UKC

My understanding of this is when we are born we are given a name. For instance Joe Soap...BUT according to this documentary you actually have 2 titles!
Joe Soap (natural person) & JOE SOAP (artificial person).
Joe Soap has human rights but JOE SOAP is classed as an artificial person and has no rights.
JOE SOAP is liable to be taxed (just like Corporations)as he is not a natural person and therefore he pays income tax! Take a look at any official documents (HMRC Tax Documents, Speeding fines etc) who is it addressed to? Is it your name (Joe Soap) or is it (JOE SOAP)?
I'm just starting to research this and would appreciate some input.

Please watch the video as this is alot more detailed than what I have
provided...this could be amazing!

WE MIGHT BE BEING SOLD A LIE AND MAY NOT NEED TO PAY INCOME TAX AS IT MAY BE VOLUNTARY BUT HIDDEN UNDER ALOT OF RED TAPE!!!

Or I/this video could be wrong or only apply in the US & Canada (the speaker does say that the Canadian Bill of Rights is based on the UK Bill of Rights so I think it may work both ways).

Please don't ridicule me if this is incorrect for my naivity. :0)

Thank you!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3217921377956329335

In reply to Sircumfrins:
Eh?
I don't think the uk even has a "Bill of Rights" and I have no idea what that stuff about the name was.

Apart from the merits or otherwise of the actual argument, don't you think somebody else might have spotted this and tried it out by now?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

There are lots of ways to avoid paying income tax in the UK, but I'm not sure this is one of them... If it was, then it would be deserving of castration, like all the rest

In reply to Luke90: I'm not sure. But I thought that maybe someone (maybe a legal eagle) on here might have their eyes opened (or not) and may look into this.

When I said Bill of Rights I should have said Human Rights.

In reply to johnSD: Hey John. Have you ever heard of the terms Natural Person and Artificial Person being applied to the capitalisation of your name like I gave in the OP (Joe Soap - NP & JOE SOAP - AP)?
I reckon that alone is dodgy and deserves to be looked in to.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Have seen another documentary with this statement in. Not sure if it's true.

Could hold more sway in america.

More likely, you have absolutly no chance of getting away with not paying taxes!!! Dream on mate.

However, if you find out that it is true...

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Have you tried googling it?

http://www.natural-person.ca/

Sounds like a load of shit to me

They may be (deliberately) mixing things up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person

"How could Governments and other "regulatory bodies" possibly make you follow their rules and be subservient to them since your true allegiance is to your Creator? How can you serve two masters - your creator and your Government? The answer is that you cannot server two masters, therefore the Government had to create a system that tricks you into thinking you must serve them, where in fact, Governments must serve us, the people." says it all...

In reply to Sircumfrins: Only two things in life are certain. Death and taxes. Why would you want to get out of paying income tax anyway?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

What a crock of shit.

Anyway we all need to pay income tax or who is going to pay for the police, NHS, Education etc etc?

The tooth fairy?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

the whole sounds like complete and utter b*******

natural and artifical person - that is frankly ridiculous
and sounds very much like the spoofs by Brass Eye etc

capitalisation of a name doesn't change it.
and what about people with the same name - do they only have to pay one income tax bill :rolleyes:

However, it is true that you can change your name by common usage, and do need to get it changed by Deed Poll

In reply to Simon22:

I heard a rumour that the Easter Bunny would...

In reply to Bingly Bong:

Dear Santa,

I have been a good boy this year, and I would really like a new school and a teacher for Christmas.

Say hello to Rudolph and the lads,

John

Out of all the people that are saying its a bunch of sh*t...how many have watched & listened to some of the reasoning behind it, in the video?

Don't get me wrong...I'm not defending it but there are some valid points made.

In reply to Sircumfrins:
Decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and watch the video but it was 3 and a half hours long!! There's no way I'm going to waste that much of my life just so that I can say I gave it an honest chance. Did YOU even watch all that?

So answer me this question, if this is true, how has it not become bigger news? Why don't high-flying lawyers (the kind who find every possible legal loophole for the rich) get their clients out of income tax?
I guess the answer is that it's all a big conspiracy but that's never been a particularly convincing argument to me. I look at governments that can't even get an IT project in under budget and wonder how I'm supposed to believe they can pull the wool over the whole world's eyes in huge complicated conspiracies without any evidence leaking out.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

There is an old English law that exempts people from paying tax if the bill was served surepticiously. At the time, tax collectors who were often French and called "Lionel," the most popular French name then, and this name was commonly used to describe the taxman.

Thrusting a notice on someone was known as "forcing under the Yew"- derived from sneaking through churchyards to interupt weddings etc.

Apprently if your postman is called Lionel and you have a Yew branch above your door, you don't have to pay the bill

In reply to Luke90: I have watched the whole thing and I'm about to watch it again and take down some notes to research myself.
I don't have an answer to your question...but it is a good question. If it is happening in the US and Canada then it could be happening here and in other parts of the world.

In reply to johnSD:

Ahem - do I look fat, grey and hairy?????

No - on second thoughts, don't answer that...

In reply to johnSD: http://www... This link is actually very informative if you take the time to read it. They explain themselves quite thoroughly. You can either say it's bullsh*t (because the Government wouldn't want to exploit us...) or you can try and look into it further.
It seems you have already made up your mind though.

"Natural vs. Artificial:

There are two "persons" identified in law. These are "natural-person" and "artificial-person". See Government Tricks for more details.

A natural-person is defined as "A human being that has the capacity for rights and duties". Note that the word capacity means the ability, but not the obligation for rights and duties.

An artificial-person is defined as "A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach - e.g. a body corporate". Sometimes an artificial-person may be referred to as a CORPORATION, which is not always the same as an Incorporated Company. These subtle re-definitions are made in Statutes whenever the Government wants to change the meaning of the word.

There are many different types of artificial-persons, each with different duties. Here are a few different types of artificial-persons:

Taxpayer, Resident, Driver, Voter, Citizen, Homeowner, Officer.

Whenever you read any Law or Statute, you must be sure to check the meaning of the word "person" as it applies to that particular law.

In order to implement slavery of it's citizens and control them according to its whim, the Government had to invent a system that would not violate a human-being's fundamental rights, but would allow the Government to "own" everything produced or gained by its citizens.

The technique used by the Government was to create an artificial-person (referred to herein as a CORPORATION for emphasis) for every human-being in Canada. As creator of a CORPORATION, the Government can demand anything it wants from the CORPORATION. As a legal entity, a CORPORATION does not have feelings and cannot be hurt. It can be subject to slavery and complete domination by its creator and the CORPORATION must obey its creator.

So for every John Doe human-being in Canada, the Government created a JOHN DOE CORPORATION. Capital letters are used to represent CORPORATIONS and COMPANIES. Lower case letters are used to represent the name of the natural-person. See Capitalization.

As a CORPORATION needs a business number, in order to do business, the Government assigns a unique business number to each JOHN DOE it creates. Such a business number is called the S.I.N. (Slave Identification Number a.k.a. Social Insurance Number). The creator (Master) can then track all activities of the Slave and claim ownership on all property and income of the Slave.

Finally the Government needs to appoint an Officer of the CORPORATION to run the day-to-day activities. Such a position requires a contract since the Officer will be held accountable for the actions of the CORPORATION. So, the Government tricks John Doe to become the Officer for the JOHN DOE CORPORATION by signing such contracts as Driver's Licence, Bank Accounts, Citizenship Cards, Passports, etc. In the Income Tax Act, the Government just decrees that John Doe is the Legal Representative for the Officer of the JOHN DOE CORPORATION and the only contract involved is the annual Income Tax Return (yes it is a contract for one year) wherein John Doe gives his agreement as Officer of JOHN DOE for the previous year.

Unfortunately John Doe does not know that he is an Officer for the JOHN DOE CORPORATION and must therefore follow the rules imposed upon JOHN DOE. Hence the confusion sets in because John Doe believes that he is JOHN DOE and therefore has to forfeit his rights and duties upon demand by the Government and its officials."

Pretty interesting.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Well, their claim on the "Bank Act" page that the definitions of person, entity and representative refer to both natural and artificial people is simply rubbish. They just don't understand legal speak and have a bit of a funny belief system to back it up.

If the strength of their arguments bases itself on things like that, I'm convinced enough that its rubbish to not need to read any further.

When you read these ideas, I would recommend thinking "if this is really true, how likely is it that this isn't better known"? That should negate the need to think about them much further.

AJM

In reply to AJM:

Oh, I made the mistake of reading further. The very assumption as to whom they refer, namely the idea that block capitals is somehow significant, is an inference based on the lack of a specification rather than any actual prescription that this is the case.......

I do wonder sometimes.....

AJM

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Erm let's see, some of the cleverest people on the planet have devised ways to avoid or minimise tax liability but some crank has noticed this "loophole".

Seriously, what do you think.

I suspect that however and wherever you do your research it may be flawed.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

there used to be a poster on here called JoHNY.

I'm sure he would have a concise, probably one word, appraisal of your efforts

No one watching it for a better understanding? Much easier to ridicule someone than take the time to find out what someone is going on about...

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Fair enough, let us all know how you get on.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Tell you what, if you can quote me the piece of legalese that creates this corporation and then gets a person to sign on as an officer of said corporation, then let me know and I'll investigate further. At the moment, as far as I can tell, it is simply an assertion on their part that this is so without any evidence to back this up bar an extremely dubious claim that something in bold capitals is automatically different in legal terms from something that isn't. Until you can prove that this fact is so then I'm afraid its all just pie-in-the-sky, and I personally have never come across this idea before.

I personally, from the small amounts of contract law I know, don't think that someone can sign up as the legal representative of a corporation without knowing they've done so. You can't become the director of a company without knowing you've done so. Signing something as an individual supposedly on behalf of a corporation does not magically make you an officer of that corporation, it probably makes you guilty of fraud.

Furthermore, if people were taxed as corporations, how would we specify the difference that clearly exists between the rates of income and corporation tax?

AJM

In reply to Sircumfrins: *marks as spam*

In reply to Sircumfrins:

You are David Icke and I claim my £5...

In reply to Sircumfrins:
I'm more interested in persuading you not to waste your time on this than in ridiculing you. You've got sucked in so far, don't get sucked in any further.

Have a real think about the question I asked before. You admitted it's a good one and you don't have an answer.
Also ask yourself why they don't reference anything and only talk in hyperbole (eg. Slave Identification Number). It's just sensationalist conspiracy either for kicks or to get people to pay to attend lectures on how to avoid tax.

In reply to Sircumfrins:


I'd say, for a 23 year old, you're pretty dull if you think that might in anyway have any legal foundation whatsoever- or for that matter any kind of foundation in reality.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Yeah, pretty much.

Interestingly though, this scam conspiracy appears to be a bastardisation of the mirror image situation in the US, which is actually quite interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

Basically, corporate bodies (as defined in the law for some purposes) would like to take on the rights of real people. For example, they would like corporations to have first amendment rights to free speech and expression.

Now that's interesting.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

http://www.talkabouttaxes.com/group/can.taxes/messages/96939.html

In reply to johnSD:

Very, very true (the fact it's interesting that is)

In reply to Sircumfrins: No.