Council Tax Bill Received - What Next?

[the worm that turned]

I have just received my Coucil Tax Bill for 2009/10 and it is a whopping £1280 phoney pounds (different matter!).

The Bill is addressed to me as a Mr J Doe (format). So not necessarily the person, although the giving of a title does seem to suggest so. There is no mention on the letter of needing to pay the Bill on the first of each month. It does say the following on the bill though:

"Address of property giving rise to charge:"

So who is responsible for the charge, the property, the occupants or the man/woman living there?

There is no mention of the exact statute that is covering this requirement to pay this Bill. Does anyone know the statute in question (primary or secondary legislation) this refers to, just to save me some time looking it up?

I plan to send a letter to my council that issued it but before I do I will post it on here for comments.

I really appreciate your help here and hopefully it can be used as a template for others. BTW - if this has already been done please direct me to the thread.

Thanks TWTT

[number_6]

So who is responsible for the charge, the property, the occupants or the man/woman living there?


Properties are sometimes occupied by numbers of adults who do not form one household and this can give rise to queries as to who is liable for the Council Tax. Under Council Tax law there is a strict hierarchy which establishes who should be the Council Tax payer in such properties. The hierarchy is set out below. It is defined by the legal interest persons have in the property and the resident with the superior legal interest must be the Council Tax payer.

Resident Freeholder
Resident Leaseholder
Resident Tenant
Resident with licence to occupy
Resident
If there is a resident freeholder he or she will be billed for the Council Tax. If there is no resident freeholder but there is a resident leaseholder, he or she will be billed and so on down the list. The hierarchy means that in cases where there is freehold or leasehold owner, living in the property then any lodger, tenant or other resident living in the property cannot be held liable for Council Tax

[the worm that turned]

Properties are sometimes occupied by numbers of adults who do not form one household and this can give rise to queries as to who is liable for the Council Tax. Under Council Tax law there is a strict hierarchy which establishes who should be the Council Tax payer in such properties. The hierarchy is set out below. It is defined by the legal interest persons have in the property and the resident with the superior legal interest must be the Council Tax payer.

Resident Freeholder
Resident Leaseholder
Resident Tenant
Resident with licence to occupy
Resident
If there is a resident freeholder he or she will be billed for the Council Tax. If there is no resident freeholder but there is a resident leaseholder, he or she will be billed and so on down the list. The hierarchy means that in cases where there is freehold or leasehold owner, living in the property then any lodger, tenant or other resident living in the property cannot be held liable for Council Tax

So is a contract necessary between the Council issuing the Bill and me??

If so I would love to see it. Also, I may well ask for clarification as to who exactly a person is as defined in the Local Government Finance Act 1992

[the worm that turned]

First stab at NOUI - constructive criticism warmly welcomed:



To whom it may concern,

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT RELATING TO COUNCIL TAX BILL 2009/2010 – Account Reference xxxx Property Reference xxxx

Thank you for sending the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” with the Account Reference xxxx and Property Reference xxxx to the address [removed by me]. Although this letter was incorrectly addressed to the name Mr J Doe, I have taken the assumption that you may have been referring to me, so I took the liberty to open it. I have taken notice of this letter and the contents and I am willing to pay in full the sum in question for Council Tax, as required by the Local Government Finance Act 1992, however before I do so, I require an acceptance by you of ALL of the understandings I make below:

Whereas it is my understanding that the Council Tax Bill referred to above is addressed to Mr J Doe, it is actually intended to refer to the man, John of the family Doe, and not to a legal fiction, also called a person, who is given the title Mr J Doe.

Whereas it is my understanding that I John of the family Doe live in the property in question and, having replied courteously and promptly to your original letter dated 16th March 2009, expect to be referred to as John of the family Doe in all future correspondence and will not accept correspondence addressed to anyone else at this address in relation to this matter, including but not limited to, [lots of versions of my name in upper and lower case removed by me], THE OCCUPIER, THE CURRENT OCCUPIER, THE PRESENT OCCUPIER.

Whereas it is my understanding that the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which is the relevant Act of Parliament, given the force of law, relating to this Council Tax Bill referred to above, refers in section 6, sub section 2, to a person being responsible for paying said council tax, is in actual fact referring to a legal fiction and not to a man, such as myself, John of the family Doe.

Whereas it is my understanding that this Council Tax Bill referred to above is an actual bill and not a contract between any parties, and as such I John of the family Doe require an original signed copy of the contract between xxxx District Council and myself before I can make any payments.

As previously mentioned, I am willing to pay in full the sum in question for Council Tax for the Council Tax Bill referred to above following your acceptance of all of the understandings I have made above.

I provide you with TEN (10) days notice to confirm that you accept these understandings or if you do not to provide valid reasons as to why you do not.

Your response should be sent to John of the family Doe care of [address removed by me].

Failure to respond within TEN (10) days will result in an automatic default judgement and permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence barring the bringing of any charges under any statute, act or regulation against myself, John of the family Doe for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties.

Yours sincerely,




John of the family Doe

[seat139]

Looks solid.
Although advice from the more expert members on this forum would be greatly appreciated.
I'm going to try this myself when my Council Tax bill turns up. So i will follow this thread with great interest.

[nirvana]

Looks good im going to try this myself.:D



Peace:)

[number_6]

I provide you with TEN (10) days notice to confirm that you accept these understandings or if you do not to provide valid reasons as to why you do not.


If it were me, I would say "28 days from service of this notice". Personally I think it is important that you allow adequate time from the date that the Council actually receive your letter, not the date that you write it.

[girlgye]

yes No6 is right on this, if you don't behave honourably and respectfully from the outset you have no rights further down the line when you serve a commercial lien.
A council officer won't deal with this until 2 weeks after it is despatched and depending on the Borough it could be as long as 3 months!

Suggest you send it private mail registered to the head of the council tax dept at the council. That way his pa will see it quicker than the usual channels but you probably know all that and it will be assigned an officer to deal with it within your reasonable time frame.

You have to show a reasonable paper chain to a judge in an admiralty court coz as you know they are shit hot at getting into court to be dealt with. Usually about 6 weeks in all from your original statement if you ignore the notices. oh and make sure you galvanise locally and have all your cameras and witnesses. Otherwise this paper work is wrong and you need to keep it out of court.

[spoonogsback]

NO NO NO three day from recipt of notice is the rule of notices there is no difficulty for them to respond even if it is a " we got your notice and will respond in X days with your acceptence" they know how to do this folks . They know it well .
Dont be fooled by their exclaminations that they didnt know or understand. These people if they dont know the rules should not be in the game Hurting people.....Thats what they do they may not realise it but that changes nothing........remember ignorance is no defense...........peace

[spoonogsback]

Oh and NO6 Property cannot be occupied by anything other than a man. everything else you said is a legal fiction....................

[spoonogsback]

OH and girlgye be careful when expressing your opinion. If you believe something to be fact say so because others may heed your advice and find themselves in hot water.
People read the rules about commercial liens and do your own research on bill of exchange contracts rules of notices etc.
Also if you are expressing an opinion say so do not say x y z without being able to back it up with a verifiable refrence..............I can back up all I have said here if anyone wishes .peace

[the worm that turned]

So is this letter any good then? Is it worth sending like this?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to not pay for services in my area if they are being handled and carried out effectively but I also want honesty and transparency from my local council.

So far they have ruined my local area with money being spent on ridiculous projects that have harmed local business. As for the Police!!! When I was attacked by 5+ migrants two of them were given a £150 fine each after the detective involved informed me that "we will be pushing for deportation with these people, it is outrageous what they did" then they questioned me whether I had tried to give a false name and address!!! Truth is I was in absolute shock and could hardly even write, strangely enough my false name and address enabled them to turn up at my house!!!

[yozhik]

Oh and NO6 Property cannot be occupied by anything other than a man. everything else you said is a legal fiction....................

I find this quite illuminating. :)

There was a time, much simpler times, when we would have said "a man lives in his home," however now we find ourselves being drawn into legalese and instead using phrases like "the occupier of the property," "the dwelling was inhabited by a local resident," etc.

What's even more saddening is the fact we don't even blink when we encounter such "politically correct", legalese-inspired, bunkum.

Its a responsibility we all share; we have tacitly allowed a once beautiful language to be violently raped and pillaged.

So can we change it? To answer, we must first find the behaviour to change!
When given simple contracts, the majority of us are guilty of both not reading them with open eyes, nor do we hand them back and ask for a "plain language" version. We just quickly glance over the T's&C's, skim read the normal "standard small print" and then just sign without fully comprehending the meaning, intent or repercussions. We all do it. Asking for a "plain English" version is perfectly justified. In the back of my mind I have a little voice telling me that it is not just a courtesy for a business to comply with such a request; it is a requirement. I might be wrong.

Anyway, this is a totally different subject and I don't want to hijack this thread.
Sorry ... mini-rant is over. :)

[number_6]

NO NO NO three day from recipt of notice is the rule of notices

A rule? Can you provide evidence to back up that such a rule exists? Or is it a rule that you have invented? I assume this "rule" works both ways, when somebody serves a notice on yourself you respond within three days?

[number_6]

..I can back up all I have said here if anyone wishes .peace

Yes, please. Show us what you have.

[number_6]

Oh and NO6 Property cannot be occupied by anything other than a man. everything else you said is a legal fiction....................

I was under the impression that terms such as "freeholder" and "tenant" were established under common law, not statutes. Why do you say that these are a legal fiction?

[dibbley]

Are you sure you've received a bill?

I thought it was a demand notice for money, which is not a bill.

A demand for money by definition arises from an agreement or contract between the concerned parties.

Ask them to produce the contract?

[yozhik]

Are you sure you've received a bill?

I thought it was a demand notice for money, which is not a bill.

A demand for money by definition arises from an agreement or contract between the concerned parties.

Ask them to produce the contract?

I was also under the impression that a bill had to be signed.
Might be wrong.

[the worm that turned]

I was also under the impression that a bill had to be signed.
Might be wrong.

This was what I was hoping was the case - please can someone assist here, in which case I will just reply asking for a bill

[dibbley]

From the Bills of Exchange Act 1882

3 Bill of exchange defined

(1)A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.

[dibbley]

Doh

Forgot to paste in the next part....

(2)An instrument which does not comply with these conditions, or which orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a bill of exchange.

It's worth reading the rest of the Act, doesn't take too long.

[yozhik]

Doh

Forgot to paste in the next part....

(2)An instrument which does not comply with these conditions, or which orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a bill of exchange.

It's worth reading the rest of the Act, doesn't take too long.

Would be worthwhile reading the Interpretations & Definitions to clarify the term "money". Specifically, does a promissory note qualify as money? Can a bill of exchange be satisfied by a promissory note?

If not, then this might go some way to explaining why we no longer receive "bills" ... because a debt (bill of exchange) can not be "paid" with another debt (promissory note). I believe I read that there are strict rules and regs covering this and outlining that which can and can not be done when operating under bankruptcy/insolvency; which some believe the UK Corporation is doing.

I could be completely misguided and barking up the wrong tree.

[the worm that turned]

OK, so taking into consideration a lot of good advice on here, please review the following and comment as you feel fit:

-------DRAFT LETTER INTENDED FOR COUNCIL-------

Dear Sirs,


NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT RELATING TO LETTER TITLED "COUNCIL TAX BILL 2009/2010" – Account Reference xxxx Property Reference xxxx

Thank you for sending the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference xxxx and Property Reference xxxx to Mr J Doe care of [address in question].

Whereas it is my understanding that a bill is also known as a bill of exchange as defined within the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Whereas it is my understanding that for an instrument to be classed as a bill, or bill of exchange, it must be signed by the person giving it, as defined within section 3, sub-section 1 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Whereas it is my understanding that an instrument which does not comply with the conditions of section 3, sub-section 1 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, is not a bill of exchange, or bill, as defined within section 3, sub-section 2 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Whereas it is my understanding that the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference xxxx and Property Reference xxxx sent to Mr J Doe care of [address in question] is not signed by the person giving it and therefore is not a bill or bill of exchange as defined by section 3, sub-sections 1 and 2 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Although I accept receipt of the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference xxxx and Property Reference xxxx sent to Mr J Doe care of [address in question], in view of my understandings above I cannot pay this alleged debt because the instrument I received is not a bill, or bill of exchange, as it does not meet with the requirements of a bill of exchange as defined in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

If you would like me to pay for the alleged debt mentioned in the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference xxxx and Property Reference xxxx sent to Mr J Doe care of [address in question], I will require a bill of exchange as defined in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 to be sent to me no later than SEVEN (7) days from the date of this letter.

If I do not receive a bill of exchange for the alleged debt mentioned in the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference xxxx and Property Reference xxxx sent to Mr J Doe care of [address in question], within SEVEN (7) days of the date of this letter I will assume that this alleged debt is fully discharged and no longer applicable or enforceable to me or to any other occupier of the dwelling known as [address in question].

Your response should be sent to John Doe care of [address in question].

I do not accept that I have dishonoured any bill of exchange from Thanet District Council because to date I do not accept that I have received a valid bill of exchange, as defined by the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Yours sincerely,

John Doe

[sara h]

My recent council tax 'bill' is titled

'council tax demand 2009/10'

and further down the letter it says :

'This bill includes payments and amendments to your account up to 26/02/2009. Reason for bill: Annual'

Does this make it a bill or a demand? or both?

dont know if this was the right thing to do, or if it was the right place to post this, I'm new, but am very interested in how this turns out for you.

[number_6]

Whereas it is my understanding that the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference xxxx and Property Reference xxxx sent to Mr J Doe care of [address in question] is not signed by the person giving it and therefore is not a bill or bill of exchange as defined by section 3, sub-sections 1 and 2 of the Bills of Exchange Act

My only reservation is that where it says "Thanet District Council" may be considered to be the signature.

[elemental mechanic]

spoonogsback

i like what you have written and have been trying to put something together of a similar nature. it progresses slowly as im still in the process of digesting the various parts of common law etc.

given the time scale for the start of the new financial year council tax bill would it be wise for me to put one forward with my current limited understanding i have at present.

(any feedback gratefully received)

[spoonogsback]

Ok ! spoonog (skype) for conversation ...........typing gives me the hump! sorry guys!
I hate it......... the rules of notices can be looked up very easily ........ I will speak to and listen to any that wish it anytime ....... Oh and No6 Im not trying to piss you off. I just felt that you were speaking about fact when you were giving opinion.....simple as that...... If you look up the response to any notices sent to your Primeminister you'll clearle see they say in 3 days from reciept of notice a response ( not an answer mind that's different ...will be sent or issued) they are the highest office in the Corp. and therefore they have to be in honour at all times.......so.......anyway if you truly wish to Comprehend ( not understand ) you could ponder on that for a while..........
Peace to you all..........

[spoonogsback]

Hi yozhik there is a little video on youtube known as the fine print by Spoonogsback perhaps it would be of interest to you and others..............My peace to you......

[spoonogsback]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69qBTupKm8Y

this is a little video that relates to the fine print on contracts that so many sign without knowing..........I think all should view and then afterwards get a magnifying glass and look very carefully at any so called official doc's.
I used a microscope connected to pc and then video taped the results..... none of this writing can be seen with the naked eye.............

[spoonogsback]

Whoops perhaps I should not have posted vid link here .... anyway if you wish check out spoonogsback channel on youtube and see for yourself........ok peace

[girlgye]

NO NO NO three day from recipt of notice is the rule of notices there is no difficulty for them to respond even if it is a " we got your notice and will respond in X days with your acceptence" they know how to do this folks . They know it well .
Dont be fooled by their exclaminations that they didnt know or understand. These people if they dont know the rules should not be in the game Hurting people.....Thats what they do they may not realise it but that changes nothing........remember ignorance is no defense...........peace

OK I respect your passion.
Winston Shrout says this, so ok.

Provide me the evidence in Law please, I'd really like to see this and please don't tell me to sit through Kelowana and watch it 3 times. As you know I've got a shit ton of Notices to prepare as well as you know, walk on water and part the red sea in my spare time.

A Notice that is NOtarised is legal and takes it into the public. Anything else is private and up to the judge to deal with how he sees fit.

Oh and don't have skype and all such luxuries associated in the private. Though you can speak to me over the phone if you wish and anything you do say regarding the questions which have been addressed to you by myself and NO6 I will post back up on this thread where in all respect the response is due. Is it not?

A simple reference in writing to the rule of Law you are referring to should suffice on this thread. That way we can rate it and examine it for ourselves.

[girlgye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69qBTupKm8Y

this is a little video that relates to the fine print on contracts that so many sign without knowing..........I think all should view and then afterwards get a magnifying glass and look very carefully at any so called official doc's.
I used a microscope connected to pc and then video taped the results..... none of this writing can be seen with the naked eye.............

Well if ya gonna dance with the devil what really can you expect? HOwever, there are rules of law which apply to this kind of thing and again it is up to a judge to decide whether the small print applies to you or not. If you know your Contract law you may or may not convince him that you signed it in error and that the contract was drawn up on a treacherous legal premise in the first place. I'm sure there are easier ways of going about doing things. I for one am not going to lose any sleep over whether I got a Notice exactly right or not. Maybe the facts have to really stack up but as I will be speaking my truth of fact as I understand that's all I need and of course watch that I don't go into admiralty having bound myself to their contract in the first place.

But what do I know I've only been doing this 6 weeks but facing possible prison sentence it's amazing what you can garner when your backs well and truely against the wall. HOw long have you been doing this Commercial REdemption stuff Spoons?

[number_6]

Ok ! spoonog (skype) for conversation ...........typing gives me the hump! sorry guys!
I hate it......... the rules of notices can be looked up very easily ...

Looked up where? Please provide a link. Just because the Prime Minister agrees to respond in three days, it does not automatically follow that that is the law that will apply everywhere, it is just something that he/she has offered. I would also disagree that the Prime Minister holds the "highest office"

[the worm that turned]

My recent council tax 'bill' is titled

'council tax demand 2009/10'

and further down the letter it says :

'This bill includes payments and amendments to your account up to 26/02/2009. Reason for bill: Annual'

Does this make it a bill or a demand? or both?

dont know if this was the right thing to do, or if it was the right place to post this, I'm new, but am very interested in how this turns out for you.

This is what we are trying to determine here. Try reading the draft letter I have prepared in my post before your first post or you can look at the statute related to this, the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, or both ;)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1882/cukpga_18820061_en_1

[the worm that turned]

My only reservation is that where it says "Thanet District Council" may be considered to be the signature.

The information in the Bills of Exchange Act relating to signatures is as follows:

91 Signature

(1)Where, by this Act, any instrument or writing is required to be signed by any person it is not necessary that he should sign it with his own hand, but it is sufficient if his signature is written thereon by some other person by or under his authority.

(2)In the case of a corporation, where, by this Act, any instrument or writing is required to be signed, it is sufficient if the instrument or writing be sealed with the corporate seal.

But nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the bill or note of a corporation to be under seal.

So the definition of a Corporate or Company Seal according to Wiki is:

A company seal (sometimes referred to as the corporate seal or common seal) is an official seal used by a company. Company seals were predominantly used by companies in common law jurisdictions, although in modern times, most countries have abrogated the use of seals.[1]

Traditionally, the seal was of some legal significance because the affixing of the seal signified that the document was the act and deed of the company, whereas when a document was merely signed by a director, then that was deemed to be an act carried out on behalf of the company by its agents, which was subject to applicable restrictions and limitations under the ordinary law of agency.

Corporate seals are generally only used for two purposes by corporations today:

* Documents which need to be executed as deeds (as opposed to simple contracts), may be executed under the company's common seal
* Certain corporate documents, for example share certificates are often issued under the company seal (and some countries required that share certificates be issued under the common seal)

Physically, seals used to be used to make an impression on melted wax on the relevant document, although modern seals will usually only leave an indentation or impression on the paper (although sometimes a red wafer is used to imitate old red wax seals, and to make the sealing show up better on photocopies).

So to be honest I do not think that it is possible for this council to claim that they have signed or sealed (with a corporate seal). It is my understanding that the seal must contain the company name and number as the minimum. It would be interesting to see a council admit that it is a company!!!

Any comments on the actual content of the letter anyone???

[the worm that turned]

Hi yozhik there is a little video on youtube known as the fine print by Spoonogsback perhaps it would be of interest to you and others..............My peace to you......

Watched your vid, very interesting. I know from working in a particular industry that it is important to develop microscopic writing to reduce counterfeiting, but don't get me wrong, I do not think this is what is happening in all instances of your vid. What I find most worrying is the INVALID written on a birth certificate. What do you think that might mean? I personally think that it means that the COPY of the certificate you are offered when you register your child's birth is invalid, and the only valid certificate is the one held by the Government office (thus preventing you from any claim to right using this certificate). What says you?

Cheers - The Worm

[yozhik]

Watched your vid, very interesting. I know from working in a particular industry that it is important to develop microscopic writing to reduce counterfeiting, but don't get me wrong, I do not think this is what is happening in all instances of your vid. What I find most worrying is the INVALID written on a birth certificate. What do you think that might mean? I personally think that it means that the COPY of the certificate you are offered when you register your child's birth is invalid, and the only valid certificate is the one held by the Government office (thus preventing you from any claim to right using this certificate). What says you?

Cheers - The Worm

Rather than hypothesising; why not just go directly to the source and asking? :D

Dear GRO,

On the birth certificate, your bonded paper has the word "INVALID" in the bottom left (I'm guessing the location).

Could you please explain to me what this refers to?
What is invalid?
What is the purpose of its inclusion on the document?

Regards,

Disgruntled Slave


Now, as far as I know, when it comes to the design and printing of bonded paper, it comes with a clear set of instructions and notes pertaining to the design. These notes must be available somewhere; if even by FIA.

Good find. :)

[the worm that turned]

I hate to be a bore, but can we attempt to get back on topic with this thread and talk about how to tackle a Council Tax Letter claiming to be a Bill.

In my last draft Notice I mentioned that if they do not respond within the allotted time frame (seven days) I would assume that the alleged debt is fully discharged and no longer applicable or enforceable to me or any other occupier of the dwelling known as xxxx. Is this an acceptable Offer/request (or whatever it is called) to make? Could it be better worded (and the rest of the letter for that matter)?

I really look forward to hearing from you all, as I intend to send this Notice out tomorrow and to pass on to as many people who have also received a letter like this (e.g. friends and family).

Many thanks,

The Worm

[spoonogsback]

Hi guys just so you know I'm not in the UK......I'm on the land known as Ireland. Some of the questions being put to me I comprehend, I realise there are many things known by some and not so much by others.........I've been at this Kinda thing for many many years now so all I can tell you truthfully is that over time all I have been shown and discovered has stood the test of time. (as for rules of notices etc. a long time ago I went and collected lots and lots of secondhand books from law students) .
I found the most important thing over time is to set my rules and they have to be reasonable.....The oldest rule of notice I have is in Brehon law and its 3 days from reciept of notice to respond not answer. So common law was the same either way if you give /grant 3 days they will never ever complain about this !!!!!!! if this aspect was incorrect they would have claimed by now that this was an unreasonable time frame but they haven't to anyone I know so it's good for them......
The thing is guys even if they fail to respond in 3 days you can grant another 3 days allow for posting too and from etc. so this is a moot point. THere is a danger however if you do not respond to their notices within 3 days even if they offer more ignore their time frame even if its just a small notice to let them know you got it and are preparing a notice in full response to same you'll still discharge their notice and be in honour......
Oh as for the small print I am fully aware of its function as an anti fraud device.....But theres more to it than that......check your docs if a birth cert has INVALID on it then think what will happen if you accept it for value ?????? Crafty beggars are they not???

[yozhik]

I hate to be a bore, but can we attempt to get back on topic with this thread and talk about how to tackle a Council Tax Letter claiming to be a Bill.

In my last draft Notice I mentioned that if they do not respond within the allotted time frame (seven days) I would assume that the alleged debt is fully discharged and no longer applicable or enforceable to me or any other occupier of the dwelling known as xxxx. Is this an acceptable Offer/request (or whatever it is called) to make? Could it be better worded (and the rest of the letter for that matter)?

I really look forward to hearing from you all, as I intend to send this Notice out tomorrow and to pass on to as many people who have also received a letter like this (e.g. friends and family).

Many thanks,

The Worm

It seems good to me ... :)

"failure to respond to this Notice within the stated time frame will be deemed tacit acceptance of the offer, satisfaction in full and discharge of the alleged debt, and irrefutable agreement to estoppel by acquiesence."

I would like to point out that I am unsure whether 7 days is "reasonable". I have no knowledge of what is "reasonable".

[yozhik]

check your docs if a birth cert has INVALID on it then think what will happen if you accept it for value ?????? Crafty beggars are they not???

Also relevant is the way in which you pronounce the word. :rolleyes:

If a document is "invalid"; we hear it to mean not admissible.
If a man, woman or child is described as being an "invalid"; we hear it as meaning disabled or "differently abled" (I think is the PC expression).

Same spelling ... essentially the same word ... different pronunciation ... different perception.

[the worm that turned]

It seems good to me ... :)

"failure to respond to this Notice within the stated time frame will be deemed tacit acceptance of the offer, satisfaction in full and discharge of the alleged debt, and irrefutable agreement to estoppel by acquiesence."

I would like to point out that I am unsure whether 7 days is "reasonable". I have no knowledge of what is "reasonable".

Thanks for additional wording. 7 days seems reasonable to me, all they need to do is send a signed version!

[the worm that turned]

OK so here goes with the final draft - any last input before I send it tomorrow?

-------FINAL DRAFT--------

23 March 2009

Dear Sirs,

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT RELATING TO THE LETTER TITLED "COUNCIL TAX BILL 2009/2010"
Account Reference [removed] Property Reference [removed]

Thank you for sending the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference [removed] and Property Reference [removed] to [me] care of [my address]. In relation to this letter, I would like to bring to your attention the following:

WHEREAS it is my understanding that a bill is also known as a bill of exchange as defined within the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

WHEREAS it is my understanding that for an instrument to be classed as a bill, or bill of exchange, it must be signed by the person giving it, as defined within section 3, sub-section 1 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

WHEREAS it is my understanding that an instrument which does not comply with the conditions of section 3, sub-section 2 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, is not a bill of exchange, or bill.

WHEREAS it is my understanding that the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference [removed] and Property Reference [removed] sent to [me] care of [my address] is not signed by the person giving it and therefore is not a bill or bill of exchange as defined by section 3, sub-sections 1 and 2 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

ALTHOUGH I ACCEPT RECEIPT of the letter titled “Council Tax Bill 2009/2010” dated 16 March 2009, with the Account Reference [removed] and Property Reference [removed] sent to [me] care of [my address], in view of my understandings above I do not consider it possible for me to pay this alleged debt because the instrument I received is not a bill, or bill of exchange, as it does not meet with the requirements of a bill of exchange as defined in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

TO ENABLE ME TO CONSIDER PAYMENT OF THE ALLEGED DEBT MENTIONED IN THE LETTER TITLED “COUNCIL TAX BILL 2009/2010” DATED 16 MARCH 2009, WITH THE ACCOUNT REFERENCE [removed] AND PROPERTY REFERENCE [removed] SENT TO [me] CARE OF [my address], I REQUIRE A BILL OF EXCHANGE, AS DEFINED IN THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882, TO BE RECEIVED BY ME NO LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE.

YOUR RESPONSE SHOULD BE SENT TO [me] CARE OF [my address].

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE STATED TIME FRAME WILL BE DEEMED TACIT ACCEPTANCE OF THIS OFFER, SATISFACTION IN FULL AND DISCHARGE OF THE ALLEGED DEBT, AND IRREFUTABLE AGREEMENT TO ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE.

IN ANY CASE I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT I HAVE DISHONOURED ANY BILL OF EXCHANGE FROM [local] DISTRICT COUNCIL BECAUSE TO DATE I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT I HAVE RECEIVED A VALID BILL OF EXCHANGE, AS DEFINED BY THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882.


Yours sincerely,



[my name]

[girlgye]

It seems good to me ... :)

"failure to respond to this Notice within the stated time frame will be deemed tacit acceptance of the offer, satisfaction in full and discharge of the alleged debt, and irrefutable agreement to estoppel by acquiesence."

I would like to point out that I am unsure whether 7 days is "reasonable". I have no knowledge of what is "reasonable".

Grrr. Easy Tiger.
Thanks for that last line Yoshi you're brilliant and helpful as ever. x

[girlgye]

The information in the Bills of Exchange Act relating to signatures is as follows:

91 Signature

(1)Where, by this Act, any instrument or writing is required to be signed by any person it is not necessary that he should sign it with his own hand, but it is sufficient if his signature is written thereon by some other person by or under his authority.

(2)In the case of a corporation, where, by this Act, any instrument or writing is required to be signed, it is sufficient if the instrument or writing be sealed with the corporate seal.

But nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the bill or note of a corporation to be under seal.

So the definition of a Corporate or Company Seal according to Wiki is:

A company seal (sometimes referred to as the corporate seal or common seal) is an official seal used by a company. Company seals were predominantly used by companies in common law jurisdictions, although in modern times, most countries have abrogated the use of seals.[1]

Traditionally, the seal was of some legal significance because the affixing of the seal signified that the document was the act and deed of the company, whereas when a document was merely signed by a director, then that was deemed to be an act carried out on behalf of the company by its agents, which was subject to applicable restrictions and limitations under the ordinary law of agency.

Corporate seals are generally only used for two purposes by corporations today:

* Documents which need to be executed as deeds (as opposed to simple contracts), may be executed under the company's common seal
* Certain corporate documents, for example share certificates are often issued under the company seal (and some countries required that share certificates be issued under the common seal)

Physically, seals used to be used to make an impression on melted wax on the relevant document, although modern seals will usually only leave an indentation or impression on the paper (although sometimes a red wafer is used to imitate old red wax seals, and to make the sealing show up better on photocopies).

So to be honest I do not think that it is possible for this council to claim that they have signed or sealed (with a corporate seal). It is my understanding that the seal must contain the company name and number as the minimum. It would be interesting to see a council admit that it is a company!!!

Any comments on the actual content of the letter anyone???

Thanks for this twtt. You see I'm restling with the legality of Notices that are sent to me with a squiggle and signed for an on behalf of whoever, usually a head of the department that is responsible for sending you the letter. my view is that it isn't authorised. Afterall you can't respond to a squiggle can you? This says they can do that or have I miss understood it?

[girlgye]

This is what we are trying to determine here. Try reading the draft letter I have prepared in my post before your first post or you can look at the statute related to this, the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, or both ;)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1882/cukpga_18820061_en_1

Hmm there are legislative effects to this and I can't garner how I'm to get at the info can you tell me I must be doing something wrong here as all it is doing is giving me the lists of effects and titles but no info.

[yozhik]

I may be going crazy, but upon reading the Bills of Exchange Act again, something became very obvious to my tired eyes;

Part I
Preliminary
2 Interpretation of terms
“Person” includes a body of persons whether incorporated or not.

Part II
Bills of Exchange
Form and Interpretation

3 Bill of exchange defined

(1)A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.

(2)An instrument which does not comply with these conditions, or which orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a bill of exchange.

... this does not apply to you, a living, breathing, sentient being.
Why? Because you are not a body of persons, as "person" is defined within the statute.

[girlgye]

I'm tired and stressed too. So maybe respond to this when we are both a bit more with it.

Your remark here Yoshik:-
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE STATED TIME FRAME WILL BE DEEMED TACIT ACCEPTANCE OF THIS OFFER, SATISFACTION IN FULL AND DISCHARGE OF THE ALLEGED DEBT, AND IRREFUTABLE AGREEMENT TO ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE.

Isn't this a bit premature in a first stage Notice? Would you like it if they gave you no room to maneuver after a first Notice.

[the worm that turned]

I may be going crazy, but upon reading the Bills of Exchange Act again, something became very obvious to my tired eyes;


... this does not apply to you, a living, breathing, sentient being.
Why? Because you are not a body of persons, as "person" is defined within the statute.

Well when and if they send me a bill I will respond as a man and say that it does not apply to me as I am not a body of persons. One step at a time ;)

Although on second reading it does say:

“Person” includes a body of persons whether incorporated or not.

So why does it say "includes" instead of "means"? Perhaps it assumes that the reader understands what person means?

[yozhik]

I'm tired and stressed too. So maybe respond to this when we are both a bit more with it.

Your remark here Yoshik:-
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE STATED TIME FRAME WILL BE DEEMED TACIT ACCEPTANCE OF THIS OFFER, SATISFACTION IN FULL AND DISCHARGE OF THE ALLEGED DEBT, AND IRREFUTABLE AGREEMENT TO ESTOPPAL BY ACQUIESCENCE.

Isn't this a bit premature in a first stage Notice? Would you like it if they gave you no room to maneuver after a first Notice.

To avoid estoppal, all that is required is a response.
Is it to much to insist the notice is not ignored?
There is no limitation as to the nature of the response; just that there IS one.
Hence my question re: timeframe being reasonable.
However, if it would be your preference to serve 1st Notice, 2nd Notice, then Notice of Default; then do it. :)

The beauty of it is, its the author's Notice; it can be drafted however the author wants to draft it.
The moderating decision to make as to how aggressive it is, would be how enforceable is it, should it come down to independent judgement. i.e. have your actions and demands been reasonable and could they have been complied with or responded to?

But please, also keep in mind some key points;
1) I am not a lawyer
2) anything I offer is as a personal, non-professional opinion only
3) my posts are merely of my own interpreted summary of information I have read and perceived, offered in the form of a wholly subjective summary of non-legal opinion.
4) I have been known to talk shite. :)
5) I am human and as such, guilty and vulnerable to error, hyperbole, ego and vanity.

[the worm that turned]

I'm tired and stressed too. So maybe respond to this when we are both a bit more with it.

Your remark here Yoshik:-
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE WITHIN THE STATED TIME FRAME WILL BE DEEMED TACIT ACCEPTANCE OF THIS OFFER, SATISFACTION IN FULL AND DISCHARGE OF THE ALLEGED DEBT, AND IRREFUTABLE AGREEMENT TO ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE.

Isn't this a bit premature in a first stage Notice? Would you like it if they gave you no room to maneuver after a first Notice.

There is a lot of room for manoeuvre, send a valid bill of exchange, or explain why not, as long as they don't dishonour my notice then a judge would be happy with this. If they ignore me then I feel it is fair that the debt is discharged.

[yozhik]

There is a lot of room for manoeuvre, send a valid bill of exchange, or explain why not, as long as they don't dishonour my notice then a judge would be happy with this. If they ignore me then I feel it is fair that the debt is discharged.

Yeah - that's my take on it too.
As I stated in a previous post; estoppal is very easy to avoid.
All that is required is a response - any response; even a "fuck off you dreamer!" is a response :D ... the only unacceptable response that instantly puts them into dishonour is no response. i.e. ignoring your notice.

[girlgye]

There is a lot of room for manoeuvre, send a valid bill of exchange, or explain why not, as long as they don't dishonour my notice then a judge would be happy with this. If they ignore me then I feel it is fair that the debt is discharged.

Would he?

Relevant 'case law' where he/she judge has in the uk would be appreciated please.

As far as I'm aware where from conversations with individuals people are up to with this is the Council Tax peeps have stopped bothering them. I'm alot further up the line that though and they have been bothering me well and truly.

[the worm that turned]

Yeah - that's my take on it too.
As I stated in a previous post; estoppal is very easy to avoid.
All that is required is a response - any response; even a "fuck off you dreamer!" is a response :D ... the only unacceptable response that instantly puts them into dishonour is no response. i.e. ignoring your notice.

So lets stop beating about the bush and I'll be the guinea pig in this instance. I'll send tomorrow and see what happens. My only concern is, is a bill actually necessary for a debt covered by the Local Government Finance Act, or is a bill ALWAYS required in any transaction?

[yozhik]

I'm alot further up the line that though and they have been bothering me well and truly.

Can you give more specific details?
Sounds interesting and valuable learning information. :)
If not - I fully respect your decision.

[yozhik]

So lets stop beating about the bush and I'll be the guinea pig in this instance. I'll send tomorrow and see what happens. My only concern is, is a bill actually necessary for a debt covered by the Local Government Finance Act, or is a bill ALWAYS required in any transaction?

Lets beat around the bush a few more times and read the Local Government Finance Act to determine what is and what is not required. :)

[elek]

Regardless of whether you get a reply I don’t think you will have much success trying to argue estoppel as it is settled law that a council cannot be estopped from carrying out a statutory duty, see Western Fish Products v Penwith District Council and Department of The Environment, (1981) 2 All ER 204. This is also the case in other common law jurisdictions such as the US, see Mitchell Schorr v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, 2006, NY Slip Op 02083 No. 33. Collection of council tax is a statutory duty imposed upon local authorities by Section 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

Interestingly estoppel by acquiescence is not a common law remedy; broadly speaking estoppel at common law requires an express act. Rather, it is a form of proprietary estoppel, part of the Law of Equity which was created by judges to relieve some of the injustices that a strict common law system produces.

Council tax “bills” are a demand and must contain specific information. For the information they are required to contain see:

The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations 2003 S.I. 2003/2613 amended by S.I. 2003/3081, 2004/3389, 2006/217, 2006/492, 2006/3395, 2008/387 and 2008/3264

all available on the OPSI web site.

[yozhik]

Regardless of whether you get a reply I don’t think you will have much success trying to argue estoppel as it is settled law that a council cannot be estopped from carrying out a statutory duty, see Western Fish Products v Penwith District Council and Department of The Environment, (1981) 2 All ER 204. This is also the case in other common law jurisdictions such as the US, see Mitchell Schorr v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, 2006, NY Slip Op 02083 No. 33. Collection of council tax is a statutory duty imposed upon local authorities by Section 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

Interestingly estoppel by acquiescence is not a common law remedy; broadly speaking estoppel at common law requires an express act. Rather, it is a form of proprietary estoppel, part of the Law of Equity which was created by judges to relieve some of the injustices that a strict common law system produces.

Council tax “bills” are a demand and must contain specific information. For the information they are required to contain see:

The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations 2003 S.I. 2003/2613 amended by S.I. 2003/3081, 2004/3389, 2006/217, 2006/492, 2006/3395, 2008/387 and 2008/3264

all available on the OPSI web site.

Nice info!

Some more homework for me to do :)

[girlgye]

WEll as long as you don't eat shite I guess what ever makes you tick.:p


To avoid estoppal, all that is required is a response.
Is it to much to insist the notice is not ignored?
There is no limitation as to the nature of the response; just that there IS one.
Hence my question re: timeframe being reasonable.
However, if it would be your preference to serve 1st Notice, 2nd Notice, then Notice of Default; then do it. :)

The beauty of it is, its the author's Notice; it can be drafted however the author wants to draft it.
The moderating decision to make as to how aggressive it is, would be how enforceable is it, should it come down to independent judgement. i.e. have your actions and demands been reasonable and could they have been complied with or responded to?

But please, also keep in mind some key points;
1) I am not a lawyer
2) anything I offer is as a personal, non-professional opinion only
3) my posts are merely of my own interpreted summary of information I have read and perceived, offered in the form of a wholly subjective summary of non-legal opinion.
4) I have been known to talk shite. :)
5) I am human and as such, guilty and vulnerable to error, hyperbole, ego and vanity.

[girlgye]

Oh and another thing..

I don't suppose half the lawyers in the country have any clue what they are on about half the time - some I know are too pissed to even care half the time. You can't go getting a freeman litigant friend to win your case any more than one can get a lawyer to win your case. He/She or may not get you where you need to be depending on so many unfathomable variables. Unless you're really good at something like card counting or spiritual intuition which may give you a head start but probably not likely coz we are usually dealing with a whole bunch of crazy human beings once we get into a court battle. Never nice to be shown up by learned friends in Court but if you don't like the rules of the game guess you ought not to play it. Those of you who live in the UK will find though that this is practically nigh on impossible. Today I went out of my house and will have been filmed at least 160 times in the space of 2 hours. i have no doubt that soon I'll be getting summons for going over the line.

[girlgye]

I think estoppel by acquiesance is part of a series of demand notices in the Commercial Redemption Brigade.
Perhaps David could put up a separate site coz they are different. the moral of the story is get your facts right for yourself and don't depend on gurus to do your thinking for you. So many people are cutting and pasting Acts off of others work and the legal plughole has well and truly been closed.

Regardless of whether you get a reply I don’t think you will have much success trying to argue estoppel as it is settled law that a council cannot be estopped from carrying out a statutory duty, see Western Fish Products v Penwith District Council and Department of The Environment, (1981) 2 All ER 204. This is also the case in other common law jurisdictions such as the US, see Mitchell Schorr v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, 2006, NY Slip Op 02083 No. 33. Collection of council tax is a statutory duty imposed upon local authorities by Section 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

Interestingly estoppel by acquiescence is not a common law remedy; broadly speaking estoppel at common law requires an express act. Rather, it is a form of proprietary estoppel, part of the Law of Equity which was created by judges to relieve some of the injustices that a strict common law system produces.

