Categorized | Call of Shame

#CoS – May 15, 2013 – Helen’s Council Tax Pretrial Hearing: More Circular Fallacies Instead of the Evidence

Posted on May 23rd, 2013 by Calvin

Listener challenge: can you count how many times the bureaucrats refer back to the law when they are being questioned on the applicability of the law? Leave your tally in the comments section below.


24 Comments For This Post

  1. indio007 Says:

    All you have to do is realize is that these people went into “social” careers because they suck at science.
    Richard Feynman called the social sciences a pseudoscience, which it is.

    The last thing they want to do is have to come up with empirical evidence or actual proof.

    Think of this. The foundation of the legal system is the witness. Scientific research has reams of data that says the witness testimony is pathetic as proof with the error rate being in the 70 percentiles. The courts will do anything to stop expert testimony on this fact.

    They use circular logic because it is all they have.

  2. mike Says:

    Nice one Marc,really impressed how you dealt with that, I’m having a battle with the driving license in the UK.

  3. TigerLily Says:

    The law applies because the queen signed it? LOL – goes to show how little humanity has evolved through the centuries. Good job exposing the bullshit, Marc!

  4. Mike Says:

    she has to pay or I don’t get paid…I’m a blood sucking bureaucrat and you’re a puny leave me alone it’s almost time for Coronation Street

  5. Latimer the Cat Says:


    You didn’t get beyond the assumptive level on this one. If there’s a burden of proof in G.B. at their pretended courts, the burden of proof should be emphasized at the forefront of the questions posed. Every tradesman, be it builder or bureaucrat, functions within the boundaries of his task. As you know all too well, it’s the bureaucrat’s task to get funds to preserve the bureaucrat. That’s all he assumes. Granting the method (from his perspective) is a matter of mere algorithm compliance.

  6. bruce sloane Says:

    Marc ..
    why not question how the woman became a part of the Body Politic ..??

  7. bruce sloane Says:

    ooohhhh …
    I see that this is actually a ” real estate ” tax

  8. Pete Says:

    Yet another Awesome Call of Shame! Seems like anything with UK Helen is going to kick some major arse.

  9. indio007 Says:

    The warrant is defective. It was made solely on information and belief.
    Read the first line.

    Here’s the habeas case that says information and belief is insufficient.

    Rice v. Ames, 180 US 371 – Supreme Court 1901

    2. The first assignment of error is to the effect that the commissioner issuing the warrant had no jurisdiction, because the complaint of Greer was upon information and belief, and not such as was required by the treaty, or by section 5270 of the Revised Statutes. The first two complaints, which were dismissed, as well as the first count of the complaint under which the proceedings were finally had, were obviously insufficient, since the charges were made solely upon information and belief, and no attempt was made even to set forth the sources of information or the grounds of affiant’s belief. This is bad, even in extradition proceedings, which are entitled to as much liberality of construction in furtherance of the objects of the treaty as is possible in cases of a criminal nature. Nor is it saved by the fact that Greer described himself as government detective for the Province of Ontario, and duly authorized by the Attorney General to act as the agent of the government to prosecute extradition proceedings. Ex parte Smith, 3 McLean, 121, 135; Ex parte Lane, 6 Fed. Rep. 34; In re Young Mfg. Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 753.

    A citizen ought not to be deprived of his personal liberty upon an allegation which, upon being sifted, may amount to nothing more than a suspicion. While authorities upon this 375*375 subject are singularly few, it is clear that a person ought not to be arrested upon a criminal charge upon less direct allegations than are necessary to authorize the arrest of a fraudulent or absconding debtor. Smith v. Luce, 14 Wend. 237; Matter of Bliss, 7 Hill, 187; Proctor v. Prout, 17 Mich. 473. So, too, in applications for injunctions, the rule is that the material facts must be directly averred under oath by a person having knowledge of such facts. Waddell v. Bruen, 4 Ed. Chan. 671; Armstrong v. Sanford, 7 Minnesota, 49.

    We do not wish, however, to be understood as holding that, in extradition proceedings, the complaint must be sworn to by persons having actual knowledge of the offence charged. This would defeat the whole object of the treaty, as we are bound to assume that no foreign government possesses greater power than our own to order its citizens to go to another country to institute legal proceedings. This is obviously impossible. The ordinary course is to send an officer or agent of the government for that purpose, and Rev. Stat. sec. 5271, makes special provision that “in every case of complaint and of a hearing upon the return of the warrant of arrest, any depositions, warrants, or other papers offered in evidence, shall be admitted and received for the purpose of such hearing if they shall be properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received as evidence of the criminality of the person so apprehended, by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party shall have escaped, and copies of any such depositions, warrants or other papers, shall, if authenticated according to the law of such foreign country, be in like manner received as evidence,” of which authentication the certificate of the diplomatic or consular officer of the United States shall be sufficient. This obviates the necessity which might otherwise exist of confronting the accused with the witnesses against him. Now, it would obviously be inconsistent to hold that depositions, which are admissible upon the hearing, should not also be admitted for the purpose of vesting jurisdiction in the commissioner to issue the warrant. Indeed, the words of the statute, “in every case of complaint,” seem to contemplate this very use of them. If the officer of the foreign government has no personal knowledge 376*376 of the facts, he may with entire propriety make the complaint upon information and belief, stating the sources of his information and the grounds of his belief, and annexing to the complaint a properly certified copy of any indictment or equivalent proceeding, which may have been found in the foreign country, or a copy of the depositions of witnesses having actual knowledge of the facts, taken under the treaty and act of Congress. This will afford ample authority to the commissioner for issuing the warrant.

    But while, as already observed, the first count is bad, by reason of its unsupported allegations upon information and belief, the second count contains a wholly different charge of larceny of a horse, cart and harness; the third, of breaking and entering a private bank in Aurora; and the fourth, of breaking and entering a building in Toronto. Each of these counts charges a distinct offence, and each purports on its face to be made upon the personal knowledge of the complainant.

  10. indio007 Says:

    The last paragraph.

    “But while, as already observed, the first count is bad, by reason of its unsupported allegations upon information and belief”

  11. bruce sloane Says:

    great Case, Indy … 🙂

  12. indio007 Says:

    The vast majority of warrants are issued on information and belief.
    The “Boston bomber” comes to mind. There is a reason for this. To get a conviction for perjury be the affiant, you have to prove he didn’t really believe what he wrote.

  13. Jace Says:

    “Unfortunately the laws do apply everyone in this country.”

    The agent’s own opinion on the matter. Is it really any wonder why the agent sounds so unhappy?

  14. Neil Heffey Says:

    Marc, I have followed a lot of your videos and this was well put to the council, I have properties within the area to which Helens council operates. Listening to them idiots in the council reminds me of the hundreds of phone calls I have with them. If they are so bound over by the Council tax administration act, why not quote The Local Government Act 1879, Section 79 (2), this is one of the same so called laws of the land and it states that the local council are liable for all the duties and liabilities of the local inhabitants of that council, that is also signed off by the Queen, they don’t like you using this one and you will have fun with it. It has not been repealed

  15. Neil Heffey Says:

    Sorry I got wrong Act, there is so many swimming in my head it is the Local Government Act 1888 section 79 (2)

  16. Yvonne Stewart-Taylor Says:

    If a body corporate or anyone else for that matter is claiming against YOU, first they need to prove that you is the actual human being, rather than person a corporate entitity, but as well it is the councils duty to prove liability. They must prove their case against YOU in court. Not the defendant proving he/she is not liable.

    I also saw that The County Councils, and all public servants working in them, answer to us and not us to them. I am thinking of sending all my bills to them and asking them to honour my debts as I am unable to do so because of the financial damages caused to me and my family as a direct result of County Council wrongful intrusion /intervention into our private family life, with nothing to sunstantiate the action in the first place.

    I have not been able to work since 2006, a violation of my human rights, due to malicious, vindictive and false evidence against us by public servants, they caused me to have no money, and to not be able to honour my own debts, so who is actually liable then. I fail to see how I am liable for anything with no income. Its going to be interesting this, because I am already being threatened with imprisonment for non payment or bankruptcy, yet they cannot even prove liability. Where is the law, and I mean law, not legislation, that states liability. Other than assumption, presumption and hearsay? yet I can prove my case, for some reason I do not believe they will want me in court, as I will spill the beans if they dare to give me a voice. They are operating in fraud and I have served a fraud notice on the council and the courts. I have made my claim against the state and it is unrebutted and neither have they refuted it. Let me say this, they rely on bluff, threat and menace to get their own way, well guess what Im digging my heals well and truly in, and as far as court goes, they will have to force me their too. Why should we volunteer to be screwed by unlawful ingnorance?

  17. ihtoit Says:

    Jace: unfortunately, he is entirely correct. The Law *does* apply to *everybody*.

    From the United States Declaration of Independence, Para. 1: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”.

    And the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified in December 1865 put to paper that NO MAN SHALL HAVE DOMINION OVER ANOTHER.

    In England, those same words echo in the book of Laws by Cicero: “There is in fact a true law— namely right reason—which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. … It will not lay down one rule at Rome and another at Athens, nor will it be one rule today and another tomorrow. But there will be one law, eternal and unchangeable, binding at all times upon all peoples; and there will be, as it were, one common master and ruler of men, namely God, who is the author of this law, its interpreter and its sponsor. The man who will not obey it will abandon his better self and, in denying the true nature of man, will thereby suffer the severest of penalties, though he has escaped all the other consequences which men call punishment.”

    This still holds as absolute truth even if recent case Law or Statute do not reflect it – they certainly do not by precedent or mandate, deny it.

  18. NonE Says:

    ihtoit: I like your post. I only have one quibble. What evidence to you have to show that there is a “God” or that “he/she/it/non-it” has created such a law and that it is in anyway binding upon me?
    – NonE

  19. gary lee Says:

    ihtoit; if all men are created equal….who was the odd man out who could create a “law” and force others to follow it? All men are created equal because they DO NOT have to follow laws made by other men. Maybe some “universal” laws of “right or wrong” or laws made by “God(s)”, but then WHO gets to make THAT determination, if, indeed all mena re created equal? I am rreasonably sure that the declaration of independence was about men being free of the rule of other men, though I suppose maybe I misunderstand what they were thinking…..

  20. Chris Says:

    Very entertaining.

    The tax clerk doesn’t know enough to answer the question the way she did.

    Why didn’t you ask clerk to provide evidence that your client consented to the law that the legislature made?

    Why didn’t you ask her other questions except the simple “what evidence do you have that the law applies”?

    Why not dig for more details?

    … Chris

  21. Chris Says:

    I presume Helen went before the cotton-top, and he stamped a price on her head, granting the tax agents “authority” to take her house/property or whatever.

    Now, where is Helen today? Did she give up her house? Did she go back to “bending over” so the “trailer trash” who work at the tax office can live their easy, comfortable lives off her hard-earned paycheck?

    The question is: What good is all this “posturing”, if it leads to no end result?

    What % of the population will wake up before it’s too late?

    … Chris

  22. JaredB Says:

    Marc you heard the lady “thats irrelevant” the laws apply to her. The code applies because the code applies because the code applies because the code applies because the code applies because the code applies because the code applies because the code applies because the code applies……………

  23. Helen Says:

    Hey Legal Landers…..I am here and still fighting, cant scare me off that easy….took some much needed time off after the last hearing as I have some problems with my health and I got pretty burnt out. Yes the magistrate slapped a liability order on me but due to the thorough investigation I had done (something not many people in that courtroom knew much about)I proved that in 2007 they informed me I had to pay council tax even though i was a student because it wasn’t enough hours…that was a lie…..evidence from my college arrived on the court date to my email and the magistrate would not enter it as evidence so the liability order got rubberstamped, the council then processed my evidence and paid themselves with the money they owed me. They have now sent me a new bill for this years money and include the cost of a liability order from last year… appeal the liability order costs more money than I have access to but the council do have the power to have it set aside….gotta give it a go….then i guess its back to court for a second year….

  24. Tony Says:

    The law of the land is Common Law, Statutes are not common law, so they are not the law of the land.

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. #CoS – May 15, 2013 – Helen’s Council Tax Pretrial Hearing: More Circular Fallacies Instead of the Evidence - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] post #CoS – May 15, 2013 – Helen’s Council Tax Pretrial Hearing: More Circular Fallacie… appeared first on […]

  2. NSP - Mar 21, 2015 - Says:

    […] presenting yourself for a venue <> Fabrice’s video interview with Bradley Knight and Helen <> the advantage of having a good support environment like NSP thought spaces <> […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here