Veronicaz Council Tax Saga (in full … more or less)

1. I get – what appears to be a “Council Tax Bill”. I stapled it to the following reply, and sent if

back. (It’s always good to send their stuff back to them … like “It’s YOURS, and I don’t want

it!” Also, of course, if they are in possession of it, they have a problem claiming ‘service’):

London Borough of Hounslow, Revenue Services, PO Box 355, Hounslow TW3 4PJ.

20th March, 2013

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your reference 301653, and enclosed paperwork

I have no idea what the enclosed paperwork means, so I return it to you, in case you can understand it. I'm not an Accountant, never have been, and never will be.

Therefore, in order to render it comprehensible, I would require a simple English Translation - for example: Is it some kind of demand? If so, for what? I have no idea.

I notice your paperwork is not signed. As a consequence, neither is this response.

2. I wait, and get this load of utter bollox (as I knew I would) (as if I GIVE A SHIT what it

says????):

3. So, ignore all that bollox. Who gives a flying fuck? I certainly don’t. I send this:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write in response to the attached paperwork, that seems to have been issued by

your company, including a demand for payment of £7.64.

I write to question the LAWFULNESS of your demand.

Please be so kind as to demonstrate the LAWFUL nature of your demand by signing

the enclosed Affidavit under penalty of perjury. Upon receipt of said signed Affidavit

I will understand that your demand is LAWFUL, and guarantee to pay it promptly.

On the other hand, of course, if you cannot sign the Affidavit, then that would be an

admission that your demand is totally UNLAWFUL, and thus ATTEMPTED FRAUD.

Something for which you can, of course, be prosecuted. (By me. Via a Private

Criminal Prosecution.)

For your guidance, when considering whether or not to sign, I believe I should draw

your attention to a few historic FACTS. I have therefore enclosed a Fact Sheet, and

suggest you read it, and very seriously consider your position.

I charge you £7.64 for the education, enlightenment, and Fact Sheet. You may use

your £7.64 to pay off your demand, if you can’t prove said demand is LAWFUL.

Absent the return of the Affidavit, duly signed by yourself, I consider this matter is

now concluded.

Sincerely, without ill-will (at this time), vexation (at this time) or frivolity,

Peaceful Inhabitant (when did I ever UNLAWFULLY threaten you?), and Recipient of

your Paperwork.

Without any admission of any liability for anything whatsoever, and with all Natural,

Fundamental, Indefeasible (i.e. Common Law) Rights reserved.

The Borough Solicitor,

Hounslow Borough Council,

c/o Civic Centre,

Lampton Rd,

Hounslow,

Greater London TW3 4DN

(Your address is placed here because you are ‘below’ me in knowledge of Facts &

Law)

Fact Sheet

The first FACT is that Halbury’s Laws of England, under "STATUTES (VOLUME 44(1)

(REISSUE))/1. NATURE OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION/(2) DEFINITION AND

CLASSIFICATION/(iii) Particular Types of Act/A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND

FINANCIAL ACTS/1221. Constitutional Acts", we see (my highlighting):

(iii) Particular Types of Act

A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS

1221. Constitutional Acts.

The British Constitution is said to be 'unwritten'. This only means that, unlike

most countries, the United Kingdom does not possess a single

comprehensive constitution and much of its constitutional principle is

embodied in the common law. There are nevertheless a number of historic

statutes regarded as embodying and setting forth the state's constitutional

principles1. Any modern Act which amends or adds to these may also be

regarded as a constitutional Act2. The main significance of classing an Act as

a constitutional Act lies in the nature of the interpretative criteria which

then apply to it. In particular, the rights the Act confers, having the quality

of constitutional rights, will be regarded by the courts as fundamental and

not to be displaced except by clear words3.

1 See eg Magna Carta (1215); the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of

Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.

This is saying that the Magna Carta 1215 was THE founding document of the British

Constitution.

The Magna Carta 1215 therefore stands as a kind of ‘backstop’ to the British

Constitution. It actually contains wording that says “It cannot be superseded. Ever”.

Article 39 of the Magna Carta 1215 says: “No free man shall be seized or

imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or

deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against

him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals [That’s a

Petty Jury of 12 impartial people] or by the law of the land.”

Since there was no Parliament in 1215 – and thus no Statutes (the first Parliament

was created some 80 years later, in 1295), the “law-of-the-land”, in Article 39

(above) can, therefore, only be referring to The Common Law. Therefore, in order to

be LAWFUL, your demand would have had to come via the Verdict of Jury sitting in a

Constitutionally-convened Court of Law (a Court de jure), acting under The Common

Law.

