Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 11 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Money Supply
To Her Majesty’s Treasury by Veronica Chapman 19 February 2011
Income tax
To HM Revenue and Customs by jon 8 March 2009
vehicle registration
To Department for Transport by mark-william:baker 29 April 2009
Legal & Factual Difference - INCOME and TAXABLE INCOME
To HM Revenue and Customs by I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith 19 April 2010
Do the taxes the public pay fund the illegal killing of innocent iraqi people ?
To HM Revenue and Customs by Calum 31 January 2010
ownership
To Vehicle Certification Agency by mark-william:baker 7 June 2009
How many Civil Servants within HMRC have been reinstated on the advice of the Civil Service Commissioners in the last five years
To HM Revenue and Customs by Steven Jones 6 January 2012
0845 numbers
To HM Revenue and Customs by Elfin Delmondo 4 September 2011
HMRC policy for reinstating Civil Servants sacked or forced to resign for raising genuine concerns under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
To HM Revenue and Customs by Alan Muarry 19 December 2011
Internal grievance procedures statistics
To HM Revenue and Customs by Renate Ackerman 19 December 2011
Is Income Tax legal?
Veronica Chapman made this Freedom of Information request to HM Revenue and Customs
HM Revenue and Customs did not have the information requested.
From: Veronica Chapman
17 April 2009
Dear Sirs,
You may consider my request for information to be under the Freedom
of Information Act, or just simply a question from a concerned
Human Being, native to the Country commonly called England (having
been born therein), and it being your duty, as a public body, to
honourably answer questions about your activities.
I realise that you operate under Statutes, but they are of no
concern, so please be so kind as not to bother quoting them in
response, for the simple reason that they will not answer my
question, as you will see when reading further.
I suggest that, as a first step, you should read the article on
this link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...
Now, the point is this. From the information in that article you
will comprehend, I’m sure, that the actions of the U.K. Government,
in waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq, causing the deaths of
innocent civilians are illegal in law. And they constitute the
crimes of genocide and a crime against peace. And that the actions
of British taxpayers, in paying taxes to HM Government, which uses
them to finance the war and the killing of Iraqi nationals,
constitute crimes of 'conduct ancillary to genocide' and
‘complicity in a crime against peace’.
The law states that:
'It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person
to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to
engage in conduct ancillary to such an act. This applies to acts
committed in England and Wales or outside the United Kingdom by a
U.K. national, resident or person subject to U.K. service
jurisdiction.' See: International Criminal Court Act 2001
http://www.expose-the-system.org/resourc...
'Genocide' means any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious
group as such (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious
bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part..
Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any
indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or
by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be
tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender. See:
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.asp...
Please also consult: Charter of the United Nations
http://www.expose-the-system.org/resourc...
and Evidence of Genocide - Crime Report
http://www.expose-the-system.org/resourc...
Therefore, in summary, the payment of taxes, collected on behalf of
the UK Government, must constitute ‘aiding and abetting’ war crimes
as defined.
Therefore those who collect these taxes must also constitute
‘aiding and abetting’ war crimes as defined.
So how, bearing in mind what is presented herein, how do you
justify what you do as NOT ‘aiding and abetting’ the war crimes
committed by the UK Government under their own so-called ‘rule of
law’?
I ask this because I cannot, for the life of me, think of an
honourable answer My Self.
Please read this information very carefully before responding.
Thank you.
Sincerely without ill-will, vexation, or frivolity,
Veronica: of the Chapman family. (a sovereign Human Being born in
the Country commonly called England)
From: Howe, Lucy (LG Corporate Governance)
HM Revenue and Customs
21 April 2009
Message sent on behalf of Michael Armstrong
Regards
L Howe
Freedom of Information Team
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.
HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.
This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: Veronica Chapman
21 April 2009
Dear Howe, Lucy (LG Corporate Governance),
Don't waste your time even thinking about charging me a fee, for
the simple reason that I require a moral justification for what you
do, not any form of 'legal' one.
Unless, of course, you can justify a 'charge' or a 'fee' for
morality. In which please include a Proof of Claim, under Common
Law principles, that such a fee is valid.
Just answer the question please, Ms. Howe.
Yours sincerely,
Veronica: of the Chapman family
From: Sharpe, John (G&S)
HM Revenue and Customs
23 April 2009
Dear Ms Chapman
My Ref 1423/09
I attach HMRC's reply to your e-mails.
Yours sincerely
John Sharpe
Governance & Security
HM Revenue & Customs
Room 4/52
100 Parliament Street
London
SW1A 2BG
Fax 020 7147 0666
[1][email address]
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.
HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.
This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
From: Veronica Chapman
24 April 2009
Dear Sharpe, John (G&S),
Thank you for your response. If you read my original question again
you will see that I gave you the opportunity of treating as a
Freedom of Information Request -OR- just simply one from a
concerned Human Being.
Since you are not prepared to answer under Freedom of Information,
then please provide morally justified answer to the question I
raised, as per your normal public duty. I assume you have
sufficient integrity to do that.
Yours sincerely,
Veronica Chapman
Dr K J Hamer left an annotation (24 April 2009)
What an outrageous waste of public servants time. This is not the purpose.
jon left an annotation (27 April 2009)
You call him a "public servant", if he is a public servant, then his duty is to serve the public, which means he should answer questions from the public.
Dr K J Hamer left an annotation (28 April 2009)
We elect MPs and a Government to decide what public servants do - not what the public tell them to!
jon left an annotation (28 April 2009)
You may have elected them, but I most certainly did not.
Andrew B left an annotation (28 April 2009)
Dr K J Hamer, i have a suggestion for you...
Get back in your Sheep pen with the rest of the sheeple
or start asking questions yourself about the corruption going on in the worlds governments and the fact your income tax goes to pay for the genocide they inflict on foreign countries in the name of the "War on Terror".
Peace & love :)
Andrew
Veronica Chapman left an annotation (28 April 2009)
Could I ask everyone to kindly stop annotating. This is turning into a slanging match and that, without a doubt, is NOT what this facility is for.
Thank you very much for your consideration
From: Sharpe, John (G&S)
HM Revenue and Customs
7 May 2009
Dear Ms Chapman
On behalf of HMRC, which administers the revenue collection in this
country, I have already told you that your request is not answerable under
the Freedom of Information Act. HMRC has no further comment to make on
your contentions in your letter.
Yours sincerely
John Sharpe
Governance & Security
HM Revenue & Customs
Room 4/52
100 Parliament Street
London
SW1A 2BG
Fax 020 7147 0666
[1][email address]
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.
HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.
This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Veronica Chapman left an annotation (19 June 2010)
FACTS: Income Tax, Council Tax, Value Added Tax (and the like) ARE "Legal" ... but they are not LAWFUL or MORAL (lawful/moral amount to the same thing).
It all comes down to the immense difference between "Legal" and "Lawful"
See here: http://www.fmotl.com/wiki/index.php/Lega...
"Lawful" you should obey, or be subject to the Verdict of a Jury.
"Legal" you only obey if you decide to.
Thus Income Tax, Council Tax, Value Added Tax (etc) need only be paid if you decide to comply. To force you to comply is a criminal act of trespass upon your Human Sovereignty.
Veronica Chapman left an annotation (19 June 2010)
FACTS: According to the Bank of England: MONEY IS CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR. Details here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpId_cSbyXo
(Which, of course, is absolutely true ... simply because "money" is a concept synonymous with "credit" (and "debit").
"Money" - and any associated "tax" - is thus an imagination. "Credit" is defined simply as "faith placed in something". So: HOW CAN ONE TAX THIN AIR?)
Veronica Chapman left an annotation (19 June 2010)
FACTS: There, HMRC! I've answered my own FoI for you. (There will be no charge for doing so).
Huey Freeman left an annotation (20 November 2010)
I know this isn't an annotation, but I just wanted to thank you for your ability to express, so eloquently, how I and many (although not enough) people think. You've brightened my day, and trust me it was dim. Its a shame there aren't more of you out there.
Kyle
Free Thinking
Bill left an annotation ( 3 December 2010)
Dr K J Hamer left an annotation (28 April 2009)
We elect MPs and a Government to decide what public servants do - not what the public tell them to!
Dear Sir
MPs and the Government are elected to serve the wishes of the people, so to state that we elect MPs and Government to decide what public servants do - not what the public tell them to! Is a total miss quote and a misrepresentation's of the requirements of public servants and MPs. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS ( Serving the wishes of the people ) Hence we elect them to do what WE the public jointly tell them to do. To allow a status quo that MP's, Politicians and Civil Servants do exactly what they want to do irrespective of the wishes of the people sets an dangerous precedent and effectively gives them the green light to lead the people into tyranny and a dictatorship.
With Respect
K Hamer left an annotation ( 3 December 2010)
We elect the politicians - they control the agenda of the "Public servants". Public servants are not accountable to the people - they are accountable to Government (and their line manager). If we are not happy with what the civil service are doing we sack our politicians. Either elect somebody who will do something differently or stand yourself, and get "THE PEOPLE" to vote for you. The collective will of the people is decided through the ballot box, not through FOI!!!
Trevor Allport left an annotation ( 5 December 2010)
Problem is that the three main political parties are owned by corporative figures and bankers.
They control the system and provide us with an illusion that we are electing a government of our choice.
They get what THEY want; power which they never lose
and the public THINK they are getting what they want by electing a new government. However, the government that we see are merely glove puppets of these corporations and banks.
So we go around in circles. Labour falls out of favour, they go away. Conservative get in and meanwhile Labour rewrites their policies.
Conservative then become unpopular and Labour take over again as New Labour or maybe next time they'll call themselves Labour Regenesis or some shit like that.
It's a stage play that unfortunately most sheeple fall for.
webtrekker left an annotation (17 March 2011)
Any update on this? It would also be nice to have any paid taxes REFUNDED for, let's say' the last 6 years.
Veronica Chapman left an annotation (17 March 2011)
No further update has been forthcoming, for the simple reason that HMRC have no REAL idea what they are actually doing.
Under the current 'system' you can work a month and be paid (say) £1,000 for the efforts you made. Your efforts are, therefore 'worth' £1,000.
But you are then 'taxed' on that by HMRC. So you actually end up with (say) £750 in your pocket.
This applies to each any every one of us 'plebs' (obviously it does not apply to the Banksters, who pay no taxes at all …), and it also applies to us 'plebs' world-wide.
Thus NOT ONE OF US could EVER AFFORD to purchase the fruits of OUR OWN labours. We could not 'buy' the £1,000-worth of our labours with the £750 we are left with.
This happens every single second, of every single minute, of every single day 24-7-365.
If anyone can't see this as THE MOST MASSIVE SCAM OF ALL TIME … I really don't know what else to say.
And it is all TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. If the Government wants to employ a Monetary System then - instead of chartering the Bank of England to issue currency - then the Government could do it themselves. Without 'borrowing' it ... therefore no need to pay anyone back! "National Debt" solved instantly! It worked for Abraham Lincoln ... until he was assassinated for doing so.
Or perhaps someone can tell me why - if a Government can charter a PRIVATE BANK to create 'currency' - it cannot do the job itself?
FMOTL? left an annotation (18 March 2011)
HMRC have replied not once but twice, and on both occasions perfectly within the terms of the FOIA – and, also in both cases, making clear that, as your request is not one for information, it is not answerable under the Act. It is therefore unclear why you express some surprise that ‘no further update has been forthcoming’.
As the sole purpose of this website is to make FOIA requests and share the answers which are given, making requests of this type are a blatant – and I imagine deliberate – abuse, although I struggle to understand your motives for doing so. Certainly, there is no basis for the suggestion that the response you got from HMRC means that they have no ‘idea what they are actually doing’.
The pattern in a number of requests which you have made seems to be:
1. ask a query which is clearly outside the terms of the FOIA
2. protest when the body concerned says that the query is outside the terms of the FOIA
3. exclaim that the reason your request was not answered is evidence of some form of scam or conspiracy on the part of the Government
This behaviour does no credit to the integrity of this website and I find it surprising that you are continued to use it as a means of making requests. I am also surprised at the patience of the junior civil servants whose time you waste in this way.
Trevor Allport left an annotation (20 March 2011)
So let's go back to that nice, comfortable illusion that we have a democracy and that we actually elect our government.
As long as we remain within that paradigm of Labour vs. Conservative vs. LibDem, the government will chalk us up as nice little soldiers.
Let's turn on the TV and watch X-Factor and Ant and Dec while the puppetmasters of the government shaft us in every way imaginable.
Psuedo of Nom family left an annotation (22 March 2011)
I am using an obvious pseudonym for this comment. I do make FOI requests under my real name but having read some of the personal attacks made by some members of this site, I prefer to remain anonymous for these observations.
I find it funny that FMOTL? was harassed for not using his/her real name when some users of the site do not believe in registering births or having 'real' names as they are 'living beings with a soul that do not have a title'.
I find it ironic that some users of this site do not believe in Statute law but are quite happy to use it to further their own ends.
FMOTL? left an annotation (24 March 2011)
Ironic indeed. It is rather difficult to see the logic of people who assert the ridiculous view that compliance with any statute is optional and who also seek information under the FOIA which is part of statute.
Quite apart from the splenetic response you receive when you point out this contradiction.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Veronica Chapman left an annotation (21 April 2009)
Morality is in my head, and I don’t charge a fee for it.
My morality tells me that ‘aiding and abetting war crimes’ is not the way for an individual, or a country as a whole, to honourably behave.
I require either (1) Justification that the UK did not engage in ‘aiding and abetting war crimes’ in Iran and Afghanistan, and therefore funding these activities through taxes collected by HM Revenue & Customs is fully justified and honourable, or (b) A moral and honourable justification for ‘aiding and abetting war crimes’ in these and other countries, since the introduction of Income Tax.
And, I suggest, the very concept of expecting to charge for answers to these questions is, in itself, thoroughly immoral and an insult to anyone’s intelligence.
Link to this