Thank You SL

That's nice. Can I still have Brenda?

More blah blah blah, Debra? You didn't recognise your own writing? Oh well.

Yes, I only have one point, and it would have been done with a long time ago but you keep on about my point. I only needed to say it once - it's you who keeps it going. Let's see if you can leave it without having to have the last word, eh?

Sadly, they are not always completely devoid of people like you, but we all have our crosses to bear.

If she won't remove her hair and become low prim, she's all yours

Since when does a plc have rights. Morrisons has no rights. MP's represent their constitutents, not a plc. The same goes for parliament. Clearly, morrison has dictated what the the age will be for ALL business because they now ALL have to abide by the minimum 25 year age. I don't give a toss what they want to do in their own store, but I do when they get it changed for all stores.

The law that I was talking about with regard to prices was enacted in the 1970's by the Wilson government because of prices being increased due to inflation and increases in taxation after a budget and being exploited by retailers. Get your facts straight. Where was I talking about reducing prices.

BTW. Thanks again for distorting what I post.

Blah blah blah. Let me remind you, its my thread; if you don't like that fact, create your own.

one question for debra...how do you figure us income tax is not required when a ton of people get prosecuted and many go to jail each year for failure to pay income tax?? just trying to understand your point that paying income tax is voluntary....to me its required if you can be sent to jail, have all your possessions sold off and be left with nothing for not paying.

and yes phil....you got my point about internet connections exactly as i meant it.

There is no law that requires people to pay income tax. There is a law that requires employees of the federal government to pay income tax. For everyone else it is volentary. However, it is more complicated than that. Being voluntary, you are told by people whether your parents or the media that a tax return must be filled in each year. So when you are in court the IRS will bring out a previous tax return that you filled in and state that here is the proof that you volunteered to pay, so must do so for the rest of your life. The court will agree. Its a scam. There is also the fact that a 14th amendment citizen is a citizen of the District of Columbia, so also an employee because the District of Columbia is now a corporation, and seen as such in your statutes. Plus, if the federal register is studied, it can be seen that a 4th arm of government was created first in 1933 which was rejected by the supreme court and then again in 1935 which still stands which is the one that governs you and is the reason why the federal government has so much power now. The problem they have is that they must still give the illusion that US citizens have rights protected by the constitution. However, when you are in court, the judges will not allow you to quote the constitution because you are not protected by it as a 14th amendment citizen. You are obligated to pay off the national debt, so are just a slave. When you are in court for not paying taxes, the process starts with the prosecution stating that a US citizen is obligated to pay. You see, a US citizen is not one of the people because they have volunteered to be a 14th amendment citizen. That is why they ask you all the time whether you are or not. You keep confirming that you are so prove that they have proof that the 4th arm of government has jurisdiction over you. However, they do not follow their own rules as stated in the federal register where these rules must be published, so by forcing them to comply with these rules, you can always beat them. There are other ways as well. Now don't ask me for links. I have just written enough for you to study it yourself. If you do not understand what you are doing, they will beat you. Look at the codes and and study the federal register. There is a lawyer who is based in Alaska that has a weekly show on Sunday's that goes into this very deeply. It is called: The Ralph Winterrowd Show and can be heard over the internet or archives downloaded from:

http://republicbroadcasting.org

I've stayed out of this thread because it seemed to me that the OP was not quite with it . . .

Pep ( . . . but the post quoted suggests that I was actually overestimating her intellectual capabilities.)

Reading all posts from the OP in this thread... I would say that was not too hard to do was it

Fail.

You can take credit for starting it, you can take credit for making a fool out of yourself IN it, but you cannot claim ownership OF it.
You can, however, request to have it closed, which might be a smart thing to do

Never, just because you think you are smart does not make it so. My points have all been valid. I have provided information to a level that you can only dream about. I have informed people about information they need to know and can use as pointers to educate themselves with throughout this tread. And all I've had in return apart from a few people is idiotic replies. I will leave you with a quote from someone else:

"In spite of my public persona, I really do have feelings. The only way I can sleep or be able to look you in the eye is if I’ve tried to warn you. This monograph is for my conscience, so I know that I’ve done my best to warn those I love. Once I distribute this I’ve done my duty."