Which Common Law states that you have the Right to make unilateral demands

upon me?

Which Common Law allows you to threaten me with ‘violence’ in the form of thugs

(which you call ‘Bailiffs’) on my doorstep?

Which Common Law allows you to threaten me with ‘prison’ if I choose to stand up

for my Rights in Law?

Which Common Law negates my Right to Silence, if I so choose?

The late Lord Diplock, in 1974, said: "The due administration of justice requires first

that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established

courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction ...” (You will find that quotation in Archbold). I

have underlined the important adjectives for your convenience.

Do you wish to argue with Lord Diplock? And Halsbury’s Laws of England, and sign

the enclosed Affidavit?

Article 45 of the Magna Carta 1215 says: “We will appoint as justices, constables,

sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are

minded to keep it well.”

Since, by sending the attached “Reminder”, YOU obviously know absolutely nothing

about “the law of the realm” (otherwise you would not have sent it), how did you

manage to become ‘appointed’? And how do you propose to be able to instruct

‘other officials’, such as your “Magistrates”, “Bailiffs”, etc. “… to keep it well”?

(We get a load of bollox slung at us – for example from people like MP John

Hemming etc. - about the Magna Carta STATUTE of 1297, and how it has

been repealed. Note Halsbury’s does not mention any other “Magna Cartas”

– other than the TREATY of 1215. Simply because Parliament was created 80

years AFTER 1215, and therefore UNDER The Magna Carta 1215 and The

Common Law … and thereby ANYTHING DECIDED IN WESTMINSTER IS

ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT to The Magna Carta 1215 and The Common Law.

Which, of course, includes the majority of your bag of UNLAWFUL “Legals” …

you know … such as the Magistrates’ Courts Acts and the Local Government

Acts, and that sort of utter garbage which is TOTALLY CONTRARY to The

Common Law, the Law-of-the-Land, and The British Constitution … TOTALLY

VOIDED BY The Magna Carta 1215 … especially when you print the

Summonses yourselves, hire the Star Chamber and facilities to do your dirty

work for you. Calling it “law” … as if it was anything remotely like Law. More

like a Steam Roller than Law, of course.

Frankly I don’t know how you can live with yourselves. But you do.

Somehow.

You probably think “We have to do this, because Local Services have to be

paid for!”. Don’t you? That’s what you think, isn’t it? That’s what makes you

cut corners of Law, in a desperate scramble to ‘pay for Local Services’ … isn’t

it?

Well YOU ARE WRONG. You have NAIVELY and GULLIBLY swallowed all the

BULLSHIT pumped out by Parliament, and the Media, etc.

TWICE … NOT ONCE BUT TWICE … IN HISTORY Governments have PROVED

that there is another method of funding EVERYTHING.

WITHOUT BOTHERING ANYONE ELSE. Without bothering you … and without

bothering me. For anything. For any ‘tax’ at all.

Without the skulduggery of hiring 3 naïve plonkers, sitting as so-called

‘Magistrates’, to do your dirty work for you.

TWICE … not once but TWICE. Once in the United States, in the 1860s

(Lincoln’s “Greenbacks”), and once in the UK in 1914 (Lloyd George’s

“Bradburys”).

Google “Bradbury Treasury Notes” and you will see pictures of them.

THE GOVERNMENTS AT THOSE TIMES ACTUALLY DID THEIR JOB … THE ONE

THEY HAD BEEN TASKED TO DO – THEY *****MADE**** THE MONEY

THEMSELVES. Instead of going cap-in-hand to a bunch of CORRUPT

BANKSTERS … the US & UK Governments issued TREASURY NOTES … which

worked perfectly well as ‘money’.

And paid for EVERYTHING.

WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT’S JOB! It is NOT a Government’s job to ‘work out

how to tax everyone’ – wringing their hands constantly in desperation. It is a

Government’s job to ISSUE MONEY to pay for whatever is necessary. The

Government is elected to ‘run the country’ and one essential part of that is

to ‘create the means of exchange’ i.e. ‘money’.

Abraham Lincoln recognised this, and actually said so.

Instead of threatening people with ‘Liability Hearings’ via a TOTALLY

UNLAWFUL STAR CHAMBER … that you call a ‘Magistrates Court’ … but

isn’t a Court of Law any more than a Tennis Court is a Court of Law … or

threatening them with ‘Winding-Up Orders’ or ‘Committals to Prison’ …

you should be getting together with all other Councils and DEMANDING

that THE GOVERNMENT DOES IT JOB AND MAKES THE MONEY YOU NEED

… so as to provide ‘Local Services’.

