Arrogance at being untouchable means they make mistakes and expose themselves
Comments? Improvements? Hardly.
Whatever is the wind beneath your wings dear Martin, it is beyond my understanding.
God bless ❤️
The response will be interesting🤔🍻👍
Could you please try an put togeather a set of bullet points to show how things progressed from the very start and or an ebook?🤝
I realise each case is unique to the individual but it would seem there will be alot of similarity between cases.
Could some of this information be sent to the council before people actually end up in court to stop the process before it gets theres?
It would let them know we're onto the scam.
Well done Martin. Great job. I'm looking forward to seeing Mr. Hewitt's reply - or lack thereof. The net is closing in.
Dear Martin, This is quite inspirational so thank you for sharing. I'm following your fight very closely as I'm minded and inspired to follow your lead. The council tax has been a thorn in my side for years. I've always questioned its legitimacy and felt it was just wrong. But now with the mounting evidence of your crusade against these corrupt traitors, it's very apparent that my suspicions are correct. A point you made that I notice which is very telling as to why these degenerates are committed to such fraud and extortion, you mentioned the word 'Pension' "it is reasonably suspected that Durham County Council is unlawfully padding its PENSIONS at the expense of those served Liability Orders" Obviously this isn’t the only driver for their corruption and extortion but, I suspect it’s quite a motivation amongst other fraudulent reasons. It makes absolute sense to me as to why these heathens are engaged in such unscrupulous activities. A mafia crime family would be proud of the way they manipulate paid off officials to create kangaroo courts to extort money from innocent people because its exactly what the mafia do, commit Official Crimes! I know I’m Italian and I’ve experienced it first-hand. The only thing missing from their mounting repertoire list of crimes against humanity is, Drug importing, distribution and selling. However, I bet if we dig deep enough we wouldn’t be surprised at what else we’d find in the cesspit of their criminality. It’ll be very interesting if the CEO reply’s personally…I bet a month’s salary he won’t!
You next legal step is to issue a notice to the court under section 142 of the magistrates court act 1980. You mention its basis here “I was not permitted to acquire a proper bill for the proposed costs, to validate whether they are lawful.” This is a breach of the Nicolson case law and of the government and JCS advice. A section 142 template is available to anybody that wants one and can be obtained from the asymmetric lawfare or NOC NOC challenge telegram groups.
Instead of falling into their OPCA trap you should have insisted on compliance with their own directives, here is the principle...
Obtain the courts acknowledgement that they are bound by the Nicolson ruling, and furthermore that this requires the council to “ furnish a respondent with that [ costs ] information on request” ( quote from the actual Nicolson caselaw )
The ruling shows that a certain amount of detail is required in order that the “ Right types of costs and expenses are taking into account , and provided that due consideration is given to the dangers of double counting, or of artificial inflation of costs” This detail is important because without it a defendant and the court cannot sufficiently scrutinise the budget to ensure that it is lawful.
In general the requirement for sufficient detail is directly related to whether a magistrate could reasonable have enough information to perform a judicial function to the Nicholson standards. Important point.
Without the detail then this must nullify the application because it could be argued that the Magistrates could not have reasonably applied their mind to the problem as required in 1. Regina v Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin  QB 4551: “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.” and hence the ruling is void because the court cannot show the pre requisites for a judicial decision.
Now the next interesting bit...
By introducing the evidence of costs under a sworn oath which may not have been true then the council representative may have committed perjury and therefore a private prosecution might be the next step .
This is what is required for a private prosecution .
1. A member of the public can bring a private prosecution for any offence, unless the offence is one for which the consent of the Attorney General (AG) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is required before a prosecution can take place. S.6 (1) of the PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACT 1985 (POA).
2. The private prosecution is commenced by laying an ‘information’ followed by the issue of a warrant by, a magistrate’s court. Rule 7.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (Crim.PR).
3. Before a warrant can be issued an information must be laid at a magistrate’s court. R.7.2 (2) Crim.PR.
4. The information may be laid before a magistrate or a magistrate’s clerk. This must be done in writing.
5. A written information is ‘laid’ as soon as it is received in the clerk’s office, even if it is not considered by a clerk or a magistrate until later (R v. Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate ex p. Hill  1 AC 238). No standard form has to be used. All that matters is that the document sent to the magistrate’s court contains the essential elements of an information about an alleged offence. R v. Kennet Justices ex p Humphrey and Wyatt  Crim. LR 787.
6. The written information must contain statement of the offence that:
a. Describes the offence in ordinary language. R.7.3 (1) (a) (i) Crim.PR.
b. Identifies any legislation that creates it. R.7.3 (1) (a) (ii) Crim.PR.
c. Contains such particulars of the conduct constituting the commission of the offence as to make clear what the prosecutor alleges against the defendant
7. More than one incident of the commission of the offence may be included in the allegation if those incidents taken together amount to a course of conduct having regard to the time, place or purpose of commission. R.7.3(2) Crim.PR.
