Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby chomerly » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:17 pm

Hi all,

I know its been a while since i last updated this so i think i best do it now.

Right, where to begin.

I entered the courtroom as normal with my papers in hand (3 copies of everything) and the Magistrates, the legal advisor, the prosecution, the court usher and a rep from the ONS were all there ready.
The court room usher directed me towards a dock which i politely refused. The magistrate then said that i have to stand in the dock to which i again said 'thank for the offer but no thank you'.
She then said that there was going to be a big problem if i didn't stand in the dock. I got the feeling that she was going to say that she would hold me in contempt if i didn't but she just said there would be a big problem.

After this minute or two of wrangling i said that if it would please the court i would be willing to stand in the dock so long as all my inalienable rights were to remain in tact.
The legal advisor asked me what that meant :thinks:
I explained that the rights that a human being has that no one, regardless of their perceived status in society, can take away or make claim to other than the human being that those individual rights belong to.
Looking a bit confused, he said ok, fine so into the box i went.

The legal advisor asked me if i had representation and i said that i do.
He asked me if they were here and i said yes, i am the representation.
Surprisingly he was very friendly throughout and told me about his role and a little about the court procedure.
He also told me that first the prosecution would read out the case, the statements made by witnesses and i would also have the opportunity to do the same.
This took me aback slightly as i was expecting to be put through some shit.

The prosecution began to detail the case and read out the witness statements and then made it clear that the only lawful excuse under this law is if the householder is away from the home for 6 months or more.
There were a few inconsistency's in the witness statements which i made clear were inconsistent and incorrect but the fun part was when i had to give my reasoning for my lawful excuse.

I explained to the Magistrates that i could not, with good conscience, support the UK Census knowing that the handling and processing of data was being done by Lockheed Martin.
The government knew full well that there would be a public backlash against it having the contract for the work to be undertaken which is why it was done all hush, hush back in 2008.
No one had really heard of Lockheed Martins' involvement until the Census was announced and then the uproar could be heard across every media channel and internet news site across the UK.

I also stated that the statutory act wasn't an actual law, it is an act of parliament.
The prosecution jumped up and asked if i thought i was above the law. I responded by saying no.
He then asked "What makes me think that this law doesn't apply to you". I responded by saying "Because i have not consented".
He said that "Consent was already given and i can't just choose when a statutory act doesn't apply to me. They are the laws of the land made by government".

Me -
"Who's government?"

Prosecution -
"The democratically elected government of the United Kingdom."

Me -
"It may surprise you to know this but i never voted for this government. In fact, no one did. And you said that these statutory acts are the laws of the land. They are not. The law of the land is the common law and i follow the common law as set by out in Britain's constitution (Magna Carta) which has never been repealed.
I have made it clear that i will cause no harm to another human being nor cause them loss and act peaceably. As long as i maintain those principals then i should be able to go about my personal business in peace."

Prosecution -
"Statutory acts are the force of law."

Me -
"No, they are given the force of law by consent and i do not consent.
Blacks law clearly defines that a statutory act is 'a legislative rule of society, given the force of law, by the consent of the governed.'
You will find it in Halsbury's too.
I have not knowingly consented at any point in my life and i do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest otherwise."

I then turned to the legal advisor and the Magistrates to talk about most of the important information required by the census.
I told them that "Most of the information that is required by the census can be gotten from pre-existing databases such as the NHS, DWP, DVLA etc." And surprisingly, the lead Magistrate said "Banks".
This shocked me a little because it actually felt that they fully understood what i was getting at.
I even commented on the fact the a Tesco clubcard probably contains more details about ourselves as individuals than the Census could hope to get which even got the legal advisor nodding.

I went on to describe how the so called 100 years confidentiality statement made by Glen Watson (ONS Chief) was nothing more than a promise and has been shown to be largely ineffective as the EU gets more powers and sovereignty from the UK will open holes all over the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007.
I then stated that i'd like to read a piece from the paper written by Professor Douwe Korff but it was denied as he was not able to argue the validity or merits on his own paper. :puzz:
I tried to argue that this paper was freely available across the internet in much the same way that the information regarding the Census document could be found and read for the court but again it was denied.

In the end, i was still found guilty and the Magistrates were understanding of my feelings and misgivings but had no choice but to find me guilty on the facts that i still did not fill out the census form.
I was ordered to pay £390 in fines and costs and an order was placed that if i didn't pay the fine that bailiffs would be instructed to remove goods. :no:

While i was packing my things away the prosecution leant over to hand me the copies of the papers i had and said "Here's your rubbish back" with a smirk on his face.
Now, i could have called him a smug arrogant prick but thought no. So i leant over to take them and said thank you and packed those away and left.

It's amazing that these people (the prosecutor) still feel the need to show off their arrogance like as if it means everything.
I'm just glad that i don't have to live in that fuckers world because the stench of bullshit must be unbearable.
I might just slap a commercial Lien on him just to give him some shit.


Anyway,

I lost and to be honest i don't care.
I'll pay the fine with the currency they want and i'll take the record but at least the ONS haven't got my personal information for the census which will deny them much more than the fine.
Well they do profit from selling your information whether it is identifiable or not.

All that they have achieved is to piss me off and make me even more determined to rebel.
User avatar
chomerly
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby MikeThomas » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:03 pm

Chomerlt...... you took a stand and I now stand to salute you! :yes:
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
MikeThomas
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby chomerly » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:08 pm

MikeThomas wrote:Chomerlt...... you took a stand and I now stand to salute you! :yes:


Thanks mate.

I was expecting to feel a lot more nervous than i actually did.
In fact, if anything i was looking forward to it.

I went there with the notion that regardless of what i said i would always be found guilty because the system is geared up that way.
I think that for anyone who is facing court for action being taken against them, the best frame of mind to be in is one where you know you will lose. It is after all, their game.
Once you know that the outcome will be that way then you know you have nothing to fear.
User avatar
chomerly
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby holy vehm » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:29 pm

First - they lost. They lost the fear they had over you. Once that is gone (the fear) you will enter their place of business more often and they do not want that - confident humans telling them. That is what they fear, they fear US.

just my thoughts on this and feel free to pull it apart because it is only a theory of sorts.

Choice of law. viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8630

They have made a statutory claim against you.
You have rebutted that with a common law claim.

The case is now in dispute as to the choice of law.
Which has precedent?
Constituionally speaking, common law prevails over statute law which isnt actually law but the rules of society.

The census act was not created by law as in a court. It was created by parliament and passed to the house of lords for approval.
This is how statute law is made.

So what is needed here is an adjudication hearing, whereby a judge will look at both claims and assess which law is to be applied.
They will decide based upon the claim and counter claim which law/rule is to be applied to the case. It should then be heard in an approriate court.

Most courts cannot hear a common law case as they do not have the mandate or remit to do so.

I suspect that given the right case you would prove at the adjudication hearing that their case against you is without merit and you would have heard nothing more about it, simply because it cant go anywhere, it cant move forward.

If they still went ahead they would lose at appeal and you would have grounds for a claim of costs against them.

Like I say just a theory but having read around it seems a logical one to me. The interpretation of the info seems to stack up but will it in practice i dont know.


All that aside, fair play for standing up to them, where you tread others will follow. :shake:
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby pitano1 » Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:31 pm

first off m8..well done for refusing to fill in
there poxy form.

the thing that puzzles me is`if its the LAW,and all are equal
under the law,why not take everyone who refused to bend over,and grasp`
to court.

court.?yer gotter fucking laugh..cautio`latin`

they realy should put a sign outside..caution failed
barristers,and charity shop rejects at work.

these bunnies all suffer from MAXIMotosis,and should be on
medication

well done for your effort,and keep on keeping on.
pitano1 :yes:
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
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby chomerly » Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:00 pm

Thanks guy's.

The one thing that i didn't put in my update post which i said to the Magistrates and the prosecution when being asked questions was when the prosecution said that the only lawful excuse for not filling out the form was if the householder was away for from the home for 6 months.
I stated that i was glad he bought that up as according to Glen Watson, only householders who answered their doors to the non compliance officers were able to be prosecuted.
I added that this so-called 'law' couldn't be a law because as far as i was aware, all are equal under the law and for Glen Watson to make such a statement would mean that i could have stood in my window for the none compliance officers to clearly see and because i hadn't opened my door and/or spoke to them they would be unable to prosecute.
The prosecution asked what that had to do with anything and i said everything.
It says to me that this so-called 'law' is nothing more than a rule or guide that is discretionary in it's use.

I think the lead Magistrate liked that because she seemed to be fighting back a smirk because the prosecutor looked a little miffed.
Almost like someone was seething behind a smile.
He probably though that i was some common scum that should show someone like him some respect because he was a practitioner of law. Well, his and his BAR colleagues law anyway.
User avatar
chomerly
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:31 am
Location: Wolverhampton U.K.

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby frogmanbrabs » Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:28 am

So whatever you do Don't pay the fine. If you do you are submitting to their unlawful act of demanding money with menaces. When you receive the notice from the court laying out the charges and costs, reply with a Conditional Offer of Acceptance asking them to confirm that you are a person and not a human being and that they know the difference between a person and human being etc ( I think you'll find a copy in the templates section ) give them a reasonable time limit in which to reply (7 days) and hopefully when they fail to reply in that time, follow up with a letter of Irrevocable Lawful Estoppel by Acquiescence. End of the matter and you should be clear of the fine. I used this tactic for a speeding fine last July and heard nothing more.
An Open Mind can take you on a journey to anywhere.
User avatar
frogmanbrabs
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:04 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby Dipsy » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:51 am

chomerly wrote:Thanks guy's.

The one thing that i didn't put in my update post which i said to the Magistrates and the prosecution when being asked questions was when the prosecution said that the only lawful excuse for not filling out the form was if the householder was away for from the home for 6 months.
I stated that i was glad he bought that up as according to Glen Watson, only householders who answered their doors to the non compliance officers were able to be prosecuted.
I added that this so-called 'law' couldn't be a law because as far as i was aware, all are equal under the law and for Glen Watson to make such a statement would mean that i could have stood in my window for the none compliance officers to clearly see and because i hadn't opened my door and/or spoke to them they would be unable to prosecute.
The prosecution asked what that had to do with anything and i said everything.
It says to me that this so-called 'law' is nothing more than a rule or guide that is discretionary in it's use.

I think the lead Magistrate liked that because she seemed to be fighting back a smirk because the prosecutor looked a little miffed.
Almost like someone was seething behind a smile.
He probably though that i was some common scum that should show someone like him some respect because he was a practitioner of law. Well, his and his BAR colleagues law anyway.


Exactly! This is ONLY an administrative process there is no morals or law in the lower courts. For the same reason only TV licensing can only really prosecute people that open the door and ADMIT by signing a statement! Usually single mums on benefits always get an 80 pound fine. But as this is administration only you always have REMEDY. In fact its best not to even argue in a magistrates court at all whatsoever as the court has NO EARS. You might have time to correct the record here following this guide but this time you need to get CONSENT from the other party they do not have a case to answer. Your PAPERWORK is YOUR COURT!

This is a laymans view and so is simplified but you can move stuff to high courts if you think its worth it.

1 It’s easy to appeal against a criminal conviction or sentence in a Magistrates’ Court, but you have to make your mind up quickly. If you entered a guilty plea you can only appeal against your sentence, not against the conviction itself.

2 Although there is no special form to complete, you must put something in writing and send it to the court where you were convicted. They will need your name and address and the date of your conviction. There is no need to explain why you want to appeal, but you can do so if you want. This document becomes your ‘Notice of Appeal’, and it must reach the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the date when you were sentenced. You can do all this without any help from a lawyer, if you have to. The court staff make a note in the court register to say you have appealed, and send your notice on to the local Crown Court.

3 The Crown Court will hold a fresh trial of your case – a re-hearing. In an appeal against conviction, each side can call the same evidence as before, or can add or drop witnesses. There is no jury: the decision is made by a Crown Court judge, usually sitting with two magistrates. If they find against you again, the original conviction stands and there will usually be some extra costs for you to pay. There is a risk that the sentence might be increased as well. If you win the case, your own legal costs will probably be paid back to you, the conviction will be removed, and the sentence falls away, but you will not get any compensation for the inconvenience or loss you have suffered. When you appeal only against the sentence, the hearing is shorter. The prosecution will outline the facts of the offence and tell the judge about any previous convictions you may have, and you can say what you want in order to persuade the Crown Court to reduce the sentence.

4 There are no higher levels of appeal. But we could send your case back again to the same Crown Court for yet another hearing. There is no point, of course, unless something has changed that could make the outcome different.
Dipsy
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Would you believe it? Summons for not completing the Census

Postby squark » Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:37 am

I did council tax non payment in court. Twice they basically ignored what I said and issued a liability order. This time i told them in court, I know you are a business and you treat me as one so I will invoice you. I wrote to the clerk of the court with a whopping big pro forma invoice. £550 of tax at £6p/h minimum wage...thats 94 hours at £1K per hour please.
I dont even know if its me being ordered about , ordered by who, I wrote and asked , they wouldn't answer. I want to go back to challenge the Crown. I'm thinking 3 questions....Whos making the claim...what is the claim....can you prove it with ANY evidence?
Bish Bash Bosh.
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
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Previous

Return to General Freeman related questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron