strawman

Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES is not represented in
court.
Roger: In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not represented in court.
Judge: I can see that the council has representation in the court.
Roger: Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in the court. We are all
equal in the eyes of the law; if the council has third-party representation then so does MR ROGER
HAYES. The council is a corporation and so is MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge: MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.
Roger: Yes it is.
Judge: No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.
Roger: a PERSON is a corporation.
Judge: No it isn’t.
Roger: Define ‘PERSON’.
Judge: I don’t have to.
Roger: Then let me do it for you sir. A PERSON is a corporation. (Note: the current edition of Black’s Law
Dictionary states “An entity such as a corporation is a person for purposes of the Due Process”). Sir, are
you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?
Judge: I am familiar with many laws.
Roger: Sir, I asked if you were familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect,
you are not competent to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of Due Process.
Judge: Let’s hear from the council.
Roger: Sir, we can only move on to the council’s presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER
HAYES is represented in court.
Judge: Fine.
And the case continued with Roger acting as the third-party representative for the legal fiction ‘MR ROGER
HAYES’ clearly showing that the court ruled that Roger Hayes is NOT the legal fiction ‘MR ROGER HAYES’.
The judge eventually told the council to go away and prove it’s case.
8. In spite of the fact that I, the human being, am not the legal entity ‘MR PATRICK KELLY’ which Forest Heath
District Council would like to pay Council Tax, I, the human, have been harassed on eight occasions by Steven
Oxborough or his agents, such as yourself. In passing, that appears to be contempt of court on your part as
you are acting in direct contradiction of the ruling of the court which stated that I am not the entity which Forest
Heath District Council are trying to charge.
9. On 10th January 2011, I received a letter dated 5th January 2011 from Steven Oxborough, stating that
Rossendales Limited would be calling on 10th January 2011, which, you will note does not provide the required
fourteen days prior notice of any such visit. The representative of Rossendales Limited arrived less than thirty
minutes after Steven’s letter was delivered, and he stated that I owed Rossendales Limited money. Since I had
never had any dealings whatsoever with Rossendales Limited, that was clearly a wholly unfounded allegation.
The representative left before I was able to establish his identity.
10. I therefore wrote to Rossendales Limited, stating that they do not have my permission to involve themselves in
my financial affairs and requesting that, since they are asking me to pay Rossendales Limited, to provide
evidence of any lawful debt owed by myself to Rossendales Limited.
11. Rossendales Limited have been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever that any such debt exists, so they
were given the two weeks from 15th January to 29th January 2011 to provide, under full commercial liability
and hazard of perjury, evidence to substantiate their claim. It was made clear to Rossendales Limited, that
failure to provide within that period, written evidence to support their claim, that their failure to do so
constituted full, legally-binding agreement on their part that no such debt exists.
12. Rossendales Limited failed to provide any evidence whatsoever in that period, and as a result of that, they
have entered into full, legally-binding agreement that I do not owe them anything. Yet, in spite of that legallybinding
agreement, you personally have taken it upon yourself, even in the light of my complaint to the police
111