Thursday, May 10, 2012

TEAL:- THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE TAX !


TEAL

Total Economic Activity Levy

 

TEAL is a simple form of taxation intended to replace all other UK State Taxes.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE TAX !

By broadening the tax base to be all-inclusive, the actual level of the tax (the percentage levied) can possibly be kept to as little as 2% of UK’s economic activity or the deposits and payments reflected in the country’s bank accounts. TEAL is levied within the banking system, by the banks, who will be the instruments for collecting TEAL.

We all pay tax and UK is one of the most highly taxed societies in the world. Some of the obvious taxes can amount to 60% of your income: 35% on your salary, 20% vat, Fuel Tax, Council Tax (perhaps 10% of the average salary?)

IMAGINE IF ALL TAXES COULD BE REPLACED BY A SINGLE LEVY.

TEAL DOES THAT !

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE PEOPLES TAX !

 

TEAL is a levy, hoped to be less than 2%, on all economic activity as reflected by the flow of money through the banking system. It is all inclusive, no exceptions, no variations. Whether you are a street vendor, a business executive, a priest, the Chief Constable or even the PM himself, every payment and receipt in all bank accounts will be levied by the banks on behalf of the state, perhaps at a rate of just one percent (1%), just as the banks now collect and pay VAT.

TEAL is expected to replace (almost) every other source of state revenue from the People.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE PEOPLES TAX !

 

Total Economic Activity Levy
A New Concept  in  Taxation
A system that would be equitable across all economic groups, allowing the poor to develop capacity, whilst facilitating entrepreneurial activity, economic leadership, and domestic and foreign Investment.

So then what is TEAL?
TEAL is a transaction tax that will be applied to both sides of every transaction that is routed through all the financial institutions in the UK – including banks, building societies etc. Transactions involving cheques, cash, drafts, ATM’s, credit cards and electronic transfers will all be subject to the levy, thereby creating a tax “net” but on which is less than VAT
How will TEAL work?
It is anticipated that TEAL will be levied in the range 1.0%% to 4.0% - the actual rate will be determined BY THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE. It will be seen that minuscule changes in the rate will involve huge sums of money.
It has been confirmed that the total effective value of all transactions carried out annually – our TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY - is currently in the order of X trillion. This figure includes Bond Market transactions of Y trillion that - for the time being - are ignored. Therefore TEAL levied at 1.0%-4.0%% on Z trillion (remember that TEAL applies to both buyers and sellers) would raise XYZ billion in revenue. We would have an excess of revenue over expenditure, which would allow all other taxes to be done away with.


AND FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT TO BE PAID OFF AND THEREBY ENABLING THE TEAL RATE TO ACTUALLY BE REDUCED OR FOR THE CREATION OF A NATIONAL WEALTH FUND THAT CAN BE SHARED BY ALL.

How will government collect it?

A “transaction” will be carefully and legally defined, but at this stage is taken to mean the monetary value attached to all goods and services transacted between two (or more) contracting parties. Each party will be levied as follows.
 The seller receives 100 from the buyer, and when the money is deposited, the seller will be credited with 96-99- assuming a TEAL rate of 1-4%.
 The buyer, paying by cheque will be debited with 101-104 which in effect means that the state has collected a total of 2-8, or 2-8%
Banks will remit the proceeds of TEAL directly to the ….., and will be recompensed by their either retaining the proceeds for a specified period, or by receiving a commission. The actual programming and implementation of TEAL will be the simplest aspect of its entire concept.

 

We are proposing that large companies still pay tax though, 25% in the City of London and 10% in the rest of the UK and for these taxes not to go to the Government but to a Peoples National Wealth Trust Fund that we are beneficiaries of Shareholders of 1st Call if you like in GB PLC and this can provide for pensions and other things. This money would be ours tax free less of course the TEAL.

 

Peoples National Wealth Trust Fund would set up Regional Peoples Owned Banks and lend the money interest free for housing & Community development to local community co-op development banks which would add value by investment into communities using LETS and other local currencies for community business and housing which could then be bought interest free or rented out through new peoples housing co-ops.

 

The above  large companies tax would not only benefit the people directly but make us an attractive country for investment.

 

In 2010, in South Africa http://www.tealtax.co.za did an exercise replacing conventional tax with TEAL for the period from 2006 to 2013, They estimated the flow of money through the banking system, the TEA or Total Economic Activity, as 30 Times the GDP or Gross Domestic Product. We then plugged that factor into their model and compared the actual and projected income and expenditure for the Republic of SA (extracted from Minister of Finance’s budget presentations) for the periods 2006 to 2013.

The chart below shows for each year, the NATIONAL DEBT from application of conventional tax systems in South Africa, the TEAL, the TEA and the National Debt arising from application of TEAL** .

chart23
Teal & the National Debt

Notice how the national debt is reduced to Zero after application of TEAL.

Recent figures indicate the TEA and TEAL values (but not the rate) should have been increased by up to 68%, further shortening the time taken to reduce the national debt to zero. Imagine this; by 2011/2012 they could have been living with a zero national debt for three or more years. 

The National Debt is the NATION’S OVERDRAFT and is the extent to which expenditure exceeds income.

 

GO INTO OVERDRAFT!  PAY INTEREST!  CEDE YOUR ASSETS AS COLLATERAL!

Our largest asset is our population and their earnings. This is ceded as collateral for government’s overdraft. Government says we and our children and their children ad nauseam will pay this debt. But the debt is ever increasing, so how and when is this going to be paid? Never? And who is ever getting richer on that arrangement?

 

Not only would the country be able to reduce the National Debt, it would have all the funds necessary to address country’s needs. Furthermore, after the introduction of TEAL and the phasing out of all other State revenue, Jo Citizen, for the first time in his or her  life, will know exactly how much tax they are paying.



How will TEAL benefit us?
Compared with the present system of payment through Revenue offices, TEAL offers many benefits, the following being but a few.
 The flow of revenue will be immediate, continuous and predictable. There will be no long drawn-out delays due to objections or any other reasons. There will be no such thing as non-payment of taxes, except for deliberate evasion that will be traceable and carry very heavy penalties.
 The State will be able to budget far more accurately than at present, and provision will be made to allow small adjustments in the TEAL rate to allow for under, or over-collection.
 There will be radical changes in the composition of Revenue offices, as their present functions fall away. It will be possible to re-deploy experienced staff to other government and provincial departments in order to monitor and audit income and expenditure. This will provide an effective means of eradicating theft and corruption – presently rife throughout the country.
 The fact that we will have an excess of income over expenditure holds very significant implications for us all. The impact on foreign investments will be considerable, and we might even get a pat on the back! Our present budgeted expenditure already contains a provision for a deficit of xxx billion – which of course will fall away. This will mean that this huge amount of money will be available for far more beneficial purposes. It can be used for fixing our hospitals; boosting our police services; building more schools, employing more teachers; reducing our accumulated deficit, and - as important as any of these - GETTING THOSE HOUSES BUILT.
 The removal of VAT and taxes on petroleum products will benefit the very poor IMMEDIATELY - NOT in six months or six years. The cost of most goods and services will fall by more than12% - but petroleum products can come down by 40% - or more.
 The agricultural industry will obtain important benefits from the implementation of TEAL. It will be possible to set aside a very small percentage of the levy to provide funds many things
 The major immediate benefit will obviously be a large reduction in the price of fuel.

What about VAT PAYE and council tax
No More VAT, PAYE!
These removals of VAT, PAYE,  and personal and company taxes will also provide unique opportunities to significantly reduce the cost of goods and services. This will lead to both the narrowing of salary and wage gaps, and greatly reduced inflation. These points are clearly illustrated in the following examples.
  PAYE and deductions – now going to the inland Revenue – will be retained within companies and may be redistributed on a pre-determined scale. The main TEAL document shows that (through computer models based on actual organisations) present wage gaps can be reduced by as much as 40 – 50% - without any cost increases to the organisation. Depending on the size and composition of the company, alternative uses for this money would be to reduce selling prices, OR EMPLOY MORE PEOPLE..q
 The cost of government – both central and provincial – has the potential to drop considerably as a result of the removal of PAYE and personal income taxes. The salaries of officials and others can be adjusted to the levels of their present “take-home” pay – i.e. after deduction of taxes. These people will of course be far better off as a result of lower commodity and fuel prices.
Does this mean No more TAX returns?
There will be no need for complicated tax returns, because the State will have no (tax) interest in either profits or sources of income. The end of each tax year will be a total non-event because all taxes will have been paid in full and therefore there will be no need for tax consultants or lawyers.
Has anybody objected?
Objections made thus far to the TEAL concept stem largely from tax lawyers and consultants who will become redundant the day it is implemented. The most commonly voiced of these are: -
 “Within a short time nobody will be doing their business through the banks”.
This came from a senior tax consultant who ignores the simple fact that there simply will not be enough cash to allow this to happen – present levels of bank notes in daily circulation are about xxx billion. The estimated average daily value of transactions is over xxx billion, so cash won’t last very long! He also ignores the security risk of vast sums of bank notes being continually moved around.
 “Why has no other country adopted a transaction tax?” 
This objection is frequently raised. For any transaction tax to succeed, a highly sophisticated, nation-wide, computerised banking system is absolutely mandatory. It is only because of the phenomenal developments that have taken place in computer technology over the past decade or so, that South Africa – with such a banking system in place - will be able to successfully implement a transaction tax.
An extensive list of objections and our responses thereto are contained in the complete TEAL document. Although the case for TEAL is now overwhelming, we nevertheless advocate progressive implementation in order to both reassure the electorate, and ensure that revenues from the levy are meeting forecasts. Because the revenue flow will be immediate, it will be possible to evaluate results within a week following either initial implementation, or any subsequent changes in the TEAL rate.
STOP PRESS
The Government of Brazil is urgently investigating the TEAL concept with a view towards implementing it to assist in their economic recovery.
A negative reaction can be expected from large business organizations who will assuredly pay a great deal more tax than they are now paying.
Nov. 10, 2011
Consultations with a large building company evoked the following response:

While Teal would be greater than corporate tax, their clients and their own internal structures and products would benefit from the removal of vat. TEAL, at whatever rate, would simply be factored into all their costs of operation. There would be a huge reduction in all forms of tax administration, particularly at year-end involving maximizing of tax benefits. All these factors were rated highly as benefits of TEAL. That a small percentage increase in their selling prices would cover all their tax liabilities and hardly be noticed after the elimination of vat, was deemed to be a strong positive for TEAL.

In an even more positive response, when approached about TEAL, a very prominent South African retailer said he saw no downside to TEAL and to the contrary, if TEAL were ever implemented he would immediately open a further 10 stores.


A tax system must accommodate the ability of the poor to pay.
Nov. 10, 2011
The present system imposes 20% vat plus sundry other hidden taxes on even the poorest. TEAL will impose perhaps as little as a 1-8% levy in place of all those taxes, even on the poorest. It is supremely equitable that someone who earns 100 times more than another should pay 100 times more tax than that other, and that a project that makes many demands on the economy should pay more than one that makes fewer demands on the economy.

In this way TEAL taxes the poor at a level that they can afford and the rich at the level that they can afford.


A tax system should address social justice
Nov. 10, 2011
Social justice means different things to different people. Deficit budgets penalize our children for our benefit. There is no social justice in that. Teal will permit adequate funding of all social needs and at the same time eliminate deficit funding. 

That is social justice.


Banks are not going to act as tax collectors without charging for the service.
Nov. 22, 2011
Like they charge for collecting VAT and PAYE and Stamp Duties and other taxes and levies related to their doing business? The thing is that no business or employee charges the state for collecting taxes on behalf of the state. It is the law which imposes the duty on them to make those collections and pay them over. In that respect TEAL will be no different from any other tax.


Benefits - what are the principle benefits of TEAL?
Nov. 19, 2011
Simplicity of application and cost effectiveness of the collection process.

For individual taxpayers - a reduction IN TAX from something like 60% of income to perhaps only 1-8% of income and the meeting of all tax obligations in a single simple process that does not involve them administratively - i.e. no more tax returns.

For corporate taxpayers - the ability to simply meet all tax obligations with a single simple process that also does not effect them administratively, i.e. no more tax returns, also no more involvement in the tax affairs of their employees and other trading partners.


Can you expect a negative response from tax professionals?
Nov. 19, 2011
Tax specialists are likely to be negatively effected and be unhappy about that. Particularly accountants and lawyers who specialize in tax matters will in time have to re-deploy their skills in other specialties of their professions as new tax business runs down. Greater emphasis will probably be given to matters such as effective corporate and business accounting and legal management. This should result in better run businesses arising from their focusing on their core business needs rather than being distracted by having to focus on meeting their tax obligations.


Chaos will result from changing the tax system, particularly if you've got it wrong.
Nov. 11, 2011
TEAL will be implemented in a phased process. Each tax in turn will be targeted. When TEAL is generating the equivalent of the targeted tax, the tax will be phased out and TEAL will be retained in its place.


Could employees arrange for employers to pay major expenses directly for them in lieu of salary payments?
Nov. 10, 2011
Part of the regulatory framework would be the requirement that all formal wages and salaries be paid directly into the employees' formal bank accounts.


Expect government to apply TEAL as an additional tax rather than a replacement tax.
Nov. 10, 2011
That unfortunately is what would happen under many governments and particularly can be expected of the current government. Approaches to the tax man and treasury evoked exactly that response, viz. that TEAL would be used as an additional tax. The trick would be to vote for this through a PEOPLES REFORM BILL in Parliament which is what is planned and to have local referendums to support that across the UK which pledges to use TEAL as a replacement tax and not as an additional tax.


How are informal traders effected by TEAL? eg Do street vendors transactions attract TEAL?
Nov. 11, 2011 by Admin
The short answer is that all transactions attract TEAL. But importantly, is it even desirable that the poorest of the poor should be contributing to TEAL and what happens if they are simply ignored?

The solution to this will probably be contained in the regulatory framework for TEAL which could define what a formal and informal trader is, perhaps in terms of his/her turnover and gross profit compared to the  poverty datum line.

So, a turnover of say £200 or more a day (say £6 000 or more per month turnover) might be deemed that of a formal trader who is required to bank his proceeds intact. As to the rest, we already know that the monetary throughput of the National Payment System is more than enough for the purposes of TEAL, so the absence of the rest of the informal / vendor sector would not be particularly missed. Their rendering an important service to their customers is probably more important to the economy than any TEAL missed from their exclusion. But in any event, their suppliers will undoubtedly fall within the formal sector and the economic activity generated by the vendors will be captured one level above. 

We see their exclusion more as a positive feature of TEAL. It is important that TEAL should not hinder the poorest of the poor from engaging in honest trade to earn a living.





How will the rates for TEAL be controlled?
Nov. 19, 2011
Teal is initially envisaged to be 2% in total, 1% on deposits and 1% on payments. The Foundation understand that the application of TEAL will likely change the levels of economic activity from the present levels. Some factors will increase the levels of economic activity and others will decrease the levels. Each event will result in a need for a higher or lower levy. We cannot predict that. Other circumstantial changes over time may demand changes in the level of the levy. 

The expectation is that TEAL may be reduced by Government but can only be increased by a special act of Parliament and referenda, perhaps requiring a two thirds majority.


If everyone pays less taxes because all other taxes are replaced by TEAL, where does all the extra money for TEAL come from?
Nov. 10, 2011
The advantage of TEAL is that it vastly broadens the tax base (estimated by 28 fold) and because it does that, it can vastly reduce the rate of tax needed to fund the country's needs. Put another way, it doesn't create money so much as taxes sources that were otherwise outside of the tax net. 

It also levies a different base from that of traditional taxes. It levies economic activity and all sectors of the economy are levied equally in proportion to their economic activity. Traditional taxes typically use trading profits or income or commodities (like fuel levies and vat) or access (like road tolls) and apply different rates to different taxes often intended to address specific needs.


If TEAL has so many potential benefits, why is it not operated anywhere else in the world?
Nov. 10, 2011
The short answer is that the world is looking at financial transaction taxes and in due course will be forced to adopt them in some or other form. It is being mooted in the USA as a means of deficit reduction, and in the EU, also as a means of deficit reduction, while the voice of reason, David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, has already seen the light and opined that if a financial transaction tax were to be applied in Britain it would be universally applied - which is pretty much what TEAL does - except that TEAL is a flat rate transaction levy rather than a tax. A Financial Services Tax can have all sorts of conditions, exceptions and limits applied. Not so with TEAL. Tax is the past, TEAL is the future.


Projects will pay TEAL during development periods before income and profits are generated.
Nov. 10, 2011
All projects absorb taxes (eg vat & labour taxes) into development costs. Teal, at a significantly lower rate than those taxes, will replace them, resulting in net cost savings during development.


TEAL is good for a low volume high profit business but not good for a high volume low profit business.
Nov. 10, 2011
Whatever volume and profit a business trades at, profit margins are based on the trading costs of the business. A low profit business cannot just exclude say 50% of its fuel costs (ie the probable levy on fuel) on the basis that it will impact negatively on their profits. Instead levies and taxes are absorbed into their costs of product and operation, which determine the cost to which they add their profits. In any a low profit business, eliminating vat (say 20% of their cost of purchases) and the fuel levy (say 5% of their operating costs) and other hidden taxes, and then adding the 2% TEAL in their stead, should result in a lowering of cost, to which they can then add their normal 2.5% (or whatever) mark up. Their cost of sales and selling prices should both reduce but their gross profits should remain firm. Their turnover should increase, a function of lower selling prices and their net profits should increase as a function of their increased turnover. Everyone is a winner. 

Low volume high profit business and a high volume low profit business should both derive equal benefit from TEAL.


Won't everyone flee the banks and deal in cash and barter?
Nov. 10, 2011
The regulatory framework will apply TEAL to all transactions, including cash and bartering, and any significant transactions outside of the banking system will attract TEAL. So any persons transacting in such a manner as to avoid TEAL will be deemed to be acting as private or informal banks. Failure of formal or informal banks to collect and pay over TEAL will attract stiff penalties.

At an informal level, cash and barter systems are inconsistent with a modern economy, have high risks attached to them and are simply too impractical to be deemed a serious threat to TEAL.


Won't the cascade effect of successive contributors to a manufacturing process, even of a small levy, cancel the benefit of the removal of vat?
Nov. 10, 2011
TEAL does not just replace vat, but all other state revenue, all of which have a cumulative cost implication in the production process and which individually and collectively, exceed the impact of TEAL in the production process. This should result in a lowering of the costs and sales values of manufactured goods.
How Can I help get this wonderful System Implemented?
Support THE PEOPLES REFORM ACT 2013 with its many other reforming proposals.

My Occupy LSX Appeal Skeleton Argument

I have decided to make my appeal skeleton argument public for the 1st time considering that there has been so much comment on what people have not seen!

A. Can anyone see any references to anything that says as the Master of the Rolls says
  
 That I "challenged the judgment on the ground that it did not apply to" me?



It was never written and it was NEVER said (only about 50 witnesses in court)

Also


B. The MR said "Magna Carta heir" is unknown to law.


He is clearly blind or in need or remedial english lessons as even the Queen is a Magna Carta Heir as "heir" in relation to monarch and myself, (and every other freeborn "person" in the UK are specifically refereed to as "HIERS" in section 1 of the 1297 STATUTE, It says Heirs 4 times and I asked the MR specifically and he confirmed in open court that the 1297 statute is still extant in legislation.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/section/I 


C.  The MR said "We do not understand that point, not least because both the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen and Guilds (through the Commonalty and Citizens) are included in the claimants",  


As I had submitted  that "the current Mayoral position has been previously usurped by the Guilds and Aldermen in Contravention of the City of London’s 1215 Royal Charter". 

I MADE CLEAR AS TO WHY? And does not the following evidence also that from the City of London's own records?


http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cats/118/11708.htm

CHARTERS

IDENTITY STATEMENT
Reference code(s): COL/CH
Held at: London Metropolitan Archives
Title: CHARTERS
Date(s): 1067-1980
Level of description: sub-fonds
Extent: 1.2 linear metres
Name of creator(s): Corporation of London
CONTEXT
Administrative/Biographical history:

charter granting the citizens the right to choose their mayor, 1215

I provided other evidence also from City of London's own public library!



IN SUMMARY ONLY THEN THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS DOES LOOK TO HAVE ISSUED A VOID JUDGEMENT AS HE FALSELY REPRESENTED MY APPEAL AND:


1.  INVENTED EVIDENCE
2.  DENIED LEGISLATION
3.  IGNORED PRIMA FACE EVIDENCE (or is blind)


Frankly he should not be a judge as he is either not competent or he deliberately fudged (perverted) the judgement.

A CORRUPT JUDGE???????

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL DIVISION
                                                                                          

B E T W E E N:


PAUL RANDLE-JOLLIFFE Esq  
Appellant

And

THE MAYOR, COMONALITY AND CITIZENS OF LONDON

          Respondant

ON APPEAL FROM CLAIM NO:HQ11XO4327

On appeal from

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION

(LINDBLOM J)

BETWEEN:

THE MAYOR, COMMONALITY AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONDON
Claimant

and

(1) MS TAMMY SAMEDE
(2) MR GEORGE BARDA
(3) MR DANIEL ASHMAN
(4) PERSONS UNKNOWN

Defendants

_______________________________________________________

PAUL RANDLE-JOLLIFFE

Appellant
(as person unknown and witness in court)

APPELLANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT v2
WITH ERRATA CORRECTIONS


Issues for the Court

This application for leave to appeal is based upon the appellant’s verbal application to appeal as a person unknown and as someone directly affected by the judgement in court and refusal by the judge on point one below. (No written refusal was given)
Should appeal be granted because of the following grounds.
Grounds
  1. The judge erred in saying that “it is up to the government to decide….how the City of London is governed” (Para 7 of the Summary of the judgement.)
  2. The Judge did not properly consider the Magna Carta issues and rights as they directly affect the appellant as a Magna Carta heir and in conjunction with other co-defendants's Magna Carta rights.
  3. The Judge erred and did not properly consider the significant constitutional and superior law issues raised in the case and the rights to remedy same. Instead the Judge focused only on lesser Law and Acts which prejudiced the rights and privileges of the Appellant and other occupiers as well as the interests of those beyond the camp who also have those rights.
  4. The Judge erred in that he did not properly consider if the Mayor of the City of London had the lawful right to bring the action and to claim rights under common law in that action as the current Mayoral position has been previously usurped by the Guilds and Alderman in contravention of the City of London’s 1215 Royal Charter – granted by King John.
  5. The City of London did not consider and the Judge erred in that he did not consider the rights of rough sleepers at St Paul’s including those that have been there for up to ten years along with their need to use bedding.
  6. The Judge erred in that he could have considered a reduced camp but omitted consideration.
  7. The Judges decision was therefore in regard to all the above did not properly consider proportionality and fairness under the wider body of law, but limited himself to consideration under narrower statutes, giving the appearance of bias.
  8. Appellants Argument Preamble:
1)     The City of London Corporation is a party heir, under the Magna Carta Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the "ancient liberties" of the City of London. The City of London claimed common law rights in its application, which the Judge accepted.
2)     The appellant is also a party heir under the Magna Carta Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter) and claimed implied common law rights under it and made a claim of right to remedy, which the Judge didn’t properly consider.
3)     The following clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta, still on statute are:
i.  1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
  1. 9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
  2. 29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
4)     The City of London did not challenge the appellant’s evidenced standing as a common law and statutory heir of the Magna Carta with the rights and privileges claimed under it.
5)     The City of London did not seek any remedy with the Appellant as a co-heir of the Magna Carta.
6)     The appellant was and is seeking remedy for himself, the other occupiers and others who are also Magna Carta heirs and beneficiaries. 
7)     The City of London Corporation predominantly acts and lobbies for businesses in the City of London, who are its constituents - who are not Magna Carta parties or heirs, in a way that has prejudiced and damaged the interests of the Appellant and other Magna Carta section 29 heirs and beneficiaries.   
8)     The City of London is exempted from many Parliamentary Statutes and therefore does not conform to the maxim that, “no matter be you ever so high the law is above you,” which includes the equal application of all acts of Parliament.
9)     The City of London Corporation has maintained its status and privileges under the Magna Carta through its remembrance in Parliament, but not the rights and privileges of the Barons as Sureties of the Magna Carta or the Peoples rights through their rememberancers of their Magna Carta Rights, but it has supported those that are not parties to the detriment of those that are.
i.  The Remembrancer is one of the City’s Chief Officers and the role dates back to 1571. His traditional role is as the channel of communications between the Lord Mayor and the City of London on the one hand and the Sovereign, Royal Household and Parliament on the other. The Remembrancer is also the City's Ceremonial Officer and Chief of Protocol.
  1. The Remembrancer’s department at the City of London is broken into three distinct branches of work - Parliamentary, ceremonial and private events. The Parliamentary office is responsible for looking after the City of London's interests in Parliament with regard to all public legislation, while the ceremonial office’s objectives are to enable the Lord Mayor and City of London to welcome high profile visitors both domestically and internationally.
GROUNDS 1.

10) The precursor protest to The Occupy LSX camp was initiated by a student at The London School of Economics in October 2011 as it was the 25th anniversary of the major deregulation of the financial markets, known as “Big Bang” and as a protest against the power, influence, damage and harm caused to the people of this country and around the world by financial institutions in the City of London.
11) This deregulation was organised in conjunction with direct support from the City of London Corporation and re-launched the City of London as a global financial powerhouse.
12) This protest is unique in that other types of conventional protest have failed to effect change with their efforts to bring unaccountability to this new financial architecture and remedy subsequent injustices of which we, The People of England, are all now suffering from.
13) The reasons for the eventual location of the protest camp are well documented in the bundles originally filed in the lower court.
14) The City of London Corporation is specifically and has been historically exempt from many acts of Parliament and is therefore demonstrably not fully subject to Parliament due to it’s unique and special status.
15) The Judge erred by saying that it was “up to Parliament to decide how the City of London is governed”, inferring that it was presumably governed in the same way that any other Local Authority would be fully subject to Parliament.
16) As the City of London is not “fully” subject the parliament, the Judge either did not know this or did not properly consider the law as it currently applies to the City of London.
17) The privileged status of the City of London means that it has other Powers that are not conferred by Parliament and are significantly beyond those of all other “Local authorities” in England and Wales and the exercise of these other powers are not subject to parliamentary oversight or control
18) The way that the City of London exercises its own powers is similar to the operation of Parliament and enables it to exercise some of them in resistance to it being made subject to Acts of Parliament.
19) “The City of London Corporation” means the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London acting by the Mayor, Aldermen and Commons of the said City in Common Council assembled. City of London.
20) The Corporation is a Local Authority under Local Government incorporation acts, but is exempted from many provisions of those acts the Mayor, Commonality and Citizens of the City of London are in Law more than just another Corporation as a local authority as it has more powers that are conferred by any act.
21) The Corporation is more than just a Statutory Local Authority but it does “exercise the functions of a local authority (and police authority) in the City”
22) The executive arm of the City which undertakes local authority functions conferred by Parliament is the Court of Common Council.
23) The Case against the Camp was brought not by the Common Council but by the Mayor, Commonality and Citizens of the City of London.
24) Parliament has no authority over the common law rights of the City of London.
25) The Corporation has been broadly untouched by local government reforms and democratisation.
26) An example is that the Alderman in the City of London was not abolished by the Local Government Act 1972 as were all other Aldermen.
27) There are aspects in the way of which the City of London operates that are controlled by means other than the Parliament, such as the appointment of its Alderman. It is required that all Alderman are magistrates and that any elected Alderman should be confirmed as a magistrate by the Lord Chancellor.
28) Elections to Aldermanship are therefore controlled judicially by the Lord Chancellor, unlike any other Local Authority.
29) There is also a presumption with the election of Alderman that they will be or have been in business, implying a prejudice against those that are not. (City of London Website)
30) The lower court case was brought by the City of London under the common laws historic rights of the City of London over which Parliament has no power, but the courts do. Therefore it was wrong for the judge to say it was a matter of politics and not law in his judgement.
31) The action by the City of London was part defended by the Appellant but the Judge did not properly nor fully consider these rights in his Judgement by specific reference to them and law, giving the appearance of bias.
32) The Judge erred as the Appellant has no claim to remedy in Parliamentary process under powers which Parliament does not have over the City of London.
33) Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all have failed. As Clement Attlee PM lamented in “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.”
34)The members of the Common Council’s Committees are not elected on a local government franchise under the Representation of the People Acts, but by a franchise set down in a combination of private parliamentary acts and the City’s own legislative instruments, enacted by a procedure somewhat like Parliament’s. Most of the members of the Common Council are elected on a business franchise, which gives incorporated bodies an entitlement to appoint representatives as business voters based on the number of people employed. Such an arrangement does not, of course, exist at all in respect of statutory local authorities. In consequence the interests which most Committee members represent, and thus their accountability, is not (as in statutory local authorities) accountable to residents, but to business. Written evidence submitted by City of London Corporation (L&CG 10)http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpolcon/writev/592/m10.htm
35) City wards are not reviewed by the Electoral Commission under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 and (unlike with other local government electoral reviews in the country) the number and the names of the wards do not change.  The ward boundaries and electoral representation were reviewed in 2010 for change in 2013. The review was conducted by senior officers of the Corporation and senior judges.
i.  The City of London Corporation has undertaken a review of the internal boundaries of the City’s 25 wards. This review looked at the electoral arrangements for these wards. The review was undertaken by a panel consisting of the Town Clerk and Chief Executive, the Recorder of London and the Common Serjeant (the two most senior judges at the Old Bailey). The review completed its work in November 2010. This new boundaries will come into effect in 2013. http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Councillors_democracy_and_elections/ward_boundary_review.htm
36) It is the City of London Corporation that runs the nations Central Criminal Court - the Old Baily, not the HMCS and it runs its own police force. (City of London Website)
37) Parliament does not have power over the electoral process of the city of London, the City of London has almost absolute sovereignty over the democratic processes in the city of London in partnership with the Lord Chancellor and Judiciary at a court which the City of London Administers.
38) The City of London is a city state within a state, but is not fully subject to the larger state’s Parliament that surrounds it.
39) Businesses nominate the majority of voters in the city of London based upon the number of employees.
40) Business has control over the City of London though the City of London’s own limited “democratic” processes, many of these businesses are from countries who’s citizens who would not be eligible to vote in the UK.
41) These foreign interests in and over the City of London have caused prejudice to the Interests of the rest of the nation and have caused direct harm, loss and fraud to its citizens for many years.
42) The Government of the United Kingdom gave the financial interests of the City “a bail out, whilst the citizens of the UK got sold out”. (Occupy LSX)
43) The City of London has conflicts of interest between exercising its rights under the application to the court to remove the method of the camp to continue its process of occupation by the means of tents and the fact that the members of the committee that have made the decision to take the action in court were each elected by nominated representatives of the parties, which are also subject to the camps complaint, I.E. the financial businesses in the city.
44) Further, members of the committee that took the decision are also employees of these businesses, who have direct interests in the outcome of the protest giving the appearance of bias in the process and apparent conflict of interest.
45) The Judged erred in that The City of London is not fully subject to parliamentary democracy and the Appellant cannot appeal to any authority outside the city of London other than the courts for remedy.
46) The City of London has a direct conflict of interests and prejudicial position between exercising its local authority powers and its other powers in regard to acting in the interests of its patrons - the city businesses that it serves and also in regard to the rights and privileges of co heirs of the Magna Carta.
47) The City of London as a Magna Carta party have been able to actively protect its rights under same in Parliament.
48)The Appellant has not been able to protect his rights under the Magna Carta, in spite of years of effort.  The Appellants Common Law rights have been unfairly, unreasonably and unlawfully abridged, whilst the rights of the City of London under the same Charter have been upheld, if not strengthened. This implies a Breach of Trust.
49) Given the above and the Judges error in regard to presumed access to Parliamentary remedy on the false basis of the supremacy of Parliament over the City of London and the rights of the Appellant and public in the nation as a whole to seek remedy in the areas contended by the camp protest, the Appellant contends that the rights of the appellant (and others at the camp) far outweigh the rights that the City of London sought to protect for other such limited numbers of users in the city, mainly the workers in those Businesses that are subject to the camps complaints and the need for redress.
50) There are no current means for Parliamentary remedy for most of the complaints of the Appellant and occupants of the camp, except judicially.
51)The City of London could have supported the camp and enabled remedies instead of taking court action to remove the tents. Such engagement by the City of London would have reduced the time needed for the camps presence – to enable equitable reliefs and lawful remedies to be implemented.
52)The benefits that that the City of London gains directly from and provides directly to businesses in the City are substantial. The negative effects from the abuses of the financial industry recently in the City of London apropos the rest of the country are highly disproportionate in comparison to its contributions. This is substantiated by the fact that the banks lost more money in the 2007 global financial crash than they made in profits in the previous 30 years.  This problem, which is far bigger  and more serious than the 1929 Crash (John Williams, Fortune 500 consulting economist: www.shadowstats.com) and as such has not remotely been resolved.  This issue was entirely predicated on fraudulent underwriting of risk, predatory lending, market manipulation and other unlawfulness and breach of trust which has been highly prejudicial to the British People, public trust and the national interest.  It has been acknowledged by lawyers representing the Queen that the British People are Sovereign and this Sovereignty is managed in Trust by HM The Queen.
53)The British People themselves are not only Sovereign but are undeniably the Creditors of the system as the sole and entire source of labour, energy, ideas, innovations and inventions from which all economic activity originates.  The British People have therefore been fraudulently deprived of the fruits of their labours via an unlawful transfer of bank debt to the public purse, which is the vast majority of the debt and is based on Derivatives, stated to be of far more value than the entire global economic system (www.shadowstats.com).  This need not have happened:
54)The United States Senate issued the Levin–Coburn Report found "that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."
55)"If one creates money out of thin air and then passes on what did not exist before and charges interest on it and uses physical assets as collateral, then that is in reality a model for expropriation." - Franz Hormann, University of Vienna
56) It was stated by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve bank that: "It is utterly impossible, as this country has demonstrated again and again, for the rich to save as much as they have been trying to save, and save anything that is worth saving. They can save idle factories and useless railroad coaches; they can save empty office buildings and closed banks; they can save paper evidences of foreign loans; but as a class they can not save anything that is worth saving, above and beyond the amount that is made profitable by the increase of consumer buying. It is for the interests of the well to do – to protect them from the results of their own folly – that we should take from them a sufficient amount of their surplus to enable consumers to consume and business to operate at a profit. This is not “soaking the rich”; it is saving the rich. Incidentally, it is the only way to assure them the serenity and security which they do not have at the present moment." - Testimony of Marriner Eccles to the Senate Finance Committee, 1933.
http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2011/09/testimony-of-marriner-eccles-to.html
57)California Attorney General Jerry Brown stated that "unfair business practices" and "false advertising" were used by international banks to the detriment of the people. 
58)Paul Krugman, laureate of the Nobel Prize in Economics, described the shadow banking system as the "core" that caused the crisis. He referred to this lack of controls as "malign neglect" and argued that regulation should have been imposed on all banking-like activity.
59)"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practised in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, 1991
GROUNDS 2 & 3.
1)     In 1215 the City of London became a party to the Magna Carta after a decision in 1213 at St Paul’s Cross that the financial and other excesses of King John needed to be dealt with.
2)     Magna Carta is variously described as a covenant, contract or treaty. It is not an Act of Parliament. As we understand it, Magna Carta cannot be repealed by parliament. As a contract between sovereign and subjects, it can be breached only by one party or the other, but even in the breach it still stands. It is a mutual, binding agreement of indefinite duration. Any breach merely has the effect of giving the offended party rights of redress.
3)    Although the 1215 Magna Carta pre-dates parliament by some 50 years it was subsequently enacted in 1297 with the passage of Edward 1’s Confirmation of the Great Charter Act, which included the words: "And we will that if any judgement be given henceforth contrary to the points aforesaid by the justices or by any other (of) our ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters it shall be undone and holden for nought."
4)     The text later includes words to the effect that the "charter of liberties shall be kept on every point."
5)     All texts of the Magna Carta include that  “We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever. “
6)     The Judge erred in that there are conflicts between the common law and the superiority of the Magna Carta and the authority of Parliament and in relation to the authority of EU Law regarding the Rights of the City of London which conflicts with the interests of the citizens of the UK, these are serious constitutional issues that can only be resolved by a court with authority in constitutional law.  The court of appeal may decide that it is only the Supreme Court which has the Authority to deal with these issues.
7)    Magna Carta recognised the authority of the House of Lords, established its constitutional role and its composition for all time. A quorum is 25 hereditary peers: "All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements, imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else it shall be done concerning them according to the decision of the five and twenty barons whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same, …provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five and twenty barons are in a similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular judgment, others being substituted in their places after having been selected by the rest of the same five and twenty for this purpose only, and after having been sworn."
8)     In 1999 a significant breach of the Magna Carta occurred in that the majority of the Hereditary Barons were removed without fault on their part and therefore unlawfully by act of parliament in contravention of prior statute and required that the ninety who could remain were elected by political ballot, this act removed the surety power by parliament 1297 c. 9 (Regnal. 25_Edw_1_cc_1_9_29)
  1.  HENRY by the Grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Guyan, and Earl of Anjou, to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs, Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs, and other our faithful Subjects, which shall see this present Charter, Greeting: Know Ye, that We, unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of (X1) the souls of our Progenitors and Successors [Kings of England,] to the advancement of Holy Church and amendment of our Realm, of our meer and free will, have given and granted to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all [Freemen] of this our Realm, these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever.
9)     The Barons are freemen entitled to their liberties under section 29. and the crown is required to uphold their rights.
10) It is being discussed that all hereditary barons be replaced by an elected chamber and thus would remove all surety.
11) Government is a Magna Carta party as it acts for the crown which is a Magna Carta party and which is required to uphold the rights contained therein.
12) T he courts are required to uphold the law including the Magna Carta.
13) The appellant’s statement detailed some aspects of the history of the Magna Carta and some aspects of current Magna Carta breaches, time did not allow more detailed provision of breaches which are far more extensive.
14)It was detailed that St Paul’s is a historic place in the United Kingdom for dealing with issues affecting society and the place where the Magna Carta was partly conceived and ratified by its parties later at  Runnymede.
15) It is normal for a party to a contract to seek the assistance of remedy of another party when there is a breach.
16) The appellant has had all his Magna Carta rights breached under section 29 of 1297 Magna Carta and is aware of many others in the camp that have experienced substantial breaches, as have many thousands across the UK.
17) The appellant personally requested directly in public to Stuart Fraser  (Chairman of the City of London Policy Committee) who attended and spoke at camp general assembly and spoke at the City of London that he should adhere to our Magna Carta rights.
18) As a Magna Carta Party the City of London has duties to other Parties and rights beyond the city of London.
19) The city of London did not respond to this request by the Appellant and it later issued a fait accompli offer that stated that the camp could stay for a while if it agreed to leave and not return to any part of the City of London.
20) This offer was a bad faith offer that did not consider either the Appellants or others of the Camp’s or even the other people's Magna Carta rights or interests.
21) The City of London at that instant attempted a breach of the Magna Carta rights of the Appellant and others in the Camp by limitation on ability to seek remedy from and from within the city of London on behalf of both the camp and many millions more.
22)Rudyard Kipling gave a warning in his poem
The Reeds of Runnymede
Magna Charta, June 15, 1215
AT Runnymede, at Runnymede,
What say the reeds at Runnymede?
The lissom reeds that give and take,
That bend so far, but never break.
They keep the sleepy Thames awake
With tales of John at Runnymede.
At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
Oh, hear the reeds at Runnymede:--
"You musn't sell, delay, deny,
A freeman's right or liberty.
It wakes the stubborn Englishry,
We saw 'em roused at Runnymede!
"When through our ranks the Barons came,
With little thought of praise or blame,
But resolute to play the game,
They lumbered up to Runnymede;
And there they launched in solid line
The first attack on Right Divine--
The curt, uncompromising 'Sign!'
That settled John at Runnymede.
"At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
Your rights were won at Runnymede!
No freeman shall be fined or bound,
Or dispossessed of freehold ground,
Except by lawful judgment found
And passed upon him by his peers.
Forget not, after all these years,
The Charter signed at Runnymede."
And still when Mob or Monarch lays
To rude a hand on English ways,
The whisper wakes, the shudder plays,
Across the reeds at Runnymede.
And Thames, that knows the moods of kings,
And crowds and priests and suchlike things,
Rolls deep and dreadful as he brings
Their warning down from Runnymede!

23)The City of London is committed to an extensive programme of activities designed to assist its neighbours to combat social deprivation so that they can benefit from the wealth the 'Square Mile' generates. Staff and members of the City of London have, through centuries of careful stewardship, ensured that the 'Square Mile' has continued to thrive. Today's City of London, through its philosophy of sustainable development, aims to share these benefits with future generations of residents, businesses and workers.
24) Given its Country wide impact, the City of London is not suitably accountable in law or statute to enable remedy in Parliament.

GROUNDS 4.

1)     The right of City of London's citizens to elect their own Mayor dates from the Charter granted by King John to the City in 1215, the same year Magna Carta specified that the City would retain all its ancient liberties: "That the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties by land as well as by water.’ Mayor William Hardel was on the committee of 25 barons appointed to see that the Charter provisions were carried out. He was also the only commoner involved.
2)     At some later point the Alderman of the City of London usurped the right of the citizens to elect the Mayor of the City of London.
3)     The Alderman have continued this breach of the 1215 Charta rights of the Citizens of the City of London to the present day by electing the mayor themselves from their own number.
4)     This means that there has been no legitimate Mayor for centuries.
5)     The court must therefore consider if the Corporation has any proper standing in law both generally and specifically in relation to the right of bringing the application as the “Mayor, Commonality and Citizens” as it does not have a legitimate mayor to do so and it deficient within its own and lawful definition as a Corporation.
6)     Thus the Corporation cannot bring such an action against the Appellant or the Camp until it is lawfully constituted as to do so breaches its Royal Charter and the Magna Carta Liberties of the Appellant and many other Applicants.
7)     Further that if the City of London seeks to enforce the lower courts orders with the assistance of any officer of the court (bailiff or constable) it will be inducing them to act unlawfully and breaches their oaths.
8)     Ironically the 18th century Mayor of the City of London was John Wilkes (1774), the 18th century radical, journalist and politician. In his political life, Wilkes fought for the right of voters to determine their representatives, was instrumental in allowing printers to publish records of parliamentary debates, and introduced the first Bill for parliamentary reform in the British Parliament. 
GROUNDS 5.
1)     In making the order that no bedding shall be used inside area 3 neither the City of London nor the Judge considered the effect that this would have on the rough sleepers that have always used St Paul’s as a place of sleeping including those that have slept there for over ten years. The fact is that without bedding during the winter, they would freeze, be in contempt of court or be forced to move.
2)     None of these rough sleepers have previously been served with any such notices or similar judgements.
GROUNDS 6.
1)     The judge erred as he did not properly consider that the camp could have been given a fixed period with a review for a much reduced footprint to balance the rights of the protestors and of others.
2)     The question the appeal raises is how the rules of trespass should be interpreted in public space. The principle set out the 1765 decision of Entick v Carrington that ‘our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave’ has characterized as ‘absolutist dogma’ by Professor Kevin Gray at Cambridge.
3)     The City has alleged that it is entitled to possession to Areas 1 and 3. It has not produced ownership documents. Ownership is assumed by Judge Lindblom from the fact that s. 263 of the 1980 Highways Act ‘vests in the authority who are for the time being the highway authority for the highway’. If, as Justice Lindblom suggests, questions of highway management are irrelevant to the grant of an order for possession and are based solely on principles of property law, then the City need to demonstrate their ownership of the property. He states that: ‘The City would be entitled to an order for possession of Area 1 even if there were no unreasonable obstruction of the highway’. Yet this elision between ‘vests’ and ‘owns’ requires further investigation if it is to ground a right of exclusion that is rooted in the 1765 decision of Entick v Carrington.
4)     Indeed, the land around St Paul’s Cathedral has long been used as public property and public space. Yet these terms – public property and public space – appear to carry no legal weight. They have been obscured in a system that treats local authority and other public institutional owners as property as simply equivalent to private owners. When Justice Lindblom states that the gardens are ‘public open space’ (para 30) he gives this no legal protection. Public space is treated as private property.
5)     In his judgment, Justice Lindblom supports Mr Forsdick’s submission that ‘as a basic proposition, that there is no arguable right to occupy, control or take possession of highway land from the highway authority. The statutory framework in the 1980 Act is a carefully framed scheme under which control and possession is vested in the highway authority – here the City – to ensure the protection of highway rights. That statutory scheme, and the highway rights it protects, are wholly inconsistent with third parties occupying, controlling and taking possession of the highway. Far from there being any common law right to do that, the decision of the House of Lords in DPP v. Jones confirms that there is not’ (para 101).
6)      Yet this mixes very different currents of law. An order for possession, under CPR Part 55 is based on principles of ownership draws on principles of property law. Stopping a highway obstruction sounds in public law. To draw on DPP v Jones as support for an order for possession is questionable. Here the House of Lords allowed an appeal against a criminal conviction against holding trespassary assemblies, contrary to section 14B(2) of the Act of the Public Order Act 1986.
7)     The Highways Act 1980 does not refer to the concept of possession in this sense. It is concerned with maintaining the flow of the highway. And as the judgment makes clear, Occupy have consistently worked with the police and other authorities to facilitate this. We find no evidence of the obstruction that Mr. Wilkinson (the sole witness for this purpose in Justice Lindblom’s judgment) suggests.
8)     Fundamentally, it is for the highest courts in the land to determine whether these public spaces should be treated as the private property of public or private corporations. What are the duties of public property owners? Are they distinguishable from private law property owners? These are crucial questions for the courts to consider.
9)     In terms of obstruction, it is clear that obstructions are also caused by the decisions by the Church and the City to close parts of the Cathedral grounds (including the Cathedral gardens, Area 2, and encroaching onto the pavement for the renovation of the Festival Gardens). Justice Lindblom accepts these causes of obstruction noting that ‘Because Paternoster Square and the churchyard gardens have been closed the flows of pedestrians normally using them are, at least in part, funnelled into the part of the highway occupied by the camp’ (137). The congestion has been caused by the Occupy movement, the Church, the City and the private owners of Paternoster Square. The moral responsibility for any personal inconvenience is shared.
10) Articulating the ability of property owners to close their property, even if these are said to be ‘public spaces’ without redress raises the question of what the public obligations of property owners are if they own large swathes of our cities or iconic sites. As Antonia Layard, a Senior Lecturer at Cardiff Law School has argued, these decisions often draw on ‘unstated assumptions of the delineation of autonomy entailed in the conventional property ownership model. Yet there is no logical inevitability that the law of property and the law of space or place should coincide in this respect. While place and space may differ, they are not wholly separate; a demarcation between urban space and private places raises profound questions’.
