strawman

Testing the Application of the Law
I am unable to find any difference between a protection racket and the money-gathering actions of the Local
Council. Both decide on some arbitrary amount of money which they want and then demand that amount with
menaces.
In the case of the protection racket thugs, their menace is in the form of damaged property and personal injury
such as broken bones, cuts and bruising, with the implication of even worse to come. The victim is not offered the
choice of whether or not he wishes to be part of the protection racket.
In the case of the Local Council, the menace is in the form of damaged and stolen property, possible physical
injury, being put forcibly in prison, getting a prison record which can make future employment almost impossible
and the possible withholding of benefits. The victim is not offered the choice of whether or not he wishes to
donate money to the Local Council.
Consequently, I can see no significant difference, and if anything, the actions of the Local Council are more
destructive and violent than those of a protection racket thug.
There is also not the slightest need for this sort of behaviour. The Council claims to provide services which are
desirable and beneficial and they are fully entitled to do so as is any other company. There is nothing to stop
them offering their services for payment. The telephone companies do it and run very successful businesses.
The electricity supply companies do it very successfully as do the transport companies, water supply companies,
estate agents, and a whole host of other businesses. None of those other businesses find any need to demand
money with menaces or to demand that people take their services.
I have no objection to the Local Council providing services, what I do object to is their unwarranted and brutal
imposition of arbitrary charges on men and women who happen to live in the same area that they do. There is no
requirement under Common Law for anyone to pay any form of tax. On the contrary, demanding money with
menaces is an offence. The Law Society says that “demanding money with menaces” cannot be used to describe
the actions of it or it’s agents. In other words, it is all right for them to do things which would be offences if done
by anybody else. This is nonsense since “all men are born equal”.
In theory, the UK is a Common Law jurisdiction and so only those who agree to be bound by the very many
statutes and statutory instruments are actually subject to those regulations. It seems highly likely that people who
demand money with menaces are not going to be bothered by anything that Common Law says, so to test the real
situation, I have stopped paying “Council Tax” and requested the Local Council to demonstrate that I personally,
have a financial liability to them under Common Law, stressing that I am not a member of any society which would
make me subject to statutes and that I do not consent to be bound by them.
They failed to do that, so I gave them notice that if they could not do that with a specified time period, that they
would be giving tacit agreement that there was no actual debt. They failed to provide any evidence (which would
be impossible for them to do as Council Tax is unlawful) and so tacit agreement was established.
They still wish to have a court hearing on Thursday, 18th November 2010 so I have requested both them and the
court to explain the basis for any such meeting since estoppel has been established and there is no dispute upon
which to adjudicate.
The objective here is to establish and publicise the actions taken by the Local Council and to emphasise unlawful
actions should any occur. The following is the correspondence to date:
33