...and of course, 'your man in the street' has had enough of these braindead zombies running the country - as the article below shows...personally, I am in two minds about the COUNCIL TAX system - I am not so much concerned about the fact that it is being levied - as to where it is being spent - because it is a massive amount of money levied - of which, a large amount 'disappears' every year - when it should be spent on COUNCIL SERVICES for the community at large...and the WELSH couple are a case in point (see previous notes) - if you can prove it - you are onto a winner.

The article below is about a finer point of the law and a demonic mind control slave - acting entirely illegally and as a JUDGE - (link - courtesy of MR ICKE's site):

http://www.ukcolumn.org/articles/council-tax-saga-calling-favour



Roger Hayes - The British Constitution Group

You can imagine the scene: The Chief Executive of the council is advised by his legal team that their court case against the council tax rebel (me) is unwinnable lawfully because I have exposed the fact that the council have been breaking the law by issuing their own summonses... the summons is the foundation of their case and fraudulent evidence is inadmissible in a court of law, so the case must be thrown out. The legal team advise to withdraw the claim. The Chief Executive ponders the problem... potentially all previous liability orders will be adjudged unlawful... claims against the council will amount to millions of pounds... poor families will benefit... the council, to save face and money, win this case... by fair means or foul... lawful or unlawful, not forgetting of course that his £200,000 salary plus expenses depends upon it. The Chief Executive clears his room and he picks up the phone... he puts in a call and makes contact (via ‘the network’) with the judicial arm of ‘the club’ and he calls in a favour.

The Chief Executive calls his legal team back into the room... he tells them to proceed with the case, regardless of the fraudulent evidence, he is confident the council will win.

The next day in the court... District Judge ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ is strategically allocated the hearing of the council tax rebel... who has turned up with 20 witnesses. This is not good for the judge as independent witnesses can bear testimony to ‘dubious’ (some would say corrupt) judgments.

What Actually Happened?

District Judge ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’’ ordered that the defendant be restricted to 2 only witnesses and that the hearing would take place in chambers and not in a public court. Being in chambers, this gives the Judge license to ignore or consider virtually any evidence he feels fit... this type of hearing is now common-place in our system of so-called justice and allows judges to come to any verdict they like – regardless of the law... it is more an administrative process than justice... and comes to us courtesy of the European Union.

This administrative wheeze is now a regular feature of our newly created legal system... in my view it is judicial corruption with bells on. Being fully aware of what is being orchestrated... ‘the defendant’ (me) insisted that the hearing must be a public hearing and that ALL witnesses must be admitted, as is their right, to see that justice is done (or not as the case may be) – the Judge relented, but then demanded that all witnesses give their names ? I asked why... and whether his demand was a lawful... which of course it was not. This is an example of the ‘make-it-up-as-you-go’ justice that the European system brings. My witnesses declined to give their names, as was their right to do so... and we all entered anyway. Do not be afraid to insist on your rights... they are far too keen to take them away.

The issue here of course ... is how ‘neutral’ is a judge that I have just challenged and humiliated? I was soon to find out and more barracking with the judge was unavoidable.

On entering the court, I claimed common law jurisdiction... as is my right. The demeanour of the judge changed. In a common law court the judge has to be impartial and consider all the evidence submitted by both parties... in the European system the judge cherry picks. I asked the judge if he was acting under his oath of office (confirming it as a common law court)... he ignored me and quickly turned to the council representative to hear their evidence – I interceded knowing full well that ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ had every intention of steamrolling this hearing to a pre-determined conclusion – i.e. in favour of the council. For the next 20 minutes I repeatedly asked the so-called judge if he was acting under his oath of office... he ignored, prevaricated, made a series of meaningless comments, such as he had been a judge for 12 years – but he would not answer the question. The reason? Because acting under his oath requires that he consider the law... not under oath and he was merely an arbiter and as such he could apply ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along- judgements’ - which in my view is a denial of the due process of law – and a denial of our right to justice.

So we called the police. As far as we were concerned here was an individual refusing to confirm his oath of office and thus an individual masquerading as a judge. The court officials who have no idea what has been going on under their very noses didn’t know what to do – their cosy routine was being challenged and they had no understanding of the law on which to counter our assertions. Let’s be clear about what the court officials should be doing – they should be directing court proceedings in accordance with the law and not in accordance with arbitrary rulings by judges... to ensure that one party in a hearing does not find themselves in conflict with a judge merely because they are asserting their rights. Judges have no business getting involved in the proceedings of the court - they should remain neutral.

The buzz in the court building was that somebody had just called the police claiming that someone was masquerading as a judge. The police duly arrived and two young and very confused police constables, clearly out of their depth, listened to what I and my witnesses and the so-called judge had to say and stampeded out of the court room as quickly as they had arrived – leaving us all to sort it out ourselves. At this point we could have walked out leaving Mr ‘Fixit-it-for-the-council’ to make whatever unlawful rulings he chose... we knew where it was going... and it wasn’t heading towards a just outcome, but I was intrigued to see just how far ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ was prepared to go to pervert the course of justice. What happened then was representative of what is happening up and down the country in our newly created European Union law system (Corpus Juris)... to cut a long story short... all the fraudulent evidence provided by the council was allowed, all my evidence (including letter-headed evidence from a magistrates court) was dismissed.

The reader may be getting the idea that the system is stacked against us and you would be right... and it is for this reason that it must be challenged. We want our courts dealing with justice not acting as a revenue collecting tool for the government and local councils, whose remit seems to be to take as much money from us as they can get away with. Excessive and unreasonable speeding and parking fines are just two examples of oppressive regulations that are making our lives a misery. Overzealous officialdom is the scourge of our lives and it needs to be put firmly back in its box. They are supposed to serve us not oppress us.

It Is Up To Us To Make A StandI will say it again... as I have said from the very beginning of my protest - I am happy to pay my council tax... provided that it is subject to a lawful contract, the imposition of which would bring power back to the people.

District Judge ‘Mr-fixit-for-the-council’ then made his order that I pay £2000 to the council or be made bankrupt. He did concede one thing to me (if you can call it a concession) ... which is that I can claim my money back if I can demonstrate that the council documents were fraudulent. What is strange about this concession is that the judge had the opportunity there and then to prove it himself... by simply asking the stony-faced council team sitting in front of him if the council produced its own summonses (which they do) and which are unlawful - and the judge would then have had to have found in my favour - but remember... that wasn’t the outcome that had been agreed. The judges concession is of course meaningless - it would require that I launch a time consuming and expensive counter claim that the council would defend with a team of barristers – at taxpayer’s expense.... and would, we have to ask ourselves, the phone be picked up to arrange a suitable judgement for that hearing too?

Should I give in to judicial corruption and coercion and a virtual dictatorship by council edicts... or should I tell them what to do with their European system of so-called justice and their unlawful demands for money? There comes a time when we all have to decide... do we give in or do we fight on.

"Evil prospers when good men do nothing." Good men and women are trying to do something – and we need your help and support. WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW - TODAY.

Please join The British Constitution Group and/or make a donation.

It would be enormously appreciated.

Please consider this... we are fighting for your interest also... If we win... your life will improve - that we can promise. Supporting us will make a real difference to justice and our freedoms.

To find out what I decide to do... give in or fight on - read the next issue.

On the 7th March there is a mass gathering of council tax rebels... At Hamilton Square – Birkenhead. Please come and join us. Call me for more details. 0781 352 9383



The Cabbage Patch Column
.UK Column, County House, 12/13 Sussex Street, Plymouth PL1 2HR - 01752 312743 - editor@ukcolumn.org
The UK Column is not affiliated with any political party.