Discover more from Future of Communications
My case for Council Tax due process
By sharing we learn from each other and improve our effort to confront a corrupt state
The above are my notes for going into court last week, and at this point you can probably see why I describe myself as a “sabre-toothed typist” and not a “writer”! Holding a pen is almost painful, and I can just about manage some childlike scribbles. As many others are also pushing back against the system of debt slavery, let me present them as a proper script for you to crib and reuse as you see fit. This is what I intended to say, and is not meant to be an exact record of what was actually said.
[Hold up birth certificate] This paper denotes Mr Martin Geddes, an estate trust.
I am Martin of the family Geddes, a man. I am here as the trust beneficiary, by special appearance, and as a lay advisor to the trust.
I am attending under duress, having been subjected to extortion by the claimant.
I rebuke any form of personage that attempts to lower my status below that of a man.
I rebut any presumption that I accept liability as trustee.
I waive any benefits that this court may offer, and do not make contract or joinder.
I acknowledge your jurisdiction under maritime or merchant law.
I am attending to request an adjournment, for due process in accordance with the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as to ascertain if the costs being demanded are lawful. [I was told “no” up front.]
May I inquire if this is a court of record? If not, may those in the public gallery record proceedings?
May I inquire if the justices are acting under their highest oath of public office?
The principle of law that applies here is “Ex turpi causa non oritur actio”. This says that a valid legal claim or action cannot be based on an unlawful or morally wrong act. It does not matter how benevolent or beneficial the end goal may be. So I have no problem with the use of lawful taxation to fund necessary public services. We need to fund the maintenance of roads and the running of homes for the elderly. What I object to is the use of unlawful means to demand money with menaces.
As context, I am an anti-corruption activist. [At this point I was not allowed to proceed with my case.] I have always paid my Council Tax in the past when I have received a demand notice. Upon becoming aware that there were alleged criminal defects in the debt collection process, I decided to gather evidence for myself. I deliberately did not pay the demand notice for the previous year to this one, did not respond to the summons, allowed a bulk hearing to take place, and then received a notice of liability order from the claimant.
I made a conditional offer to pay, based on proof of claim that a valid liability order has been issued by a properly constituted court hearing with the requisite authority. This is in accordance with the maxim “Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.” This means “the burden of proof is on the one who asserts, not on the one who denies.” As such, I am not a Council Tax non-payer; I am merely asserting my inalienable right to lawful due process in making payment. I was unable to receive this basic due process, which we will return to momentarily.
This is an issue is already noted in legal circles. For instance, in the Council Tax Handbook from the Child Poverty Action Group (13th Edition, 2021) states:
This concern was also reflect in the recent case decided on 21stSeptember 2023 in the High Court, KBD Swansea in favour of a Mr Leighton, as reported on social media. He was awarded £4,000 against debt collectors Bristow and Sutor, acting in alliance with City of York Council. A member of the public stated that “His Lordship Harrisson condemned the process of how Council Tax liability orders are obtained and held it is time for reform, concurring with my submission that the process raises issues under Article 6 ECHR. He also questioned their validity, holding that they don’t actually constitute a court order at all”.
The claimant has refused to even acknowledge my request for due process and proof of claim. I have issued a complaint, and again the request for due process has been ignored. This gives a reasonable belief that both the claimant and this court are aware that the process of Council Tax debt collection is unlawful. As a result, I have been subjected to a year of malicious communications, aggravated trespass, and harassment. This has had a deleterious effect on my life and welfare.
Having experienced this violation of my basic rights, I decided to dig deeper. It appears this civil case is being operated in an administrative court hearing outwith the Civil Procedure Rules. In your own default judicial reference, Halsbury’s Laws of England (2011), it states:
Case 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, because of the constitutional restraints placed upon her Majesty at Her coronation. The collection of revenue by such means is extortion, and extortion has been found reprehensible since ancient times.
Furthermore, in Regina v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin 1975, Lord Chief Justice Widgery rules that:
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. A summons (or warrant) is merely machinery for giving a defendant notice of the proceedings and for getting him before the Court. A magistrate who issues a summons or warrant without applying his mind to the information and completing this judicial exercise will be ‘guilty of dereliction of duty’.
No judicial mind is applied either to the summons nor judgment for bulk hearings. I believe that no judicial mind was applied to the issue of the summons for this hearing, and even if one had been, the lack of transparency over the account history’s controversy over due process would to mislead the court. That means the prior summons is defective in law, and thus there is no case to be heard today.
The 2019 case involving Hertsmere Borough Council resulted in the Court of Appeal stating there was no legal responsibility to notify councils of a change of address, or to supply any personal information. The logical consequence is that there is no lawful basis on which to demand money from the public. No council has ever, when challenged, proven an equitable obligation for any member of the public to pay Council Tax. The lack of due process is explained by nobody wishing to be accountable for these violations of our basic rights of habitation and living in peace.
I have suffered a further violation of due process in regard to this claim, as part of a pattern of behaviour that treats the law with contempt. I am informed that many councils have been issuing summonses in advance of their approval, making them invalid. Yesterday, I called the claimant’s hotline and asked a gentleman named Graham when the summons was approved (as opposed to issued) and by whom. The claimant refused to reveal this information to me.
This is in contravention of the Nolan principles of public life, lacking openness, accountability, and integrity. I am entitled to this information about myself under the Data Protection Act 2018. Therefore I have prima facie reason to believe that the claimant is hiding yet another failure to follow due process.
The claimant is perusing political agendas like Net Zero. There is no lawful requirement for the public to fund this. The claimant has supported acts of genocide and war crimes by promoting the use of gene therapies misrepresented as vaccines, which have led to serious injury and loss of life. It is unlawful to fund any entity reasonably suspected of terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000. There has also been extensive costs fraud by councils, as shown in the cases involving Haringey and Buckinghamshire councils. The claimant’s behaviour gives me reasonable cause to doubt the integrity of their costs claim.
I request an adjournment to perform discovery.
I request due process, and an opportunity to inspect the emails or communications between the council and court, so I can determine if the summons was approved before (or after) it was issued.
I request that I am given a proper bill for the costs, so I can determine if they are lawful, or whether they include items like pensions that are not allowed. Under the “Ewing” ruling, if you cannot charge the cost, then you cannot charge the arrears.
I will write up a separate analysis, including what I would do differently based on my experience in this court. My purpose in attending was to learn how their game works, and expose the court and council (in front of witnesses) committing crimes against me, notably fraud. The ruling was immaterial to me, since it is obvious to anyone with a shred of conscience that this is just a crime syndicate occupying a court building for theatrical effect.
Future of Communications is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.