Appeal, counter-complaint and claim:- £12M Per UK Person!

[Admin]

December 30th 2014.

Notice of appeal, counter-complaint and claim, under Jury Trial, Common Law Jurisdiction to every UK Justice, also to Justices Globally, acting on their oaths, and only as primus inter pares in informed consensus with such common Juries, since this concerns a Cheltenham Magistrates’ Council Tax arrears’ secret Hearing conviction, where the defendant’s case was wholly suppressed, which defence is with regards to The Cotswold District Councillors in association with a mainstream Party Politicians’ cartel, led by David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Edward Miliband, Nigel Farrage, and Caroline Lucas, also many civil servants, all in joint criminal enterprise, systematically defrauding The UK’s Public Elections, hence such as The House of Commons being a criminal construct - hence the Crown and all her servants incl. all UK Justices having no jurisdiction to tax, or to spend, or in any other way to judge coercively, except with Common Juries’ consensuses. This criminal cartel with still more associates practices further systematic crimes including:- malicious prosecutions, malicious abuse of processes, slanders, libels, extortions, tortures, murders, terrorisms, war crimes, high treasons, and disseises; i.e. the unlawful dispossession of property incl. land/s, all on the UK People, also on others, and all with a fraud component. The personal claim is for £12,000,000.00p or at today’s prices, an equivalent in any other currency or commodity, chosen by the claimant at any time before settlement or enforcement, and levied up to that full sum on each individual who is either responsible or has benefited, and from their own pockets, not the public’s.

From Mr James Alexander Drummond (Sandy) Steel; 2 Butts End, Poulton, GLOS regarding this conviction of him via secret Hearing held on the 27th October 2014 by Magistrates; The Magistrates Courts, St George’s Street, Cheltenham, GLOS, concerning £1,688.54p of alleged Council Tax arrears; Mr Steel’s appeal, counter-complaint and claim for £12 Million rests on how much has been defrauded, extorted and disseised by the above Government from him; (see p11; Nb7), also on having been denied twelve rights in Law:-

1. to be summonsed to court, which was denied,
2. to attend the court, which was denied,
3. to present a defence to the court, which was denied,
4. to present a defence, without: political, judicial or other prejudice, which was denied,
5. to present pre-court case disclosures to the court, which was denied,
6. to choose a Jury Trial; as is his inalienable right, which was denied,

• this Jury Trial Common Law Jurisdiction choice Mr Steel rightfully directed about, in his criminally suppressed pre-case disclosure to the Court and to the Council; (see this pre-case email, forwarded below).

7. to choose a Jury Trial on another point of law which was denied; which is:-

• if the House of Commons is occupied by a crime cartel; as Mr Steel has public documentarily evidenced that it is, in his pre-case disclosures to the Court and to the Council; (forwarded below), then The Crown and all her servants; including all Justices have no jurisdiction either to tax, or to spend, or in any other way to judge coercively, except in consensus with proper Common Juries, then only in order to keep the peace; (not to profiteer).

• Mr Steel challenges the UK’s Party Politicians and Bench Justices publically to deny that The Jury Trial, Common Law Jurisdiction is The Sovereign Law, which is to say The Law of the Land and of The People in the UK? If they don’t, it follows that The Jury Trial’s Common Law Jurisdiction within the UK includes: misdemeanours and all felonies.

i. Re Mr Steel’s both counter-complaint and appeal evidence; regarding all of the systematic and other felonies perpetrated by members of the UK Government and their allies; see again his pre-case disclosure email to the Magistrates Court, also to the Prosecuting Council; (forwarded below), with its link to Mr Steel’s site; The Fraud State:- www.sandysteel.co.uk which site contains both the indictments regarding the UK Government’s leaders, associates and accessories involved in all of these felonies, also a suggested sentencing tariff for them all; see also; p6-p12 below, all of which Juries with Justices can consider henceforward, re seeking lawfully to make peace.

ii. Re exploring the consequences of Mr Steel’s 12 appellant points of law to a lawful conclusion, see Nbs 1-7; p6-p12 below.


8. to choose as of inalienable right for his case to be heard, neither by Magistrates, or Judge/s alone, nor under Statutory ‘Civil Law’ Jurisdiction, which was denied:-

• again, see the pre-case disclosure email, (below), in which Mr Steel explicitly dissents to his case either being judged by Magistrates and or Judge/s alone, or being put under Statutory Jurisdiction,


9. to be readily allowed to record an audio-visual-textual verbatim account of all of his trials and hearings, also for any other attendees to be able to do so, both of which were denied;-

• also for The Court to make a similar verbatim record, which is freely readily available to The Public via download, which was denied,

• also for all of Section 9 to be affirmed, including concerning how visual a record it should be, under the only systemically lawful extant UK Jurisdiction, which is via a Common Law, Jury Trial, so with The Jury’s informed consensus in each case, which was denied.


10. for Mr Steel as a defendant, and any other interested party, on an aural or written consideration of a defence appeal and or complaint, to receive notification from the convicting Court’s staff of when, where and by whom the court conviction occurred, also why it was secret; (since it was), and the jurisdiction used, also whether it was a civil or criminal matter, and of all the options to appeal it/complaint it, with contact details, incl. the option of trial by jury, also the maximum further personal liability should the appeal fail, and any other information which determines whether a defendant may appeal properly or not, all of which was denied.

