After wading through the hysterical rants in this article, including absurd references to East German secret police tactics, and after a few minutes of independent research, I was relieved to learn the British justice system was not about destroy liberty after all.
Mr. Hayes, founder and Chairman of the British Constitution Group, is a well known tax protester who advocates a “lawful rebellion” in England that is likely to turn out to be quite unlawful. He admits he “withheld” his Council Tax (a renter’s tax adopted throughout the UK in 1993) because be does not agree with how the levy is spent. He also claims his actions do not mean he “refused to pay.” After failing to appear at a committal hearing regarding his unpaid Council Taxes, a Merseyside Judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest. He was subsequently taken into custody, appeared before a Magistrate the same day, and sentenced to 21 days in Liverpool Prison.
So, apparently, there is no travesty of justice, no secret court, and no unlawful denial of a trial by jury. Nor is there a secretive gulag system about to engulf Britain. Mr. Hayes is not a champion of civil disobedience in the pursuit of social justice. Rather, he is another tax evader learning a hard lesson; i.e. the law is not subject to individual interpretation no matter how noble your intentions. Jail is usually the price one pays for not playing by the rules.
http://www.infowars.com/activist-roger- … et-courts/
Council tax is spent solely on local services - fire - refuse- police etc and not a penny of it goes to fighting wars anywhere!
The man is a professional trouble maker and shame on those supporting him.
There is nothing wrong with being imprisoned prior to trial, especially if the offender has shown that they will not attend court when summoned. He should pay his taxes.
Why Roger Hayes was really jailed!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A9PJK-I … e=youtu.be
Reality Bytes, thanks for the link . . .
This is about so much more than non-payment of a few hudred pounds in council tax.
Roger Hayes is chairman of the British Constitution Group, and is actually trying to restore some sanity and common sense to the world we live in. To do this he is prepared to stand up against illegal taxes, corrupt politicians, judges and banksters... and yes he is prepared to go to jail if necessary.
He needs our support, not our derision.
If he breaks the law and fails to appear for the hearing it is open season for throwing him in jail for a few weeks. No sympathy here.
When one is engaging in Lawful Rebellion, one has to be willing to suffer the consequences of their actions!
What was lawful about it?
The law says we have to pay our taxes, he didn't, therefore he acted unlawfully.
No matter how difficult it may be to understand... TAX IS VOLUNTARY.
You "Consent" to pay taxes, just as you "consent" to be governed etc. You have much more power than you realise!
Read below for more info . .
http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/article/co … h-language
If you can be jailed for not doing it I don't see under what definition it is voluntary.
Anyhow, I don't see why everyone else should give Mr bankrupt Hayes a free ride.
The truth is, that you CAN'T be jailed for not doing it, but he was jailed anyway.
He is standing up against a corrupt legal system which in fact, often acts outside the law.
Please understand that this has very little to do with tax evasion or bankruptcy, and everything to do with standing up for our rights. Yours and mine!
What should be happening in courtrooms across the world!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JL4oDR … embedded#!
As far as I understand, rebellion isn't lawful.
Of course it is legal Ralph, if the rebellion does not break any laws, it is lawful.
Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law.
The penalty is in the allowed range for the non-payment offense, so he has no clear grounds for arguing it is in relation to anything else.
And he is not, is it standard operating procedure in the UK to sentance individuals to jail time, behind closed doors, away from the scrutiny of the public?
He failed to attend the planned date, was picked up and tried on the spot. I see no issue http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news … -31313588/
Was he charged with terrorism? In the U.S. an individual would be arrested on a default warrant for a no-show on a court date. I have never heard of an American Court providing jail sentences to individuals that were not in Court?
You can be tried in absentia in both jurisdictions but as it happens this was not the case here.
Then why is the U.S trying so hard to extradite Assange? Why not just have a trial with him in absentia?
It is not the preferred option, but it is an available one for willful absence of the defendent.
The preferred options are scheduled appearance, followed by enforced appearance. The latter happened here, in open court.
If Hayes is taking up his right to be civilly disobedient, this is the natural consequence.
