So, welcome to Quatloos Messrs Mete - you've hit the big time !!1!!!
It all starts with a somewhat amusing case file posted on expert in FAs wall. Someone has had a slap on the wrist from the environment agency regarding some waste disposal, but naturally they don't consent. So its off to court.
Siegfried has kindly pulled together the factual summary based on the small bit of info that we know, so, to set the scene:
So, over to the transcript which can be found here:Post by Siegfried Shrink » Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:14 pm
The contributions from the hapless Metes were typical, but all the rest was pure Justice Cocklecarrot. What a shambles. Lost bundles loom large.
It appears the case concerns unauthpriser dumping of waste material on a couple of pieces of land and a rather meaty profit for a northern farmer who is probably regretting the whole thing now.
The Metes made an agreement with Mr Swindells, he paid them £50,000 and they had or were going to have soil and waste dumped on the land that would cost the dumpers £200,000 to get rid of. Nice work if you can get it and there is a suggestion that after the dumping the raised land level would be the same as an adjacent property, presumably this could be made once more into natural looking farmland.
It appears the Metes went ahead with this plan, to what extent it is not clear but it does seem to have carried on for at least a year, without the benefit of permission from the Environment Agency, the body that regulates waste disposal, among other things. It remains a mystery if the permission was refused or if the Metes simply felt they were not bound by statutes and notified no-one.
Mr Swindells has a barrister, the Metes are representing themselves, so far to no effect. The judge was very patient. This particular hearing was to hear an application to dismiss by the defendents, on no rational grounds. It would have failed but due to an administrative cockup by the court or someone, a missing bundle of 700 odd pages was not provided and the application was not heard.. Ignoring the FMOTL Metes, the rest of the proceedings made me wonder how any case ever gets heard in less than ten years, or indeed in one generation. If the case ever goes to trial it should be an amazing read. Thanks to the Expert in FA, we saw this transcript, I doubt if anthing further will appear as it will be a monumental fail.
http://expertinalllegalmatters.com/crow ... ranscripts
I'll pull out a few of my favourite lines, given I'm sat by the pool with an hour to the bus and a non stop supply of beers.
Its fair to say that Judge Smith is on fire here. Batting away the FMOTL nonsense without even justifying it.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: No. We’ve been advised. We don’t – we don’t want legal representation.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: We’re standing as men and women.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: We’re standing under common law as men and women.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: We’re not subjected to – by any corporation.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: No. We’ve been advised. We don’t – we don’t want legal representation.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: We’re standing as men and women.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: We’re standing under common law as men and women.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: We’re not subjected to – by any corporation.
JUDGE SMITH: Sorry. You’re going to have to stand up then because I can’t really hear you. Forgive me. If you’re going to – if you going to – I can’t hear you, because there’s literally a bar across so I can’t see your mouths.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Yeah. I’m sorry. Basically, yeah, we’re standing under common law.
JUDGE SMITH: I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: We’re standing as men and women, basically, not as a legal fiction, legal fiction entity. So I’m – I’m not – I’m not a Mrs. I’m just Lucy and I’m standing here today to basically put forward our case as to why it shouldn’t – we don’t, well – I mean we’re happy to go to a trial.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: Well, we’re not governed by a statute that comes from a corporation that is not even a governmental body in respect of committing fraud and that’s our standing point.
JUDGE SMITH: The Environmental Agency is a ---
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: As human – as human beings.
JUDGE SMITH: --- non-governmental body that has committed a fraud, yeah
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: It’s a corporation for profit so, therefore, it has no government ---
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: And we have no contract with them.
THE DEFENDANT JAMES METE: We have no contract.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: We’ve declined the contract and always have and they’ve known this from the beginning.
JUDGE SMITH: You have a?
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: We’ve declined the contract with them from the beginning of their involvement with us.
JUDGE SMITH: Right.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: --- statutes only for corporations.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: We’re not corporations. Statutes ---
JUDGE SMITH: Statutes are only for corporations. So the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for example, by which people are prevented from assaulting one another ---
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Yes, because that’s actually a crime.
JUDGE SMITH: At the moment you will have to explain to me why you say that is, because simply saying “We’re not standing here as a legal fiction. We are as men and women.”
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: I have my birth certificates with me here today and the evidence that we would rely on for that is the Documentary Evidence Act. So, basically, if – if that’s the case then I would like to bring forward the controller of the Copyright Unit of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office and I would like them to come forward to explain full disclosure and validate why – why my name is on this registered document.
JUDGE SMITH: As in on the Land Registry?
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: No. As in on my birth certificate. Well, it’s not mine. I don’t it claim to be mine, but the birth certificate which has my name on it.
JUDGE SMITH: You’re saying that isn’t you?
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: This – this is a legal fiction. This Lucy is me, a woman.
JUDGE SMITH: Right. I see.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Yes?
JUDGE SMITH: Right. So you’re saying that that categorisation of you with – by your birth certificate is something you reject?
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Yeah, completely. I’m not a legal fiction.
JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. Do take a seat.
JUDGE SMITH: You see, the thing is if you summons a witness to court – if you summons the witness, they’re your witness.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Yeah.
JUDGE SMITH: So you can’t cross-examine them. You can’t challenge them. They’re your witness.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: I’d like to, basically – could I ask today if you’re sitting under your own locus?
JUDGE SMITH: Why are you asking me that?
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Because I’m entitled to ask and I would like to know.
JUDGE SMITH: I always sit under my oath of office. I am ---
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Okay, then. Well, due to the fact of that, I’d like to ask for this case to be dismissed due – due to the fact of the information that is in our affidavit. We stand under common law, as previously stated. We’re – we’re – we’re not accepting ---
THE DEFENDANT JAMES METE: Any of it.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Any statute, jurisdiction, and if the case is not dismissed today then I will be putting you, your Honour, on a tort of misfeasance because you will be breaking your oath of office today.
JUDGE SMITH: Better – you better do a bit of research before you start making silly threats like that to me. I am acting as a circuit judge in the Crown Court.
JUDGE SMITH: If you’re going to apply for a writ you’d need to do that elsewhere. In terms of the writ of mandamus ---
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: Say it three times so it’s on the record.
JUDGE SMITH: --- that’s defunct.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: So, again, I’m putting – I’m put ---
JUDGE SMITH: It’s a mandatory order you’d be seeking.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: If the case isn’t dismissed today I’m – I have to put you under a tort of misfeasance.
JUDGE SMITH: Put me under a tort of misfeasance.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: Yes, because you’ve broken your oath of office.
JUDGE SMITH: I see. Yes. Thank you very much.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: If – if it hasn’t – if it’s not dismissed today.
JUDGE SMITH: Thank you very much.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: Point to it again. Say it three times over. Say it again.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: I’ve already said it once only.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: Well, just at least three times.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: So, yeah, just for – so it’s for and on the record.
THE DEFENDANT BILLIE METE: The third time for the record.
JUDGE SMITH: Right. Well, look – right. Now, just – just – all right.
THE DEFENDANT LUCY METE: For and on the record.
