haha  ;)

Sorry, Booze, -- As i understand it, - I can only be tried by Jury, as a Freeman.
Also, the summons states I am summoned to explain why I have not paid. This leads me to believe, that the council employees cannot read the Queen's English, as they have had my reasons, and they have actually been published in the local newspaper!! This is therefore a case of the council wasting the courts time - and they should amend the summons.

There are also contentious issues here - on the one hand, the council who happen to be the plaintiff, the summons issuer, and the people I am supposed to contact regarding any legal matter with regard to the council tax - and me - a run-of-the-mill- Freeman. - The buck stops here!

To me, this is not a matter of debt. I haven't been presented with a proper invoice. Any alleged debt is not proven. Therefore this is not a matter of debt.
When the council tell me, that I am only allowed two "valid defences", one of which is that the demand has been paid, and that the court is NOT ALLOWED to hear any other reasons for non payment - well, sorry, but that isn't a fair magistrates court hearing in ANYONE'S eyes. (or ears).

Being an honest man, and having been a paid up member of a society that I now find corrupt and treasonous, and wish to be no further part of, then I'm opting out, but they still want my membership fees.

Off to start preparing now. Best Regards.
John.

I missed out the quote from the PC I intended to include, he is applying common law and excluding the other nonsense:

Firstly, thank you to Guy, Dave and Dave Grothier for your replies. A further interesting development has occured today - which has near on left me speechless ! Plus with the resolve to go down fighting even harder !!

Please bear with me for the following small explanation -

I had realised that the court date clashes with an arrangement made earlier this year, which involves my driving a 100% disabled freind to the other end of the Country, in this case involving the return journey. I have written to the Magistrates Court, to politely and respectfully request their consideration to my request to move the hearing to a later date, explaining that a change to my freinds arrangements at this late stage, would cause him distress, great inconvenience and unexpected additional expences of some £800 to £1000 as special wheelchair taxis for 380 mile journeys do not come cheap, and must be booked well in advance.

After posting the letter (recorded delivery), I decided to telephone the court administrators, to see if it was likely, that my hearing would be moved to a later date. I duly gave my full name, with the above explanation. I was then informed that I WASN'T IN THE SYSTEM. I spelt my surname, and another check was done - still no information. I then supplied the case number, - Oh Joy! - I was told that this was a council tax case, and details were not held at the court. ( WHAT?? ! ) - I was then given a phone number, told it was the council tax office, (prosecutors department), and that I should ask them to move the hearing date !

Yes, you guys are getting the drift? ! -- I then asked, basically, how could the plaintiff make a complaint to the Magistrate, issue me a summons, AND DICTATE TO THE COURT, WHEN THE DEFENDANT SHOULD APPEAR ??!!

I then requested, that the Magistrate, or the Clerk to the Justices be given my letter of request, a decision made, and BOTH the plaintiff and myself be informed in writing, wether or not the hearing would be moved. I also pointed out, that neither a council official NOR a "prosecutor" could dictate to the Magistrate on ANY subject.

It turns out, that the council rent a room from the Magistrates Court, interview the "defendant" on arrival, deny you the opportunity to allow you to present any other defence other than that given in the notes of my previous post - and will add costs in addition to the costs ALREADY added - AND be given a liability order in their favour, - which it is pointed out will incur a visit to you by the bailiffs with goods to the value of the amount owed being seized. OH YES - and my letter of request, will PROBABLY be presented at the actual hearing date - (even though they will proceed as if I had attended), and a decision made then!!

I politely informed the Magistrates Administrative Manager, that he should begin to form a Jury, as I wasn't about to recognise such blatant disregards for someone's BASIC RIGHTS!

As Dave said, my first question is going to be - "Is this going to be a fair hearing"? -- The second and third question will be addressed to the Magistrate - "Have you sworn your Oath of Office to Her Majesty"? - " I would then take it the court is sitting under common law"?

Another contention is that the council have quoted me the Finance Act of 1992, which I intend to point out is a treasonous act under the 1848 Treasons and Felony Act. Also, the council have failed to answer my questions so far, as to how many personell employed have undertaken common purpose training, who paid for the training, what positions do they hold, and what decisions are they allowed to make - what eu direktives have been adopted by the council - which have been put to use and who authorised such usage - etc etc etc. (This is a by no means exhaustive list !! ).

As soon as I am informed of the confirmed date of hearing - you are ALL cordially invited to watch and record on your mobiles the fun and games!!

Corrupt British government and the bashing thereof, has been around a lot longer than must people think. There is no doubt in my mind that the system of British government is now so badly inflected with the dirge of corruption that sooner or later something is going to “give.”

The current power base in government has long, long deep roots my friends and that is where our difficulty lays, for to get to the bottom of them is going to take some very seriously harsh gardening, that is if we truly wish to rid Britain of this evil infestation once and for all time.

How far back can we go, well plenty of intrigue down through the centuries, after all King John was part of what we could call anti corruption power plot uprising. And I love uprising against corruption in high office such as this one which produced our beloved Magna Carta.

