Hereford Magistrates Court, 17th October 2011
(Original quick & dirty report ... Word .DOC)
(All times are approximate)
Part 1 - 10 minutes, 42 seconds (click to download the audio)
35s -> 1m 16s
Veronica argues with Judge Cadbury (JC) about being told to sit in the Public Gallery. Resolved when Guy directs Veronica to sit in the Public Gallery.
1m 20s -> 1m 50s
Clerk of the Court Roger Harris (RH) discusses with Guy how Guy wished to be called + home address etc.
1m 55s -> 3m 15s
RH reads out the "Motoring offence" allegation & history (Guy stopped/arrested for 'no Road Tax, no Insurance, no MOT, no Licence')
3m 15s -> 10m 40s
Alleged 'motoring offence'. JC agrees to call Guy "Guy". Guy then explains precisely what happened re his Pre-Action Protocol and request for Judicial Review, and finally suggests that everyone should " ... just get on with it", and have a Trial. JC agrees. Guy then points out (to the Judge and the CPS Representative) the questions he will be asking, and says he "... doesn't plead". Eventually a "not guilty" plea is entered.
8m 23s: JC asks for a copy of PC Hargreave's Witness Statement to read
9m 36s: DELICIOUS MOMENT: JC starts reading the Witness Statement as "On the 21st January, 2012 …", stops, and says "That's a good start!".
It is then agreed that the matter should be adjourned, and PC Hargreaves called as a witness to explain his Statement, at a later date. (We know Hargreaves will NOT look forward to that … so much so that there is the possibility the case will now be withdrawn. Which will be unfortunate. We WANT Hargreaves on the stand, in the Witness Box, under penalty of perjury --- answering VERY POINTED questions!).
Part 2 - 25 minutes, 48 seconds (click to download the audio)
"Bodenham Manor Restaurant" & "The Old Railway Sidings" become intertwined - largely due to County Court Judge Nadeem Khan's intransigence, plus the fact that Guy claimed "no jurisdiction" initially, and never got the chance to state that he had sold off a large chunk of the Old Railway Sidings (for which the Council were still charging him).
Repeated efforts to tell the Council were rebuffed/ignored, and Council Officials told to hang up the phone whenever Guy or Linda called.
"Bodenham Manor Restaurant" was only a going concern until 2005, when Guy's father died. Again, intransigence by the Council has prevented this FACT for emerging, and hence they are trying to charge Business Rates instead of Domestic Tariffs.
This all gets intertwined by the fact that the Council took Guy to the point of bankruptcy over the Old Railway Sidings … only withdrawing at the very last minute when Guy hired a(n expensive!) Bristol Firm of Solicitors to 'finally get through' to the Council.
Although the Council's claim was withdrawn at the last gasp, by then firms of Solicitors had added in their costs - including the fraudulent claim by local (so-called) 'Solicitor', Michael Horne. Corrupt County Court Judge, Nadeem Khan, rubber-stamped all of these costs - and would have rubber-stamped the Council's claim, if they had not withdrawn it.
For this reason Guy was suing the Council for 'irregular distress'. However he decided to withdraw that claim, since the Council had withdrawn their own claim.
The female voice is the London-based Barrister (Jenny Wiggley) hired by Herefordshire Council, who looks, speaks, and acts as though she is in a permanent state of PMT. Waffling is her speciality. At one point she tries to argue that Guy was "... not distressed" by the Council's Bankruptcy Petition, because "... Bailiffs were not called upon". (Presumably, in her little world, "distress" is only caused by Bailiffs. One wonders whether or not she would feel "distressed" if she were to be smacked in the face with a wet kipper or an elephant's trunk?)
DELICIOUS MOMENT at 2m 45s (et seq.) when JC explains (a) That he has spent all weekend reading up for this Hearing (which explains why he can understand what is going on … this gentleman did his homework!), and (b) He knows that the result was that the Council have admitted they actually owe Guy approximately £378.
DELICIOUS MOMENT at 11m 10s when JC explains the Court's original attitude to "Freeman-on-the-Land" … creating problems as "Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other".
At 12m 45 Barrister Wiggley waffles on (for what seems like an age …) until:
DELICIOUS MOMENT at 13m 55s … when JC says "Yes, but it turned out that, on the face of it, he [Guy] was correct …" … which undercut her entire waffle.
DELICIOUS MOMENT at 23m 35s … when JC is concerned to 'do it right', and tells Guy that HE can apply for costs, etc. (Linda quotes £4,000 … the fee for hiring the Bristol Solicitors)
Part 3 - 17 minutes, 31 seconds (click to download the audio)
Guy challenges jurisdiction. JC says it is his understanding that he has both Common Law and 'Statute Law' jurisdiction. (He is wrong on both counts. Firstly it is not a Common Law Court, because there is no Jury. Nevertheless - in a Common Law Court - it is true that JC WOULD have jurisdiction. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. Secondly, there is no such things as 'Statute Law'. Statutes are not 'Law'. They are the exact inverse of 'Law'. See here).