ISSUING A WARRANT
8. Once an information has been laid, a magistrate or clerk may then issue a warrant.
9. In deciding whether or not to issue a warrant, the magistrate or clerk should ensure that:
a. an offence known to law is alleged;
b. it is not out of any relevant time limit;
c. the court has jurisdiction;
d. the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute (R. v. Gateshead Justices ex p Tesco Stores Ltd.  QB 470 at 478).
10. There is no obligation upon a magistrate or clerk to make any inquiries before issuing a warrant. A warrant may be issued without giving the parties an opportunity to make representations and without a hearing. R.7.4(1) Crim.PR.
TRANSFER TO THE CROWN COURT
11. In respect of anyone appearing before the magistrate’s court on an indictable only offence, the magistrate’s court must immediately transfer the case to the Crown Court. S.51(1) CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998.
12. With respect to certain qualifying offences committed outside of the U.K. a magistrate may not issue a warrant without the consent of the DPP. S.4(A) to s.4(D) MAGISTRATES COURT ACT 1980 (MCA).
13. In addition, and further to POA s.6 (1), the Attorney General (AG) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) as head of the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] and under the general or special directions of the AG is always entitled to take over the conduct of the private prosecution at any stage of the proceedings. POA s.6 (2).
14. Once the DPP has taken over the conduct of the proceedings, he is free to discontinue them if he thinks it would be appropriate to do so. POA Sections 23-24. 15. The private prosecutor is under no duty to inform the CPS that a private prosecution has commenced. However, the CPS may become aware of a private prosecution by way of one of the following:
a. where the Private Prosecutor requests that the CPS take over the prosecution;
b. where the defendant asks the CPS to take over the prosecution; c. where a justices clerk refers a private prosecution to the CPS under section 7(4) of the POA, because the prosecution has been withdrawn or unduly delayed and there does not appear to be any good reason for the withdrawal or the delay;
d. where a judge sends a report to the CPS;
e. where the CPS learns of the private prosecution in another way, e.g. from a press report
15. Upon learning of a private prosecution, and if it so chooses, the CPS is entitled to request a full set of papers from the private prosecutor and the defendant/s. While the private prosecutor is obliged to comply with this request, the defendant is not.
16. Upon review of the case papers, the CPS may take over and continue with a prosecution if it is demonstrated that:
a. the evidential sufficiency stage of the Full Code Test is met (i.e. can the evidence be used in court, is it reliable and is it sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction); and
b. the public interest stage of the Full Code Test is met; and
c. there is a particular need for the CPS to take over the prosecution.
17. All three elements must be satisfied before the CPS can take over and continue with the prosecution.
18. Conversely, the CPS may take over and stop a private prosecution if, upon having reviewed the case papers, it has been demonstrated that:
a. the evidential sufficiency stage of the Full Code Test is not met; or
b. the public interest stage of the Full Code Test is not met; or
c. even if the Full Code Test is met, where there is a particular need to do so because the prosecution is likely to damage the interests of justice, e.g.:
i. the prosecution interferes with another criminal offence;
ii. the prosecution interferes with the prosecution of another criminal charge; or
iii. the prosecution is vexatious (within the meaning of s.42 Supreme Court Act 1981, as amended by section s.24 POA), or malicious.
19. Where there is more than one charge, this policy should be applied to each charge individually. R. v. PP, ex p. Duckenfield; R. Same, ex p. Murray; R. v. South Yorkshire Police Authority and anor, ex p. Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police; R. v. Same, ex p. Duckenfield  W.L.R. 55, DC.
This article is taken from georgemargo.com and their copyright rights are recognised and many thanks to them for compiling this article.
Martin, You are doing an inspiration. If you succeed I feel it will be big. I am an beginner in these matters and learning from you too; some questions aroused not as critic but for stop and think.
Is this letter to CEO (A fiction) or to a Man (Reality) or both? You signed as a Man. Will “a fiction” understand the language of your letter? A fiction may just ignore it as it is not addressed to him (written on a language a fiction does not understand).
Do you make any claims in your letter to CEO that he in reply may ask you to prove and you will not be able to do so?
For example you say: “I remind you that you have a common law duty to preserve this data once informed it may be evidence of a crime.” This is your claim, isn’t. Will you be able to prove “he has a common law duty” if he asked? May be some legislation is existing for such “duties”. It is more likely CEO would “understand” duty by legislation, rather than “common law duty”
“Common Law” is a concept that is being understood differently by different people. Do you think CEO will have the same understanding of “common law” as you wanted to covey to him? May be explanation of what do you mean by “common law” would help you both to understand each other more clearly.
These corrupted organisations use language to defraud people. People can only win if people speak on the same language and the terms are equally understood. Once we know how to speak on their language – they are lost, I am sure of it. The truth is on our side. It is just hidden. Thank you.
I’m at the wtf stage!
my heroes used to be boxers , hard footballers , motorcycle racers.......i love MG's tenacity , knowledge, eloquence, bravery....god bless him forever....he does what i think any patriot wants to do , give the establishment a good kicking
More kisses needed.
And more [brackets]