• What the Cheltenham Magistrates Staff have aurally claimed to Mr Steel is that he can only appeal to the same secret Cheltenham Magistrates’ Court that convicted him, but then these refused to give him written notification of this, also refused to give him the name of their employer, or other than their forenames. Notably a ‘legal advisor’ Fay who fleetingly mentioned Common Law Jurisdiction, but who wouldn’t return to that, and instead repeated only that under a regulation; (Council Tax 1992, Para 34, fn 1-2) that Mr Steel could only appeal to the secret court that had just convicted him; but wouldn’t notify him of this, or about how long he had to appeal, nor disclose why his case had been secret from him; or whether it had been a civil or criminal case, or under what jurisdiction it was, or what Mr Steel’s max further liability would be, should he appeal this secret hearing, and fail, or if the appeal would also be secret and his evidence suppressed again, also again why; and having repeatedly declared that she was an ‘impartial legal advisor’ she wouldn’t say if she was a public servant, or a private employee, or supply her employer’s name, or her own surname.

• Where as, the Cotswold District Council’s principle solicitor; Susan Gargett advised contradictorily:- on 06.11.2014, so nine days after Mr Steel’s secret conviction, also only because he solicited her:- that her Council’s secret trial/hearing of Mr Steel’s Council Tax withholding/arrears case, was a civil matter; and that he could appeal via the Cheltenham Magistrates, who must pass it on, to the High Court, but when Mr Steel asked her to notify him of this, she notified him only:- ‘A Liability Order can be challenged by an appeal to the High Court by way of case stated on a point of law’, and that he had eleven days left. So she too didn’t divulge why his case was held in secret from him; or whether it had been civil or criminal, or under what jurisdiction it was held, or under what jurisdictions he could appeal it, or whether he could appeal it either criminally or civilly, or what his max further liability would be, should his appeal fail, or if the appeal would also be in secret and his evidence again be suppressed also why, and no appeal contact address notified at all.

• Since the Court’s and Council’s appeal advice was contradictory and economic, so Mr Steel knew that both were misleading him regarding his appealing their secret trial/hearing of his case, and most likely maliciously so, which would be both either scripted conspiratorially by them, and or arranged by a higher authority: I.e. since their appeal advise contradicted, so Mr Steel knew he was being misled by one or both, and since they both also omitted properly to notify him both about their secret hearing/trial, and about the means to appeal it, this suggested to Mr Steel that they knew that both of their contradictory appeal directions were fraudulent mis-directions; via their both employing significant scripted omissions and distortions, to impede any proper appeal and counterclaim being made.


11. The Cotswold District Council, the Cheltenham Magistrates, and assoc-iates, all have previous criminal secret hearing behaviour to consider too:-

• last year Mr Steel didn’t receive a Council Tax Court Summons, until after his having been convicted by that court, so his defence was wholly suppressed last year too. When Mr Steel spoke to the Court and then wrote to the Council about the summonsing omission, asking them to reschedule the case, the Court staff referred him to the Council, while the Council Revenue Staff replied (27.08.13) disclosing that they now send out the Council Tax Court’s Summonses, while Mr Steel notes, that they and the Court mislead the public by retaining The Clerk to the Justices non wet signature on the court summons, so that the prosecuting Council now stealthily controls whether or not the defendant can attend their own trial/ hearing, which is a breach of judicial independence, and it’s achieved by a fraudulent public documentary pretence that this isn’t the case.

• Moreover in justification both of its secret trial/hearing and of its after the fact summonsing to it, the Council added that Statutory Law now allows the Court?/Council? not to deliver a summons to the defendant, before their trial/hearing, but instead just to show that they sent a summons out by 1st class post,

• but since letters aren’t date franked now, so the Council can hardly prove that either, it seems:- anyway, they didn’t ever prove it.


12. About Mr Steel’s appeal, complaint and claim being outside the normal statutory time of 21 days:- Mr Steel pre-case disclosed to be tried under Jury Trial; Common Law Jurisdiction, not Bench Trial; Statutory Jurisdiction, which is his inalienable lawful right. This renders a statutory time limit void; (again see his pre-case disclosure forwarded below).

• Plus Mr Steel has contacted approx thirty legal firms, some local, some national:- only one is willing to advise him re his appealing this secret Hearing, and that for £100per hour, also with no free estimate for the necessary advice or representation work to be done, in the case. This leaves Mr Steel with little option, but to represent himself, which necessarily takes more time to prepare than a professional.

• Plus Sections 1-11; (above), which concern the Magistrates’ and the Councils’ malicious, secret, conspiratorial, fraudulent, extortive, treasonable Hearing, Appeal, Complaint and Claim processes, further explain why Mr Steel’s Appeal, & etc is being delivered beyond the normal period, since the Cheltenham Magistrates’ secret Hearing of his Council Tax Withholding/Arrears Case occurred (27th Oct 2014).
......



Index of Note Wells; Nbs.

Nb1. The whole point of these twelve malicious secret hearing charades in Mr Steel’s case is to suppress his damning proportionate, legitimate defence,

Nb2. Case evidence that a joint criminal enterprise exists between the UK’s mainstream party politicians, the mainstream magistrates, and many judges,

Nb3. A legal reasoning for the unlawfulness of all UK and UK/EU Jurisdictions, except The Jury Trial, Common Law Jurisdiction, and then only where.,,,

Nb4. The whole point of us having the right to Jury Trial; famously enshrined in Magna Carta; (S.39), is to prevent Governmental and Judicial tyrannies,

Nb5. What would be the consequences of re-establishing genuine Common Law Jurisdiction regarding tax cases, et al; i.e. Judges with Juries deciding?

Nb6. How might a restoration, under Common Law Jurisdiction, of ready access to Jury Trials across all of today’s UK Jurisdictions affect Justice?

Nb7. With regard to Mr Steel’s personal claim and counterclaim for damages of £12,000,000:00p, why that sum?

Nb8. To all who work for today’s systemically criminal UK Government Incl. appl. its Statutory Jurisdiction:-‘superior orders’ isn’t a defence - you’re liable,

Nb9. Regarding Mr Steel’s alleged criminal use of a camera in court; later fraudulently implied to the press, as a lawful post-text to hold a secret trial.
.....


