section 3 of the 1926 Act.

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 is law by virtue of Article 15.2.1 and Article 20-27 of the Irish Constitution (the supreme law in Ireland). The Constitution is available to view at http://www.constitution.ie or it may be purchased from most bookstores.

You should note that it is an offence to be in possession of a television without a licence (section 3(3) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926, as amended by section 12 of the Broadcasting and Wireless Telegraphy Act 1988).

If you would like to learn more about how laws are made in Ireland or on the Irish legal system generally, an excellent website is the Citizens Information Website (http://www.citizensinformation.ie ). Moreover, if you would like to view all laws that are currently in force in Ireland, you should visit the Attorney General’s Website at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie .

I hope this correspondence has clarified the matter.

Ronan Ó Fathaigh

RTÉ Solicitors' Office

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Info
Sent: 30 June 2009 21:58
To: McCaffery Gerri
Subject: FW: TV Licence

Hi Geri,

Can you assist with this query?



Kind Regards,

Yvonne

RTÉ Information
I posted RTE's letter in the other TV Licence posts. have a good read, and if anyone is interested in helping to kill the TV Licence let me know.
well his reply is correct when he says laws apply to citizens of the state. are you a state citizen (employee) or are you a man, a free man of the land? if you claim common law or brehon law juristdiction where is the tv licensce law in common or brehon law???
Hey ZI,

I have to say that response is really annoying! It's quite clear that this guy does not get were your coming from at all! And misses your point entirely when you are referring to Law.

Your next comunication has to cover all angles and pull out all the stops. It wouldn't be a bad idea to registered post this one cos it seems you could be getting somewhere with this one. The response annoyed me so much that i have to type a response merely for the satisfaction of venting!!!

Dear Ronan,

It is quite clear from your response that you do not grasp my meaning when I say 'Statutues are not Law' so allow me to clarify.
What I am reffering to when I say "are not Law" is Gods Law or Natural Law and is fundamentaly summed up as 'harm none'. You may be more familiar with the terms 'Brehon Law' or 'Common Law'?
This Law is superior to any man made or government enacted Laws.
Statutes, as you clearly state yourself are 'Acts' of Government and therefore inferior to Natural Law and require the consent of the Governed, lest you are suggesting the use of force?

You proceed to mention Bunreacht ne hEireann which states that the only body allowed to make Laws is the Oireachtas. I find it interesting that you mention this document and I instruct you to notice the following articles:-

Literal English translation from Gaeilge
Article 40.3.1
"The State garauntees not to interfere by its laws with the personal rights of the citizen"
Article 41.1.1
"The State acknowledges that the Family is the basic primary subgruop-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute. [bold emphasis added}

Hopefully by now you have a firmer understanding of my position. Before I proceed to address your points I instruct you to take note of these Maxims in Law:-

*Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
*No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.
*The contract makes the law.

It may be wise to take note of the following are the terms of a lawful contract:
*1. Full disclosure (A Lawful requirement of ANY contract)
*2. Equal consideration (Both parties must bring something to the table)
*3. Lawful terms and conditions (The basis of ANY contract)
*4. Signatures of the Parties/Meeting of the Minds (corporations cannot sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).
5. A copy of a two party contract, signed by two people, showing proof of an agreement between both parties to conduct business together.
6. A Statement of LAW showing where consent to any statute that is mandatory and without obligation to consent.

In adressing my second point you firstly state that statutes have the consent of the goverened because "the Oireachtas debated and approved them". This statement could only be made by someone completley lacking in independent thought or the ability to reason and decide for themselves. This is a free country and each man is free to decide what is right for them, so long as it is in accordance with Natural Law and they do not infringe on anothers rights.

You then go on to say "the Oireachtas is therefore representative of the People". I agree with this statement with the added amendment, that representation can only come from consent [bold emphasis added].

You further state "this is the nature of parliamentary democracy". Need I remind you that Ireland is in fact a democratic Republic. Are you aware of the difference between a 'Democratic" and a "Republic". If so I beleive what you are suggesting here is mob mentality and abolishment of my personal rights?

I sincerely hope my communication to you has been clear and that there is no doubt in your mind regarding my position. I will now re-itterate my previous requests which to date you have still failed to address.

I conditionally accept your notice of alleged debt and happily affect payment, upon receiving the following :

1. Proof of debt , Validation of the actual debt (the actual accounting of the debt).

2.Full disclosure of the alleged debt. (a lawful requirement of any contract).

3. Verification of your claim against me (a hand signed sworn affidavit.).

I feel I need further clarification in relation to your response, please answer these important questions so as there is no confusion between us.

4.Do you understand the difference between 'Statutory Legislation' and 'Natural Law'?

5.Do you understand what I mean when I say 'Statutes are not Law'?

6.Do you know the difference between a 'Democracy' and a 'Republic'?

7.Are you advocating an abolisment of my rights?

8.Are you advocating the use of force against me?

Please respond to the above requests in no later than 10 days from the above date.

In honour, sincerity and respect,

______________.
Putthat-Inyourpipe: andsmokeit


Ahhhh that's better. Hope u dont mind me posting that ZI just had to get that off my chest lads. phew
....aaand breath !! :)

just messing with ya kev, great post! :)
That's brilliant, I am having trouble with an post regarding a tv licence also this is really helpful thanx

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Kev.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service