Fraud Vitiates All

Judge railroads valid claim to annul fake bankruptcy made on grounds council relied on a fraudulent liability order.

 

In so doing, District Judge Daryl Shorthose falls foul of Lawful Maxim,

Fraud Vitiates All

The video is straightforward enough.

Here are some notes and a sanitised skeleton argument in support of the application.

What the Judge also has failed to understand is the other Maxim,

“Fraus est celare fraudem.

(It is a fraud to conceal a fraud).” 1 Vern. 270.

IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF THE HIGH COURT, NOTTINGHAM AND THE HIGH COURT, BIRMINGHAM

CASE NUMBER: BS101
STRAW MAN [APPLICANT]
V
BOGUS BOROUGH COUNCIL, MAX DICKUS & GARUS TEXAS [RESPONDENTS] _______________________________________________________________________________SKELETON ARGUMENT OF STRAW MAN
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF A BANKRUPTCY ORDER FOUNDED ON FALSE DOCUMENTATION AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS. _______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

1. This Skeleton Argument is filed on behalf of the Applicant in opposition to the Respondent‘s defence over its various irregular and illegal issuance of false documentation, breaches of due process and illegal bankruptcy of my person.
2. The central issue is whether the Respondent, being strictly bound by an exclusive statutory enforcement regime, satisfied the foundational precondition for its action against my person: proving that a valid liability order was “made by the Magistrates’ Court”.
3. It is the Applicant‘s submission that the Respondent failed to provide any admissible evidence of a valid order, and therefore its application for a liability order and the ensuing bankruptcy was fatally flawed from the outset and must be dismissed as a matter of law.

The Legal Framework: An Exclusive and Self-Contained Regime

4. The enforcement of council tax is governed exclusively by a closed and self-contained statutory code. The Divisional Court in Powys County Council v Hurst [2018] EWHC 1684 (Admin) established that where a statute creates an obligation and enforces performance in a specified manner, “that performance cannot be enforced in any other manner” (Singh LJ at [53], [60]).
5. Hickinbottom LJ affirmed this, holding that “the scheme is intended to exclude recourse to methods of enforcement outside those set out in the 1992 Regulations themselves” (at [64]).
6. The consequence of this is that the Respondent‘s power to act, and this court’s jurisdiction to grant an enforcement remedy, is derived solely from the 1992 Regulations. That jurisdiction is only engaged once the statutory preconditions of the Regulations have been strictly met.

The Foundational Precondition: A Valid, Physical, Written Order

7. Kofa, R (On the Application Of) v Oldham Metropolitan Bolton Council [2024] EWHC 685 (Admin) at [18] establishes the gateway to all Council Tax enforcement action is the making of a valid liability order by the magistrates court.
8. The amendment to the 1992 Regulations in 2003, which removed the prescribed form for a liability order (Kofa at [12] i)), did not abolish the requirement for a physical, written order. It merely transferred discretion over the order’s format to the judiciary. This was affirmed in Peacekeepers Foundation v LKMC and LCC [2025] EWHC 1493 (Admin), where at [140] Hill J noted the regulations do not require any “particular form of writing”, thereby confirming judicial discretion. By necessity, a “written” order must be a physical instrument.
9. For such an order to be valid, it must comply with the principles of natural justice. A core principle is that the order itself must identify the judge who decides the case. The Upper Tribunal in NA (Excluded decision; identifying judge) Afghanistan [2010] UKUT 444 (IAC) at [11]-[12] held that the absence of the judge’s name on a decision is a “fatal flaw which vitiates the decision” .
10. Derbyshire County Council v Marsden [2023] EWHC 1892 (Fam) at [38] affirms the principle where a lay bench is involved, the order must also name the Legal Adviser – this is not held in the court register, but in other court records affirmed in Magistrates Court Rules 1981, rule 66B.

The Council’s Evidence: Legal Proof of a Void Proceeding

11. The Respondent has provided a document purporting to be a liability order but with handwritten notes on it and no legible signature of a judge and no court seal and is arguing that this constitutes “evidence of the proceedings” under Rule 68 of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981 and is therefore sufficient. This submission is incorrect.
12. Firstly, a document that is “legal proof of proceedings” is not the legally operative order itself. It is a report on the proceedings, not the adjudication.
13. Secondly, and decisively, if the document provided fails to name the judicial decision-maker(s), it is not proof of a valid proceeding. It is merely legal proof of a proceeding that was, on its face, a nullity. Evidence of a void proceeding cannot satisfy the statutory precondition that a valid liability order was made.

The Standard of Evidence: Proving a Fact vs. Establishing a Belief

14. The High Court in Leighton v Bristow & Sutor [2023] EWHC 2355 (KB) at [19] considered the evidential value of a council-generated list. It held such evidence was sufficient only to establish an enforcement agent’s “reasonable belief” that an order existed for the purposes of a specific statutory defence over Leighton’s recollection of proceedings.
15. The present case requires a higher standard. This court is not being asked to assess an agent’s belief. It is being asked to make a finding of fact—that a valid order was made by the magistrates. Evidence of a facially invalid proceeding, being without the names of the judicial authority, cannot establish a “reasonable belief”, let alone prove the fact of a valid order made by the magistrates to this court.

The Consequence: The Bankruptcy is Incurably Defective

16. As the Respondent cannot prove that the statutory precondition of a valid liability order made by the magistrates was met before its application to bankrupt the Applicant was made, that application itself was fundamentally defective.
17. Further considerations for the hearing:
18. Why has there been no declaration from HHJ Dinan-Haywood to confirm that she presided at a bankruptcy hearing, accepted the evidence of a valid debt being owed and issued the ensuing order?

19. In the event that she did issue said bankruptcy order, why did the Judge fail to take the matter of the Respondent’s bankruptcy into account at a possession hearing just a few weeks later?

20. Why has there been no correspondence from the Court regarding the liability orders or the bankruptcy?

21. Why has any and all correspondence in this matter come directly from Nottingham Council and/or the Insolvency Service which just so happens to be in the same building at Loxley House?

22. To whom is the purported debt owed? Why is BOGUS Council, the alleged creditor, acting as a collection agent for a purported debt claimed by another entity (Nottingham Council)?

23. Why was the matter not heard at the District Registry of the High Court?

24. Is Judge Dinan-Haywood aware of these anomalies and demonstrable breeches of due process?

Conclusion

18. The Respondent is bound by an exclusive enforcement regime. It has failed to prove it has met the foundational precondition of that regime: the existence of a valid, physical, written liability order made by the magistrates. The evidence it relies upon is legal proof of a proceeding that was void from the outset, being without the names of the judicial authority.
19. For these reasons, the Respondent‘s defence is without legal basis and must be dismissed and an order issued to that effect.

Signed: STRAW MAN Dated: 06/02/2026

STRAW MAN [APPLICANT]

In conclusion the UK’s Civil Courts are a captured operation with DJs like Daryl Shorthose demonstrably covering up the frauds of the financial institutions and, as is the case here, those of the councils.

I cannot stress it enough: in the case of the mortgage swindle, the courts act criminally each and every time they accept a possession claim when the claimant does not have the original (albeit void) charging instrument in the shape of the deed of mortgage and accepts a photcopy.

In this council tax case, the principle is the same: DJs like Shorthose are attempting to pass off as valid liability orders forged instruments that have been created by the Councils as actual orders of a Court when they are not.

These frauds are endemic in the “UK” right now – wherever you look, whether it be to Parliament, the lying BBC, the miseducation of the schools, the NHS, it matters not: they are each and every one of them perverting the truth. Fraud by another name.

___________________________

Thank you for your attention. Should you be appreciative of my essays and RogueCasts, then please consider chucking a few quid into the  coffers via the BuyMeACoffee button and/or take out a paid subscription at my Substack page, where you will be the first to receive my work. Cheers

_____________________________

Associated notes: please be aware that these notes were from a website that no longer exists and are only offered as an example of how the councils are acting fraudulently in and through a complicit judiciary. However, the facts can be confirmed and I would recommend that any reader wishing to dig deeper visits the Peacekeepers’s site as linked below for a more up-to-date take on the fraud.

1. “councils create their own fake “summons” then hire rooms in the Magistrates courts, and close the “sale of deception” of private racketeering as “council tax collections” by then issuing their own “liability order NOTICES” – and then acting in breach of the County court CPR Rules in Part 73 by switching to the county court by making a treasonous and illegal Application for ” an interim charging order” on their targets property – without ever issuing a claim in the SAME COURT (as Part 73 stipulates)”

2.a They breach the Laws of court under The County Courts Act 1984 sections 133, 135 & 136! ( Imprisonable offences)
b. They violate your rights under Article 6 to “a fair hearing”
c. They deny you due process of Law by kicking off in the wrong arena (magistrates courts are for indictable offences only & hold no records, so no defence can be properly made)
d. They breach the CPR Part 73 rule about using the SAME COURT they began the matter in
e. Being a private profit driven corporation they have no right to a penny under Statutes of the Govt Finance Act 1982, which requires actual consent – otherwise the Public are being duped into becoming liability shareholders in lining their local councils fat pockets – by Draconian coercive means – by this token we should all receive DIVIDENDS when they squirrel away scores of millions of pounds of profit to their offshore holding companies – all through abusing our court process and abusing their positions!

3. COUNCIL TAX “Test this for yourself the next time you have a LA or bailiff who claims to have a liability order for council tax against a client. “Where’s the Schedule 2 Form A, then?” you may ask.

4. “The response will certainly be interesting. Frankly, with no prescribed record having been made, there is currently more evidence for sightings of flying saucers to be found in Government records than there is for the existence of thousands numbers of council tax liability orders supposedly being claimed by local authorities up and down the land.” source

5. Liability order – this matter has not been through judicial process. Has a complaint been listed? Or is it a list of names set before the clerk?

6. Unsealed court summons? Why are the liability orders not sealed? Why is your name and that of clerk not on the orders?

7. s3 Council tax act 1980 states amount is enforceable in accordance with this part – not a sum adjudged to paid by order of this court (the mags).

8.Unlawful charging orders and bankruptcy – when levels are below the £5k, they unlawfully bundle them up as one debt.

9. No liability order from the court is ever forthcoming.

 

Acknowledgements are due to Peacekeepers and any and all individuals who have taken the bull by the horns and challenged the fraud that is Council Tax.

For the templates and authorities cited by Peacekeepers, visit their site at https://peacekeepers.org.uk/nocnoc-2025/