Unexplained wealth order

[Steamtyme]

My ears perked up a bit as I was driving to work and I caught parts of a story involving this interesting tool. So from what I understand it is currently aimed at foreign officials and their families, strictly in the UK.

Say you appear on paper to have to much money, granted the case I heard was fairly extravagant, but the problem was the state had no proof. So the new law requires you to prove your wealth is legitimate. Now I thought this may be of particular interest here as I've heard a couple people may have made a large amount of money in crypto.

It just seems baffling to me that instead of investigating and building a case they are requiring people to prove they earned the money legally themselves. If you can't you lose and they have the authority at that point to begin seizing assets. Now depending on how the UK at the time favors BTC or any crypto for the sake of this discussion, they could attempt to force a forfeiture of your property. I just wonder how long before powers such as this are expanded to encompass a larger sample of people with unexplained personal wealth.

[1713495488]

1713495488

[1713495488]

1713495488

[TECSHARE]

My ears perked up a bit as I was driving to work and I caught parts of a story involving this interesting tool. So from what I understand it is currently aimed at foreign officials and their families, strictly in the UK.

Say you appear on paper to have to much money, granted the case I heard was fairly extravagant, but the problem was the state had no proof. So the new law requires you to prove your wealth is legitimate. Now I thought this may be of particular interest here as I've heard a couple people may have made a large amount of money in crypto.

It just seems baffling to me that instead of investigating and building a case they are requiring people to prove they earned the money legally themselves. If you can't you lose and they have the authority at that point to begin seizing assets. Now depending on how the UK at the time favors BTC or any crypto for the sake of this discussion, they could attempt to force a forfeiture of your property. I just wonder how long before powers such as this are expanded to encompass a larger sample of people with unexplained personal wealth.

I suggest you do some reading on the difference between common law and maritime admiralty law. The system of contract law/maritime law has been trying very hard to crush the last few remaining common law court systems. Common law is where all of our human rights stem from, especially in the US. The commercial system has long been in the process of subverting these rights via manufactured consent. One of the results of this is that it doesn't matter what you do or who you are, if they want what you have they can take it. It is not hard under the crushing bureaucracy of federal laws (maritime code) to manufacture pretext to do so.  I have seen it myself. Under this system we are simply chattel property waiting in line for our turn to be harvested. The solution is common law and human rights. We have the legal framework, we just have to enforce it rather than being tricked into submitting.

[Jet Cash]

Since the 1970s, wealth transfer and confiscation has been a major consideration for most governments. They do it with zero interest rates, debt fraud, fractional reserve banking, and market manipulation amongst other tricks. Destroying the immune systems of most of the population, and forcing them to pay for "medication" that causes further destruction is another method. It wouldn't surprise me if they introduced some more direct methods to confiscate wealth.

[FilesFM_Announcements]

Ive always thought the UK as a country, under any common law, maritime law or civil law it is for the prosecuting party to 'proof' beyond reasonable doubt guilt; rather than the accused having to prove innocence.

maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

I try to stay away from these blacks dictionary law - freeman on the land types.. so I usually switch off when those sort of videos are recommended on youtube.. due to my weird and wonderful searches.

[The_Tick]

This is why the UK's rich are currently moving abroad to tax havens.

Britain's wealthiest man, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, just moved to Monaco to save tax on a £21 bn fortune. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/09/britains-richest-man-to-leave-uk-for-tax-free-monaco

"About 2,700 more millionaires are expected to call the principality home by 2026."

Time to get out of Dodge if you make good money in the UK.

[TECSHARE]

Ive always thought the UK as a country, under any common law, maritime law or civil law it is for the prosecuting party to 'proof' beyond reasonable doubt guilt; rather than the accused having to prove innocence.

maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

I try to stay away from these blacks dictionary law - freeman on the land types.. so I usually switch off when those sort of videos are recommended on youtube.. due to my weird and wonderful searches.

If you notice I didn't suggest any videos or say anything about freemen on the land or anything. I know what you are saying, most of those guys are dopes and don't have a clue. However common law isn't some fringe nut job conspiracy theory, it has been the basis of individual freedom for thousands of years. This persona they try to cast around it is to discredit it and try to keep people from understanding it does in fact hold great power, and if you know how it works it can give you great power over yourself and your rights. In fact, without it, we would have no rights except the scraps our overlords graciously leave behind. It is the last truly free system of law left on Earth based on the simple premise that you don't get to harm others, and they have nearly eradicated it. Also this court is for HUMANS not PERSONS. If you don't know the difference between the two you should.

[FilesFM_Announcements]

Ive always thought the UK as a country, under any common law, maritime law or civil law it is for the prosecuting party to 'proof' beyond reasonable doubt guilt; rather than the accused having to prove innocence.

maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

I try to stay away from these blacks dictionary law - freeman on the land types.. so I usually switch off when those sort of videos are recommended on youtube.. due to my weird and wonderful searches.

If you notice I didn't suggest any videos or say anything about freemen on the land or anything. I know what you are saying, most of those guys are dopes and don't have a clue. However common law isn't some fringe nut job conspiracy theory, it has been the basis of individual freedom for thousands of years. This persona they try to cast around it is to discredit it and try to keep people from understanding it does in fact hold great power, and if you know how it works it can give you great power over yourself and your rights. In fact, without it, we would have no rights except the scraps our overlords graciously leave behind. It is the last truly free system of law left on Earth based on the simple premise that you don't get to harm others, and they have nearly eradicated it. Also this court is for HUMANS not PERSONS. If you don't know the difference between the two you should.

Forgive me I failed GCSE law I’m high school, I wasn’t able to remember all the case studies! But I’m a bit dubious about common law! Is that the one we got the king at knife point to sign a declaration and rights for people to have sovereignty. I’ve always felt the Magna Carta really shouldn’t be legally binding if the king signed it under duress. Sorry for slightly going off topic if the Magna Carta and common law aren’t intertwined!

[TECSHARE]

Forgive me I failed GCSE law I’m high school, I wasn’t able to remember all the case studies! But I’m a bit dubious about common law! Is that the one we got the king at knife point to sign a declaration and rights for people to have sovereignty. I’ve always felt the Magna Carta really shouldn’t be legally binding if the king signed it under duress. Sorry for slightly going off topic if the Magna Carta and common law aren’t intertwined!

Tell me, as you cry for kings, what agreement do the people sign under the king or any leadership that is not under duress?

[xtraelv]

Ive always thought the UK as a country, under any common law, maritime law or civil law it is for the prosecuting party to 'proof' beyond reasonable doubt guilt; rather than the accused having to prove innocence.

maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

I try to stay away from these blacks dictionary law - freeman on the land types.. so I usually switch off when those sort of videos are recommended on youtube.. due to my weird and wonderful searches.

If you notice I didn't suggest any videos or say anything about freemen on the land or anything. I know what you are saying, most of those guys are dopes and don't have a clue. However common law isn't some fringe nut job conspiracy theory, it has been the basis of individual freedom for thousands of years. This persona they try to cast around it is to discredit it and try to keep people from understanding it does in fact hold great power, and if you know how it works it can give you great power over yourself and your rights. In fact, without it, we would have no rights except the scraps our overlords graciously leave behind. It is the last truly free system of law left on Earth based on the simple premise that you don't get to harm others, and they have nearly eradicated it. Also this court is for HUMANS not PERSONS. If you don't know the difference between the two you should.

Forgive me I failed GCSE law I’m high school, I wasn’t able to remember all the case studies! But I’m a bit dubious about common law! Is that the one we got the king at knife point to sign a declaration and rights for people to have sovereignty. I’ve always felt the Magna Carta really shouldn’t be legally binding if the king signed it under duress. Sorry for slightly going off topic if the Magna Carta and common law aren’t intertwined!

Also I don't believe Halakha is in use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halachic_state The "National identity bill" citing

srael as "the nation-state of the Jewish people" and also said that Jewish law would be a "source of inspiration"

Is a far cry from being Halakha

[FilesFM_Announcements]

Forgive me I failed GCSE law I’m high school, I wasn’t able to remember all the case studies! But I’m a bit dubious about common law! Is that the one we got the king at knife point to sign a declaration and rights for people to have sovereignty. I’ve always felt the Magna Carta really shouldn’t be legally binding if the king signed it under duress. Sorry for slightly going off topic if the Magna Carta and common law aren’t intertwined!

Tell me, as you cry for kings, what agreement do the people sign under the king or any leadership that is not under duress?

I don’t cry for any king, I’m just stating in my mind, any documentation which is signed under duress, shouldn’t be legally binding.. isn’t that what our whole justice system is predicated on?

[af_newbie]

My ears perked up a bit as I was driving to work and I caught parts of a story involving this interesting tool. So from what I understand it is currently aimed at foreign officials and their families, strictly in the UK.

Say you appear on paper to have to much money, granted the case I heard was fairly extravagant, but the problem was the state had no proof. So the new law requires you to prove your wealth is legitimate. Now I thought this may be of particular interest here as I've heard a couple people may have made a large amount of money in crypto.

It just seems baffling to me that instead of investigating and building a case they are requiring people to prove they earned the money legally themselves. If you can't you lose and they have the authority at that point to begin seizing assets. Now depending on how the UK at the time favors BTC or any crypto for the sake of this discussion, they could attempt to force a forfeiture of your property. I just wonder how long before powers such as this are expanded to encompass a larger sample of people with unexplained personal wealth.

Governments around the world have become way too big and they need money to maintain their growth.

I think this intrusive actions will intensify as governments will dig deeper to extract more from its citizens.  A few years back they shut down offshore banking for non-residents, now they look deeper.

The solution is not to be tied to one particular country, have multiple passports, maintain residency in tax-free locale while keeping money in multiple locations around the world.  Go where they treat you best.  Keep everything under corporation names.

Nelson Rockefeller famously said: "Own nothing but control everything"

[TECSHARE]

Forgive me I failed GCSE law I’m high school, I wasn’t able to remember all the case studies! But I’m a bit dubious about common law! Is that the one we got the king at knife point to sign a declaration and rights for people to have sovereignty. I’ve always felt the Magna Carta really shouldn’t be legally binding if the king signed it under duress. Sorry for slightly going off topic if the Magna Carta and common law aren’t intertwined!

Tell me, as you cry for kings, what agreement do the people sign under the king or any leadership that is not under duress?

I don’t cry for any king, I’m just stating in my mind, any documentation which is signed under duress, shouldn’t be legally binding.. isn’t that what our whole justice system is predicated on?

Sure, on paper. Try telling a cop on the side of the road you don't feel like signing your ticket under duress and see how that goes.

[FilesFM_Announcements]

Forgive me I failed GCSE law I’m high school, I wasn’t able to remember all the case studies! But I’m a bit dubious about common law! Is that the one we got the king at knife point to sign a declaration and rights for people to have sovereignty. I’ve always felt the Magna Carta really shouldn’t be legally binding if the king signed it under duress. Sorry for slightly going off topic if the Magna Carta and common law aren’t intertwined!

Tell me, as you cry for kings, what agreement do the people sign under the king or any leadership that is not under duress?

I don’t cry for any king, I’m just stating in my mind, any documentation which is signed under duress, shouldn’t be legally binding.. isn’t that what our whole justice system is predicated on?

Sure, on paper. Try telling a cop on the side of the road you don't feel like signing your ticket under duress and see how that goes.

Wow do you have to sign a ticket? I didn't know this.. never had one! but I thought you were just given one!

[TECSHARE]

Forgive me I failed GCSE law I’m high school, I wasn’t able to remember all the case studies! But I’m a bit dubious about common law! Is that the one we got the king at knife point to sign a declaration and rights for people to have sovereignty. I’ve always felt the Magna Carta really shouldn’t be legally binding if the king signed it under duress. Sorry for slightly going off topic if the Magna Carta and common law aren’t intertwined!

Tell me, as you cry for kings, what agreement do the people sign under the king or any leadership that is not under duress?

I don’t cry for any king, I’m just stating in my mind, any documentation which is signed under duress, shouldn’t be legally binding.. isn’t that what our whole justice system is predicated on?

Sure, on paper. Try telling a cop on the side of the road you don't feel like signing your ticket under duress and see how that goes.

Wow do you have to sign a ticket? I didn't know this.. never had one! but I thought you were just given one!

It is possible to just mail them to you, but the whole system revolves around contract law. When they stop you they are trying to find violations of code (contract). When you use a "drivers" license you are engaging in commercial activity by legal definition (look it up). Submitting a permit for a license is a contract to abide by the terms of the code (contract). In short any time they interact with you their job is to engage you in as many contracts and violations as possible. In essence they are now largely walking revenue collection agents. A police officer is not the same thing as a peace officer. This is how so many of our rights are easily ignored, because they often get us to consent to abandoning them long before they interact with us.

[Steamtyme]

I suggest you do some reading on the difference between common law and maritime admiralty law. The system of contract law/maritime law has been trying very hard to crush the last few remaining common law court systems. Common law is where all of our human rights stem from, especially in the US. The commercial system has long been in the process of subverting these rights via manufactured consent. One of the results of this is that it doesn't matter what you do or who you are, if they want what you have they can take it. It is not hard under the crushing bureaucracy of federal laws (maritime code) to manufacture pretext to do so.  I have seen it myself. Under this system we are simply chattel property waiting in line for our turn to be harvested. The solution is common law and human rights. We have the legal framework, we just have to enforce it rather than being tricked into submitting.

I guess I haven't noticed that as much, again the blissful ignorance of being in North America. I know my family has seen the reach of governments when they "need" land or the likes. This has usually been done in a manner of a bill passing through whichever level of government claims jurisdiction.

My focus here though wasn't so much in how the legal framework of a country would allow this situation. I was more concerned with the idea snowballing; mostly because a government of any size at anytime can make an argument to begin these types of overreach's IMO. I see this first case as an easy win for the prosecuting persecuting nation because they will have cherry picked the best case to put this forward looking for a win. Once it can be proven that it has legs and can catch the criminals hiding in plain site; they should expand it's reach and find more in broader categories.

Governments around the world have become way too big and they need money to maintain their growth.

I think this intrusive actions will intensify as governments will dig deeper to extract more from its citizens.  A few years back they shut down offshore banking for non-residents, now they look deeper.

Governments in most cases are running like a business. A poorly run business, so they do tend to try and scramble to find money in all the wrong places. That is the concern I had with the situation in the OP snowballing.

The solution is not to be tied to one particular country, have multiple passports, maintain residency in tax-free locale while keeping money in multiple locations around the world.  Go where they treat you best.  Keep everything under corporation names.

Nelson Rockefeller famously said: "Own nothing but control everything"

Leave it to a Rockefeller. Personally I have no issue paying taxes for what is needed (that obviously varies from person to person). My issue arises from the "breaks" and "loopholes" that exist in the system to create an unequal taxation system; top that off with an extreme amount of government spending waste.


I do like this overall discussion of law, one of my college courses actually made me consider it as a profession. That and I really used to enjoy a good debate on how to interpret situational facts and how they applied to the case.

With the Magna Carta talk, as has been the practice in a peoples uprising the king would have been considered lucky to get the option between signing and dying. This however actually started as a deal between a king and the Barons, not exactly the people.

I brought up what I did because that is exactly how the premise you put forward in your OP is being executed around the world. It is in fact expanding its reach as income dwindles and they need fresh meat. *snip*

Not a problem, I like the way the conversation has evolved on this topic. It is nice to have multiple angles to look at. You've given me a few things to read up on in my free time.

[TECSHARE]

I brought up what I did because that is exactly how the premise you put forward in your OP is being executed around the world. It is in fact expanding its reach as income dwindles and they need fresh meat. Just google "civil asset forfeiture".

[Spendulus]

Ive always thought the UK as a country, under any common law, maritime law or civil law it is for the prosecuting party to 'proof' beyond reasonable doubt guilt; rather than the accused having to prove innocence.

maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”)....

It's the opposite with the IRS and Tax Court, though.