Council tax “bills” are a demand and must contain specific information. For the information they are required to contain see:

The Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Demand Notices) (England) Regulations 2003 S.I. 2003/2613 amended by S.I. 2003/3081, 2004/3389, 2006/217, 2006/492, 2006/3395, 2008/387 and 2008/3264

all available on the OPSI web site.

[yozhik]

I think estoppel by acquiesance is part of a series of demand notices in the Commercial Redemption Brigade.
Perhaps David could put up a separate site coz they are different. the moral of the story is get your facts right for yourself and don't depend on gurus to do your thinking for you. So many people are cutting and pasting Acts off of others work and the legal plughole has well and truly been closed.

My comprehension of estoppal by acquiescence is pretty much along the lines of;

Listen asswipe, you've ignored me and tried to play "my dick is bigger then your dick" with the wrong guy. I've tried to be nice and have given you more than enough warning; but enough is enough. No more. As from this very nano second, I'm not taking any more of your shit. This subject is closed - you had your chance. Now fuck off ... and the horse you rode in on.

Just not sure if that would go down too well, if it ever came up in front of judgey wudgey

[girlgye]

My comprehension of estoppal by acquiescence is pretty much along the lines of;

Listen asswipe, you've ignored me and tried to play "my dick is bigger then your dick" with the wrong guy. I've tried to be nice and have given you more than enough warning; but enough is enough. No more. As from this very nano second, I'm not taking any more of your shit. This subject is closed - you had your chance. Now fuck off ... and the horse you rode in on.

Just not sure if that would go down too well, if it ever came up in front of judgey wudgey

quite and as I've learned to my bitter experience. Make sure you know what the hell you are doing where CR is concerned. This is a legal tenet not just something to whip someone over the head with when ever you feel like it.
There is a set procedure to be followed before this can legally be introduced as far as I'm aware. Someone with more CR experience can correct me but it is unlikely anyone that is into CR would be on this site.

[jimmi]

My council tax bill is a notice, the word 'bill' is not to be found!

It states.....COUNCIL TAX DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR.

Now it is my understanding(comprehension) that a notice does not have to be paid but I do have to respond,which I shall be doing, so any input will be appreciated before I get the ball rolling.


draft:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your notice regarding payment of council tax.

I am unsure of its purpose as it is my understanding that a notice does not require payment.

Is there an expectation on your part that I am to treat your notice as a bill that requires payment?

Will I receive a separate bill from you requiring payment in regard to council tax?

Yours Sincerely, .......

[the worm that turned]

Well my reply to the council has been sent so let's see what happens in 10 days from now. I will of course keep you all posted. Also sent one to the water authority for my area who also sent a "bill" with no signature.

I am still a little bit uncertain about these 3 points:

1) If the letter they sent is not a bill (Bill of Exchange) then what else could it be and how does that stand in the legal/statute world? My understanding is that if A asked B for money without B asking for a formal Bill of Exchange, and then B paid, then that is his perogative and upon payment he accepts the "contract" between them. Still would love a further clarification of the differences between invoice, bill and bill of exchange - anyone?

2) What affect the estoppel by acquiescence part will have on the council, will it instigate their legal team?

3) If they send a signed Bill what should I do next!!! I'm contemplating asking what COMPANY the signatory works for before making payment, for obvious reasons that I want to know EXACTLY where my money is going.

speak soon...

[elek]

Well my reply to the council has been sent so let's see what happens in 10 days from now. I will of course keep you all posted. Also sent one to the water authority for my area who also sent a "bill" with no signature.

I am still a little bit uncertain about these 3 points:

1) If the letter they sent is not a bill (Bill of Exchange) then what else could it be and how does that stand in the legal/statute world? My understanding is that if A asked B for money without B asking for a formal Bill of Exchange, and then B paid, then that is his perogative and upon payment he accepts the "contract" between them. Still would love a further clarification of the differences between invoice, bill and bill of exchange - anyone?

2) What affect the estoppel by acquiescence part will have on the council, will it instigate their legal team?

3) If they send a signed Bill what should I do next!!! I'm contemplating asking what COMPANY the signatory works for before making payment, for obvious reasons that I want to know EXACTLY where my money is going.

speak soon...

Hope this helps with your questions.

1) A “bill”, i.e. a request for payment for a service rendered, is not a bill of exchange. A bill of exchange is a promissory note; it is not a request for payment. It is a promise to pay i.e. the person issuing the bill of exchange is promising to pay; an example of a bill of exchange is a cheque. A bill of exchange operates outside the law of contract, there is no offer, acceptance or consideration, possession of the bill of exchange in itself is enough to require payment.

Part of the confusion on this site about bills of exchange appears to arise because of a misunderstanding regarding the definition of a bill of exchange taken from the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and unfamiliarity with the difference between someone who holds a bill of exchange and someone to whom it is issued:

3 Bill of exchange defined

(1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.

Using this definition it does at first sight seems like a demand for money;

A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand...

However this is not the case because the person to whom the bill of exchange is issued (the person ordered to pay) is not the same as the holder of the bill of exchange. The person the bill of exchange is issued to is a person who controls the monies of the person issuing the bill of exchange, normally a bank or financial institution.

Whilst the language seems a bit complicated at first sight the true position is easily understood when thinking of something we are more familiar with like writing a cheque. Whilst we talk of writing “someone” a cheque what we are in fact doing is:

making an unconditional order in writing (a cheque) by one person (me) to another (my bank), signed by the person giving it (me), requiring the person to whom it is addressed (my bank) to pay on demand (to the person holding the cheque) ... a sum certain in money ...

So, a bill of exchange is not a bill, they are entirely unconnected. If the letter from the council tax department is not a bill of exchange is it a bill? No, it is a demand. Your obligation to pay council tax is not based on contract it is a liability placed on you by The Local Government Finance Act 1992, Pt 1, Chapter 1, Section 6 (assuming you fall within those specified)

2) Estoppel. The person opening your letter at the council will not be legally qualified; it is not likely he/she will have ever heard of estoppel. He/she will only be familiar with the rules and regulations of council tax which they work with on a daily basis. He/she may pass your letter on to a senior officer who will write to you or you may just receive another identical demand notice without further comment. The legal department is only likely to become involved directly if you don’t pay and are taken to court. As discussed earlier a council cannot be estopped from carrying out a statutory duty anyway so estoppel is of no significance.

3) Asking for a signed bill will make no difference as the contents of a council tax demand are specified by legislation (see my earlier post). The money collected from council tax is spent on local services such as street care, libraries, care for the elderly etc, you will normally receive some documentation with the demand showing how it is spent. For accounting purposes it is held in the local authority's “General Fund”. If you contact your local authority’s finance team they will normally be willing to explain how the local authority’s finances work.

Finally, the concepts discussed in this thread appear again to be our old discredited friend commercial redemption, for an account of its sorry history see:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=74

If commercial redemption worked advice agencies the length of the UK would be using it and little old ladies of 80 wouldn’t be receiving liability orders from the court for non payment. The fact is it doesn’t and the only thing that it will bring you in the long run is a trip to the magistrates court, a liability order and the additional burden of the local authority’s legal costs. Just hate to see someone getting stuffed with additional costs due to being given poor advice.

[the worm that turned]

Hope this helps with your questions.

1) A “bill”, i.e. a request for payment for a service rendered, is not a bill of exchange. A bill of exchange is a promissory note; it is not a request for payment. It is a promise to pay i.e. the person issuing the bill of exchange is promising to pay; an example of a bill of exchange is a cheque. A bill of exchange operates outside the law of contract, there is no offer, acceptance or consideration, possession of the bill of exchange in itself is enough to require payment.

Part of the confusion on this site about bills of exchange appears to arise because of a misunderstanding regarding the definition of a bill of exchange taken from the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and unfamiliarity with the difference between someone who holds a bill of exchange and someone to whom it is issued:

3 Bill of exchange defined

(1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.

Using this definition it does at first sight seems like a demand for money;

A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand...

However this is not the case because the person to whom the bill of exchange is issued (the person ordered to pay) is not the same as the holder of the bill of exchange. The person the bill of exchange is issued to is a person who controls the monies of the person issuing the bill of exchange, normally a bank or financial institution.

Whilst the language seems a bit complicated at first sight the true position is easily understood when thinking of something we are more familiar with like writing a cheque. Whilst we talk of writing “someone” a cheque what we are in fact doing is:

making an unconditional order in writing (a cheque) by one person (me) to another (my bank), signed by the person giving it (me), requiring the person to whom it is addressed (my bank) to pay on demand (to the person holding the cheque) ... a sum certain in money ...

So, a bill of exchange is not a bill, they are entirely unconnected. If the letter from the council tax department is not a bill of exchange is it a bill? No, it is a demand. Your obligation to pay council tax is not based on contract it is a liability placed on you by The Local Government Finance Act 1992, Pt 1, Chapter 1, Section 6 (assuming you fall within those specified)

2) Estoppel. The person opening your letter at the council will not be legally qualified; it is not likely he/she will have ever heard of estoppel. He/she will only be familiar with the rules and regulations of council tax which they work with on a daily basis. He/she may pass your letter on to a senior officer who will write to you or you may just receive another identical demand notice without further comment. The legal department is only likely to become involved directly if you don’t pay and are taken to court. As discussed earlier a council cannot be estopped from carrying out a statutory duty anyway so estoppel is of no significance.

3) Asking for a signed bill will make no difference as the contents of a council tax demand are specified by legislation (see my earlier post). The money collected from council tax is spent on local services such as street care, libraries, care for the elderly etc, you will normally receive some documentation with the demand showing how it is spent. For accounting purposes it is held in the local authority's “General Fund”. If you contact your local authority’s finance team they will normally be willing to explain how the local authority’s finances work.

Finally, the concepts discussed in this thread appear again to be our old discredited friend commercial redemption, for an account of its sorry history see:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=74

If commercial redemption worked advice agencies the length of the UK would be using it and little old ladies of 80 wouldn’t be receiving liability orders from the court for non payment. The fact is it doesn’t and the only thing that it will bring you in the long run is a trip to the magistrates court, a liability order and the additional burden of the local authority’s legal costs. Just hate to see someone getting stuffed with additional costs due to being given poor advice.

