Freeman: A Notice of Understanding and Intent

Ian has posted up on his blog the full video of Dean Clifford from December 2011 here.

So I just wanted to comment a little more in depth about some of the issues raised, remember this is a Canadian, talking about how things work in Canada and whilst the underlying principles remain the same the system is subtly different.

Again this is not a criticism of the Jersey judicial system because if you get them by the short and curlies, then they will actually always follow the law - but putting them in a such a position is the difficult part.

So first thing to remember is that any Jersey statute solely governs the actions of the Civil Servants employed to operate under that statute. We are going to use the Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974  as our example and you should remember that this regulates the Social Security department, and only the Social Security department.

Philosophically it depends how you view Social Security, personally I view it as a massive Ponzi Scheme, which will never be able to deliver the returns that it has promised me, it therefore is a FRAUD, which if operated by anyone other than the government would land its architects in jail. Why should I pay in now when a) I am a better investment manager of my own money than anyone else and b) I will not see a return on this supposed investment. The fund will be empty by 2030 according to government estimates and I will not currently benefit until 2042, so only a fool would pay in.

The first article which should be of interest is Article 3 (2) which reads:

(2)    For the purposes of this Law, insured persons shall be divided into the following 2 classes –

(a)     Class 1, which shall comprise employed persons, that is to say, persons gainfully occupied in employment in Jersey under a contract of service; and

(b)     Class 2, which shall comprise persons not in Class 1.

Let's re-state this in clearer English to demonstrate how it affects you - under the law you are considered Class 2 (commonly referred to as self-employed, although this is a misunderstanding) unless you are under a Contract of Service. If you are employed under a Contract of Service then you are 'Class 1' also known as 'f****d'. You have sold yourself into slavery, and your master will deduct from your wages a compulsory contribution from the agreed consideration of the contract.

So let's restate the common misconception, under the Social Security Law there are 'slaves' and 'free men'.

To avoid being classified as a slave, simply work under a contract which is not a contract of service or better yet under no contract at all. The Employment (Jersey) Law, more commonly referred to as the unemployment law, defines 'employed person' differently, but since the Social Security department solely operates within the bounds of the Social Security Law this is of no consequence whatsoever to our analysis and in any case if you operate under a non-legally binding notice of understanding and intent then that is NOT a contract and even under the Employment (Jersey) Law, you cannot be considered employed.

Who can you trust more, one individual whom you work with to your mutual benefit for as long as you both so wish to do so whilst remaining free to part ways at any point with no hard feelings, (another human being), or the government?

So we must look again at what defines a 'Contract'.

Any contract has a number of specific elements which must be in place for a Contract to be considered legally binding. The first is that the parties to the Contract must be known, the second is that both parties must have a consideration either in the form of provision of services or goods or in the payment of a sum of money. All parties must be aware of the terms and conditions of the contract, one party must make an offer and the other party must accept that offer in full. All parties must intend for the contract to be legally binding.

So for example if I offer someone a job working Monday to Thursday and Saturday and they say they will work Monday to Friday then they have refused my offer and made a counter offer.

So the easiest way to make a contract not a contract is to state clearly that you have no intention for any agreement to be legally binding.

If you never enter into a contract then you can never be an employer or an employee under this Law.

Social Security is simply a tax on those who can least afford to pay... it is your moral duty not to support this fraud and tool of repression.

If anyone is ever given the opportunity to run a defence of 'How can I be forced to be a victim of a fraud?' against the Social Security department then I look forward to hearing what the Court has to say, for some reason they have refused to take me to Court for eight years now, pretty soon the time limit will expire.

36    General provisions as to offences and penalties

(2)    An employer or insured person who fails to pay a contribution that he or she is liable to pay under this Law within the time prescribed for payment of the contribution shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.[68]

The first thing to note here is that at no point does the law say that you cannot act in any way you please, rather what this article does is empower the Social Security Department to ask the Court to tax you with either a fine up to level 3 on the standard scale if you undertake certain actions or fail to undertake certain actions. The law cannot tell you what to do and what not to do, but it does coerce you through threats of harm to your personal freedom and financial security.

The term offence is an interesting one because it certainly does not cause ME any offence that someone might not pay the Social Security department it is none of my business, and I'm pretty sure that it would not offend God (in whose name the Court operates), so who is offended? Well I guess the Social Security Department are the ones who have taken offence.

On the other hand the very existence of a massive fraud on my island causes me great offence on a daily basis, might I seek an order from the Court for the harm that the Social Security Department causes me?

The second thing to note is all the elements which will be required of the Social Security to prove beyond reasonable doubt before the Court can order a fine to be paid.

These elements are:
1) That the defendant is an employer or an insured person
2) That they failed to pay
3) That they failed to pay within a certain time
4) That a payment is due within the terms of this law

Proving all the above elements will only prove ACTUS REA (that the act was guilty), but the act can only be guilty if the mind was guilty also (MENS REA), that the person as an employer or insured person failed to pay within a certain time a payment that was due within the terms of this law. So for example if they failed to pay within a certain time, but did not believe that they were supposed to pay within the terms of the Law then there is no offence.

Jersey Civil Servants are as a rule arrogant and lack any genuine understanding of the law and generally make so many mistakes that if you know what you are looking for. Dealing with them is best done by letter, they will lie to your face knowing you cannot prove what they said, they will tell you that black is white, that the law is something other than it is. The chances are they will err somewhere so make them write it down.

Remember any prosecution they bring against you is in reality a trial of whether they have successfully been able to demonstrate all the elements they require to bring a case.

The lower Courts are generally pretty poorly run, if you get called into the Magistrate's Court you should familiarise yourself with all the elements that the prosecutor will have to show and tick them off as they do, if they fail to present any evidence to show anyone of the elements, then they will lose on appeal. In any Court case you should think of it as putting the prosecutor on trial. The Magistrate may well find you guilty in haste well that can be easily overturned. Legal Aid Advocates are a complete waste of time, probably by design, and will simply tell you to plead guilty, if you have one representing you, you may as well. The Magistrate as a result is used to simply sentencing people, they do not have much experience. Bridget Shaw on the other hand was a ferocious prosecutor and I have found is a judge who is not prone to making mistakes.

My experience of the Royal Court is that it is different; all the boxes are mentally ticked off the by the judge the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff and Attorney General do not get caught out in the same way. An appeal is in effect putting the Magistrate on trial, did he act as the Bailiff would and ensure that all the elements were presented and proven beyond reasonable doubt before he reached his verdict.

No judge is 'on your side', they are simply there to ensure that all the elements required have been proven. The majority of Court cases are won by the Plaintiff.

Ultimately the best way to avoid any chance of prosecution is to take yourself out of the scope of the law by not entering into Contracts. The specifically non-legally binding notice of understanding and intent is your friend.

Write these notices to aid people to understand what your current intentions are, but with the proviso that you might change your mind at some point in the future and you reserve your right to do so, with no legal consequences, unless you cause harm to someone.

Use legally binding contracts only when necessary.