Jamie Bennett

A copy of the public notice record below:

Common Law Courts

Great Britain & International

Reference No: PN / 20 / 33262

Name Jamie Bennett
Date 06/20/2019

Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2019
Ref: Council Tax (34342261)


Jamie Bennett
32 Grantham Road

Dear Mr. Adrian Pritchard,

Following receipt of the most recent Council Tax bill (for the year 2019) I have been left with no option other than to raise a complaint, there are a number of points I wish to raise with you and until my complaint receives a satisfactory response I will have to withhold payments of my Council Tax, as I a member of the public who pays your wages am not willing to pay any more Council Tax until a written signed contract from yourself is sent to me personally and is received for my attention at the address you have on file for Council Tax reference: 34342261.

The account in question bears the account number 34342261 for the year 2018/19 and I have instructed my bank/ mortgage company to stop my direct debit to District Council from immediate effect.

Firstly, it’s clear that there is no intention to spend any extra money received on the area where I reside and whilst I understand budgets have been squeezed due to The United Kingdom’s Kakistocracy (meaning the man in the street must share part of the blame for allowing such a Government Kakistocracy to entrench itself) we the British sovereign men and women of these beautiful islands have had enough control from our out of touch Government as we the sovereign men and women of God are your masters , not the other way around.

It does not excuse the fact that our area is already suffering, and it will not receive any of the extra money collected for Council Tax, and having witnessed the decline of the
Colchester Town area it is nothing short of shameful.

Nationwide the Police and Crime Commissioners are receiving approx,14% raise this year, (Question* what was is this area’s Crime Commissioners salary in 2017/18) we scarcely see a Police Officer on our streets and generally speaking rarely see a Police Officer as a result of been a victim of crime, ( we are told if you are insured a crime number will be given) it would appear that the focus is on generating revenue, rather than actually preventing and investigating crime.

Whilst I’m grateful for the fire service and should I ever need to rely on their service I’m confident I would see a quick response, the reality is that by ensuring sensible measure are in place to prevent fires or accidents we are unlikely to need the fire services assistance other than in the most extreme of circumstances.

So essentially, we are billed for the collection of refuse alone, so one starts to wonder where these funds are actually going, I ask under an S.A. Request, that you Mr. Adrian Pritchard as acting fiduciary provide me with the said information under the Freedom of information Act 2000.

That brings me to my second point, the legitimacy of your office and the question now arises as to whether or not you have any lawful authority to charge Council Tax, as a Government office operating under the authority granted by HM The Queen the following questions arise:

1. The Queen having sworn upon oath to uphold the Law of God at her Coronation would appear to have broken the oath whilst taking it therefore breaking the covenant with the British People.

2. You can find the oath here https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-June-1953, and below is the specific promise I refer to. Also attached.

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel , will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law and will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England, also will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them.
Queen: All this I promise to do.

1. The Law of God is clear and certain, that women are excluded from public charges or offices [1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:34]

So, the question arises:

Did the Queen holding the public office of “Head of State” knowingly transgress the Law of God, how could she swear to uphold the Law of God and take Public Office with it been contrary to Gods Law for a woman to do so.

1. The established maxims of law are clear; a maxim is so called because its dignity is chief-est, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved of all.

The following maxims can be applied in relation to the aforementioned issue:

• That which is against Divine Law is repugnant to society and is void.

• Where the Divinity is insulted the case is unpardonable. Ill. That is the highest law which favours religion.

• The power which is derived [from God] cannot be greater than that from which it is derived [God]. [Romans 13:1]

• The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes government.

• The law is not to be violated by those in government

• Ignorance of the Law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law.

• A neglected duty often works as much against the interests as a duty wrongfully performed.

• Remove the foundation, the structure or work fall. [Luke 6:48-49]

• False in one (particular), false in all.

• If ever the law of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the later. [Acts 5:29]

Presumably the government is operating on an unlawful basis, having derived its authority from the Queen (head of state) and the stated facts herein serve as prima facie evidence of the unlawful operation. The Queen unlawfully holding the office of Head of State, that been the foundation of our society everything which follows falls in keeping with the aforementioned maxim, including but not limited to all local councils and their demands.

I will provide you Mr. Adrian Pritchard (fiduciary) a prescribed period of 21 days in which to receive a response to matters raised herein, failure of you Mr. Adrian Pritchard to respond within the prescribed time of 21 days with a thorough and verifiable rebuttal will be taken to render and invoke the lawful doctrine of acquiescence and serve as evidence that the facts stated herein are agreed between the parties.

Until such a time, I require you to CEASE and DESIST from your actions against myself.

Without Prejudice
Jamie Bennett: