I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Need help and support? Post here and we will do our best.

I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby steelyglint » Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:29 pm

In August this year I received a summons for non-payment of council tax.

I have not refused to pay - I am simply unable.

The 'summons' was sent to me by the local council, not the court. When I queried this with the council they told me that they have 'an arrangement' with the court which allows them to do this.

I very much doubt that any court can make an arrangement which allows another party to commit a criminal offence.

As I understand it, it is fraud for a council, or anyone other than a court, to issue a summons. Therefore any 'court' that takes place based on such a fraudulent summons is simply a furtherance of that fraud, and so not a 'court' at all. This would mean that, in giving the council their judgement, the magistrate acted in furtherance of that same fraud and also, as he cannot operate on his oath to the crown in furtherance of a criminal offence, he committed treason.

Can anyone confirm that the above is correct?

Having obtained their judgement, the council employed bailiffs (Ross & Roberts) to collect.

Today a letter was hand delivered to my address from R&R. They are already increasing the amount owed with their fees.

I have resealed their letter, with R&R's address in the window, and included a 'Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access'.

I intend to drop it into a pillar box to be returned to them. I have written on the back of the envelope simply 'No Contract'.

Is there anything else I need to do to protect myself from these parasites?

I intend to pay the council tax as soon as I can, but will not pay the £45 fee for the fraudulent 'summons' or any costs added by either the fraudulent 'court' or R&R's ridiculous charges.

Am I doing the right things? Is there anything I'm not doing that I should be?

I read as much as I can, but I seem to have a leaky brain - it just will not stay in there. I end up with a head full of confusing mess, and severely diminished confidence in my learning of all this stuff.

I'm pretty scared, too.

If anyone who understands it all better could offer some guidance I would be eternally grateful.


Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:33 pm

Ask for a copy of the liability order which was issued against you.
In my case the order was made 4 days BEFORE the hearing. Must admit it made me laugh. Couldn't believe they actually made such a stupid mistake and is just one reason why I believe these hearings to be totally bogus.

Check that the bailiffs are in fact bailiffs and not simply debt collectors. Bailiffs must be registered as such. Be aware that a bailiff can act as a debt collector. Just because someone is a bailiff, doesn't mean they are acting in that capacity.

Check with the court where the hearing was held to find out if an official hearing was held. Record the phone conversation with them.
I'm almost 100% sure they will tell you that they have no record of a hearing taking place but they will not put this in writing. Ask anyway.

Next make a freedom of information request to HMCS (her majesty's court services) asking again if an official hearing took place on the date and against the name in question.
They will probably confirm and put in writing what the Court has already told you.

You now have evidence that the Council is full of shit. They do hold court and have hearings and issue liability orders - but, in my opinion, none of it has any force or effect in law. I could hold court and have a hearing and issue a liability order against you too, and if you were so scared that you paid up - well I would have done nothing wrong - but chances are you would quite rightly tell me to f*** off. Well you can tell the Council to f*** off too. Their little scam relies on intimidation, fear and ignorance, which unfortunately works most of the time.

Tell the debt collectors (chances are they are NOT acting as bailiffs) to f*** off. They are third party interlopers. You have no contract with them. Keep returning their correspondence. All they can do is try to scare you into paying up. If they were proper bailiffs they would be acting under orders from a proper court and then you'd be in trouble. I can almost guarantee this is not the case, but you need to check for yourself.

As you intend to pay the Council send them a cheque for whatever you can afford. Even as little as a tenner or fiver. This will show your intent to pay and will act in your favour should you end up in a proper court. Explain your financial situation to them and see if you can reach an agreement.
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby squark » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:28 pm

I told the "bailiffs" every time I heard from them, there is no contract between us and I don't want to deal with you.
It went back to the council after six months or so.
They got to bankruptcy proceedings so I paid, along with £1200 costs, but no mention of bailiff costs!

My latest thinking is :
1)Law is Contract (Maxim) and a Contract needs full disclosure and a meeting of minds
2)Statute is given the weight of Law by the consent of the governed (don't consent)
3)UN Declaration of human rights says we have a right to freedom of association (to protect us against Government or Leaders gone mad)The government cant have any say over that....its not logical.....you cant have Hitler saying, you must shop at Hitlerland!

The UN stuff puts an obligation on the State and its institutions to provide an officer who ensures they do as the declaration intends, with regard to human rights, and PROMOTES them!
There should be an Officer in each STATE BODY who is there to PROMOTE (like advertise) your right to not associate with the Govt.
That may well mean...no dole, state pension, national health, schools, etc, etc, etc.
The government were all about CUSTOMER CHOICE not long ago. My local council have a "Customer charter" and "customer complaints"
We should be perfectly free to shop for "government services" with who so ever we choose.
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby pitano1 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:32 pm


in my experiance,when things get immediate,one`can become an expert
pretty quick.

eg.when i was around 7 years old,some fecker pushed me in the deep end at the local
pool.. :grin:

i`am still here,because i learned to swim in seconds.. :giggle: :giggle: :giggle:
so immediacy,is not always negative.

the only thing i would add,to dreadlocs informative reply..is this


and also...the....BIG.....question...show me the.....LAW..that obliges me to pay council tax.

in fact,you could ask so many awkward questions,that it would become unprofitable,for the
council to pusue the `so called` debt.
google this[if you wish]

tell the council,that the debt,is in dipute,until the matter is settled `according to the law`
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
Posts: 1159
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby steelyglint » Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:07 pm

Thank you all.

Just knowing that the summons was unlawful is a great relief. That means that everything that proceeds from it is also unlawful - you cannot act lawfully in furtherance of a criminal offence.

I still have a number of things to do, as noted by Dreadlock. The recording of telephone conversations presents a bit of a problem as I don't have the equipment to make such recordings and, with an income of approx £52 per week, could not possibly afford to acquire it. That number is also why I am unable to pay the council tax. They do have assistance for 'hardship', but they have told me that it does not apply to me as it is meant only for short-term 'hardship', and my 'hardship' is a permanent feature of my existence.

I am very tempted to ask a journalist to accompany me to a police station where I would inform them of a criminal offence having been committed against me, to whit Fraud, and demanding that they honour their oaths and bring a prosecution against the offenders. The presence of the journalist ought to give them pause if they were to consider not acting.

In that way the prosecution would be brought by the lawful authority in such things, and not by myself.

Seems like the cheapest way to do it - let the state pay for it, then any costs could not rebound on me.

They should also act against any magistrate who took part in any 'court' proceeding from this unlawful summons as he/she/they would be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud, and also against the 'bailiffs' Ross & Roberts who, having acted in furtherance of the criminal offence (their hand-delivered letter), are also plainly guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud.

The magistrate/s would also be guilty of treason due to having acted against his/her/their oath to the crown.

Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:11 pm

It is likely that there is no fraud on their part Steely, merely deception.

Anyone can issue a summons, it's simply an invitation.
Anyone can hold court.
Anyone can have a hearing.
Anyone can issue a liability order.

Fraud only comes into play if they are claiming that they are acting with proper judicial authority duly delegated directly from the monarch. They will be very careful not to do that.

If you look at the summons you will see the following:

The Crown coat of arms, not boxed, as Councils are Crown subsidiaries and are therefore authorised to use that symbol.
The name of the Court boxed off (it is in a box) . This means that the Court named has nothing to do with the summons. If it was a proper Court summons the Court name would not be boxed off. Anything in a box forms no part of the document.

You will see the words, "issued on behalf of <insert name> Borough Council", not boxed as it is true statement.
You will see what appears to be your name, capitalized, with your address - BOXED OFF - why? Because this is not the person being summonsed and so is not part of the document!

You will then see the main body of text, not boxed of course, which will state that "you" have been summonsed. Who is "you"? Well, whoever answers the summons is "you" and is not the person named in the box with your address - though you are meant to believe it is.