Nb1. The whole intent of these twelve malicious secret hearing charades in Mr Steel’s case is to suppress his damning, proportionate, legitimate defence, from being heard in a proper public court of law, because his testimony contains Public Documentary evidence that the UK’s Public Elections are systematically defrauded by a Mainstream Party Politicians’ cartel in joint criminal enterprise with Public Servants, which if true means that with regard to the UK Public, that the UK & EU Parliaments are a fraudulent construct, and consequently that their UK and EU Statutory Jurisdictions are a systematically fraudulent constructs too, and from which many UK Magistrates and Justices particularly High Court Justices, currently obtain most of their jurisdiction and revenues. So most Magistrates and many Justices, also near all MPs and most Cllrs together with their staffs have vested interest reasons unlawfully, crimin-ally to continue to support and enforce the UK-UK/EU Statutory Jurisdictions via a systematically fraudulent, extortive ‘entry gate’ UK Magisterial Justice where the Party Politicians and their Bench Justices systematically fraud and extort the Public, rather than truly, faithfully serve it, and not profiteer from it.

It’s at such entry gate courts that the defendants’ lawful election for a Jury Trial under Common Law Jurisdiction is unlawfully denied, then the Magistrates use Civil Law Jurisdiction; (i.e. The Party Politicians’ Statutes) so they may assume the defendant’s guilt, and so deny defendant’s any hearing, and where any appeal is forced under Statutory Law so only ‘by way of the defendant’s appeal being stated’ by the already malicious Magistrates, not by the appellant defendant, so the Magistrates refer the case to the High Court and omit the defendant’s lawful, inalienable pre case call for a Jury Trial.

Then a similar malicious Bench Justice Trial occurs using Civil Law Jurisdiction again; (i.e. a Bench Justices Trial using The Party Politicians’ Statutes re-occurs), where the defendant’s lawful inalienable election for a Jury Trial, Common Law Jurisdiction is presumed to have been waived by their concession to the appeal being ‘by way of case stated’ by the Magistrates, all which process is a malicious prosecution; such injustices anywhere, are injustices everywhere.


Nb2. Case evidence that a joint criminal enterprise exists between the UK’s: mainstream Party Politicians, the mainstream Magistrates, and many Judges. This is firstly contained in Mr Steel’s pre-case disclosure to the Cotswold District Council and Cheltenham Magistrates; (forwarded below), which includes the evidence on his website; The Fraud State: www.sandysteel.co.uk , then in the twelve malicious processes so far used in Mr Steel’s 2 Council Tax cases (Sections 1-12 above), also in that all of these abuses are reported on the internet in other Council Tax cases; (see Roger Hays et al); so the UK’s Magistrates clearly are instructed, likely by the Ministry of Justice, also its allies, to commit these malicious court processes systematically, which covertly supplant The UK’s Common Law Jurisdiction, with its right to a Jury Trial, and so all of the concomitant principles of proportionality, and substitutes EU and or UK Civil Law; with its Statutes legislated by Party Politicians’ then tried by Bench Justices, with no right to resort to a Jury Trial, so where all of the Party Politicians involved, and their Bench Justices too, evidently are cartel criminals.

There is clearly an inherited conspiratorial ‘meme’ between these: politicians, justices and civil servants, re their systemic use of gate-keeper frauds and extortions to obstruct democratic and lawful remedies, except for their own elites, and their allied elites; this is particularly with regard to nearly all UK public financial matters, which enable these elites systemically, generationally to fleece the UK People. Plus they sponsor wars for further profiteering, and all the while all pretending to promote peacefulness, lawfulness and democracy.


Nb3. A legal reasoning for the unlawfulness of every UK, UK/EU Jurisdiction, except for The Common Law, Jury Trial Jurisdiction, and then only one where the Judge with the Jury attain an informed consensus re both the verdict and sentence, or if the principles’ give informed consent, the Magistrates/Judge/s then may sit alone, to hear the case, and either upon such judges with juries’ case law, or under another jurisdiction if that also is similarly consented.

In Mr Steel’s case, since UK and EU Parliamentary Sovereignty is contested by him, with a pre-case disclosure containing Public Documentary evidence in regards to a UK Mainstream Party Politicians’ cartel together with Public Servants systematically defrauding the UK’s Public Elections, incl. those to the EU, and with evidence of all of these together with still further associates, committing further systematic: extortions, terrorism, war crimes and high treasons, all with a fraud component, (see in Mr Steel’s pre-case disclosure forwarded below); therefore the UK and UK/EU Statutory Jurisdictions being systematically a criminal construct as well:- also it having been consented to by The Crown both via her Coronation Oath to uphold the law, and in The Bill of Rights; (1689; Articles 1 & 2), that there is no prerogative either to Tax, or to set up Courts, except with a lawful UK Parliament’s consent, so; the only evidently consented to as lawful Court Jurisdiction left in the UK today with regard to trying such as Mr Steel’s present case, is neither under Crown Judicial Jurisdiction, nor under the either UK or EU Parliamentary Statutory Jurisdictions, but only under a Jury Trial, Common Law Jurisdiction, and only one where the Judge and Jury together obtain an informed consensus re both the verdict and sentence; or else if the principles’ give informed consent, the magistrates/judge/s may then sit alone, to hear the case; upon such judges with juries’ case law, or by another jurisdiction, if similarly consented.


Nb4. The whole point of us having the right to Jury Trial; famously enshrined in Magna Carta; (Section 39; 1215), is to prevent Governmental and Judicial tyrannies; (illustrated here, by the secret trials of Mr Steel). In the matter of suspicious deaths and murders it is established in UK law that there should be a prompt jury inquest, or jury trial, but the present Government and Judiciary carve into that, by delaying or suppressing inquest juries:- Dr David Kelly’s death (2003) where no jury inquest occurred, and the 7.7 Bombing (2005) where the jury inquest was delayed for five years, being notable top politically gerrymandered cases, which led some to speculate/believe that the top of the Government were complicit in these deaths. That’s how the UK Public does or doesn’t prevent its Government and or its Judiciary from slaughtering it, and with lawful punity. But what when its Government and or Judiciary fleeces the UK Public, why don’t The People have in law, a ready access to Jury Trials concerning tax withholding and arrears, also tax evasion cases, and what about copyright cases, et al? The answer lies in the High Court.

The Queen’s/King’s Bench which is reputedly the earliest part of the High Court was founded by King John in reaction to Magna Carta; 1215, so structurally it’s not part of ‘The Law of the Land’ under Magna Carta; Section 39; 1215:- nor according both to their oath to uphold the law, and the Bill of Rights; (1689; Article 1 & 2), can UK Judges alone decide tax cases, or any other cases, except either with the informed consent of the principle parties, or with the consent of a lawful UK Parliament, which lawfulness Mr Steel disputes.

He having supplied public documentary evidence in his Cheltenham Magistrates Court Council Tax pre-case disclosure to the effect that the UK and EU Parliaments are fraudulent constructs, through the UK’s mainstream party politicians’ and their associates’ systematically defrauding the UK’s Public Elections; (see his public documentary evidence disclosure, forwarded below).

So in order to try such as Mr Steel, all UK Justices; including those of the High Court’s:- Queens Bench, Chancery, and Families Divisions, also the Supreme Court have no jurisdiction in law left; except under a Common Law Jurisdiction with the Justices either only acting together with the informed consensus of today’s UK Tax Base, which is to say acting in consensus with Common Juries, or if the defence and the prosecution give informed consent, the Magistrates/ Justice/s may then sit alone without a Jury, and either according to the aforementioned Juries and Judges’ consented to Common Law, or privately.


Nb5. What would be the consequences of re-establishing a genuine Common Law Jurisdiction regarding tax cases, et al:- i.e. Judges with Juries deciding? The swift answer is that The Government and The Judiciary wouldn’t be able to fleece The Public with impunity from the law anymore - meaning public services would have to bill people like private services do:- that is with informed consent. In practice meaning that each tax would have a break down, by each service: Military, Police, Social, Water, Sewerage, Power, Telecom, Heath, Justice, Prisons, Transport, Fire, Safety, Education, Refuse, Planning, Leisure, with breakdowns of each one, to big subsections, such as each’s Public Pensions etc. Then you’d begin to see what The People recognise as just or not, to pay. Society wouldn’t break down - there would be greater accountability, because anyone with the hump about a criminal matter, or civil dispute, could get a jury trial of their peers, rather than simply beseeching some wealthy elite, under so called democracy/law, also at our expense, to sort the problem.

Of course there will be a flurry of cases to start with, but a true Common Law case law should re-establish, and since the UK’s mainstream party politicians’ cartel would all be indicted for their systemic bid rigging and marking sharing frauds of the UK’s Public Elections, also for their vast, systemic price fixing and supply fixing frauds too; (see www.sandysteel.co.uk particularly p3, and its links), so all UK Parliaments and Councils will soon be a lot more truly: lawful, and democratically representative:- then the need to resort to jury trials may curtail back to less than today because there won’t be any of the systemic UK governmental and judicial injustices being applied, any more.

I believe that most: juries, judges and individuals are likely only going to nullify Statutes which seem to be civilly or criminally unjust, so all that the reassertion of genuine Common Law Jurisdiction’s primacy should do is to weed out the systematically criminal: mainstream: party political Councillors and MPs from office also their Magistrate, Justice and other top cipher associates, and their systematically criminal Statutory Instruments and Orders, leaving a far more genuinely representative of the tax base, House of Commons, and a far more representative Common Law Jurisdiction of judge and jury, in criminal and civil law, which most people should feel more genuinely represents their own informed political and legal interests, nothing being perfect of course but this likely to achieve a general public services’ content, rather than discontent.

In other words, once each UK Parliament has at least one chamber with the tax base proportionately represented, so middle and low capitaled and incomed people also have a direct political representation, then tax and spend statutes; also commercial and property statutes are liable to be more representatively framed, meaning people won’t need to resort to the law as much, since more political equity, and hence a more true common law, has been re-established.

Hence pushing for a Common Law Jurisdiction, and a Jury Trial are important steps to restore a lawful consent, and a democratic either consensus, or order, re UK tax & spend; incl. of all public financial instruments. where progressively more proportionately representative Councils and Courts can determine, and likely with less prejudice than ever, where order begins, and consent ends, (not elites sitting alone). So:- ‘No statutory taxation, without jury representation’.


Nb6. How might a restoration, under Common Law Jurisdiction, of ready access to Jury Trials across all of today’s UK Jurisdictions affect Justice? It’s a case of UK Justices themselves genuinely stooping beneath The Common Law, in order to conquer. Of course precedent is important in Law so people are treated equitably, but so also is treating people Lawfully, that is as Juries and Justices presently think they aught to be treated, and it is the marrying of those present and past principles that is liable to make better law. Essentially this is a bicameral system of the Judge and of the Jury; of primus inter pares; - You need the informed consent of both to make better law. Plus no man made system is perfect - each needs a system of appeals and checks and balances.

The check and balance appeal point being that however high the appeal goes regarding Justices, that a Common Jury’s informed consent has been obtained as well; this can be done by referring cases up to the Supreme Court, and or back down again, until there is an informed consensus. Here Mr Steel adds that the less prejudiced both the Judge and the Jury are, generally the more liable are the principle parties to consent, as well. That is likely justice best served?


