Page 1 of 1

Councils - Plaintiffs and Sovereignty

PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:00 pm
by huntingross
Listening to the 1215 Sovereignty tapes today, in particular tape 13, I had a clarity moment.

There have been many posts over the past year in regard to Council Tax and shenanigans in Court....this explanation may go some way to explaining that.....

Background :

At common law, any jurisdiction which has the power to fine and imprison, is a court of record

The judge is an administrator, he is bound to declare what the law is , and not to make it.

The Plaintiff is sovereign and decrees the law of the court.

Under international law, the court is the person and suite of the sovereign.....the judge has no jurisdiction until the sovereign (plaintiff) files his case and brings the law to the court, when the judge can declare it.....the sovereign has decreed what the law is.

So what's happening in these council tax cases :

The Council (plaintiff/sovereign) brings the case to HIS court where he has decreed the law of the court (some Act saying pay Council Tax) and anything else which they determine to be the law of the case....even a statement "you shall pay council tax" is now the law of the court unless it is rebutted.

The judge does not make the law he administrates the law of the court (decreed by the sovereign) he has no other function than to administer that.

As a defendant you are a subject of the king (council/plaintiff/sovereign), you are already on the loosing side.....unless you can over turn the kings law as he has defined it, you will loose every time.

This is why it appears as if the Council has hired the Court for the's because they have....for the day, they are sovereign and they made the law that brought you there.

Possible solutions :

1. Make a counter claim to elevate yourself from defendant to are now sovereign too....bring your law to the court (it is a court of record, you decree that)....the judge has no say in's between you and the Plaintiff (council)....if the judge tries to tresspass on your law, he is in contempt....don't argue with him, simply object, when asked why, simply add "it is not your wish"......Later you will issue an order reversing the judgement or order (what ever it was the judge did or said)....this builds the record that will be the case against him.

The counter claim might simply be that the PTB have "exceeded their jurisdiction", this is sufficient to scupper their case in itself.

2. Remaining as defendant, issue an "order to dismiss" the case to the court (the court is the person of the sovereign). In the body of the order (the text) assert your sovereignty and that the PTB (sovereign/court) does not have jurisdiction over you. This is written from your court to their court.


Hope this makes sense, if you listen to tape 13 from about 23 minutes in, you'll get a flavour of why this looks like the scenario being encountered in courts. To get the whole story, you'll need to follow the tapes more closely.

Re: Councils - Plaintiffs and Sovereignty

PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:04 pm
by treeman
:cheer: :cheer: :cheer: the way is ,FORWARD.

Re: Councils - Plaintiffs and Sovereignty

PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:58 pm
by enegiss
HR that looks a good piece of work, wow! changes the perspective on matters. peace

Re: Councils - Plaintiffs and Sovereignty

PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:57 pm
by huntingross
To emphasise the point......the counter claim is important because you become sovereign and can now bring your law to YOUR court, which the judge administers.

The counter claim has to be resolved first.....if the counter claim is TPTB have exceeded their jurisdiction, they have to prove how they have jurisdiction over you....if they can't, you win your case and their case falls.

If you file a claim prior to them (in the expectation that it is coming) when they file their claim you can raise an "Issue of Vindictive Prosecution".....the onus is on TPTB to prove it isn't vindictive (that has to be tuff).

Good luck out there