strawman

finding might be the reverse of the finding already given. If that is the case, then one of the two
contradictory findings has to be incorrect, which implies that non Magistrates Court finding can be relied
on as it may later be shown to have been unsound, prompting this letter:
Att. D. Carson,
West Suffolk Magistrates Court,
Shire Hall,
Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk
IP33 1HF
XXXXXXXXXXXXX,
Red Lodge,
Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk
Near IP28 XXX
13th December 2010
Your Ref: DC/ADP
Dear Sir or Madam,
I should like to thank you for your letter dated 9th December 2010 and express my appreciation of your having
taken the time to reply.
I must apologise for a clerical error in my previous letter to you when I said “until such time as the law is changed
and such matters then become legal” which of course, should have read “until such time as the legislation is
changed and such matters then become legal”.
I take note of your mention of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council Tax (Administration and
Enforcement) Regulations 1992 in relation to Local Authority procedures. However, while these are indeed
interesting, they are not directly relevant to the issue of the remit of Magistrate Courts as defined by Stones
Justices Manual which was issued in 2010. The recent Stones publication is grossly inadequate and highly
misleading if, when defining the scope of jurisdiction of a Magistrates Court, it does not include major areas of
additional jurisdiction. I should be most obliged if you would point me to some specific legislation which authorises
a Magistrates Court to make rulings on liability hearings and issue Liability Orders based on those rulings, as I
have not managed to find any such authorisation.
I find your statement on the possibility of a subsequent Magistrates Court hearing resulting in a contrary ruling
when considering the same information, quite astonishing as that indicates that at least one of those rulings has to
be unsound, which in turn, implies that you believe that any Magistrates Court ruling is liable to be unsound. This
is a most remarkable implication with very far-reaching significance.
However, as you are most certainly aware, statutes and statutory instruments are the regulations of the Law
Society and not being law, they are only binding on members of that society and anybody else who consents to be
bound by them. As I have repeatedly stated in writing, I am not a member of that society and I do not consent to
be bound by those regulations. Consequently, it is of no direct concern to me what the ruling is on the entity
which Forest Heath District Council is attempting to charge Council Tax as I do not consent to represent the
supposed legal ‘person’ “MR PATRICK KELLY” (which I sincerely doubt actually exists as I am not aware of any
corresponding Birth Certificate) and so, Joinder has not been established, nor will I permit it to be.
Further, I requested Forest Heath District Council to provide evidence of any lawful debt owed by myself. This
they failed to do and so estoppel was established in the matter, demonstrating that there is no such outstanding
debt, so again, any court finding on any supposed link between myself and the fiction “MR PATRICK KELLY” does
not have any relevance.
80