Peace Keepers

More great work from these guys.

Parts 2 & 3 in particular are what everyone needs to comprehend.
Part 2



Part 3

this can be added too:
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t6037-c-tax-could-this-be-the-start-of-the-end#40855

https://peacekeepers.org.uk/westminster-2nd-2023/

A quick appeal if you don't mind, a long shot any one on here was involved on the day, but you never know, i was there and believe me, we sure are ruffling some feathers, we are also dealing with utter incompetence, criminality and an attempt to bar the public from the Court Buildings (they closed the doors and locked everyone out including the solicitors, cueing up etc)

If you can get involved and offer any assistance in these hearings it would be much appreciated - to keep the peace and record evidence you understand.

I hope to post some updates that complement the regular content on this thread

Thank You

John

What was the actual case about?

Thanks for the update, (and welcome to the site)
This appears to be their usual tactic when a lot of support turns up.
I feel sure this was expected and plans made for the next move.
I experienced similar some years ago at hearings for The Spaniard &
Tom Crawford.

FF ,see the video above.

@FF - See the skeleton argument video, and Live zoom

@DI - Yes, it was woefully handled by the Court, It was a total shambles on their part, Ironically the previous day up in Middlesboro the Court were more than accommodating and their was no problems or cuffuffle people need to be on top of their game going into these venues now, expect the worst and prepare accordingly.

Their are multiple issues that now need resolving, the more people that get behind this the better, because they will change their behaviour once they realise the number of people prepared to hold them to account is increasing, kudos to Marc/Brian and Co as you know they have put an excellent course together to get people competent in doing this, but we are learning every day as new obstacles are being placed before us to prevent, frustrate and slow us down from obtaining just and equitable settlement.

BTW: That Gavin dude of Sovereign Empowerment has nothing to do with PK, him and others are affiliating themselves with us and charging money for paperwork that is toilet roll, PK is free, though i personally know it is of great time and expense to those who provide it, all people are expected to do is put in some effort of their own.

Thanks, is any of the information in writing, or only in video?

Agreed, there are very few doing things for free,that in my book gives
them much greater credibility. I have no problem with people being paid
for their time and no one should be expected to work for free,but to see
some of the prices some are charging for what is nothing more than a
downloadable template ,to my mind shows the money is uppermost in
their minds.

And on that note i see PoE has launched his latest template accompanied
by his usual style of BS. £150 a pop.

@FF - Yes everything is on the website that can be down loaded, if not on video, some is WIP which is what the zoom calls are about, very goods point to digest from the live we did on the Barristers skeleton Argument, which was deconstructed in plain language.

@DI- Yes, i agree ... For us it's about restoring the Rule of Law.

Council tax hearing Westminster Magistrates 2nd March 2023


as DI predicted:
https://goodf.forumotion.com/t6037-c-tax-could-this-be-the-start-of-the-end#40857

Westminster Magistrates Court Investigation 02/03/2023
https://peacekeepers.org.uk/westminster-2nd-2023/


(3108)

weneedremedy wrote:@FF - Yes everything is on the website that can be down loaded, jif not on video, some is WIP which is what the zoom calls are about, very goods point to digest from the live we did on the Barristers skeleton Argument

Can that be downloaded? I actually couldn't find anything that looks like it related to this exact case.

FF, try the vid at the top of this page & the fifth one down

daveiron wrote:FF, try the vid at the top of this page

Cheers, do you mean watch the video? I had a go but they keep scrolling around and swapping between documents so short of taking a zillion screenshots and trying to reassemble the document I can't see how to read it properly. Probably just me, I really don't get on with video presentation.

The 5th one is probably the best as they go through it point by point

flyingfish wrote:

weneedremedy wrote:@FF - Yes everything is on the website that can be down loaded, jif not on video, some is WIP which is what the zoom calls are about, very goods point to digest from the live we did on the Barristers skeleton Argument

Can that be downloaded?  I actually couldn't find anything that looks like it related to this exact case.

I am not sure the Skeleton Argument is available on the site for download, i have on email i think, will check with Marc if he does not mind me posting. But in any case it will not be argued now, as the District Judge Law,(if that's his real name) shoved the Liability Order through without any cross examination or rebuttals, he was placed into that Hearing to do just that. The Barrister was saved from an embarrassing lesson in Public, he did not know his case and he was attempting to misldirect the Court,.

You will get much more from the Skeleton argument by listening to the Live that was done on zoom, where Marc gives his analysis on it and a few commentators also add pertinent remarks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuoIroUPmV0

Just realised Mitch posted it on the thread a few weeks back

Key points i added: 2013 Crown Succession Act - not relevant as it to do with abolition of Primogeniture in succession (using to misdirect the Court on Constitutional duty of the Royal Prerogative, etc).

Misrepresents the Scope of the 1992 LGFA by directing the Court to accept that 'All' Dwellings are subject to Charge - absolutely false and a misrepresentation of Section 3).

I have long understood that the issue is both Constitutional but also an issue where the Legislation itself is misrepresented, there was a case in the High Court a few years back 'Doyle Anor's v Roberts (LO)' Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 659 (Admin), but the Judgment by HJ Fordham has been scrubbed from the archive and the case retired, Paul Webster who was one of the appellants discusses this on one of his YT video's. I had been given the transcript by the clerk when i had a a case in the VTE but i am do not have their permission to share it, the case is currently waiting to be heard in the ECHR as i understand it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5eDiH41yYk

Thanks, I thought the barrister's doc might be a quick way to see the arguments you were raising, and a preview of the response that might be expected. Quicker for me at least as I don't really get on with video, and I think those amount to four or five hours. Irrespective, it's interesting that the council needed to get a barristers opinion in the first place.

You refer to LGFA 1992 (3). Was part of the argument an assertion that CT only applies to commercial property? Thats not what the act says, although the double negatives make it less readable than it could have been.

flyingfish wrote:Thanks, I thought the barrister's doc might be a quick way to see the arguments you were raising, and a preview of the response that might be expected. Quicker for me at least as I don't really get on with video, and I think those amount to four or five hours. Irrespective, it's interesting that the council needed to get a barristers opinion in the first place.

You refer to LGFA 1992 (3). Was part of the argument an assertion that CT only applies to commercial property? Thats not what the act says, although the double negatives make it less readable than it could have been.

Yeah it is the same thing that Marc scrolls through, to be honest its poppycock from the Barrister to try and tie us up in issues that are not relevant ..this seems to be a popular tactic of theirs, because the fewer issues there are to dispose of or further create the simpler it is to prove you case. He bugged out anyway before the Hearing

If you read Section 3, you will note that it comprises three subsections, but at the section header it states: "Subject to the following provisions" ..what that means is that the section is dependent on its subsections to agree, that is why they use semi colons and not full stops.

The way it works is that the Chargeable Dwelling is the thing that everything else hangs on to, but that is not even defined in the 1992 Act, it is defined in the 1967 GRA but by a process of connection, as the 1967 Act was a consolidating Act most of the previous rating and valuation acts that comprise it have had parts omitted, that allows the 1967 Act to be a little vague and circular in its definitions, which is admitted in a few appeal cases btw.

So what they are saying now is: 'oh its on the list and that is why its liable' - irrational, especially as they cannot show you where the definitions are or how the obligation arises ... The commercial argument is correct like what Webby did, but that will not work in Court, because it switches the burden of proof back on you if you make that claim, same with the Domestic property argument they have a trick to get around that, so it is the questions asked of them that proves they have no standing ...but again this is all hypothesis as the Court if biased will simply shove the Councils claim through if it can, same as the VTE tribunal, its a dog and pony show when the decision is already made in advance.
But you know that anyway i am sure, they were caught breaking the Magistrates Court rules in earlier hearings which is why they had to re-adjourn to get the DJ in so he could shove it through under a new issue before the court. Dirty games.

I personally think they have misinterpreted the definition of unincorporated
as being the wo/man
I've looked in a couple of law dictionaries and thats not my comprehention.
Also there are over 20 references in the Bible warning against being a person,
(see the Know who you are thread)

Sadly it only takes an few minuets to show peoples level on comprehension of whats going on, these two well need i say any more, unless their is some other reason they are trying to misled people, i have to admit i stopped at 8.29 was getting to painful to listen to.