So in repsonse to 1 of your response, why call it a Bill in the first place? If a Bill is NOT a Bill of Exchange, then what is it? Why does the Bill of Exchange Act state that a Bill of Exchange is also called a Bill? Also, why does the Bill of Exhcange Act have a separate section for Promissory Notes, when you say that a Bill of Exchange is a promissory note? Yet again, great clear legal information for Joe Public!!

[number_6]

Why does the Bill of Exchange Act state that a Bill of Exchange is also called a Bill?

Where, in the Act does it say that?

[elek]

So in repsonse to 1 of your response, why call it a Bill in the first place? If a Bill is NOT a Bill of Exchange, then what is it? Why does the Bill of Exchange Act state that a Bill of Exchange is also called a Bill? Also, why does the Bill of Exhcange Act have a separate section for Promissory Notes, when you say that a Bill of Exchange is a promissory note? Yet again, great clear legal information for Joe Public!!

You’re right it is confusing and it’s not helped by the overly elaborate language used in the 1880’s. The English language has lots of words with different meanings which is why most acts have an interpretation section so as to avoid confusion regarding what is meant. In the 1882 act we find:

2 Interpretation of terms

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

...............

• “Bill” means bill of exchange, and “note” means promissory note.

...............

All this means is that when reading the act “bill” means “bill of exchange”. It does not legally alter the meaning of the word in other contexts or everyday use; bills of parliament, ducks bills and the bill from the coalman all continue to exist, none of them “legally” becoming a bill of exchange because of the wording of the act.

With regard to the separate sections this is because, broadly speaking, cheques and promissory notes are types of bills of exchange; however they have individual characteristics and so are defined individually. Think of it this way, a Ford Galaxy and a Jaguar XK 8 are distinguishable from each other, one is a high performance car and one a people carrier, they both however fall into the category “vehicles”.

[the worm that turned]

You’re right it is confusing and it’s not helped by the overly elaborate language used in the 1880’s. The English language has lots of words with different meanings which is why most acts have an interpretation section so as to avoid confusion regarding what is meant. In the 1882 act we find:

2 Interpretation of terms

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

...............

• “Bill” means bill of exchange, and “note” means promissory note.

...............

All this means is that when reading the act “bill” means “bill of exchange”. It does not legally alter the meaning of the word in other contexts or everyday use; bills of parliament, ducks bills and the bill from the coalman all continue to exist, none of them “legally” becoming a bill of exchange because of the wording of the act.

With regard to the separate sections this is because, broadly speaking, cheques and promissory notes are types of bills of exchange; however they have individual characteristics and so are defined individually. Think of it this way, a Ford Galaxy and a Jaguar XK 8 are distinguishable from each other, one is a high performance car and one a people carrier, they both however fall into the category “vehicles”.

So what you are saying basically contradicts what Rob Menard stated, which was "Not all bills are BOE's. (Bill of Lading) All BOE's are signed and if someone is demanding money from you, then the bill one should be served is a BOE."

So this is why I am a bit confused and now if you are correct, in the words of Derek Trotter, I'm gonna look a right wally!

[arten]

Ok regarding council tax I have had some fun with them because my stance was not that I won't pay but I cannot pay. Anyway they were going to take me to court, then after I sent them a letter they said ok we will with draw the action against you.
One of the points I made to the idiot demanding money, was that it was for services that he could not gurantee providing. And to be honest I think more people should explore that route. They cannot force you to pay for something that you have not had. Like I said to him WW3 could break out, we could be hit by an asteroid or I could drop dead at any moment.
And if I have paid you a whole years Council tax in advance, then you have effectively exhtorted money from me. If everyone took that stance they would soon go bankrupt, food for thought.

[the worm that turned]

Ok regarding council tax I have had some fun with them because my stance was not that I won't pay but I cannot pay. Anyway they were going to take me to court, then after I sent them a letter they said ok we will with draw the action against you.
One of the points I made to the idiot demanding money, was that it was for services that he could not gurantee providing. And to be honest I think more people should explore that route. They cannot force you to pay for something that you have not had. Like I said to him WW3 could break out, we could be hit by an asteroid or I could drop dead at any moment.
And if I have paid you a whole years Council tax in advance, then you have effectively exhtorted money from me. If everyone took that stance they would soon go bankrupt, food for thought.

It's a good point you make but did you end up paying in installments in the end?

I am really trying to ascertain a few things from them, not trying to NOT pay. I have always paid council tax and when it is used properly I don't have a problem with it. Now I am starting to question these people. If they aren't even doing things by the book then how are we supposed to trust them.

I was hopeful that the Bill of Exchange angle might start rustling a few feathers. Now I understand that according to elek a Bill is not a Bill as stated in the Bill of Exchange Act. I am still none the wiser as to what the hell a Bill is then!!! I also understand from Elek that councils have the right to send Notices of Demand (or in my case Bills) because the Local Government Finance Act 1992 says so. This however doesn't explain why Southern Water are now sending me a BILL with no signature on it.

Is this covered by an Act too? WHAT THE HELL IS A BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[arten]

It's a good point you make but did you end up paying in installments in the end?

Yes it is the only way I would ever pay it for reasons given, they could go bankrupt at any moment and cannot gurantee the services they are providing.

[elek]

So what you are saying basically contradicts what Rob Menard stated, which was "Not all bills are BOE's. (Bill of Lading) All BOE's are signed and if someone is demanding money from you, then the bill one should be served is a BOE."

So this is why I am a bit confused and now if you are correct, in the words of Derek Trotter, I'm gonna look a right wally!

Rob Menard is an engaging guy who has a large following. He is not a lawyer and what he is giving is his opinion of what the law is. In addition he is speaking about a different legal jurisdiction which limits it application to the UK. We are all entitled to have an opinion of something, but that does not make our opinion fact.

The arguments that he raises have core values that revolve around a set of beliefs originating in the USA in the 1990’s. They share common features; amongst other things these include an emphasis on unnaturally strained definitions of words, a belief that the stylisation/capitalisation of your name indicates your legal standing, a fixation with the concept of admiralty law, a belief that the government is in fact a corporation, a belief that you can avoid criminal sanctions by carefully worded responses and a view that a conclusion that he draws is a matter of fact rather than opinion. From this position he formulates a view of the world, an interpretation of what the law is and an opinion of how to defend yourself from what he sees as its injustices.

The concept that one person’s view of the law is the law is not how the law, common law, statute or otherwise, operates. Each time a case is heard differing views are put forward in open argument, the court then decides what the correct interpretation of the law is. The arguments put forward by Rob have been tested in the US courts and failed. In many states the court will not even hear arguments concerning things like capitalisation of name anymore, holding them to be vexatious and nonsensical. Ultimately the law is what the courts decide it is, not mine, yours or Rob Menard’s opinion.

[the worm that turned]

Rob Menard is an engaging guy who has a large following. He is not a lawyer and what he is giving is his opinion of what the law is. In addition he is speaking about a different legal jurisdiction which limits it application to the UK. We are all entitled to have an opinion of something, but that does not make our opinion fact.

The arguments that he raises have core values that revolve around a set of beliefs originating in the USA in the 1990’s. They share common features; amongst other things these include an emphasis on unnaturally strained definitions of words, a belief that the stylisation/capitalisation of your name indicates your legal standing, a fixation with the concept of admiralty law, a belief that the government is in fact a corporation, a belief that you can avoid criminal sanctions by carefully worded responses and a view that a conclusion that he draws is a matter of fact rather than opinion. From this position he formulates a view of the world, an interpretation of what the law is and an opinion of how to defend yourself from what he sees as its injustices.

The concept that one person’s view of the law is the law is not how the law, common law, statute or otherwise, operates. Each time a case is heard differing views are put forward in open argument, the court then decides what the correct interpretation of the law is. The arguments put forward by Rob have been tested in the US courts and failed. In many states the court will not even hear arguments concerning things like capitalisation of name anymore, holding them to be vexatious and nonsensical. Ultimately the law is what the courts decide it is, not mine, yours or Rob Menard’s opinion.

Thanks Elek, can I therefore assume you are based in the US? Out of interest, what drew you to the David Icke website forum, was it to help clarify peoples' understanding of law? Are you a lawyer?

When I wrote to the General Registrar about capitalisation of names, the Deputy Registrar General could NOT deny that the creation of a birth record created a legal fiction, or person, and then when pushed to give an answer told me that I had asked too many questions and it was someone elses turn! Now following this up with my MP, after an initial, ill thought out response from him, I've now been waiting over a week for a follow-up from him.

It would seem that Capitilisation DOES have some standing in law, however in my personal opinion, it is more relevant to Statute law (i.e. Acts created and given the force of law by Government) rather than Common Law.

With respect to my other question, what is a Bill? Are there rules that you are aware of for sending a Bill?

[the worm that turned]

According to Hutchinson's Encyclopedia the following is given for a Bill of Exchange:

In Britain, a bill of exchange is defined by the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as an unconditional order in writing addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a certain sum in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to the bearer.

To me this sounds like a council tax bill/water bill, does it not?

[number_6]

According to Hutchinson's Encyclopedia the following is given for a Bill of Exchange:

In Britain, a bill of exchange is defined by the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as an unconditional order in writing addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a certain sum in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to the bearer.

To me this sounds like a council tax bill/water bill, does it not?

No. Many here seem to not understand exactly what a bill of exchange is. The most common form of bill of exchange is a cheque, where the order is given to the bank in regards of money held by the person paying.

[dharmic one]

Me and my girlfriend, being new to this info are trying in different ways to ask certain companies certain questions. Here will follow a brief account of my experience so far in writing to a company called EQUITA CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS.

The scary sounding name was accompanied by a menacing letter referring to an "unpaid amount" owing to x council blah blah blah. They informed me that a liability order had been granted by the Magistrate and they "therefore require the sum of £790.31 by return of post", adding;

"Failure to discharge this debt will result".....in the usual way. If you're scared phone us and it will go away etc..........I replied with the following.....

7th March 2009
Dear Bailiff Manager,

I write regarding my receipt today of your letter dated 03/03/2009. Thank you for informing me of these matters as I have not received any communication from Birmingham City Council for some time. I previously offered to pay arrears that I had accumulated through settlement of an injury claim that is as yet, still unresolved.

