Dealing with Councils

Council Tax

As we all know, Council tax has been the bain of many a souls existence since that particular fraud began.

We know and can all prove with ease the unlawful nature of this forfeiture, and also prove that their entire collection process, including the court process that could and would send you to prison, has no standing in the laws of these lands.

Yet they appear to have free run on breaking the laws, while holding you to mere rules created for the purpose of removing your wealth.

So how do they do this? Well we never did prescribe to the “in a perfect world” scenarios. Many will show you fantastic and truthful notices that would and should end this criminal taxation, yet we have seen that there is no lawful remedy in fighting these parasites with even the best of notices if you think you can just fire and forget.

Council Tax - legalised extortion

The way we believe forward is to go for the jugular, while standing in honour yourself. After all, if they have no claim against you, yet you bring a claim against them to prove the lawful standing of this taxation, they can never bring their false and fake judgments on you.

This would be achieved by way of a no risk process which would not put you in any danger from losing a case. The fact is, you would continue to pay your council tax, whilst holding them to their obligation to explain a few things. 

As we have all seen various notices of many kinds pertaining to Council Tax, when thinking along the right lines, you will comprehend the fact that the importance is not which notice, what information and what questions to ask, they are probably all great and all right. 

The point is following through with your claim, whilst continuing to pay tis criminal tax, and once you have received your judgment (which you will if you have done things correctly) you can walk into your bank and claw back every single penny you have ever paid them, and have your own case law on Council Tax being unlawful.

This, although it does not satisfy those who would just say I am not paying anything, would end Council Tax for you, and you shall never be bothered by it again in your life. Is it really not worth a little time and effort for that result? 

We think so. So you have the ability now to go forward to create your own notice from the information that we and others have given freely over the internet of things. If you wish one created for you we shall be happy to exchange our sweat equity for remuneration. 

See our blog post on the great Council Tax scam for more information.

“Liberty is the right to do what the law permits.”

Montesquieu

Theft Act 1968

Theft act 1968 (which is taking our consent)

Section 1 basic definition of theft
1 A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it, and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

2 It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

Section 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) Dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make again for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Fraud Act 2006​

Section 2: Fraud by False Representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make again for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Section 4

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make again for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

Terrorism act 2000​

Section 1 Terrorism: interpretation.
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

Section 15 fundraising

(1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) invites another to provide money or other property, and
(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(2) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) receives money or other property, and
(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(3) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) provides money or other property, and
(b ) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

International Criminal Court Act 2001

Section 55 Meaning of “ancillary offence”
(1) References in this Part to an ancillary offence under the law of England and Wales are to—
(a) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence,
(b) inciting a person to commit an offence,
(c) attempting or conspiring to commit an offence, or
(d) assisting an offender or concealing the commission of an offence.
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
Section 8 Abettors in misdemeanours. (IF WE PAY THEM WE AID ABET IN THIS ACT )
Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of [F1any indictable offence] , whether the same be [F1an offence] at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.

PERJURY ACT 1911

12 Form of indictment.

(1)In an indictment—
(a)for making any false statement or false representation punishable under this Act; or
(b)for unlawfully, wilfully, falsely, fraudulently, deceitfully, maliciously, or corruptly taking, making, signing, or subscribing any oath, affirmation, solemn declaration, statutory declaration, affidavit, deposition, notice, certificate, or other writing,

it is sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged, and before which court or person (if any) the offence was committed without setting forth the proceedings or any part of the proceedings in the course of which the offence was committed, and without setting forth the authority of any court or person before whom the offence was committed.

(2)In an indictment for aiding, abetting, counselling, suborning, or procuring any other person to commit any offence herein-before in this section mentioned, or for conspiring with any other person, . . . F1, to commit any such offence, it is sufficient—

(a)where such offence has been committed, to allege that offence, and then to allege that the defendant procured the commission of that offence; and
(b)where such offence has not been committed, to set forth the substance of the offence charged against the defendant without setting forth any matter or thing which it is unnecessary to aver in the case of an indictment for a false statement or false representation punishable under this Act.

Unlawful warrant of entry prevented (npower)

When you go to the court you OVO the court and you hire the court for the day, therefore the judges are not under there oath, so therefore again you and the judges are committing perjury.

You have to prove jurisdiction to enter and that can only be with an ex96 form which is the only form allows you to enter. There is know printed signature or court seal, a photocopy will be classed as unlawful, it needs a wet ink signature and a printed name so we know who is liable for this fraudulent warrant.

So now I am going to sew you today under the 1976 perjury act section 26 I can read it to you if you like.

N171 form, fraud and perjury Warrant of entry not signed by judge or magistrate warrant to be fraudulent, warrant obtained under false pretences, warrant can only be obtained under the Health & Safety emergency reasons GAS ACT 1954 rights of entry.

Now you know that you acting unlawful and you continue to do this you will go to prison for knowingly breaking unlawful acts.
Also then the protection from harassment act 1997 will come into force then

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

26 Corrupt or another improper exercise of police powers and privileges
(1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she—
(a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and
(b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper.
(2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).
(3)The police constables referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a)a constable of a police force in England and Wales;
(b)a special constable for a police area in England and Wales;
(c)a constable or special constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(d)a constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;
(e)a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

(f)a National Crime Agency officer designated under section 9 or 10 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as having the powers and privileges of a constable.
(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—
(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—
(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or
(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and
(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).
(6)The first case is where—
(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,
(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and
(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(7)The second case is where—
(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,
(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and
(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.
(8)An offence is committed under this section if the act or omission in question takes place in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.
(9)In this section—
“benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment, whether or not in money or other property and whether temporary or permanent;
“United Kingdom waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom’s territorial sea.
(10)References in this section to exercising, or not exercising, the powers and privileges of a constable include performing, or not performing, the duties of a constable.
(11)Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office at common law in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.

Administration of Justice Act 1970

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—
(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

(c)falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment, or
(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—
(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

[F1(3A)Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.]
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400

F1S. 40(3A) inserted (26.5.2008) by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277), reg. 30(1), Sch. 2 para. 13 (with reg. 28(2)(3))

Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1S. 40(4) Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), ss. 35 (in relation to liability on first and subsequent convictions), 38 (increase of fines) and 46 (substitution of references to levels on the standard scale) apply (E.W.)

Fraud upon the Court Fraud

The Judge (who is NOT the “Court”) does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court.

The Court is an unbiased, but methodical “creature” which is governed by the Rule of Law… that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. 

The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and “just” if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. 

Statutory Declarations Act 1835. (use this in your defence)

The sad fact is that in MOST Courts across the country, from Federal Courts down to local District courts, have judges who are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules,. (as most attorney’s do NOT as well, and are usually grossly ignorant of the rules and both judges and attorneys are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules)

THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective/invalidates) every decision from that point on.

Any judge who does such a thing is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case. It is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME OR COURT, because there is no statutes of limitations on fraud.

It is my understanding from Halsbury’s Laws of England that the Oath does not authorise any Judge or Magistrate in the Common Law Jurisdiction of England and Wales to adjudicate any Hearing in which the matter is to be decided in any way other than by a Jury. 

If, in the Hearing in question held at the Magistrates Court, there was no Injured Party, no corpus delecti, and no Defendant, therefore the Common Law Oath under which the Judge/Magistrate claimed authority is unlawful and constitutes an offence contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. 

The fact that the Judge/Magistrate sat is considered to be prima facie evidence of the offence.

It is my understanding from reading Halsbury’s Laws of England that no MAGISTRATES or COUNTY COURT should exist, and when someone is summoned it is an ADMINISTRATIVE meeting without ANY lawful existence. If this has transpired it is in breach of the Fraud Act 2006 (see 4, 5 and 6 below) as the Judge/Magistrate, Clerk and Prosecutor step outside their lawful remit, and become personally liable.

It is my understanding that demanding monies by false representation is in breach of the Fraud Act 2006, Section 2.

It is my understanding that demanding monies without providing full disclosure is in breach of The Fraud Act 2006, Section 3.

It is my understanding that demanding monies without providing evidence of authority or jurisdiction is in breach of The Fraud Act 2006, Section 4.

It is my understanding that Halsbury’s on Administrative Law 20-11: “The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for administrative courts in this country and no act can be passed to legitimise them.”

It is my understanding that according to Observance of due Process of Law 1368 section 3: “None shall be put to answer without due Process of Law.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3/42/3/section/III

“At the Request of the Commons by their Petitions put forth in this Parliament, to eschew the Mischiefs and Damages done to divers of his Commons by false Accusers, which oftentimes have made their Accusations more for Revenge and singular Benefit, than for the Profit of the King, or of his People, which accused Persons, some have been taken, and sometime caused to come before the King’s Council by Writ, and otherwise upon grievous Pain against the Law: It is assented and accorded, for the good Governance of the Commons, that no Man be put to answer without Presentment before Justices, or Matter of Record, or by due Process and Writ original, according to the old Law of the Land: And if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Errors.”