well I'm back !!!!!!

[The Freeman-on-the-Land known as Michael]

Well done to both of you for honourably standing your ground and knowing exactly who you are, even when surrounded by the pit of corporate pirates, commonly known as the magistrates.

Peace

[rodgreenwell]

she/he/they who dares .... wins.... Thanks to both of you for taking the fight to them, you are trailblazers and for that all on this forum should say thanks
You are winners in my book. Keep at them... the truth will out!

[mOz]

Yep, our pioneering Elders!

BRAVO

m z

[IamallthatIam]

as soon as i have done I shall post up a couple of notices I plan to send back to the court , just going to get si to read over them both , because of the dyslexic crap

one is a notice of dishonour and opportunity to cure and the other is anothe request for clarification , see what you think

[IamallthatIam]

I just want to say thanks guys for all your love and support here, it is what makes me want to see this through to the end as opposed to giving up and dispairing at the idea that the baliffs will be round again to pertify my kids. You are what make this forum. Each of you are an inspiration that will eventually lead us all to freedom

love and light
angie x x x

[IamallthatIam]

FAO STEPHEN WHALE
Justices’ Clerk’s Office
Dyfed Powys Magistrates’ Courts
The Old Vicarage
Picton Terrace
Carmarthen
SA31 1BJ

Date 26th August 2009

FAO Stephen Whale,

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

I, Simon of the Elder family chose to attend, under my own terms and conditions as notified, was present and addressed the court at CARMARTHEN MAGISTRATES COURT on the afternoon of 26th August 2009 despite being denied my unalienable rights upon entry to the court.

I stated for and on the record that I intended to enter the court whilst reserving my inalienable rights and asked if there were any objections to that request. The respond from the presiding magistrate was, “yes!”

Please clarify precisely and in full on what grounds these objections are based as the presiding magistrate failed to state his objections and the reasoning behind them, upon request

Said magistrate, who failed to identify himself, continued to act in absentia, even though I stated that I wished to address the court and would do so whilst maintaining my inalienable rights.

Said magistrate was fully aware that the legal fiction defendant, namely MR. S. ELDER a.k.a MR SIMON ELDER and the authorised agent for the defendant, commonly known as the human being Simon: of the Elder family, along with the co- defendant, namely legal fiction MRS ANGELA ELDER and her authorised agent, the human being commonly known as Angie: of the Elder family, were present.

Said magistrate and all parties concerned were jointly and severally put on Notice twice, as Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent and Notice to Agent is Notice to principle applies, before proceedings began.

Said magistrate refused to answer when asked if he had sworn and oath of Office.

It is my understanding that to lie under that Oath of office constitutes the crime of perjury.

It is my understanding that UK magistrates are not offered impunity

It is also my understanding that to act in absentia implies that the liable person is not present. This being the case, by definition, establishes the fact that the defendants were not liable by virtue of the fact that they were both present and addressing the court. These actions deem that signed order fraudulent.

On that basis clarification is sought as to why said magistrate proceeded to sign a liability order in favour of CARMARTHENSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL pertaining to the forced collecting of unlawful COUNCIL TAX, which he himself had just admitted by his actions that these legal fictions are NOT liable for.

What lawful excuse does said magistrate claim in order to justify his engagement in such fraudulent behaviour?

Clarification is also sought as to why Court officials were presumably directed to withhold the identities of participating magistrates when asked. I was told by DAN PARISH, security, to contact LLANELLI MAGISTRATES COURTS to obtain this information.

Please provide a copy of the proclaimed legislation that said magistrate declared prohibited the recording of all magistrate proceedings by court officials.

Also provide copies of any legislation that provides for the withholding of a copy of the order granted. A specific request for this documentation was granted and was blatantly, unequivocally and absolutely refused without reason denying me the opportunity to nullify said order through acceptance for value.

Please clarify as to why I have been denied, not only my rights but due process and just cause by return. Failure to comply with this request will result in formal complaints being submitted to the relevant judicial bodies pertaining to all parties involved and non judicial procedures being instigated in order to remedy the personal injury inflicted on my wife and I. This will also involve lawful recompense for all losses reasonably expected to be incurred as a result of said magistrate’s actions.

In honour without ill will, malice, frivolity or vexation
Simon: of the Elder family as commonly called.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[treeman]

Keep chipping at the wall one day we will find what is on the other side, we should not have to prove or demand our sovereign existance to these ship owners,sink or swim,dodge the bullets or carry the gun the choice is YOURS, KEEP THE FAITH.keep chipping,

[MikeThomas]

Nice Notice Angie! Very well written. Even the morons in court should be able to follow that!

