Council Tax Legal? 3

Posted: September 19, 2013 in Uncategorized

Angry Man-V-Wigan Council

Just after High Noon Friday 13th September

Wigan and Leigh Courthouse

There gathered the Angry Man and 10 observers in the hope of seeing Justice prevail in favour of the people, not the councils or their bosses the corporations.

And of course the obligatory PLOD*

Twenty minutes before the start of proceedings the court usher invites the representatives of the council into the court, we know not why. We could hazard a guess as to why, maybe you could, what think you?

Eventually the people are invited in, proceedings begin.

The Judge enters, sits down, the council representative swears on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and…………………. proceeds to LIE!!!!!

……….” this man lives in a band ‘A’ property, a DOMESTIC DWELLING, he owes so much money to the council in unpaid taxes” blah blah.


Just what the fuck is a DOMESTIC DWELLING. There has never been such a thing as a domestic dwelling mentioned in any of the Acts THEY rely on.

At this point the Judge took over the role of the council representatives and in so many words demanded that the Angry Man prove the council had no claim.


The council brought the claim but where not asked to prove their claim. How does that work?

The Angry Man then explained to the court the contents of his response to the councils claim, how Section 64 Hereditaments of the ’88 Act defined Non-domestic property, and is therefore liable to a charge, how Section 66 of the ’88 Act defined Domestic property that is not liable to a charge.

That if Domestic property was liable to a charge then the ’92 Act would have included Section 66 Domestic Property, but it is not included and therefore not liable.

Makes sense to us.

But apparently the omission of the section seems to make it inclusive.

The Angry Man continued, and brought in the ‘Rating (Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill’.

Standing Committee B

Tuesday 8 May 2001


[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Rating (Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill

Ms Armstrong:

The 1988 Act uses the same definition of a hereditament as was used in the General Rate Act 1967. Section 64(1) of the 1988 Act states:

“A hereditament is anything which, by virtue of the definition of hereditament in section 115(1) of the 1967 Act, would have been a hereditament for the purposes of that Act had this Act not been passed.”

Section 115(1) of the General Rate Act 1967 defines a hereditament as

“property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item in the valuation list”.

 The Judge dismissed this as … ” it is only a bill”

After several exchanges of the Angry Man reading from and quoting from the relevant Acts the Judge said; ” the council believe your interpretation of Hereditament is wrong”


The Angry Man stayed calm ( we’re not sure we could have) and continued to impress with his knowledge and understanding of  the Acts the council know nothing of.

But eventually the Judge said;

” I don’t agree” ” in my opinion you are wrong”

” So you are going to issue a Liability Order for the council?” said the Angry Man.

” I’m afraid I am” said the Judge.

” Then I shall appeal to the Hight Court”

” Fine” said the Judge, “then I shall read out my judgement,… in the matter brought before me today by Wigan council for liability order, blah, blah, council tax, blah, owed by Angry Man, blah, blah,”, ” ….council interpretation challenged by the Angry Man, blah, but the council don’t need to answer because the Angry Man is wrong”

The Angry Man then asked the Judge if there was some form of collusion between the Judge and council, as the council were invited by the court usher into the court twenty (20) minutes before the people. The Judge seemed to take exception to this and looked upset, “I was in my chambers until the usher called me to say everybody here” that he hadn’t spoken to anyone from the council that day.

The Angry Man asked if the Judge was ‘on his oath’ today?

Judge said ” yes” and proceeded to quote it from memory.

So, there we have it. A liability order was granted by the Judge to the council, because it seems, the Judge agreed with the councils’ interpretation of the LGFA 1992, that Domestic is the same as Non-Domestic, that the Legislatures had forgotten to put Section 66 Domestic Property in the ’92 Act, but that didn’t matter, that the council don’t have to prove their claim, but the Angry Man has to disprove a claim he didn’t make.

Really, lets be honest, you couldn’t make this shit up.

We would suggest that anyone who thinks that an injustice has been handed down to the Angry Man, print off or copy the first COUNCIL TAX LEGAL post, amend it to suit you,add your moniker to it and post it off to your MP, local councillors, police commissioner, local paper, indeed any one you think might be interested in seeing justice done.

* WTF are plod being brought to civil hearings for?


  1. Nomine Deus says:

    Legislative law states (somewhere, as a maxim, perhaps) “That which is not included (in a legislative act) is excluded”…end of story!
    The judge appears to have made a ‘legal determination’ which he is NOT entitled to do on the evidence given in the Acts themselves…therefor he has ‘erred in law’.
    This MUST be appealed! and taken to a higher court which will HAVE to find for Angry Man , as far as my reading of this goes….
    You know how to get in touch if you want any more on this…k!

  2. inmate000003 says:

    Cheers most helpful matey

  3. Bill says:

    “MP, local councillors, police commissioner, local paper.” None of these people give a flying fcuk about justice. All they care about is the weekend, their pay packet and pension.. end of story.
    Some may get off on controlling others but for most it’s simply an easy way to ‘earn a living’.

    The remedy to the council tax does not lie in the statutory world as the statutory world is an illusory world where the rules of the game are ‘unknowable’ even to those who set them. As your brave Angry Man has proven quite conclusively when the prosecution and the judge are both on the same clock (the government’s).

    There is no remedy for men and women within statutes for the simple reason that statutes are designed from the ground up to apply to ‘the governed’ which includes all employees and contractors of the government.
    It’s all about jurisdiction.

    The judge is paid by the government/taxpayer.
    The council bods and lawyers are paid by the government/taxpayer.
    All court officials are paid by the government/taxpayer.
    Plod are paid by the government/taxpayer.

    They are all in the same jurisdiction, the statutory jurisdiction. When you walk in and identify yourself as the person named on the Council Tax bill then you too are agreeing to be in the exact same jurisdiction and therefore part of the governed, to which all the rules of the statute illusion apply and you will be leaving court with a liability order because that is the only outcome permissible if the illusion is to continue funding all of these people’s way of life.

    Marc Stevens suggests asking the Judge three questions
    Will I get a free and fair trial here today?
    Will I get a free and fair trial if there is a conflict of interest?
    Well if the person prosecuting is being paid by the government then who pays you?

    Dean Clifford asks one~
    Is this a statutory court because if it is there has been a mistake?

    Both approaches tell the judge he or she does not have jurisdiction over as the person asking the question and they are acting under their inherent common law rights and are not consenting or agreeing to be tried under the statutory illusion.
    The Clerk of the court will be even more acutely aware of what is being said.
    The cat is truly amongst the pigeons and the pigeons all know what a cat is intent on doing.

  4. inmate000003 says:


    We could not agree more with your excellent comment, but until the masses understand exactly what your post means to them they will carry on in ignorant bliss that they are being well and truly shafted.
    What the Angry Man and several others are attempting, is to awaken the masses to the corruption and lies that abound in the Court and Council systems. That it is not just AM that is being fucked by the system it is ALL of us.
    Unless the courts are shown to be corrupt in the MSM or on the ‘box’ and these disgusting statutes are shown for what they really are, money making schemes for the Elites and their mates in the Banks, we will never have the freedom we desire and deserve.

    Thanks for the excellent comment.

    • Bill says:

      I understand where you are coming from but expecting the MSM to report anything that threatens their livelihood and the livelihood of their controllers is a hope too far. The MSM (and I include the box and t’radio in this tag) are totally controlled by people we cannot see.
      I have a problem with attempting to educate or awaken ‘the masses’. I know many go down this road in the belief that the masses will rise up or wake up and remove the corruption in a flood of common sense however the masses will always gather where there is the least hassle for them.

      No matter how many of them become aware of how things likely stand (and all we ever have is evidence of how they stand) as long as they can ‘pay their way’ or ‘pay for the stuff they are told they need’ then they will do nothing to jeopardise their situation whilst all the while hoping that someone will come along and make things better.

      I’m not convinced either that the existing system is meant to be necessarily bad. It seems to have been taken over or corrupted if you like to keep the masses in ignorance.
      The more I look into things the more it appears that Trusts are everywhere it’s just that we are as individuals totally ignorant whilst those who run the system are totally aware.
      The birth is the event that has to come before everything else. Right from the moment the head pops out the state tries to ensure the baby grows up ignorant. However the state needs to have the consent of a human being before it can act thus it needs the parent to register the live birth.
      The state then sells the parent a certificate of birth which contains ‘evidence of a birth’, the numbered entry in the state’s register of births. This is a masterful piece of deception where two documents have been combined into one.

      The certificate is not supposed to be used as evidence of identity and the modern ones implicitly state this but the numbered register entry is real evidence that a birth has taken place and the resulting human being has been given a name, the name on the birth certificate.
      The way the state then tries desperately hard to make every document it issues dependent on using the birth certificate (which the state says cannot be used as ID) as a means of identification suggests that it needs the human to literally hang themselves by consenting to act under the name on the certificate.

      This of course creates massive confusion whenever I try to explain this state of affairs to anyone. How can a piece of paper with a name on it be two different things?

  5. inmate000003 says:


    I hear you and totally agree, but as you say, when confronted with the deception of the BC, the ordinary Joe on the street or down the pub just glazes over. With a high profile subject such as Council Tax, which affects all of us in our pockets, the more the scam is brought out into the light the better the chance of Joe taking an interest in what is really going on in his world.
    I truly now understand were you and others are coming from and follow your blog daily as it is so refreshing to read of another humans process of awakening.That is if you are the Bill I think you are.

  6. slimline66 says:

    Well that was disappointing, but hardly surprising.

    20 References to other enactments.

    (1)Where an Act describes or cites a portion of an enactment by referring to words, sections or other parts from or to which (or from and to which) the portion extends, the portion described or cited includes the words, sections or other parts referred to unless the contrary intention appears.

    (2)Where an Act refers to an enactment, the reference, unless the contrary intention appears, is a reference to that enactment as amended, and includes a reference thereto as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including any other provision of that Act.

    The court’s aim is to find the intention of Parliament as expressed in the words it used – Viscount Dilhorne in Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. 1978.

    Clear words must be applied – even if the result is absurd per Lord Edmund-Davies in Stock (above), i.e. the judges’ only role is in determining what unclear words mean.

    The literal rule is liable to lead to hardship – but in certain circumstances the courts have decided that it should always be followed: in Leadale v. Lewis 1982, the House of Lords said that tax statutes with clear meanings should have that meaning favoured; even if the result is ‘wrong’, causes hardship or leaves loopholes that might be exploited.

    “If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgment we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though it does lead to an absurdity or manifest injustice”- Jervis CJ in Abley v. Dale 1851.

    “We can only take the intention of Parliament from the words which they have used in the Act” – Lord Reid in I. R. C. v. Hinchy 1960 (note Pepper v. Hart 1992)

    “When the language of a statute is plain it is not open to the court to remedy a defect of drafting” Viscount Dilhorne – Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.


    Keep your chins up. 🙂

    ps. it might be best not to reveal your hand publicly before any further court appearances! 😉

  7. slimline66 says:

    Sorry, the block quote tag didn’t work above.

    Also, the first reference is from the interpretation act 1978

    I just wanted to draw attention to or, stress this, again posted above:

    ” The literal rule is liable to lead to hardship – but in certain circumstances the courts have decided that it should always be followed: in Leadale v. Lewis 1982, the House of Lords said that tax statutes with clear meanings should have that meaning favoured; even if the result is ‘wrong’, causes hardship or leaves loopholes that might be exploited. “

  8. Bill says:

    Worth 28 minutes of anyone’s time…

  9. funny how the councils are a Billing Authority and do not need to send a bill out in accordance with the bills of exchange act, all you get is a Demand Notice. A guy at the CT office admitted they didn’t need to send out a bill and only work with the LGF Act.

  10. inmate000003 says:


    Seems we are becoming famous having an esteemed blogger such as yourself reading our humble blog, many thanks for the comment.
    Yes, as you say it is never a true bill but a demand for something we have not received. The guy at the council office is more than likely parroting what he has been told and if he took time to read the LGFA 1992 he may see the error of his ways.

    • inmate000003 says:


      Why not do a post on council tax yourself? your following is far greater than ours, awaken the masses, get everyone who is blighted by this insidious tax questioning their ‘local authorities’.

  11. slimline66 says:

    This fella won his court case because the word “bedroom” wasn’t defined. The judge ruled:

    “The term ‘bedroom’ is nowhere defined [in the relevant regulations]. I apply the ordinary English meaning. The room in question cannot be so defined.”

    Now didn’t your friends lose their case on the strength of an undefined phrase? (domestic dwelling)


    • inmate000003 says:


      Yes, that is correct. The council reps brought in the phrase ‘domestic dwelling’ which does not appear anywhere in any of the acts relevant to the case. The Judge seems to have erred when using ‘domestic dwelling’ as part of his judgement.

  12. Carole says:

    Hi Angry Man,

    The Councils are registered trading companies. So are our courts, Police Authorities and government itself (UK Corporation). Search for your Council on

    As such they can only deal in contracts. We can refuse to contract in with them. They cannot force you to do business with them any more than British Telecom can. End of.


    • inmate000003 says:

      Hi Carole

      Thanks for the comment, the Angry Man has as you say found his council on DnB and asked if they are a Private for Profit Corporation, of course they will not answer either yes or no!
      We are now looking into the GMCA the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, a self appointed group of Tyrants. The GMCA seems to be an Agenda 21 initiative to remove the peoples power of accountability over Local Government.
      And as you point out they, the GMCA control the local courts and police with help from Capita, Seimans, Serco and G4s.
      We are being slowly consumed by Corporate Fascism and the masses are oblivious to their future serfdom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.