Archive | June 29, 2012

Right to Protest Claimed Under the Magna Carta

Right to Protest Claimed Under the Magna Carta

If the video below does not play, it is just the normal process of Internet censorship. The video pertains to making lawful protest. So that people outside of the U.K. does not know what is going on inside of the U.K., The British government has ordered Youtube to ‘censor’ any footage from the British Constitution Group Lawful Rebellion protest.

Youtube (owned by Google) recieves many request from governments, particularly the U.K., and the U.S., to:

  • Remove material
  • Remove search terms
  • To provide data that would reveal the identity of a Youtube user.

The protest shows coverage of civilian arrest of Judge Michael Peake at Birkenhead county court. The trial concerned Roger Hayes who refused to pay council tax because:

a)      The manner in which the country’s economy is being bled dry by global interests (including the Committee of 300, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Club of Rome)… considered treason

b)      Hayes wanted to prove that council tax is illegal as there is no contract between the state and the individual. This is over-ridden in court by answering the request: “State your name”

It was only in 1990 under the infamous Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher a huge tax revolt led to the cessation of the poll tax. The poll tax was eventually replaced by the council tax.

The protest involved 600 activists from the British Constitution Group chanting “freedom.” The judge, Peake met a successful civilian arrest, and was en escorted from the courthouse. As the protestors did so, the Daily Mail reports they said:

‘The judges are breaking the law in their own courts. I asked him [Mr Peake] if he was serving under his oath of office”

The police managed to wrestle Peake back, with more police showing up on the scene to set up a blockade, and to arrest protestors.

Roger Hayes

The history of the above precedings began in 2011. For obvious reasons, Hayes stance in reposted here:

The legal team advise to withdraw the claim. The Chief Executive ponders the problem… potentially all previous liability orders will be adjudged unlawful… claims against the council will amount to millions of pounds… poor families will benefit… the council, to save face and money, win this case… by fair means or foul… lawful or unlawful, not forgetting of course that his £200,000 salary plus expenses depends upon it. The Chief Executive clears his room and he picks up the phone… he puts in a call and makes contact (via ‘the network’) with the judicial arm of ‘the club’ and he calls in a favour.

The Chief Executive calls his legal team back into the room… he tells them to proceed with the case, regardless of the fraudulent evidence, he is confident the council will win.

The next day in the court… District Judge ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ is strategically allocated the hearing of the council tax rebel… who has turned up with 20 witnesses. This is not good for the judge as independent witnesses can bear testimony to ‘dubious’ (some would say corrupt) judgments.

What Actually Happened?

District Judge ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’’ ordered that the defendant be restricted to 2 only witnesses and that the hearing would take place in chambers and not in a public court. Being in chambers, this gives the Judge license to ignore or consider virtually any evidence he feels fit… this type of hearing is now common-place in our system of so-called justice and allows judges to come to any verdict they like – regardless of the law… it is more an administrative process than justice… and comes to us courtesy of the European Union.

This administrative wheeze is now a regular feature of our newly created legal system… in my view it is judicial corruption with bells on. Being fully aware of what is being orchestrated… ‘the defendant’ (me) insisted that the hearing must be a public hearing and that ALL witnesses must be admitted, as is their right, to see that justice is done (or not as the case may be) – the Judge relented, but then demanded that all witnesses give their names ? I asked why… and whether his demand was a lawful… which of course it was not. This is an example of the ‘make-it-up-as-you-go’ justice that the European system brings. My witnesses declined to give their names, as was their right to do so… and we all entered anyway. Do not be afraid to insist on your rights… they are far too keen to take them away.

The issue here of course … is how ‘neutral’ is a judge that I have just challenged and humiliated? I was soon to find out and more barracking with the judge was unavoidable.

On entering the court, I claimed common law jurisdiction… as is my right. The demeanour of the judge changed. In a common law court the judge has to be impartial and consider all the evidence submitted by both parties… in the European system the judge cherry picks. I asked the judge if he was acting under his oath of office (confirming it as a common law court)… he ignored me and quickly turned to the council representative to hear their evidence – I interceded knowing full well that ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ had every intention of steamrolling this hearing to a pre-determined conclusion – i.e. in favour of the council. For the next 20 minutes I repeatedly asked the so-called judge if he was acting under his oath of office… he ignored, prevaricated, made a series of meaningless comments, such as he had been a judge for 12 years – but he would not answer the question. The reason? Because acting under his oath requires that he consider the law… not under oath and he was merely an arbiter and as such he could apply ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along- judgements’ – which in my view is a denial of the due process of law – and a denial of our right to justice.

So we called the police. As far as we were concerned here was an individual refusing to confirm his oath of office and thus an individual masquerading as a judge. The court officials who have no idea what has been going on under their very noses didn’t know what to do – their cosy routine was being challenged and they had no understanding of the law on which to counter our assertions. Let’s be clear about what the court officials should be doing – they should be directing court proceedings in accordance with the law and not in accordance with arbitrary rulings by judges… to ensure that one party in a hearing does not find themselves in conflict with a judge merely because they are asserting their rights. Judges have no business getting involved in the proceedings of the court – they should remain neutral.

The buzz in the court building was that somebody had just called the police claiming that
someone was masquerading as a judge. The police duly arrived and two young and very confused police constables, clearly out of their depth, listened to what I and my witnesses and the so-called judge had to say and stampeded out of the court room as quickly as they had arrived – leaving us all to sort it out ourselves. At this point we could have walked out leaving Mr ‘Fixit-it-for-the-council’ to make whatever unlawful rulings he chose… we knew where it was going… and it wasn’t heading towards a just outcome, but I was intrigued to see just how far ‘Mr Fixit-for-the-council’ was prepared to go to pervert the course of justice. What happened then was representative of what is happening up and down the country in our newly created European Union law system (Corpus Juris)… to cut a long story short… all the fraudulent evidence provided by the council was allowed, all my evidence (including letter-headed evidence from a magistrates court) was dismissed.

The reader may be getting the idea that the system is stacked against us and you would be right… and it is for this reason that it must be challenged. We want our courts dealing with justice not acting as a revenue collecting tool for the government and local councils, whose remit seems to be to take as much money from us as they can get away with. Excessive and unreasonable speeding and parking fines are just two examples of oppressive regulations that are making our lives a misery. Overzealous officialdom is the scourge of our lives and it needs to be put firmly back in its box. They are supposed to serve us not oppress us.

It Is Up To Us To Make A Stand

I will say it again… as I have said from the very beginning of my protest – I am happy to pay my council tax… provided that it is subject to a lawful contract, the imposition of which would bring power back to the people.

District Judge ‘Mr-fixit-for-the-council’ then made his order that I pay £2000 to the council or be made bankrupt. He did concede one thing to me (if you can call it a concession) … which is that I can claim my money back if I can demonstrate that the council documents were fraudulent. What is strange about this concession is that the judge had the opportunity there and then to prove it himself… by simply asking the stony-faced council team sitting in front of him if the council produced its own summonses (which they do) and which are unlawful – and the judge would then have had to have found in my favour – but remember… that wasn’t the outcome that had been agreed. The judges concession is of course meaningless – it would require that I launch a time consuming and expensive counter claim that the council would defend with a team of barristers – at taxpayer’s expense…. and would, we have to ask ourselves, the phone be picked up to arrange a suitable judgement for that hearing too?

Should I give in to judicial corruption and coercion and a virtual dictatorship by council edicts… or should I tell them what to do with their European system of so-called justice and their unlawful demands for money? There comes a time when we all have to decide… do we give in or do we fight on.

“Evil prospers when good men do nothing.” Good men and women are trying to do something – and we need your help and support. WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW – TODAY.

British Constitution Group

Hayes, is the chair of the BCG. A statement on their website reads:

Reclaiming Our Sovereignty

“We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. That right has been subjugated as a consequence of acts of treason having been committed by the collective political establishment, aided and abetted by corrupt segments of the judiciary, the police, the Church and the civil service.

“Furthermore, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose position has been usurped by a corrupt House of Commons and who has been forced into the destruction of her Kingdom and the breaking of her coronation oath, no longer governs us in accordance with our laws and customs, as was the situation when she was elected by the people as our Sovereign and our Head of State.

“Why Her Majesty has failed in her duty is not for us to judge at this point in time – Her Majesty has however been made aware of the situation and is now duty bound to make amends.

“A political elite has for some time manipulated the electoral system to deprive the people of true democratic representation by constructing a party political system that has allowed, indeed encouraged, acts of treason to have been committed.

“As a direct consequence of the betrayal of the British people by the collective political establishment, and others, the British Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion, as is our right under article 61 Magna Carta 1215.”


British Constitution Group

Hayes, R. “The Council Tax Saga – Calling In A Favour.”

Watson, P.J. “British Tax Protesters Arrest Judge In Act Of “Lawful Rebellion”

Related Topics:

The British Tax Scandal!

U.K: The Affect of Globalization on Poverty

U.K: Your Health is No Longer Your Choice!

Living off the Grid: How Ridiculous Can the U.K. Get!

U.K. – Tottenham Riot and Disenfranchised Youth

U.K: Corporate Homicide

U.K: To Become a Genderless, Parentless Society

U.K: Police Provocateurs Active in Occupy London

U.K. Students Have Won the Battle But Not the War

Consumer Protest Even in the Festive Season

Greece: Thousands Queue Up for Food as New President is Sworn In!

Egypt: Between the People and the State

Iceland: Life Beyond the Washington Concensus Proves Sustainable