Never accept the fob-off from officialdom
When a public servant acts like they are your master then push back hard
I am slowly learning the art of “armed administration” via “combat correspondence” with the powers that be. In the last instalment of this particular saga, I wrote to Durham County Council to get my name removed from the electoral register, as I am living in the private as a sovereign and no longer wish to give my consent to the legislative political system, as it has gone 100% “extra-constitutional”, insanely murderous, and surreally tyrannical.
I got the following response…
Seems like I don’t have a name! Rather a rude opening, no?
The right to be forgotten does not apply when personal data is processed for the ‘performance of a public task’ (such as maintaining the electoral register) or where it is necessary for archival in the public interest. Therefore, an elector cannot contact an Electoral Registration Officer(ERO) and ask to be removed from the current register or from ‘old/historical’ electoral registers since their inclusion on that register originated from a legal obligation on the ERO.
I didn’t invoke a right to be forgotten under legislative law, I have withdrawn my consent as a living man. Acts and statutes require our consent, and mine is not given! He continues…
As a creature of statute, the ERO must publish a revised register of electors each year. The requirements around what information is contained in the register and how it is published and made available is prescribed in law (Representation of the people act 1983). The ERO has acted on information provided on voter registration and canvass forms to compile our register. However, you may request that information collected on grounds of consent (for example, where an elector gives consent to use of their email address) is deleted or removed at any time.
So he’s cut and pasted some standard text that does not address my questions.
If the person wants to be removed from the current register, the ERO would need to have a reason to remove them in accordance with Section 10ZE of the RPA 1983 – i.e. that they were no longer resident at their address.
This is “proof by repeated assertion” — in other words, if you keep saying something, it is taken to be true, regardless of its merit. It is feeble, and I won’t fall for it.
You are able to remove your name from the open register, which I can see from your record that you have already done so.
They do like distractions and irrelevances…
Steven Templeton AEA (Cert).
Principle Electoral Officer
(Is my grammar off, or should that not be “principal”?)
I asked which specific law prevents them from removing my name. I haven’t had a reply. So it is time to up the game…
Dear Mr Templeton,
Notice to principal is notice to agent; notice to agent is notice to principal
Email service in accordance with precedence PT-2018-000160
While I appreciate your literary use of "Good Afternoon" as a way to signal the end of a conversation, as in The Hobbit, it is not quite appropriate in this situation.
As a member of the public I have asked some perfectly reasonable questions, and you are a public servant, so a considered response is expected that addresses them directly. Furthermore, the Nolan Principles of public life require objectivity, accountability, and openness.
Section 10ZE only refers to a benefit or privilege exercised via an entitlement. Objectivity means the exact text of the law does matter. Accountability means adherence to the actual law as written does matter. Openness means candour about which precise law is being followed does matter.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also specifies a right to self-determination, including that of political affiliation, and is superior to UK statute law. As a matter of conscience I cannot allow myself to be associated with our present system of elected government, which has objectively engaged in crimes against humanity and is treasonous, genocidal, and unlawful. I am claiming that my individual right (via international treaty) to self-determination (including non-affiliation and removal of consent to be governed) overrides your wish to retain my information on the register.
I accept that any periodic nature of fixed publication makes retrospective removal moot. This is solely a matter of inclusion in any register published henceforth.
You have made a claim that there is a law that prevents you acting on my request and my removal of consent. If you cannot provide evidence of such a law, then the name given must be removed for the address listed. If you are unable or unwilling to identify a specific law that you are implementing, and can only point to a generality of legalism, then you must by definition be acting outside of the law. That implies that you are acting ultra vires, and therefore personally accountable for any consequent harm or loss to me.
Can you let me know which specific clause in law you are acting under?
Here is what you have to comprehend: these officials are (unwittingly) operating a modern slavery system. A mirror system of all our natural rights has been created, as an upside-down world, using bankruptcy laws, corporate law, and maritime law, starting with birth certificates to turn us into property of the state. We are being traded as chattel, giving off the fruits of our labours via taxes, and having our energy harvested. In that system, everything revolves around the parallel “straw man” construct that bears our name, but is not us.
The great and ineffable “they” create and own our legal fiction, and as long as you consent to represent it, then they own you. In their Satanic legal paradigm, that denies your divine rights and deceives you into bondage, we the people are below the minions of the system. Our job is to serve them. Of course, many of us are waking up to the scam, and re-asserting our sovereign role and birth right. These functionaries are below us.
I may or may not get them to remove me from the electoral register. Yet at the end of the day, what matters is where we put our energy. The real “win” is withdrawing all my energy from their control. The battle over unlawful council tax, where there is no obligation to pay and fake courts to enforce fraudulent “debt”, is far more important. But once you decide to be sovereign, the only real way is to be “all in”, and remove your consent to be enslaved via criminal government in every way possible.
The inevitable result will be a series of escalating polite “f*ck you!” type interactions with the administrative complex, along the lines of these encounters. Eventually you learn not to be intimidated, manipulated, or discouraged. When enough of us push back with sufficient force, the corrupt system based on identity and jurisdiction fraud collapses. The illusion that we serve them will eventually be crushed under the sheer weight of people insisting that they serve us.
All it takes is for each of us to reject the fob-off.
Future of Communications is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I particularly enjoy their responses. Obviously they have never gotten such letters and don't really have any idea how to respond, other than with more bureaucrat-ese. I'm also thinking they don't want to ask their bosses how to respond out of fear of the verbal thrashing they might obtain.
Martin---your posts continue to make my days shine! Your grammar is not off, and Steven Templeton has no principles. I love how you made a reference to the Hobbit, which brought up a great belly laugh in Me. This kind of spontaneous humor is saving all of us as we continue to navigate the madness!! Keep it up--you keep my brain cells firing and the corners of my mouth turned up! Bravo and Amen!