I have nothing to be ashamed of, which is more than I can say for some on this thread.

No, a limited company does not 'have a vote'! But the OWNERS of Morrisons do, and were entirely within their rights to do as they did. And whilst anyione who, in the view of the cashier 'looks under 25' can be asked for ID, they only have to BE 18 years old to buy alcohol.

The Sale of Goods Act was passed in 1968, and has been ammended variously since that time. You stated in an earlier post that once goods had been priced and set out for sale, that the price could not in law be raised until these goods were sold and a new stock delivered. That is incorrect. There is no provision within the sale of goods act for that.
I didn't say that they could not reduce prices, and I didn't say that you had said that either. What I did say was that they are only permitted to advertise prices as reduced if the goods had been on sale for the higher price, during the previous 28 days. And incidentally, not necessarily in the same branch of that store. I am extremely well aquainted with this law, and you are not.

I can't speak for the US taxation law, as I am not domiciled in the US, nor am I a US citizen, but the regulars in this forum who are seem better informed and, frankly, less mad than you, so I will take their intelligence first.

And of course, you're purely welcome for the corrections to your distortions.

Physician heal thyself.
No they haven't.
No you haven't.
No you haven't.
No you haven't.
No you haven't.
Yes you have.

Pep (at last)

Ignorance is bliss, you are welcome to it. You can take the view you like, it matters not to me. All that matters to me is that I know I am right and have informed others. It is then for them to take that pointer and look it up themselves. Very few people in this world actually seek out the truth, but instead reply on what they are told by others. I don't care whether you believe me or not, but I do care about people not taking the time to study and educate themselves about what is going on around them. Your post is a good example of how society self regulates itself. The owners of a limited company are not always the same people that run a company. The people that run a company also do not have a right to used the money of that company to influence politicians. But maybe a better way of looking at it is to say that politicians do not have the right to allow themselves to be influenced by companies or in fact people that are not their constituents. But we all know how corrupt the system is. Just the fact that you have a three line whip shows it is so, plus if you look at the oath the MP's take, you will see that it is to the queen, not their constituents who they are actually not obliged to represent. If you think they are, try getting your local MP to sign a statement that they will. Don't hold your breath.

If you think the law is so straight forward, why are there so many civil cases. And why are the meanings of words used by lawyers changed so much by the law society. If you don't believe me, look up the meanings of words in law dictionaries over the last 150 years and see how they have changed. Its another language that looks like English but is known as legalese. If you don't know the language, you get stuffed in the courts.

Do you know what the difference is between lawful and legal, or unlawful and illegal? If not, don't talk about the laws because you are clueless.

Blah blah blah.

And on that note, I believe there is only one piece of advice left to give for this thread:

These 2 quotes do speak for themselves,don't they





If the 2 quotes above did not, these do

Blah blah blah

Coo, who lit the fuse on her tampax?
I think there could be a, a, a conspiracy going on. Maybe the politicians are all in a secret society and they're gonna get us and enslave us and make us do their evil bidding. Why, that must be why we can't say stuff like Jacqui Smith is a lying, thieving scumbag, and Tony Blair is a corrupt and lying bastard, and John Prescott is a fat ugly git who should have stayed on the ferries and, oh hang on, someone at the door................................................................................................................................................................................................

Oh hai everyone - the sun is shining today on a lovely blissful UK, efficiently governed by a fair and generous, transparently honest New Labour. Mmmmm, flies for lunch, yummy

Fnerrrr fnerrrr

You are absolutely right Katheryne, I should stop feeding you.

Funny how they are all still in office making laws that tell you what you have to do while none of them are being prosecuted. Who gives a toss about what you can say when you don't have the power to throw the corrupt into prison for trying to steal.

You just have to have the last word, don't you

Let me inform you that this is not your thread. You don't have a thread here. You started the thread, that's all. May I suggest that, if you don't want differing views to your own being posted in threads that you start, then start them in a private place, where you can allow only approved views

That wouldn't be from David Icke, would it?

Man, you're boring.