Nb7. With regard to Mr Steel’s personal claim and counterclaim for damages of £12,000,000:00p; (see above), - why this sum? The UK Government and its criminal associates and accessories have been using systemic criminal: force and fraud, including revenue extortions and capital misappropriations since 1215 and particularly since the C16th-C19th Enclosures Acts and Clearances.

The historical sequence being this:- that rather than the UK Peoples moving from a feudalistic model to a lawful and democratic model, instead they’ve been forced from an unlawful bastardised feudalistic model to an unlawful libertarian capitalistic model - then from the E.C20th on, a systematically fraudulent democratic model has been added, and a continual unlawful part of all of this criminality is that the lords, politicians and justices’ systematically deny the UK People their Common Law right to Jury Trials in revenue and capital cases, and instead compel a Statutory Jurisdiction and trial by Magistrates/Judge/s alone. The resultant: taxing, energy, banking, arms, education, copyrighting & other fraudulent extortions have stealthily egregiously multiplied the average UK adult’s cost of living by three fold, or more:- for evidence on these systemic capital and income extortion crimes and their size see: www.sandysteel.co.uk and particularly read page 3 and its links.

So Mr Steel calculates that each indigenous UK man, woman and child is owed in excess of £12,000,000.00p, in criminal/civil damages, while an arrangement should be made that genuinely indigenised immigrants receive the same. This is what Mr Steel bases his personal claim upon, against the present individuals responsible for maintaining this continuously fraudulent, extortive, murderous, UK Government, and including any associates, accessories also beneficiaries.


Nb8. To all who work for today’s systemically criminal UK Government incl. appl. its Statutory Jurisdiction:- ‘superior orders’ isn’t a defence, you’re liable. Regarding all those who work for the UK Government and either directly or in an outsourced manner:- in any matter of possible either criminal or civil liability while doing such work, following ‘superior orders’ isn’t a civil or criminal defence, even under the UK Government’s own instruments; (see Nuremburg Principle IV), unless there is duress applied at the point of such as a gun, then your actions aren’t lawful, but might be condoned as proportionate through extreme both either duress and or deception:- situations that Mr Steel thinks don’t apply in his current appellant case, or in most UK public matters. So whether you are in-house, or outsourced on UK Government work, you are personally liable if you carry out illegal and or criminal public orders or scripts, so resist such orders and scripts - start doing lawful things instead.
......
Fn9. Regarding Mr Steel’s alleged unlawful use of a camera in court; later fraudulently implied to the press, as a lawful post-text to hold a secret trial.

Regarding the alleged unlawful camera incident in court earlier on in the same day as the secret hearing; (27th Oct 2014), where Mr Steel and his witnesses behaved lawfully while the Council, the Cheltenham Magistrates and staff involved, actually behaved maliciously, conspiratorially, extortively and treasonably, firstly by using fraud and force in order to try to suppress Mr Steel’s lawful use of his camera in court, in order to record the case verbatim, in which he was the defendant, and then in addition criminally using Mr Steel’s legal use of his camera in court, to record the case verbatim, as a post-text to the press, for the Magistrates then hearing Mr Steel’s case in a criminally secret manner, later on in the day, and really all of these frauds and forces to obtain a secret hearing, in order to suppress what they knew, not least via Mr Steel’s pre-case disclosure email to them, (see this email forwarded below), to be his damning, proportionate, legitimate defence testimony regarding the UK Government, via it applying systematic UK and UK-EU Election Cartel Frauds, being itself a systematically fraudulent construct, hence both the UK and UK-EU Statutory Jurisdictions being systematically fraudulent constructs, as well.

On the 27th October 2014 Mr Steel attended Cheltenham Magistrates Court, Court No 2 as summonsed:- he had made pre-case disclosures to the Court and prosecuting Council; (see email, forwarded below). This includes Mr Steel’s lawful, demand to be tried under Common Law Jurisdiction by a Jury, or otherwise at his discretion clearly in-line with juries’ case law, and explicitly not under Statutory Jurisdiction by Magistrates and or Judge/s sitting alone. Mr Steel had also phoned to Mrs Legg of Revenue at the Council, and a lady answering only to the name Sarah at the Court to confirm that his pre-court disclosure was on file with the Magistrates, and the Prosecutor on that day.

Yet at the hearing/trial Mr Steel was afforded no opportunity to speak, instead the prosecutor and magistrates were already seated when he entered, which indicated collusion, as the Magistrates by custom enter last for this very reason. The seated central Magistrate indicated that Mr Steel should sit in the court. Mr Steel now suspecting that they were colluding in order to fraud a Statutory Jurisdiction; (as latter was confirmed), so instead he sat on the public benches with two witnesses and didn’t enter the court proper.

The Magistrates and Prosecutor showed no surprise, which showed that they were well aware of Mr Steel’s pre-trial disclosures to them and so of his, legitimate demand, to be tried by Common Law Jurisdiction, rather than by Statutory Jurisdiction. But rather than addressing that matter with him; the Magistrates and Prosecutor proceeded to talk in lowered tones deliberately designed not to be audible from the public benches where Mr Steel and his witnesses were, so this wasn’t a public trial/hearing so far, at all.

Mr Steel then asked the central Magistrate to speak up, who replied that she was discussing Mr Steel’s case with the prosecutor, they then continued in the same deliberately inaudible tone to the Public Benches. So from the start they were continuously using collusion, and secrecy likely to provoke a reaction from the defendant whereby they could do, such as clear the court, and then operate a thoroughly secret trial, where all defence testimony might be suppressed.

This was when Mr Steel switched on a pocket camera to record what was so far an entirely secret hearing of his case, from which he was being deliberately excluded and in a collusive manner, which he suspected was because they were, despite his pre-case, demand by right, to be tried by Common Law Jurisdiction by jury etc, never the less colluding to try him by Statutory Jurisdiction and secretly too, without his being made aware, and so preventing his objecting until they hoped it would too late effectively to stop; all which fraud and extortion crimes eventually proved to be the case, that day.

The Magistrates’ Clerk then demanded the camera be turned off. Mr Steel replied that he didn’t acknowledge Statute Law and Court Orders with regard to his not recording his own trial/[hearing], and that such a recording is legal under Common Law.

[Mr Steel knew this: since no jury has ever condemned a defendant for recording his own trial/hearing, nor been asked to do so, which shows that Justices well know that it is actually legal under Common Law. Indeed to suppress even the defendant to make verbatim records of their trials/hearings and particularly in Magistrates Courts which aren’t Courts of Record themselves, is clearly with the intent systematically to suppress public accountability, which can only be in order then to be able systematically both to fraud, and to not be fit for public justice purpose, with public impunity, all of which is evidently a systematically criminal fraudulent extortive behaviour].

The Clerk then called ‘security’ who grappled Mr Steel for Mr Steel’s camera, and the Magistrates looked on condoning this assault, and with intent to fraud the case. One of Mr Steel’s witnesses stood up in the public benches and told the security man that he was assaulting Mr Steel which he was. The security man then desisted and the Magistrates also their Clerk then immediately hastily abandoned the Court without explanation and didn’t return. This was done on a nod from the Clerk to the Magistrates and back, so it appeared to have been previously arranged to be a planned silent abandonment.

This left Mr Steel and his witnesses still in the public benches; with the security man in front; plus a court reporter and the prosecutor. Mr Steel waited five minutes to see if the Magistrates or Clerk might return, and when they didn’t he stepped forward into the court proper and declared that as the court had been abandoned by the Magistrates [without any reason supplied, still less a lawful one] so then as the most senior party left in the court case he (Mr Steel) declared the Council Tax arrears case against him dismissed. Then Mr Steel, his witnesses and the court reporter left the court.

Actually the Justices abandoned The Court, as their criminal assault on the defendant; Mr Steel, in order to prevent his verbatim audio-visual recording of The Case, so that the Justices could commit systemic frauds and extortions via the then non verbatim recorded Court Case with impunity, had been thwarted by Mr Steel and a witness, these having resisted the criminal assault, et al, and so begun to record the Magistrates’ malicious, covert court case processes.
....
Next, Mr Steel heard via the Court Reporter’s Gloucestershire Echo articles, that a secret hearing occurred latter that day, regarding Mr Steel’s alleged £1,688.54p Council Tax arrears to which the other parties had wilfully constructively omitted to summons Mr Steel, so he couldn’t deliver any defence testimony, still less in a proper public court, and even less make a legitimate verbatim audio-visual record of the case.

The court then fraudulently used, to the press, the post-text of Mr Steel’s actually lawful use of camera incident to justify the court trying/hearing and convicting Mr Steel in secret, whereas the court’s real hidden intent for trying/hearing Mr Steel’s case in secret was in order to suppress Mr Steel’s damning, proportionate, lawful defence testimony from emerging particularly in any public court, and on the record.

All of these joint criminal enterprise constructed secret trial circumstances were with the single intent entirely to suppress the pre-trial disclosed defence testimony from being presented in a proper public court, because it uses public documents to illustrate that via both a Mainstream Party Politicians’ Cartel and Civil Servant associates, that the UK’s Elections are systematically defrauded.

Therefore that the present UK Government is a systematic criminal fraudulent construct, from whom it is lawful and indeed ethical systematically to withhold tax, furthermore to whom it is unlawful systematically to pay taxes once one’s aware of the UK Government’s systematic criminal nature and intent. In suppressing the defence case this secret court also criminally defrauded its already criminally unlawful trial, in favour of the Public Prosecution.

All of these crimes show a hardened fraudulent, extortionate criminality in the Magistrates, and the Prosecutor, also in their joint criminal enterprise mentors also ciphers, who incidentally have all sought to hide their full names in order that claims and counter claims become difficult, which further renders their secret trials/hearings both of Mr Steel’s Council Tax case on the 27th Oct 2014, and of the previous year a criminally malicious, fraudulent extortive construct.

.... fin ....





Subject: Notice Of My Lawful Council Tax Withholding - Cheltenham Magistrates Court; 27th Oct
From: JAMES STEEL <[e-mail]>
Includes: Attachments
Date: 24 Oct 2014

To: gs-glosmcadmin <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], johnathan hughes <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]

cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail], londonbureau <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
producersgroup <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail]


Yesterday evening, I gave prior notice to the Cheltenham Magistrates Court, and to you, my prosecutors; (via email), of the lawful rebellion reasons for my Council Tax withholding protest, with corroborative evidence of the present UK Government's systematic criminality, amongst other things via its systematic fraud of the UK's Elections, via a criminal fraudulent UK Mainstream, Party Politician's Cartel, plus their own, also the rest of the UK Government's systematic suppression of complaints about that, for three and half years so far, in my case.

I have also given notice that I do not acknowledge The Court's authority to try me under such a systematically criminal UK Government's Statutory Law; (to which I've never given consent), and that I'm demanding to be tried for my lawful Council Tax withholding, under the Common Law, as is my right. I have 27 other reasons, placed on my blog: www.sandysteel.co.uk , on its UK/Global Fraud page, (also see in my attachment), for my lawful rebellion. I'll be keeping in touch with you about this Monday's Cheltenham Magistrates Court Case, either directly, or via a mate.


Sandy Steel

2 The Butts
Poulton
GLOS
GL7 5HY

T: 01285-850590

To: Chief Constable Suzette Davenport,
Gloucester Constabulary HQ,
No 1 Waterwells Drive,
Gloucester,
GL2 2AN.

From: Sandy Steel,
2 The Butts,
Poulton,
GL7 5HY.

T. 01285-850590
james.steel1virgin.net

26th Oct 2014


A complaint concerning a Party Political Election Frauds’ System,
across The Cotswold District, and across The UK as a whole.

Dear Chief Constable,

The two letters below; pages 2-6, explain and evidence concerning a Party Political Cartel's systemic frauds of the Cotswold District’s and UK’s Elections, also the Electoral Commission Executive, and their Officers, being involved, all which is:- contrary to Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, and many other Acts.

The annex; Page 5, contains outlines to expedite the matter, and I’ve written further elsewhere with plans to bring the minimal force to bear in order to obtain the necessary rigorous return to a legitimate, democratic effectual GOV.

If you are instructed to address this crime complaint improperly, I recommend you read Nuremburg Principle IV, concerning, the non-defence of ‘superior orders’ in just such criminal GOV cases, to which the UK GOV is a signatory.

If on your initiative, you dismiss, ignore or marginalise this criminal matter, then you also become a party in this joint criminal enterprise:- either way you risk provoking a far larger lawful rebellion, or insurgency; lawful and otherwise.

So concerning this crime complaint; (below), I request a prompt, police crime complaint receipt, and meeting with senior uniformed GLOS Police including you, with regard to progressing this case effectively, in the public interest.

Yours sincerely

Sandy Steel Cc: electors et al


To: David Neudegg; CEO, and
Nigel Adams; Returning Officer,
Cotswold District Council,
Council Offices, Trinity Rd,
Cirencester, GLOS.

From: Sandy Steel
2 Butts End,
Cricklade St,
Poulton,GLOS.

23rd Oct 2014

About my publicly sourced evidenced complaints to you; 28.05.11, 08.2011, 04.04.13, and reminders; 26.04.13, 10.06.13, regarding a party political cartel’s systematic fraud of the Cotswold District’s Electorates, contrary to: Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006; (which concerns misrepresentation to benefit), and about you replying; 29.04.13; page 6, that it’s not your busi-ness; so not your Returning Officer’s & Election Team’s business. I’m putting you all on notice therefore that you’re liable to the charge of High Treason..

Dear David Neudegg,

I know that your reply; (Page 6), is obfuscation, since your staff conduct all of the Cotswold District Elections so they and you are principally responsible for preventing frauds of these elections; so your persistent ignoring of all the fraud evidences means that you are liable to charges from fraud up to High Treason.
.
Briefly to reiterate some prima-facie evidences from your own Election Result Records revealing the systematic fraud of this District’s Electorates. At the Cotswold District’s 87 Town and Parish Councils’ Elections; 2011, in 84 of these Councils’ Elections no candidates out of the over 500 involved declared that they were party political candidates and just 10 declared that they were independent candidates; (for a link to your public doc’s evidencing this: fn1), so, are Cotswold District Electors to believe that there are no political parties operating, regarding 84 out of their 87 Town and Parish Councils as these over 500 candidates formally indicated on their Nomination Papers, or isn’t it far more believable that there is a longstanding, tacit agreement between the dominant political parties, with the rest following suit, not to declare their parties’ members and supporters, also their associates; (i.e. the party ‘slates’), at these 84 Councils’ Elections which would mean that there are undeclared political parties operating in and around 84 out of the 87 local Councils in the Cotswold District, which is to say: a Party Political Cartel’s systemic fraud of The Local Councils’ Electorates, clearly contrary to Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, concerning misleading in order to benefit, also contrary Section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002 concerning cartels, and of course it’s treasonable.
Plus, all of these undeclared parties across these 84 Local Councils protect all of their parties’ politicians above them, from competitors emerging from each locality, via this local councils’ cartel, which electoral & power benefits for the senior party politicians is the principle intent of this systemic pyramidal fraud!

Still further, your result records show fn1 link, that the remaining three councils of Fairford, Tetbury and Cirencester are criminally national, party political cartel ‘market share’, defrauded, via the same mainstream political parties comparatively supersizing these councils’ wards’ electorates by tenfold in order to favour their parties’ candidates, so they are either reducing, or in some cases removing the need to cartel ‘bid rig’ fraud these elections! more annex1

Even further; out of these 87 Councils’ Elections, 70 weren’t contested due to insufficient candidates, which either little, or mostly no competition at all, is another sign of a cartel’s systemic frauds! This is another major prima-facie evidence from your recordsfn1 link that these 87 Councils are rife with political cartels; indeed likely all 87 local councils are subject to political cartel frauds.
.
Summary: above, I’ve presented just some of the very powerful evidences from your own Election Results Records indicating that you, your Returning Officer and Election Team over-time have so grossly improperly overseen the elections in the Cotswold District, that a Party-Political Cartel’s fraud system has been able to prevail very likely in every Local Councils’ Election in 2011 and having rigged every local election via the above chargeable ‘Section 2’ frauds; so this party political cartel thereby effects every election above in its favour too, by having suppressed all other competition emerging locally, so; these are a political cartel’s pyramidal electorate fraud systems, likely including every Local Election, hence all of the District, County, General and EU Elections too!
.
Plus; since 28th May 2011 you and your Returning Officer have suppressed my formal complaints and questions about this Party-Political Cartel’s UK Election Fraud Systems; you’ve also assisted senior Cotswold Party Politicians’ attempts to smear me after I complained to you about it, 28th May 2011, by then helping them concoct a vexatious counter-complaint & CID investigation. This smearing clearly intended to frighten me off complaining, and by smearing me also to try to hide the significance of what I’m evidencing to the public, and the press, etc.

Sincerely

Sandy Steel

Fn1. For public documents confirming this Party Political Election Fraud System see: The Cotswold District’s Election Results at:- www.cotswold.gov.uk/about-the-council/elections/election-results/ then click on:- “Parish (and Town) Council Elections 2011”
If that link won’t open, then see Fn1b; Page 4. Ccs: Electors, et al
Annex 1: Synopsis on The Party Political Cartel’s Systemic UK Election Frauds.
The Cotswold District Election Fraud System, as an example:- on the one hand The Cotswold District rural Local Councils mostly have electorates from 100 to 500, which your Election Result Records reveal,[fn1 link] are systemically cartel ‘bid-rig’ defrauded; i.e. party politicians use undeclared political parties to mislead the public; while Cotswold District urban Local Councils mostly have Ward Electorates from 1000 to 5000, which your election records, thus reveal [fn1 link] are also defrauded, by mainstream, national party politicians & their civil servants having comparatively supersized these still so called Local Elections to impede ordinary people getting involved and winning, so favouring their own national party political cartel winning, at these still, so called ‘Local Elections’.

Party politicians having thus fraudulently, mis-representatively cartel either bid rigged and or market shared, all 87 Parish and Town Councils’ Elections in their candidates’ favour; thus suppressing real democracy emerging locally, this also protects all of this party-political cartel’s politicians above, from any significant, legal competition emerging, which higher tiers help to protect this criminal, local party-political cartel system from ever having been properly investigated.

The UK Urban Elections Fraud System: nowadays, in most urban areas, the still so called “Local Election” Ward actually contains from 3,000 to 15,000 electors, so party politicians and their civil servants have super-duper sized these still so called “Local Elections” in order that most UK urban electors have lost all direct connection with their still so called “Local Candidates”, forcing most electors to vote for mainstream parties’ candidates, or not vote at all, also to force them to join a mainstream party and sublimate themselves to its policies, just to get involved in local politics in their own area, or not get involved in politics at all.

This Cartel’s UK Urban, Local Elections Fraud System delivers neither a genuine Democratic System, nor a genuine Local GOV System:- rather this is the same UK, National Party Political Cartel, using another fraud system in order to suppress a legitimate democracy in each UK urban locality. All of the UK’s mainstream national parties are implicated in this fraud, of the UK’s urban, local elective politics, and thereby of every level of urban politics above too, and either as the principle parties who benefit, or as accessories who benefit.

Fn1b. Under the Freedom of Info Act all contemporary election results should be visible on each Election Authority’s website, so below (again) is the Cotswold District’s Link, but be aware this is a Criminal GOV, so its key frauded results tend to disappear, which actually is a give-away to where their most blatant election frauds are, and that these results show it, and that they know it! Thereto; I’ve complained re their hiding of the Cotswold District’s 87 Parish & Town Councils’ election results 2011, Plus they use cookies to trace you and your searches with its implied threat: www.cotswold.gov.uk/about-the-council/elections/election-results/ So if the parish and town election results are all hidden yet again, then please send these CDC criminals an FOI, and tell me. :- ) .
Annex 2: The Two Types of Solution Necessary:-

1. There is the necessity properly to apply the current fraud laws to UK party politicians concerning their cartel’s systemic electorate frauds; and then its public and private goods & services’ ‘price’ and ‘supply’ frauds. The approx 35,000 UK: party politicians and senior civil servants primarily involved can be prosecuted under the: fraud, bribery, cartel, and treason laws. If the present fraud laws are properly applied, this will force all UK politicians to practice reasonable honesty, in their policy manifestos et al, also reasonable equity in their tenure in office et al; i.e. no more careerism.
2. There is also a need to amend the electoral law in order to put the boot firmly on the electorates’ feet, by them derogating far less power to each politician and being able to take it back very quickly, via extreme restrictions on each politician’s both office tenure, & income for office, also on privacy, both as a candidate, and when in office:- plus means test bribes checks after leaving office; plus disclosure of secret society memberships, and a parallel checking and complementing, Public Assembly System.

I’ve worked on such a reform, but it would be inappropriate to offer while party politicians & civil servants, like you, are supporting systemic UK elections frauds, & ‘black ops terrorism’ against UK People, also cover ups with impunity.

I’ve also worked out, that once The UK Party Political Cartel’s frauds are removed, then the other subsidiary public and private sector cartels can also be removed, which would bring a general UK taxation reduction of over 50%, & improvements in quality of general service and product for the General Public.

About quality, price, & delivery: you (David Neudegg, Nigel Adams) only investigate marginal electoral infringements, never the vast frauds involving party political interests. You and your colleges all aught severally and collectively to have identified and reported via the police, and via media, mass whistle blowing, the Party Political Cartel’s UK Election Fraud System. Instead you’ve suppressed my complaints, and questions, also helped to create a trumped up CID probe to smear me. Your posts are legally indefensible. If you don’t do the right thing now which is properly to report this cartel’s crimes, you can only hope that those investigating you hereafter, are as treasonously corrupt as you are so far

It’s probably never occurred to you, that Primary School pupils could regularly run their own secret ballot elections and generally far less corruptly than you run the Cotswold District’s Elections, and at no wage costs at all. It’s the over centralisation of power; in this case the over centralisation of the running of Election Services; that leads to: both extreme corruption, & extreme expense.

When civil servants have become far more: fraudulent, incompetent and expensive than eight year olds would be at that public job; then it is very plain that the former are parasitizing: the People, the Economy, also the Ecology; so turn yourself in, and publically disclose this cartel’s UK Election Fraud System.

....



David Neudegg <[e-mail]>

29 Apr
to me

Dear Mr Steel
I have read with interest your complaint of systemic cartel election rigging.
Unfortunately, this not a complaint that I can address, since I cannot see any part of the statement that relates specifically to either Council or their functions. In conducting elections, we are bound by primary legislation and associated rules and regulations, supported by formal guidance material produced by the Electoral Commission.
I would therefore suggest you forward your complaint to either the Cabinet Office or the Electoral Commission (or both). Their contact details are as follows:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]