birkenhead.fmotl.comWhat actually happened in Birkenhead County Court 7th March 2011

What actually happened in Birkenhead County Court 7th March 2011? Update 1: Hereford 5th April, 2011: 3 Magistrates threatened with arrest of they did not dismiss an NPower case ... the case was dismissed. Update 2: Hereford 18th April, 2011: Judge threatened with arrest if he proceeded with "No Licence, No MOT", and a revival of the NPower case, instead of allowing a Judicial Review ... the Judge allowed a Judicial Review. The first item of the Judicial Review will question (a) Their Right to hold the Review and (b) The Judge's Right to Order one ... since none of this is Constitutional. All these Administrative Courts & functions have been plucked out of their arses ... and are - thus - TREASONOUS against The People of England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland. Background Roger: of the Hayes family (as commonly called) was summonsed for unpaid Council Tax. He fought this through a number of Court Hearings, as reported on www.NoCouncilTax.com , and elsewhere. During these Hearings he managed to get agreement that: 1) The Council themselves were issuing Summonses directly ... without going through Due Process (which would have consisted of the Council laying a Complaint with the Local Courts). 2) As the Council did this (issuing Summonses themselves) they used letters headed as if the Summons had been sent by the Court. This is contrary to Law. The Council is not any part of any judicial process . The Council were, therefore, guilty of massive deception. (The above applies to all Councils in the United Kingdom). Because Roger had not paid (for approximately 3 years), the Local Council decided to 'up the ante' by pursuing a Bankruptcy Petition against him. (This is now become their standard procedure all over the United Kingdom. It's a pretty stupid idea, of course, but then the Lawful Rebels are - of course - up against pretty stupid, and utterly arrogant, Robotic people. Thus it is par for their pathetic 'course'). During the Hearing immediately prior to 7th March, on 15th February, Roger had requested that the Judge acknowledge his Oath of Office for approximately 30 minutes of requesting. The Judge (Michael Peake) steadfastly refused to do this, and prevaricated for those 30 minutes. He repeatedly claimed that he'd been 'a Judge for 12 years, and has been sworn in upon becoming a Judge. And that it was a properly constituted court'. This is not the same as saying he was prepared to 'act in obedience to his Oath at the time '. Roger then decided to drop the insistence on the matter of the Oath, in order to get the details of the Council's deception into evidence, and on to the record. This prior case then continued for another hour or so, with Roger finally succeeding in getting the Michael Peake to acknowledge that there may be some truth that the Council had in fact issued fraudulent paperwork, and had indeed not sent him the relevant Liability Orders nor a Statutory Demand. Roger had papers there which clearly showed the Council's word-processing watermark. These purported to have come from the Court. Michael Peake reluctantly decided an adjournment, on condition that Roger pay the sum demanded, and that he would get a refund should the Council be found to have issued fraudulent documents. Had Michael Peake been acting independently, and fairly to both sides, in accordance with his Oath of Office, he would have made payment conditional upon the Council proving they had acted lawfully, would he not? The matter of the Oath is important to remember, because if the Judge was not acting in accordance with his solemnly sworn Oath of Office, then he was simply impersonating a Judge , and had no right to sit in any kind of judgement. (And why he is simply referred to "Michael Peake" , above and below). If, on the other hand, Michael Peake agreed to act under his Oath of Office, then he could not possibly accept the computerised, hearsay, and possibly fraudulent, so-called evidence presented by the Local Council - and would have to accept Roger's first-hand knowledge - sworn under penalty of perjury - because Roger is a Human Being and has a brain that can hold first-hand knowledge. And that is the basic argument. And that is where the corruption lies. The fact that computerised hearsay evidence is acceptable in Civil Disputes - where it would never be accepted in Criminal Proceedings. And the fact that a Judge, when becoming one, must take the Oath of Office - and then, for the remainder of the Judge's career - completely ignore this Oath, in order to 'dispense - what amounts to - tyranny from the bench'. If a Judge acts under their Oath of Office, no CORPORATION would have any rights whatsoever. Because a CORPORATION (Company, Council, etc.) does not have a Mind within which to hold any first-hand knowledge of anything. It does not have any DNA. It could not be jailed. It cannot even make any 'mark' on paper - it must get a 'representative' to do everything on its behalf. On the other hand, a Human Being standing up against any CORPORATION, has DNA and could have their liberty taken away by jail time. A Human Being can write their own name or at least make their own 'mark'. Thus the entire playing field is loaded against any Human Being, and only a Judge - acting under their Oath of Office - stands to serve and protect that Human Being. Only in this manner can any form of real justice ever occur. If the Judge is not prepared to serve and protect Human Beings, then the Judge is not doing the job they are paid for. In point of fact, a Judge NOT under Oath stands in Contempt of his own Court. Thus the scene is set for Birkenhead County Court, on the 7th March 2011, where Roger, a Human Being, is fighting off a Bankruptcy Petition applied for by a mindless, soulless, CORPORATION. What actually happened? About a week before the Hearing, a call went out - via the Internet Lawful Rebellion Network - to request people to turn up on that day at about 1pm. The Hearing was timed for 2pm. We hoped for at least 100 people. In the event some 300+ turned up. (We were quite amazed, due to the short notice that was given). We all turned up, and collected a short distance away in Hamilton Square, Birkenhead. We had arranged to signify who we were by holding up black umbrellas. Very few people knew exactly what was planned. This was in line with the "Guy Taylor Chaos Theory", which says: "If I don't know what I'm doing next, then the Police can't possibly know". As it turned out very little was executed as planned. Although the major components were: 1. To create a diversion by having a group mill around the Magistrates Court (instead of the County Court), in order to make it look as though the action would take place there. This did occur as planned. 2. The fact that the Judge was going to be arrested was kept secret to the very last minute. Those who turned up were only told this at approximately 1:30pm. 3. The major action was to take place by seizing the County Court (filling it with people). Again the majority were told this at about 1:30pm. 2 and 3, above were planned to be more-or-less independent ... although obviously linked by the common cause. In Court Many reading this will have seen the videos. And a lot of it focuses on Rusty (who has one hand handcuffed to a Policyman). Also Locky can be seen sitting in the Judge's chair. The videos also focus on Ray who tries to calm everyone down, and negotiate with the Policymen. At the start, the Court was quiet, and Roger reads out the assessment of justice penned by Lord Diplock in 1974. It is quoted in Archbold as follows, clearly showing how a Judge may be guilty of Contempt of Court: Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974], ante, outlines the various ways which the due administration of justice might be prejudiced: " The due administration of justice requires first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdictio...