strawman

Further, you need to be aware that in extensive previous correspondence with Forest Heath District Council,
estoppel has been established, providing their tacit agreement that there is no payment due from me to them.
The Bury Magistrates Court ruled on 18th November 2010 that I am not the ‘person’ whom Forest Heath District
Council are attempting to charge Council Tax, so any attempts to collect money or goods from me constitutes
fraudulent harassment.
In addition, you need to be aware that the scope of jurisdiction of all Magistrates Courts is set out in the 2010
issue of Stone's Justices' Manual, section 1-382: “Magistrates' Court procedure relating to jurisdiction”, 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 a magistrates Court is not legally permitted
to hold liability Hearings nor to issue Liability Orders. Consequently, any such Order is invalid and you are not
legally entitled to base your actions on any such Order and your written statement “TAKE NOTICE that by virtue of
an authority given to me by Mildenhall Magistrates Court in a Liability Order dated Nov 18, 2010 …” quite apart
from the fact that it not Mildenhall Magistrates Court and is dated a year ago, you have no legal authority
whatsoever under any liability Order issued by a Magistrates Court.
There is a requirement for there to be written notification of a proposed bailiff’s visit a clear 14 days prior to that
visit. I have received no such notification and so there has been a breach of this requirement. Your attempt to
charge £24.50 for a bailiff visit without prior notification has to be construed as being fraudulent.
Please also note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the
Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair
Trading. And take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may
constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way, and so
pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to
me, and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report
being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.
You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the
date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you
including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted
with the intention of them being used as evidence.
Do not contact me again.
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Patrick-James: of the Kelly family
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Inalienable, Rights reserved.
Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely Patrick-James: of the Kelly
family, as commonly called.
Encl: Original paperwork as received.
The above letter to Rossendales was then included in the response to Forest Heath
District Council:
90
XXXXXXXXXXX,
Red Lodge,
Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk
Near IP28 XXX
10th January 2011