bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Income Tax, Council Tax, National Insurance and VAT issues.

bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby markie b » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:27 pm

Dear [name],

Please find enclosed a copy of Notice of Determination of Penalty for a late Tax Return which I received on today. It was issued by "The Officer in Charge" and is attempting to impose a 'Penalty Charge' of �100

Upon checking the legislation, I was surprised to find that HM Revenue & Customs, appear to be attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. Please find enclosed an extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section that I have highlighted:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. As stated in the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63):


62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ... 63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not�"

I am not aware that the Taxes Management act 1970 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689.

Therefore, it would appear that HM Revenue & Customs and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law. If you wish to proceed against me, please refer the matter to a Court of Law in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of me is illegal and void.

Please also confirm to me in writing that you have advised the relevant officers of the HM Revenue & Customs that they are acting illegally by attempting to claim powers which are forbidden to them, and that all issuing of penalties is being done only after conviction by a Court of Law.

Yours sincerely, etc

ENCLOSURES
1. Photocopy of Late Tax Return: Penalty Noitice
2. Extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689
3. Extract of Metric Martyrs Judgment, sections 62 and 63.

BILL OF RIGHTS ACT [1689]


An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown


[Extract]

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.


Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2003] QB 151 ("Metric Martyrs" ruling) 18 Feb 2002 [Extract]

62 Where does this leave the constitutional position which I have stated? Mr Shrimpton would say that Factortame (No 1) was wrongly decided; and since the point was not argued, there is scope, within the limits of our law of precedent, to depart from it and to hold that implied repeal may bite on the ECA as readily as upon any other statute. I think that would be a wrong turning. My reasons are these. In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental: see for example such cases as Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 per Lord Hoffmann at 131, Pierson v Secretary of State [1998] AC 539, Leech [1994] QB 198, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] AC 534, and Witham [1998] QB 575. And from this a further insight follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional" statutes. The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law. It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives. The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute.

63 Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual � not imputed, constructive or presumed � intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute. 64 This development of the common law regarding constitutional rights, and as I would say constitutional statutes, is highly beneficial. It gives us most of the benefits of a written constitution, in which fundamental rights are accorded special respect. But it preserves the sovereignty of the legislature and the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. It accepts the relation between legislative supremacy and fundamental rights is not fixed or brittle: rather the courts (in interpreting statutes, and now, applying the HRA) will pay more or less deference to the legislature, or other public decision-maker, according to the subject in hand. Nothing is plainer than that this benign development involves, as I have said, the recognition of the ECA as a constitutional statute.
when injustice becomes law
rebellion becomes duty
markie b
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:42 am

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby kevin » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:30 pm

Hehe, i think this applies to a lot of things, i posted this up last night in the motoring section about fixed penalty notices, parking tickets

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".
kevin
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby markie b » Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:58 pm

kevin wrote:Hehe, i think this applies to a lot of things, i posted this up last night in the motoring section about fixed penalty notices, parking tickets

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".



hehe yep which is pretty cool as they cant repeal the bill of rights or change what it means they can only branch off from it and the bill of rights has special statute rights where as legal statutes only have 'ordinary' rights which i noticed on another site hmmm going to check out the word ordinary statute rights and see what that turns up :thinks: :geek:
when injustice becomes law
rebellion becomes duty
markie b
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:42 am

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:07 pm

Yes, I quite agree with you, kevin - it has many uses. Added to the bankruptcy act of 1869, not only do we HAVE to forgive other debts, THEY HAVE TO FORGIVE OURS, don't they?

So, I imagine a blend of all these lovely, lovely, laws they made to repress and enslave us, will come around to biting them in the arses! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Looking good, better than ever in fact......nice work, guys... :yes:
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby huntingross » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:46 pm

An excellent one line rebuttal template.....I see in the crystal ball.....nice find MB.

You can't have my taxes unless you get a court order.....this month and next month and the month after adinfinitum

I think it would be fitting to add to the excellent find, further letters of extortion will meet with a counterclaim.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby IamallthatIam » Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm

Most excellent guys , dont know how i managed to miss this the first time round. i have just used the same line in my council tax " don't fuck with me " notice , will post up as soon as it is done !
Invito beneficium non datur - A benefit is not conferred upon one against his consent.
I DO NOT offer legal advice
- "I just say what I say because everyone is entitled to my opinion!" -

- Saffi Elder (Aged 7)-
User avatar
IamallthatIam
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:36 am

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:26 pm

Well, I'm looking forward to that one, Angie :clap:
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby IamallthatIam » Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:44 pm

BaldBeardyDude wrote:Well, I'm looking forward to that one, Angie :clap:

haha , just so you know,and for all others looking for it, its over here;
very good council tax Notice - even if i do say myself
Invito beneficium non datur - A benefit is not conferred upon one against his consent.
I DO NOT offer legal advice
- "I just say what I say because everyone is entitled to my opinion!" -

- Saffi Elder (Aged 7)-
User avatar
IamallthatIam
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:36 am

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby matnukem » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:14 am

so let me get this right in what was posted the bill of rights the last line

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently


and this bit

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted


do you think this could be used angent a FPN for speeding? long shoot i know any way that wa a good find.
matnukem
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:02 pm

Re: bill of rights 1689 and tax act 1970 template and case law

Postby zone » Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:27 pm

Markie B, did u get a response to your correspondence? Any further news?
zone
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:10 pm

Next

Return to Taxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest