strawman

Court hearing 18/11/10:
I then attended the Bury St Edmunds Magistrates Court in good time for the hearing.
Ahead of the hearing, I was asked if I wished to speak with Steven Oxborough, so I met with him with the main
purpose of making sure that he was aware that I had attended the meeting which he had requested.
After a short wait, I was ushered into the courtroom and invited to sit at a central table. Contrary to my
expectations, he clerk of the court had a very pleasant and more than reasonable attitude. He started by asking
me to identify myself. I stated “I am here to make a special appearance in order to establish jurisdiction. I claim my
Inalienable Human Right to Common Law jurisdiction and do not consent to contract for any services you may
have on offer and I waive all the benefits. I am a human Being commonly known as Patrick of the Kelly family”.
The clerk then asked if I was “Mr Patrick Kelly” and I replied that to the best of my knowledge, no such person
existed. To the best of my knowledge, a person of that name would have been created through the issuing of a
Birth Certificate in that name around the time of my birth, application being made by my parents and the names
Patrick James and Kelly being provided to the Registrar of Births and Deaths, and as that had not occurred and
no Birth Certificate in that name had been issued at that time, and so, I did not believe that any such person
existed.
The clerk then turned to the three adjudicators and informed them that it was necessary to establish if the person
summonsed, namely, “Mr Patrick Kelly” was in fact present in the court. They checked that the demands were
being made in that name and decided that the person who had been summonsed was not in the court at that
time.
Consequently, the clerk very politely stated that I was not part of the proceedings and that I could move to the
public gallery to witness the remainder of the hearing, which I did.
Steven Oxborough was then called on to present the details of the case and he specified the demands, the
payments made, the failure to pay in September and the consequent loss of the right to make monthly payments,
causing the remaining amount to become payable immediately.
The clerk then informed the three adjudicators that correspondence had been received in the case and that the
letter which the court had received on 9/11/10 stated the case and relevant facts very clearly and concisely.
The adjudicators then left the courtroom in order to discuss the information in private. After a few minutes, they
buzzed for the clerk to join them (presumably, so that he could advise them on relevant aspects of the law).
When he returned, I asked if, seeing that the court had been adjourned, I might make a comment. He replied that
there was no reason at all why people in the public gallery could not comment. I then pointed out that the letter
dated 8/11/10 received in court on 9/11/10 had asked for clarification and that there had been no reply to that
letter. Also, a letter with identical content had been sent to Forest Heath District Council and it had also been
ignored. So, in my opinion, that placed both the court and Forest Heath District Council in ‘dishonour’ which
should result in the hearing being dismissed. The clerk nodded but made no comment, his general demeanour
being sympathetic.
The adjudicators were away from the courtroom for a considerable length of time. When they returned, they stated
that:
It was their opinion that there was a legal requirement for the defendant to pay Council Tax.
The defendant was not in court.
They had read all of the correspondence in the case and would pay no heed to it.
The court therefore granted the request of Steven Oxborough to obtain a Court Order demanding payment of the
outstanding amount, plus costs of £65.
The hearing was then concluded. Overall, it was not an unpleasant experience.
This produces a most interesting result. The Court has ruled that I, the human, am not the person being
billed for Council Tax, leading to the following letter:
63