Birkenhead Court Protest: Another View

I know I missed the boat on this one. I was in the air whilst most of the fun was happening.

This is one viewpoint I wanted to share, coming, as it does, from Veronica: Chapman. Veronica understands this subject like almost no-one else and the account below is chock-full of good information.

This piece is taken from here.

Here you go:

Background

Roger: of the Hayes family (as commonly called) was summonsed for unpaid Council Tax. He fought this through a number of Court Hearings, as reported on www.NoCouncilTax.com, and elsewhere.

During these Hearings he managed to get agreement that:

1) The Council themselves were issuing Summonses directly ... without going through Due Process (which would have consisted of the Council laying a Complaint with the Local Courts).

2) As the Council did this (issuing Summonses themselves) they used letters headed as if the Summons had been sent by the Court. This is contrary to Law. The Council is not any part of any judicial process. The Council were, therefore, guilty of massive deception.

(The above applies to all Councils in the United Kingdom).

Because Roger had not paid (for approximately 3 years), the Local Council decided to 'up the ante' by pursuing a Bankruptcy Petition against him. (This is now become their standard procedure all over the United Kingdom. It's a pretty stupid idea, of course, but then the Lawful Rebels are - of course - up against pretty stupid, and utterly arrogant, Robotic people. Thus it is par for their pathetic 'course').

During the Hearing immediately prior to 7th March, Roger had requested that the Judge acknowledge his Oath of Office for approximately 30 minutes of requesting. The Judge (Michael Peake) steadfastly refused to do this, and prevaricated for those 30 minutes.

This is important to remember, because if the Judge was not acting in accordance with his solemnly sworn Oath of Office, then he was simply impersonating a Judge, and had no right to sit in any kind of judgement.

If, on the other hand, he agreed to act under his Oath of Office, then he could not possibly accept the computerised, hearsay, evidence presented by the Local Council - and would have to accept Roger's first-hand knowledge - sworn under penalty of perjury - because Roger is a Human Being and has a brain that can hold first-hand knowledge.

And that is the basic argument. And that is where the corruption lies. The fact that computerised hearsay evidence is acceptable in Civil Disputes - where it would never be accepted in Criminal Proceedings. And the fact that a Judge, when becoming one, must take the Oath of Office - and then, for the remainder of the Judge's career - completely ignore this Oath, in order to 'dispense - what amounts to - tyranny from the bench'.

If a Judge acts under their Oath of Office, no CORPORATION would have any rights whatsoever. Because a CORPORATION (Company, Council, etc.) does not have a Mind within which to hold any first-hand knowledge of anything. It does not have any DNA. It could not be jailed. It cannot even make any 'mark' on paper - it must get a 'representative' to do everything on its behalf.

On the other hand, a Human Being standing up against any CORPORATION, has DNA and could have their liberty taken away by jail time. A Human Being can write their own name or at least make their own 'mark'.

Thus the entire playing field is loaded against any Human Being, and only a Judge - acting under their Oath of Office - stands to serve and protect that Human Being. Only in this manner can any form of real justice ever occur. If the Judge is not prepared to serve and protect Human Beings, then the Judge is not doing the job they are paid for. In point of fact, a Judge NOT under Oath stands in Contempt of his own Court.

Thus the scene is set for Birkenhead County Court, on the 7th March 2011, where Roger, a Human Being, is fighting off a Bankruptcy Petition applied for by a mindless, soulless, CORPORATION.

What actually happened?

About a week before the Hearing, a call went out - via the Internet Lawful Rebellion Network - to request people to turn up on that day at about 1pm. The Hearing was timed for 2pm. We hoped for at least 100 people. In the event some 300+ turned up. (We were quite amazed, due to the short notice that was given).

We all turned up, and collected a short distance away in Hamilton Square, Birkenhead. We had arranged to signify who we were by holding up black umbrellas.

Very few people knew exactly what was planned. This was in line with the "Guy Taylor Chaos Theory", which says: "If I don't know what I'm doing next, then the Police can't possibly know".

As it turned out very little was executed as planned. Although the major components were:

1. To create a diversion by having a group mill around the Magistrates Court (instead of the County Court), in order to make it look as though the action would take place there. This did occur as planned.

2. The fact that the Judge was going to be arrested was kept secret to the very last minute. Those who turned up were only told this at approximately 1:30pm.

3. The major action was to take place by seizing the County Court (filling it with people). Again the majority were told this at about 1:30pm.

2 and 3, above were planned to be more-or-less independent ... although obviously linked by the common cause.

In Court

Many reading this will have seen the videos. And a lot of it focuses on Rusty (who has one hand handcuffed to a Policyman). Also Locky can be seen sitting in the Judge's chair. The videos also focus on Ray who tries to calm everyone down, and negotiate with the Policymen.

At the start, the Court was quiet, and Roger reads out the assessment of justice penned by Lord Diplock in 1974. It is quoted in Archbold as follows:

Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974], ante, outlines the various ways which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced: "The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court"

Roger then asks the Judge if he is prepared to act in accordance with his Oath of Office.

