Council tax and summons for arrest

by stile1 Wed Feb 07, 2024 4:57 pm

Hi all old user here but new name

Ok I have been summoned before the magistrates court for non payment and 4 liability orders attached.

Spoke to the council they said they are summoning me in a bulk process.

1. I hears the liability orders were a rubber stamp process by the council and had no authority. That's why all the debt collectors are dropping them really fast as they can be arrested and imprisoned as they have no authority.

2. Spoke to court. They said council were summoning me not them. And it was a bulk process.

3. I thought bulk processing was Illegal. As with the liability orders. But they were happy for the council to do it.

Ok am I right about the liability orders having no authority and the bulk processing bieing Illegal / unlawful please?

by flyingfish Wed Feb 07, 2024 8:58 pm

stile1 wrote:3. I thought bulk processing was Illegal. As with the liability orders. But they were happy for the council to do it.

Ok am I right about the liability orders having no authority and the bulk processing bieing Illegal / unlawful please?

I don't think anyone has proved it to be illegal, or at least not to the satisfaction of the legal and enforcement systems which is what matters. You do sometimes see reports along the lines of "it's illegal but they go ahead and do it anyway", but really in terms of the actual effect those are pretty meaningless.

The recent news was the Leighton case in which it was found that bailiffs could not act on instruction solely form the council, rather thsn from the court. This may have further knock on effects on the whole process, but it's important to remember that claim wasn't against the council or against anyone but the bailiffs.

by **Lopsum** Wed Feb 07, 2024 10:18 pm

ive had one every year since 2010/11 . when i got the first one i rang the court and found it was BS . Ive had 5 or 6 visits from various DC's more so in the first few years, ive been threatened with committal to prison so i went to the councils main man for CT and threatened him back and told him the process was unlawful (i think thats the correct word rather than illegal) and that the court said it was nothing to do with them and they had no record of my name
I wrote his name on a piece of paper and said i was keeping it for when the revolution comes lol. he was a little worried, i think he left shortly after, dont know if that was anything to do with me.

i think the "commital to prison" was in 2019 if irc, but i never had to go to court for some reason... cherry

by stile1 Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:31 am

When I spoke to the council she sounded if she was not 100% confident in her/ thier process when I told her the liability orders were from the council and not worth the paper they were written on as there was no authority.
Court did say it was a bulk process but the name was on there

by stile1 Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:36 am

flyingfish wrote:

The recent news was the Leighton case in which it was found that bailiffs could not act on instruction solely form the council, rather thsn from the court. This may have further knock on effects on the whole process, but it's important to remember that claim wasn't against the council or against anyone but the bailiffs.

Yes I believe it was because the council liability orders were from them not the court as the bailiffs were acting without and authority

by stile1 Fri Feb 09, 2024 1:33 pm

hi all... an update

i use A4V on all the the "Bills" all 5 of them. with this message.

"Dear Sir / Madam

Please find attached full settlement of account 41050825 as noted on the letter dated 20th January 2024.

I give you five days of the date of this email, to respond with a stamen of settlement. OR your legal reasons for not accepting this A4V.

Many thanks

Qui tacet conentit"

their response'...
"Liability for council tax is determined by the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the subsequent regulations. It is not contingent upon a person’s consent or the existence of a contractual relationship with the council.

I can confirm we do not accept the attached “full settlement” of account ..... nor your exemption of the levy.

You remain liable for the outstanding balance of £6,229.20 and will be required to attend the hearing dated ... at the Magistrates Court."

As you can see, she totally ignored the legal objection part. so i no see it as they have agreed to accept in siliance.

do I turn up and stat it has been settled in full as per the emails or do i now just ignore them ?

by **LionsShare** Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:16 pm

stile1 the choice is yours, but as evidenced by all so far even those who do actually know a thing or 2 it gets ignored. The peacekeepers have last year in 1 of thier vids have proved from decisions handed down, there is no contract or agreement & its simply a DEMAND - as in, dick turpin - stand & deliver, theft.

Total corruption IMO & fraud on a massive scale. In this thread & others here on goodf & from peacekeepers & others it appears very very few if any are getting remedy & the whole effort or practices of those who are in these councils do not follow thier own procedures & only do what benefits them.

by all means research the 'consolidated fund' apparently that's where ALL taxes go as well as parking & speed tickets etc - to pay the public debt. It may be the case what the councils collect, do NOT profit from, & from the 'consolidated fund' get those funds redistributed from the gov't?

just my pen'orth

LS

by **LionsShare** Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:17 pm

regarding A4V too that now gets ignored as I have found out with utils.

its possible own status change is what's required (get away for the Mr, Mrs etc) but how do you do that?

if you can find the audio recordings of 'Christian Walters' may be the answer? Moving titles in commerce - we are seen as an implied corporation which we do not have the right to use?

if you can find the threads here on goodf called 'know who you are' that will give some idea

by **urchinatheart** Fri Apr 05, 2024 8:38 am

There seem to be different ways being tried. Peacekeepers are looking for a contract but as LionsShare suggests, our status as Named persons seems to be sufficient as they are assuming that we are using our homes for business puposes.
Of course, a private company using public resources for a profit should pay for that privilege.
How to show up as a man not a citizen/implied corporation ?
We have been ignorant of how to correct our status lawfully, but some are doing it.
This man is learning how and helping us.

by **LionsShare** Fri Apr 05, 2024 11:40 am

urchinatheart wrote:There seem to be different ways being tried. Peacekeepers are looking for a contract but as LionsShare suggests, our status as Named persons seems to be sufficient as they are assuming that we are using our homes for business puposes.
Of course, a private company using public resources for a profit should pay for that privilege.
How to show up as a man not a citizen/implied corporation ?
We have been ignorant of how to correct our status lawfully, but some are doing it.

totally urchin.

I'm now seriously wondering if as we are still in a largly paper based system going 'digital', we have to do things via the remedy THEY offer us? Because even with this info now out there getting everyone to walk away is too much of an effort.

So in doing it 'THIER way' we would have to get paperwork to the effect 'here I'm free'. The answer I think may be an enrolled deed poll from RCJ? Why because the CCOE we have is not to be ID'd with & crown copy right. Even though we would be seen as a 'PERSON' with type 'c' on p'port we would have sort of cliamed the name of... & therefore sort of have equitable title to that name (lawful cert as oppose to legal cert). Equity follows 'law' but gives remedy & triumphs over law when either there is a conflict or no remedy.

Its just a start on the step ladder to I suppose Fee Simple but more over a man able to stand a man.

Comments please.

by flyingfish Fri Apr 05, 2024 5:17 pm

urchinatheart wrote:There seem to be different ways being tried. Peacekeepers are looking for a contract but as LionsShare suggests, our status as Named persons seems to be sufficient as they are assuming that we are using our homes for business puposes.

That seems to be an idea that keeps cropping up, the idea that Council Tax only applies to business premises. Where does that come from, given that the legislation says the opposite?

by **daveiron** Fri Apr 05, 2024 10:09 pm

A remedy may be almost impossible shortly if we continue to use banks, watch this video;

by **daveiron** Fri Apr 05, 2024 11:45 pm

FF, would you care to comment on this ,as it contradicts your beliefs ? From 16.40 onward.

by **urchinatheart** Sat Apr 06, 2024 12:04 am

I have some questions. For LionsShare, what does CCOE stand for ?
For Flying Fish, the Local Government Finance Act seems to get very murky, what with 'deemed' and hereditaments and composite private dwellings. Can it not simply say 'any structure that is a home for humans' ? Is there any other legislation you can suggest that is clearer for us simpletons ?
I think this work of looking for ourselves in legislation is an important part of re-deeming, so I appreciate all the help and ideas.

by flyingfish Sat Apr 06, 2024 8:01 am

daveiron wrote:FF, would you care to comment on this ,as it contradicts your beliefs ? From 16.40 onward.

Reading the transcript he is pretty much doing exactly as I described, reading and misunderstanding LGFA S3..

I admit that it might be an easier read if it pulled the definition "dwelling-house" directly from the 1967 act, or contained it's own fully standalone definition. However it's pretty straightforward if you read it in order and consider whether each term does or does not apply to a specific property.

by **LionsShare** Sat Apr 06, 2024 12:26 pm

urchinatheart wrote:I have some questions. For LionsShare, what does CCOE stand for ?

Certified Copy of Entry (your b'cert but actually not because it does not say Birth' Cert' on it) long version the short is the actual b'cert because it states on it

by **LionsShare** Sat Apr 06, 2024 12:34 pm

this could be the start of something good for c'tax? Time will tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXK1KUulOME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpnh65smu44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6D1QulHXuI

by flyingfish Sat Apr 06, 2024 5:21 pm

This is worth a quick read. Although his remarks ae obiter thy give a general rundown of Liability Order processing and how they can escalate to a charging order. It goes on to outline the methods by which these can be challenged or defended.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/685.html

by **urchinatheart** Mon Apr 08, 2024 11:18 am

Thank you both. A Certified Copy of an Entry into or onto what ? From some sources it seems we have omitted to take certain steps necessary to release us from some implied agreement we are at present ignorant of.
Since our very presence on earth (according to Bible) comes with freedom of choice whether or not to 'bind' or 'prostitute' ourselves suggests that somewhere or somehow we can choose otherwise. In fact, as I read the teachings and parables nowadays this 'unbinding' seems to be its main message and purpose throughout. IF our law system is Bible-based, there must be recognition of, and provision for our lawful status being changed by our own actions.

by **urchinatheart** Mon Apr 08, 2024 11:24 am

Also, thank you for the link to the KOFA vs KING case.
While still 'bound' it makes sense to explore the ways in which subjects can find help from the courts, who seem very keen to harm defendants as little as possible (provided they know all the rules) in this document.

by **LionsShare** Mon Apr 08, 2024 2:44 pm

urchinatheart wrote:Thank you both. A Certified Copy of an Entry into or onto what ? From some sources it seems we have omitted to take certain steps necessary to release us from some implied agreement we are at present ignorant of.

Too true. Regarding the 'entry', it turns out, of 'birth' - that takes 2 main guises meaning 'birth' is both live & still born, to indicate still born the word 'still' is added.

Yes we are ignorant as oppose to nescient, but from others & thanks mainly to Rom Stewart & Rohan Lorian more info is coming out all the time. All that's needed now is to correct any assumptions & deliberate mistakes already made.

The enrolled deed pole is just 1 way I think to start the correction process?.

by Sponsored content

Council tax and summons for arrest

Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

c'tax the great theft

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest

Re: Council tax and summons for arrest