In response to your letter, my situation previously stated in correspondence of being unemployed and claiming no benefit remains the same. However, I would like to accept your offer of the opportunity to discharge this debt as the administrator of the account, providing the following conditions can be met for the process of verification of the source of the debt;

Could you please send me copies of the following?


• The original bill that the arrears relate to, signed by a representative of the council.
• The original two-party contract I signed with Birmingham City Council binding me in agreement to pay council tax.
• A copy of the written notice that I should have received from Birmingham City Council 14 days prior to the liability order being granted by the Magistrate.
• The liability order that has been granted by the Magistrate.

I would also like clarification of the actual meanings of the following words or phrases in your letter;

“Liability order”, “unpaid amount”, “the sum of £790.31”,“Failure to discharge this debt”

I look forward to receiving this information by return of post so that I may discharge this debt as the administrator by all means available to me within the power of the law.

Thank you greatly for your time and consideration,

Kind regards,

They responded with a document, dated 23/03, entitled REMINDER NOTICE in which they omitted any mention of my letter but also removed their threats and chilled out in their language with regards to removing goods.

They said " We write further to our previous applications for payment to date we note that you have failed to settle your outstanding council taxOur removal teams will be in you area (their spelling not mine) in the coming week looking to remove goods" and then the usual cost warnings.

They began to just back off basically. I am tomorrow posting the following letter, discharging their notice with one of my own....still admittedly in the private realm but let's see how far they wanna take it!!

********

Dear Bailiff Manager,

I can confirm receipt of your REMINDER NOTICE dated 23/03/2009. This should be read as NOTICE that I am discharging your REMINDER NOTICE by seeking further clarification. For ease of reference I have included the following definitions of terms used in this notice;

In this document

“your company” is defined as EQUITA CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS.

“ the council” is defined as BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL.

“my letters or correspondence” is defined as either my letter to your company , dated 7th March 2009 or any future correspondence.

“party” is defined as either your company or the council.

Could you please, for further clarification of the origin and liability for this debt, define the actual meanings in your notice, of the following phrase/s;

“Unpaid Council Tax “, “our previous applications for payment” , “Our removal teams will be in you area in the coming week”, “and will be looking to seize goods”, “Further substantial costs will be added to your debt once this action has been commenced”, “avoid this course of action”.

For the record I have received no document entitled “application for payment”. Could you please provide the dates for your previous correspondences for ease of reference?

I am unable to deal in any way appropriately or properly with ANY of your requests should you continue to ignore my letters or correspondence. It is my understanding that I have no contract binding me with your company or the council and have received no information to the contrary from either party.

As this remains undisputed by either party this notice includes notice that I intend to seek all available remedy to me to resolve this issue and I understand that failure by either party to lawfully object to said understandings stated in this document within 7 days of this notice will constitute tacit agreement of these understandings and statements by these parties that may form the basis of any further action by me to have any current or future court proceedings in this matter be dismissed.

I reserve the right not to contract in any way further with your company should you continue to ignore my correspondence or refuse to refer to it in detail. I do not give you permission to contact me by telephone or to make any legal determination about me, including your use of title in addressing me as Mr. From this date onwards I will only open mail from your company addressed to Paul, of the family Ford, as I have no commercial interest or duty to your company.

This notice is signed and posted by registered mail on the 31st March 2009.

Thank you again for your time and consideration in these matters,
Kind regards,

Paul, of the family: Ford.

P.S Your letter dated 24th March 2009 does not match this company name and is not signed by a representative of EQUITA so will be ignored as correspondence. For the record, I REQUESTED THIS INFORMATION BY RETURN OF POST, AS SUCH MY CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN DISHONORED AS I SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A REPLY TO MY LETTER DATED 7TH MARCH BY THE 17TH MARCH 2009. It is my understanding that your company is a third-party interloper to which I have NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER. ANY FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN DETAILS THAT I HAVE REQUESTED OR AN ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE STATEMENT OF TRUTH PERTAINING TO THE MATTER WILL BE IGNORED.

*******

I enjoy writing to these bullies as I am quite convinced that I owe them nothing and have my own disputes with the council over this matter. While I am not confident that such language or requests are absolutely necessary, I believe they are honourable requests.

Before I could post this today I received further mail from them............dated 24th March on different paper with a different logo and the letter was [B]unsigned[/B by any corporate entity or human being. Just the company name EQUITA LTD at the bottom.

They referred to the issue again by using a different term, this time it was about my Unpaid Council Tax owing to x council.

They confirmed receiving my letter dated 7th March and said "the contents have been noted".

They make a very quick statement about how they "can legally recover these monies once the unpaid council tax case has been to magistrates court on 30/07/08" yet they never clarify anything I have previously asked or made any further threats.

They went on to say that if I want copies of the documents I requested I must contact the council directly! HOW CAN THESE BULLIES ENFORCE ANYTHING AGAINST ME WITHOUT HOLDING ANY INFO TO DO WITH THE PARTICULARS OF THE CASE THAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE ORDERS UPON?

I cannot get over the information I have come across over the past few weeks. Though I am not wholly confident that I know exactly what I am doing I have managed make these clowns back off with the cost of a stamp!

I intend to post the second letter tomorrow and wait and see what they say..........

[number_6]

I cannot get over the information I have come across over the past few weeks. Though I am not wholly confident that I know exactly what I am doing I have managed make these clowns back off with the cost of a stamp!


Be careful. If the bailiffs do give up attempting to collect, they will pass it back to the Council who will go back to the magistrates court, and at that point they may apply for committal to prison. Better to pay small amounts rather than refuse to pay.

[the worm that turned]

Be careful. If the bailiffs do give up attempting to collect, they will pass it back to the Council who will go back to the magistrates court, and at that point they may apply for committal to prison. Better to pay small amounts rather than refuse to pay.

Committal to prison??? Do you know of any cases where this has occurred?

I think that dharmic one is doing the correct thing by requesting for these claims and for documents to be backed up/produced by a "debt collection company".

I personally would go directly to the Council and demand that they request the debt company to back off as the contract, if present, is between dharmic one and council x.

This is what I did, but in both my cases the debt collection company and alleged creditor were in the wrong, and in both cases the debt collection company backed down!

[dharmic one]

Be careful. If the bailiffs do give up attempting to collect, they will pass it back to the Council who will go back to the magistrates court, and at that point they may apply for committal to prison. Better to pay small amounts rather than refuse to pay.

I agree, we all need to be careful with what we commit to writing as these guys have legal pros on the team! I have not as yet been visited but am well aware of my rights with regard to them entering my property. From what I understand about the procedure it is essential to remain honourable as much as possible. By this I mean that there is only one thing that matters in these proceedings - honour.

1 ignoring them = dishonour

2 arguing with them = dishonour

3 Accepting their charges = honour ( but i'm £800 out of pocket!)

4 Conditionally accepting their claims upon their presentment of evidence of the origin of the debt = honour.

4 is the only way to remain on good terms with a judge should you come to face them in proceedings yet puts the onus of proof upon them before you pay them. If the council can provide the information I request or state why what I request is irrelevant or immaterial then I will agree to pay.

This is the key. At no point have I refused to pay the "sums" or "amounts" nor have I questioned the authority of the company or the council. I have merely stated my understanging and that I am prepared to accept their offer to pay the sums on the condition that they provide me adequate information for my books. Simple! It is not unreasonable as I never pay a restaurant bill before I eat or before I have seen the bill. As far as I am currently aware all actions are now done in commerce. Commerce is based on contracts between entities and dishonouring these leads to liability.

I will accept liability for this debt as long as the proof of this liability can be seen by myself in whatever form it may take.......be it statutory, lawful or contractual. In two communications from this company none of the above has been provided, mere opinion or hearsay unsigned is not sufficient. As long as I am happy to negotiate with these people there is no need for court action either. This I am more than happy to do until it becomes unproductive in respect of them actually being truthful with me or playing ball. So long as they make idle threats I'm not prepared to pay anybody a penny.

Obviously they will attempt to draw me into controversy or point out in some way that me paying them in the past constitutes a contract. This is another reason I must be careful as until I have my documents notarised by a notary public this all remains in the private realm and a judge can disregard them if he sees fit. But if they get nasty that is what I will do. This will make my documents public and enable me to enter them as evidence in proceedings, assuming that I am offering myself as surety for the debtor by foolishly offering them jurisdiction over me, that is.......

I am aware that possible joinder may exist between us but I am considering obtaining notarised NOUI's and claims of right with all the appropriate agencies that perpetuate these frauds against the people, to remedy this. It is the possible remedy within the law that I find the most exciting aspect of all of this. The structure of justice exists to benefit the whole world yet few of us ever really use it. Governments and companies fully understand these process and are centuries ahead of most of us in their understanding of their own rules - but what do we expect? This is their system! I am very slowly learning how to do this and can celebrate very small victories at present but I aim to learn as much as possible from the process and help others refute these bullies' claims........

[arten]

Dharmic one check this site out and use the info wisely and good luck m8.

http://www.fmotl.com/

[abigail]

Hi there, did you send this letter yet. I received a stonking bill of 1785 including 10 percent of the amount for "special expenses".
regards
abigail

[arten]

What do you mean special expenses abi that is bloody well outrageous.

[dharmic one]

Hi there, did you send this letter yet. I received a stonking bill of 1785 including 10 percent of the amount for "special expenses".


The first one is dated 7th March and they responded twice, first time with another notice that I am posting tomorrow discharging their notice dated 23/03/09. I am not considering a reply to their letter dated 24/03/09 as it is unsigned and does not contain any of the info I asked for so I have referred to it as a PS on the end of the second letter I'm posting tomorrow....If that makes sense???

I'm sure they replied to my letter twice to confuse me!!!!! Don't be scared and back down immediately, they have no right to enter your property and you can engage them without argument or controversy - just be confident about what you want to say by doing a bit of homework on statutory instruments, primary legislation and their difference in authority to law, also don't be afraid to ask the meanings of words and phrases that they use as they speak legal language which has many words that have a vastly different meaning to what we think they mean The ones we're dealing with have never used the same phrases twice so that I cannot claim that they are misleading me but it's handy for them as they can avoid the issues I have raised.....

We want to help as many people as we can but can only state factual info based on our own experiences.......

