FANTASTIC ANSWER TO THE COUNCIL FROM MY CONTACT Darren Nesbit: Dear sir/ madam, In response to your alleged summons above, i will not be taking you up on your offer and will not be attending ‘rochdale and bury magistrate’s court on 12th of December. By attending, i would be agreeing to pretend to be the legal fiction created by my birth certificate, ‘MR DARREN NESBIT’ and therefore accepting all charges and liabilities that go along with ‘being’ said fictional straw man arising from its employment with the United Kingdom Corporation. i am not a ‘person’ (defined as ‘body or bodies incorporate’ by the Interpretation Act 1889,) i am in fact a living, breathing human being, and therefore refute all liability and deny all consent. You should note some things before continuing in your process. the document/ invitation (summons) sent to me is fraudulent – by impersonating a genuine Court you are liable to prosecution under the 1911 Perjury Act for fraud and perjury, and under the Administration of Justice Act 1970. anyone other than a Court who issues a notice which appears to be a summons which has been issued by a Court is breaking the law. No due process has been followed and the whole thing is a facade. Furthermore, the court itself is unlawful: “there is our judicial system deriving from the Crown as the source and fountain of justice. no Court can be set up in england, no Court can exist in england, except by the authority of the Queen and Parliament. that has been so ever since the Bill of Rights. Lord Denning HL Deb 08 October 1986 vol 480 cc 246-95. Anyone participating in such a fraudulent court can be reported to the Queen’s bench.Furthermore, by using a facsimile’d or photocopied signature and not a genuine wet-ink sign-of-nature on your alleged ‘summons,’ you are not only committing fraud and perjury again (“i, the undersigned..”) but this also proves that not each case is reviewed individually by the court clerk to consider as is required by law, and is in fact a ‘bulk hearing’ ‘rubber stamping’ exercise for bury mbc (dun & bradstreet company registration no 216240997,) in order that it can continue its business of extorting money from local inhabitants. “we will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.” Magna Carta clause 45. Furthermore, when the corporate councils take public funds for their private pensions, debt interest, expense accounts, corporate promotion and so on, and do not list such expenditure in the accounts, they are committing the serious crimes of fraud, misappropriation of public funds, embezzlement, misconduct in public office, and breach of public trust.Furthermore, any attempts to engage third parties to help enforce false and fraudulent orders (again fraudulently impersonating genuine Court documents) will be treated as just that – conspiracy to extort money, an offense under the Fraud Act 2006. you are not holding a Court of any kind of natural justice, and you will not be sending a certified court bailiff to recover any ‘debt;’ you will be contracting with a third-party debt collection agency who may pretend to be court bailiffs, again fraud by misrepresentation under the Fraud Act 2006 (section 2.) these are private companies that exist for the sole purpose of extortion, and each and every person who engages in harassment, fraud and violence or intimidation of violence will be prosecuted under the full force of law. You may want to investigate what exactly a private prosecution means and how it will affect your life.Furthermore, the Local Government Finance Act 1992, makes very clear that council tax is subject to agreement/contract directly, because it only applies (as defined in the Act) to non-domestic property (‘dwelling.’) this means that any liability for domestic property must be agreed upon and be subject to full disclosure and performance, as well as wet-mark signatures of both parties, to be lawful or legal. this also means that the corporate councils making demands with menaces (threatening fines and/or action by debt collectors) are acting totally unlawfully and illegally. For the purposes of clarification, Common Law is both anterior and superior to statute or man-made law, as defined in Oxford Dictionary of Law 5th edition, pp 326. Unless a crime against another being is committed, all cases are civil cases of contracts between parties, involving only acts and statutes. All contracts require consent between the parties involved. If you can somehow prove this is not the case, please provide proof. If you cannot distinguish between acts and statutes of parliament and Common Law, that constitutes negligence in office and a breach of public trust. Statutes are defined in Black’s law dictionary 3rd edition as ‘a legislated rule of society given the force of law by consent.’ That means to enforce statutes, you need my consent, and if you believe you have it then you should produce evidence to back up your claim. There is no law which says i have to pay council tax. There is only the Local Government Finance Act 1992 which as an act has no authority whatsoever without my consent. If you believe otherwise or that you have my consent then you should produce evidence. Yours with peace and honour.
Posted on: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:58:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015