11) The courts need to address the principles that underlie the ability of property owners to evict trespassers at will, even if they are not causing an obstruction. There are almost no local businesses surrounding St. Paul’s. The shops and restaurants are predominantly part of large commercial chains. Those that are “local” businesses have indeed benefited from the passing trade from the camp This commodification of city centres is facilitated by the unchallenged principles of private property ownership where historic urban cores become assets on balance sheets rather than diverse, vibrant public spaces. These are questions we urge the Court to address. 
Planning 
12) In terms of planning, I am intending to seek a certificate of lawful development for the tents under ss. 191-192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 albeit on a reduced scale and with sufficient design critera considered to enable an enhancement to the street scene and sense of place to such an important historic space.
Environmental Health
13) The environmental health concerns that Judge Lindblom lists drawing solely on the evidence Mr Wilkinson, an employee of the City, is not linked to any legal justification for the eviction. We dispute this evidence and are willing to engage with the City to discuss the sandbags and other concerns that are mentioned. We cannot see, in his judgment, that these provide any legal grounds for eviction. Again this would fall under the intention to seek a certificate of lawful development for the tents under ss. 191-192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 albeit on a reduced scale and with sufficient design critera considered to enable an enhancement to the street scene and sense of place to such an important historic space.
Evidence for Decision-Making
14) Judge Lindblom did make a site visit but is relying on witness statements to resolve questions of fact. He clearly gives more weight to some witness statements than others, saying that ‘Where objective evidence was produced on behalf of the City – such as the measurement of particular areas, pedestrian survey data, the numbers of people visiting or worshipping in the cathedral in a particular period, crime statistics compiled by the police, and information on the takings of some local businesses – I have accepted the facts and figures provided’.
15) Little if any weight was given to the impact of the vitriolic and factually inaccurate press reports as a cause for the reduction in visitor numbers to the Cathedral by newspapers such as The Standard and Telegraph. 14) And this is despite the fact that as Inspector Zuber acknowledged, the crime statistics compiled by the police could not be said to be reliable since, acknowledged that the protestors’ “Tranquillity” team were doing a “remarkable job”, and also that recently in the Community Impact Assessment factors relating to the risk of crime had all been marked as “low”. He accepted that it was possible that some of the incidents to  which he had referred might have happened anyway, and that he did not have the crime figures in the relevant four wards for 2008 and 2009 to compare with those for 2010 and 2011 (para 51). We continue to dispute Mr. Wilkinson’s evidence on obstruction.
16)The judgement on that basis appears biased given that he did not properly consider the rights of the protestors to be enabled to continue 24/7 protest with the means to do that allebit on a reduced scale.
GROUNDS 7. 
1)     The Judgement was not proportionate on the basis of the above six points and significantly prejudices the appellants and other camp occupants ability to seek organised remedy including the formation of various legal remedies.
2)     Such remedies being organised for himself and others including those at the camp or assisted by the appellant and others both at the camp and beyond are both civil and criminal and these will be interfered with and will be harmed by removal of the tents which include but are not limited to:
  1. Civil Court Claims
  2. Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions
  3. Standing in the London Mayor and Assembly Elections 
  4. Other interventions
3)     Interference in any of the above are criminal offences as well as likely interference of section 29 Magna Carta rights “we will deny to no man either justice or right.”
4)     Statutes that usurp the Law of the Land, the English Common Law rights of the People of England are liable to be struck out in their entirity, due to 'the mischief rule'.  This is underlined by the fact that usurping the traditional Law and Rights of the English People is clearly against the public interest as Parliament has limits on its power by virtue of the fact that, as the Queen's solicitors have admitted, the People are Sovereign, therefore both HM the Queen and Parliament are subject and subordinate to them...
5)     The rule was first set out in Heydon's Case [1584]76 ER 637 3 CO REP 7a.[3] where the court ruled that there were four points to be taken into consideration when interpreting a statute:
For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and considered:
(1st). What was the common law before the making of the Act?
(2nd). What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.
(3rd). What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth. And,
(4th). The true reason of the remedy;
and then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico
6)      If the City of London will not negotiate remedy to mischief’s as the law requires it to do, there is a significant breach of trust.
7)      The court is required to suppress the mischief’s, only some of which have been submitted to the court, it has no option as that is the law of the land, if the judges will not do so they breach their oaths and no longer “act” as judges.
Summary
  1. The Court did not consider its overarching duty to the common law and the Magna Carta but limited itself to narrow statute considerations only, ignoring the wider need for remedy.
  2. The City of London stated in court that the defendants could have copy of any document and requests for some of these have not been fully complied with.
  3. Apropos the limited time allotted by the Judge in the lower court to apply to the court of appeal for leave to appeal, which was given as less than the formal leave period – (21 days), if leave is granted – more time would be necessary to properly prepare the appeal.
  4. Furthermore, the Judge stated, (when referring to the matters in the court), “This will be done in the usual, rather than the unusual manner”. This has been contradicted by the time frame imposed to apply for leave to appear after he refused leave himself.
  5. In addition, the appellant would need to provide supporting witness statements. Such witnesses would need a reasonable time to prepare their statements and be available to give evidence in the appeal. This would include evidence not available to the lower court given that the Judge restricted the number of witnesses able to give evidence in court. These witnesses would be no more than 3 and would likely include a House of Lords and an expert on constitutional law to enable the court of appeal to consider the constitutional implications of the appellants appeal.
  6. If the City of London were to fully engage with the Appellant and others in good faith they could properly explore what other remedies could be negotiated and thereby attempt to satisfy the complaints of the occupants of the camp and shorten the need for it to continue for any extended period.
  7. The Appellant only seeks lawful remedy to controversies.
  8. To enable this, as it will take time, the Appellant is agreeable to an order reducing the footprint size of the camp, and a more commodious for composition, and that any such order be reviewed each six months to enable progress with the City of London to be accountable to the camp and to be judicially monitored.
Signed as a statement of truth to be used in evidence.
Rev Paul Randle-Jolliffe Esq
Friday, 27 January 2012