We have an absolute right to a fair trial and due process, and it isn’t happening
If you want to understand the essential problem of our society, take a look at the UK Parliament website:
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.
This statement is treasonous. Parliament requires the assent of the monarch to pass laws (so cannot be sovereign), and the monarch (through the coronation oath) holds the sovereignty of the people on trust. Magna Carta established that all are under the rule of law, it itself is law, and as the founding constitutional document of English law it cannot be changed by Parliament. The people can nullify legislation via jury trials by refusal to enforce it as law. Hence Parliament is claiming a power it does not have, since it can only vary legislation, not law. The Parliament website then proudly lists prior treasonous activities they have (for now) got away with, like EEC/EU entry, and the Human Rights Act.
Here in England I am fighting my local council (and local police) over their transparently unlawful debt collection process being run in collaboration with a treasonous magistrates’ court system. The corruption has become so systemic and normalised that it is quite a shock to realise how far we have fallen. To make it absolutely clear, the council is “borrowing” the authority of the court to issue its own summonses which pretend to come from the court, and then getting the court to rubber stamp bulk demands for money with no examination of each case at the summons or judgement stage.
This is forgery and fraud, and self-evidently unlawful. That is before we even get to the constitutional matter of a court operating without any jury of one’s peers, who are the only authority empowered inflict punishment or a forfeit. The list of laws being broken here is getting longer and longer… Documentary Evidence Act 1868, Forgery Act 1913, Theft Act 1968 sections 17 and 21, Fraud Act 2006 sections 2 and 3, Protection from Harassment 1997, Treason Act 1571, Treason Act 1795, Coronation Oath 1688, Bill of Rights 1689, Act of Settlement 1700. I continue to research and compile the full complaint and litany of broken trust.
In England Law Reports [1975] 2 All ER QBD p206-207. Lord Chief Justice Widgery was ruling on such an affixing of a judge’s signature by rubber stamp. He said [my emphasis, edited for brevity]:
It is perfectly proper for a signature to be affixed by way of rubber stamp… but for one matter… if the summons had come into existence in the manner which I last referred to, namely as a purely administrative operation without any information being laid, then the summons would be bad … before a summons or warrant is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty and if in any particular justices’ clerk’s office a practice goes on of summonses being issued without information being laid before the magistrate at all, then a very serious instance of maladministration arises which should have the attention of the authorities without delay.
So the problem with a “rubber stamp” administrative court is not the physical use of an inked stamp as a mechanism to authenticate authority, but rather the failure of any judicial function to be performed. This means that there is no separation of powers, and the executive (Durham County Council in my case) is also the judge, jury, and even executioner. That very much serves their narrow interest, because they are knowingly committing fraud: they cannot prove obligation to pay for Council Tax (and no council has done so when challenged), since all Acts of parliament require the consent of those bound by them. It’s a bit like Tesco trying to enforce its staff rule handbook and get you to pay for the Christmas charity event when you happen to shop with them; you didn’t agree to that when you popped in for some milk.
I have asked the court to provide me with a copy of the order the claim to have in my name, and they have refused; they merely assert one exists with no evidence. That is not due process under the law. I have asked how many orders were issued, and they have refused to answer. That is not due process under the law. I have asked under what legal authority they are operating, and they cannot tell me. That is not due process under the law. So what we now have is a court system that has gone rogue and been allowed to operate that was as a matter of habit for many years. That wasn’t such a big deal as long as the abuses were minor.
But now we are being asked to fund state terrorism (via a fake pandemic and genetic genocide), and the underlying scam of the mass human trafficking of the public is being exposed. We have been hoaxed into answering to our legal personas rather than standing as free men and women, and conned into playing debtors rather than creditors of any associated trusts. Admiralty law is silently substituted for common law, stripping the people of their sovereign rights. Parliament as legislature is asserting it is sovereign (and hence effectively above the law), and now the same is happening in the judiciary and executive.
To advocate for the acceptability of this approach is to claim a post-constitutional form of law. In a communist state there is only administrative law, since individual liberty is crushed, and that is close to where we find ourselves. A class of the politburo with their apparatchiks conceives of rules and enforces them, with a godless disregard for the sacredness of life or divine rights of the individual. Only the collective interest matters, and mass consciousness is the sole arbiter of right and wrong. The assertion that the state is sovereign is morally identical to communism.
There is just one tiny flaw with this: lots of us are stubbornly attached to our liberty, and are willing to fight for it, with no bound on the personal cost we will endure to resist the incursion of communist morals. We have to push back, and it is always the cover-up where they get caught out, and never the original crime. The cover-up is a straightforward matter of process, whereas the crime is deliberately structured to lose accountability in the byzantine maze of regulations and institutional interfaces.
I think you might enjoy my latest email to the court, which has engaged “beast mode” with fangs exposed. The claws may come out in the next one, based on the response given.
Dear Ms Abraham,
Thank you for your extremely prompt response.
I am concerned that you have evaded perhaps the most important question I have asked, in breach of the Nolan Principles (attached) that require openness, honesty, and accountability. We are dealing with an extremely serious matter, which is a court that is potentially operating in an unlawful way. A lack of candour is indicative of mens rea and an intention to participate in covering up what may be a serious criminal conspiracy involving the council impersonating the authority of a court to defraud the public.
The question is not whether a liability order was issued as an administrative or narrative matter, but whether it was done lawfully — and hence whether Durham County Council has a lawful (or criminal) debt enforcement process.
Q1. Was there a single liability order created (with an appendix in your register with all the cases to which it applied), or was a liability order made in respect of each case separately (being put in the register as a distinct matter)? This is a very basic question about the nature of the justice process being operated, and should be easy to answer based on the entry or entries in your register. In case you are unable to decide, would the voiding of the order for one defendant cause the voiding of the order for all, or none of the others?
Q2. Open justice is a basic principle of English law. Whether a member of the public or a member of the press, there is a right to know what cases are being conducted, and who is involved, with few exceptions (e.g. family law). I request once more under The Magistrates’ Courts (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2021, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, or any other applicable legislation the number of defendants for the referenced hearing, their details, the number of liability orders granted, the number of cases that were dismissed or otherwise not granted. If you are unable or unwilling to give this information, please explain the lawful basis for doing so, citing the law that obligates you to withhold this data.
Q3. Can you please confirm or correct the following summary understanding of your court processes and policies; anything not corrected will be taken to be confirmed, and the absence of a timely response will also be taken that these are facts.
- You are unable or unwilling to state what legal authority the court is operating under in issuing the summons or liability order. (The Lord Chancellor does not make law, only operates its machinery of justice and hires its operatives.)
- There is no case number or hearing number assigned from the court, and these are done by the claimant.
- No judicial examination was performed of the circumstances of each defendant or case history before the summons was issued.
- Each summons was printed and issued by the claimant while appearing to come from the court, using the permission of the court, and the reproduced signature of the clerk, but without any court seal or stamp, and mailed (in a window envelope with no address on the exterior) by the claimant using the claimant’s return address.
- No right to a jury was offered to defendants before suffering a forfeit.
- No judicial examination was performed before issuing a liability order against bulk claimants (e.g. having contested via prior correspondence whether there was any obligation to pay).
- No communication was offered by the court to the defendants that an order was issued.
- There is no process available to provide the defendant with an authenticated and official court copy of the liability order (only a paid-for certified extract from the appendix, which itself is not a liability order).
- The claimant is asked by the court to notify the defendant of the liability order (who takes its existence on trust), but is not required to provide evidence of a valid and lawful one.
- That any challenge by the defendant to the court about the existence of a valid liability order is referred to the claimant.
- That there is no signature, seal, or stamp to show the magistrates have issued the order under the authority of the court — holding them accountable.
- That no document is available to the defendant with details of who is accountable for having issued the order, and duly signed or stamped.
- That any register of such cases is indexed under the administrative framework of the claimant, and not the court.
Based on this understanding, it would appear that Peterlee Magistrates Court is unlawfully loaning its authority to Durham County Council, and performing no actual independent judicial function whatsoever in the majority of cases. You are under notice that any false or misleading statement may lead to personal liability and criminal prosecution. This matter has already been brought to the attention of Durham Constabulary.
As previously, I have copied the court email address so this goes on the court correspondence record.
I trust you have rested well on your Wednesday off. I eagerly anticipate your equally rapid response to these simple questions of lawful due process.
Martin Geddes
They get nervous when it gets personal, and that’s when mistakes are made, and crimes get exposed in writing. At some point there is going to be a staff member who has lost a friend or loved one to the Covid jab, or is injured themselves, and they will turn on the system because they have nothing to lose and no remaining loyalty to their salary and pension. We are going to win this, because it doesn’t take many people standing up and refusing to be bullied in order for the “normal but unlawful” to become toxic and unsupportable. Accountability is addictive too, once you start insisting on it and taking up your own power.
This is an exhausting process of having to re-educate ourselves and fight against gangsters in power who claim to have legitimacy and authority (but do not). I am having to spend significant time on researching these matters, so apologies if essays are sparser than usual. I am also making a concerted effort to build up my local network of supporters and fellow campaigners for truth and justice. My attitude is that supporters who give me funds are paying for me to have life experiences, fresh thinking, and useful connections that make what I write valuable and valued; it is not about publishing to any deadline.
I am having a rough time with my family, who are deeply “in the matrix” and refusing to be accountable for their own behaviour and choices. So be it — my conscience is clear, and I have no problems holding my personal boundaries, as long as I “look up” and keep the “dial tone to the divine” buzzing in the background. They make their choices, I make mine, and I love them even when I do not wish to associate or communicate with them. I haven’t taken the Devil’s dose of death; I haven’t abandoned any children to be spiritually abused or genocided; nor have I subjugated myself to the false morality of contractual or religious law being used to steal our unalienable rights.
This will resolve and reconcile in time. Our grandchildren (and their grandchildren) require us to step up and insist that this treasonous and unjust situation is ended. Fake courts, fake hearings, and fake justice are dangerous and unacceptable; if we give them an nanometer, they will take a light year. There is no acceptable level of tyranny, especially when it comes to such a blatant and fundamental breach of lawful due process, individual rights, and separation of powers.
You have to personally accept that there are costs and consequences for fighting back. “Going along to get along” is only justifiable as long as you are picking your battles, not avoiding them. The legal system is being run by traitors committing treason — a crime more serious than murder — and with the full endorsement of Parliament and the police. You might have a right to silence in front of the police, but you also have a duty to make a din when defending the rule of law. This horror show ends when sufficient numbers of us object, and withdraw our consent to unlawful administrative governance.
So go make some noise, too! Now — before it is too late.
Read It Now
