Discover more from Future of Communications
When they get sloppy, we get evidence of crimes
Arrogance at being untouchable means they make mistakes and expose themselves
For those of you following the Council Tax scandal, here is my own latest contribution to the resistance against theft by officialdom. The scam is brilliant, in that the councils are running their own private courts, hiring the same rooms and officials, which look like real ones, to self-certify their extortion. You have to give them credit, as frauds go, it has impressive chutzpah. The only problem is that “we the people” have spotted the crime, and are pushing back. My sense is they know their cover is blown, and are only buying time before the inevitable.
I sent the following email to the court this morning, BCCd to various people as witnesses to it having been sent:
Subject: Request to preserve CCTV evidence for 31st October 2023 for Peterlee Magistrates Court
I and others have reason to believe that the Council Tax hearing on 31st October 2023 at Peterlee Magistrates Court was constituted for the purpose of committing fraud against the public.
One witness alleges that the lead Magistrate arrived in the same vehicle as the Council representative. If true, this is a gross violation of impartiality rules as well as a criminal violation of his oath of office, and requires investigation and corroboration.
Furthermore, the lead Magistrate gave different answers to myself and another defendant as to whether he was acting under oath, with witnesses to both instances. He also committed many serious violations of civil procedure protocol. This fuels our reasonable suspicion that fraud was being committed.
I hereby request that all CCTV evidence from both inside and outside the building for that day is preserved should there be a complaint lodged against the Court and/or Justices. I intend to submit an application under the Data Protection Act 2018 for data relating to the hearing, which may include CCTV footage.
I remind you that you have a common law duty to preserve this data once informed it may be evidence of a crime. The knowing erasure of evidence is aiding and abetting, and is a crime.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email, as per the Nolan Principles of public life that require integrity, accountability, and honesty. Failure to do so suggests you are aware that the Court is hosting unlawful hearings, with serious consequences.
Let’s see if they respond, or whether this triggers a cover-up. I wonder if they’ve figured out yet whether we’re in a war and everything they are doing is being watched close by military intelligence? Running fake and treasonous courts to fund WEF’s foreign agenda to destroy our constitution and kills us might not end well, especially when you have been given explicit warning that your actions are unlawful. If they are getting nervous, then that’s rather appropriate. They might have the civilian criminal courts sewn up, but military tribunals are short and sharp.
Now for the big one… here’s the draft to the Chief Executive of Durham County Council, which I plan to deliver by hand with witnesses. The walls are closing in. We know what they’ve been up to, and the resistance movement is diffuse and leaderless, meaning there’s nobody to take out. After the Covid nightmare, we’ve nothing to lose, so nothing to fear.
To John Hewitt
Durham County Council
Notice to agent is notice to principal
Notice to principal is notice to agent
Failure to rebut is acquiescence
Estoppel conditions apply
Notice of criminal fraud
Notice of demand for proof of claim
Under the Local Government Act 1972 Section 2 Paras 1, 2, and 3, Durham County Council is a registered corporation or company with DUNS number 642558761, which operates for profit for the shareholders of said corporation or company. As a public servant, John Hewitt, you are bound by the laws of England and the liability of the office you serve, and by vicarious liability under the Common Law doctrine of Agency Respond-eat Superior.
In your role as CEO of Durham County Council, I am returning this notice to you personally. I rebut the the alleged existence of a lawful Liability Order. I assert that this notice constitutes a criminal fraud and racketeering by Durham County Council in collaboration with Peterlee Magistrates Court. I assert this fraud is conducted with your personal knowledge and connivance.
You have previously acquiesced to the non-existence of a lawful Liability Order that you have claimed to have obtained in 2022. Despite a conditional offer to pay and repeated requests, no proof of claim has been provided by your Council. Furthermore, under a Data Subject Access Request, Peterlee Magistrates Court has failed to demonstrate it has any official record of such an order under recognised Civil Procedure Rules. This is criminal fraud. An unlawful campaign of extortion was then conducted against me lasting over a year, from which I have suffered substantial harm.
I responded to your recent Summons, and a Liability Order hearing was held at Peterlee Magistrates’ Court on 31st October 2023, albeit under duress.
The Defendant in the previous hearing to mine asked the lead Magistrate if he was acting under oath and the answer was “I don’t know what you mean”. There are multiple witnesses to this. As such, I have reason to believe this was not a legitimate law court.
The lead Magistrate failed to give me a clear yes or no answer to the question of whether he was acting under his highest oath of office, giving an answer whose only purpose could be to confuse.
The other two Justices failed to respond at all to the question of acting under oath.
I was not permitted to inquire which (if any) judicial mind had been applied to the summons. I assert that the summons for my hearing is defective as no judicial mind was applied.
The cause of action was artificially limited with a fraudulent and unaccountable notice inserted with the summons that purports to come from the Ministry of Justice, but is addressed to nobody, and comes from nobody accountable.
The right to due process under civil procedure rules was ignored in the hearing, despite being requested in advance. Specifically, I was denied both before and during the hearing the opportunity to validate that the summons was properly authorised and issued.
The hearing admitted only five of the approximately twenty members of the public who wished to attend the gallery, despite there being many empty seats and standing room. That there would be considerable public interest was signalled to the Court and Claimant in advance. Therefore, by denying publicity and witnesses to wrongdoing, it was not a properly constituted hearing, and hence unlawful.
The representative for the Council perjured himself by misleading the court by failing to mention my many offers to pay on condition of due process. A lie by omission is still a lie.
The lead Magistrate allowed the Council official to make unlimited and unchallenged smears against me, while I was not permitted to lay out my case, in violation of the requirement for judicial impartiality.
The lead Magistrate inquired as to my home ownership, despite it being none of his business in adjudicating the Liability Order, showing clear intent to cause me harm or loss in violation of his oath.
The lead Magistrate publicly stated “we are here to collect money”, in contravention of his oath to uphold the law, this being a common law conspiracy to defraud. It is also treason (see R v Thistlewood 1820) under the Treason Act 1785. There are multiple witnesses to this crime, which carries a life term.
I was told that no adjournment would be allowed for discovery, even before the full reasons were given.
I was not permitted to acquire a proper bill for the proposed costs, to validate whether they are lawful. Given the widespread practice, it is reasonably suspected that Durham County Council is unlawfully padding its pensions at the expense of those served Liability Orders. Where costs are not permitted, nor is enforcement of the underlying debt. Again, knowingly adding unlawful costs is fraud, which is being covered up by Peterlee Magistrates’ Court.
A witness observed the Council representative arriving in the same car as what appeared to be the lead Magistrate. If confirmed by CCTV evidence, this is sufficient to prove criminal intent to run an unlawful court. Combined with getting different and evasive answers to the question of whether they were acting under oath, there is every reason to believe we observed a serious criminal incident with the operation of this fake court and its fraudulent hearings.
At every stage of the previous purported Liability Order against me from 2022, as well as this one in 2023, I have only sought due process, and it has been rebuffed. The Council, if it wishes to collect upon any alleged debt, ought to have a process to provide documentary evidence of its claim that a valid Liability Order exists. That the question of due process is unspeakable tells us that something is amiss: there is further prima facie evidence of intent to commit fraud.
I have cause to doubt that this was a real Court, and to question whether those present were acting under oath, as well as suspect the Justices were colluding with the Claimant. Exactly as stated in Halsbury’s Laws of England, a private administrative tribunal, with no constitutional basis, is being used as “legal theatre”, purporting to be a court of law, for the purpose of criminal extortion, in collusion between the Court and Council, to the gain of both parties.
This is about as serious as a fraud can get, as it involves what ought to be our most trustworthy institutions. There is a sound reason why there has to be documentary evidence of court orders that demonstrate proof of authority, precisely so that fake courts cannot easily be set up. Through their word and actions, I assert that the Magistrates are in breach of the Unlawful Oaths Act 1797, the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, and the Perjury Act 1911 Section 5.
Your organisation has been unable to even acknowledge my request for due process on every previous occasion, let alone deliver upon it, and this has been repeatedly brought to your attention. I therefore have good reason to believe that these crimes are being committed with your personal approval. A policy of refusing to interact with anyone who challenges the lawfulness of your organisation’s actions confirms the suspicion of a widespread and officially sanctioned conspiracy to defraud the general public.
Under ECHR Article 6, to which the UK is a signatory via the Human Rights Act 1998, I am entitled to due process. I assert that without legal and correct paperwork there can be no debt owed, and thus the claim is premeditated criminal fraud, as well as malfeasance in public office.
I hereby demand to see a properly authenticated Liability Order associated with this notice, so that there is accountability. You have made the claim that one exists, so prove it; the onus is on you. If you do not provide evidence of a court order with full lawful authority within 14 days, then you have acquiesced to it not existing. This returned notice therefore constitutes fraud, and will result in a criminal complaint and remedy sought from you personally.
Your own website on “Freeman on the Land” exhibits your intent to break the law, by publicly saying you will ignore older statutes. The legal maxim “prior tempore potior iure/lex posterior” applies, meaning “he who is first in time, is stronger in claim.” The legal principle is that older laws take precedence over newer ones. Durham County Council brazenly states an intent to transgress due process that is both a common law and constitutional right, giving only credence to specific recent legislation, which is not the same as law.
This latter point is important, as no council has ever proven an equitable obligation for a living man to pay Council Tax, as there is none. Any obligation to a corporation that arises ex nihilo without a contract or consent, to monetise an inalienable right such as shelter, is by definition slavery and thus unlawful. It is also a violation of the Bill of Rights 1688, which states Parliament can do nothing to the detriment of the people, and thus the Local Government Act 1992 exceeds their authority.
I hereby give you notice that you are personally liable for any loss to me from this fraud, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Policing Act 2014, since you are operating ultra vires. A charge may be taken over your property as a result, and damages will be sought.
I hereby give you notice that failure to rebut within 14 days is acquiescence to the following being facts.
That you are personally aware that Council Tax Liability Order hearings are administrative tribunals that are unlawful, as they violate the basic separation of powers and customs of the people, as protected in the Coronation Oath Act 1688.
That you are personally aware that under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 section 66 (1)(b) you are enacting an enforcement power under a Liability Order that is known to be defective.
That you are personally aware that under the Forgery Act 1981 section 1, when a bailiff or enforcement agent attends a home and produces a fraudulent document then they are guilty of 'uttering' for gain.
That you are personally aware that under the Administration of Justice Act 1970 c.31, Part V, Section 40 you are coercing me (and others) to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due by falsely representing to have the authority of a court to enforce payment.
I remind you that I have withdrawn the implied right of access to my property on many occasions, and any attendance by your enforcement agents without a signed court warrant constitutes aggravated trespass and harassment, which are crimes.
Morality is above the law, which serves to provide its wise enactment. The use of merciless administrative hearings, which are private banking tribunals masquerading as civil court cases, to create payment plans with no regard to debtors’ needs, is reprehensible. A worse violation of equity is hard to imagine.
You are also breaking three of the Ten Commandments (bearing false witness, stealing, coveting a neighbour’s home). I urge you to repent, accept grace, and seek forgiveness for these sins.
[kisses from martin]
Without ill-will, vexation or frivolity
By :martin: of the geddes family
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors and Omissions Excepted
If you have any comments or improvements, do let me know!
The use of estoppel means that if they don’t respond and don’t rebut, then it stands as fact. I can get a void order and seek damages, and they cannot come back later to argue that a valid liability order really did exist and they’ve found it down the back of the photocopier. So their standard technique of stonewalling troublemakers hoping they give up won’t work. It’s easier to go for a criminal case once you’ve got civil damages. We are never backing down on this, because the councils are complicit in horrific crimes against our communities.
Council Tax isn’t really a tax, or even a fine for having a home. It’s rent being paid to a neo-feudal state that denies us true title to our own properties. Maybe we’ve been “owning nothing and not really happy” for quite a long time? The only bit left to accomplish was some neuroweapons to enforce numb contentment. Thankfully, that seems to have been stymied. With a bit of luck, an imminent financial reset will take away all this Council Tax nonsense from the public.
But the crimes won’t be erased in a jubilee. Their arrogance is their undoing.
Future of Communications is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.