Wednesday, 16 March 2011

The Law

This subject always fascinates me, I recently came across an article about council tax and a group of people who are refusing to pay it because it's not lawful, it's a very complex subject involving statutes and common law, but basically it boils down to this.

Councils around the country are producing their own summons to appear at the magistrate’s court, which is illegal under common law and recently a test case was tried in Wales where a lay advisor refused to recognise the courts jurisdiction and asked the magistrates if they were under oath and wanted to be tried under common law. The court tried to "trick" the witnesses into accepting jurisdiction by asking them to leave the court but the simple action of standing up to leave would have meant they accepted the courts authority and could have been held in contempt of court.

Three times the clerk tried to get the lay advisor and his witnesses to leave the court and three times the lay advisor asked if the magistrates where under oath, they refused to answer, eventually the police were called and the lay advisor asked if the attending police officers where there under oath to uphold the law, they replied yes, that ensured that the lay advisor could stay in court... It would also have been assault if the police officers or any court official had tried to physically remove the lay advisor.

To cut a long story short eventually the magistrates left the court for the final time, at which point the lay advisor under common law was the highest authority in that court and he therefore dismissed the case.

The whole point of the exercise was to point out that a statute is not a law and magistrates/judges who will not admit to being under oath in a court of law are not being unbiased and do not have to uphold the law and are there purely for a summary judgement.

It turns out that no liability notice could be produced which meant there was no legal requirement for the accused person to be there, and it also means none ever existed and that the council were hiring the time and courts/room to execute these summary judgements to the ignorance of the general population.

It also means the council in question were acting illegally by producing their own court summons and basically lying to gain payment.

It makes you wonder who's side the court system is on doesn't it ? Especially if you are ignorant of the law and especially common law, and knowing the difference between a statute and the law. Laws are there to protect us, it seems statutes are there to control us.


Drongobackfires said...

Yes but did the legal part of the law recognise this action was lawful? My heart says Yes , my head says No. Until legal action is shown to be undone the the lawful action will not work. I agree with lawful and common sense laws , and not with legal and legalese laws. Who and I ask who has won a common law case? Where is it shown the legalality or illegality is written or acknowledged?

Digamy said...

That's the point !! under common law statute law has no jurisdiction.. Magistrates know that if they have taken oath before they sit that they cannot judge on statute they sit impersonating a magistrate or judge it's a very deep rabbit hole.... Councils in particular are aware of this "hole" and they exploit it, there are many many cases where councils have set up kangaroo courts which on the surface look like the real thing, but in fact they are not lawful, they have simply hired the law courts and in some cases a magistrate doesn't even sit at them .... it's purely a rubber stamping exercise which works because people don't question it. If you want to laugh look up the DVLA and the registration of your car .... you are basically handing over ownership of your car to the DVLA, which is why they can crush it if you don't pay road tax.... it's all about consent....