It has been a painful realisation over the last few years that the modern nation state, including the judiciary, police, and local government, is one giant crime syndicate. As Robert David Steele used to emphasise, there are many good people in bad systems, and the emphasis is on how the systems are corrupted, making the majority into unwilling tools of oppression by following their orders from above. This is why the deity of destruction ought to be iconised via an effigy of the efficient administrator, since the craven adherence to rules over conscience is how evil spreads and scales.

I recently wrote about the case of Andrew Stephenson in Hartlepool, who simply tried to move from a licensed (i.e. large) supplier of electricity to an unlicensed (i.e. micro) green supplier, as per the regulations, and got his home cut off entirely from the grid for his efforts. I can give a full update later on his ongoing struggle to hold the energy mafia to account, but the main point is that the court has failed to demonstrate that it was given any evidence whatsoever before an entry warrant was issued; they simply referred him back to the commercial entities who applied. This is how administrative “justice” runs amok: it is inherently loaded against the individual, and an open invitation for criminal organisations to abuse ordinary people.

I have been fighting my own administrative battle against Durham County Council and Peterlee Magistrates Court. The latter have gone totally silent since I wrote holding them to account by simply documenting their own “fake justice” process. I suspect the penny has dropped with their staff that they are indeed part of a fraudulent, unlawful, and unethical criminal endeavour and do not want to make any statements that render them explicitly complicit. The former have sent me their latest bill in the post, which I will be passing back through the three letter No Obligation Challenge. So far no council has been able to prove a lawful obligation to pay; they cannot, since it is debt slavery.

In theory we have God-given rights and are free men and women. Yet in practise we have been ensnared and enslaved via legalese and administrative law, which treats us as commercial vessels rather than living and breathing creatures. In order to protect ourselves, we have to recognise that the powers that be do not give any credence to our having innate rights, despite lip service about caring.

For instance, when I challenged the UK Parliament regarding the text on its website in relation to sovereignty, the response also included a link to this blog denigrating constitutional arguments as “pseudolegal”:

This concerns the Magna Carta tsunami that has wreaked a certain amount of havoc on social media in response to the government’s Covid restrictions. … The Secret Barrister describes the self-styled “Freemen on the Land” as “a grouping of proselytising individuals who believe that by misquoting Magna Carta and basic tenets of contract law, they can somehow place themselves outside the jurisdiction of the law of England & Wales. By making various incoherent and illogical assertions cloaked in legalese, they profess to be bound by “other” laws, such as the laws of the sea or long-repealed mediaeval treaties, and claim that the legal system has no control over them.”

So the biggest overreach of power by the legislature is history, causing untold harm to the public, is tied in their propaganda to the idea of “free men of the land” being an invalid concept in the 21st century. You’re a serf, and stop getting ideas above your station, say the administrators. Attempts to assert our innate sovereign rights should be abandoned because the legal system is meant to “have control over us”, and not the other way around. You couldn’t make this up if you tried! They really don’t hide their contempt for the public.

In this context, I have also previously written about the Porky Pint pub under the management of Paul Henderson, who opened during lockdown. He lost his appeal in court recently against the removal of his alcohol license, which effectively closes the business permanently. This was done on health and safety grounds, with zero evidence being offered, despite the law demanding evidence in order to prevent exactly this kind of arbitrary exercise of power. That’s right — you can shut down businesses and strip people of a living without having to offer any evidence of harm. There was an arbitrary and unfair rule, and you broke it, the absence of victims is of no importance.

It is increasingly commonplace for the state to steal our innate freedoms from us, and then license or rent them back for a fee. Your rights to work, travel, and speak come with strings attached, if you accept that they have jurisdiction (which they do not). That such matters are unconstitutional is seen as an irrelevance; those who insist on such formalities are fringe weirdos that are a threat to the established order. That means you have to fight back in ways that the system recognises as legitimate and can respond to. Change happens because your gestures are meaningful in their concept of legitimacy and power, not because you are righteous or honest.

In particular, you have to learn to hold them to account via their own rule book and standards. This is the only language and morality that they will possibly respond to. We may not like it, but that’s what works. To bring this to life, here is my latest freedom of information request to Durham County Council. I will let you scan through it quickly, and have put the key points into bold. (CDOS is their debt enforcement team.)

My questions are related to the enforcement of debt resulting from potentially legally defective liability orders, issued in collaboration with magistrates' courts.

1. Is there a policy document that describes how correspondence to the Chief Executive is handled, and is this available to the public?
2. More narrowly, if a potential criminal act by council staff is raised by a member of the public in a letter to the Chief Executive, is there a defined internal process to handle this? If so, what is it?
3. Most specifically, is there a duty for the correspondence team to inform the Chief Executive personally when a member of the public raises a criminal concern?
4. Does the standard complaints process for the council have any qualifying or gating terms and conditions when the matter is of a potentially criminal nature? If so, what are they?
5. The council sends out a notice of a liability order after the court hearing for unpaid council tax. Is there any defined process to supply the member of the public with a certified copy of the court order (when requested) to prove it was lawfully issued and who is accountable?
6. When a member of the public writes to CDOS, is there a defined process for how it should be handled and responded to? Is this policy available to the public?
7. Specifically, is there a requirement for CDOS to acknowledge or respond to correspondence in relation to debt and legal matters?
8. When a member of the public writes to CDOS withdrawing implied right of access to their property, is there a process or system for recording this and acting upon it?

Administration is focused on roles, responsibilities, procedures, policies, and outcomes. Questions of morality, law, equity, fairness, or even sanity do not apply. So focus on the former, and that gives you the tools to engage with the latter while having the upper hand. The more you can highlight how they are not “good administrators”, the less they will want to interact with you, and the greater the chance of simply being left alone to live your life without being harassed or intimidated.

The generic process seems to be something like the following (although this is not legal advice in any way or form):

• Use freedom of information acts to gather intelligence on their relevant processes and compliance to these (e.g. management data).

• Use an affidavit to state how you have attempted to comply with their processes, and they have not been in compliance with their own policies.

• Use follow-up letters (which generally get zero response) to explain that you seek a remedy or cure, and that you are planning to take action.

• The idea of “estoppel” then prevents them from going back and re-arguing their case; you have created your own “legal facts”, which ideally are aligned to real facts.

• Where their failure to follow the rules invokes a criminal act, make a complaint to the police, using the evidence of non-compliance you have gained.

The administrative system will keep trying to hide its crimes by using their complaints process to cover it all up. Our job is to keep pushing back and turning these matters into criminal investigations where possible. This is a war of attrition, and there are a lot more of us than there are of them. They cannot come to arrest us all, or break down all our doors. Every time we push back, people inside the corrupt system also start to ask questions and wake up. Fighting battles against “just following orders” types who lie and cheat for a living is not easy, and takes time to master.

What I am learning (via the school of hard knocks and the suffering of close friends) is how to use a combination of civil and criminal processes to go after them. Never expect them to show honour — these institutions are just crime gangs using public service as a fig leaf to cover their shame.

You have to “impedance match” the level of authority you are acting at: administrative, legal, or constitutional matters have different venues. It’s useless trying to get an administrator to pay attention to the fact they are acting unlawfully, or that legislation is unconstitutional.

The successful way of fighting back is paradoxical. You have to become more of a stickler for administrative rules and the tiny minutiae of bureaucracy than they already are. It is tedious, it is troublesome, and it is tiring. But it does deliver results. Truth and justice are processes, not events, attributes, or objects.

Administrative criminals commit crimes through simply… administering. So we expose their crimes by becoming more like them, not less; we expose them first by engaging in their administrative horror show. It is the prerequisite of holding them to account, prosecuting them, and beginning deeper reform.