UK Councils are committing Fraud and TREASON. Our report exposes their criminal behaviour.
It is up to each member of the Commonwealth to stop a crime. We, the People have the Power and Authority to CITIZEN’S ARREST any criminal.
As more evidence of the TREASON and TREACHERY by political party governments around the world surfaces, it has come to our notice that the UK Councils are committing acts of TREASON and FRAUD in their attempts to unlawfully cheat people out of their money to pay for unlawful Council Rates. These Councils have been setting up their own “ghost courts”.
FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING!
In the UK, local councils are accused of using “ghost courts”—fictitious entities posing as legitimate courts—to enforce council tax payments. These administrative processes, lacking proper judicial oversight, mislead residents and may violate legal rights.
While this issue is UK-specific, it raises questions about transparency and fairness in local government processes, a concern relevant to Australians facing similar council actions. Here’s what ghost courts are, why they’re problematic, and what lessons Australia can learn.
What Are Ghost Courts?
Ghost courts are not real courts but administrative setups run by UK councils to issue council tax liability orders. For example, East Hampshire District Council uses names like “Local Justice Areas of North East Hampshire” on summonses, implying a court hearing when it’s just a council process.
Research, including activist Martin Geddes’ work and blogs like Awakened England (July 2025), shows these “courts” lack independent judges, undermining due process.
How Do They Mislead People?
Councils use official-sounding court names to intimidate residents into paying without question.
These summonses suggest a legal proceeding, but they’re often bulk administrative orders with no judicial scrutiny.
During COVID-19, some councils held “virtual hearings” from their own offices, further blurring the line between council and court. This lack of transparency can lead to unfair penalties, as residents may not know they can challenge the process.
Are They Illegal?
Research confirms that ghost courts violate UK laws, like the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and Courts Act 2003, which require courts to be properly established by the Lord Chancellor. Using administrative areas as “courts” lacks legal authority and may breach fair trial rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. A UK case, R v. Soneji [2005], supports the view that such unlawful processes are invalid, making liability orders questionable, if not downright criminal.
What Can Be Done?
UK residents are fighting back by Challenging Orders and attending hearings to question the court’s legitimacy, as Geddes did at Peterlee Magistrates Court.
FOI Requests: Asking councils or the Ministry of Justice for proof of court authorization. Download and edit the templates provided below to write your own FOI request. As the laws of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are based on English Law, these Templates can be used in both countries.
Judicial Reviews: Seeking High Court reviews of unlawful orders within three months.
Raising Awareness: Sharing information via blogs and social media to pressure councils.
Lessons for Australia
While ghost courts are a UK issue, Australian councils also wield significant power in rates enforcement, often with limited oversight. The UK’s experience warns against unchecked administrative processes that could erode trust in local government. Australians can stay vigilant by:
- Scrutinizing council notices for legal validity.
- Using FOI requests to verify council processes.
- Advocating for transparent, accountable local governance.
Conclusion
The UK’s ghost courts highlight how local governments can exploit legal ambiguities to pressure citizens.
For Australians, this serves as a reminder to hold councils accountable and ensure processes are fair and lawful.
By learning from the UK, we can protect our rights and push for reforms that prioritize transparency.
Sources: Awakened England (https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com), Martin Geddes’ newsletters, UK legislation (Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, Courts Act 2003), R v. Soneji [2005].
What can YOU do?
Keep your Cash in your Pocket!!!
One way to combat these unlawful demands for your money is to settle their demands with a Bill of Exchange. Watch this short video and then join the Mike Holt Show Zoom chats any Thursday to learn, ask questions, and meet others already successfully settling government bills with a Bill of Exchange:
[aiovg_video id=85998]
Learn how to Create a Bill of Exchange:
Downloads
Download, edit, and send an FOI Request to the Parliament. Copy/Paste the text supplied below.
Validity of the NSW Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibitities) Act 2042
Questioning the Validity of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002:
FOI Request to the NSW Cabinet: “Specifically, I request from The Cabinet Office the instrument that the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 looks to for its head of power under the Commonwealth Constitution for it’s valid creation by the Commonwealth Parliament or, a lawfully valid lnsfrument outside those powers set out in Section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution. This instrument is mandatory to estabiish the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities/ Act 2402 is lawfully qualified in the exercise of the executive powers in the Commonwealth of Australia.”
Validity of the NSW Courts
FOI Request to the NSW Government Cabinet:
“I am searching for the specific instrument that searches for its head of power under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Chapter lll and Covering Clause 2 and Covering Clause 5 and Queen Victoria’s Letter’s Patent 19A0 enabling the Supreme Court of NSW and Local Courts of NSW to sit, preside and determine under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and UCPR 2005(NSW) where the Supreme Court of NSW and Local Courts of NSW are not obliged to be part of the integrated judicial court system where the States are free to legislate as they please.
Specifically, I request from The Cabinet Office a copy of the Proclamation signed off as law by the Governor-General confirming Royal Assent of the Civil Procedure Act 2A05 NSW), and specifically, I request from The Cabinet Office a copy of the Proclamation signed off as law by the Governor-General confirming Royal Assent of UCPR 20A5 NSW),
Specifically, my detailed research is not able to locate either Proclamation that searches for their head of power under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and under the authority of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and all heirs and successors including Queen Elizabeth The Second and His Majesty King Charles The Third as Constitutional Monarch of Australia as having acquired the absolute majority of each House of Representatives of Parliament or by the absolute authority of electors in each State qualified to vote to make alteration to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Copies of both Proclamations is mandatory to establish the Superme Court of NSW and Local Courts of NSW are lawfully qualified in the exercise of the executive powers in the Commonwealth of Australia”.
Validity of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
FOI Request Validity of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900:
“l am researching the validity of Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Parliament of New South Wales confirms His Majesty King Charles the Third is
Constitutional Monarch of Australia and the existence of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. I am searching f or the specific instrument that rescinded or repealed the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. My search confirms the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia was signed off as law by Her Majesty Queen Victoria on July 27,1900 and assented as law on January 1, 1901 being the date of Federation which gave rise to the Commonwealth of Australia. My detailed research is not able to locate the specific instrument that rescinded or repealed the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia under the authority of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and all heirs and successors including Queen Elizabeth T/re Second and His Majesty King Charles The Third as Constitutional Monarch of Australia or having acquired the absolute majority of each House of Representatives of Parliament or by the absolute authority of electors in each State qualified to vote to make alteration to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Specifically, I request from The Cabinet Office the instrument that rescinded or repealed the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia that looks to for its head of power under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia for its valid creation by the Commonwealth Parliament or, a valid instrument outside of those powers set out in section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. The instrument is mandatory to establish the instrument is lawfully qualified in the exercise of the executive powers in the Commonwealth of Australia. The information sought is not available on the Parliament of New South Wales website. The information sought is not available in the public domain.”
Validity of the Civit Procedure Act 2005 and Australia Acts 1986
“l request formal access application under Government information (Public Access Act 2009 (the GIPA Act) for the following:
I am researching Civil Procedure Act 2AA5.
The Parliament of New South Wales confirms His Majesty King Charles Ill is Constitutional Monarch of Australia and the existence of the Commonwealth Constitution.
I am searching for the specific instrument supporting the lawful validity of Civil Procedure Act 20A5 confirming Civil Procedure Act 20A5 correctly searches for its head of power under the Commonwealth Constitution.
My Hansard search confirms, following readings by the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council on April 6, 2005 and May 24, 2005 and May 3, 2005 the Civil Procedure Bil 2AA5 assented as law on June 1, 2005 as Civil Procedure Act 2005 Number 20 of 2005.
The Civil Procedure Act 2A05 gave rise to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2A05.
My detailed research is unable to confirm lawful validity of the Civil Procedure Act 20A5 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 20AS correctly search for their head of power under the Commonwealth Constitution and the authority of His Majesty King Charles Ill in his position as Constitutional Monarch of Australia.
Specifically, I request from The Cabinet Office the instrument that the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) and Australia Act 1986 (U.K.) looks ta for their head of pawer under the Commonwealth Constitution for its valid creation by the Commonwealth Parliament or, a lawfully valid instrument outside of those powers set out in Section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution. This instrument is mandatary to establish the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth and Australia Act 1986 (UK) are lawfully qualified in the exercise of the executive powers in the Commonwealth of Australia.
and,
Specifically, I request from The Cabinet Office the instrument that the Civil Procedure Act 2005 looks to for its head of power under the Commonwealth Constitution for its valid creation by the Commonwealth Parliament or, a lawfully valid instrument outside those powers set out in Section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution. This instrument is mandatory io establish the Civil Procedure Act 2005 is lawfully qualified in the exercise of the executive pawers in the Commonwealth of Australia.
The information sought is not available on the Parliament of New South Wales website. The information sought is not available in the public domain”.
How to deal with UK council demands…
This document contains a series of letters exchanged with a local council demanding that they send a properly formatted Invoice, as required by the Bills of Exchange Act. Download and read it so that you know how to deal with these fraudulent councils.