Anybody who doesn’t wish to be complicit in the crimes of government by way of their taxes, should first protect their assets in a Private Trust, as the Local Authorities like to place charging orders on properties.
While the Councils/Local Authorities have the power to generate bulk listings of liability orders (LO) under their Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992, these LOs have no judicial authority. Even if the bulk listing is signed by a judge, magistrate or Justice of the Peace, it doesn’t turn the council-generated bulk list into a court document.
This doesn’t stop the council generating their own Council Tax Attachment of Earnings Order (CTAEO) which also has no judicial authority, but which local authorities have used successfully to convince unwitting – and often coerced – employers into withhold the wages of their employees in favour of the council.
The same LOs lacking in judicial authority are used at the County Court to impose charging orders on people’s houses, which has on occasion, led to the forced sale of the house to reclaim the alleged debt.
At one such Charging Order hearing, on April 8th 2025, Blaby District Council was asked to send the court a witness statement confirming the validity of a Council Tax Liability Order (CTLO) issued on the 19th July 2023. The Court also requested that the CTLO must be obtained directly from the Magistrates’ Court and must confirm the name of the magistrate who made the Liability Order.
While this may suggest the Courts are willing to throw the councils under the bus, the request is a bit woolly. Of course the Council can confirm the ‘validity’ of the Council Tax Liability Order – they made this themselves under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 [CT(A&E)R1992]. It may be valid under their CT(A&E)R1992, but this doesn’t give it the judicial authority of a court issued Order. Why not ask Blaby District Council for an notarized affidavit confirming the validity of a court-issued Liability Order which includes the name of the magistrate who issued the LO? Why ‘obtained’ directly from the court and not ‘issued’? Why ‘confirm’ the name of the magistrate as opposed to insisting that the name of the magistrate appears on the court-issued document?
The wagons are circling, but this is far from being nailed.
HMRC
The Declaration and Deed and the HMRC. What is the success vs. failure rate?
To date, nobody has been brought to court on the basis of the Trust Deed in regard to HMRC.
What is becoming clear is that authorities are ignoring this document and proceeding with tax collection.
It appears that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is currently hesitant or unwilling to pursue legal action regarding the Trust Deed issue in court. For HMRC, the decision to challenge this matter in court involves weighing the potential benefits against the risks, especially if other legal actions are brought against the UK government concerning its activities in Gaza, the West Bank, and Yemen.
David Lammy’s admission in Parliament on March 17th 2025 that Israel is in breach of international law by refusing aid into Gaza – a war crime, is by association an admission that the UK government is in breach by aiding and abetting Israel’s crimes – not least using starvation as a weapon – as cited in the ICC arrest warrants issued against Benjamin Netanhayu and Yoav Gallant.
Mark Smith’s resignation letter and subsequent Guardian article ‘I saw illegality and complicity with war crimes. That’s why I quit the UK Foreign Office’ is prima facie evidence that the UK government is actively and knowingly in breach of international and ratified laws which have been incorporated into UK Law.
If a court case arises concerning the setting aside of taxes that are known to be funding war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, any judge who might consider ruling in favor of HMRC would face a challenging scenario. Such a ruling would effectively need to assert that current legislation can legally compel taxpayers to financially support activities deemed illegal or criminal under both international & domestic law. This would raise fundamental questions about the legality and morality of collecting taxpayer funds to invest in wars of aggression as well as the methods of collection.
HMRC cannot ignore the Trust as the Recognition of Trusts Act 1987 binds the Crown and all Crown Servants. Besides which, they have their own Trusts.
Furthermore, their five Strategic Objectives include: Maintain taxpayers’ consent through fair treatment and protect society from harm.
Remember: It is the government that is breaking international law.
Those who set aside their taxes in a Trust are neither bankrupt nor willfully refusing to pay taxes; after all, the UK Government is the Primary Beneficiary. The funds will be released to the Consolidated Fund, provided the UK government can prove – in a court of competent jurisdiction – they are adhering to those same international treaties and agreements which successive UK governments have ratified and incorporated into UK Law.
We have a collective responsibility to ensure our taxes do not pay for crimes. The aim is to ensure the government fulfills its commitments to international law and protect the taxpayer from complicity. As established during the Nuremberg Trials, the defence of “just following orders” does not absolve individuals or institutions from accountability when those orders contravene legal or ethical standards.
Note on council tax Liability Orders:
In the case of Leighton v Bristow & Sutor 2023. The council instructed debt collectors to act without providing them with the requisite judicial authority in the shape of a court order, rendering the debt collectors impotent. On 21st September, the High Court in KBD Swansea ruled in favour of Mr. Leighton, awarding him £4,000 against debt collectors Bristow & Sutor, who were acting in conjunction with the City of York Council. The case exposed an unlawful Council Tax debt collection process for which Mr. Leighton was entitled to damages.
