I've supported you since I came across your work and awakened myself in 2020. The more people who follow your example the quicker these tyrants fall. You are standing in lawful truth and honour. You have my heartfelt thanks, admiration and support in any way I can. ❤️👏
You can argue points of law and win. I have done it. It’s not hard.
Argue the legitimacy of the summons as it must be signed off by a justice of the peace as per CTA&E 1992
Argue that the summons seeks to mislead the defendant as to their rights and deny their rights under section 6 of the human rights act as it fails to mention the councils obligation to ensure that the costs are “reasonable” and that court guidelines insist that the court must pay due regard to the defendants rights in this respect and specifically provides for the defendant to scrutinise the costs. This is your right in law and you must assert it!! 💪🏻
But most powerful of all ARGUE COSTS! The case law of Nicolson and Ewing were hard fought victories added to the statute books FOR OUR BENEFIT AND PROTECTION!
If you can get the costs thrown out then you can get the arrears thrown out. It’s a no brainer
First step FOI the council for the costs.
At the same time FOI the council for proof of what they did with the court refunds they were given by HM CTS when they charged everybody £3 instead of the 50p that they were supposed to. If they have kept the money and not returned it to the rightful defendants then their budget is incorrect and the case must be thrown out.
If the court case comes up before you get the costs demand an adjournment due to lack of evidence
Simple Nicolson case strategy.
This would be argued in the following way…
Obtain the courts acknowledgement that they are bound by the Nicolson ruling, and furthermore that this requires the council to “ furnish a respondent with that [ costs ] information on request” ( quote from the actual Nicolson caselaw )
The ruling shows that a certain amount of detail is required in order that the “ Right types of costs and expenses are taking into account , and provided that due consideration is given to the dangers of double counting, or of artificial inflation of costs” This detail is important because without it a defendant and the court cannot sufficiently scrutinise the budget to ensure that it is lawful.
In general the requirement for sufficient detail is directly related to whether a magistrate could reasonable have enough information to perform a judicial function to the Nicholson standards. Important point.
Without the detail then this must nullify the application because it could be argued that the Magistrates could not have reasonably applied their mind to the problem as required in 1. Regina v Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin [1975] QB 4551: “A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative.” and hence the ruling is void because the court cannot show the pre requisites for a judicial decision.
If the court failed to follow due process then submit an application under section 142 of the magistrates court act 1980 to set aside the judgement and rehear the case.
I've supported you since I came across your work and awakened myself in 2020. The more people who follow your example the quicker these tyrants fall. You are standing in lawful truth and honour. You have my heartfelt thanks, admiration and support in any way I can. ❤️👏
You can argue points of law and win. I have done it. It’s not hard.
Argue the legitimacy of the summons as it must be signed off by a justice of the peace as per CTA&E 1992
Argue that the summons seeks to mislead the defendant as to their rights and deny their rights under section 6 of the human rights act as it fails to mention the councils obligation to ensure that the costs are “reasonable” and that court guidelines insist that the court must pay due regard to the defendants rights in this respect and specifically provides for the defendant to scrutinise the costs. This is your right in law and you must assert it!! 💪🏻
But most powerful of all ARGUE COSTS! The case law of Nicolson and Ewing were hard fought victories added to the statute books FOR OUR BENEFIT AND PROTECTION!
If you can get the costs thrown out then you can get the arrears thrown out. It’s a no brainer
First step FOI the council for the costs.
At the same time FOI the council for proof of what they did with the court refunds they were given by HM CTS when they charged everybody £3 instead of the 50p that they were supposed to. If they have kept the money and not returned it to the rightful defendants then their budget is incorrect and the case must be thrown out.
If the court case comes up before you get the costs demand an adjournment due to lack of evidence
Simple Nicolson case strategy.
This would be argued in the following way…
Obtain the courts acknowledgement that they are bound by the Nicolson ruling, and furthermore that this requires the council to “ furnish a respondent with that [ costs ] information on request” ( quote from the actual Nicolson caselaw )
The ruling shows that a certain amount of detail is required in order that the “ Right types of costs and expenses are taking into account , and provided that due consideration is given to the dangers of double counting, or of artificial inflation of costs” This detail is important because without it a defendant and the court cannot sufficiently scrutinise the budget to ensure that it is lawful.
In general the requirement for sufficient detail is directly related to whether a magistrate could reasonable have enough information to perform a judicial function to the Nicholson standards. Important point.
Without the detail then this must nullify the application because it could be argued that the Magistrates could not have reasonably applied their mind to the problem as required in 1. Regina v Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin [1975] QB 4551: “A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative.” and hence the ruling is void because the court cannot show the pre requisites for a judicial decision.
If the court failed to follow due process then submit an application under section 142 of the magistrates court act 1980 to set aside the judgement and rehear the case.
You are stalwart fren! March on!
Martin, hope all is well with you and loved ones. Thank you for your passion and perseverance.
David
GO GET 'EM MARTIN!! We've been so blind, thanks for the education 🙏🏻