Take the case of a lovable rakish rouge John Wilkes, the son of Israel Wilkes, a malt distiller, born on 17th October 1725. In 1762, the new king, George III, arranged for his close friend, the Earl of Bute, to become prime minister. This decision upset a large number of MPs who considered Bute to be incompetent. John Wilkes became Bute's leading critic in the House of Commons. In June 1762 Wilkes established The North Briton, (We have the UK Column) a newspaper that severely attacked the king and his Prime Minister.

After one article that appeared on 23rd April 1763, George III and his ministers decided to prosecute Wilkes for seditious libel. He was arrested but at a court hearing the Lord Chief Justice ruled that as an MP, Wilkes was protected by privilege from arrest on a charge of libel. His discharge was greeted with great popular acclaim and Wilkes left the court as a champion of liberty.

Wilkes after a spell recovering from and injury in France returned to attacking the king and his government and stood as Radical candidate for Middlesex. After being elected Wilkes was arrested and taken to King's Bench Prison. For the next fortnight a large crowd assembled at St. George's Field, a large open space by the prison. On 10th May, 1768 a crowd of around 15,000 arrived outside the prison. The crowd chanted 'Wilkes and Liberty', 'No Liberty, No King', and 'Damn the King! Damn the Government! Damn the Justices!'. Fearing that the crowd would attempt to rescue Wilkes, the troops opened fire killing seven people. Anger at the Massacre of St. George's Fields led to disturbances all over London.

On 8th June Wilkes was found guilty of libel and sentenced to 22 months imprisonment and fined £1,000. Wilkes was also expelled from the House of Commons but in February, March and April, 1769, he was three times re-elected for Middlesex, but on all three occasions the decision was overturned by Parliament. In May the House of Commons voted that Colonel Henry Luttrell, the defeated candidate at Middlesex, should be accepted as the MP. John Horne Tooke and other supporters of Wilkes formed the Bill of Rights Society. At first the society concentrated on forcing Parliament to accept the will of the Middlesex electorate, however, the organisation eventually adopted a radical programme of parliamentary reform.

John Wilkes was released from prison in April 1770. Still banned from the House of Commons, Wilkes joined the campaign for the freedom of the press. In February, 1771, the House of Commons attempted to prevent several London newspapers from publishing reports of its debates. Wilkes decided to challenge this decision and the government reacted by ordering the arrest of two of his printers. A large crowd soon surrounded the House of Commons and afraid of what would happen, the government ordered the release of the two men and abandoned attempts to prevent the publication of reports of its debates.

In 1774 John Wilkes was elected Lord Mayor of London. He was also elected to represent Middlesex in the House of Commons. Wilkes campaigned for religious toleration and on 21st March, 1776, he introduced the first motion for parliamentary reform. Wilkes called for the redistribution of seats from the small corrupt boroughs to the fast growing industrial areas such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield.

Although not a supporter of universal suffrage, Wilkes argued, as I do, that working men should have a share in the power to make laws.

You have to give it to old John Wilkes, there are few men ready and willing to stand up and be counted for what they believe in–he was one.

Take a browse through his famous essay Number 45 which outraged George III, and resulted in his arrest for seditious libel under a general warrant (in which the crime but not the criminal was named), and landed forty-nine other people in jail. The arrests incited Wilkes to bring a counter-suit against his arrestors for trespass, forcing the courts to examine the legality of Wilkes' seizure as a member of the House of Commons. The court vindicated Wilkes but more importantly the incident signalled a "momentous shift in the locus of power in government from the privileged to the masses." Colonists idealized the radical Wilkes as their champion of liberty whose cause celebre demonstrated to their great satisfaction that the British government was all too eager to curtail freedom of the press and the people's lawful rights.

“The King's Speech has always been considered by the legislature, and by the public at large, as the Speech of the Minister. It has regularly, at the beginning of every session of parliament, been referred by both houses to the consideration of a committee, and has been generally canvassed with the utmost freedom, when the minister of the crown has been obnoxious to the nation. The ministers of this free country, conscious of the undoubted privileges of so spirited a people, and with the terrors of parliament before their eyes, have ever been cautious, no less with regard to the matter, than to the expressions of speeches, which they have advised the sovereign to make from the throne, at the opening of each session. They well knew that an honest house of parliament, true to their trust, could not fail to detect the fallacious arts, or to remonstrate against the daring acts of violence committed by any minister. The speech at the close of the session has ever been considered as the most secure method of promulgating the favourite court-creed among the vulgar; because the parliament, which is the constitutional guardian of the liberties of the people, has in this case no opportunity of remonstrating, or of impeaching any wicked servant of the crown.

This week has given the public the most abandoned instance of ministerial effrontery ever attempted to be imposed on mankind. The minister's speech of last Tuesday is not to be paralleled in the annals of this country. I am in doubt, whether the imposition is greater on the sovereign or on the nation. Every friend of his country must lament that a prince of so many great and amiable qualities, whom England truly reveres, can be brought to give the sanction of his sacred name to the most odious measures, and to the most unjustifiable public declarations, from a throne ever renowned for truth, honour, and unsullied virtue.

A despotic minister will always endeavour to dazzle his prince with high-flown ideas of the prerogative and honour of the crown, which the minister will make a parade of firmly maintaining. I wish as much as any man in the kingdom to see the honour of the crown maintained in a manner truly becoming Royalty. I lament to see it sunk even to prostitution. What a shame was it to see the security of this country in point of military force, complimented away, contrary to the opinion of Royalty itself, and sacrificed to the prejudices and to the ignorance of a set of people, the most unfit, from every consideration, to be consulted on a matter relative to the security of the house of Hanover!

The King of England is only the first magistrate of this country; but is invested by the law with the whole executive power. He is, however, responsible to his people for the due execution of the royal functions, in the choice of ministers, and totally equal with the meanest of his subjects in his particular duty”.

Sounds to me as if very little has changed in almost 250 years, except perhaps we have all lost the strength of John Wilkes, to challenge the powerful forces and to see our challenge through to the better end.

John Wilkes also had the charisma to inspire people to support his cause, which of course was their cause, and to rise in revolt to support him.

Armed with a Brand New Constitution for the benefit all people of this country. One “irrevocably” etched in stone, I know what I could do with a supportive crowd of 15,000 who chanted 'Wilkes and Liberty', 'No Liberty, No King', and 'Damn the King! Damn the Government! Damn the Justices!'.

Some say this is what the government of Britain today wants to see happen in order that they can counter attack and subdue. I don’t think so, as my intelligence throughout Britain seems to be telling me that the whole country appears to be on the verge of a serious backlash against this government, and the political system that is the source of so much misery to many, and if they were, like in Wilkes’ day prepared to open fire on protestors, I believe that would spark the whole nation into an open revolt.

-------------------------------------
There are those who will not be satisfied until there is nothing left, and the fault is with us the people!

Its we the people who have allowed ourselfves to be so badly served while we simply can not be bothered to take and interest.

How much more of this are we going to tolerate?------------------

Scaremongering, and using other unethical tactics which severely limited

Parliamentary debate, the New Labour Government -- with the connivance of the hierarchies of the other major Parties -- pushed through the most dangerous Bill in the history of Britain.

Strikingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler‘s Enabling Act which allowed him to legally set up a dictatorship, the Civil Contingencies Act is a flat-out Dictatorship Act.

MPs did nothing to protect British democracy and civil rights. Many Peers denounced the “absolute power“ granted by the Bill, but did nothing. Lord Lucas even warned,

“We are signing our death warrant as a democracy“, but what did this accomplish?.

The unconscionable Civil Contingencies Act, believe it or not:
* allows the Government ministers to call for a State of Emergency for almost any reason under the sun
* allows the Government, under the Emergency, to make, amend or repeal Acts of

Parliament as if It were Parliament and Crown --- the powers of an absolute dictatorship

[Hitler‘s Enabling Act, article 2: “Laws decided by the Government of the Reich may deviate from the provisions of the constitution.“ Blair‘s Enabling Act, clause 22 (3): “Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by exercise of the Royal Prerogative.“; and may (clause 22, 3, j) “disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment“.]
--- would therefore allow by decree the surrender of the British nation to the European

Union empire; approval for GM food and crops; privatisation of pensions and the NHS, unlimited immigration, etc.

* allows the ordering of any individual to do, or not do, almost anything demanded by the Government

* allows the confiscation or destruction of property without compensation (including farm animals and pets, bank accounts and stock, anything you own (“property“)

* allows the banning of people meeting together (based on other legislation, this may mean a gathering of more than 2 persons)

* allows the prohibition of movement, or can compel movement (can keep you confined to your house, or force you out of it)

* allows the cutting off of communication between you and others

* allows a prison sentence for “failing to comply“ with any order (and do not forget here the confiscation-of-property-without-compensation threat)

* allows the deployment of the Army

As the Earl of Onslow said in Parliament, this legislation is unnecessary, for emergencies can be handled with current laws. No-one dreamt of such a Hitlerian Bill during World War I, World War II, and the Northern Ireland Troubles. Only the New Labour Government (that persistently lied about Iraq and waged a war of aggression there) has done it.

There has been a corrosion of the moral fabric of British government -- MPs, Peers, Judiciary.

The Citizens of Great Britain must become informed, and politically activated, to understand and devotedly oppose the immense dangers the United Kingdom faces from Without (the EU empire) and from Within.

REPEAL the extremely dangerous,
democracy-extinguishing
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT
(enacted 18th November 2004)

AND WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW TONY THE BLAIR TO ROAM
------------------------------------------
There are those who will not be satisfied until there is nothing left, and the fault is with us the people!

Its we the people who have allowed ourselfves to be so badly served while we simply can not be bothered to take and interest.

Bang on David, there is a new awakening to the fact that there is no justice (as we think we know it) it is all about bonds and commercial law, I have good news on the horizon though and you will find soon you will be shown remedy and will be granted powers you will at first find very strange.Guy Euden

A power base (monarchy, government, church etc) offers 'rights' meaning limitations, this is itself life backwards as it suggest that the power grants rights. In reality the expression of rights is their claim to power, constructs like the Magna Carta, from which they then accumulate power by progressively taking rights away as fast possible as long as they can fool the public or subjugate them by force or the threat of it.