[IamallthatIam]

Lol thanks Mike , i am on the verge of drawing pictures for them all to make it easier

have a look at this one, please guys let me know if i have left out anything blatantly obvious

FAO STEPHEN WHALE
Justices’ Clerk’s Office
Dyfed Powys Magistrates’ Courts
The Old Vicarage
Picton Terrace
Carmarthen
SA31 1BJ

Date 26th August 2009

FAO Stephen Whale,


NOTICE OF DISHONOUR AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

I am writing in order to acknowledge your letter dated 24th August 2009, received by me on the morning of 26th August 2009 whereby you attempt to inform me that there is no relationship between the CARMARTHEN MAGISTRATES’ COURT and CARMARTHEN COUNTY COUNCIL. The contents therein are noted.

You also go on to state, “it does not seem that there are any other actions that I could possibly take on the basis of the remainder of your letter”.

Firstly, let me make it clear that my correspondence to you was in the form of a Notice which legally is something very different to a letter.

Furthermore, let me make clear the differences between the two.

A letter is legally defined as a dispatch or epistle; a written or printed message; a communication in writing from one person to another at a distance. In the imperial law of Rome “letter” or “epistle” was the name of the answer returned b the emperor to a question of law submitted to him by the magistrates.

A letter is a communication inclosed sealed, stamped, carried and delivered by private hand or courier or the postal service. A commission, patent, or written instrument containing or attesting the grant of some power, authority or right.

Let me make it very clear that I have attested you no such power, authority or right over me or the legal fiction for which I am authorised agent.

In comparison a Notice is something entirely different. A Notice assigns information as a result of observation, whether by the senses or the mind. It is the knowledge of the existence of a fact of state of affairs; the means of knowledge. Intelligence by whatever means communicated.

A notice is knowledge of the facts which would naturally lead an honest and prudent person to make inquiry, and does not necessarily mean knowledge of all the facts. In another sense, “Notice” means information, an advice, or written warning, in more or less formal shape, intended to apprise a person of some proceeding in which his interests are involved, or informing him of some fact which it is his right to know and the duty of the notifying party to communicate.

A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact, has reason to know it, should know it, or has been given notification of it.

Notices may be either (1) statutory, i.e made so by legislative enactment: (2) actual, which brings the knowledge of a fact directly home to the party; or (3) constructive.

My Notice to you was an actual notice.

An actual Notice has been legally defined as notice expressly and actually given, and actually given, and brought home to the party directly.

The term actual notice embraces two classes, express and implied. The former includes all knowledge of a degree above that which depends on collateral inference, or which imposes upon the party the further duty of inquiry while the latter imputes knowledge to the party because he is shown to be conscious of having the means of knowledge.

Given the definition above am I to conclude that the Customer Services Standards, as displayed in the foyer of CARMARTHEN MAGISTRATES’ COURT, which states “We will make sure any letter we send you deals fully with all matters raised, is signed personally and shows the name and contact details of the author.” refers only to letters received and NOT notices as your letter to me has NOT dealt with all matters raised at all, thus leaving you in dishonour and in default of the notice sent.

My notice expressly requested proofs of your claim against me and expressly requested that demands were carried out as well as implying acceptance of your claim should these conditions be met. Failure on your part to act as requested has determined a breach leaving you in default and dishonour. As a matter of courtesy I am now providing you with an opportunity to cure this transgression and present remedy.

It is also to be noted that an additional occurrence of dishonour caused injury to me when I attended your place of business, under my own terms and conditions, in response to your superfluous invite.

Not only did you compel and inflict unwarranted and unjust services upon me, to which I did not consent, you purposely and wilfully delayed deliberation without excuse or explanation for nearly two hours of my time, which is chargeable.

You also allotted an intentionally facetious and wholly inappropriate time for deliberation i.e. at time when the courts are closed for lunch, on this occasion this would mean between the hours of 1pm and 2pm. It is concluded that the intent behind the invite being timed for 1:30pm was either frivolous or vexatious.

Rectification of your dishonour is sought by way of complete revocation of that fraudulent order passed, again chargeable as notified – invoice enclosed.

Remedy is expected to be notified by return and, no later that 3days, as this is the only action that could possibly return you to honour which in turn will result in the waiving of all charges accrued. Failure, on the other hand, to provide resolution to this matter will cause all charges to become due with immediate effect along with additional penalties that I deem appropriate. NON payment will generate further fines that will be enforced via non judicial means and other processes as I see fit.

In honour, and without malice, vexation or frivolity

Simon: of the Elder family, as commonly called
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[kevin]

Both excellent !!

perhaps you'll get some answers from these....you'd better get some answers from these, it seems none at the courts have a clue what they're doing from day to day, just rubber stamping anything councils bring before them, then heading for the golf course and bar together, they need to wake up

keep at them