I’m not the only one who knows all this. Not by a long way. You need to

work out whose side you are on. You need to decide whether to start

acting reasonably, in honour, and decency, in full accord with the British

Constitution, or to continue acting as a gullible parasite, transfixed by your

UNLAWFUL bag of “Legals”. Your choice, of course)

Statement of Truth

By ____________________________________________________

1. THAT I am competent to state the matters herein, and do take Oath and

swear as follows;

2. THAT the matters stated herein are true, certain, and correct;

3. THAT I can quote the Law-of-the-Land (the Common Law) that obliges the

Peaceful Inhabitant commonly called Veronica: of the Chapman family, to be

a subject to any demands I may choose to issue at any time without lawful

recourse or remedy on the part of said Inhabitant;

4. THAT I can prove the violation (specifically “failure to respond to my

demand”) is, indeed, a violation of the Common Law, and is indeed, a

criminal act;

5. THAT I fully and completely understand – before any charge can be brought

– it must be firstly proved that the charge is valid in Law (otherwise I, myself,

would be committing – or encouraging others to commit - a CRIMINAL

TRESPASS on the Innate and Indefeasible Sovereignty of said Peaceful

Inhabitant);

6. THAT I understand for a crime to have been committed it must be capable of

being named in Law (‘theft’, ‘fraud’, ‘murder’, etc), and there must be an

Injured Party (corpus delecti) which must comprise a Human Being (e.g.

homicide) or Group of Human Beings (e.g. War Crimes, genocide). I state

herein that I can name the crime, and can (as may be necessary, in Court)

guarantee the corpus delecti will attend said Court, and can, as first-hand

evidence, demonstrate the injuries sustained;

7. THAT I understand ALL criminal acts (as opposed to mere Statutory

violations) are the subject to the Common Law, and must (therefore) be

proved in a Common Law Court. I understand that a Common Law Court

comprises a Jury of 12 impartial people, and that evidence to convict must

be sworn under penalty of perjury, based on first-hand knowledge, and

evidence of guilt must be proved to criminal standards – namely “beyond

reasonable doubt”;

Signed: ____________________________________________

(Signed under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability)

Dated: _____________________________________________

4. Holy shit? Are the pigeons among the cat, or what? Now it starts to get ENORMOUS FUN!

I get this:

5. Fuck me … a GRADUATE PARALEGAL!!! But notice, he then forwards it on!

Right, well I then got a “Red Reminder”, so I stapled that to this reply, and sent it all back:

26th August 2013

Dear Samrah: of the family Jassal,

Your Ref: LIT.10.2/0001784

I write with regard to the letter I sent recently, which was attached to your

red-coloured paperwork, and your response of 19th August, being to pass it

all to your Legal Department (which was a good idea).

You may like to further pass on to that Department the fact that Hungary are

(at the present time) implementing their own versions of Lincoln’s

“Greenbacks” and British “Bradburys” - both of which were described in my

previous letter.

Your Legal Department may like to consider the question: ”If Hungary (and

Iceland) can do it, why can’t we?”. After all, WE have actually done it before,

so “Why could we not do it again?”

Since you may, or may not, find references to the situation in the Mainstream

News (after all, why should The Powers That Be – who control the Media -

want us all to know how we can all become Debt-Free in an instant?), here is

a simple Internet link to the information:

http://cms.norwichwarren.org/ the Blog Post being entitled Hungary goes

“Greenback/Bradbury”

Please feel free to pass this letter to your Legal Department.

Sincerely, without ill-will, vexation, or frivolity,

Peaceful Inhabitant, and Recipient of your coloured paperwork.

Without any admission of any liability for anything whatsoever, and with all

Natural, Indefeasible, Fundamental Rights reserved.

Samrah: of the family Jassal,

Corporate Resources Directorate,

London Borough of Hounslow,

The Civic Centre,

Lampton Road,

Hounslow TW3 4DN.

You may be a Graduate Paralegal but, unfortunately, you are still below me in

knowledge & facts. One day you may be above me. That would be nice,

because it would save me composing and writing letters)

6. I await their next “go” withOUT bated breath. It arrives like this:

7. Now the REAL FUN can start. I sent her this:

Dear M: of the Arvanitakis family (with a squiggle for a Signature),

I write in response to your letter dated 27th August 2013, on which you place a

Reference: 301653.

It is obvious, from the content, that you have not seriously read anything I have

previously sent.

Either that or that you are completely thick.

So I will attempt to keep things as simple as possible.

First of all you write:

“I am writing to you regarding your complaint about the reminder you

received for your Council Tax”.

This is completely erroneous.

First of all, I did not write a ‘complaint’. So that’s wrong, and tends to show you

either can’t, or don’t, bother to read plain English.

I wrote with INFORMATION.

Secondly you wrote “… for your Council Tax”. Again this is completely wrong. I don’t

have any ‘Council Tax’, and (again if you bothered to read what I have already sent),

I don’t accept YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNILATERALLY ASSIGN ‘Council Tax’ to Me.

So, if you were an honourable, sane, compos mentis, and reasonable Human Being,

you would have written something like:

“I am writing to thank you for the information you sent which I will very

carefully consider, based on the Council Tax reminder we sent to you”.

Do you understand the difference, honey?

The second paragraph starts:

“Council Tax is administered according to the Local Government Finance Act

1992 … yada … yada … yada”.

You must think I’m as stupid as you are, if you think I don’t know where the idea of

‘Council Tax’ comes from.

You then go on to say:

“… if you have issues with this piece of legislation then you may wish to

contact your Member of Parliament who will be able to address your

concerns”.

First and foremost, no ‘Member of Parliament’ HAS EVER, OR WILL EVER, have to

Right to create ‘legislation’.

So what, PRECISELY, would be the point of contacting some moron who thought he

had such a Right?

(Again, you must think I’m as stupid as you so obviously are)

You then go on:

“In your case the reminder was sent because the £7.64 detailed in your bill of

11/03/13 remains unpaid. If the arrears remain unpaid then a summons can

be issued”

More mistakes. First of all it isn’t ‘my bill’.

I have no Contract of Obligation with you such that you have the Right to send me

any ‘bill’.

So it must be YOUR BILL, and therefore YOU should pay it.

Now we get to the meat of the rubbish you wrote to me.

“If an account is summonsed it allows for certain options to recover the debt

and the use of bailiffs is one of them. The bailiffs employed by Revenues are

not allowed to threaten anyone but merely to try to recover the debt by

lawful and peaceful means, so you are not under threat from them”

Let’s get something perfectly CRYSTAL clear. EVEN SENDING A SUMMONS IS A

BREACH OF MY PEACE.

SENDING BAILIFFS IS A FURTHER BREACH OF MY PEACE.

I have NO INTENTION of sending YOU a Summons for non-payment of ‘Council Tax. I

have NO INTENTION of sending Bailiffs to YOUR doorstep.

SO WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO –UNILATERALLY – BREACH MY PEACE?

Let me explain something, honey: Breach of the Peace is a COMMON LAW CRIME.

Those who engage in it are CRIMINALS. Those who INSTIGATE IT are ACCOMPLICES.

Furthermore, there is also the Common Law offence of “Misconduct in Public

Office”, maximum penalty = life imprisonment. Since I assume you are ‘paid by the

Taxpayer’ (you’re not, but I’m sure you think you are … and most people would),

then you are ‘in Public Office’. Consequently “Misconduct in Public Office” applies

to YOU.

So, “Breach of My Peace” and “Misconduct in Public Office” is what you are looking

at if you MAKE ANY MOVE AGAINST ME. This will occur via my Constitution Right to

initiate a PRIVATE CRIMINAL Prosecution against YOU, PERSONALLY. (I know the CPS

wouldn’t bother to prosecute you, BUT WE ALL, AS HUMAN BEINGS, STILL HAVE

THAT INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO DO IT OURSELVES. AND YOU WOULD DO WELL –

NEVER – EVER – TO FORGET THAT, honey! Do you want “R v M Arvanitakis”?

Indictment says charged with: “Breach of the Peace” and “Misconduct in Public

Office”. I could also probably sling in “Negligence” – since it’s all been explained to

you in letters – and probably “Public Nuisance”. All of this can be arranged … just

carry on believing what you wrote to me, and doing what you said you could do)

ANYTHING … ANYTHING … ANYTHING … you do … other than simply leave me

alone, and stop mithering me… is a THREAT. It is a THREAT to Breach My Peace.

(However you try to word it!)

Geddit? I hope that’s now CRYSTAL CLEAR.

I noticed that you wrote ‘… try to recover the debt by lawful and peaceful means, …’,

but do you UNDERSTAND THE IMMENSE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “LAWFUL” and

“LEGISLATION/LEGAL”?

Do you actually know what ‘LAWFUL’ means?

It means you need the UNANIMOUS Verdict of a Jury of my Peers in order to

create ‘LAWFUL’.

That’s what it means.

Have you got one of those?

