Rebuttals to Council's responses

Once you see the truth that everything in substance boils down to one person believing they have a right and that another has an obligation to comply with their command, then, and only then, will you be able to move forward and start to find solutions!

The rest is merely form of law where by magik, corruption, freemasons or whatever else you want to call it you will remain in the victim mentality. All of that is fraudulent misrepresentation which is a crime against the mind, or physical coercion which is a crime against a person or property!

All attempts to bully, threaten and intimidate people have no lawful basis and are merely used to keep you in a state of fear which stops you rationally applying your mind to a problem!

Equity is about substance, and not form, which means it is the search for truth, and in courts that must be supported by evidence. The substance is a dispute is made by a mind which is in control of a body where it believes it has a right, and another is under an obligation to comply!

The proof is when disputes cannot be resolved in private they end up for public dispute resolution in a court where one side makes its claimed of right supported by evidence, and the other side defends that they have no obligation. What more evidence is needed???

Where logic and reason do not prevail this creates vexatious claims, and so long as you do not understand what is going on that is how they attempt to dispose of evidence based truth, where some argument are with merit (have substance in logic and reason), but most are without.

Direct your energy into positive orientated solutions rather than acting childlike and blaming others for your problems.

Each of us is a co creator of the future and it is time to accept that responsibility for future generations!

Claims by others (including councils and courts) of vexatious litigation:  “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants” (“OPCA”), or simply ‘pseudo legal theories’

 

These include:

Name motives – how you wish your fiction to be expressed (format of name or use of thumb print).

Equity is about substance and so how you associate with your written expressions is utterly irrelevant – you are associating you the living person with a piece of paper, and similarly it is irrelevant how they write it.

Without fictions human interaction can only be very limited e.g. why do you bother to program in associations with telephone numbers or write names and places on paper – simply just talk to whomever you wish to communicate with!!!

 

Document formalities –the colour of ink makes no difference –

This is form and ignores the substance which is getting your message understood as you intend!

 

Specific phrases and language (legalese / Justinian deception)  – flesh and blood man; freeman of the land; free will full liability in person; sovereign man; sovereign citizen; sovran; natural person; not a corporation; created by god; subject to ‘natural law’, ‘common law’, ‘Gods law’; ambassador; post master general; fiction nation-state; aboriginal group; agent of legal fiction; secured party; private neutral non-belligerent; accept for value; return for value; A4V; deadman; strawman; legal fiction.

This is form and ignores the substance which is getting your message understood as you intend!

Freeman of the land – Under the courts own rules this argument has merit.

The substance is that until someone can bring the creator (who or whatever anyone chooses to call that) to provide cross examinable first hand witness testimony that one person has authority from the creator that one or a group has more right to the creators creations than another, or has the right to impose their will on another then logic and reason dictates the foundations of law that all are equal under the law and no one is above the law!

Under the creators law, as it takes over control of our mind for the ‘survival instinct’ we all have the right to defend ourselves and our dependants, and hence no one has the right to knowingly cause any creation harm.

Therefore no person has the right to enforce their will on another until there has been a meeting of the minds as to the respective duties, rights and obligations have been by freewill (no mental – a wrong against the mind, or physical coercion = a wrong against the person) consent.

This is every person’s birthright, which is the legal definition of law as expressed in the Act of Settlement 1700, and in equity is supreme over any creation of people as it is first in time and hence first in line – you cannot put a cart before a horse, and it is by this those governing are constrained and restricted in what they can do to govern, which is expressed in the rest of the sentence therein, and is affirmed in the Bill of Rights 1688 that those governing (Parliament Assembled which is made up of the Monarch, The Lords Spiritual (Church of England) the Lords Temporal (House of Lords) and the Commons (MP’s in the House of Commons)) cannot do anything to the prejudice of the people, reaffirming all are equal under the law and no one is above the law!

“The imposition of one persons will upon another is unlawful under any colour of law and it does not matter what you call it – equity is substance and not form

Accordingly for any interaction to be lawful, it must be consensual!”

ANYTHING ELSE IS FRAUD as one person puts their self interest above that of another which is against the fundamental principles of law that all are equal under the law and no one is above the law!

Obligation requires agreement or consent arguments: This is covered in the Freeman of the land above.

Birth Certificate – is merely a representation of the living person (name motive) OR a record of an event (which include ‘stock certificates’).

The substance is which mind is in control of which body doing what where and when,

Use of Blacks Law Dictionary – unless the case law refers to UK cases the lower courts are therefore NOT bound to follow other jurisdiction precedence, and then the relevant principle of law must be argued under the rules of equity.

Atypical mailing address – The substance is at what physical location you live at, and how can people find you, and how you can find others! Remember if they want to find you they will!!!

Court has no authority (jurisdiction) / The judge must settle the claim as they are trustee –

People came before disputes which came before governance… Therefore Birthrights stand above equity (our best understanding of birthrights expressed through our conscience), which stand above common law judgements, which stands above legislation, as the by impossibility, the creation cannot have more authority than the creator!

Jurisdiction is the authority to act. So before a court can act the lawfulness of the dispute must first be settled, which means the person making the claim must prove their right, and your obligation. Until this is established the court has no jurisdiction to determine any dispute!

This is why you must engage early asking for the claimant to prove their right and your obligation. NEVER enter a pleas this creates the presumption that you understand and agree the claimant has a right and you have an obligation! You must under your duty of care to your fellow humans keep the peace (as you have no right to cause another harm), and that means you have an obligation to settle claims made against you by others, and once a claimant has failed to prove their right and your obligation they have no lawful excuse to continue their beliefs and MUST IMMEDIATELY CEASE their beliefs, failing which they are knowingly causing harm, and DESIST UNTIL THE DISPUTE IS SETTLED. Failure to do so is a breach of the peace.

A claim is the trust property, the law of the trust is the courts rules, and the trustee’s job is to determine who the beneficiary of the claim is (who must provide what remedy to whom).

It is the officers of the court (solicitors, barristers, QC,s legal officer, clerk etc obligation to ensure they put the relevant law, procedures and evidence to the impartial judges upon which they must reached a reasoned decision. If you present yourself before a court, then you must move the court to do its job properly and for that you must have a basis understanding of the rules of the court, failing which you cannot stand on your rights and hence have none and may become a victim of the officers of the court perpetrating a fraud upon you if the officers of the court abuse their authority granted as a privilege by the people!!!

Admiralty Law – That all courts operate only admiralty law has no basis in reality – this is a specialised area of law that deals with shipping and forms the basis of shipping contracts, but again the rules of equity prevail in the event of conflict. There is no evidence or rationality to support these claims!

Military Courts - That all courts operate only military law has no basis in reality – this is a specialised area of law that deals with military matters, but again the rules of equity prevail in the event of conflict. The claim is based upon the fringe around a flag creates military jurisdiction. There is no evidence or rationality to support these claims!

Common law jurisdiction – Common law precedence is the basis of the UK and the Common Wealth legal system and lower courts are under obligation to follow the rulings of higher courts. This is not optional and the court relies upon the parties to provide it with all relevant law in favour and dissent on the issues before the court, and in any event when the rules of equity and the common law conflict, the rules of equity prevail.

Notaries are real judges – I simply do not understand or see any rational or evidence in these arguments… can someone please explain it to me!

Court are bound by ‘Gods Law’ – This has merit and the courts actions are constrained and restricted by a higher authority if the actions in the creating authority involve admission of this as a higher law, as in the case in the UK where the monarch accepts that the archbishop has the authority from the creator to be able to lawfully offer the monarch the right to dispense with justice… and further these oaths are made under the power of the bible! However in reality the rules of equity are a far better expression of the creator’s law as expressed in the bible, and is affirmed to be the highest binding law upon which it is the obligation of every court to make its determinations!

Oaths, affirmations or attestations create the law – These are with merit, as they are contracts which agents of those governing have given, and in return are in receipt of consideration which therefore makes them legally enforceable contracts in the courts. My word is my bond, and hence creates duties, rights and obligations are created, and if those are not upheld then that is simple breach of contract! This is what they must be held to account, and in good faith it is accepted that as they are dressed up to give the impression of an agent in an office, and should they not act in accordance then you must create the record as to how they have breached their contract and as claimant you must prove that breach.

Judge leaving court does not mean case dismissed or change of jurisdiction – a case can be adjourned at any point in time, including as a means of deescalating situations, especially when people are irrational!!!

Legislation is not law so does not apply to me – this is well covered elsewhere, but specifically courts must take judicial notice, and in this respect the Bill of Rights 1688 which is the source of legal authority of those governing the UK expresses the people’s ancient rights and liberties must be upheld by those governing, and that those governing cannot do anything to the prejudice of the people in any of the said declared rights and liberties, and the Coronation Oath Act 1688 affirms that statutes agreed upon in parliament ARE NOT LAW and ARE NOT CUSTOMS, and the Act of Settlement 1700 affirms ‘law is the ‘birthright’ (expressed as ancient laws and liberties in the Bill of Rights 1688) of the people. These are but a few examples which affirm legislation is not law, and is subject to the law which is created by the people either privately or principles of law in the courts where public dispute resolution is made to return society to peace if matters cannot be privately settled!

Meads v Meads argues well the independent courts, and the importance of that independence as a separate part of the state (they confusingly say government), but a separation of powers it can mean nothing else, and affirms for every injury a venue must be publicly available to grant remedy. This flies directly in to conflict Parliaments’ claim that it creates law, and in UKSC 41 [2019] the court affirmed the lawfulness of agents of those governing is determined by the courts, and of that only the courts are the judge!

Unilateral contract – e.g. a fee schedule, acceptance by acquiescence, implied anything, assumed anything, presumed anything etc. – Substance is the imposition of ones will against another…

A contract by definition is where people have agreed to duties, rights and obligations, and no one has authority to impose their will on another under any colour of the law!!!

Meads V Meads interestingly argues that imposing ones will upon another is bargaining in bad faith (unconscionable), attempted threats and intimidation (I would add extortion!) and therefore punitive damages are warranted by the courts.

Using this same rationality (substance) of OPCA’s those governing under a different colour of law ‘Acts of Parliament’ (form) argue that those governing can create duties, rights and obligations… as all are equal under the law, and no one is above the law, so either all people can impose unilateral duties, rights and obligations upon another or no one can!

Accepted for value (A4V) – the concept is that your birth certificate is attached to your inheritance of your entitlement of the earth, and life is hence prepaid… To date I have not seen any evidence this works!

Promissory Notes – here Lord Diplock is endlessly misquoted… peole should read the judgement to understand the context, which is where agreed, a promissory note is as good as cash…

Loans are unlawful where no consideration is provided – It is an open secret where judicial notice can be taken of the Bank of England 2014 Q1 publication that indeed the Meads v Meads judgement totally has no understanding of the facts, or simply ignores that money is created through promissory notes deposited by those applying for loans:

“This article explains how, rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.(3)…

…which are essentially IOUs from commercial banks to households and companies — and currency — mostly IOUs from the central bank.(4)(5)…

… And in the modern economy, those bank deposits are mostly created by commercial banks themselves…

… Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans…

. … When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created…”

OTHER COUNCIL REBUTTALS TO AVOID (obfuscate) PROVING YOUR OBLIGATION

Claim that Notices are of no legal effect – A notice is putting someone with knowledge, so they confirmed they have received the notice, and what they choose to do with it is their choice as this creates the facts(actus reus) and the state of the mind (mens rea)should it proceed to court, and

  • if they change their ways then they can claim ‘honest mistake’ as lawful excuse, otherwise they proceed negligently, and
  • after the second notice grossly negligently, and
  • after the third notice if harm is severe that is reckless.

Claims the Pre-action protocol is not valid confusing contracts and common law with legislation -

The pre-action protocol is developed under the rules of equity to attempt to honourably, in good faith and with clean hands attempt to resolve ANY dispute in private before bringing it to public dispute resolution in the courts so as to avoid wasting public resources in the provision of an independent judiciary. In particular it applies to any debt claim (in this case council is claiming you are the debtor) and the only exemption is HM Customs and Revenue – all other public bodies are included…

 

One response actually said court disclosure as responses may prejudice parties (the council as the respondent cannot be prejudiced as they can only get information which will help their defence!)

Claim that Freeman of the land arguments are irrational – Under the rules of the court, until someone can bring the creator into a court to give cross examinable first hand witness testimony that one person is more entitled to the creators than another, or that one person has more authority than another, then no one has authority to knowing cause another harm, and each has the right of self defence (survival) then logic and reason dictates ALL ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, therefore:

  • Agreement / contract / consent IS REQUIRED to create duties, rights and obligations.

Claims that Common law has no standing – Common law precedence is the legal system of the UK and about half the world, and means that lower courts MUST abide by higher courts decisions, and lawful excuse is argued using the rules of equity which prevail over the existing common law precedence. This includes where claims are made under legislation where the lawfulness, and any gaps MUST be determined by the courts based upon the intent of the legislation (equitably any document created between any parties).

Their claim reverts to Parliamentary sovereignty as everything else is easily rebutted:

The claim is actually a theory based upon the principle underpinning that Parliament is sovereign;

  • which as creator can make or unmake any legislation (fraudulently claimed to be law),
  • continuing with another fraudulent claim that legislation enacted by Parliament takes precedence over previous court decisions (common law).
  • It continues If any law of Parliament could be defeated just by saying I do not consent this would defeat any laws passed by Parliament – the laws only bind the contracting parties and that is why it used to be known as administrative law, or municipal law, or statute law.

The court proceed on the assumption of the presumption that legislation is law and is easily rebutted by the use of judicial notice of admission in the Act of Settlement 1700 which at IV defines law as the peoples birthright, and those governing must govern according to that (which is further affirmed in the Bill of Rights 1688, the constituting authority of those governing that those governing (Monarch, Parliament Assembled (Lords Spiritual. Temporal ad the Commons)and HM Government) can do nothing to the prejudice of the people. Further the Coronation Oath Act 1688 expresses that statutes in Parliament agreed upon (today we call this Primary Legislation) is NOT Law and both are NOT Customs, and legislation is merely law between those governing as to how they will govern the people according to the peoples laws and customs!

Based upon this rebutted presumption the Council admits to merely being an enforcement agent to implement the will of Parliament Assembled and HM Government as expressed in primary and secondary legislation, fraudulently claiming:

  • Parliament has the right to deny peoples birthright to make suitable shelter, and have adequate clean air, food and water, extorting payment from anyone who occupies a part of the creators creations (land upon which to provide for themselves).
  • This claimed right by those governing in turn is supported by ‘democracy’, which is based upon the premise of madness of crowds as lawful excuse to impose their will on others,
    • Which is perversely irrational as no individual has this power, and
    • hence how then is it possible for a bunch of individuals to magikly gain something they do not have,
    • which goes against the fundamental principle of law that you cannot give that which is not yours to give (basic principle agency law).

The irrationality of this argument goes further in that they claim the Bill of Rights was to constrain the powers of the monarchs

  • yet they themselves are now arguing they have that unrestricted right they removed from monarchs!

Clearly none who argues that has even read the Bill of Rights as:

  • those who created the Bill of Rights have expressed they ‘represent the estates of the people’ as their source authority for their action,
  • admitting those governing are subject to the people and are the agents of the people!!!

THEY ALWAYS GO BACK TO: LEGAL (BASED UPON LEGISLATION) ARGUMENTS RELIED UPON UNDER THE FRAUD OF PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY

We understand their belief of their right, which we do not dispute is a legislative duty… and they claim Parliament is sovereign…

Council tax is a Civil and not Criminal matter (this admission is enough to rebut what follows):

Their claim:

The councils have a duty to collect council tax (and they even say according to law which is irrational – either it is a legal duty or a lawful duty) under LGFA1992 and do so as detailed in CTAER1992, and

If you do not pay then they send a reminder for the instalment (§23(1) of CTAER1992). They can go to court for the instalment, or they must send a reminder for the full amount (§33(1) of CTAER1992) if they want to take you to court for the full amount. Failure to do so is in breach of their regulations and hence the complaint can be discharged on that legal technicality. The council lays their complaint no earlier than 7 days after notice (§34(1) of CTAER1992) before a justice of the piece (on bulk for all non payers) requesting a summons (which if granted the council can print themselves, does not require wet ink signature or name of officer issuing it, but must have court and complainants details (§98 of the MCA1980) and can be served by court or complainant.

The obligation that a Justice of the Peace must apply their mind to the complaint cannot be derogated, and if you have followed the process you will have asked them to prove your obligation, and if they have not included that in their complaint then they are recklessly misleading the court which is contempt of court!

The councils wish will be granted by the Court if either; you do not challenge it, or in accordance with §34(6) if you attend the council must prove their lawful right (claiming to be creditor) that the sum has become payable by the defendant (you – the alleged debtor). If the Magistrate grants a ‘liability order’ as wished for by the council it is only recorded by the Magistrates Court (Memorandum of Entry), where in §35(3) of the CTAER1992 it expresses this is not a debt enforceable under Part III of the MCA1980 (because a court cannot create an obligation upon any individual where none exists as that is unlawful!). This leads people to the belief there is something lawful about council tax…using threats and intimidation including threats of debtors prison (must be through MCA which is interesting as Part III does not apply to liability orders so there is no legal authority to imprison for non payment of council tax!!!) for those who do not comply with the will of Parliament!

 

They are unable to produce a liability order as none exists that is issued by the court (who cannot lawfully create an obligation where none exists), and instead the council send you a NOTICE OF LIABILITY ORDER – so when you receive that thank them, and ask for the liability order as detailed in the withholding pack. If they create one without the Courts authorisation then that is fraud, which is why they will not do so as that would expose the whole scam, and we have evidence the councils change the amounts which differ from the courts Memorandum of entry!! Further they must prove evidence of service for the liability order…

Worse still, as the accuser, they often claim they hold no obligation to have to prove anything, and also do not have an obligation to prove their actions are lawful (not breaching another’s peace by causing harm, or intending to cause harm!), and thereby admit their unlawful action of ‘following orders’ without applying their minds believing they can derogate the use of their mind!