Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Scott Sando

British Tax Protesters Arrest Judge In Act Of “Lawful Rebellion”

Recommended Posts



British Tax Protesters Arrest Judge In Act Of “Lawful Rebellion”


Birth of British Tea Party? Chaotic scenes as police clash with demonstrators

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, March 8, 2011

For those wondering whether we can expect to see anything like the scenes witnessed in Egypt coming to America or the United Kingdom, the actions of British protesters who engaged in “lawful rebellion” by attempting to arrest a judge yesterday could herald the beginning of a new tax revolt to rival the infamous poll tax riots of 1990.



Just as the 2009 town hall confrontations gave birth to the modern incarnation of the Tea Party in the United States, with the organization having its early origins in the 2007 End the Fed protests involving Ron Paul supporters, could yesterday’s events herald the beginning of a massive tax revolt movement set to sweep the UK?

There were chaotic scenes as around 600 activists from the British Constitution Group massed around Birkenhead county court chanting “freedom,” and “arrest that judge” as police with riot dogs attempted to hold them back.

Protesters stormed the courtroom and civilly arrested Judge Michael Peake before escorting him from the building. Peake was eventually wrestled away from protesters by police as the activists chanted, “Do your job” to the police. Dozens more police arrived to set up blockades and numerous protesters were arrested.

Peake was ruling on a case involving Roger Hayes, former member of UKIP, who has refused to pay council tax, both as a protest against the government’s treasonous activities in sacrificing Britain to globalist interests and as a result of Hayes clearly proving that council tax is illegal.

Hayes has embarked on an effort to legally prove that the enforced collection of council tax by government is unlawful because no contract has been agreed between the individual and the state. His argument is based on the sound legal principle that just like the council, Hayes can represent himself as a third party in court and that “Roger Hayes” is a corporation and must be treated as one in the eyes of the law.

“As he emerged from the court surrounded by his supporters, Mr Hayes said: ‘The judges are breaking the law in their own courts. I asked him [Mr Peake] if he was serving under his oath of office,” reports the Daily Mail.

“I asked three times for him to confirm this and he refused, so I civilly arrested the judge and I called upon some people in the court to assist me in this,” Hayes said.

“They were acting lawfully and the police should not have arrested them.”

“Made up of people from across the UK, the marchers say they are exerting their “ancient right to lawful Rebellion under Article 16 of Magna Carta,” reported the Wirral Globe.

Raymond Saintclair, who organised the Birkenhead protest said: “Today was day one. This is going to happen again and again and again. We have sent a message to this court as one nation and one voice until change comes.”


In a statement carried on the group’s website, Common Law is cited as a means through which lawful rebellion will be conducted to address “political treason and criminality being imposed on the law-abiding people of the British Isles.”

“It is clear, beyond all reasonable doubt and with evidence that would stand up in any properly-conducted court of law, that an influential network of rogue British politicians across the parties is unlawfully involved in carrying out the hidden strategies and agendas of a centuries-old, secretive and criminal global elite who are seeking the imposition of unlawful global governance on the unsuspecting peoples of the world. Known broadly by researchers as the New World Order (NWO) – though some refer to them as the Illuminati or Zionists (please note that this does not mean Judaism) – the modus operandi of these powerful traitors and criminals is now clear for all to see,” reads the statement.

The group lists the Committee of 300, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Club of Rome as just some of the organizations who control “Subservient and compartmentalised national networks of influential politicians, industrialists, campaigning groups, charities and key individuals in trusted positions.”

The British Constitution Group and the movement of “lawful rebellion” is strongly supported by Brian Gerrish, a former Royal Navy Lieutenant Commander who publishes the UK Column newspaper, which documents how Britain is being destroyed by globalist interests as well as the insidious “Common Purpose” organization which has infiltrated every level of British society.

Yesterday’s events will send a clear shot across the bow of the British government, which is currently engaged in aggressive austerity measures involving cuts to public services as well as tax hikes. In March 1990, London was hit with massive tax riots in scenes dubbed the “Battle of Trafalgar,” as demonstrators raged against the infamous poll tax that was eventually abolished after millions of Brits refused to pay it, a sequence of events that many attributed to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher who resigned as Prime Minister in November the same year.

Poll tax was replaced with council tax, which took into account people’s ability to pay based on the value of their home. However, council tax rates have consistently risen over the rate of inflation even as the British people feel more and more misrepresented by the national government based in London and local governments that have been completely consumed by the agenda of Common Purpose to the detriment of their own constituents.





This is an amazing live show recording events as they happen at the court house with phoned in messages from on the ground and connecting in to other shows with people on the ground at the event, loads of police acting agressively outside of the law.

Link

This is the rebelion against the corrupt bankers/politician/judges you were looking for and whats more its all lawfull and its our birth right as English men, the time is now to act against those who would destroy our land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not just the scousers its people from all over the UK who want to stand against corruption.

Theres some philosophically confused idiots about, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come across these somewhat pedantic arguments about the validity of Council Tax, (and presumably other tax) before.

I guess that if they are not lawful, then the law can be changed in the House of Commons to make them lawful? I make no judgement here as to the correctness of the judges decision here or not.

However, If I was da Boss, I would levy a tax of some sort on property, probably a progressive Land Value Tax. Would that too fall foul of the pedants?

What worries me about this, is are the people who are protesting doing so in order to avoid paying this tax, or to try and change the law to get it on to a proper footing to allow the tax to be raised? If it is the latter, they may have a point. If it is the former, they are little better than the Bilderberg group that they appear to be protesting against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Hayes – Rise like lions – Council Tax Lawful Rebellion – Judge arrested

Published: 08/03/2011

The main audio reporting for the duration of todays’ events pushed the technological limit. Live bursts from the scene and commentary: Universally Aware Blog Talk Radio show

Roger Hayes of The British Constitution Group has long questioned the legitimacy of the council tax. Specifically, he asks how can one be made to perform – as in become legally obliged, to perform certain actions (payment) without a form of contract taking place?

Duly understood, a contract must have a signature of the parties’ agreement. This has been Roger’s key to unlocking the fraud from the get-go. There is no signature on any contract, therefore no agreement, therefore no debt and no jurisdiction without c-o-n-s-e-n-t. Period. The end. Winning. Duh.

The court cannot proceed as there is no debt, no case and no jurisdiction to hold Roger accountable under. The trick as we know involves steamrollering or getting Roger to consent to answering to ‘State your name’ – therefore agreeing to represent the corporate fiction on which the Judge operates. The trustee to the trust. The strawman. The birth certificate. The corporate you. Et-freaking-cetera. MR ROGER HAYES – a legal appelation or entity which can be held under Admiralty jurisiction and CONtract law, ancient mystery religion sacrifical voodoo law. Complicated shit which enslaves us through our ingnorance to the deception. Not any more.

Roger Hayes, nailing a previous hearing, forced the judge to demand the prosecution prepare their case adequately. He did so by repeadetly insisting on the fraudulent nature of the proceedings based upon invalid summonses. He insisted on remaining outside the Jurisdiction of the court and did so. Read the Full story on UK Column >

People Enter the Fake McCourt for justice 'n' fries

The court hearing today (7th March 2011) has bought some interesting consequences for the courtroom staff, police, media and one judge of Birkenhead at the County court. 500+ protestors, organised by a collaborative effort of alternative media websites and social networking sites assembled outside the courthouse after meeting at Hamilton Square.

