Joint Several Council Tax Dilema

[ParkaMark]

The issue I see with the straw man argument is that the 'experts on it use such terminology as 'you are the executor' and 'tell the court you are not your birth certificate but instead it's representative.' This suggests that you are a separate person from your legally responsible self, and by saying these terms the court will somehow be a different place. I have never seen nor do I expect to see a court except these arguments (my opinion, I know I might be wrong in the end) and I think in a lot of cases it gives people a false hope while making them more suspicious of the court system that can actually help them.

I do recommend you watch Dean Clifford. As I understand it, courts are executing Trust Law (based on the Holy Trinity - The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost) though I've not found a video yet where he specifically explains how he's arrived at this deduction. There are a couple of fundamental principles I have taken from his videos though:

1) Courts are executing Trust Law (the highest form of law). They do not want you to know this, and do not want you to be aware of it. This is based on a 3 way trust agreement between 3 entities: The Executor (the judge), The Beneficiary (the crown), and the Trustee (public servant aka you (if you choose to play this role, read on...)).

2) The trust agreement was created when your parents granted you benefits from the state (when they registered your birth). The birth certificate is a receipt of this trust agreement. You hold this document as proof of existence of the trust agreement, and they (the state) probably also hold some documentation somewhere their side. The piece of paper you hold should be signed by them to confirm they acknowledge its creation. This is where I am now beginning to see past the strawman concept further onto the trust agreement paradigm.

3) If the Trustee does anything which is seen to void the trust agreement, they are liable. This is 100% fact, in terms of trust law. The Trustee is punishable by what ever means necessary due to this breach of trust.

4) Law (in a general sense) is based on presumptions. If you do not rebut these presumptions, they stand as valid and truth in court and the court case continues under these presumptions.

5) By default, when you are summoned to court (which is their place of business), you are doing so under the presumption (by the court) that you are the Trustee. There for, you better do damn well what they tell you to do, and if you don't, they will -make- you do it, but only if you have not rebutted the presumption that you are the Trustee. If you make it clear you are the Executor/Beneficiary, then the tables are turned and roles are swapped.

6) It does not matter what your NAME is when you are in court. It matters only what ROLE you are playing (the Trustee, Beneficiary or Executor).

7) Based on all of the above, this means it is essential that within the first few seconds of being in court, in front of the judge, you definitively state what your role is. I say definitively as if you say "I believe I am the Executor of MR THOMAS ANDERSON", they will have your balls for sure, as you are being insubordinate and are in contempt of court (which is an offence, and could possibly mean jail time). It is all about intimidation, to bring you under their control, so you will submit to being fitted into the mould of being the Trustee. It has to be an authoritative statement - when the judge goes "so who are you?" - you reply "I am the Executor and Beneficiary / CEO of <SUCH AND SUCH LEGAL ENTITY>", be that entity your legal person (MR THOMAS ANDERSON) or your business.

8) If you have the confidence and balls, and you make it clear from the outset that THEY are the Trustees (public servants) and YOU are the Executor and Beneficiary of your legal person (MR THOMAS ANDERSON), they then have very little leverage in anything. I have watched Dean talk about cases where he has done this, and he has just filed for "motion to quash". They make a big scene about it, and try and draw him back into further discussion, but he stands his ground (even with two Sheriffs either side of him) until the court (judge) basically goes silent, because THEY KNOW they can't actually make him do anything. At which point, he politely advises them that he considers the hearing now closed, case dismissed and walks out the court room (amazing!).

9) Lawyers are a complete and utter waste of time and money when it comes to this stuff. If you appoint one, they are simply advising you as you represent yourself (as the Trustee) in court. They are laughing all the way to the bank, and will happily sail you down the river, because they are not liable for anything as it is YOU that are the Trustee. Great industry to be in for sure, if you like screwing people over and KNOW you're doing it! Dean has again disclosed how he sees the system to work to lawyers outside of court, and they do nothing but "smile" at his ideas, no doubt, because they KNOW he has sussed everything out!!

10) Always go into court prepared. Do not expect the judge to know everything. If you claim (presume) something, cite it. It may be rebutted by them. Be prepared to keeping rebutting back. But stay away from citing statue legislation and government acts because they are all irrelevant (they fall under Statute/Contract Law which is all part of the controlling system which they presume you to be part of). It will no doubt be Trust Law and Common Law principles that should be presented, thus following fundamental deductions from those to finalise and win the case.

Although I have not watched much of Dean Clifford from what you have said he is making distinctions where there isn't any the statement "you've only bankrupted my legal person, not me personally" is rather irrelevant as the effect of bankrupting your legal person is that it effects you (since in my opinion they are one and the same.)

I hope you can see from my above points that bankrupting your legal person only affects you because you permit it to do so. Another base point he constantly hammers home in his videos is... all this stuff happens because people let it happen. People pay their income tax because they are letting it happen. At a fundamental level, the state has no business interfering with your private and financial affairs, which means you do not have to pay tax to them. The only reason we let them take tax is because we are scared to rebut them because we think they have bigger guns than we do (which is indeed how things used to be in the Robin Hood days of our country, the rich robbing the poor etc). I do believe, however, that the Robin Hood robbery is still happening today, it's just we have all been so merrily brainwashed by media and politics, we don't see it. Legalised criminal activity (as traderfluff has hinted). Definitely not Lawful.

This is another reason why I am hoping that the Lawful Bank starts up soon. I want to withdraw all my cash from my bank, and bring it over to them. Ultimately, I will then work privately and all financial activity will happen through the Lawful Bank. I will only be able to deal with likewise entities (individuals and businesses) which also bank through the Lawful Bank but doing this means the entire thing is now outside their (the state, government, HMRC) realm of influence and governance. They have no business with my affairs, and they have no way of tracing me either. The current system allows them to watch, and knock on your door with guns if you don't comply. It is intimidation, it is regulated, and it is monitored. And all this is unlawful, at the most fundamental principles of Common Law.

[legaleagle]

Ok I will have a look at dean clifford when I get time. I have heard the same sought of thing from other people on this site and can only say the same to you as I have said to them. The system you are talking about would certainly work if enough people wanted it too. However the same could be said for any set of rules. The system you are talking about does (as far as I know) not exist in this country. If you go to court it is because you have broken a statute. You do not need to consent to anything, or agree the court has jurisdiction over you (in fact the prosecutor would most likely prefer you did not except the jurisdiction as it aces his job easier.) For very offence there is a piece of law that creates that offence. There is no need for the government to create a strawman to make you agree to be taken to court or pay your taxes, they are all covered by legislation. They have leverage over you no matter what.

If you are asking do I think this will work in court (as in you will win the court case) then no.
If you are asking do I think this will work in court (as in you losing in court but in you opinion they are acting unlawfully) then most likely yes.

That is my opinion, you are certainly entitled to yours and I will look forward to being proven wrong

[ParkaMark]

There is no need for the government to create a strawman to make you agree to be taken to court or pay your taxes, they are all covered by legislation. They have leverage over you no matter what.

This is the worrying thing. I've heard the same line of thought from others on here. If it is true, I do find it highly disturbing.

If you are asking do I think this will work in court (as in you will win the court case) then no.
If you are asking do I think this will work in court (as in you losing in court but in you opinion they are acting unlawfully) then most likely yes.

Can't say more than that. I suspect it won't work because they won't recognise you as anything other than the Trustee. Even in Dean's videos, they never actually admit he is right, or admit they are the Trustee, and when the hearing terminates, it's him that does this, and them that are lost for words on how to proceed. It's almost like they can't say or do anything otherwise they would give the game away.

I should also say, if anyone is prepared to try this, also be prepared to be detained (go to jail) for several days. Again, it's all about intimidation to make you submit to their authority.

That is my opinion, you are certainly entitled to yours and I will look forward to being proven wrong

I'm just detailing as I understand it. I should probably purchase some legal books on Trust Law to gain a wider perspective on it all. Might be an interesting read.

[legaleagle]

I always found trust law quite boring but I know many people who loved it so give it a go. You might also be interested in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. This is the piece of legislation that covers council tax and it is this and not trust law that gives them powers to charge and enforce council tax. Happy reading, I hope you find it an interesting study topic. At least you'll never run out of things to read

[traderfluff]

Legal........

the acts you stipulate don't correspond to an action in law in civil rule per say! data sheet protocol liability orders are not civil rule option, nor adherent to its determination in law!!!

the other oversight of yours is mag don't get paid? they get expenses and loss of potential earnings!! (payment) equally clerks are residing in the district office of corporate councils! you also resonate its all above board in compliance to and human right?

trust me I did full research on this and they all correspond to just as we say!! not as we do! the legal department to the clerk(IN the corporate building) wouldn't touch my questions on liability orders with a barge pole...

check it out not looking at the statute book! and look at the council tax summons sheet !!

TF

all I have said is the truth ?

[legaleagle]

traderfluff I must admit I m not sure where you are going with this. You ask me to look into this without looking at the statute books. Which is where the laws allowing these things are.
You refer to the Civil Procedure Rules, these are the rules that refer to civil debt usually around contracts. Council tax(and indeed all tax) is different as it is a liability created by specific legislation ( in the case of council tax the Local Government Finance Act 1992) it is this legislation that creates our liability and sets the penalty for not meeting your responsibilities. The difference is that in a contractual debt you entered into (hopefully) by choice, usually by signing the contract (and covered by the civil procedure rules). Our taxes dare created by legislation, require no signing of a contract and are an absolute responsibility so can not be opted out of. Everything about it is covered by the relevant legislation so there is no need to have separate regulations to clarify it.It is also worth noting that council tax is one of the only debts you can be imprisoned for not paying.

You are right that magistrates get paid expenses, however this only covers any LOSS they have as a result of sitting as a magistrate. They have to submit evidence to show how sitting as a magistrate has caused them a loss. So to show how it works if your employer refuses to pay you wages for the period when you are sitting as a magistrate then you will have your pay covered up to the limit set out. Most employers do pay for the time off and it counts as a public duty so your employer has to allow you to perform it (within reason) the rules limits are at http://www.magistrates-association.org. ... wances.php (a slightly old link but it shows the rules.) As you can hopefully see from this magistrates even if they could prove the loss they have suffered they would be no better off as a result of being a magistrate.

And yes the majority of cases are compliant to your human rights. they are decided on a case by case basis by the european curt of human rights but broadly they have been judged to be compliant. though not an up to date article http://www.taxbar.com/documents/App_Eur ... ker_QC.pdf shows many of the more important cases (those that have answered wider questions and set a precedent.)

And to answer your point about clerks having offices in council offices, yes many have these offices, but they are employed by the court system. Also the majority of the clerks in courts sit part time and are in fact practicing solicitors who work for a law firm and are employed by the court as a clerk.

[traderfluff]

Very informative Legal.. well done

This is the invisible cloak of justice you notice you separated civil debt (contact) and civil debt (non contact) both same but different one has rules the other justIS... criminal? shame the MP's who create these one shoe fits policy exempt themselves through expenses!!

So why the use of Civil Enforcement agents (bailiffs) to collect why not the police enforce these payments after all its criminal in-it oh and I spoke to the police re bailiffs collection fraud.......sorry its nothing to do with us its civil not criminal? but its a criminal offence not paying and civil collecting??

Jeese... it like a merry-go-round no one knows whats going on in this gravy train!!

TF

[legaleagle]

And that brings me to one of the two things I don't agree with about our legal system. That most people only find out about it when they fall foul of it. Thats why I think basic law needs to be taught to everyone through the school system (I think we already did this thread.)

And in case your wondering the other thing I don't like is the fear people have of our court system when it can be used to help people. (maybe it's the clowns in wigs and dresses who hang around in the courts that are the problem )

[gnoname]

hi to everyone here,
i know of someone who had his council tax bill closed after he used information from the book by The Lioness, called, "so they say you,ve broken the law", that poses the questions about "proof of claim" and "proof of authority". they sent him a letter back saying he didnt need to pay anything.

i myself am having a bit of a thing with my local council over alleged council tax owed.
i lost my job in 2007 and owed council tax, and i had to pay a certain amount back out of my benefit each week. i did my best to keep up with payments but because i didnt pay on time i ended up, (or should i say MR me) ended up in court in my absence and was fined further costs. this happened twice to me, and i know its only because of my silent agreement and my fear and ignorance at those times that let it happen.

then i started to learn about the truth of things from places like tpuc etc but carried on trying to make payments whilst i learned more and twice i got the amount owed down to about £40 or so , the council then handed the debt to the bailiffs from the northamton area, very near northampton county court where they do the mass council tax hearings .and after a while of my ignorance they handed the liability orders back to my local council.
after recieving a letter to say a warrant had been issued for my arrest, and that to avoid an officer attending my home i should call to arrange an appointment to meet at their office and arrange for me to attend the local magistrates court, and not to ignore this letter as it "may,be in my best interest to attend an enquiry into my means to pay this debt.
on the day i went to their office, i handed the court warrant officer a letter which included the questions concerning "proof of claim" and "proof of authority". i was there for some time while he visibly trembled as he read the letter, which you can find in the book mentioned above.
i had to keep saying to him that i would be only too willing to go to court to show why i dont think i should pay council tax because, they had no proof of claim nor proof of authority. and then, this is where i think i made a mistake, when i said, "on a moral note alone", if you look at the records you will see that i probably already paid more than the original amount owed in payments through the fines!, because now he said, so you want to go to court to tell the judge why you think you've already paid. and i said yes!. and i left there feeling quite pleased that it seemed to have made an impact on him/them, but i was a bit gutted i,d fallen for something somehow. you have to remember i was quite nervy through this meeting,and i dont have the greatest powers of savvy.

a week later i received a letter from the court warrant officer which said,

you requested that i provide proof that you have consented to be charged for council tax, under the local government finance act 1992 part1, preliminary section 1 "as regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area"
this legislation means that "xxxxxxxxx council is obliged to send a council tax demand notice to every dwelling within its billing authority area and to collect the aforesaid council tax.

if you still do not consider yourself liable for council tax then you should contact the valuation tribunal on number xxxxxxxxxx. (so that was his answer regarding proof of claim).
and goes on to say......

unfortunately i do not understand your second request (proof of authority) for an answer so cannot comment on this. if you would like to clarify this then i will endeavour to answer you queries.

as discussed at the appointment on xxxxx, you have declined the opportunity to make payments to clear these arrears prior to attending " magistrates court for an enquiry into your means to repay.................

so i have a few options here, the court date is end of july i have time to avoid going still, because i can now either call the valuation tribunal and see what they have to say, or send the court warant officer a letter showing that his actions against me would be ultra vires (beyond his power) and committing the civil crime (human against human) of tort. etc.............
see aforementioned great book.
i hope this bit of info can be of help to someone perhaps....
any further advice to me would be much appreciated aswell.........
all the best to you all .....................