End of the Hearing.

So after I made things difficult for them and pointing out that the council and court are hand in glove committing crimes the woman from the council suddenly turned around to me and said I am also charging you £22 for a liability order I paid the court. I have already said the court was biased towards the council and I said when they retire (the fake magistrates) I said you will give her the liability order as she has paid you for it 3 minutes after the fake magistrates retired the usher said all rise. I refused as I am not going to give the criminals jurisdiction over me.
The grumpy old git said we are awarding liability to the council due to insufficient evidence.
The complete irony of the court committing crimes they have a law that states: A roman court does not operate according to any true rule of law except to the presumptions of the law.
The code of canon law. Canon 3228
And when you go to court the first thing you have to do is refute the 12 presumptions of court.
if you don't believe me search for the below website.
https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/british-law/canon-3228-the-twelve-presumptions-of-court/
https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/british-law/canon-3228-the-twelve-presumptions-of-court/
After I left the kangaroo court I contacted the lord chancellor Robert Buckland QC MP and informed him of the crimes it's his duty to remove the fake lay justices but I doubt he has done that.
I E-mailed Chief constable bill skelly the crimes that happened and at the beginning I said you will not do anything about this as you are a senior constable of the same corrupt judiciary as the criminal fake magistrates and I told him the name of the woman from the council.
I got a reply saying in regards to a complaint I made to him and I need to get legal advice.
Well I did not make a complaint to him I reported a few crimes to him as in the E-mail I sent him he has done nothing about this not one of these criminals been arrested so he is also a criminal as he is ading and abetting criminals.
Accessories and Abettors act 1861.

Whosoever shall aid abet counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence whether the same can be an offence at common law or by virtue of any act passed shall be liable to be tried indicted and punished as a principal offender.
Oh and by the way I called the fake magistrates fake as they are supposed to be on their oaths before entering the court I put in this challenge one said yes I said prove it but they didn't so they have committed treason against the crown that is an arrestable offence the authority of the court is void the constables swear an oath to uphold common law (see the police reform act 2002) as bill skelly has failed to arrest the fake magistrates he has also committed treason to the crown another crime committed by the chief constable.

If you want to know what I mean about magistrates being on their oath not only is it common law

clause 61 magna carta 1215

Article 61 continues:

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty=five barons for the achievement of these end, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit and man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

But there is also an act that says they have to swear an oath in the office of the judiciary.

Promissory Oaths Act 1868

F

    Form of judicial oath.

The oath in this Act referred to as the judicial oath shall be in the form following; that is to say,

“I, , do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria in the office of , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or illwill. So help me God.”]