Yet again the Judge refuses and prevaricates.

Roger then says: "In that case I arrest you"

Under Common Law - the Law-of-the-Land - each and every one of us is entitled to make a Citizen's Arrest if we see that the Law has been broken. It is the DUTY of EVERYONE present to ASSIST in the arrest. (If one walks away, and doesn't help, then they are guilty of a crime. If someone actively attempts to prevent the arrest, then this is quite a serious crime, known as 'rescuing').

In accordance with this, Rusty went to assist and was set upon by a Policywoman. He was subsequently handcuffed to a Policyman.

Locky actually managed to reach the Judge and to say: "You are under arrest". The Judge then gets up, and says "I hand this to you", and scuttles away to safety. Locky then sat in the Judge's chair for the remainder of the time. At one point someone asks him what his decision is. Locky says "I dismiss this case".

There then follows a period of time efforts were being made to calm things down, and get Rusty released from handcuffs. (This takes up the majority of the video time)

What has happened is that the Policymen have 'rescued' the Judge from arrest. They, themselves, are therefore guilty of serious crimes.

Please Note: A Policyman's Arrest is nothing more than a Citizen's Arrest, backed up (these days) with 'muscle', 'numbers', and 'technology'. If a Policyman ever called in bystanders to help, and those bystanders failed to help, then those bystanders would be guilty of a crime - and you can bet the Policymen would prosecute them! In the instance in the Birkenhead Court, the tables were turned, and the Policymen had no real idea what to do.

Perhaps it needs to be stressed, that NO-ONE - repeat NO-ONE - acted in any way that could have been considered to be 'violent'. Yes, there was a lot of shouting, which could be considered to be 'mayhem'. But the only assaults were perpetrated by the Policymen. Lawful Rebellion has the fundamental requirement to non-violent, simple, non-co-operation. And we will not allow violence, perpetrated on us, to deflect us from that stance.

Ongoing negotiations between Roger and the Policymen are in place, in the hope that (henceforth) they WILL assist US - when corrupt Judges are arrested. In this mode they would act a Constables (i.e. what they are actually paid for - Peace Officers is another term), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN OATHS OF OFFICE, and cease being Corporate Policy Enforcement Officers (Policymen).

Everyone arrested by the Policymen have since been released, except one who was charged with Contempt of Court and awarded a 28-day sentence. Currently (at the time of writing) negotiations are ongoing to get this overturned, and the gentleman released. Simply because, in Law, there is no possibility that anyone OTHER THAN, the Clerk, Magistrates or the Judge could ever be in Contempt of Court in a Civil Dispute. Once again, we turn to Archbold:

Buckley J. held that "No contempt had been committed because the case was to be tried by a Judge sitting alone, who would be unaffected"

Sir John Donaldson M.R: "Mens rea ['intent' in other words] in the law of contempt was something of a minefield. The reason was that it was wholly the creature of the common law and had developed on a case by case basis".

In Dean v. Dean [1987] F.L.R. 517, C.A. (Civ. Div.), the court said that: "Contempt of court, whether civil or criminal, is a common law misdemeanor and it had long been recognised that proceedings for contempt were criminal or quasi-criminal in nature and that the case against the alleged contemnor must be proved to the standard of criminal proof namely, beyond reasonable doubt"

(You can bet your sweet life that Contempt was not proved 'beyond reasonable doubt', simply by re-reading what J. Buckley said)

Subsidiary Note

The question is posed: "What would the Local Councils do if they could not collect Council Tax? How could services be paid for?"

The answer is simple: "Money" is an ILLUSION. Nothing more than a massive DECEPTION. There is no such thing as "money". The Bank of England banknotes give the game away, by the PROMISE they make ... which they never fulfill. (If you go to the Bank of England, bearing a £10 note, they will only exchange it for two £5s ... which contain the same WORTHLESS PROMISE. The Bank of England, since 1694, have done nothing but PROMISE the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It is long past time these empty, meaningless, worthless, promises were exposed for what they are - MASSIVE DECEPTIONS).

If, on the other hand, the Government wants to use a Monetary System, then there is nothing whatsoever stopping the Government from CREATING ITS OWN MONEY ... and ceasing to 'borrow it from Banks - AT INTEREST". It could do this just as easily as Chartering the Bank of England to create "money" (as is done now).

The Government could them create sufficient "money" to fund Local Councils - and everything else. Since it wasn't borrowed ... it would be unnecessary to 'pay anyone back', and certainly not 'pay back with Interest".

(It should be noted that - under the current regime - NO INTEREST MONIES ARE EVER CREATED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. Thus those who scrabble together sufficient to 'manage to pay', ride on the backs of those who 'fail to pay, and end up in bankruptcy/homeless, etc')

Veronica
Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England, 9th March, 2011

Afternote: We were waiting for someone to do this. All that happened is that it dawned on us: WE were the ones we'd been waiting for.