If not, you don’t ever have ‘LAWFUL’, so don’t go on under the ERRONEOUS

ASSUMPTION that you THINK you have.

READ WHAT I’VE ALREADY WRITTEN TO YOU.

READ IT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT.

And instead of huffing and puffing about ‘all the measures you can take’ – WHICH

YOU ACTUALLY CAN’T – and instead of writing the utter bollox you wrote in your

letter of 27th August – DO WHAT I HAVE SUGGESTED IN PREVIOUS LETTERS OF

INFORMATION.

You have absolutely ZERO LAWFUL RIGHT to demand ANYTHING, and you are

certainly NOT going to get paid ANYTHING.

I hope that’s crystal clear, as well.

Sincerely, without ill-will (at the moment), vexation (at the moment), or frivolity,

Peaceful Inhabitant and Recipient of your paperwork,

Without any admission of any liability for anything whatsoever, and with all Natural,

Lawful, Indefeasible, Fundamental Human Rights reserved.

Mrs. M Arvanitakis,

Revenue Services,

London Borough of Hounslow,

PO Box 355,

Hounslow TW3 4PJ.

8. Then I decided to hammer her a bit more – really turn the screw a bit - and sent this a few

days later:

Dear M-Squiggle: of the Arvanitakis family,

Following on from my letter of 13th September 2013, and yours dated 27th August

2013, on which you place a Reference: 301653, I feel I should make some very

important points very clear.

In your letter you quoted “the Local Government Finance Act 1992”.

Precisely which “Act” gives you the EXPRESS RIGHT to BREACH MY PEACE?

Or, indeed, Anyone Else’s Peace?

THAT’S THE ‘CATCH’, honey. That’s the ‘catch’!

That’s the ‘catch’ that means EVERY WORD OF ANY ‘Legal Training’ you (or anyone

else) have ever had, was complete and utter bollox.

It means that EVERY ‘Statute’ you quote is complete and utter bollox.

It means that when you quote “the Local Government Finance Act 1992”, you are

quoting complete, total, and utter bollox.

They never told you about that ’catch’, did they? (If you paid for any “Legal

Training”, you should demand your money back!)

The reason why it’s a ‘catch’ is very simple. In 1215, the Monarch at the time, King

John, affixed the Royal Seal to the Magna Carta TREATY 1215. The act of affixing his

seal, fundamentally, said that, henceforth, The Common People (via Juries of 12)

create The Law-of-the-Land aka The Common Law.

And King John agreed that neither he, nor his Agents (which, by the way, would

include Lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers, Attorneys, Constables, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, Judges

& Magistrates, etc), could EVER do so, from then onwards.

And The Fundamental Right, enshrined in The Common Law, is The Right to Live in

Peace, and the Right to Expect No-one Else to Breach that Right.

If the King could no longer do it, what status do you think YOU have, honey?

Only Juries of 12, having heard all the facts of a matter, can ‘create The Law-of-the-

Land FOR THAT, SPECIFIC, CIRCUMSTANCE’

What Jury of 12 has UNANIMOUSLY agreed that you have the Right to Breach My

(or Anyone Else’s) Peace?

That’s the LAW, honey. That’s the British Constitution, honey.

THE FIRST (recognised) “Parliament” didn’t come into existence until 1295 … SOME

80 YEARS AFTER 1215. That means that the first “Parliament” – AND EVERY

“PARLIAMENT” SINCE – INCLUDING THE CURRENT ONE – AND THE ONE IN 1992 –

exists – AND IS SUBSERVIENT TO – The Common Law.

That’s why no “Parliament” could ever create any “Act” that says “Breaching

Someone’s Peace is OK”! Because ALL “Parliaments” are SUBSERVIENT to The

Common Law Rights of Every Individual … The Indefeasible Right to Live in Peace.

The Common Law, the Law-of-the-Land, stems directly from the ‘customs &

traditions of our ancestors’, by virtue of the pretty universal desire to live in peace. It

is, fundamentally, nothing more than The Common Sense on ‘how to live in peace’.

This is achieved by simply ‘not treading on another’s toes’, metaphorically speaking.

Well, you are attempting to ‘tread on My Toes’. Which is not a peaceful thing to do.

Consequently, if you persist, then I will employ The Common Law, in order to stop

you doing that. As I have already told you, I will employ The Common Law via a

Private Criminal Prosecution against you – or any of your colleagues, who may

persist in attempting to ‘tread on My Toes’.

Furthermore, acting OUTSIDE of The Law, makes you an Outlaw, honey.

You and all your colleagues (including ‘up-and-down the country’, by the way).

It makes you Outlaws. Criminals, with no respect for The Common Law-of-the-Land.

Dirty, disgusting, low-life, CRIMINALS …is what it makes you and your colleagues.

That’s a FACT.

You bring misery to THOUSANDS of People.

What gives you that Right?

What gives YOU the Right to Breach Their Peace, send Bailiffs to their doorsteps,

and/or generally ‘MITHER them into submission’?

What gives you that Right?

What gives you the Right to unilaterally ‘tread on people’s toes’?

What gives you that Right? Where did you get that Right from? WHO HAD THAT

RIGHT … in the first place … in order to give it to you? NO-ONE … I repeat NO-ONE is

born with that Right … so it must have been PLUCKED OUT OF SOMEONE’S ARSE …

mustn’t it? MUSN’T IT? Was it plucked out of YOUR ARSE?

YOU DON’T HAVE THAT RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU’RE AN OUTLAW. AND WHAT YOU DO

IS THE SORT OF THING THAT OUTLAWS DO, ISN’T IT? Breaching anyone and

everyone’s peace, mithering them with Summonses, sending HIRED THUGS to their

doorsteps – maybe even trying to get them imprisoned JUST BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN

NOT TO AGREE WITH YOUR BOLLOX?

(Can you imagine what I could tell all the other Inmates, if you imprison me? That

no-one had the Right to imprison most of them? And why. Because it’s all been

plucked out of someone’s arse!)

You’re an Outlaw. A filthy low-life, CRIMINAL. You, and all of your colleagues,

clutching your parasitical bags of “Legals”, are nothing more than blow-flies

buzzing around the arsehole of Humanity. You are so far out on a limb, you haven’t

noticed that there isn’t even a tree.

You don’t want to be a blow-fly?

You don’t want to be a CRIMINAL?

You don’t want to be “filthy, disgusting, low-life”?

It offends you, being considered “filthy, disgusting, low-life”?

NO PROBLEM! Read what I’ve already sent you! Read how THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB

is to ISSUE THE MONEY. Read how it’s been done before. Read how you can “talk to

YOUR Member of Parliament, and point it out to him or her”. (See if they will listen

to YOU! Oh … very funny … that bit in your letter of bollox!)

Either that … or quit your job, and take one that doesn’t rely on CRIMINALITY in

order to create your salary. Get one that doesn’t rely on writing the complete and

utter bollox you wrote to me, on the 27th August 2013.

Sincerely, without ill-will (at the moment), vexation (at the moment), or frivolity,

Peaceful Inhabitant and Recipient of your paperwork,

Without any admission of any liability for anything whatsoever, and with all Natural,

Lawful, Indefeasible, Fundamental Human Rights reserved.

Mrs. M Arvanitakis,

Revenue Services,

London Borough of Hounslow,

PO Box 355,

Hounslow TW3 4PJ.

9. Eventually, I get this:

10. So, I write back:

Dear Revenues-Officer: of the Squiggle family,

I write in response to your letter of the 11th November 2013, headed “Your Ref: 1813492”.

First of all, I haven’t got a “Ref:”, so that’s yet another mis-take, isn’t it?

But then, your entire letter was a mis-take, wasn’t it?

In fact your entire position is a mis-take, isn’t it?

Why would that be? Very simply because you have made exactly the same point I made, and

you’ve done it in black & white, and on paper (and signed by an anonymous squiggle …

presumably to make sure that you don’t identify yourself. Which, of course, is a very good

idea. Even though it displays your utter cowardice). Nevertheless, in doing so, you have

completely undermined your own position. You wrote:

“The Council Tax is only abiding by law in the collection of this tax as prescribed in

this regulation [i.e. Local Government Finance Act 1992] and not Magna Carta”

Those were your very words, quoted verbatim. In that sentence you are saying that the Local

Government Finance Act is “law”, and that the Magna Carta 1215 is – by implication – “not

law”.

Which is precisely in contradiction to Halsbury’s Laws of England – the reference tome

utilised by all Courts of Law in this land.

So, that means you are prepared to argue against Halsbury’s? That Halsbury’s Laws of

England is wrong? When it says under "STATUTES (VOLUME 44(1) (REISSUE))/1. NATURE OF

PRIMARY LEGISLATION/(2) DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION/(iii) Particular Types of Act/A.

CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS/1221. Constitutional Acts" (my emphasis):

(iii) Particular Types of Act

A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS

1221. Constitutional Acts.

The British Constitution is said to be 'unwritten'. This only means that, unlike most

countries, the United Kingdom does not possess a single comprehensive constitution

and much of its constitutional principle is embodied in the common law. There are

nevertheless a number of historic statutes regarded as embodying and setting forth

the state's constitutional principles. Any modern Act which amends or adds to these

may also be regarded as a constitutional Act. The main significance of classing an Act

as a constitutional Act lies in the nature of the interpretative criteria which then

apply to it. In particular, the rights the Act confers, having the quality of

constitutional rights, will be regarded by the courts as fundamental and not to be

displaced except by clear words.

1 See eg Magna Carta (1215); the Bill of Rights (1689); … etc?

It lists the Magna Carta TREATY 1215 before everything else. Which is, therefore, clearly

indicating that the Magna Carta 1215 is THE founding document of the British Constitution,

and hence The Law-of-the-Land (aka The Common Law). It lists the Bill of Rights 1689 next.

The Magna Carta TREATY 1215, i.e. The British Constitution, says very clearly that any future

attempt to succeed it, or subsume it, is NULL & VOID. (The Magna Carta 1215 uses “clear

words”)

The Magna Carta TREATY 1215 further says, in Article 39:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and

possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way,

nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the

lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(Note: Halsbury’s, above, defines The Common Law as “the law of the land”)

And the Bill of Rights 1689 says (again my emphasis):

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before

conviction are illegal and void;

And THAT IS THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE THE LAW.

And what that means, in summary, is that – if you think I have done anything wrong – in any

way, shape or form – YOU HAVE BUT ONE OPTION: To charge me with the offence, and

place me in front of a Jury of my Peers, in order to present your Complaint, and my Defence

to them.

These will be 12 impartial people sitting in a Crown Court.

And I will explain THE LAW to them, as I have found it necessary to explain it to you. I will

point out to them that Council Tax carries no ‘force of Law’, for reasons I have already given

you (in previous letters and herein above. I will quote your letter “…as prescribed in this

regulation and not Magna Carta”).

I will explain to them how the re-introduction of the Bradbury £, will render not only Council

Tax – but all other taxes – irrelevant & unnecessary.

I will explain to them how you produce and issue your own Summonses, FAKING Court

Letter Headings, and apply all kinds of threats, menaces and intimidations – in order to

extort money from everyone … including them, themselves, their families & friends, and

other loved ones.

I will explain to them, with all the evidence, how you hire “Magistrates Courts” to do all your

dirty work for you. I will explain to them how your “Magistrates Courts” do NOT form any

part of The British Constitution, and are – therefore - in themselves - a Contempt of Court,

when they call themselves “Law”. As are you, for employing them, by acting as Accomplices.

And that’s your only option, because that IS The British Constitution, and that IS The Law.

And that IS the ONLY Law.

And you have no other option. You certainly don’t have the option of writing the total bollox

I have had to receive over the past few months. If, and ONLY if, a Jury of my Peers convicts

me, ONLY THEN does The Law have the ability to sentence me, by way of a fine and/or a

prison sentence.

You think this is all wrong, do you? You think Parliament – or Judges – or Magistrates – can

make The Law, do you? Well, then, answer me this: If that’s the case, why do we have

Juries?

Why do we bother with Juries, if 630+ generally corrupt, self-serving, and mealy-mouthed

so-called Members of Parliament, together with a clutch of Judges, Magistrates, and other

assorted robots, such as yourself, can just make it up, as they go along? Why do we go to

the massive expense of convening Juries? Why do we have Crown Courts, and High Courts,

such as the Old Bailey, then?

The answer goes back to the British Constitution and Magna Carta 1215, that we employ

Juries as the ONLY means of creating Law.

You are a Revenue Officer who doesn’t know the first thing about Law.

Magna Carta 1215, Article 45:

We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that

know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

Whoops! Yet another mis-take … in employing you!

How can you possibly ‘apply the Law’, when you didn’t even know that there was a Law

that said you needed to know the Law?

Do yourselves (and everyone else) a favour, and stop wasting everyone’s time by trying to

argue something that is unarguable. Get yourselves a Jury of 12, and let’s argue this out in

front of them, in a Crown Court. After all, if you are so sure that you are right, the Jury will

agree with you, won’t it? After all, you have the Local Government Finance Act behind

you, don’t you?

What are you afraid of? Could it be that a Jury, in a Crown Court, doesn’t have to take any

notice of your “Local Government Finance Act 1992” (or any other “Act”), and is required to

make up its own mind, using Common Sense (i.e. Common Law), and based solely on the

evidence presented? Could it be that the Verdict of a Jury establishes THE LAW, and is

sacrosanct? Could that be your problem, I wonder? That if a Jury decided Council Tax was

unlawful, you would be fucked, henceforth?

