Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[Albert Haddock]

I stopped all payment until they could prove to me that they provide energy….they could not.

I would have thought that disconnecting the supply would achieve that.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I stopped all payment until they could prove to me that they provide energy….they could not.

I would have thought that disconnecting the supply would achieve that.

Bit of a catch 22 there - if they cut you off, they don't provide energy.

[aesmith]

"Peacekeepers" had some sort of court case just recently. No idea what it was about exactly but something to do with Council Tax. They mostly bang on about the court not allowing all their supporters in, and not letting them film. The comment about applying to have the case reopened under s.142 (presumably of the Magistrates’ Courts Act) suggests that "George" lost.
https://peacekeepers.org.uk/westminster-2nd-2023/

[longdog]

I like this bit...

If they refuse the options are for a relisting for trial by jury which is the obligation of the court under the Bill of Rights 1688 to provide as no fines or forfeitures can be made without a jury being impaled and returned under section 108....

Seems rather extreme to me.

[TheRambler]

I like this bit...

If they refuse the options are for a relisting for trial by jury which is the obligation of the court under the Bill of Rights 1688 to provide as no fines or forfeitures can be made without a jury being impaled and returned under section 108....

Seems rather extreme to me.

That’s the trouble with using predictive text of the period.

TheRambler

[John Uskglass]

If they refuse the options are for a relisting for trial by jury which is the obligation of the court under the Bill of Rights 1688 to provide as no fines or forfeitures can be made without a jury being impaled and returned under section 108...

Two clauses in the BoR conflated there.

Juries.

That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned . . . F1

Grants of Forfeitures.

That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Wil ... ry-c993871

And if you follow that F1, you find:

Words repealed by (E.W.) Juries Act 1825 (c. 50), s. 62 and (N.I.) Statute Law Revision Act 1950 (c. 6), Sch. 1

[longdog]

That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.

They have a habit of ignoring the 'before conviction' bit. Just as they have a habit of quoting Maggie Carthorse as saying that people can't be convicted without trial by jury while ignoring the 'or according to law' bit that comes immediately afterwards.

[John Uskglass]

Their approach was found wanting in this case.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 6b9e19e7de

63. The context of the Bill of Rights is that the catholic monarch, James II, had been deposed and
parliament had invited William and Mary to rule in his place. The first of the declarations made in the Bill of
Rights is that “the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without
consent of Parlyament is illegall.” In other words, it established parliamentary sovereignty.
64. One of the particular abuses which, according to the Bill of Rights, had been committed by James II, was
to make:
“severall grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgement against the persons
upon whome the same were to be levyed.”
65. The Bill prohibited this, stating that “all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular
persons before conviction are illegal and void.” In modern language, I understand the declaration to mean that no
penalties can be levied without due legal proces
66. It follows that Parliament, with the legislative sovereignty vested in it by the very same Bill of Rights,
can give HMRC the power to impose and collect civil penalties, providing they are appealable to an independent
judiciary

https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/way ... c-28012015

Relying on the Bill of Rights, Mr Pendle also argued that penalties could not be issued without a conviction. Applying Jussila v Finland ([2009] STC 29), the FTT confirmed that the penalty could be criminal in nature. However, referring to R (oao McCann) v Kensington & Chelsea [2002] UKHL 39, the FTT found that, as the penalties do not ‘culminate in the conviction and condemnation’ of the taxpayer and simply require the payment of a fine, they were not criminal under UK law.

In any event, the FTT noted that the application of the Bill of Rights was not limited to criminal penalties, as ‘civil penalties did not exist in 1689’. The Bill of Rights could therefore have applied, were it not for the fact that it only banned the imposition of fines without appeal. The FTT added that, in any event, the conclusion that the Bill of Rights had been amended by subsequent legislation was ‘irresistible’.

The FTT concluded that although Mr Pendle’s belief that he could rely on the Bill of Rights had been genuine, it had not been reasonable and so he had not had a reasonable excuse for not signing the declaration.

[SpearGrass]

Their account reads like one of those comprehensive fails which is made into a success as it shows how rotten the system is in not letting them win.

The comment about applying to have the case reopened under s.142 (presumably of the Magistrates’ Courts Act) suggests that "George" lost.

I'm sure that's right as they go on to to discuss further appeals if that mechanism fails, as it inevitably will, as s. 142 only applies to criminal proceedings. There is a reopening power in civil proceedings (a Pleroma reopening) but the test for it is that there is a genuine and arguable dispute, and that the decision was made due to a substantial procedural error, defect or mishap. So I fear they will be stuck with trying to impale jurors until one allows the appeal (with their dying breath).

[Hercule Parrot]

"Peacekeepers" had some sort of court case just recently. No idea what it was about exactly but something to do with Council Tax.

They're promoting another evasion fantasy, based as usual on ritualistic 'service' of various template 'notices'. Applied correctly, this simple 16-step plan will work every time, they're sure of it. After skimming their material, I'll venture a cautious lay view that "No, it won't". They're just regurgitating the same old tripe. (https://peacekeepers.org.uk/council-tax ... 22-update/)

NB - They also fail to address the fundamental pointlessness of their cause. Because if anyone ever persuaded a senior court that they'd found a loophole which invalidated council tax, Parliament would immediately enact law to close that off. (eg https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun ... ail-ruling)

[carobee57]

their you tube page is worth a look for a giggle. They were really convinced they were going to get a win last week. They are still maintaining radio silence so I guess they are still trying to figure out how to turn the nasty judge mans hurty words (which I believe were along the lines of "wholly without merit") into something even vaguely approaching a success

[ArthurWankspittle]

There is a reopening power in civil proceedings (a Pleroma reopening) but the test for it is that there is a genuine and arguable dispute, and that the decision was made due to a substantial procedural error, defect or mishap. So I fear they will be stuck with trying to impale jurors until one allows the appeal (with their dying breath).

Is this like an appeal, in which case you need about £270 to apply?
(and "Vlad the jury selector" is going to be a forum name somewhere soon)

[SpearGrass]

Is this like an appeal, in which case you need about £270 to apply?

No, it's a common law power, invented by the deputy justices' clerk in Liverpool in the Pleroma case and endorsed by the High Court, and it doesn't appear in the Fees Order.

[Larry Spoons]

If you want to risk rotting your brains, this video sets out the Peacekeepers approach to the Westminster hearing.

It's faintly depressing that the court required the council to submit a skeleton argument as opposed to simply directing the taxpayer to the concept of the legislative supremacy of Parliament.

[SpearGrass]

I'll summarise: they read through the local authorities' skeleton arguments in Newcastle and Westminster, wilfully misunderstanding them. For example, when the Westminster skeleton says that that the civil pre-action protocol doesn't apply as this isn't a debt claim under the Civil Procedure Rules, they say "aha! that proves our case, there is no debt". Then declare that they've won the war and it's all going to be (mostly) plain sailing and invite all viewers to take the Peacekeepers Course. The end.

[aesmith]

Here is one that gave me a bit of amusement after I came across it by chance. For background, this so-called precedent has been popping up all over the place, like in the new GOOFY, with only very slight variations.

"Proof that Warrants need to be signed.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1618 ... 90976.html

In reference to a hearing in chambers on 16th December 2022 Kings Bench, London, a Judge ruled unsigned warrants illegal. As this was in chambers there isn't a listing, but there is a reference number. Case number KB2022004907"

One of the Woke decided to check this out via an FOI request and on that point received a lovely reply from the Ministry of Justice ..

4. The case in the High Court wasn’t determined in open court, and no judgement was given, so even if the judge had said what they are is quoted as saying it isn’t binding. In any event what you’ve quoted looks spurious. It’s extremely unlikely that a High Court judge would say anything so foolish, since most warrants don’t require signature at all, none requres a wet ink signature, and no document issued by a magistrates’ court is sealed.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/warrant_of_entry

[CrankyBoomer]

From a little upthread I was thinking "Isn't the Bill of Rights" American? But with some help from Google I found that there is indeed a British Bill of Rights dating from 22nd June 2022. How did I miss that in the news when it first came out?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

From a little upthread I was thinking "Isn't the Bill of Rights" American? But with some help from Google I found that there is indeed a British Bill of Rights dating from 22nd June 2022. How did I miss that in the news when it first came out?

It's only been "introduced". It is not law at the moment.

[aesmith]

That's the "Bill of Rights Bill", which will become the "Bill of Rights Act" when/if it's passed. As opposed to the "Bill of Rights 1688".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2

[TheRambler]

As opposed to the Claim of Right 1689

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1689

Much beloved of Scottish Independence supporters.

Just to muddy the waters!

TheRambler