“This is a brief overview of the recent showdown at Hereford Magistrates between Guy of the Taylor Family and the bloodsucking parasitic legal system. It has been written by our founder Veronica of the Chapman Family, and includes an audio footage of the court proceedings.
Hereford Magistrates Court – 17th October, 2011
This was a continuation of the previous adjournments – with added flavourings.
Guy had lodged two complaints:
- Against Herefordshire Council for taking him all the way to potential bankruptcy – be charging him on land he did not own – and then withdrawing at the very last minute … but leaving behind a trail of shit comprising Solicitor’s costs to be paid, and the claim by Michael Horne/Tim Robinson. Guy was charging the Council with “irregular distress”
- Against County Court Judge Nadeem Khan for rubber-stamping everything that led up to the Bankruptcy Petition, even when having been told that the charge was a fraudulent demand.
As usual, the Court tried to dump a curved ball at the outset. British Gas suddenly appeared on the scene, talking about an unpaid Electricity Bill for Bodenham Manor.
The problem with this Electricity Bill was that is was based on Business Rates, on the assumption that business was still being conducted at Bodenham Manor.
Unfortunately (for British Gas) no ‘business’ has been carried on at Bodenham since 2005. Consequently only a Domestic Rate Tariff is applicable on those apartments that remain inhabited.
When appraised of this … prior to the actual Court Hearing … British Gas withdrew their application, and realised that they actually owed Guy THOUSANDS … because (until recently) he’s been paying Business Rate Tariffs (since 2005).
So, after that matter had been cleared up (and the British Gas Representative went on his way – tail between legs) we actually got called into the Court.
It was a new Judge. One we had not seen before (Judge Cadbury).
We recorded the whole thing on a Dictaphone. At the moment this is only available in full – as a WAV File – via http://www.fmotl.com/Hearing17OCT2011HerefordMagistratesCourt.wav
I intend – as soon as possible – to shorten it to the salient points, and to explain what happened.
As a foretaste we can state that:
- Judge Cadbury had spent the previous weekend reading everything (he actually says so), and was pretty conversant with the whole situation. For this reason he was able to cut the Hereford Council’s Barrister to shreds at various times (much to our delight, of course!). (There is a delicious moment where she waffles & drones on … for what seems like ages … and Judge Cadbury says “Yes … but in the end, he [Guy] was right, and you were wrong … is that not so?”. She is unable to disagree).
- There are a number of ‘tasty bits’, which cause one’s mouth to water. Not least of which when Cadbury – having heard the quotation from Halsbury’s Laws of England … to the effect that his Court – and all the others are entirely UNLAWFUL … when he says “Is that in Halbury’s?”. Guy says “Yes”, and Cadbury responds “I can see that throwing up a few problems!”. (Surely the masterful understatement of the century?).
- One of the important bits is when (remember Cadbury has read up on the entire situation, and knows what has happened) he admits “This is probably all due to the crossed-wires that occurred when the Courts started to see Freemen-on-the-Land. And the Courts did not know how to react. And are slowly coming to terms with Freemen”. (That’s paraphrasing, not a direct quote … but that’s more-or-less what he said).
- Another tasty bit is when he tells Guy that he is going to refuse Guy’s application to have Nadeem Khan summonsed. It has been explained to Cadbury that, if he refuses to ‘do his duty’, then he [Cadbury] leaves himself open to prosecution. He says “I may go to prison for this, but I’m going to have to refuse this application … at this time. However, I do understand that – at a different time – you [Guy] may very well be right. I feel you should appeal my decision, because it would make quite a good Test Case”. (Once again, paraphrasing, listen to it yourself … at the end).
Breathtaking stuff. And there were other bits, which I’ll remember when I analyse the recording properly. (It’s very long … nearly 2 hours, including the 20-minute ‘retirement’ in between).
The matters dealt with were (in order):
- A. The so-called ‘motoring offence’. Result: Adjournment due to the fact that the Witness Statement starts: “On the 11th January, 2012 …”. There is a delicious moment when Cadbury reads this out, and says “Oh … that’s a good start!”. The Police Constable who wrote that statement will now have to appear in person. Guy is looking forward – with considerable glee – to this. (We were told, by the Inspector, that this Constable’s hair started falling out when Guy sent him a bill for £1,000 for the original arrest!)
- B. The failed Bankruptcy Petition .vs. Guy’s application for Irregular Distress. Guy says that – since the Council withdrew at the last moment, Guy is prepared to withdraw his petition. Result: All costs ‘mirrored’ … so no-one pays anyone anything (But Note: GUY HAS A LIEN ON THE BARRISTER!). There is quite a delicious moment when the Barrister has waffled on about her costs, and how Guy wasn’t ‘distressed’ because they didn’t send Bailiffs … just went straight for bankruptcy (in her little world that, presumably, doesn’t count as distressful) and Cadbury turns to Guy and says “Well, Guy, you must have had costs, as well, surely …”
- C. The Old Railway Sidings (the bit Guy still owns): Result: The Council told to re-value & re-bill. The Barrister’s costs were dismissed.
- D. Bodenham Manor Restaurant … which hasn’t been a restaurant for years, and for which the Council are claiming Business Rates. Result: Subject to Appeal on actual Rateable Value (domestic … affectively just floor space).
- E. Judge Cadbury was given chapter & verse on why this Court – and ALL Administrative Courts – carry no authority/force of Law. He didn’t really argue, except to say that he considered his Oath of Office entitled him to BOTH Common Law & Statute jurisdiction (BUT HE ADMITTED HE MIGHT BE WRONG!). Interestingly, Cadbury did ‘twig’ that – having declared the Court invalid, Guy then attempted to utilise it. Cadbury said “It seems you are happy to consider this Court lawful, when it suits you”. This was, of course, very astute, and very true. Guy’s response was equally valid, astute, and true: “You, yourselves, utilise this Court when it suits you, and then dip straight into Common Law when it suits you – by threatening Contempt of Court – which is a Common Law misdemeanour. So I’m only doing what you do!”. Judge Cadbury had no answer to that, and seemed content to carry on with the situation being described thereafter as ‘hybrid’.
During this hearing, Cadbury called Guy “Guy” … never once calling him “Mr. Taylor” (this Judge had obviously been prepped by Roger Harris, the Clerk of the Court!).
During the Hearing, Guy swigged from a bottle of Coca-Cola, and no-one said a word.
During the Hearing, the Barrister continually tried to bring up/mention the “Common Law Liens” … hoping (one presumes) to get a reaction from the Judge. (Guy has one against her, personally). Not once did the Judge react in the matter of the Liens. He treated it totally matter-of-fact. Presumably she was trying to prod Judge Cadbury to say that Guy’s Lien against her carries no force in Law (she obviously doesn’t know). To her obvious disappointment, he didn’t say a word.
[My own Lien against the psychopathic Bailiff in East Sussex has been passed in front of at least one Judge … who – it appears – also didn’t say a word. At the time of writing, I’ve received nothing back at all … specifically no ‘reprimand’, or whatever. In another case, Guy has a Lien against the Solicitor Michael Horne. Horne refers to it in his so-called “Witness Statement” when applying for an Injunction against Guy. Once again, the obvious effort was to encourage the Judge to dismiss the Lien. Unfortunately for Horne, the Judge in that case makes absolutely no mention of the Lien. If we get the impression “Judges just don’t want to know” I think we might have some justification. After all, the Liens do spell out precisely why “a Judge just wouldn’t want to know” … so it’s no secret].
There’s lots more.
Upon returning home, I found some letters from BT & Virgin (binned immediately) and a couple of Bank Statements PLUS a card from the Local Council informing me that I face CRIMINAL PROSECUTION if I don’t fill out the Electoral Roll Form for 2011.
I was disturbed by a LOUD knock on the door at about 10:30 am. I opened it, and the ‘face’ started up with “I’m from Hounslow Council …” so I said “Oh! Yes! I have a letter for you … just a minute!” … and closed the door. Then I quickly printed off what follows below, opened the door and gave it to him, saying “Come back when you’ve signed it”, and shut the door. (The Council will have to re-print all their cards, I think)
Here’s what I said:
Saturday, 22 October 2011.
Please ensure that whoever subsequently calls has filled out the enclosed Statement of Truth, by inserting their Name at the top (block capitals), and signing and dating it at the bottom.
Make sure they bring this Statement with them, signed as stated, as I will require a certified copy. Such an act will comprise a Tort against me, and I will therefore also require a Service Address for the Signee, since I will be taking out a Private Prosecution or Common Law Commercial Lien against them. In this situation I will be the corpus delecti, the crime will be one of ‘deception’ and ‘issuance of UNLAWFUL threats’ (Common Assault), and the signed Statement of Truth will comprise the evidence.
On the other hand, if you can’t even get that far (outside a Court), how far do you think you would get inside a Court?
Signed and sealed without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,
The Peaceful Inhabitant at the above-mentioned dwelling.
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Indefeasible Rights reserved, including all Media Rights.
PS It is not a good idea to bandy about threats of “criminal prosecutions” without actually knowing what the word “criminal” means, in Law. It just makes you look stupid.
Statement of Truth
I do hereby state, under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability:
THAT I am competent to state the matters herein and do take Oath as follows;
- THAT the matters stated herein are true, certain, and correct;
- THAT I have warned the Inhabitant at the dwelling known as: * * * * * * * * that they face criminal prosecution if they fail to provide the required information for the Electoral Roll year 2011;
- THAT I can quote the Law-of-the-Land (the Common Law) that obliges said Inhabitant to intercourse between Them Self and My Self (including the entity I represent);
- THAT I can prove the violation (specifically “failure to provide information”) is, indeed, a violation of the Common Law, and is indeed, a criminal act;
- THAT I fully and completely understand – before any charge can be brought – it must be firstly proved that the charge is valid in Law (otherwise I, myself, would be committing – or encouraging others to commit – a CRIMINAL TRESPASS on the Innate and Indefeasible Sovereignty of said Inhabitant);
- THAT I understand for a crime to have been committed it must be capable of being named in Law (‘theft’, ‘fraud’, ‘murder’, etc), and there must be an Injured Party (corpus delecti) which must comprise a Human Being (e.g. homicide) or Group of Human Beings (e.g. War Crimes, genocide). I state herein that I can name the crime, and can (as may be necessary, in Court) guarantee the corpus delecti will attend said Hearing, and will, as evidence, demonstrate the injuries sustained;
- THAT I understand ALL criminal acts (as opposed to mere Statutory violations) are the subject to the Common Law, and must (therefore) be proved in a Common Law Court. I understand that a Common Law Court comprises a Jury of 12 impartial people, and that evidence to convict must be sworn under penalty of perjury, based on first-hand knowledge, and evidence of guilt must be proved to criminal standards – namely “beyond reasonable doubt”;
Dated: _____________________________________________ “