Law vs Witchcraft: which will win?

The desire to dominate others via narrative is Satanic as it opposes divine rights

I would never have guessed that to understand the communications of the modern bureaucratic state that it was necessary to learn more about the occult, but here we are. Those brainwashed by propaganda like Harry Potter have a warped understanding of disciplines like witchcraft and Satanism, and that is by design. It is a distraction to focus you on the outward manifestations, and not the underlying paradigm of manipulation and intimidation for the purpose of domination.

The essence of constitutional law is a fixed agreement about unalienable God-given rights, with a moral code of equal justice, and an objective process of testing evidence under transparent rules. It is designed to oppose tyranny and its desire to impose power through false narratives and unethical ideological doctrines. The test of individual liberty is that you can claim and enforce your innate rights, even if every other person in society disapproves. The test of tyranny is whether your rights are contingent on the court of public opinion. This is the fundamental tussle we face: rule of divine law, or mob rule via narrative control.

The more closely I look at the actions of the state (and its agents) and how it interacts with the men and women it purports to serve, the more alarmed I become. They are literally “casting spells” over the population with their twisted language and warped logic. People fall into a kind of hypnotic trance when confronted with menacing demands from authority, and forget that the rule of law is (supposed to be) indifferent to whether you wield official power or not. The rights of the individual are exactly the same no matter what the narrative on offer. Yet the state is waging war on your consciousness via language and symbolism, in order to edify itself.

For instance, TV Licensing here in the UK will write to you in a bright red envelope, and intimidate you via statements like “under investigation”, “official notice”, “please read carefully”, “you are in breach of the Communications Act 2003 if…”, “you should now expect a visit from Enforcement Officers”, and “get in touch now to stop this investigation”. This expression is all designed to take a one-up narrative position to force me into their preferred action (i.e. pay up now!). Law is the opposite, starting from a place of equal power, and maintains the right of both parties to exercise free will, with the default being to be left alone at peace.

TV Licensing manipulate you via deliberately confusing legislation and law, telling you that “…by law we have no option but to continue with our investigation”. No, that is your interpretation of a statute and your policy choice for your goals. The law (on fraud, harassment, and blackmail) still stands regardless. My innate rights to presumption of innocence, personal privacy, and freedom to contract remain unaffected by any act or statute.

TV Licensing are an official body, and this semantic perversion in pursuit of profit is not an accident. What they are sending is a sales pitch of no more legal standing than the one for prepaid funeral plans I keep getting — but at least they act respectfully and lawfully.

Whereas intimidation and manipulation are the means, domination is the ends. Those in power are trying to corral you into a decision process that they control, which makes you submit to their authority, and overlook your divine nature and consequent birthrights. This is always a matter of a rigged framing to give you a restricted and biased choice, where none of the alternatives serve you, only them. All of the options have you engage in an act of submission which takes your energy in some way. In the case of TV Licensing they offer you these options:

This is a lie by omission, since there are other options too. Firstly, you can just ignore them, as you owe them nothing, including any declaration of whether you own a television or not. They have no power to enter your property without a warrant. If they come you can just tell them to go away, as with any other door-to-door salesman. There is nothing to enforce, so telling you they are doing so is deeply immoral. The “enforcement visit” comprises “leave now” — and no more.

Even if you do have a TV and do not buy a license, you still have a right to silence. It is for them to show reasonable cause that you personally are violating the law. How many other people may be in breach is not relevant; the collective ends very rarely justify the means of suppression of individual rights. (One of the rare exceptions is quarantine, which is why the Covid scamdemic is designed the way it is.) Your personal data is a currency like money, and you should not be forced to surrender it, especially under coercion.

You can also write to them, as I have done, requesting that they no longer contact you and that you withdraw your implied right of access to your property. In my case I received no response to this demand, or it being my right to do so. It is as if our common law rights cease to exist if they are not mentioned or acknowledged. The implication is that they reserve a right to come and visit me, which they emphatically do not unless they get a warrant from a court. They deny my free will exists by their silence. Any “enforcement visit” is now actionable trespass, and potentially criminal harassment if it is repeated.

In theory one could take their action to a criminal case via a police complaint, but that is useless because they are all aligned to the same system of control and human trafficking (via the straw man persona). It may be a textbook case of blackmail, admitted in writing even, but nothing will ever happen if you require other agents of the same powers to take action against their own paymasters. The playbook only works because every part of the state is using the same spiritual subversion of your birthright, substituting their temporal authority for that of the divine and almighty.

Lastly, you can turn the tables as a commercial endeavour, rather than a criminal one. Stop treating it as a moral quest, and make it a money making one — that you win. They are making an offer to contract to you, so you can make a counter-offer to them. That is what I have done with TV Licensing, and I will gladly correspond (endlessly if need be) at my standard rates according to my fee schedule. They send out unwanted radio waves, and I send out unwanted post. It’s a fair game of getting even!

By ignoring my request to desist communications with me they have consentingly entered into a contract with me. If they refuse to pay, I escalate it to court. If the court refuses to enforce our contract, then they expose themselves as corrupt too, and I still win. I have gone outside the “predictable region of operation” of their standardised business processes, and broken them. They have no way to engage with someone like me who is aware of their wickedness at a deep and systemic level, and knows how to “think mirror” to oppose it.

To fight this iniquity, we not only have to call the manipulation and intimidation out, but also must “return fire” too, using their own tools and techniques to dominate them. If the fight is a commercial and civil one, rather than criminal, then we have to prevail in that economic war to deny them income and energy. As such, today is 14 days since my letter to Durham County Council invoicing them for correspondence services, since they were unable to provide a Liability Order when challenged.

Here is my draft letter to be posted today.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Pre-action notification to recover debt owed by Durham County Council

With reference to my notice and invoice dated 5th October 2022, I am now contacting you to advise you that you have a further 7 days in which to pay my invoice else recovery proceedings will be initiated via the small claims court.

I have offered to pay the sum claimed by you, subject to you providing me with a valid Liability Order, as it is my right to verify that due process was followed. You have declined to do so, and misdirected attention to irrelevant legal matters unrelated to lawful due process. That your correspondence has no name or signature raises further doubt about your integrity and commitment to the rule of law.

You had the following options when challenged:

1. Present a valid Liability Order, and I would have paid immediately.

2. Admit that there was a defect in the process, rectify it, and I would have paid when fixed.

3. Recognise that there was either no obligation to pay and/or no valid Liability Order, and rescinded your demand for payment and/or exercised your prerogative to zero the sum due, so no party owed each other anything.

4. Ceased all communications and further enforcement, rendering no sum due by either party, since it was in perpetual dispute.

5. Accept my offer to engage in correspondence under contract as you are outside of a lawful process and have failed to respond to a due process request.

You have (unwisely) chosen the last option, and we now have a contract to correspond in regard to your ultra vires actions. This is the law! It goes both ways: I am equally entitled to offer to contract to you as you are to me. Thus far you have failed to acknowledge the offer to contract, or pay my invoice for services rendered, but that does not mean there is no contract. Nor can you unilaterally decide nothing is due based on being an “authority” whose job is to receive money from the public (unlawfully).

I enclose a further invoice of £500 per my fee schedule for services rendered to you in basic education on contract law. I look forward to payment of this, as well as the previous invoice. Should you wish to bring this process back under the remit of lawful Council Tax collection then I suggest that you provide a valid Liability Order for me to examine, and as a matter of honour pay my lawful invoices promptly. Otherwise, we can continue to correspond (for a fee) about the unlawfulness you are clearly engaged in.

Actions performed ultra vires give rise to personal liability. Any further communication from you that is without a name or signature of a responsible officer (who can be sued) will be considered a threat of extortion, and an attempt at blackmail (per the Theft Act 1968).

Once more I remind you that no debt recovery for Council Tax is permitted as this matter is under dispute, since you have failed to promptly respond to a legitimate request for lawful due process.

Martin Geddes

It is settled case law that there is no requirement for the public to assist a police officer in his or her duties. The same applies to TV Licensing, Council Tax, HMRC, and every other revenue opportunity for the corporatised state. I am not under the slightest obligation to lift a finger to help them raise money for general public finances or public service broadcasting. That others may disagree or denounce me for being mean-minded and anti-social… I just say that you are completely right!

Yes, I am an awful right-wing extremist with abominable views who should be shunned by every proper-thinking progressive human. And I have constitutional rights, so if you don’t like them, then get the constitution changed — or fook off. Your judgement is irrelevant to me, because I am acting in accordance with the rule of law, which is how we keep the peace. Mob rule via narrative conflict ends in physical violence and civil war, thus is always unrighteous.

I will never again comply with anyone using witchcraft. I will not respect authority that twists perception to engage in deception. I will insist on my constitutional rights no matter who dislikes it.

Render under Caesar what is due, but no more than that. Equality under the rule of law includes those who govern. So make Caesar pay you when power and authority is abused.

It’s that time of year again. Want more? signup.martingeddes.art