Hundreds more people turned up and hung around outside the court chanting

Various newspapers from the area have covered the events that proceeded:

Wirral Globe

Liverpool Echo

[And websites:

World Freeman Society

RedandWhiteKop

Truth Hunter

The protest outside the courthouse remained largely peaceful and the message of lawful rebellion is truly manifesting. It is about numbers. It is about solidarity. It is about looking after one another and doing what is right to remove this corporate parasite by denying it the power to operate any more. That power is the peoples’ agreement. Do you agree? Or do you peacefully remove your consent? Lawful Rebellion is an idea. It was birthed by TPUC and John Harris. It has now spread throughout the island where beacons are lighting up everywhere. This year we must come together and stick up for one another. Fear will enslave us, Love will set us free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come across these somewhat pedantic arguments about the validity of Council Tax, (and presumably other tax) before.

I guess that if they are not lawful, then the law can be changed in the House of Commons to make them lawful? I make no judgement here as to the correctness of the judges decision here or not.

However, If I was da Boss, I would levy a tax of some sort on property, probably a progressive Land Value Tax. Would that too fall foul of the pedants?

What worries me about this, is are the people who are protesting doing so in order to avoid paying this tax, or to try and change the law to get it on to a proper footing to allow the tax to be raised? If it is the latter, they may have a point. If it is the former, they are little better than the Bilderberg group that they appear to be protesting against.

Hmm, I have a bit more sympathy than that. If the basis for levying the tax is not consistent with the fundamental legal system in the country, it ought to be stopped and changed. Remember you can be put in the slammer over council tax, so at the very least its legal foundations should be rock solid. If not, something else should be considered.

It's also fair to say that Council tax is one of the most controversial around, especially given rises in recent years, local waste, massively paid execs etc etc. No doubt it's this which has driven the proper examination of it. I think a different system could be employed which has more accountability and much less scope for abuse by underscrutinised local party deadbeats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Hayes - The British Constitution Group

You can imagine the scene: The Chief Executive of the council is advised by his legal team that their court case against the council tax rebel (me) is unwinnable lawfully because I have exposed the fact that the council have been breaking the law by issuing their own summonses... the summons is the foundation of their case and fraudulent evidence is inadmissible in a court of law, so the case must be thrown out. The legal team advise to withdraw the claim. The Chief Executive ponders the problem... potentially all previous liability orders will be adjudged unlawful... claims against the council will amount to millions of pounds... poor families will benefit... the council, to save face and money, win this case... by fair means or foul... lawful or unlawful, not forgetting of course that his £200,000 salary plus expenses depends upon it. The Chief Executive clears his room and he picks up the phone... he puts in a call and makes contact (via ‘the network’) with the judicial arm of ‘the club’ and he calls in a favour.

The Chief Executive calls his legal team back into the room... he tells them to proceed with the case, regardless of the fraudulent evidence, he is confident the council will win.

The next day in the court... District Judge ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ is strategically allocated the hearing of the council tax rebel... who has turned up with 20 witnesses. This is not good for the judge as independent witnesses can bear testimony to ‘dubious’ (some would say corrupt) judgments.

What Actually Happened?District Judge ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’’ ordered that the defendant be restricted to 2 only witnesses and that the hearing would take place in chambers and not in a public court. Being in chambers, this gives the Judge license to ignore or consider virtually any evidence he feels fit... this type of hearing is now common-place in our system of so-called justice and allows judges to come to any verdict they like – regardless of the law... it is more an administrative process than justice... and comes to us courtesy of the European Union.

This administrative wheeze is now a regular feature of our newly created legal system... in my view it is judicial corruption with bells on. Being fully aware of what is being orchestrated... ‘the defendant’ (me) insisted that the hearing must be a public hearing and that ALL witnesses must be admitted, as is their right, to see that justice is done (or not as the case may be) – the Judge relented, but then demanded that all witnesses give their names ? I asked why... and whether his demand was a lawful... which of course it was not. This is an example of the ‘make-it-up-as-you-go’ justice that the European system brings. My witnesses declined to give their names, as was their right to do so... and we all entered anyway. Do not be afraid to insist on your rights... they are far too keen to take them away.

The issue here of course ... is how ‘neutral’ is a judge that I have just challenged and humiliated? I was soon to find out and more barracking with the judge was unavoidable.

On entering the court, I claimed common law jurisdiction... as is my right. The demeanour of the judge changed. In a common law court the judge has to be impartial and consider all the evidence submitted by both parties... in the European system the judge cherry picks. I asked the judge if he was acting under his oath of office (confirming it as a common law court)... he ignored me and quickly turned to the council representative to hear their evidence – I interceded knowing full well that ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ had every intention of steamrolling this hearing to a pre-determined conclusion – i.e. in favour of the council. For the next 20 minutes I repeatedly asked the so-called judge if he was acting under his oath of office... he ignored, prevaricated, made a series of meaningless comments, such as he had been a judge for 12 years – but he would not answer the question. The reason? Because acting under his oath requires that he consider the law... not under oath and he was merely an arbiter and as such he could apply ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along- judgements’ - which in my view is a denial of the due process of law – and a denial of our right to justice.

So we called the police. As far as we were concerned here was an individual refusing to confirm his oath of office and thus an individual masquerading as a judge. The court officials who have no idea what has been going on under their very noses didn’t know what to do – their cosy routine was being challenged and they had no understanding of the law on which to counter our assertions. Let’s be clear about what the court officials should be doing – they should be directing court proceedings in accordance with the law and not in accordance with arbitrary rulings by judges... to ensure that one party in a hearing does not find themselves in conflict with a judge merely because they are asserting their rights. Judges have no business getting involved in the proceedings of the court - they should remain neutral.

The buzz in the court building was that somebody had just called the police claiming that someone was masquerading as a judge. The police duly arrived and two young and very confused police constables, clearly out of their depth, listened to what I and my witnesses and the so-called judge had to say and stampeded out of the court room as quickly as they had arrived – leaving us all to sort it out ourselves. At this point we could have walked out leaving Mr ‘Fixit-it-for-the-council’ to make whatever unlawful rulings he chose... we knew where it was going... and it wasn’t heading towards a just outcome, but I was intrigued to see just how far ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ was prepared to go to pervert the course of justice. What happened then was representative of what is happening up and down the country in our newly created European Union law system (Corpus Juris)... to cut a long story short... all the fraudulent evidence provided by the council was allowed, all my evidence (including letter-headed evidence from a magistrates court) was dismissed.

The reader may be getting the idea that the system is stacked against us and you would be right... and it is for this reason that it must be challenged. We want our courts dealing with justice not acting as a revenue collecting tool for the government and local councils, whose remit seems to be to take as much money from us as they can get away with. Excessive and unreasonable speeding and parking fines are just two examples of oppressive regulations that are making our lives a misery. Overzealous officialdom is the scourge of our lives and it needs to be put firmly back in its box. They are supposed to serve us not oppress us.

It Is Up To Us To Make A StandI will say it again... as I have said from the very beginning of my protest - I am happy to pay my council tax... provided that it is subject to a lawful contract, the imposition of which would bring power back to the people.

District Judge ‘Mr-fixit-for-the-council’ then made his order that I pay £2000 to the council or be made bankrupt. He did concede one thing to me (if you can call it a concession) ... which is that I can claim my money back if I can demonstrate that the council documents were fraudulent. What is strange about this concession is that the judge had the opportunity there and then to prove it himself... by simply asking the stony-faced council team sitting in front of him if the council produced its own summonses (which they do) and which are unlawful - and the judge would then have had to have found in my favour - but remember... that wasn’t the outcome that had been agreed. The judges concession is of course meaningless - it would require that I launch a time consuming and expensive counter claim that the council would defend with a team of barristers – at taxpayer’s expense.... and would, we have to ask ourselves, the phone be picked up to arrange a suitable judgement for that hearing too?

Should I give in to judicial corruption and coercion and a virtual dictatorship by council edicts... or should I tell them what to do with their European system of so-called justice and their unlawful demands for money? There comes a time when we all have to decide... do we give in or do we fight on.

"Evil prospers when good men do nothing." Good men and women are trying to do something – and we need your help and support. WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW - TODAY.

Please join The British Constitution Group and/or make a donation.

It would be enormously appreciated.

Please consider this... we are fighting for your interest also... If we win... your life will improve - that we can promise. Supporting us will make a real difference to justice and our freedoms.

To find out what I decide to do... give in or fight on - read the next issue.

On the 7th March there is a mass gathering of council tax rebels... At Hamilton Square – Birkenhead. Please come and join us. Call me for more details. 0781 352 9383

"as I have said from the very beginning of my protest - I am happy to pay my council tax... provided that it is subject to a lawful contract, the imposition of which would bring power back to the people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the basis of council tax is dodgy how many other taxes etc etc are on dodgy legal foundations - probably quite a lot.

Indeed their foundations should be clearly and indisputably on a firm basis and it appears that some of them aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[i do not want to spend yet another decade, paying tens of thousands of pounds in rent, toward someone else's mortgage, and retirement.]

So when and where are 'Priced Out FTB' going to protest?

[Yes this would actually mean standing up from in front of the PC, and going somewhere in the car. No? Didnt think so........:lol:]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess that if they are not lawful, then the law can be changed in the House of Commons to make them lawful?

No they cannot because the house of commons only has the power to issue statute. I has no power to make law. Law is only made by the collective decisions of countless juries. The purpose of statute is to look at that case law and formulate a general principle. Where no body of case law exists they are acting ultra vires in issuing a statute.

The crack they seek to reopen is the difference between justice and law. If you sit on a jury these days the chances are you will lead to believe that you are there to examine the facts and return a "did it or didn't do it" decision. Yet this is not the function of a jury. A jury is there to examine the justice of the case. Thus a jury may decide that the defendant did indeed do it, but that he was justified in his actions. In which case they should return a verdict of "Not guilty". The question each juror should be asking is "would I have done different if I was in his place", if you would have done the same, it is "Not guilty".

Governments try to hide this fact from the populace. They make what they call laws and where juries exist they are simply expected to rubber stamp their decisions. They hate the idea of people making law themselves because this would rob them of power. Yet the advantage of case law is clear. It is a mechanism that developed to oppose to tyranny. The people themselves choose what laws they will live under according their sense of justice. Not some bunch of elites wishing to engage in social engineering, profit, or protection of vested interests. I find it amusing when I hear the BBC now refer to MPs as "lawmakers", it's all part of the brainwashing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the BBC's effort on the story:

Intruders have tried to arrest a judge after storming into a courtroom on Merseyside.

The activists went into the room at Birkenhead County Court while about 300 protesters gathered outside the building.

The incident is believed to be related to a bankruptcy hearing at the court.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said police were called to deal with the incident and the intruders had since left the building.

Streets surrounding the courtroom have been closed.

A leaflet handed out by the demonstrators said they were trying to seize the building "in defence of our freedoms and liberties as provided for under section 61 of Magna Carta".

Merseyside Police said two people had been arrested for assaulting police and breach of the peace, while four others had been arrested for breach of the peace.

More shoddy pravda reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they cannot because the house of commons only has the power to issue statute. I has no power to make law. Law is only made by the collective decisions of countless juries. The purpose of statute is to look at that case law and formulate a general principle. Where no body of case law exists they are acting ultra vires in issuing a statute.

The crack they seek to reopen is the difference between justice and law. If you sit on a jury these days the chances are you will lead to believe that you are there to examine the facts and return a "did it or didn't do it" decision. Yet this is not the function of a jury. A jury is there to examine the justice of the case. Thus a jury may decide that the defendant did indeed do it, but that he was justified in his actions. In which case they should return a verdict of "Not guilty". The question each juror should be asking is "would I have done different if I was in his place", if you would have done the same, it is "Not guilty".

Governments try to hide this fact from the populace. They make what they call laws and where juries exist they are simply expected to rubber stamp their decisions. They hate the idea of people making law themselves because this would rob them of power. Yet the advantage of case law is clear. It is a mechanism that developed to oppose to tyranny. The people themselves choose what laws they will live under according their sense of justice. Not some bunch of elites wishing to engage in social engineering, profit, or protection of vested interests. I find it amusing when I hear the BBC now refer to MPs as "lawmakers", it's all part of the brainwashing.

+1 they are also slowly removing the right to trail by jury, so you end up infront of some corrupt judge and not your peers, luckly as a English man you have the right to trial by jury, claim it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the BBC's effort on the story:

More shoddy pravda reporting.

Don't worry this is building all over the land now ,people are claiming their common law rights, me and a group of friends have already taken such action, we are in revolt against the corrupt cash cow which the courts have become, they are acting like mobsters running a protection racket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) ruled that Ministers should repay profits on their second homes. However, that only applies to gains from November 2009!

So HPI was all cream for our elected officials

Ministers should have repaid all Personal Profits on second homes backdated to 1997 or the beginning of their tenure.

Ministers have been barred from making any further personal profits. Yet they used our money to profit, and paid no tax on the gains.

This also created a dangerous conflict of interest that meant that Ministers were voting for policies which fed the house price bubble and also generated personal profits for them, [ in secret ] Such as keeping IR too low for too long. Lowering CGT etc

That is market manipulation. Far worse than insider trading.

Why have no politicians been arrested? Is that a criminal act, or an immoral act?

Under Common law, as taxpayers, can we enter these Ministers houses, and seize their properties?

A sit in, for a few hours, chaining ourselves to the radiators?

[That would be Frank Spencer comedy gold]

*My own Labour minister completely ignored my emails for years asking about house prices, before she turned up on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, for flipping houses, making over £200k in profit, then retiring.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) ruled that Ministers should repay profits on their second homes. However, that only applies to gains from November 2009! Ministers should repay all Personal Profits second homes backdated to 1997 or the beginning of their tenure.

If not, why not?

Ministers have been barred from making any further personal profits.

Ministers used our money to profit, and paid no tax on the gains.

This also created a dangerous conflict of interest that meant that Ministers were voting for policies which fed the house price bubble and also generated personal profits for them, [ in secret ] Such as keeping IR too low for too long. Lowering CGT etc

That is market manipulation. Far worse than insider trading.

Why have no politicians been arrested? Is that a criminal act, or an immoral act?

Under Common law, as taxpayers, can we enter these Ministers houses, and seize their properties?

A sit in, for a few days, chaining ourselves to the radiators?

[Now that would be f@rkin funny]

*My own Labour minister completely ignored my emails for years asking about house prices, before she turned up on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, for flipping houses, making over £200k in profit, then retiring.....

Its your duty to arrest them, and in good time we shall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its your duty to arrest them, and in good time we shall.

We should all gang together in groups of twenty, and go and break into our respective ministers homes, and chain ourselves to their radiators. All on the same day. Loads of cameras. All over the country.

Wednesday afternoons are normally a good day for me......

What kind of resistance could we expect?

I am in a Tory constituency, so I dont know if his Other Half would politely serve us with a cup of tea, as we kicked the door in, or start hitting us with a broom, and screaming that we were peasants?

She may answer the door with a paper bag on her head as some tory wives are prone to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should all gang together in groups of twenty, and go and break into our respective ministers homes, and chain ourselves to their radiators. All on the same day. Loads of cameras. All over the country.

Breaking in would be a common law crime with a common law prison sentence, maybe their surgeries thou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking in would be a common law crime with a common law prison sentence, maybe their surgeries thou.

Mmmm. Not so sure about that. They would just go home and leave us alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.