strawman

incorrect as no Magistrates Court is permitted to be involved in liability hearings nor to issue Liability Orders. Any
such Orders made with respect to XXXXXXXXXX are wholly invalid and any actions of yours based on those, or
presumptions based on those, do not have the legal support of that court. It is difficult to see how demands for
payment made with the false threat of court sanctions can be seen as anything other than demanding money with
menaces, which is generally considered to be a criminal offence. I strongly recommend that you arrange to settle
the outstanding amount owed by the council rather than requiring me to pursue the matter through the courts
where these things will then become a permanent court record.
I attach herewith, a copy of my letter to the Bury St Edmunds Court, drawing their attention to the fact that they are
not empowered under present legislation, to hold liability hearings or to issue Liability Orders. You need to be
aware that in my opinion, on all occasions in the past where you have instructed bailiffs to remove possessions
from households, based on Liability Orders issued by a Magistrates Court have almost certainly constituted illegal
actions for which you personally are liable. It seems likely that Forest Heath District Council are aware of this and
have refrained from making you aware of the situation. If you wish to meet with me to discuss these matters, then
I am willing to meet with you without charge, either during or outside your normal working hours, either at the
council offices or elsewhere as is convenient to you.
A letter dated 2nd December 2010 from yourself addressed to this non-existent entity “Mr Patrick Kelly” which the
Bury court has ruled is not me, the human being, has been delivered to my home address. I should be obliged if
you would stop sending such letters to this address as there is no such person here. Surprisingly, in your letter,
there is a statement that the council does not owe any money to anyone in connection with this matter. This is, of
course, incorrect as the council does owe me money since you were informed clearly of my charges in good time
for you to have avoided incurring any, and you chose not to do so. Consequently, those charges stand and there
are amounts outstanding as you have availed yourself of charged services in the full knowledge that those
services incurred a charge.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick: Kelly as commonly known
Without any acceptance of any liability whatsoever, and with all Indefeasible Rights reserved.
Attachment:
Att. Justices Chief Executive,
The Magistrates Court,
Shire Hall,
Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk
IP33 1HF
XXXXXXXXXXX,
Red Lodge,
Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk
Near IP28 XXX
3rd December 2010
Dear Sir,
Notification of a Liability Order issued by the Magistrates Court was sent to my home address and while it is not
made out to myself personally, I feel it my duty to draw to your attention that as far as I can determine, a
Magistrates Court is not empowered to make rulings on liability matters nor to issue liability Orders.
I should like to draw your attention to the fact that on 18th November 2010, the relevant procedure at your
premises was a “hearing” and the court comprised three “adjudicators”, a clerk and an usher, demonstrating
clearly that the proceedings were a court de facto, that is, a Magistrates Court hearing.
77