But note, there is no fraud going on here, they are not even lying, they are just encouraging people to make false assumptions and then act upon them.

False assumption 1. That the Court, boxed, has issued the summons.
False assumption 2. That the name, boxed, is you and that you have been summonsed.

If you get a copy of your liability order you will see that it has been signed and underneath will be the words "Justice of the Peace (or) by order of the clerk of the court (or) designated officer for a Magistrates Court". Not exactly being specific are they?

Write a letter to your Council and ask them if the court which issued the liability order did so with proper judicial authority duly delegated directly from the monarch. I guarantee they will not answer this question directly, if at all. The response will be something like, "The court was held at <insert name> Magistrate's Court." which will be true, but not an answer to the question.

It's all smoke and mirrors m8, but strictly speaking not illegal or even unlawful - just downright dishonest.
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby steelyglint » Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:04 am

Hi Dreadlock.

What you describe is not much like the photocopied A4 sheet of paper I got. There is no Crown coat of arms or any other coat of arms on it.



The bits blocked out in red are just my 'name' and address.

The name of the 'Clerk to the Justices' can be read from the photocopied 'signature' as 'Tam Smith' - this sounds very iffy to me and I shall be enquiring of the court as to the name of the person holding this position. It sounds made-up to me.

EDIT: Damn, wrong again - the 'Clerk to the Justices' is 'Tim Smith'. The court's enquiries line says I must apply to the council for a copy of the 'liability order' as they issue them. Apparently they send them to the court in bulk for their rubberstamp. In answer to the question of 'was the hearing 'official'', the only thing they would say is that a magistrate was present.

There are a number of other differences to your description as you can see (well, hopefully the posted pictures will work to let you see - yes! I just checked and I finally got something right).

You mentioned that it isn't 'Fraud' but it is 'Deception'. That is also a criminal offence. Back in the 1980s a friend and I spoke to a solicitor in an attempt to prosecute what is now the Dept. for Work and Pensions because they had stated that ANYONE could get on the 'Enterprise Allowance Scheme' - we tried for over a year and could not do it. We were told that it was not possible to prosecute a government department. If there was a Freeman movement back then we had never heard of it.

I shall get on with obtaining a copy of the liability order and the other things you mentioned.

Thank you again for taking the time.

EDIT: By the way, there was a case recently where a local celebrity bodyguard (Michael Jackson's, believe it or not) was prosecuted for issuing a summons to someone in his divorce proceedings. He was prosecuted for issuing an unlawful summons. See the story on the link below.


Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby Dreadlock » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:47 pm

Thanks for posting that form. Interesting to see how other Council's do it. I'd be interested to see more examples from other councils.

Couple of points. They said a magistrate was present - probably true. But was the magistrate acting as a magistrate? Probably not.

I don't think deception is necessarily a criminal offence, it would depend on how it is carried out. The Councils are not lying, they are leading people down the garden path to false assumptions and conclusions. They are playing on people's ignorance. If I hire a court room and summon someone to appear before me and my friends (using my own official looking summons notice) - who are acting in various court roles but being very careful not to claim that they are acting in an official capacity - and I then spin a line of very convincing rubbish and order that person to pay me £100 and they pay me, what have I done wrong? Is it my fault the person I summonsed was ignorant? At no point do I or my friends lie or misrepresent ourselves - we merely give an impression. This is what Councils do.

The body guard used an official blank form to issue his summons - clearly fraud. If he had created his own summons form - as Councils do - he would probably have got away with it. "Summons" is just a word. Anyone can use it.
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby steelyglint » Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:50 am

I have searched the justice.gov.uk site for an address, email address or telephone number for HMCTS in order to send a FOI request. But it just seems to send you around in circles, always landing back where you started, none the wiser.

Does anyone have an address or email address for this organisation?

Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: I'm trying to learn, but things just got immediate

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:21 am

HM Courts & Tribunals Service,
SE Regional Support Unit,
5th Floor, Fox Court
14 Grays Inn Road,
London WC1X 8HN
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am


Return to Help Wanted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests