Anti-Council-Tax and Peacekeepers

[SpearGrass]

Returning to council tax and the Peacekeepers, there has been a fairly epic fail of a defendant fairly clearly utilising pseudo-legal theories, probably provided by the Peacekeepers. It also resolves the debate upthread, about whether council tax enforcement is dependent on the magistrates' court producing a written liability order.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk ... query=kofa

Sharon Kofa didn't pay her council tax, so the council obtained liability orders from the magistrates' court and then a charging order on her house from the County Court. She didn't attend the hearing in the County Court on the grounds (which the High Court judge didn't think much of) that it was only listed for 10 minutes. Then, rather than following the normal route of appeal, I guess on Peacekeeper advice, she applied for judicial review.

The primary reason for her losing was that she had an appropriate statutory alternative remedy to judicial review (indeed, more than one), which she did not use. However the judge went on to address the merits, or lack of them, of her arguments.

Firstly that for constitutional reasons, no-one can be forced to pay council tax. This was fronted with a quote from a case from the 18th century which she said, held "By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not to be subjected to laws made without their consent". The judge pointed out that she'd missed out the end of the sentence, which goes on "and because such consent cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected and chosen by them for that purpose, who are either knights, citizens, or burgesses". In other words, laws are binding if made by Parliament. Other authorities relied on by Peacekeepers, such as the Bill of Rights, were similarly dismissed: "Rating and taxing statutes ensure legal prescription, securing rather than undermining the rule of law, entirely compatibly with the Bill of Rights and other constitutional statutes"

Then there was the liability order argument: the council did not produce a paper liability order to the County Court, so the County Court could not make a charging order. It is true, the judge noted, that there must be a liability order for the County Court to make a charging order. He noted the rule which says that that magistrates' courts do not produce or serve paper orders. Nor he said, do they need to - the only requirement is that the order is made (i.e. by the court saying it is making it) and the fact that it was made can be proved in the County Court by evidence,so a paper order is not necessary. This is a dagger through the heart of one of the key Peacekeeper arguments, that there must be a "court issued order" and as magistrates' courts don't produce orders, no liability order is enforceable.

Some other Peacekeeper arguments are summarily brushed off: an argument that council tax doesn't apply to domestic dwellings, and an argument that because council tax legislation says that liability orders are “not to be treated as a sum adjudged to be paid by order of the court” they can't be enforced by a court (that simply means, as the judge says, that they are to be enforced according to the Local Govt Finance Act 1992, and not as if they were a fine or civil order).

Ms Kofa came out of the High Court worse off than she went in, still with a charging order to the value of £2,817.79 to which were added the costs of the High Court hearing of £3,250.

[John Uskglass]

Returning to council tax and the Peacekeepers,

That's a really good find, thanks for posting. Perhaps it should be in a new thread for ease of searching? Very useful if anyone needs to cite to counter the claims of idiots, but likely to get lost in a thread on Neelu.

[wserra]

Perhaps it should be in a new thread

Up to SpearGrass. SpearGrass, if that's what you want, let me know either here or in a PM, along with what you want the Subject of the new thread to be, and I'll take care of it.

[SpearGrass]

Perhaps it should be in a new thread

I agree, I didn't think it was the right place when I posted it but it followed on from the Leighton v Bristow & Sutor discussion in this thread. The Peacekeepers anti-council tax 'you can't tell me what to do' movement probably deserves its own thread. Their modus is a mixture of attempts to twist real law with traditional no consent freeman type arguments.

Perhaps 'Peacekeepers and other anti-council tax arguments'?

[Hercule Parrot]

Thank you for this excellent debunking judgement.

I remain troubled by the arrangements described in para 29, however. It does not seem proper that a court can make a serious & substantial order against a citizen, but there is no requirement to enter this in the court records or to notify the subject. It seems strange that this laissez-faire position applies only to council tax liability orders. I do not in any way suggest a corrupt or improper motive of course, that would be absurd, but the 2003 amendment and Rule 115 just make no sense to me. Whatever was saved in administrative costs, far more was sacrificed in natural justice & due process.

The 1992 Regulations do not require a “court-issued” order. They did include a requirement of that kind, until an express amendment in 2003. I have been shown no provision of the 1992 Act which requires a court-issued order. Regulation 34(6) provides that the magistrates’ court will “make the order”. Rule 115 specifically excludes liability orders from the general duty to serve orders. Regulation 50 (charging orders) speaks of whether a liability order has been “made”. So do other regulations: eg. regulation 49(1) (insolvency); and regulation 54(4) (joint liability). I have been shown no provision which requires an entry in the court record, to be sent or served on person against whom a liability order is made or enforced, or to be produced to the county court for the purposes of a charging order.

[aesmith]

It used to be dealt with even more brusquely in Scotland. When i had a dispute over rates i was corresponding with the local authority and had no indication things had escalated until coming home one day to find a "Notice of Poinding" on the car. For those not fluent in 17th century Scots that effectively means siezed for sale at public auction.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Thank you for this excellent debunking judgement.

I remain troubled by the arrangements described in para 29, however. It does not seem proper that a court can make a serious & substantial order against a citizen, but there is no requirement to enter this in the court records or to notify the subject. It seems strange that this laissez-faire position applies only to council tax liability orders. I do not in any way suggest a corrupt or improper motive of course, that would be absurd, but the 2003 amendment and Rule 115 just make no sense to me. Whatever was saved in administrative costs, far more was sacrificed in natural justice & due process.

Indeed. This was my very point in an earlier posting. "The verdict is somewhere in the system, trust us", does open the gates to this sort of nonsense.

It's a common delusion of pseudolawyers (see the Peacekeepers for a good example) that court orders are pieces of paper.

