The site that he’s talking about is of course “www.Nocounciltax.com” and he even tries to convince our caller that the decision made by Wirral Council to withdraw in the Roger Hayes case was made of “someones own back” and that “he wouldn’t like to be in her shoes”

What a load of tosh! – All decisions to withdraw from Council Tax cases are made by the councils own legal advisors who are all trained solicitors or barristers retained (At great expense to you and I) by the council. If the decision was made to withdraw by the council then it was made because they knew they were on a hiding to nothing! It’s that simple.

It’s staggering the depths these “legal departments” will go to and the lies they will tell just to try and get you to pay the council tax thats keeping them in a job.

Enjoy the call!

Roger Hayes, chairman of the British Constitution Group, applied at Wirral Magistrates’ Court to have Jon Murphy arrested following Monday’s demonstration.

Mr Hayes, of Wallasey, believes police should have actually helped members of the public arrest the judge.

Yesterday, his bankruptcy hearing for non-payment of council tax ended in uproar when his supporters – several hundred of whom had massed outside – stormed Birkenhead County Court and “arrested” Judge Michael Peake.

Protestors from the public gallery charged at Mr Peake to make a civil arrest chanting “arrest that judge”.

Police scrambled over court benches to control the near riot and one protester shouted “seal the court.”

Another sat in the judge’s chair and declared Mr Hayes be “released”.

Deafening cheers and chants could be heard from the crowd outside the courts and demonstrators used mobile phones to film arrests being made.

Today Mr Hayes told District Judge Lomax at magistrates’ court: “In county court, we arrested Judge Peake for treason and contempt of court.

“I called upon the police and members of the public to help me in this but the police acted incorrectly and arrested lawful individuals.

“We now want the chief constable to appear in court to explain the actions of his officers. They acted unlawfully by rescuing the judge. The rescue and treason is a criminal offence.

“We expect the police to do their job properly and that is the responsibility of the chief constable.”

A Merseyside Police spokesman said: “Merseyside Police is aware of an application for a warrant heard at Birkenhead Magistrates court this morning (8 March)”

Credit: Wirral Globe

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

For years we have now been campaigning in a number of cases to get these corrupt councils to produce a “True and Original Copy” of one of these alleged “Liability Orders”.

Here’s the scam that the councils are trying to pull off!

1. They Issue a summons to you for not paying council tax.
2. When you go to court they try and trick you by meeting with you first in a little room to try and get you to admit “liability” for the council tax by getting you to agree to pay so much per month. This admission of liability on your part means that they can secure a “liability order” without you even entering the court!
3. If you don’t agree to pay then they issue a liability order anyway.
4. Now, our research shows that a “Proper Court Order” MUST have certain things on it and these are:
   1. A Wet ink Signature of the Judge or Justices Clerk who signed it on the day (Not a facsimilie signature)
   2. The Royal Identifier (i.e. Royal Coat Of Arms)
   3. Once the court date has passed they send a “Notice Of A Liability Order”

And this is where the scam exposes itself …

If the councils had a True and Original Liability Order (as per above) then why wouldn’t they send you a copy of that instead of sending you a piece of paper typed up on Microsoft Word claiming that they have a liability order.

A number of us have not been paying council for the last two years successfully because when challenged over this LAWFULLY because we back them into a corner! Here’s how …

1. We conditionally Accept their offer to pay council tax upon proof of claim (In other words they have to prove a number of points) – if they don’t we withold payment.
2. When they send a summons (Invitation to attend their place of business) we ignore it.
3. When they send a “NOTICE OF LIABILITY ORDER” we write back and send them a “NOTICE OF REBUTTAL” and “NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR TRUE AND ORIGINAL COPY OF COURT LIABILITY ORDER” which of course must meet the requirements stated earleir.
4. They then send in the bailiffs who we serve with bailiff packs (Download from www.freedomrebels.co.uk) and issue them with Bills for attending (we also video them and put them on youtube!)
5. Eventually the bailiffs get bored with that game and hand the thin back to the Council.
6. The council eventually send a letter telling you they will send you to court “for committal to prison” proceedings.
7. We then send them a letter which basically says this …

“If you are going to bring the matter into a criminal court and are going to rely on the alleged liability order in your case then the law and due process dictates that you must send me a copy of the TRUE and ORIGINAL LIABILITY ORDER, with all the correct attributes thereupon.

The law concerning disclosure dictates that you, the council, are required to do this at least 14 days before the hearing.

Therefore, if you are going to rely on this document we will bring it up in court that you have vexatiously withehld it at all times and therefore this matter and the valuable time of the court would not have been wasted and also because you, the council are required to disclose it 14 days before the hearing you will have no problem sending it to me now … will you?”

Normally at this point … the council go away because you have backed them into a corner lawfully. They know they can’t go into a court and rely on a piece of paper which …

BY THE ADMISSION OF PLYMOUTH COUNCIL … DOESN’T EXIST ON PAPER!

They also know that you are going to counter claim against them for being vexatious.

Here is the document from Plymouth Council telling us all that these Liability order are non existent!

So there you have it! Proof undeniable, from the council themselves that they don’t ACTUALLY have a Liability Order that conforms to any sort of Lawful requirement! And yet, on the back of this scam they creaming Billions from us all!

We believe that for this unlawful council tax abomination there is a truth in the words of Rutger Hauer’s character Roy Batty in the film Bladerunner!

“Time … To Die!”

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!

ENTREPRENEUR Danny Bamping has said he would rather go to prison than pay his council tax in a dispute with the city council over student housing.

Mr Bamping, aged 36, has been ordered by a court to pay a year’s tax plus costs of £1,392.

He admitted to Plymouth magistrates he had not paid anything on his Band C house in Mutley since April – and that he would not pay anything.

Mr Bamping, the managing director of Bedlam Puzzles and Crazee Thingz who once appeared on the BBC’s Dragons’ Den, told the court it was unfair he should pay tax while the landlords of student properties are exempt.

He said his house in Hillside Avenue was in an area where there was a high concentration of student houses which caused disruption to other residents.

Mr Bamping, a father-of-three young daughters, added: “There are nearly 3,500 student properties in Plymouth exempt from paying council tax. If they were not exempt then that would be another £4.5 million coming into the city.”

He said if the national policy was reversed across the country, it would pay back ‘over £1 billion’ to the national debt.

Mr Bamping told the court: “The country is facing a lot of very difficult decisions, but reversing the exemption would be a relatively easy one.”

Plymouth City Council took Mr Bamping to court to force him to pay council tax for the last six months and also the coming six months.

The magistrates were advised they could not get involved in the rights and wrongs of council policy and had to grant a liability order if they thought he owed the money.

The bench granted an order for £1,392.37 for tax plus costs.

Mr Bamping was warned that if he did not pay he could be brought back to court for a committal warrant. He could then be sent to prison.

Mr Bamping said outside court he would not pay and was prepared to go to jail.

He said: “You have to make a stand. I don’t want this to be an idle threat.”

Credit: http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Entrepreneur-prepared-jail-tax-row/article-2903701-detail/article.html

Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, John Hurst is no free-loader. He is a highly responsible and patriotic citizen, a former police officer with an impressive record. His decision not to pay is based on thorough research indicating that councils have no legal right whatsoever to levy such a tax on its citizens. Believing this to be true, John would have therefore committed an offence by actually paying the tax, as the majority of us already have. Given that ignorance of the law is no defence, it places the overwhelming majority of hitherto respectable British citizens in an invidious situation and the courts in an even worse one.

John, a committed supporter of Lawful Rebellion, arrived at the court with his wife, along with her Mackenzie Friend. The court official took down the details but then returned some time later stating that Tina Hurst’s case was no longer listed. This was an extremely odd development, given that Tina is registered disabled with visual impairment and would have hence qualified for a Council Tax rebate, which had not been awarded and for legal aid should she decide to take the case further. It would appear that suspicions of skulduggery would not be entirely unfounded. The official was challenged over this and shortly afterwards brought out a more senior figure, a pleasant young man, who invited the little party into a private office. There he declared that on checking his information, Tina Hurst was on the list after all!

Much later, the group was invited into Court. John Hurst, representing himself, immediately questioned as to why there were only two magistrates on the bench instead of the required three. The Council`s solicitor stated that he had to agree but that this was not contentious. John immediately retorted that it was and insisted on exercising his legal right to have three magistrates present. The court officials had to concede and the group was asked to leave the Court whilst a third magistrate be found.

Amongst John Hurst’s contentions, was the fact that this court had no jurisdiction to make a firm decision on his case. Therefore, it was welcome when the council solicitor appeared, telling John that the court had decided that the matter should be passed to the Court in Llandrindod Wells for trial on Friday 5th November at ten a.m.

The group re-entered the Court shortly afterwards for the formal decision to be announced, but John consequently and successfully challenged the by now hapless and bewildered clerk of the court over a number of legal and procedural issues.

