Discover more from Future of Communications
Invoke the conscience* of the administrator
*If one exists and has not become degraded beyond repair
One of the multiple sagas I am embroiled in right now is getting myself off the electoral register, as I no longer consent to being governed by genocidal maniacs, and this is a peaceful way of non-cooperation and becoming ungovernable to drive fundamental change. Consent of the governed is foundational to having a lawful, free, and peaceful society; hence withdrawal of consent, individually and collectively, is a fundamental right of self-determination.
I thought you might enjoy my latest round of correspondence. In the “last episode” I had requested details of which specific law stops them from removing me from the register. Here is the response I got…
Dear Martin Geddes,
Being a ‘freeman’ does not exempt any person from registering their details on the electoral register this is not optional and not something you consent to. If you are eligible to register and you meet the three qualifying requirements, residency, age, and nationality you must register by law. Which in your case you are already registered. [This is not strictly true: if you act as a sovereign, consent is needed as I understand it.]
The requirement to register falls under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and later regulations. This is a statute created by a democratically elected Parliament of the United Kingdom which has received the assent of the Crown. [But Parliament cannot create obligations on the unwilling, or do anything that compromises the interests of the public, including peaceful resistance and dissent.]
For more information see: Representation of the People Act 1983 (legislation.gov.uk)
Your requirement to register is not dependent on, and does not require, your consent or the existence of a contractual relationship with the Electoral Registration Officer. Any such assertion to the contrary is incorrect and there is no legal basis upon which to make this argument. [NB: I never mentioned this as being a contractual matter.]
As stated previously your details can be removed from the full electoral register under Section 10ZE of the RPA 1983 if you provide a valid reason, one being that you are no longer resident at the property. [There is nothing in the Act that says this… it is not the law!]
The reason of not consenting is not a valid reason to remove anyone’s details from the full elector register. [My emphasis.]
Steven Templeton AEA (Cert).
Principle Electoral Officer
Durham County Council
So there you have it… an explicit statement that they consider my consent irrelevant, and that administrative power overrides individual conscience. I am treated like an asset of the state, not a living man whose consent is foundational to legitimacy of power. No actual law can be named, just an absolute requirement for me to do as I am told. It is a kind of “peri-quasi-law”, being rules invented by the bureaucracy that are enforced, but have no actual basis in legislation.
So, I have switched modalities, and responded thus, playing my own trump card…
In this case I am writing to you as a fellow living man, and I invite you to reflect upon what you are saying, and the morality of the course of action you are involved in.
Whether you agree or not as an individual, many people of good standing (including myself) consider the actions of the state (including local government) over the Covid lockdowns and vaccination program to constitute treason and genocide. This is sufficient reason to wish to withdraw consent to the system of government that enabled this. There is international treaty law, national law, and natural law that requires accommodation of beliefs, as well as freedom of speech and political association.
I understand that you are following protocol. However, "I was only following orders" has a poor pedigree — and proven terrible consequences. In this case, you are clearly unable to point to a specific law that prevents you acting to remove my name from the register, so I can exercise my right to disassociate myself from something truly dark and wicked. I could argue the details in statute law, but the essential point is that no law of man can override the requirement to do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.
For a moment, put yourself in my shoes. Imagine that you sincerely believed that what has happened is a crime against humanity, and that to remain in honour you must oppose it in every way possible. The stance you are being asked to take by your employer is to assert a general public policy of maintaining registration overrides both constitutional protections (no statute law can impinge on the innate rights of the people) as well as our international treaty obligations.
Would you feel it was moral, righteous, and holy to be forced to remain registered against your will and conscience? I do not expect a response; please think about this privately.
Finally, I am able to inform you that as from 1st April 2023 I will no longer be resident in County Durham. I trust that this is sufficient reason for you to process my removal from the register. I would be grateful if you could confirm that this has been duly processed.
I am genuinely relocating, and it is a new development since I started the correspondence, so no subterfuge is involved. This got the following rather angry and typo-filled, but definitely final, response:
Dear Martin Geddes
With regards to your comments the relevant law has been provided to you.
With the confirmation that you will no longer be resident at the property from the 1 April 2023 the removal process will start. Your details will be pending deleted. A review letter will be posted to your address, if we don’t receive a response from the review letter your details will then be removed from the register 14 days from the date of the letter.
Please note no being register will not only affect your right to vote, but you may also have difficulty obtaining a mortgage, bank account, phone contract or be refused credit.
Steven Templeton AEA (Cert).
There was no need to add that last paragraph, and it is quite possibly enough for him to earn a reprimand if I made a formal complaint. It is essentially a threat, using fear, used to control me. It is an unprofessional emotional reaction to being called to account, and the violation of my consent being elevated to a personal matter, which it ultimately always is.
The lesson from this saga for me is that those who administrate do not accept that they do not decide for themselves what is lawful, and are more than happy to elevate their organisation policy above the law. For once someone’s salary and pension are attached to being compliant with a corrupt system, few will be willing to make the sacrifices needed to act out of conscience. So when you mention conscience, then you increase the cost of compliance, and erode the value of the benefits received.
In this case you can tell that an appeal to conscience was not appreciated, but it is not the administrator who is being violated. I am being coerced via legislation into consenting to a system of government that has become murderous against me and my fellow countrymen and women. The (first) American revolution began when some people decided it was an innate right to resist and overthrow such tyranny. The banality of despotic evil is implemented via the indifference of the ordinary functionary. The only way out is to put conscience back in.
Future of Communications is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.