In which case, what is this man doing here?

A surreal plot twist in my legal case against TV Licensing highlights systemic issues

You really can’t make it up, not even if you try. I left court having had a (doubtless well-intentioned) black man as opposing legal counsel defending slavery, while representing a party that had no standing to be there anyhow, and who were committing a crime against me and the public. Yet I now have to pay £750 costs to them, in order to recompense them for their effort in coming to continue to commit fraud and defend slavery — now with the aid of the judge. Good story, no?

Notably, neither the judge nor the counsel for the other side could look me (or any of my public observers) in the eye. A lie is a lie, no matter how you dignify it; I left with my integrity intact, even if poorer. They were in shame by the end, and it could be felt. They know they are parties to wrongdoing, and it is eating away at their souls. I will come back to the costs to me personally in a moment, but the ringing in my body from the cortisol and adrenaline is gone in a few days; I am not carrying any debt outside of the fiat currency system.

On Friday I was in Newcastle for a hearing for an application to appeal against the set-aside motion granted to Capita in my case against TV Licensing. The BBC and Capita are playing a dirty shell game, presenting “TV Licensing” as a legal person, when it is not, and then sending the assets to the BBC, and the liabilities to Capita. It is a breach of s3 of the Fraud Act 2006, being a misrepresentation for gain, and is a crime — of which I am a victim. The BBC has a 20% rate of failing to defend cases (4 our of 20 in 3 years), while the post has a 99% success rate at delivery, so on balance their claim to not have received the claim lacks credibility.

For essential context, I gained a default judgement against “TV Licensing”. Then Capita stepped in to claim to be trading as TV Licensing, to set aside that default judgement. They got the set-aside granted, and this hearing was an appeal against that matter only, not the merits of the underlying case. However, the BBC is the one who owns the trademark and receives the money; Capita is not “trading” as such, and they committed perjury multiple times in their application.

The “unclean hands” are not my own; if I have sued a non-entity, that is not my fault! They have presented “TV Licensing” as a legal person, it is self-evidently the BBC and not Capita, and the BBC itself is adamant it is the liable party for activities performed under the trademark. So what are Capita doing in court claiming to be “TV Licensing”? Why is this man here next to me at all, let alone why are I having to pay for him to defraud me and the public?

From the outset the judge seemed aggressive and rude — maybe because I had one of his bar guild mates recused from the case earlier for misbehaviour. I was not given time to talk about how Capita had committed perjury. What I did manage was to explain the genesis of the case, which is that (1) TV Licensing make severe threats to come to your house unless you either pay them or make a statement about not needing a TV License, (2) there is no lawful requirement to make any such statement, (3) they themselves admit to making an escalating series of threats to get you to perform this service and this is blackmail, and (4) this contravenes the Modern Slavery Act 2015 s1/s3 that makes it criminal offence to gain a service of ANY KIND via forced labour, with a life imprisonment term.

Here it is: what the BBC and Capita are doing is a serious crime, even ignoring the identity fraud:

Securing services etc by force, threats or deception

(5)The person is subjected to force, threats or deception designed to induce him or her—

(a)to provide services of any kind,

(b)to provide another person with benefits of any kind, or

(c)to enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind.

When you make millions of people do a small act against their will without lawful cause, that is not a minor matter, but a priceless principle. This is an extension of the state being a human trafficking ring, and breaching our constitutional rights. So turning up to defend this kind of behaviour has karmic consequences. Taking money off the person who is attempting to hold the modern slavers to account, even if you can find wriggle room in procedure to do it, has really bad karmic consequences! I wasn’t expecting justice, but just like when a previous magistrate blurted out “we are here to collect money” (for council tax), I knew I had “won” in the way that matters regardless of what the judge decided.

While we were not in court on this occasion to argue the merits of the case, only whether Capita had standing to be there as “TV Licensing”, it framed it as a very serious matter of public concern, being an anti-slavery mission. While the BBC and Capita attempt to justify their behaviour as possibly stopping a (victimless) technical offence of lacking a license for a television receiver, they are committing a genuine criminal offence against victims like myself who have a right to presumption of innocence and no business to do with the BBC or Capita. The moral weight of the matter cannot be ignored, which is why legal insiders don’t like us pointing it out.

I turned the tables and sued “TV Licensing”, and never expected to open this can of worms on identity fraud. I feel the judge was angry at me, as he knew he was being implicated into supporting something extremely wrong, yet was going along with it. It really isn’t appreciated when you prod someone’s conscience this way. There is some kind of unconscious process going on in the room when those who have colluded in the system of personage and trafficking are exposed to the truth of what they are up to, as they have to attack the messenger.

The judge tried to get me off balance from the outset — “What do you want? Whyo do you think you are going to sue?”. It was disrespectful to a litigant in person, and felt like he had made up his mind in advance. Yet he bent over backward to the lawyer from the other side, when it came to him collecting his fee, and the Internet was not cooperating with him looking up the right procedure. Part of me was in noble horror, as I don’t want to see anyone tarnish themselves by association with slavery, let alone yet paid for doing it. Yet they somehow insist — when the judge asked if I objected to the costs award, I knowingly did not, as £750 is a perfect token martyrdom for my efforts.

There were several public observers present, and I believe that they were essential to keeping the judge (and the bar guild cartel) in check. Having two or more witnesses relocates the matter from man’s law to God’s law, and they know it. He could not rip a strip off me like he seemed to want to do so, as I was over and over saying this was identity fraud. Critically, I mentioned “fraud unravels anything” — and this is fraud. So the judge was on notice that everything past that point was invalid; it is his choice to participate in the fraud and facilitate it from the bench by giving Capita standing and costs!

Indeed, the judge refused to rule on the matter of standing, let alone fraud, repeatedly putting the fault at my feet for suing a non-entity. But the BBC can collect money as “TV Licensing”, and pursue legal cases against non-payers, without disclosing a real legal person, and misrepresenting it as being one. Capita can turn up, claim to be “TV Licensing”, and demand costs off me as “TV Licensing”. Yet I cannot hold “TV Licensing” to account and enforce a judgement against them. It is absurd and corrupt. The contradiction is obvious, and that is my “win” from this hearing. The accountability is in one direction, and even worse, if you try to hold power to account, you will be punished for it.

I was asked if I accepted that the defendant never received the claim paperwork, and said that was not credible given the reports in the press of such behaviour before, as well as data from freedom of information requests. It was ignored too, as if authority can do no error, but the individual who holds them to account is always in the wrong. I felt the judgement ran dangerously close to misconduct in public office, but that’s for higher powers to consider. That Capita were engaged in fraud, had no standing, had a history of playing dirty games, were breaching equity rules, and had unequal arms — none of that mattered. The roles of victim and offender were reversed, and now I have to pay £750 for the privilege of being a victim of their crime. So be it!

The judge is now karmically on the hook for being an accessory to their fraud, as well as breaching my data protection rights and company disclosure law. I don’t have £750, but I wish to adhere to the judgement and pay it anyway. The main hearing of the case has yet to happen, and maybe I need to put in filings to ask for compensation for all these wrongs. The fraud means I should not own £750 to anyone; fraud always unravels everything, so someday I will likely get it refunded. If I have the same judge for the main hearing, I can use his own words against him — how can I be paying someone to act as “TV Licensing” but cannot enforce a judgement against the same? It will work out somehow.

My sense of those who spend their lives inside the legal world is that it turns them dead inside. They become materialistic, and the rewards of the job lead them to abandon their integrity. It doesn’t matter what the procedure rules say at the end of the day if you live by lies; nothing can make the dishonourable into the conscionable. They have no fear of being held to account, so can twist the procedures and facts as far as they want in order to justify the preconceived outcome. At one level, I should not be surprised — courts loyal to the Crown are unable to independently judge a Royal Charter entity like the BBC.

It is also good experience in seeing how the system actually works, and how it is rigged in subtle ways. My belief is that if I am honest and honourable, then I should not have to spend endless hours researching civil procedure and case law — the truth should stand on its own power. I have zero regret from having turned up and pointed out that Capita had no right to be in the room. What is this besuited man doing here? And why am I now having to pay him, when he shouldn’t be here in the first place, as they are not a party to the case? My only solace is that it is so ridiculous it is actually quite funny. I got a well well-dressed and well-paid black man to defend slavery in court, and take money off me to do it! It’s golden material for future public lectures.

---

Before I close, I have a few other things to note about this experience. I did drop a £1 coin going through security, and grabbed it back before any lawyer could reach it, so my reaction times seem pretty good! Joking aside, it is a family court centre, and a young woman who had Downs (or similar) was being taken into a court room to meet the judge and settle herself before her hearing. She was so bright and happy, it contrasted totally with the hard-edge bad vibes coming off many of the legal professionals around. She lit the place up, and it was palpable. The energy in these courts is awful, and the experience was spiritually violent.

The usher who managed my room was delightful, and we could sense that she knows when people are telling the truth and when judges are dispensing honest justice. This is why we have a jury of our peers in criminal matters; ordinary people have ordinary sensibilities and endure the same ordinary losses. Judges are so enmeshed in their procedure rules and professional calling they end up totally losing sight of the spirit of the law, and can only relate to its letter. The usher didn’t look happy at how it was going, and that tells you all you need to know. She won’t have to look away in shame!

I was not at all well last week, having started it with fever and chills suffering from a chest infection, and ended it with an upset stomach after taking antibiotics. I am already suffering from PTSD-type problems after lockdowns and years of consequent stress. I had fulfilled two prior public appearance commitments on the two previous days despite being unwell, so was already drained. I am now in north of Scotland visiting a friend to recover, and it has taken me two days to calm down enough to write, despite many people asking me how the case went. On Friday evening I was catatonic, and even just touching me made me startle, my nervous system was so overloaded.

---

When the Devil cannot take you out, he wears you out. I’ve been storing up my treasures in heaven, and don’t have much of the worldly stuff. If you are up for it, I am collecting to cover the £750 appearance costs of the barrister for the other side. It’s probably the most spiritually costly £750 he will ever get, as he stood there to defend slavery, and take money off someone opposing it. If he reads this and feels bad about it, then let it be known he is my brother, and not my enemy, and I hope he repents — no hard feelings, I don’t want him to suffer. Selling your soul to slavers isn’t worth the money.

The slavery ends when we all say no, lawyers included. What is this gentleman doing here in court, indeed, at every level of consideration? That is his question of conscience to ponder. Nonetheless, my honour says I have to pay up. The judge at the outset warned me I may face costs and gave me the opportunity to back out, but I insisted that the hearing went ahead. He said we had only two hours (and didn’t get close to using it) but I wasn’t allowed to just speak — there wasn’t a proper “hearing” in the truest sense, but it’s worth every penny. Whole I was railroaded to a predetermined outcome, but that doesn’t get me off the hook from what I agreed to, and at the end of the day I initiated the case. But a bit of cash help would be nice, too.

Greetings from the Isle of Skye