strawman

In spite of estoppel having been solidly established, further demands were received, accompanied by threats that I
would be summonsed to appear in court. Irrespective of the actual facts, and the stage which had already been
reached, Forest Heath District Council made application to the (commercial) court and a hearing date of 18th
November 2010 was set.
I then sent the court a copy of all of the correspondence in the case and pointed out that as estoppel had already
been established, with Forest Heath District Council already in full agreement that no debt exists, there was no
dispute on which the court could adjudicate.
However, it was decided that the hearing would go ahead in spite of the complete lack of any reason for it to be
held. This was clearly wholly unnecessary and a waste of my time. I wrote and made it clear that since attending
an unnecessary hearing would be a waste of both time and money on my part, that I would be charging for my
time and expenses from then on, and stating my fee schedule for both meetings and any further correspondence
required.
I duly attended Bury St Edmunds Magistrates Court on 18th November 2010 and met with Steven Oxborough to
discuss the case. During our discussion, Steven indicated that on each of his many visits to the court, the court
would receive £10,000 or more in fees. That in itself, raises certain questions about the perceived impartiality of
the court involved, but those questions need not be commented on here.
When I was invited into the courtroom, the clerk of the court asked me to identify myself. This I did, stating that I
am Patrick-James of the Kelly family and not the legal person ‘MR PATRICK KELLY’. I also stated that I was not
a member of the society whose regulations Forest Heath District Council was attempting to enforce, nor did I
consent to be bound by those regulations and that I claimed my right to be dealt with under Common Law. I also
stated that it was my understanding that the legal entity ‘MR PATRICK KELLY’ would have been created by the
Registrar of Births and Deaths in or around the time of my birth following application for a Birth Certificate made by
my parents. As I am aware of the fact that my parents did not make any such application, supplying the names
Patrick James and Kelly, that to the best of my knowledge, no such Birth Certificate was ever created and
consequently, there is no such legal ‘person’ as ‘MR PATRICK KELLY’.
The clerk then asked the Magistrates to decide if ‘the person standing before them’ was the named defendant.
Conferring for only a few seconds, the Magistrates ruled that I, the human being Patrick-James of the Kelly family
am NOT the named defendant. The clerk then asked me to leave the courtroom as I was not involved in Forest
Heath District Council’s application in any way.
Steven Oxborough was present in the courtroom at that time and he is fully aware of the court ruling that I, the
human being, am not in any way liable for Forest Heath District Council’s claimed debt. This immediate ruling
demonstrates clearly that my attending the hearing was a complete waste of my time as I had previously stated.
I then moved into the public gallery. The clerk of the court then asked the Magistrates if they wished to consider
the application made by Forest Heath District Council against ‘MR PATRICK KELLY’ “if any such person exists”.
The Magistrates decided to adjourn and after a few minutes, returned and granted the application against the nonexistent
‘MR PATRICK KELLY’ which they had just ruled is NOT me personally.
Since that time, Forest Heath District Council has continued to send demands to ‘MR PATRICK KELLY’ at my
home address. In the light of the court ruling that I am not the named defendant and my written statement to you
that I live alone at that address (and offering to swear an affidavit to that effect should you require it), and bearing
in mind that I am in the category defined by the government as being “elderly and potentially vulnerable”, your
actions are, at best, questionable.
Let me state yet again, that the court ruled that I am not liable for your presumed debt. You have also been
repeatedly informed that ‘MR PATRICK KELLY’ is not at my address, and yet you address your letter to me as “Mr
P. Kelly” which is not my name. I would appreciate it if in any future correspondence you address me by my name
which is “Patrick-James of the Kelly family”.
On 10th January 2011 there was an unannounced meeting with a visitor who did not adhere to the government
requirements for any such visit. He claimed to be acting for a commercial company called Rossendales Limited
who claim that I owe them a debt and demand that I pay them. As I have never had any dealing with any such
company, any such claim has to be wholly invalid.
I wrote to Rossendales Limited and asked them to provide evidence of their claim. They were unable to provide
any such evidence. They were given the period from 15th January 2011 to 29th January 2011 to provide
evidence of the claimed debt or enter into legally-binding tacit agreement on their part that no such debt exists.
They failed to produce any evidence of any such debt between myself and Rossendales Limited in that period and
so estoppel has been established.
137