Whilst I agree, paper is not a requirement nor are red ink thumb prints or Admiralty flags, but surely there should be a one to one, case X verdict Y for every case that is heard in a court that can be cross-referenced?

Holding it "in the court" does not pass that threshold. Not pointing fingers but Maidstone Magistrates Court refused to give me details on a verdict when I called them after it concluded. No surprise that the FotLers also cling to it.

[SpearGrass]

As the judgement states, the court does keep a record, It keeps it in perpetuity. It doesn't transfer that record to a piece of paper and give it to the defendant, because there is an adequate alternative - the local authority do it. The saving to the public purse is immense, as over 3 million liability orders are made every year. And it's not the only court order which is not served on the defendant - a sentence of imprisonment isn't. Even when a person is imprisoned in absence.

The issue is simply how that record is proved, particularly when in issue. Even if the court printed out the order and posted it, it's fanciful to think that everyone would then accept it was valid, or accept it when it was produced in enforcement proceedings. 'How do we know the court posted this, and not the council pretending to be the court?' Oral evidence is admissible to prove murder and rape in court proceedings, so there's no obvious logic in saying that the making of a liability order can't be proved that way in a charging order application.

But whatever, the case is about what the law is, not what people want it to be, and the law doesn't require service of the order by the court.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

But whatever, the case is about what the law is, not what people want it to be, and the law doesn't require service of the order by the court.

I accept all that, but I was refused to be told the outcome of a case in the magistrates court (involving Crabbie). I was told that if I wanted to know the outcome I should have attended. The court was 80 miles away. That is just not right.

[SpearGrass]

Owl, you are absolutely right, and the court should have applied Rule 5.8, and told you the result over the phone. There are two likely causes - new staff who didn't know what to do, or very old staff who were reverting back to the custom in their youth, which was to tell people nothing. Provided the case was less than 6 months old of course. A complaint upline would probably have extracted the information, though you should have had to of course.

But that's not the same thing as the court being required to serve a liability order.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

But that's not the same thing as the court being required to serve a liability order.

With you 100% on that. It's just that the way it appears to be administered lets these eejits have unwarranted wriggle room. A bit of a own goal that could easily be fixed with a more transparent process.

I really doubt that (barring existing judicial restrictions related to age of perpetrator, family courts, and identifying victims of sex crimes) the outcome of a hearing/trial falls foul of data protection laws. The presumption should be that verdicts are publicly available, actively published even. It would also help with the current problem of local newspaper decline meaning that most court cases are not longer reported.

[Paul7/11]

Are these peacekeepers the same as the new guys all over TikTok? They’ve been swearing in new ‘peace officers’ in weatherspoons then turning up at Chelmsford magistrates court. Some of the more prominent members are Robbie Hood you may know him as the driving instructor who’s been causing havoc in Plymouth, they’ve also just sworn in Laura Nina who’s rising to pseudo law fame quickly after filming evictions in Derby. You can follow some of there exploits on banaman YouTube very funny. The Matt Brown eviction looks like it could turn out to be an epic Tom Crawford job they’ve already broken back in and assaulted security guys. Whilst Nina films it

[wserra]

Robbie Hood

Steal from everyone and keep everything?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Robbie Hood

Steal from everyone and keep everything?

It could be the Dennis Moore option.

[letissier14]

they’ve also just sworn in Laura Nina who’s rising to pseudo law fame quickly after filming evictions in Derby. You can follow some of there exploits on banaman YouTube very funny. The Matt Brown eviction looks like it could turn out to be an epic Tom Crawford job they’ve already broken back in and assaulted security guys. Whilst Nina films it

Laura Nina is also a flat earther

https://youtu.be/pJWBqdrYENI

[SpearGrass]

Another comprehensive pseudo-legal fail in the High Court: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk ... query=lake.
This is an application for judicial review of a couple of council tax liability orders. The applicant ran a 'no consent' defence, plus the, 'I'm very willing to pay if only I knew what the money was going to' defence, with a bit of covid denial thrown in. And that the hearing wasn't a proper court as the parties appeared by telephone link. This all went as well as you would expect, all the way to 'totally without merit'.

She certainly made the court work for its money:

The case has been characterised by the filing of multitudinous documents, containing long narratives setting out the purported basis upon which the challenges are to be brought. At the renewal hearing there are three separate bundles before the court, the core bundle runs to some 389 pages and there is a hearing bundle of 707 pages, with a separate authority bundle of 48 pages. In addition, the claimant has provided five lever arch ring binders of documents.

The Administrative Court was assisted by a transcript of the magistrates' courts proceedings, helpfully provided by the applicant, which was not at all in her interest in that it enabled the court to see clearly that, contrary to her contention, the proceedings were conducted fairly. As the transcript was prepared on the basis of a recording she had made, the judge had to consider whether she should be dealt with for contempt. Fortunately for her, the court had not warned her that recording was unlawful, so the judge fairly decided that no action should be taken, but moving from a liability order to a potential prison sentence for contempt is very much a case of moving from the frying pan to the furnace.

Hripsime Lake (I assume it's the same one) has also submitted a FOIA with 28 questions relating to council tax https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... erties_tha, very much depending on the pseudo-legal confusion between business rates (not on domestic property) and council tax (on domestic property)

She also appears to have registered herself as a company.

[JamesVincent]

Bonus points for the proper use of the word "multitudinous". Bravo.

[longdog]

I've learned a new word from that judgement... "Otiose". I like it

[Paul7/11]

The peace occifers have been returning houses to their rightful(maybe) owners and assaulting more security guards this week aswell as having a swearing in ceremony at Sherwood Forest . I think the good old days are back this is going to turn into Tom Crawford with knobs on now.

[Paul7/11]

Forgot to mention available on banaman YouTube