Kind of strange, are you British? If so does this sort of thing occur often?
I think Mr. Hayes knew full well the chance that he would be jailed, as do the rest of us engaging in open Lawful Rebellion!
In the UK and US the defendant can be deemed to waived the right to be present if they are disruptive or willfully absent.
As mentioned above, Hayes was present as his means were assessed and when he was sentenced. It occurred without notice only because he failed to appear to his scheduled hearing--something more by his choosing than the court's.
He wasn't tried in absentia, he was arrested and taken to court.
How do you know, do you know anyone that was there to witness the case?
Courts operating in secrecy are well, suspect!
The news stories state it, and as his hearing and jailing occurred on the same day it seems natural to believe he was present for both. The usual people were there to see it happen in open court as part of the normal docket.
The people waiting for their cases to be heard, the court recorder, anyone with nothing better to do, the court reporters. Open court means you can walk in off the street and watch.
Is this an everyday occurrence in the UK? Once a week, a year? How many people in the UK are jailed in secret court proceedings?
Where does it actually say that the court proceedings were secret?
Magistrates courts tend to be pretty dull affairs and not generally of much interest to the public.
I do not know how the courts operate in the UK, but without pleaing the case, I have never seen anyone in the U.S., picked up by Police in the morning and sentenced by the end of the day.
Why not? The court date was set and the warrant issued prior to the date. All that had not been done was to establish that Hayes had the means to pay and had willfully refused to--a fact he does not dispute.
I suspect this happens every day in the US. Matters relating for a few hundred dollars or enacting court orders or where the defendant admits guilt frequently take just a few minutes of court time.
Probably, but none of these trivial cases would result in jail time, Loss of Freedom!
It is trivial if you pay or are broke. If not, you do the time it says on the books. He had full knowledge of what he was choosing to do.
Isn't it that way it is if people skip bail and had a court date?
They would be held in custody until their Court date, where if convicted they would be credited with time served.
Arrested in the morning, convicted and sentenced by afternoon does not give an individual much time to form a defense, which I am sure everyone would agree, all suspects have a right to a defense!
He had his opportunity to present his defence, he gave that up by not attending the court, having said that I'm sure that the judge gave him every opportunity to offer a defence.
We have a saying over here, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime!
We have the same saying, no where does Mr. Hayes seem remorseful at being jailed. Force is monopolized by Government, isn't it?
I'm only going by what was reported in the original link, the police arrested him in the morning and took him to court, court sentenced him to 21 days and he was taken off to prison.
Do you not think there was a chance that Mr. Hayes was singled out due to his actions of attempting to arrest a Judge, attempting to form a Lawful Bank?
I think he was treated as is normal for that type of offense. In fact he got off pretty lightly.
I think he should pay to support his local school, roads, trash collection, libraries and firefighters and stop whining. That's what I think.
Then if there is a contract, he should have paid, based on his consent to do so.
Of course, Mr. Hayes refused payment due to his disagreement with the British government conducting, what Mr. Hayes believes to be, unlawful and immoral wars. Doing jail time did not bother Mr. Hayes, as to what I know.
Rosa Parks also had a legal obligation, which she refused!
"At 0930 this morning, in scenes reminiscent of Stasi East Germany, 2 police cars and 4 policemen from Merseyside Police arrested British Constitution Group Chairman Roger Hayes at his Wirral home and drove away.
The first his family heard of him was at 18:30 this evening via a telephone call from a Warder in Liverpool prison, to say that Roger had been tried and sentenced to prison."
That's from Roger Hayes British Constitution site.
Sounds like a secret Court proceeding to me?
It was not a secret court. It was Liverpool Crown Court and his supporters were present for the sentencing in sufficient numbers that "several people then burst forward towards the bench, forcing District Judge Peake to be removed for his own safety" and "The court building was also closed [after the sentencing] while hundreds of people gathered on the streets outside"
http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news … -31313588/
That does not sound very "secret" to me
Hayes asked his supporters to arrest the judge under the Magna Carta, he sounds like a loon to me.
The situation you are referring to, with many supporters present, happened last year (please read your refence again more closely).
The court case which is the subject of this forum was indeed held in secret.
By the way, many, many people now in the UK, are "declining the offer" to pay Council Tax, as they realise that they have no obligation to do so. This is not about tax evasion. If they do not "contract" with the Local Authority to pay the tax, then there is no requirement to pay it. Ask an honest lawyer to confirm this.
Legal speak in the UK and USA has duped us into compliance and "consent" to pay many taxes and fees without our knowledge.
Ask your lawyer also to confirm that courts in the UK and USA are commercial courts operating under Commercial Law - in fact the court itself is a registered business (look it up on Dunn & Bradstreet). Commercial Law needs a contract. No contract means no obligation.
Hope this helps . . .
The power of refusal to consent!! Wake up people!
You're having a laugh aren't you? Admiralty law indeed!
John, courts do operate under Admiralty Law.
Is the UK a corporation? I have tried to research this and could never find a good answer.
Look closely next time you see any Government Official, judge etc, with a USA flag behind him. Does it have a golden fringe? If it does, then it means that that place is operating under Admiralty Law.
And yes, the same (Admiralty Law) applies in the UK.
And yes, United Kingdom Ltd is a corporation, as are the courts, the police forces and Parliament itself.
Look it up on the Dunn & Bradstreet website . . .
Hello again, Sanny.
Gold fringe on the American Flag is for decoritive purposes only. It has no other meaning.
Thanks for posting, Sanny.
I suppose the stars and stripes are there for decorative purposed too? I know it is hard to accept, but it is true.
Open you eyes, and look again . . .
I made a simple, straight forward statement. If you can prove my statement is false then please do so. Asking another questions is an admission that you have no evidence to offer.
You say that the "Gold fringe on the American Flag is for decoritive purposes only. It has no other meaning".
Please read this then tell me if you still think the same . .
Decorative puprposes only . . .really!
Hi again, Sannyasinman. I am sorry if I seemed rude or overly familiar. I thank you for providing a link explaining the gold fringe. I am happy to share what I found.
The page is a lengthy conglomeration of disjointed essays blended with a variety of links, opinions, and quotes from an assortment of official and not so official documents. It is not a progression of logical reasoning leading to a sound conclusion. As a thesis, it is useless.
The first three paragraphs have titles Gold Fringed Flag, Military Flag with the Gold Fringe, The Law of the Flag. The origin of the first is not cited. The second claims to be from an Executive Order signed by President Eisenhower in 1959. The third appears to be lifted from a court proceeding involving Maritime Law. Each discusses different aspects of flags and they are not related in any meaningful way with each other. There is also obscure references made to yellow-fringed flags but it is not clear to me if they are the same or different than gold ones.
Then the meandering begins. Subsequent paragraphs touch on flags over enclaves, flags in courtrooms, and even judgeship appointments. A one-sentence paragraph relates to guilt and innocence under martial law. Then it goes on to military courts. A paragraph on the US Constitution contains a telltale question obviously designed to create an ominous impression during a weak discourse in which related facts and logical conclusions are scarce.
I encourage anyone with the time to kill to check out the link provided as an example of fringe gobbledygook using unproven conspiracy theories as glue to bind paranoia and suspicion. But, I warn you to be careful. Like so many others, this web site is designed to confuse well meaning folks who are unable to sort meaningful information from the bizarre, abstract, and flawed conclusions found in all flavors on the internet. Life is a jungle. The closer you are to the mainstream, the less likely you are to get lost.
It is clear to me that most fringe dwellers have their heads buried so far into their abstract ideas that they live in another world constructed from perceptions and misconceptions.
In the world in which I live, I know when I appear in a state court, I am subject to the magistrate’s ultimate authority and changing the flag is not going to change this reality. I consented to abide by federal and state statutes when I freely chose to take up residence here. The notion that registering a child transfers ownership to the government is absurd. A parent never owns a child. A child, registered or not, is subject to the jurisdiction of the government and statues by virtue of their physical presence. The state registration document for my car instructs me how to “transfer ownership of the vehicle.” “You can transfer ownership using this document.” It also tells me “I am the registered owner.”