It was not all over, as John stated that he had not yet received disclosure of the Council`s documents. The Council`s solicitor conceded that they had only been posted on 29th September, two days earlier. The clerk then stated that in order to enable Counsel to examine the Hurst’s skeleton argument, the time of the coming hearing would be delayed by thirty minutes. John immediately stated that he failed to understand how this would allow Counsel to assimilate the information as it consisted of thirty pages. The clerk again seemed baffled by this, as she was unaware of this attachment. The Council`s solicitor was immediately questioned and became somewhat incoherent. He asked if John had actually sent the documents with the attachment, to the Council. John stated that he had and furthermore had a printed e-mail acknowledgement from the Council to prove it.

Hence, it was established that the Council`s solicitor must have knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose vital evidence to the Court, a criminal offence.

The Court was hastily concluded and the officials and the solicitor were assured that a formal complaints would be issued, including one to the police requesting the arrest and charge of Powys Council`s solicitor for withholding evidence from the Court, which, moreover, would have not have been discovered but for the unfortunate clerk`s statement.

It must be said that John Hurst`s performance in Court was magnificent, assured, authoritative and knowledgeable at all times, invariably leaving the court, including the magistrates, trailing along hopelessly out of their collective depth. He and his wife deserve every possible support for their courageous stand, which is an important stepping stone on the way to exposing the inefficiency, unlawful conduct and even possible corruption on the part of those responsible for administering our legal system and the behaviour of other state-funded officials, particularly in this instance, those employed by Powys Council.

This court report was originally written by journalist Robert Green.

read comments at pjc journal link below

http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/council-tax-rebellion-and-a-day-in-court/

Council Tax rebellion – John Hurst StatementPosted on October 11, 2010 by Ian Parker-Joseph

Following the court report published yesterday, John Hurst has issued the following Statement for publication:

So much for the events at Court. The significance of this case to us all is the reason why a local authority, or any other revenue gathering body, no longer has lawful authority to tax us. It is because The Crown, and all officials who act in the name of the Crown, have breached the contract with the people of these islands to rule us according to our laws and customs.

.
That contract was acknowledged in the peace treaties know as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights. The present Queen publicly swore to uphold those laws and customs at her Coronation in 1953. In 2009 she gave Royal Assent to the unlawful pretended statute which gave effect to the Lisbon treaty and allowed foreign potentates of the European Union to issue directives and regulations which her officials then impose as if they had the authority of Parliament.

.
From that moment the UK changed from a constitutional monarchy to a tyranny, and we were subjected to the abuse of the state’s coercive force in the absence of the rule of law.
This is not the first time this has happened in history and our ancestors successfully resisted using our common law right to the protection of duress of circumstances confirmed in Chapter 61 of Magna Carta.

.
The “Skeleton Argument” that is before the Court explains what is at stake:

i. The respondent resides in a rented cottage in Powys and the Claimant has presented him with a bill for Council Tax for £900 in the name of The Queen.

ii. The Respondent has made a conditional offer to pay if the claimant can produce evidence that the claim is made lawfully. In the absence of such evidence, he is asserting that breaches of treaty obligations between The Crown and the people and the activation of the procedure specified by Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 and, alternatively, the Common Law defence of duress of circumstances justify his withholding of the payment.

iii. The first matter at issue is the authority of The Queen (and Her officials) to issue demands for taxes at a time when she is under the supervision of a Barons Committee lawfully constituted under Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215. If the demand was made in the name of a Corporation and not The Queen then the Respondent has no contract with them and therefore no liability.

iv. The second matter at issue, which the Respondent alternatively and independently relies on, is the Common Law right of the subject to invoke the defence of duress of circumstances because The Queen has breached her Common Law treaty obligations with the people that were confirmed in Magna Carta 1215 and the Declaration of Rights 1688 and as a consequence the Respondents life, liberties and property are threatened.

i. The respondent has been a legal researcher for the Magna Carta Society (the MCS) since 1998 and helped produce the research paper on the possibility of raising a Barons Committee in 1999.

ii. Michael Burke, also a member of the society, petitioned the Courts to uphold the Declaration and Bill of Rights in 1998 and 1999 without success. The Judgments were referred to in the research paper and were part of the material relied upon in its arguments.

iii. Members of the public were invited to send postcards to The Queen urging her not to give Royal Assent to any statute which purported to give effect to the Nice Treaty in the UK. Several hundred thousand did so.

iv. The Queen failed to respond to public petitioning and there was no evidence that the then Prime Minister intended to change his counsels.

v. Members of the society petitioned each member of the Houses of Lords and Commons not to give their support to any statute relating to the Nice Treaty.

vi. 65 Peers selected a quorum of 25 of their number to address the petitions from the MCS and members of the public. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 were established. Four of their number served the petition on Her Majesty on 7th February 2001.

vii. No response was made to the Barons Petition within the specified 40 days or has been to date. The conditions for Lawful Rebellion came into effect.

viii. The then Government used a purported statute (the House of Lords Act 1999) and the Rules of Parliament to deny a majority of the Hereditary Peers access to the House which prevented them exercising their Common Law right to be consulted about and vote on statutes. Officials took possession of their Letters Patent. They were replaced by hereditary Peers, many in dubious circumstances (the cash for Peerages scandal).

ix. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Nice Treaty on 26/2/2002.

x. The Queen gave Royal Assent to a purported statute giving effect to the Lisbon Treaty on 19/06/2008. Direct rule from the European Union commenced in late 2009.

xi. Displaced hereditary Peers challenged the validity of the House of Lords Act and obtained an admission that it was invalid from a Government Minister, Baroness Ashton, on 20th September 2008. To date, no remedial action has been taken. This is described in the submission listed at Para 4. i. Above.

1. The Respondents Submissions Opposing a Liability Order.

i. I am a British subject of good character and have twice sworn the Oath of Allegiance, as a soldier and as a police officer. Both of those oaths require allegiance to the law, not an office holder, and require the individual concerned to make judgments about the lawfulness of his, or her, actions. So does the Judicial Oath.

ii. Regarding Ch. 61 of Magna Carta, I submit that a Baron’s Committee was lawfully raised, that their Petition was served on The Queen on 7th February 2001 and that the provisions of Ch. 61 of Magna Carta 1215 apply until the Committee or a duly constituted Constitutional Convention decides otherwise. I have sworn allegiance to that Committee. In these circumstances I submit that Powys Council has no authority to issue a tax demand to me.

iii. Regarding the defence of “duress of circumstances”, I have an honestly held belief that my life, liberty and property are at risk because laws that are repugnant to the Common Law are being applied within the UK. I did not place myself voluntarily in this position. Refusing to pay taxes to The Queen, who, together with certain evil counsellors, is responsible for this situation and is in breach of the Common Law and her Coronation Oath is an act of self defence on my part. Any refusal by Crown Officials to acknowledge the restraints that they are subject to will be further evidence that my beliefs are well founded.

iv. The Judicial Studies Board document referred to at Para. 3. iv. above confirms that it is for The Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the defence of duress does not apply.

2. Remedies Sought by the Respondent.

i. For the reasons given above I respectfully submit that no properly directed Court has authority to try me for refusing to pay Council Tax. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to make a ruling on this I claim my right to have the issues that I have raised put before a lawfully constituted (complete with all hereditary Peers and without post 1999 Life Peers) House of Lords in order for a case to be stated. That is because the defects in the House of Lords Act 1999 noted above call into doubt the validity of the new “Supreme Court”.

ii. If the Brecon Magistrates are unable to do that I ask for these matters to be put before the Supreme Court for a case to be stated. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of that Court for the reasons given.

Respectfully submitted,

John Hurst.

As reported yesterday, the Brecon court has decided that the matter should be passed to the Court in Llandrindod Wells for for a new hearing on Friday 5th November at ten a.m, and I am sure that John would welcome support.

(note: it is not a trial, but a hearing before an administrative court which is hired for the day by the Council, including the magistrates).

Former accountant Traude Konig, 65, of Kingston Road, believes hired heavies have been abusive and illegally tried to gain entry to her house after she fell behind on her council tax by just six days.

The local authority can demand an entire year’s tax from anyone who falls behind on just one monthly payment, passing on their details to Merton Bailiffs Services – a separate organisation.

Miss Konig is adamant this breaches data protection rules and is also attempting to sue for the bailiffs’ alleged threatening behaviour.

She said: “I may be an old age pensioner but this isn’t right and I don’t want anyone thinking I’m a pushover.

“I want this to go to court so that the way Merton Council and its bailiffs operate is put out in the open.”

On one occasion she said she was forced to call police while fighting off a bailiff climbing into her home.

Miss Konig, who has professional legal experience, is now refusing to pay any further council tax, or the additional collection charges amounting to more than £1,000, until the matter has been resolved through the courts.

Chris Johnson, Merton Council head of audit and support and customer services, said: “If a resident falls behind with their council tax and the council has to take them to court, legally we can insist on full payment but this is not what we do.

“Instead we will look at each case and offer residents further opportunities to pay by instalments to ensure their situation is taken into account.

“When arrangements are broken, the case is passed to our in-house bailiff’s team who progress the matter in accordance with current relevant legislation.

“This policy is applied in all instances.”