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!

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!

Bailiff accepts FEE SCHEDULE and sees unrebutted, uncontested and undiputed offer to pay in full in an acknowledged NOTICE in front of witnesses

His call came after hundreds of anti-establishment demonstrators stormed Birkenhead County Court yesterday and “arrested” a judge.

Roads were blockaded and dozens of police officers deployed to keep order.

A stand-off followed with several demonstrators staging a sit-down protest in front of police vehicles, refusing to let them pass.

Several arrests were made and police dog-handlers called to the scene.

The protestors were from the anti-establishment “British Constitution Group.”

The demonstration was sparked when one of the prominent voices in the BCG, Wirral man Roger Hayes, faced a hearing for non-payment of council tax.

Mr Hayes believes the tax is unlawful.

Today town hall chief Cllr Jeff Green told the Globe: “Have these people given any thought to what happens to the likes of Sure Start, public libraries or other services that people depend on?

“Not many people like paying tax but we accept the need for tax.

“I am disappointed that this case has been adjourned, but in the light of the events that took place, understand the court’s decision.

“However, before anyone else gets any ideas about not paying their council tax, let me assure everyone that Wirral Council is stepping up its activity to ensure that everyone pays their fair share.

“Nobody is above the law.”

Six people were arrested following yesterday’s disturbance. Two are appearing before magistrates today.

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

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.