Meanwhile, stay well, Sannyasinman. I hope you will always follow your bliss.
" United Kingdom Corporation Ltd are at Sharon Court and run by an Iranian and an Indian and are in the clothes Import/Export business"
"Admiralty law (also referred to as maritime law) is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character."
Oh, by the way, it's Dun & Bradshaw, not Dunn. And no, it doesn't list any of the groups you mention as corporations.
Hi RB. Howzit goin?
Here are a couple of examples of jail sentencing in absentia, one pending and one actual case. You can google “sentencing in absentia” for more.
There is the case of Roman Polanski. He fled the country in 1978 after pleading guilty to having sex with a minor. A California Appeals Court ruled that he could be sentenced in absentia but the trial judge is insisting that he appear. (1)
In another case, Mahlon Denegar was sentenced in absentia to a maximum of 7 years after pleading guilty to first-degree vehicular assault and aggravated driving while intoxicated and posting bail. He failed to appear at three subsequent sentencing hearings. When apprehended, be will be arraigned on a warrant and sent immediately to jail. (2)
There are more examples out there, RB, and they are all accepted as being within the law.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/movie … anski.html
(2) http://www.timesunion.com/local/article … z20e5XiF6S
Is Roger Hayes a threat to the global financial elite?
Similar to other criminal organizations, bankers do not want competition!
So we have already established the "secret" court was open and hundreds of his supporters were there. A warrant was issued, he admired guilt as defined by the law (albeit a law he feels is improper but that is not the judge's problem), and the sentence was within the permitted range. He was sentences with alacrity rather than being held for days or months, he had significant notice of this charge as he skilled a scheduled court date and he knowingly committed the crime in the first place.
What exactly is the injustice here?
although it is fair to point out that as far as we know no members of the press or public were actually present.
http://fullfact.org/articles/secret_cou … _tax-27504
From that link-
"The explanation offered by the council and backed up by the Courts fits the law, and in spite of the claims of a "secret" trial, the facts are readily obtainable by anyone that cares to look into the matter."
If it was not a "secret" proceeding, it would have been continued to a later date, holding Hayes in custody.
But what would be the point in that if the man had admitted his guilt?
Sounds pretty cruel to me. You know in the UK remand prisoners get few of the benefits of committed prisoners.
All this is going to do is take a fringe youtube celebrity and make him mainstream, better for our cause!
edit: you beat me to it1
But he's so wrong, council tax is not used for wars and neither is it paid to the EU, indeed the other way round, his council will receive much wonga from the EU.
Honestly John, do you feel that Courts (all courts) operate for the benefit of human beings? Would you change the Justice system, if you could?
Good lord no and yes I would!
In this case I think he and his supporters are taking the p!ss.
Secret court indeed!
I think the majority of human beings would agree that the Justice system, or for that matter government, does not operate to aid the population, and that they want it changed.
How else can this be done peacefully without turning their own systems against them?
If your council has tried using bailiffs but your Council Tax still isn’t paid in full, they may apply to the Magistate’s Court for a warrant committing you to prison. The council will only take this step when other efforts have failed.
Before issuing a warrant of commitment the court must hold a means enquiry with you present. A warrant will only be issued if the court is satisfied that the failure to pay is the result of wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The maximum period of imprisonment is three months.
The court may decide to postpone the period of imprisonment on certain conditions, normally relating to payment of the debt over a period of time. The court also has the power to remit all or part of the debt.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd … G_10013198
This is why I love HP forums, discussion urges the individual to learn!
"Council Tax in the UK is a STATUTORY INSTRUMENT enacted on 1st April 1993 under its PRIMARY LEGISLATION, the LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992"
A STATUTORY INSTRUMENT is a created, written, legal contract. It is NOT a LAW. (ask any attorney to confirm this for you)
For a legal contract to exist,
“there must be mutual CONSENT OF ACCEPTANCE from all parties engaging in the contract, otherwise the contract cannot exist”.
Therefore, if you do not enter into this contract with a Local Authority, ie you do not “consent”, they cannot force you to pay Council Tax. There is “No contract” and therefore no obligation.
