Discover more from Future of Communications
"We are here to collect money"
A day of collecting evidence of treason, perjury, and fraud by the council and court
How often is it that a satellite court out in the regions of England gets over a dozen people to come as public observers for a rubber stamp administrative tribunal, on a drizzling Tuesday afternoon on the last day of October? It is definitely not normal!
I had one of the best (and most stressful) days ever yesterday, although not one I would like to repeat, given the intensity. The court hearing was for a liability order for unpaid council tax. I will do a separate article or web page to index the case history. The essence is this: the council has hired the court to act as a private administrative tribunal, adjudicating if you have not paid their demand notices (none of which are lawful, being merely legal as requests). The judges have an oath of office to uphold the law, which means either public civil or criminal (or family) procedure rules apply ONLY, not private administrative rules. This is a gross violation of our civil rights.
In other words, this court is the legal equivalent of a mugging, stealing from the public under the colour of law with threats of violence. It has NO constitutional authority to act, breaks the rules of equity (we are equal under the law), and violates international treaties on human rights and due process. Furthermore, it is treason, being an abuse of judicial office to fine us for merely seeking shelter. My goal yesterday was not to “win” the case, which is irrelevant to me. The only purpose is to force them to expose themselves further, and make mistakes on the record and with witnesses. This is exactly what happened.
I will do a separate write-up of my subjective experience, the case I wanted to make, a legal analysis, and next steps. For now, let me just capture the essence of what objectively took place, as I know many people were praying for me and are keen to know the result. As background, you may wish to read my letter to the court stating it is acting unlawfully, as well as my call for people to come and give a show of support. The provable existence of public interest in council tax fraud is a significant step forward in the battle for awareness and legitimacy.
I had no idea of how many people would come, and it was quite a pleasant surprise to see more and more arrive, with one friend coming in her finest nun’s habit, and another in his ancestral bowler hat. It gave me a much-needed laugh, as the matter is very serious. As ever more came, we asked if the court would be able to accommodate us all, and asserted to the usher that we have a lawful right to observe, as long as it doesn’t interfere with justice. That includes the right to stand if there are no seats, or to take all available seats no matter where.
This was denied, and the magistrate (who refused to come out to talk to us) said only five would be allowed to enter. They tried to palm us off with the “health and safety” thing, but that was obviously nonsense. Furthermore, I had stated in advance there would be considerable interest in the case, so they could have rescheduled it into a larger court, but did not. For this reason alone, it could have been adjourned. I knew that I already had my victory before I stepped inside the courtroom, since they had broken their own rules. The denial of publicity is the denial of justice.
We had a long wait, and were put on last. The man before me was “awake” and had lawful objection to being financially raped, and came out of the courtroom shouting and livid at the obvious breach of conscience. However, he is now in touch with our little group of activists, who can give him support. Those who came as my supporters also had plenty of time to network, which was a success in itself. Half the battle is getting over the isolation and intimidation, to join forces with others fighting for their civil rights in corrupt system.
So most of those who had come to watch the proceedings had to wait outside, while the rest of us went in. The man representing the council had a nice box to stand in, while I was relegated to the “naughty chair”. Various questions were asked that felt like entrapment to get me to identify with my legal fiction, but I was clear I was there only as Martin the man, under duress, accepted no liability for their foreign estate trust “Mr Martin Geddes”, and rebuked any attempt to reduce me to a status below that of a man. I also brough a Bible to put on the table, just to remind them they are answerable to a higher power.
The council representative went through his standard script of what notices were issued when, and then proceeded to perjure himself. He said I had written a “freeman of the land” argument to the council (I have no idea what that means, and have not), and solely objected to Council Tax on principle (I do object, but my ongoing focus is pure lawful due process). He tarnished me as a member of some unspecified “shadowy group”, in order to besmirch me in a way that was irrelevant. That I have repeatedly offered to pay, subject to due process, was not mentioned, which was to mislead the court. Afterwards he gave me the “duper’s delight” look. I guess you have to be a psycho to do the job.
I started by saying I was there for matters of due process, and that even the most noble cause is made wrong if brought into being through fraud or force. The moment I started my statement with “I am an anti-corruption activist…” I was shut down, and not allowed to continue — “who you are doesn’t matter”. I was told I could not ask for an adjournment, even before I had given all my reasons. This is really important, because as a matter of due process, I had asked the council the day before when the summons was approved (and by whom). If it is issued before it is approved, it is invalid. They refused to answer.
That means I was denied the right to challenge the summons on the basis it was issued before it was approved, hence invalid. I was denied the right to know the process that had brought me into the court, and the data that relates to me. I was denied the right to do discovery on the emails between the court and council to set up the court session. This is not a trivial matter or vexatious, as other councils (I am reliably informed) have been sloppy and done things out of order. That is contempt of court, and unlawful. In theory the judges had no discretion but to adjourn, but that would require upholding their oaths.
I also requested an adjournment to get a proper bill for their claimed costs from the council, and to discovery if it included unlawful items like pensions. There has been extensive fraud by councils with respect to costs. This is “enrichment” at the expense of the defendant, and is wrong. Again, I was denied due process. This is a private criminal prosecution being conducted as if it were a public civil case, but without any of the protections of either the Civil Procedure Rules or Criminal Procedure Rules.
I asked who was responsible for denying me my right to have the public attend, and the lead magistrate (of three) said it was him, but would not give me his name. Apparently you can apply afterwards for their details. I also asked if they were acting under their highest oath of office, which he affirmed. He asked me if I owned my home, and I said I was a renter, which clearly disappointed him, as it removed any power to punish me by putting a charge on my home. The liability order is the equivalent of a parking ticket, and they have no way to collect.
I was not allowed to explain how the council had been extorting me, and that I had not received due process before.
That I had offered to pay previously subject to due process was ignored.
I was not allowed to present how the council’s own handbook says that the absence of documentary evidence of a court order is a problem.
I was not able to remind the justices their own favourite legal handbook says the administrative court is unlawful, and constitutes extortion.
I was not permitted to present my complaints of trespass, malicious communications, and unlawful harassment of a debtor.
I was not allowed to ask who had applied their judicial mind to the summons.
I was not able to remind the judges that no council had ever proven an equitable obligation to pay (it’s easy to may inequitable demands for money with menaces!).
I could not discuss the recent case where a debt collector was sued successfully because there was no evidence of a valid order, and the judge said these were not proper court order.
It was not possible to assert that there was no obligation to pay based on the prior ruling there was no lawful obligation to give the council any personal information.
I was unable to argue that the council is engaged in political programs like Net Zero for which there is no lawful remit (and cause our extinction), and hence I cannot fund.
I could not talk about reasonable suspicion of council complicity in genocide and that paying under the Terrorism Act was unlawful.
Over and over I repeated that I had not had due process, as I was entitled to under the European Convention on Human Rights article 6. I would see the one female justice looked uncomfortable. I sensed that she knew something was not right. Everyone has an awakening moment, and you never know what seeds you have planted, or when they might sprout. But she wasn’t ready to stand up to the bully lead judge.
The real gem was when the judge got annoyed, and said to me “we are here to collect money”. I knew I had “won” on my terms right that moment, it didn’t matter what else they said or did. Even as a public relations matter, no judge should have said that. Justice is meant to be balanced and blind, yet that was a naked statement of intent to breach his oath to favour the council who had hired him. His job is to uphold the law, and if I have any valid lawful objection whatsoever to the claimant’s case, then it has to be heard. They cannot but help reveal who they worship…
I didn’t get everything right — I fell for their trick of “did you get the summons”. It’s a plural “you”, not singular, to trick me (a man) into taking liability for their trust (a legal fiction). Being an honest man, I simply replied “yes” without thinking. But they’re caught out, and this can be dealt with later. The process violations are objective, and that’s enough to bring justice later. Every interaction is a learning experience and improvement opportunity.
I felt the judges were a bit unsettled by having been put on notice before that they were breaking the law, and that a LOT of people had come to watch. At the end of the day, we’ve caught them breaking their oath and running an unlawful court under false representation for the purpose of defrauding the public. These are crimes with long prison terms, and the tide is turning. I have plenty of evidence now need to go to a higher court, but there is a process of getting more lies and process lapses on record first.
When the judges asked everyone to rise there was a bit of a fracas from the gallery, as there was outrage at the obvious corruption and bias. I was asked to go into the next courtroom. After a noteworthy wait while the judges conferred, I was told that a liability order had been issued. My sense was this outcome had already been decided before I entered the court. This outcome is meaningless, as I am now back to the same place of conditional acceptance on proof of the relevant documentary evidence, which will never be forthcoming.
I will never have a sleepless night worrying about the consequences of yesterday, but other people might. Civil debts can be erased by currency resets, jubilees, and court void orders. Criminal acts while under notice cannot. I went in with honour and integrity, and came out the same. Others cannot make that claim. I feel that these judges and council representative have fallen into a trap. By insisting on dominating me, and “winning” by getting away with it in the short run, they have self-selected themselves to be made an example of down the road. We have the evidence trail to put them in prison.
It is not my law — which is the whole point of the run of law, as we all stand under it. I don’t need to “win” at anything. The truth of how these fake courts operate will spread. I am writing this in a hotel lobby, and told the story to a lady who served me coffee. She was stunned, but understood.
Perhaps the best advice I got on this case was to read the Sermon on the Mount. We must not only do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves, but also offer the grace and mercy we would wish if we were to stumble. But only up to a point is it that “they know not what they do”.
Beyond that, these wicked officials need to go to jail and be stripped of their criminal gains.
Future of Communications is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.