Wednesday, 17th November 2010

Veronica dumps the contents of her brain on all and sundry.

Wednesday, 17th November 2010

Postby Veronica » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:25 pm

I have been away for a few days, staying with a certain gentleman and his wife (and a member of TruthJuice … who put me in touch with them).

This is what the gentleman did on Monday the 15th, at his 4th Council tax so-called “Hearing”:

Yes, this was their 4th attempt: The first took place in front of Magistrates who, basically, had to give up … and pass it to so-called Judges. The Monday “Hearing” was the 3rd in front of a Judge … and turned out to be as successful (to them) as all the others … i.e. completely UNsuccessful.

But there is a lot more background to this, which I’ll explain.

I ATTEMPTED to attend the so-called “Hearing” as a member of the public. I had very carefully ensured that I wasn’t wearing anything ‘seriously metallic’ nor carried anything of a suspicious nature in my handbag.

I should also point out that I had walked through Hereford in 1965 (without stopping … having got off the train with others, embarking on a camping trip across Wales).

I also drove through Hereford last year (without stopping) during my Motorhome UK Tour.

That’s it. Those were my previous connections with ‘Hereford’. I had CERTAINLY never approached Hereford Magistrates Court before, in my life.

However, on Monday I approached the building, walking up the outside stairs, and through the outside door.

I approached the usual “Security Metal Detector” and walked through it, without setting it off. I held out my handbag for inspection.

As I stepped out of the machine I was confronted by THREE “Security Guards”, one standing right in front of me. He said “Why are you here? What Case Number are you here for?”.

(I have to be absolutely candid … I was not surprised)

I said I was here to attend the “Hearing” in question, so he said “In that case I must ask you to go back outside. I cannot let you in. Step back please”

I replied “No, I’m quite happy standing here, but I will step aside this machine, because I can see others trying to walk through it”.

My companion also stepped through to machine (from the ‘outside’ to the ‘inside’) and he was ‘ordered’ back out again.

However he chose to stand inside, beside me.

At this point we asked why we were not allowed in. They said “the Court Manager has told us not to allow you in”.


We argued the toss for about 5 minutes, until a Policyman walked by, and I enjoined him into the conversation. Obviously he took ‘their’ side. We knew he would. Basically we were just seeing how long we could keep up the conversation, and how many times they would put their collective feet into their collective mouths.

(While this was going on the ‘gentleman of the Hearing’ walked by, accompanied by his wife. We discovered later that their daughter had walked in earlier … without being recognised … and thus without being turned away)

What had happened?

The answer is that THEY are scared of Freemen-on-the-Land.

Or maybe it was because I am obviously a Transsexual, and they were DISCRIMINATING against me???

I don’t know, but I can’t think of any other answers.

They think they can stop what is happening by not allowing us in. Is this the same as a child putting their hands over their eyes in order to ‘make the parent go away’? I think so. Utterly childish. An adult would have been prepared to discuss it all sensibly. We asked to see the Court Manager to discuss it with him. They refused. The Policyman said “Write to him”. He also told us that we were “Trespassing on public property”. Can you say “DOUBLE-THINK”?

Unfortunately, however (for them), the one who actually caused the eventual ‘upset’ … who actually did them some very real ‘damage’ … WAS allowed in … he had to be … BECAUSE IT WAS HIS CASE.

Oh ... it was WONDERFUL!!!
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: Wednesday, 17th November 2010

Postby Veronica » Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:17 pm

Transcript of Liability Order Hearing Hereford Monday 15th November 2010

Guy: of the family Taylor v (alleged) Judge "Dread"

Guy: You can't hear the application without having jurisdiction, and with the greatest respect, if you haven't got jurisdiction…I have a case prepared and I can tell you why you haven't got the jurisdiction…(inaudible)…

If you can go to…(inaudible)…I'll be referring to Stone's Justices' Manual - if you'll go to the part called Magistrates' Court procedure relating to jurisdiction 1-382 and we can go through the jurisdiction…

Clerk: Did you say 1-382?

Guy: Right, so this is the Court's Jurisdiction. A magistrates' court has jurisdiction:

(a) to try any summary offence. (We're not here for a summary offence).

(b) as examining justices over any offence committed by a person who appears or is brought before the court. (No offence has been committed in this matter; it's a liability hearing).

(c) subject to SS 18-22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, to try summarily any offence which is try-able either way. (We are, again, here for a liability order hearing).

(d) in the exercise of its powers under s 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to try summarily an indictable offence. (Which, obviously, this is not).

And now I intend to move into a much more serious area - that the court, by its own writing has no jurisdiction to deal with a liability hearing…based on that (inaudible)

The second thing I will say is that as a Sovereign human being and individual, before I am able to grant the court and that you are agreeing to be a judge beyond (inaudible) then I must know the name of the judge who claims to have the authority over me another human being and another sovereign individual. I will also require him that he will state his lawful authority, in the form of his oath which I will request that he states before me now. Failure to present this authority will be failure for me to recognise him as anything more than human being, a man, equal to myself but of no more authority than my sovereign self.

And I will then refer you to Archbold's - I have a recent printout for you - the administrate … administering unlawful oaths. Statutory Declarations Act 1835. I refer you in particular…

Alleged Judge: (inaudible, but is pointing out that Guy's copy of Archbold's is out of date, it being from 1994)

Guy: Yes, your honour, it is an older copy but I can give you a new one if you wish…(2010 edition). Well, if you go to Offences Against Public Justice; Section 15 - Administering Unlawful Oaths…

Alleged Judge: Can you tell me the date of your Archbolds

Guy: (inaudible) … I'm in an old Archbold's…I've got a new edition there…same writing…

Alleged Judge: (inaudible)

Guy: Yes, certainly 2/1190

Alleged Judge: What does it say on the back cover?

Guy: On the back it has 1994 but I have a 2010 in a printout form in here which is exactly the same, and I will refer you to the Administering of Unlawful Oaths, and the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, and I will…the statement of the offence: Administering an Unlawful Oath, contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. And you'll see the charge that a Justice of the Peace working for the County of Hereford on the day of the 15th of November (today) unlawfully administered an oath to myself in the matter in which he, the said AB had no jurisdiction. You'll also see down here in evidence for this charge:

"It must be proved that the defendant was, at the relevant time, a justice of the peace for the county mentioned in the indictment; evidence of his acting as such will, prima facie, be sufficient. Further, that he administered to (me) an oath of the nature and touching the subject-matter mentioned in the indictment. It is not necessary to show that he acted willfully in contravention of the statute; but doing so, even inadvertently is punishable."

I will proceed with a prosecution based on that if we go any further, but I'm just laying the facts out as I see them. Stone's Justices' Manual states categorically that there is no jurisdiction in this court, and secondly, I wish for you to state your oath to the court, before we get on to the next.

Alleged Judge: (I will hear all your arguments in one go, please)

Guy: Ok, I now require you to say your oath.

Alleged Judge: I want all your arguments in one go. I won't be told what to do. Can I hear your next argument please?

Guy: My next argument? My argument is that you're a human being the same as myself. What makes you a judge is your oath; so I require this morning for you having jurisdiction at all I require your oath. Failure to do so, I will dismiss this case again…

Alleged Judge: (inaudible, I'm not here to…)

Guy: (Because, because, why would you not do that then; can you tell me that?)

Alleged Judge: I do not have to…

Guy: … Ah, but I don't have to consent to these proceedings; the same rules apply, I mean if an oath is used in this matter…you're possibly saying that it is, but behind the scenes...I don't know why you're so frightened in using it or saying it…you're supposed to be a neutral observer in these proceedings between two parties, a plaintiff and a defendant, or whichever way it be called.

Alleged Judge: I don't need to do it…

Guy: You do need to take an oath for me to consent to these proceedings; simple as that, or I'll dismiss them again, and I'll go to the high court…and if you say one I will arrest you for the unlawful administration of an oath…

Alleged Judge: (inaudible but attempts to get the council prosecutor to make the application)

Guy: Where are you going to get jurisdiction?

Alleged Judge: (attempts again to ask prosecutor to make the application)

Guy: Well, there's no application to hear, is there, because you don't have jurisdiction to hear an application. This case is thereby dismissed yet again, and if any action carries on, there's already estoppel in these matters; any action that carries on, we will go to a higher authority again, where there may be a court de jure where we will get people to actually say their oath and also we will see what the public think about it all. Case dismissed YET AGAIN!

Alleged Judge: (Attempts to get prosecutor to make application yet again)

Guy: (inaudible)

Alleged Judge: (attempts again…)

Guy: No, no, no, no, case dismissed, case dismissed! On your oath, case dismissed! He won't sign that, he won't sign that, he won't sign that! (traffic noise) Excellent!
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Return to Veronica's Blog

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests