strawman

that Birth Certificate (which is the creation of the legal fiction ‘person’ and the assignment of a Bond Number to
that certificate) and you have not yet managed to do that. There is no doubt in my mind that no such Birth
Certificate exists and consequently, that no such legal fiction ‘person’ exists.
You may further confirm this by checking that the Voting register does not show a MR PATRICK KELLY registered
at this address since 2007 and by performing a search for a corresponding Birth Certificate which will show that
there is no record of any such certificate, which you should be aware, is the mechanism through which the legal
fiction ‘person’ MR PATRICK KELLY would have been created. I suggest that you correct your records by
removing that name. You have full justification for doing that as you have a written statement attesting the fact
that there is no such ‘person’ at this address, nor are there any goods or chattels belonging to any such person at
this address, and a court ruling that the human beings not the ‘person’ on your records. Further, you have the
offer of a sworn affidavit to that effect should you wish to have one.
You should also be aware that in the likely event of Forest Heath District Council dismissing you for “gross
misconduct” that the Benefits section of your society will not pay you Job-Seeker’s Allowance for the first six
months (unless a Case Assessor determines otherwise). It is also likely that Forest Heath District Council will not
pay you redundancy due to the nature of your dismissal. If you feel that ‘they would never do that’ then be
advised that they recently terminated the employment of a man who had worked for them for more than two years
and who had suffered a heart attack, and they refused to pay him redundancy. It is difficult to get a job at this time
no matter how good you are at your job, but it must be almost impossible if you have a criminal conviction for theft.
It may well be that the regulations under which Forest Heath District Council operates, prevent it from employing
those who have criminal convictions and if that is the case, then your dismissal would be automatic.
Let me stress again, that I do not consent to represent any such legal fiction ‘person’ and that the court has ruled
that I, the human being, am not that person, requiring me to leave the courtroom as I was not involved in your
case in any way whatsoever. Further, let me say yet again, that I, the human being, am not a member of the
society whose regulations you are employed to enforce, and I do not consent to be subject to or bound by those
regulations.
Your present actions are placing you in a dangerous position and as I bear you no ill will whatsoever, I therefore
suggest that you take a prudent course of action by accepting the fact that you cannot obtain money or goods
from an entity which does not exist, removing the name from your records which clearly are in error, and
discontinuing any further action in this matter. If you wish, I am willing to meet with you for a face-to-face
discussion of all of the factors involved in this case, placing you in a better position to make the decisions which
will affect the rest of your life.
We come now to a most serious matter. You appear to be basing your present actions on a Liability Order issued
by the Magistrates Court on 18th November 2010. I consider it my duty to make you aware of the fact that as far
as I can see from the relevant legal regulations, a magistrates Court does not have the authority to hold a hearing
to determine Liability nor to issue a Liability Order. In order to assist you in confirming this for yourself, the
relevant information can be found in the 2010 issue of Stone's Justices' Manual, section 1-382: Magistrates' Court
procedure relating to jurisdiction, it lays down the remit of a Magistrates Court, namely:
1. To try any summary offence.
2. As examining justices over any offence committed by a person who appears or is brought before the court.
3. Subject to SS 18-22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, to try summarily any offence which is tryable either
way.
4. In the exercise of its powers under s 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to try summarily an indictable
offence.
A Liability Hearing does not fall under any of those areas of remit, so it appears that a magistrates Court is not
legally permitted to hold liability Hearings nor to issue Liability Orders. Consequently, any such Order issued by
your court is invalid and no person is legally entitled to base their actions on any such Order.
You need to understand Steven, that it is illegal for you, personally, or your appointed agents, to perform any
actions based on an invalid and illegal Liability Order issued by any Magistrates Court. Any actions which you
take, you take as an individual person and not as a person acting legally on behalf of a Local Council or a
Magistrates Court. Consequently, there is considerable personal risk involved for you. The fact that you have not
been made aware of the situation before is not a defence which a court would countenance as ignorance of the
legal statutes involved is not a defence. I therefore urge you again to be prudent and careful in whatever actions
you decide to take.
In addition, you need to be aware that the statement “the district council is empowered to enforce payments of the
Council Tax through the Magistrates Court” made in the council letter dated 14th October 2010 is factually
76