This, as I understand it, is the whole point of Roger Hayes’ and many, many other people in the UK, objection to paying Council Tax is that the tax is UNLAWFUL. There is no law that says council tax can be levied in the first place. You are duped into thinking that there is, and threatened with the bailiffs and worse if you don’t pay.
Hi Sanny. May I please disagree?
Please read the following definition of “statutory instrument” and “delegated legislation.” Note the presence and locations of the words “act” and “law.”
Statutory Instruments are the principal forms in which delegated or secondary legislation is made in Great Britain. The process of creating Statutory Instruments is governed by the Statutory Instrument Act 1946. (Hold on, Sanny, there is more!) Delegated legislation (also referred to as secondary legislation or subordinate legislation) is law made by an executive authority under powers given to them by primary legislation in order to implement and administer the requirements of that primary legislation. It is law made by a person or body other than the legislature but with the legislature's authority.
“It is law made …with the legislature’s authority” which in this case is with constitutional authority.
Also, please note that the above contains no references to contract law and any discussion of contacts is a Red Herring designed to divert attention from the original issue. It is, in effect, is an attempt to "win" an argument by switching to another topic.
Thanks for posting, Sanny.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c … Instrument
Look it up again in Black's Legal Dictionary . . .
Oh and while you are at it, also look up the real legal definition of the words
If you have eyes to see, you will be surprised . .
Sorry Sanny. I do not have access to Black’s legal dictionary. However, all other legal resources I found agree with this:
“Statutory Instruments are the principal forms in which delegated or secondary legislation is made in Great Britain. The process of creating Statutory Instruments is governed by the Statutory Instrument Act 1946.” None of the definitions I found refers to Statutory Instruments as contracts and all say they have the power and authority of legislation. Your reply adds nothing to your earlier assertions.
“Register” and “understand” are attempts to distract from your inability to support most of your other claims. I suggest you save them for another thread.
Be well, Sanny, and thanks for posting.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c … Instrument
A STATUTE is NOT a LAW.
A STATUTE is a legislative rule of a society, which has been given the force of Law. Who can give these words the force of Law over you? Only you, yourself, by your “consent”. Please confirm this for yourself with a good (and honest) attorney.
So the bottom line is that a STATUTE needs you to "consent" for it to have any force over you.
There are many ways that your “consent” is obtained without you knowing.
If you want to understand how this is done, read this . .
http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/article/co … h-language
" smugness does not equate to knowledge " You should take that to heart...
I think citing the website of somebody who so obviously doesn't understand the law is not very good support for your argument.
There are two types of law in the UK, common and statutory, I'm not going to explain them to you again, I suggest that you do a little research.
My Dear Quilly,
Your attorney will surely have a copy of Black’s Legal Dictionary, as I believe that this is their definitive reference. Your local library should also have a copy. If you really want to understand what is going on here, and not just be content at scoring points off me, then look it up.
In the meantime, please allow me to offer my humble assistance . . .
In legal language, “REGISTER” means “To transfer title”.
When you “register” your car, you transfer owner ship to the government. You become the keeper, not the owner.
When you “register” your children at birth, you transfer ownership to the government.
Anything that you “register” with the government, they can take away from you, because you have, without knowing, been duped into giving away ownership.
In Legalese, “UNDERSTAND” means “To Stand Under”, that is, to accept (“consent” – yes there’s that word again) to the authority, of whatever or whoever is asking you to “stand under” them. If you do not accept that you “UNDERSTAND” and therefore “STAND-UNDER” there is no jurisdiction.
I know you won’t accept any of this, but I assure you that it is true, as an honest US attorney who has looked into this, has confirmed for me.
You will not find these definitions in an encyclopaedia. These are LEGAL WORDS which have a very specific meaning when used in a legal context, ie a court of law.
But please don't take my word for it. Ask an (honest) attorney yourself.
If you really want to know who Roger Hayes, Chairman of the British Constitution Group, is, and what he stands for, watch him explaining it himself on the video on this page . . .
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.