Nevertheless JC thinks he does have these jurisdictions (at this time). (But ... see later ... when he admits 'he may be wrong'!)
At 1m 55s JC goes on to point out that Guy "... accepts jurisdiction when it suits him ... but challenges it when it suits him to challenge it". WHICH IS TRUE. BUT. This only mirrors what Courts do. All the time. They operate under Statutes ... AND - WHEN IT SUITS THEM - throw the COMMON LAW MISDEMEANOR of "Contempt of Court" at someone ... who has the temerity to 'stand up for themselves'! (Guy said he pointed this out, but I can't actually hear that on the audio).
And - in any case - this is fine ... because it ALL revolves around CONSENT (as we know!).
There are a good few minutes from that Time Code well worth listening to. Including JC explaining the Court's attitude to Freemen-on-the-Land.
(Not terribly audible at the point when Guy refers to the Judges' Oath, and JC says "I hope you're not going to ask me to remember it!").
Guy ends up quoting Halsbury's Laws of England ("Administrative Law is nothing more than an arrangement between the Executive and the Judiciary. And the Law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for Administrative Courts in the country, and no Act could be passed to legitimise them") which results in a:
DELICIOUS MOMENT at 6m 40s, when JC says "That's going to cause a few problems, isn't it?"
What does this all mean?
1. Halsbury's states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts & Administrative Law FORMS NO PART OF "the laws and usages of the realm". Halsbury's states, quite categorically, that Administrative Courts/Law is "merely an arrangement between the Executive & the Judiciary".
2. At a Coronation Ceremony a Monarch swears to uphold "the laws and usages of the realm".
3. When a Judge is sworn in, s/he takes on Oath which swears to support the Coronation Oath to uphold "the laws and usages of the realm".
4. Therefore Judges have NO JURISDICTION in Administrative Courts or under Administrative Law. They only have jurisdiction on a Common Law Court with a Jury of 12 (which is part and parcel of "the laws and usages of the realm").
Magistrates Courts (where this Hearing was held) and all County Courts are Administrative Courts, applying 'Administrative Law'. They are thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CRIMINAL, AND FRAUDULENT. And, to quote Judge Cadbury's masterful understatement: "That's going to cause a few problems, isn't it?". (Even Crown & High Courts, with a Jury, are not entirely CONSTITUTIONAL, because the Judge is allowed to 'direct' a Jury's Verdict)
Guy then points out that the whole process is an occult (occult means "hidden") C'est Que Vie Trust. And then proceeds to read from the Fraud Act 2006, and explains that Council Tax Summonses are issued by the Council - NOT BY THE COURT (we have indisputable evidence of that!).
Guy makes many claims about the lack of "due process", the lack of "due diligence - particularly on the part of Councils", the lack of just about everything - which actually results in Common Law crimes of 'breach of the peace' against all & sundry. Creating continual Torts against everyone.
JC requests a copy of Halsbury's (with John Hurst
whispering the references), and decides to retire to consider what has been
Part 4 - 30 minutes, 34 seconds (click to download the audio)
Judge Cabury's decisions, after his 20-minute retirement.
He firstly points out that some of these issues have been considered in other Courts (errr... actually NOT Courts of Law, of course ... that was fully explained to him ... but the 'ingraining' is deep ... as we all know!).
And does actually admit that - perhaps - some of the points Guy has made "... may be right ...", and that "... clearly, it has to be looked at very closely ...", and "... maybe some people do pay too much lip-service to 'regulations' ...".
DELICIOUS MOMENT at 1m 55s when JC says "I might be locked up for this, but ..."
See (Original quick & dirty report ... Word .DOC) for a summary of the decisions by JC.
British Gas withdrew before the Hearing, with tails between legs, realising that they actually owed Guy (probably) thousands.
CPS Prosecutor now realises that ever-so-reluctant PC Hargreaves will have to take the stand if the 'motoring issue' is proceeded with. Consequently he left with his tail between his legs.
Barrister Wiggley did not get anything like the costs she was demanding, and did NOT get the Judge to agree that Guy's Lien, on her, had no effect. She therefore left, together with Council Legal Staff (who had hired her) all with tails between legs. (She, and one of the Council's Legal Staff, owe Guy far and away more - via Liens - than Guy owes them. Hence the tails between the legs)
The only 'bad' result is that Judge Cadbury refused to issue
a Summons against corrupt County Court Judge Nadeem Khan. However, he did
suggest that his decision should (not could) be appealed, and did agree
that it would make a good Test Case. (It would seem that Judge Cadbury just didn't want to take the
risk ... all by himself ... even though "... I might be
locked up for this, but ...").