Paul Murphy's FOI request concerning payment of Irish Water bills finally gets answered after 5 months

Paul Murphy TD, Anti Austerity Alliance

Paul Murphy TD, Anti Austerity Alliance

It has taken 5 months for Paul Murphy to finally get an answer to his Freedom of Information request on 18th May, 2015, concerning the number of household that paid Irish Water's first bill.

See thejournal.ie article of May 28th, 2015 'Irish Water thinks it’s better you don’t know how many bills have been paid' for full story of Paul Murphy's effort to get a simple question answered.

 

The Reply to Paul Murphy

ervia.jpg

Paul Murphy published this letter in Anti Austerity Alliance's facebook page on Oct 20, 2015.  He said

"Remember when Enda Kenny refused to give us the payment levels and told us to "toddle along" to Irish Water? Remember when they refused to answer as well? Remember that then they refused an FOI request? Remember a question to Minister Alan Kelly about it was ruled out of order for no good reason by the Ceann Comhairle?

Now we know why.... Five months later, after an appeal, we have the figures from Irish Water for payment levels on 18 May. 30% payment - 70% non-payment. No wonder they wouldn't tell us, they had to try to bully some more into paying.

Now, what journalists and others should be asking is, why haven't they released the payment levels for the second bill? Instead of doing that, they have talked about "projected" levels of payment. They don't need to do any projecting - just tell us how many have paid the second bill."

Mr Murphy explained on the same page that the letter was signed Ervia because "Ervia is state owned, Irish Water is a subsidiary of it. That's why they signed off on the letter."


RETURN TO SENDER IRISH WATER BILLS

Source: fliuch.org

Now that I’ve received an Irish Water Ltd bill what should I do?
We recommend you print this sticker (or print these words on a piece of paper) and stick it over the window of the envelope (and add some extra sellotape) and pop it in the nearest mailbox.

Remember, printed, not handwritten.

I do not recognise you

What many people don’t know is all the courts (and Garda (police) districts and government departments etc.) are actually registered as limited companies. Don’t believe us? Go to this website and do a search:

https://mycredit.dnb.com/search-for-duns-number/

Now do you believe us?

So the reason we say I Do Not Recognise You is because they are presenting themselves to us as something they are not – they are not some powerful entity – they are corporate entities – it’s all fiction and you as a living, breathing being will not recognise any of them as being equal or superior to you in any way – you are not a company and will not grant any company the same standing you have – you will not give them the recognition they demand.

What a lot of people don’t know (and can’t understand) is that when you were born you were ‘registered’ (you were assigned a number) and ‘assigned’ a name – but as a living (sovereign) being you do not have to accept the ‘system’ of registration and naming they use.

Have you ever heard of people recording a birth, like making a record/a note, of a birth? When did we move to registering births? That’s for another day.

You are not your name. You may answer to that name but if you were to ‘register’ a different name you would still be the same living human being that previously answered to a different ‘assigned’ name.

No matter what name you have been assigned (or assign to yourself) you are not that name – you are a separate living entity that just happens (if you want) to respond to that name.

Something else to think about: When you ask for your Birth Certificate what do you get? You get a Certified Copy of the Original – what would happen if you asked to see the original?

I also do not recognise any fictional legal title/name that was bestowed on me at birth without my consent. Therefore I do not have to answer to any name/title or otherwise that can only exist on paper.

I will not and do not recognise you.

We know this all sounds a bit strange at first but if you do a Google search you’ll find thousands of websites with the same information – and many websites that claim it’s all rubbish – but the problem with the websites claiming it’s rubbish is that they never offer any coherent argument against this ‘rubbish’.

I do not understand your intent

This expression has a double meaning. I Do Not Stand Under Your Intent.

What is their intent?

Their intent is to make you grant them Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) – what is that?

Simply put it’s them trying to make you subject to them, subject to their demands, subject to their rules, subject to their ‘bills’ (subject to their legal system etc).

A fictional non-corporeal (incorporated) entity cannot make demands on a living being without that living being granting them some kind of power – some kind of jurisdiction over the subject on this (living) matter. Their power/authority can only work if you ‘surrender’ to them. Notice how we put the ‘corp’ bit in bold? They have a body – a non-living, fictional body whereas you are a living body (with a fictional name assigned to you to try to make you think you’re under their legal system/jurisdiction).

I do not and will not understand your intent.

I do not have an international treaty with you

Because you are a living/breathing sovereign human being, and not a legal corporate fictional entity (like the name assigned to you at birth) you are actually in a different jurisdiction to them (common law) and not stepping into their ‘legal jurisdiction’.

One jurisdiction can only have contracts/treaties with other jurisdictions if they have an International Treaty to contract between the (non-living) corporation and the (living) human being. “I do not have an International treaty with you” is saying that we do not have a contract – we cannot have a contract unless we agree and therefore create an International Treaty.

No assured value

You did not order any goods, or services (even if those goods/services were given to you).

You did not order them, you did not enter into a contract for them – they have no monetary value that you agreed to.

You are stating that you are not agreeing to the value assigned to those goods and services that you did not enter into a contract for.

If you had willingly, conciously, agreed to enter into a contract for certain goods or services then they could bill/invoice you and make demands for payment from you (to an extent).

There is no assured value – so there is no debt owed.

No liability

This follows on from No Assured Value – if there’s no assured value then there can’t be any liability or obligation.

There can’t be a liability simply because there is no evidence of harm, loss or injury caused to another human being and there is/was nothing of any substance or value ever exchanged. By returning a letter (an attempt to make you contract) with No Liability on it you are not accepting any claims of liability from any corporation.

If a valid bill/invoice is issued after a contract was willingly entered into by consent and a being accepted the terms and conditions and received the services and/or goods, and then decided not to pay thereby causing another being some loss, then there is a liability simply because something of value changed hands and a contract was dishonoured resulting in loss.

We know that this may all sound like something from a cult or a ‘freeman’ or ‘sovereign man’ website and we don’t deny that it is extremely similar to what they say but we are keeping our focus only on Irish Water Ltd. Yes this way of thinking, this process, is used by others in other circumstances (successfully) but we are staying as focused as a laser beam on Irish Water Ltd.

Most people don’t know that most Common Law originates often from hundreds of years ago – laws that were never repealed or abolished like the Cestui Que Vie Act from 1666 (just an example).


Irish Water was Fine Gael policy alone” – Fianna Fáil dismiss €500 water charge accusations

Fianna Fail TD for Laois-Offaly

Fianna Fail TD for Laois-Offaly

FIANNA FÁIL HAS moved to distance itself from the row over water charges created by the release of cabinet papers detailing the previous government’s work on setting up a ‘water agency’.

In a statement to TheJournal.ie the opposition party’s environment spokesman Barry Cowen has said that the “mess” surrounding Irish Water is “solely the responsibility of the government”.

The cabinet papers were released last week to RTE’s The Week In Politics. In detailing how the previous Fianna Fáil government planned to implement water charges they serve as a “reminder” of the kind of bills the public can expect to eventually pay according to the Anti Austerity Alliance.

The previous government had estimated that any water charges incurred would lead to estimated bills of €500 per household per year, and that the installation of water meters alone would cost €500 million over five years.

Barry Cowen TD

Barry Cowen TD

“It’s no secret that water charges were being considered at the peak of the global crisis as part of the response to alleviating Ireland’s debt at that time. The €500 charge per household was an estimate worked out by the Department of Finance based on recovering the full operating costs,” Cowen said.

"At no stage was it agreed to charge €500 per household nor were any charges brought forward in the previous government’s budgets.  Any attempt to suggest otherwise is deeply disingenuous."

"The previous government implemented 70% of the budget adjustment that was needed so that Ireland could recover as quickly as possible.  It did so without introducing water charges."

"The current government then went on to complete the budget adjustment process, again without introducing water charges."

“Irish Water was established because it was Fine Gael policy. The mess that has emerged is solely the responsibility of this government,” he added.

Earlier

Ruth Coppinger TD Anti Austerity Alliance

Ruth Coppinger TD Anti Austerity Alliance

Ruth Coppinger, Anti Austerity Alliance TD for Dublin West, says that the information released “shows that Fine Gael and Labour are clearly implementing the same plan which was drawn up by Fianna Fáil and the Greens”.

“The main point to this is that it’s a reminder to the public about where water charges are ultimately heading,” she said.

"They are seeking to eventually get to a situation of full cost recovery through domestic water charges which will mean bills of €500 per household. We have consistently made the argument that concessions like the cap, the so-called conservation grant, and other ideas which they had like the free water allowance which they scrapped were only temporary that their ultimate goal was full cost recovery."

After strenuous objection from the public at the scale of mooted bills, water charges were capped at a relatively low level by the government until at least 2018. The current flat rates stand at €160 per year for a single adult household and €240 annually for a multi-adult dwelling.

RTE’s cabinet papers reveal that former Green party leader and Minister for the Environment John Gormley was opposed to capping charges as it offered “no incentive for consumers to conserve water”.

The documents similarly reveal how far advanced the previous government were with plans to introduce water charges by September 2010, two months prior to the arrival of the Troika.

“The release of this information should make for a reminder for the public and water charges movement of the necessity to maintain and build the massive boycott which has been built over the last few months,” said Coppinger.