Discover more from Future of Communications
Plus/delta analysis of Council Tax hearing
What would I do again in the same situation, and what would I change?
“It is widely accepted among lawyers that law is higher than morality -
law is something which is worked out and developed,
whereas morality is something inchoate and amorphous.
That isn't the case. The opposite is rather true!”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I did many years of consulting work in the commercial world, and picked up a lot of tools on the way. One is a form of appreciative reflection and continuous improvement, which I always used to do right after every workshop I ran. You put together two lists: “plus” of things you would do again as part of your methodology (e.g. fancy food for guests), and “delta” of things you would change if you had your time over (e.g. noisy projector). By having both, it doesn’t land as unwarranted criticism.
Last week I was in court to gather evidence of criminality by my council, judges, and court officials in the administration of Council Tax. (For those wanting to dig deeper, see letter to the court, reflections on the human experience, and my case.) I made my “plus/delta” notes right away that night, but it has taken me another week to turn them into an article. While the content is going to be of interest to some of you, it is really the process that matters to the general audience. This kind of simple analysis helps us to act consciously and grow.
Normally I would do these as simple bullet points, because they are meant to be a “note to self” reference to return to when plan the next round of workshops or court appearances. In this case I will expand it into short prose. The number one purpose of my going to this court was not to win my case, but to experience these unconstitutional and Satanic courts in action. On that basis, I “won” by simply turning up (with a posse!), when they were encouraging people not to do so. If enough people just did this one thing, it would all be over.
I turned up, even if I hadn’t done all the research or reading I wanted to in preparation. Better to be mauled in a corrupt court than to concede by cowardice.
I correctly rejected the presumptions of their court, and rebuked in advance their attempt to commit “personage” (i.e. lower a man to a legal fiction). Their violation of my rights is now on them.
I separated my identity as a man from the estate trust, and named it as a trust, which they did not deny.
I refused to take the bait on the “freeman of the land” misdirection of the council.
I came well dressed, which took away one reason to look down on me. Turning up in a hoodie would have been adversarial, and the point is not to energise their conflict zone.
I did not bring anything with me other than my paperwork, and I had a friend provide local transport. I had no worries about unlawful arrests, searches, or seizures at the hearing.
I put in place the necessary paperwork to the court to warn them of their unlawfulness, so there is evidence of mens rea of committing treason.
I took a Bible with me, and conspicuously laid it on the table, to remind them that morality is a thing, and that they are answerable for what they do. Following procedure is not morality!
I brought many witnesses, which underlined the seriousness of the matter in hand. I was treated differently to those who went before me as a result.
I stayed calm, and refused to be riled by their conduct. This gave them no reason to declare me in contempt or otherwise act against me.
I took part in a video afterwards to capture the story; it multiplies the impact of our effort and hardship a thousand fold.
There are pictures of the event with people outside, to show that this isn’t just one nutcase with a bee in his bonnet about due process in obscure administrative courts.
In theory I could have made a stronger case by objecting to the council’s unlawful costs, but to research that would have meant declining a rare family day out, and I put family first.
If doing it again, I would drum up attendees earlier, and have a way to gather their contact information to follow up and get a witness statement or testimonial.
I fell for the “plural trap” when they asked “did you receive summons”, which is a linguistic trick to get Martin the man to identify with the estate trust Mr Martin Geddes.
I should have filed an affidavit with the court in advance, to prevent them from shutting me up and stopping me from making my case.
If doing it over, I would go through various procedures to ensure that the summons was 100% correctly issued (it never is) and expose the fraud that way.
In future, I would ask the legal advisor what rules the court is operating under (i.e. civil procedure, criminal procedure, administrative procedure). Administrative hearings for civil matters are unconstitutional.
I made a mistake in only rebuking any attempt to make me trustee and accept liability; I should have focused on my rejection of being surety for their bond.
Having a later commitment on the day, with a long drive to get there, was an additional stress that I could have done without. The court hearing was scheduled only a few weeks before the date, whereas the talk was agreed months in advance, but on reflection I should have rescheduled the talk.
The judge is meant to be my peer (he stands in for the jury and the power of punishment, with the legal advisor taking the role of convenor and upholder of law), so I should have just kept on talking when he tried to interrupt me. They are trained to push you off balance and steal your power.
I should have started with the Ten Commandments, as they are breaking three of them (stealing, bearing false witness, coveting neighbour’s house). Would they dare to stop me?
When he asked if I owned the property, I should have inquired why this was relevant to the claim being made.
When I asked the judge if he was acting under his highest oath of public office I should have insisted on a yes or no answer, and not allowed him to spout some gibberish involving the word “chancery”. I should have asked the other judges the same.
Ultimately, the only way to win this game is not to play. That means living in the private, and only using their commercial law system as a shield to defend yourself from infractions of your rights. My job is to be an irritant and publicise their corruption to a large audience, as well as inspire others to act, so my objectives are different to most. While I wish to be left alone at a personal level, I have an audience where the majority do not, so I am called to a different objective. What works for me might not work for you.
These are also gangsters in suits, and they don’t care about morality or law. As we have seen with Covid, as soon as you begin to pin them down on one matter, they change the narrative angle, and try to wear you out. It doesn’t matter whether you pick the strawman identity trick, securities fraud, due process, unlawful summonses, fake jurisdiction, trust law violation, unconstitutional statutes, improperly convened court, conflict of interest, or imposition of slavery. They don’t give a damn. What matters is demonstrating that you don’t consent, and at scale.
Are there ways in which I could have done better? Absolutely! But never let those outside the arena discourage those inside through their criticism. By simply turning up and objecting, lawfully and peacefully, we erode their claim to legitimacy and authority. The “plus/delta” approach is essentially a compassionate means of learning and improvement, since it starts with the matters in which we got it right first time, and frames the “less than ideal” matters as opportunities to grow and not failures. You may wish to consider adopting it as a standard tool of self-reflection after any event like a group meeting, workshop, protest, or court hearing.
“Morality is higher than law! ...
This view must never be abandoned.
We must accept it with heart and soul.”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn