B e n V e r s u s | c i v i l i s s u e s
B e n C o l l i n s | Åkarhagsgatan 2C, 72337 Västerås, Sweden | +46 727 447422 | email | Website © 2014
?
Concordia res parvae crescent work together to accomplish more
BC vs KF & SV Göteborg - 2006 : Case summary
- SV cannot assume people with low and or variable incomes will earn the same every month, then authorise removal on that basis after only six weeks.
- SV should only collect tax by force on what they are certain has been earned, not on the basis of what they estimate might be earned.
- SV extracted all my finances via KF to satisfy a claim from 37 days earlier.
- SV’s claim for that period was later reduced to zero and all money refunded.
- Authorising forced sequestration of funds should be a last, not first resort.
- SV infringed my basic citizens rights by; withdrawing personal survival funds, not providing adequate time to to pay sums claimed, not offering payments terms balanced versus income and prospective income, not considering earnings levels current and historical, not considering previous tax history and full co-operation, not providing adequate time to prepare a tax calculation counter claim and not considering the size of the moderate sums demanded balanced versus history and risk to SV of non payment, not meeting me as I requested many times.
- It cannot be worthwhile to turn upside down the life of a citizen to recover the sum of €3,400 that has not been paid for 37 days, whether owed or not. Their own time wasted in this process must have been huge.
- The sum was never owed or due and invented by SV due to their poor process.
- SV were far outside the balance of fair but robust tax collection.
- Huge quantities of my time were invested in dealing with this process and the consequences.
Comments and status
- I estimate €50,000 of taxpayers money was invested in labour to collect the €3400 that was never owed .
- The matter was forwarded to the Justitie Kanslor who deliberated on the case for two and a half years.
- The verdict from JK has not addressed the issues above raised and said it was ok according to the law.
- BC took a break from this during 2012-2014 to try to restabilise things, sleep properly etc.
- BC will forward the case in early June 2014 to the ECHR, as previously promised in communications.
title 42 USC Sect. 1983
Amendment 4, US Constitution:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Could not happen in the US, so why is it possible in the EU?
The invasion of your home is a sacred thing. To then take things forcibly for money not owed and not repay them till nine months later after a year of desperate harassment and humiliation whilst working unpaid on ecotech trying to do something useful instead of just collecting money in a 9 to 5.
This was deemed ok by the JK verdict. How can that be ok? To be sent to the ECHR.