It was recognised, in 1215, that those (such as you) would always abound. That’s why the

Magna Carta 1215 came up with the concept of a Jury of 12. As a bastion against your filthy

kind. And that concept was exported to all the English-speaking peoples of the world.

Consequently, only a complete idiot would try to dismiss it, as you did, in your letter of the

11th.

Oh! I get it! Courts with Juries are for CRIMINAL matters! That’s the answer! That’s why we

have Juries! For CRIMINAL matters!

So what about those places where you bleat on endlessly about your Local Government

Finance Act 1992, then? You know, your favourite, where you get all your dirty work done:

Magistrates Star Chambers? What are they doing, then? After all, there’s no Jury in a

Magistrates Star Chamber … is there? So, they can’t be dealing with CRIMINAL matters, then

… can they? So, what is left?

DISPUTES, CIVIL DISPUTES, are what’s left - after CRIMES.

TO RESOLVE DISPUTES, is the answer, Sunbeam. To resolve situations where two Parties are

in dispute. Where, for example, you say I owe you something, and I say you have no lawful

right of demand. THAT’S A DISPUTE! It can’t be a crime because you can’t show any injury to

any corpus delecti. (Which is why you couldn’t sign the Affidavit I originally sent).

We could go to Arbitration Services to resolve this DISPUTE.

Well, we could … but … unfortunately (for you) “Arbitration” is only valid (i.e. “lawful”)

where both Parties CONSENT to it by free will, and where BOTH TRUST THE ARBITRATOR.

And I would not trust you – or your chosen robotic, psychopathic, Arbitrators – as far as I

could throw you, or any of them.

Why? I’ve already explained: NONE OF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LAW.

So, you see, however much you want to cut up the cake, and wriggle, and thrash about in

various kinds of “Local-Government-Finance-Act-1992-bollox word salads”, you can’t escape

the simple question: Why do we have Juries?

And all of the foregoing leaves you fairly & squarely with the only option: Get yourself a

Jury.

A final word of warning.

Do not make the fatal mis-take of thinking that you can simply throw a Magistrates Star

Chamber “Summons” at me, and that will “sort me out” (like “it sorts everyone out, ha!

Ha!”. “We’ve got the muscle, ha! Ha!”).

It won’t.

And it won’t be the end of anything.

It will be the start of a road that you will come to seriously regret going down.

Because your pet Magistrates Star Chamber is also the ‘official route for a committal to

Crown Court’, isn’t it?

And I know what to do, in order to operate that route.

Which will leave your “bought & paid for” Bench with two choices: Dismiss, or commit to

Crown.

“Dismissal” - will go all the way around the Internet, obviously explaining (carefully) what I

did to achieve it.

“Committal to Crown”, likewise. The eventual Verdict of the Jury – who don’t have to take

the slightest notice of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 … and can relieve themselves,

and everyone else in the land, by declaring it UNLAWFUL … likewise.

(Yes: “The natives are getting restless”. VERY restless, Sunbeam).

I’m done with this ‘conversation’. The Local Government Finance Act 1992 counts for

NOTHING in the face of a Jury. In the face of LAW. I repeat: NOTHING. All that counts are

your “threats, menaces, breaches of my … and everyone else’s … peace”, and everything

else that goes with your CRIMINAL activities.

Consequently, henceforth, if I need to write another letter, except only in

acknowledgement of receipt of your letter confirming that this matter is closed, my fee will

be £1,000 (ONE THOUSAND POUNDS) per letter. And that includes any response I may need

to make in relation to Summonses. Thus, by sending me another letter of bollox, you (on

behalf of Hounslow Borough Council) FULLY AGREE that the Council will send me £1,000, to

accompany each letter you send – in full payment of the reply I need to make. Any further

letter you send, absent that payment, will be ignored, and simply added to my evidence

pile, against you.

Sincerely, without ill-will, vexation, or frivolity,

Peaceful Inhabitant and Unfortunate Recipient of your Written Bollox.

Without any admission of any liability for anything whatsoever, and with all Natural,

Fundamental, and Indefeasible Rights reserved.

Revenues-Officer: of the Squiggle family ,

(too cowardly to be properly identified),

Revenue Services,

London Borough of Hounslow,

P(iss) O(ff) Box 355,

Hounslow TW3 4PJ.

11. And, what’s their responses to that? On the 20th December, in an attempt to ruin my

Paganmas, I get this:

12. Which – as far as I can see – is them surrendering to my onslaught.

13. 2014? Oh … I’ll just send them this PDF.