Freeman on the Land debtors led out of Magistrates Court

[Bailiff Advice]

At a Liability Order hearing at Chesterfield magistrates’ court on 4th March two debtors were led out of the court by ushers.

 

One of the debtors was Mr Henry who refused to remove his woollen had and argued that to do so would be a breach of his rights and he began quoting from paperwork stating that:

 

“This is my thought, consciousness and religion and you cannot deny me these rights.”

 

The second debtor was Mr Trevor Hill but he provided the court with his 'strawman' name of "Trevor of the Hill family". He told the court that he would not consent with the proceedings and argued that the court could not proceed without his consent.

 

Magistrates retired briefly and Mr Hill was then led out by security as he referred to the rights of the Freeman of the Land.

 

Despite not 'consenting' with the proceedings, Liability Orders were nonetheless granted against both debtors.

 

 

http://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/crime/men-forced-to-leave-chesterfield-court-after-hat-and-phone-row-1-7157658#comments-area

[fkofilee]

Ive spent the last 3 minutes ROFL!!!!

[SabreSheep]

I think the answer is simple

For anyone that does not want to respect the rule of law.

If they wish to deny consent to be governed by the law then they should have that right applied

 

Problem is by opting out of society they then opt out of all the benefits

 

This means they should be exported to a small uninhabited scottish island with no power or running water. To protect human rights, a basic hut and well should be installed.

They can then govern themselves.

[brassnecked]

Oh dear, was there a hidden camera In the woolly hat? that might explain a reluctance to remove. If so i look forward to the YouTube link, would be good for a laugh, but the footage could lead to jailtime for contempt.

[HCEOs]

We enforced against a high profile FOTL individual a few years ago. After gaining entry to his property and initiating removal of goods he paid in full. Of course we had all the garbage about him not consenting, no contract etc. etc.

 

We soon got issued with an invoice which was for an apparent contract when we entered his property and duly ignored it. Despite not believing in the law he continued to make threats to drag us through the Courts. As you would expect we invited him to do so and never heard from him again.

 

The whole FOTL movement is a laughable, pointless and powerless joke for people trying to avoid their debts.

[biggeorge]

That is quite large amount in costs for maybe one hours work, £55.00 x 484 = £26,620, No wonder they just rubber stamp these orders.

 

George

[Old Cogger]

Rubber stamp!! seems to be proceeds of a Kangaroo Court?????? in the making!

[brassnecked]

Rubber stamp!! seems to be proceeds of a Kangaroo Court?????? in the making!

granting of Rubber Stamp Lioability Orders for Council Tax is a Kangaroo Court, as usually a council will do everything it can to prevent a debtor, whether FMOL or not seeing the magistrates to preesent their case. Council Tax is iniquitous of itself as it takes no account of a liable person's ability to pay, and presents the council and bailiff with an additional revenue stream when arrears accrue.

 

We should be lobbying the government to change the system.

[Conniff]

 

Despite not believing in the law he continued to make threats to drag us through the Courts.

 

 

And no doubt take every penny you had lol

[Guest]

it does seem pretty much rubber stamping in a back room re LO.

even some Judges seem to agree '...the majority of liability order proceedings may be viewed as a “rubberstamping” exercise without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal...'

[ploddertom]

it does seem pretty much rubber stamping in a back room re LO.

even some Judges seem to agree '...the majority of liability order proceedings may be viewed as a “rubberstamping” exercise without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal...'

 

Part of it is that they can only give a Yes or No answer to the question of whether the summonsed party is liable to pay Council Tax.

[Guest]

Part of it is that they can only give a Yes or No answer to the question of whether the summonsed party is liable to pay Council Tax.

 

seems so. 'without the protection of a full judicial process and with limited rights of appeal'.

this is the link re that quote for ref. havent read the case though

http://www.greenhalghkerr.com/articles/qa-setting-aside-liability-orders/