Council tax summons- Response to a court manager

Council tax summons- Response to a court manager

Postby treeman » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:53 am

To: Court Manager,
[wherever] Magistrates Court.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Some paperwork has been delivered to my dwelling, addressed to a Legal Fiction, referring to apparently unpaid Council Tax and a corresponding Hearing at your premises on [date/time/case number etc].

I am writing to inform you that I know (and can prove) the business, of which you are a manager, is a private company actively trading for a profit, by providing the services of third-party arbitration.

I am writing to inform you that I know both Parties to any dispute are required to give their consent before any such third-party arbitration can be honourable.

I am writing to inform you that I would be prepared to give my consent under the conditions expressed in this letter, but only under those conditions. If the conditions I state are not acceptable to either your company, or the other Party to the matter, then I give notice that I withhold consent for your business to involve itself in my private affairs. In this event you must cancel your arrangements in order to remain honourable, and not become a Party to the instigation of future criminal activities.

I enclose a document, for your perusal, that relates to what is known as ‘Contempt of Court’. I urge you to note, in particular, the sage words of Lord Diplock in 1974, and I give notice herein that my consent is firmly grounded on the basis of what Lord Diplock said. To the strict letter of what Lord Diplock said. Any deviation, however slight, from those guidelines, will create charges of Contempt of Court against whomsoever deviates.

Based on the forgoing, here are the conditions I impose in order to grant consent:

1. I, or any Nominee of my choosing, will be allowed to speak, and say whatever it is necessary to say without interruption, or being overtalked. Everyone else will remain silent while this occurs.
2. While I (or Nominee) speak, everyone else will listen actively. Simply because it is a HEARING. A HEARING, which means other attendees LISTEN. Questions will be taken afterwards, but not before or during any speech. It is agreed that all questions will be answered diligently.
3. I will be recording the entire process on a Camcorder, and will be uploading the result, entirely unedited and unexpurgated, on to Youtube.
4. You will ensure that a Senior Police Officer is present, such a may be able to take anyone into custody who may have violated the proceedings, or my terms & conditions (e.g. if someone shows Contempt of Court).
5. You will ensure that your so-called ‘Security Guards’ only intercept to stop PHYSICAL violence.
6. You will understand that asking someone to leave is not acceptable. That no-one needs to leave until they have said what then needed to say, provided they did not become PHYSICALLY violent.
7. You will make sure that your so-called ‘Security Guards’ fully understand that, and that any action they take will be observed by the Senior Police Officer, at first-hand.
8. Since this matter is a dispute over Council Tax, and on the basis that Lord Diplock said ‘bias is unacceptable and must not be present’, your Bench must be seen to be neutral. This means that they have neither paid, nor not paid, their own Council Tax demands.
I leave it to you how you work that one out.
Anything less will be ‘bias’ and ‘conflict of interest’ either for, or against, either my, or the Council’s, standpoint in the dispute.
9. Since this matter is Council Tax, I will be requesting details of who (or what) has paid for the Proceedings (hire of the premises, etc.). If this turns out to be the Local Council, then an immediate ‘conflict of interest’ is apparent. I refer you back to Lord Diplock.
You have 14 (fourteen) days to respond in substance to this offer. If I do not hear to the affirmative, then I will assume that you would rather cancel the proceedings than accept my terms, and that (therefore) the matter is firmly closed henceforth.
Sincerely, without ill-will, frivolity, or vexation,
X: of the Y family (as commonly called), English Sovereign
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever for anything, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.
Enclosure: Archbold references related to Contempt of Court
Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice
Quoted passages from the section dealing with "OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE - E. CONTEMPT AT COMMON LAW". These quotations are not taken out of context, but quoted with additional highlighting (underlining):
Sir John Donaldson M.R.: "Mens rea in the law of contempt was something of a minefield. The reason was that it was wholly the creature of the common law and had developed on a case by case basis".
In Dean v. Dean [1987] F.L.R. 517, C.A. (Civ. Div.), the court said that: "Contempt of court, whether civil or criminal, is a common law misdemeanour and it had long been recognised that proceedings for contempt were criminal or quasi-criminal in nature and that the case against the alleged contemnor must be proved to the standard of criminal proof namely, beyond reasonable doubt"
Until Att-Gen v. Newspaper Publishing plc and others [1988] Ch. 333, C.A. (Civ. Div.), there was widespread acceptance of the classification of contempts as being either civil or criminal. Civil contempt consisted of disobedience to an order of the court in circumstances where the disobedience is principally a matter that affects the parties to the case. Sir John Donaldson (again) later pointed out that the classification was not really relevant, since contempts have to be proved to criminal standards anyway.
Buckley J. held that "No contempt had been committed because the case was to be tried by a Judge sitting alone, who would be unaffected"
At common law, a contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice: Att-Gen v. Butterworth Islands, re a special reference from [1893] A.C 138. There is no impediment to a court making a finding of contempt, when it is appropriate to do so, not against the Crown directly but against a government department or a minister of the Crown in his official capacity: M. v. Home Office and another [1993] 3 All E.R. 537, H.L
Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974], ante, outlines the various ways which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced: "The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court"
Thus, airily waving away the legitimate concerns of a Litigant-in-Person, whose Common Sense has been used to make reasonable statements and ask reasonable questions and requests, must be deemed to be - at the very least prima facie - Contempt of Court, by virtue of undermining public confidence.
Conspicuous – by absence – from anywhere in the discussions of Contempt of Court, are the following, which form the corollaries to what has been said:
1. That justice is served by counting costs – the implication being that justice will not be served by counting costs and that counting costs is, therefore, a Contempt of Court.
2. That justice is served by using expedient means – the implication being that justice will not be served by using expedient means and that utilising expedient means is, therefore, a Contempt of Court.
3. That justice is served by denying Indefeasible Human Rights – the implication being that justice is not served by denying Indefeasible Human Rights and that any denial of Indefeasible Human Rights is, therefore, a Contempt of Court.
4. That justice is served by means of rules designed with any or all of the above in mind – the implication being that designing or implementing or following or observing such rules is not serving justice and is, therefore, a Contempt of Court.
It seems hard to argue anything else, when set against (even, for example) what Lord Diplock said in 1974.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/magistrates_courts_jurisdiction




Thank you Veronica for relaying this information :hug: :peace:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: Council tax summons- Response to a court manager

Postby treeman » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:32 pm

Bump, this information was provided by our founder, whom is working in the background to assist us to walk the path, honourably. Surely it warrants scrutiny, research, de-construction and at least recognition. :love: :peace:
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: Council tax summons- Response to a court manager

Postby jonboy » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:56 pm

Love it :yes: Thanks V.
"Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason. The law which is perfection of reason" Sir Edward Coke 1552-1634.

NO ONE RULES IF NO ONE OBEYS.

It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
User avatar
jonboy
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Albion

Re: Council tax summons- Response to a court manager

Postby Interested Awareness » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:20 pm

Excellent stuff...
Interested Awareness
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 12:54 am

Re: Council tax summons- Response to a court manager

Postby kenb » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:59 pm

Looks excellent to me. Many thanks V :yes: :yes:
Peace, luv and light :sun:
kenb
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:31 pm

Re: Council tax summons- Response to a court manager

Postby Boatie » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:48 pm

Read the letter, curious to know what happened next..
Boatie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:38 pm


Return to Council tax only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron