The money goes on having separate collection systems in each council area, as well as the expensive Council Tax benefit system.

We estimate it costs about 4 times as much to collect £1 in Council Tax as to collect £1 in Income Tax: and costs will increase if the Government decide to proceed with the Council Tax Revaluation.

Council Tax benefit was designed to help the poorest people with their bills. But it simply doesn’t work.

A third of families entitled to Council Tax benefit don’t claim – so have to struggle with their bills instead.

And the situation’s worse for pensioners: approximately 1.7 million don’t claim the money they’re entitled to.

These take-up rates are way below those for other benefits.

The main reasons for the dismal rate of take-up of Council Tax Benefits are that people don’t know about the benefit, and if they do they’re put off by the complexity of the application process – there can be as many as fifty pages of forms to fill in!

We believe that England needs a fairer system of local taxation. The Lyons Report highlights the fact that “fair taxation is based on ability to pay or income.” Thus, a local income tax would achieve the goal of developing a fairer local tax system.

A local based income tax would remove the unfair burden that is currently placed on those least able to pay. Such a tax “could significantly reduce the burden of local taxes on those groups with the lowest average incomes, notably pensioners and lone parents.”

Furthermore, the Lyons report asserts that it would be possible to implement a locally based income tax. “A local income tax could be feasible in England and could viably replace all or part of council tax, or operate alongside it.”

We here at www.NoCouncilTax.com are NOT opposed to paying a “Local Community Charge” PROVIDING is that its fair, that its based upon the services you actually use and of course based upon your ability to pay!

Councils and The CSA are among the corporations who issue their own summonses, as we reported in our artlcle “How to not get summonsed for non payment of council tax”. Here is our recent article and the rulings from Archbold which can be used in court.

Council Tax Summonses

Our article about The Birkenhead Lawful Rebellion at a council tax bankruptcy hearing has once again highlighted the need to get the important points accross.

As we reported over a year ago the summonses sent out for council tax are printed by the council and the court is hired for the liability “hearings”. This is a crime under the Administration of justice Act and also fraud and perjury if these summonses bear a crown seal, which all we have seen seem to do.

The court is hired by the council for the hearings and then the councils send out “Notifications” of a liability order , again printed by themselves. This means of course that no liability is recorded by the court. This article from way back in 2009 seems to be a damage limitation exercise stating that on some occasions the summonses were not properly issued. This is a result of what a few pople were doing challenging their local councils on issuing their own summonses.

No court is going to take on the issue that all summonses issued by councils are invalid, defective and fraudulent. There must however be one judge out there who will make a legitimate ruling on this. As the country is bankrupt , does it matter? Judges have recently been forced into accepting remedies which previously they would not have dreamed the public would find out about!

Here is the link from The Ministry of Justice website

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement221009a.htm

Here are important rulings which can be used.

a summons must be issued in accordance with Justice Clerks Rules 2005 (S.I.2005 No.545) The granting of summonses is more than a rubber stamping exercise. The person issuing the summons must be authorised to do so and must scrutinise the information to satisfy themselves that the requirements are met and a summons properly granted. See Tesco Stores Ltd [1981] Q.B.470,DC.

ARCHBOLD 4-77 PAGE 177 Magistrates criminal practice.

When the (QUANGO) CSA or the council won’t give you any information about your court case (Disclosure)

Jespers v Belgium

Jespers v Belgium, ante and in the “equality of arms” principle imposes on prosecuting and investigating authorities an obligation to disclose any material in their possession, or to which they could gain access, which may assist the accused in exonerating himself or in obtaining a reduction in sentence. This principle extends to material which might undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness (ibid.,para.58) Non disclosure of evidence relevant to credibility may also raise an issue under Article 6(3)(d: Edwards v UK., 15 E.H.R.R Op. Comm., para 50)

The prosecutions duty of disclosure: Archbold 16-83, page 1755 criminal pleading evidence & Practice.

When the judge won’t tell you his name or the court won’t tell you the magistrates name.

‘The Anonymous JP’.” ‘Regina v Felixstowe’

“The Court is required to provide this information to the parties in the case, and any others having an interest in the case (i.e. witnesses etc.) by virtue of the judgement in the case ‘Regina v Felixstowe’ justices ex parte Leigh and another, Queens bench division c 1984/5. Held by Lord Justice Watson that :- There is a right to know who sits in judgement, and denial of that right is unlawful, unwarranted and inimical to the proper administration of justice, further that there is no such person known to Law as ‘the anonymous JP’.”

Again – fantastic information from our friends at:

http://www.thelandofthefree.co.uk

This intelligent fellow, corners and beautifully “Boxes in” the Council Tax employee and she tries desperately to fight her corner but just in the same way that Council employees always try to talk to you down “Mr. Saunders” tells her exactly what it is.

The Council Tax employee keeps going back to the same old rhetoric time and time again and she cannot deviate. It’s clear that their training never expected us to find out how to expose their lies and treachery.

And as usual they don’t want to get to a remedy they simply want to get off the phone and send in the heavies. Typical Thuggery Behaviour!

Just as the 2009 town hall confrontations gave birth to the modern incarnation of the Tea Party in the United States, with the organization having its early origins in the 2007 End the Fed protests involving Ron Paul supporters, could yesterday’s events herald the beginning of a massive tax revolt movement set to sweep the UK?

There were chaotic scenes as around 600 activists from the British Constitution Group massed around Birkenhead county court chanting “freedom,” and “arrest that judge” as police with riot dogs attempted to hold them back.

Protesters stormed the courtroom and civilly arrested Judge Michael Peake before escorting him from the building. Peake was eventually wrestled away from protesters by police as the activists chanted, “Do your job” to the police. Dozens more police arrived to set up blockades and numerous protesters were arrested.

Peake was ruling on a case involving Roger Hayes, former member of UKIP, who has refused to pay council tax, both as a protest against the government’s treasonous activities in sacrificing Britain to globalist interests and as a result of Hayes clearly proving that council tax is illegal.

Hayes has embarked on an effort to legally prove that the enforced collection of council tax by government is unlawful because no contract has been agreed between the individual and the state. His argument is based on the sound legal principle that just like the council, Hayes can represent himself as a third party in court and that “Roger Hayes” is a corporation and must be treated as one in the eyes of the law.

“As he emerged from the court surrounded by his supporters, Mr Hayes said: ‘The judges are breaking the law in their own courts. I asked him [Mr Peake] if he was serving under his oath of office,” reports the Daily Mail.

“I asked three times for him to confirm this and he refused, so I civilly arrested the judge and I called upon some people in the court to assist me in this,” Hayes said.

“They were acting lawfully and the police should not have arrested them.”

“Made up of people from across the UK, the marchers say they are exerting their “ancient right to lawful Rebellion under Article 16 of Magna Carta,” reported the Wirral Globe.

Raymond St. Clair, who organised the Birkenhead protest said:

“Today was day one. This is going to happen again and again and again. We have sent a message to this court as one nation and one voice until change comes.”

In a statement carried on the group’s website, Common Law is cited as a means through which lawful rebellion will be conducted to address “political treason and criminality being imposed on the law-abiding people of the British Isles.”

“It is clear, beyond all reasonable doubt and with evidence that would stand up in any properly-conducted court of law, that an influential network of rogue British politicians across the parties is unlawfully involved in carrying out the hidden strategies and agendas of a centuries-old, secretive and criminal global elite who are seeking the imposition of unlawful global governance on the unsuspecting peoples of the world. Known broadly by researchers as the New World Order (NWO) – though some refer to them as the Illuminati or Zionists (please note that this does not mean Judaism) – the modus operandi of these powerful traitors and criminals is now clear for all to see,” reads the statement.

The group lists the Committee of 300, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Club of Rome as just some of the organizations who control “Subservient and compartmentalised national networks of influential politicians, industrialists, campaigning groups, charities and key individuals in trusted positions.”

The British Constitution Group and the movement of “lawful rebellion” is strongly supported by Brian Gerrish, a former Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander who publishes the UK Column newspaper, which documents how Britain is being destroyed by globalist interests as well as the insidious “Common Purpose” organization which has infiltrated every level of British society.

Yesterday’s events will send a clear shot across the bow of the British government, which is currently engaged in aggressive austerity measures involving cuts to public services as well as tax hikes. In March 1990, London was hit with massive tax riots in scenes dubbed the “Battle of Trafalgar,” as demonstrators raged against the infamous poll tax that was eventually abolished after millions of Brits refused to pay it, a sequence of events that many attributed to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher who resigned as Prime Minister in November the same year.

Poll tax was replaced with council tax, which took into account people’s ability to pay based on the value of their home. However, council tax rates have consistently risen over the rate of inflation even as the British people feel more and more misrepresented by the national government based in London and local governments that have been completely consumed by the agenda of Common Purpose to the detriment of their own constituents.

Credit: http://www.infowars.com/british-tax-protesters-arrest-judge-in-act-of-lawful-rebellion/

The police need to be reminded that it is their responsibility to investigate allegations of serious fraud in public institutions, including councils.

Mr Mothersole, the Chief Executive, needs to be reminded that he has a duty to his council tax payers to ensure that council funds are used for the benefit of taxpayers, and not diverted into the bank account of secretive mind bending charities.

John Prentice can be contacted on 0844 798 4314
Sheffield Police can be contacted on 0114 2202020

Now the story continues …

This article is a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga… now in its 3rd year.

The story so far: The council have demanded council tax from me (Roger Hayes), which I have refused to pay for 3 years – on the grounds that there is no lawfully enforceable contract between me (Roger Hayes) and the council. The council is refusing to provide me with a lawful contract because they think that they have the right to demand that I pay council tax…which they do not. I am happy to pay my council tax – but only when the Council has agreed to provide me with a lawful contract… this is my right. The benefit of a contract is that it makes the council agree terms and conditions with me and prevents them acting in an arbitrary fashion i.e. it brings power back to the people.

The fact is that the council has no right to demand council tax from me (Roger Hayes) – but they DO have the right to demand it from the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES… but that isn’t me.

If readers are not familiar with the legal fiction – please refer to previous articles or the UK Column web site www.uk-column.org .

On the 11th January 2011 in the county court of Birkenhead, in front of witnesses, the court conceded to the right of Roger Hayes to act as ‘third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES. In essence the court agreed that they were two entirely separate entities. This is an extraordinary development to put it very mildly.

The court however did not concede without putting up a very vigorous fight… this is how events unfolded in the court room.

Judge: Can we first find out who is in the court… is MR ROGER HAYES in the court?

Me: Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: Are you MR ROGER HAYES?

Me: No sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES… you may address me as Roger.

Judge: I will not address you as Roger; I will call you MR HAYES.

Me: Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE – court protocol dictates that a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose – the judge then referred to me as ‘the gentleman’ but avoided referring to me as MR HAYES).

Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES is not represented in court.

Me: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not represented in court. (NOTE – This would mean that the case would have to be dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared).

Judge: I can see that the council has representation in the court.

Me: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law… if council has third party representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so is MR ROGER HAYES.

Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.

Me: Yes it is.

Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.

Me: A PERSON is a corporation.

Judge: No it isn’t.

Me: Define person.

Judge: I don’t have to.

Me: Then let me do it for you sir, A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary). Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?

Judge: I am familiar with many laws.

Me: Sir, I asked if you are familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.

Judge: Let’s hear from the council.

Me: Sir we can only move on to the council’s presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES is represented in court.

Judge: Fine.

And the case continued… with me (Roger Hayes) acting as third party representative for the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and with the judge eventually telling the council to go away and prove its case. The judge was obviously very keen to avoid a charge of denial of due process i.e. a challenge to his competence. It was much easier for him to side with me and pass the buck back to the council. Smart judge.

So what does this all mean? In very simple terms, it is SEISMIC i.e. extremely significant. It means that the court has accepted that the council’s claim is against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and not me, the flesh and blood man Roger Hayes. The court has also accepted that I (Roger Hayes) can act as a third party representative to defend the claim against MR ROGER HAYES.

The legal fiction cat is truly out of the bag (although for me this is the second time I have achieved this in court). If the council goes on to win its case, then the court will find against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES, but significantly, they will not have found against me Roger Hayes… because as the court agrees… MR ROGER HAYES is a corporation… which isn’t me. One important thing is now clearly established – I, Roger Hayes, am not liable for council tax, AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

Mark Bond allegedly owes two years’ council tax to Broadland District Council totalling £2,211.

But the 44-year-old, who calls himself a ‘Freeman-on-the-Land’ and goes under the name Mark of the Family Bond, does not accept he is liable to pay the council tax.

Yesterday he was dramatically arrested outside the magistrates’ court building as he took a cigarette break.

Police told him that he was under arrest and that he would be detained in the cells before he was brought before the judge later that day.

Before he was led to the cells, he asked police under what authority he was being arrested and handed them a notice of intent stating that he was no longer a UK citizen. He told police that the notice had already been handed to the Queen and prime minister David Cameron.

He then told police: “I will come peacefully but it’s under protest. I do not agree to this.”

He had earlier arrived at court under summons to face a charge of failure to pay his council tax.

Standing outside the entrance to Court No 2, he refused to enter until District Judge Philip Browning answered his question: “Can I enter this court with my God-given, inalienable rights intact?”

Mr Browning did not reply to the question so Bond declined to enter the court room.

Mr Browning then said that if Bond stayed outside he would deal with the case in his absence, and he issued a warrant for his arrest without bail.

Speaking to the Evening News outside the court building, Bond said that he was willing to go to jail for his beliefs.

The odd job man, who works from his home at Moulton St Mary, near Acle, said that he had paid taxes in the past, but had recently joined the ‘Freeman-on-the-Land’ group, which was a worldwide organisation of people who had revoked consent to be governed by human laws.

He said: “At no time have I refused to pay the council tax. I have written to Broadland for proof of the bill, but it has ignored my request and just said that ‘You are going to pay’.

“Today I asked the judge to walk into the court under common law and not commercial law. If I had entered under commercial law it would prove that I accepted its law. I was denied my rights to go in there.

“All councils and courts are private, profit-making organisations. and it’s all a money-making scam.”

Bond said that his partner, Beverley Clarke thought he was “mad” when he first told her of his new beliefs, but she had now accepted his views.

When he appeared in custody later in the day, representing himself, he accepted “under duress” that he owed the council tax money, but said that he had no income and did not claim any benefits, as he was no longer a UK citizen.

He was handed a suspended three-month jail sentence on condition that he pay £20 a week off the debt.

A Broadland Council spokesman said afterwards that Bond had sent several letters to the council asking for information about why he was liable to pay the council tax.

The council said that written replies had been made to all these letters, apart from the last, which was received on Tuesday. Because of the nearness to the court date, an officer telephoned Bond.

There were previous, preliminary court hearings in March and September to establish that Bond did owe the money, a council spokesman said.

Broadland’s local taxation manager, Simon Quilter, who prosecuted Bond in court, said: “Several officers have spoken to Mr Bond and explained the help he could re-ceive if he has trouble paying the bill, although we are not aware that this is the case. We will always try and help people if they have difficulty, but at the end of the day, if they choose not to pay, they will end up in court.”

According to the FMOTL.com website, being a freeman means freedom from police intimidation and harassment, freedom from law courts, and freedom from tax bills, etc.

It claims that a Freeman-on-the-land isn’t someone who remains outside the law, so it is not a proposition for anarchy.

The website continues: “But – it all depends on what is meant by ‘law’. And that’s the catch. What you have grown up to assume is ‘the law’ is not, in point of fact, the law. That’s The Grand Deception. Once you know the deception, and what the law actually is, you’ll realise how the wool has been firmly and deliberately pulled over your eyes.”

Freemen-of-the-land have previously challenged court cases across the country and some have even videotaped proceedings, posting the results on YouTube.

However the Magistrates decided that Magna Carta was “political” not legal and they had to comply with the statute and issued an attachment order.

John also says that they refused leave to appeal for a stated case (without giving reasons) and did not address the duress of circumstances argument.

In his opinion, these are grounds for Judicial Review (if we go down that route) and the council tax official commited an overt act of treason by claiming that the demand was made in the name of the Government.

There were about 35 supporters in Court to hear John put his case.

We are hoping that John will issue a statement soon with regards to today’s events and outline what he sees as the next steps. If he does so then we will publish on a new post.

Our view on the Magna Carta is that it is a contract between Monarch and People, a contract drawn up before any parliament existed, and together with the Bill of Rights forms the legal base from which all statutes are drawn, and the common law to which it returns when statutes are repealed. Hardly political is it, but possibly a good get-out for the magistrates at this level.

I feel that the failure to address the duress of circumstances argument was in itself a dismissal of common law.

We shall see where this tale takes us all from here.

Although we are also working with another council tax rebel in the midlands who has got one council into judicial review already. More on that as it happens!

Take a look at this “alleged Liability Order” from Plymouth Council – really, you couldn’t make this stuff up. Unfortunately in this case Plymouth City Council have done just that!

We have known for a long time these “council Tax Hearings” are nothing more than “corporate meetings” paraded to you and I as “court Cases” – well the next time you get a summons – write to HMCS and ask them what they know about the case. The answer is … NOTHING!

That’s Odd? If these Council Tax Court Appearances were TRUE court cases then HMCS would know all about it. Instead they simply say “It’s a matter for the council” – well if thats the case then what the hell are these cases doing in a court???

Of course the reason the councils do this is obvious …

Ask yourself, if you had stopped paying council tax and they rang you up politely and asked you to go a meeting in the council offices … would you go? No and neither would the rest of us. So the councils “hire” the court which pays the magistrates to make bulk liability orders on the pretext that its a real court case.

Which it isn’t …

Which brings us onto the Liability Orders (allegedly) that these “courts” issue, these prove that these are NOT true courts and these liability orders are just made up bits of paper with no lawful meaning whatsoever.

Take a look at the image below and you will see the following major failings in this document.

1. No Royal Coat of Arms
2. No Seal of The Court (The stamp the clerk stamps the orders with)
3. No “wet ink” signature of the issuing magistrate or Clerk
4. Scribbled out / amended figures (are they making it up or what?)
5. No indication as to who the signatory is
6. No Name / Address of who the liability order is against
7. No date
8. No case number

Not only that, the document looks like it could have been created by any council employee who had been on a weeks course of Microsoft Word. To try and lay claim that this is a TRUE COURT order is laughable.

Many of us who are not paying this unlawful tax have been attempting to gain a true and original copy of a liability order issued and sealed by a court for over two years now and so far we have had NO success. We know why … it’s because the Councils DO NOT have such a document. There is NO court order. These “liability orders” are just corporate papwerwork created out of a corporate hearing and they know that when we push them into a TRUE court of law they will have to show which Judge and which Court produced the liability order (the true one) and as no court did … they will either have to admit

A) FRAUD
B) PERJURY (if they try and enter this Liability Order as a true court order)
C) ALL OF THE ABOVE!

Download a PDF copy of this document – CLICK HERE

For a more detailed expose of the fraud being visit:-

http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13425&sid=d1e918b508323832657c618e85c5f0a5&start=10#p110402