[elemental mechanic]

it's the new tax year, councils all over england have posted out the council tax bill for 2009 - 2010, so here is a straight question:

why would and how could a NOUCOR be refused if it is the right of every flesh & blood wo\man (human being) to live out life within and under common law?

this question is raised pertaining to all the fraudulent falsehoods that commercial\admiralty law forces each of us to submit to.

i have read reams of texts that back up the concept of the strawman\person (fiction) and if it is that we (the collective we) know this to be true, then what is the driving force that keeps us there.

it is said that legalease is designed to keep the collective in commercial slavery through the use of a language we don't understand, then surely it is not written for the prosperity of the flesh & blood wo\man; that being the case then, is not the NOUCOR the answer?

(no spelling errors were checked before going to print):p

"namaste"

[dharmic one]

I've been pleased so far with these bullies backing off so I have taken to writing letters to help others in my family and Sal,s friends at that we can all start learning how to deal with this monstrous abuse of a system that was put in place to protect us from these sorts of tyrants........

I am dealing with TV LICENSING exactly the same way, they have today sent me the relevant section of the communications act 2003 and provided an appendix breaking down the section for me. I intend to write back immediately asking where, just like I asked in my original letter to them, it says in this law (Acts of parliament are statutes/legislation - not laws...)that a flesh and blood soul requires a TV license. I am looking forward to stipulating that this Mr Stone at TV licensing should always make sure that he distinguishes between law and statute. Creditor's threats of CC action seeking 110 imaginary pounds from my brother at my address have also backed off after one letter, claiming the account is on hold while they obtain the info I requested.......small victories but I will have some great fun responding to TV licensing.

All the info they gave me refers to the person...........

This is the beauty of this info.....it can be used to make ANY idiotic, toe the line monkey in any office anywhere begin to squirm on the end of the phone or in writing just because you are asking them important questions. We will keep everyone up to date and will help whenever we can with what knowledge we can......

Peace and love

[girlgye]

Be careful. If the bailiffs do give up attempting to collect, they will pass it back to the Council who will go back to the magistrates court, and at that point they may apply for committal to prison. Better to pay small amounts rather than refuse to pay.

Going to prison is an offer. To which the response is I waive the privilige and I waive all benefits. I think mate until you know what you are completely doing you better just pay your council tax. Someone has suggested this to me and I felt really paranoid that they weren't on my side. There is way too much to learn and it's real clear to me you haven't a clue what you are doing and No6 is right. I think you might just wind up in prison. They do put people in prison for non-payment of council tax.

At all times the batting back of Notices backwards and forwards is to grind you into offering. Ultimately, as happened to me on Tuesday. I was told I'd be arrested and so I acquiesed. Bingo. hook. line and sinker. he got me.
I should have said I waive your offer and I waive all the benefits. (I think) This is especially hard when you are on your own without a video camera, recorder and they are bellowing out threats to call for back up.


To my knowledge, I don't think Rob Menard has lost anyone a single case where he has represented them as a litigant friend. Plus there's alot of disinfo going on out there. So you are gonna have to use your loaf. The Rob Menards of the world won't be here to help you in the UK. That much by Elek is right. Give it time though and they will. Perhaps if you do enough study WTT you might be one of them.

There's alot of people in jail in the states under the Redemption banner and that much is definitely true.

[girlgye]

Me and my girlfriend, being new to this info are trying in different ways to ask certain companies certain questions. Here will follow a brief account of my experience so far in writing to a company called EQUITA CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS.

The scary sounding name was accompanied by a menacing letter referring to an "unpaid amount" owing to x council blah blah blah. They informed me that a liability order had been granted by the Magistrate and they "therefore require the sum of £790.31 by return of post", adding;

"Failure to discharge this debt will result".....in the usual way. If you're scared phone us and it will go away etc..........I replied with the following.....

7th March 2009
Dear Bailiff Manager,

I write regarding my receipt today of your letter dated 03/03/2009. Thank you for informing me of these matters as I have not received any communication from Birmingham City Council for some time. I previously offered to pay arrears that I had accumulated through settlement of an injury claim that is as yet, still unresolved.

In response to your letter, my situation previously stated in correspondence of being unemployed and claiming no benefit remains the same. However, I would like to accept your offer of the opportunity to discharge this debt as the administrator of the account, providing the following conditions can be met for the process of verification of the source of the debt;

Could you please send me copies of the following?


• The original bill that the arrears relate to, signed by a representative of the council.
• The original two-party contract I signed with Birmingham City Council binding me in agreement to pay council tax.
• A copy of the written notice that I should have received from Birmingham City Council 14 days prior to the liability order being granted by the Magistrate.
• The liability order that has been granted by the Magistrate.

I would also like clarification of the actual meanings of the following words or phrases in your letter;

“Liability order”, “unpaid amount”, “the sum of £790.31”,“Failure to discharge this debt”

I look forward to receiving this information by return of post so that I may discharge this debt as the administrator by all means available to me within the power of the law.

Thank you greatly for your time and consideration,

Kind regards,

They responded with a document, dated 23/03, entitled REMINDER NOTICE in which they omitted any mention of my letter but also removed their threats and chilled out in their language with regards to removing goods.

They said " We write further to our previous applications for payment to date we note that you have failed to settle your outstanding council taxOur removal teams will be in you area (their spelling not mine) in the coming week looking to remove goods" and then the usual cost warnings.

They began to just back off basically. I am tomorrow posting the following letter, discharging their notice with one of my own....still admittedly in the private realm but let's see how far they wanna take it!!

********

Dear Bailiff Manager,

I can confirm receipt of your REMINDER NOTICE dated 23/03/2009. This should be read as NOTICE that I am discharging your REMINDER NOTICE by seeking further clarification. For ease of reference I have included the following definitions of terms used in this notice;

In this document

“your company” is defined as EQUITA CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS.

“ the council” is defined as BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL.

“my letters or correspondence” is defined as either my letter to your company , dated 7th March 2009 or any future correspondence.

“party” is defined as either your company or the council.

Could you please, for further clarification of the origin and liability for this debt, define the actual meanings in your notice, of the following phrase/s;

“Unpaid Council Tax “, “our previous applications for payment” , “Our removal teams will be in you area in the coming week”, “and will be looking to seize goods”, “Further substantial costs will be added to your debt once this action has been commenced”, “avoid this course of action”.

For the record I have received no document entitled “application for payment”. Could you please provide the dates for your previous correspondences for ease of reference?

I am unable to deal in any way appropriately or properly with ANY of your requests should you continue to ignore my letters or correspondence. It is my understanding that I have no contract binding me with your company or the council and have received no information to the contrary from either party.

As this remains undisputed by either party this notice includes notice that I intend to seek all available remedy to me to resolve this issue and I understand that failure by either party to lawfully object to said understandings stated in this document within 7 days of this notice will constitute tacit agreement of these understandings and statements by these parties that may form the basis of any further action by me to have any current or future court proceedings in this matter be dismissed.

I reserve the right not to contract in any way further with your company should you continue to ignore my correspondence or refuse to refer to it in detail. I do not give you permission to contact me by telephone or to make any legal determination about me, including your use of title in addressing me as Mr. From this date onwards I will only open mail from your company addressed to Paul, of the family Ford, as I have no commercial interest or duty to your company.

This notice is signed and posted by registered mail on the 31st March 2009.

Thank you again for your time and consideration in these matters,
Kind regards,

Paul, of the family: Ford.

P.S Your letter dated 24th March 2009 does not match this company name and is not signed by a representative of EQUITA so will be ignored as correspondence. For the record, I REQUESTED THIS INFORMATION BY RETURN OF POST, AS SUCH MY CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN DISHONORED AS I SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A REPLY TO MY LETTER DATED 7TH MARCH BY THE 17TH MARCH 2009. It is my understanding that your company is a third-party interloper to which I have NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER. ANY FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN DETAILS THAT I HAVE REQUESTED OR AN ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE STATEMENT OF TRUTH PERTAINING TO THE MATTER WILL BE IGNORED.

*******

I enjoy writing to these bullies as I am quite convinced that I owe them nothing and have my own disputes with the council over this matter. While I am not confident that such language or requests are absolutely necessary, I believe they are honourable requests.

Before I could post this today I received further mail from them............dated 24th March on different paper with a different logo and the letter was [B]unsigned[/B by any corporate entity or human being. Just the company name EQUITA LTD at the bottom.

They referred to the issue again by using a different term, this time it was about my Unpaid Council Tax owing to x council.

They confirmed receiving my letter dated 7th March and said "the contents have been noted".

They make a very quick statement about how they "can legally recover these monies once the unpaid council tax case has been to magistrates court on 30/07/08" yet they never clarify anything I have previously asked or made any further threats.

They went on to say that if I want copies of the documents I requested I must contact the council directly! HOW CAN THESE BULLIES ENFORCE ANYTHING AGAINST ME WITHOUT HOLDING ANY INFO TO DO WITH THE PARTICULARS OF THE CASE THAT THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE ORDERS UPON?

I cannot get over the information I have come across over the past few weeks. Though I am not wholly confident that I know exactly what I am doing I have managed make these clowns back off with the cost of a stamp!

I intend to post the second letter tomorrow and wait and see what they say..........


Did you get this Noterized before you sent it off?

[miked]

Just thought my dealings with SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL would be enlightening to some here!

In Novemeber last year, SRBC got a Liability Order against the legal fiction I used to associate with. Since then I have learnt much and put it into practice. I stopped paying in Jan 09.

They started threatening me with Bailiff action. At this time I was starting my investigation into LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL. Needless to say SRBC suddenly went quiet. Then, about two weeks ago I got a very nice letter telling me I may be able for exemption because I was a student. I am not a student but they had pressumed this as I had been telling that I was studying the Law! LOL

Up until this point I had sent them one very simple notice asking about the Liability and asking for proof.

I had taken a couple of pics of adverts fom the police in my local area and they got posted on the TPUC website. I showed a friend the site pics and he said "Get ready, they are going to come knocking soon!"

He wasn't wrong. Next morning a Bailiff arrived acting for SRBC! This was dealt with by not answering the door! I imediately phoned the Bailiff who was on the notice that had been posted. I had a lengthy discussion with this man who eventually concluded that he was just doing his job and he would have to call back. I told him fine but I wouldnt answer the door and if he didn't go awat I would phone the police. He told me that if the Bailiffs cannot "Attend" your property the case will go back to the council and they will go for a commital to prison and an arrest warrant would be issued! The Bailiff had got a bit arsey at one point, asking "Whoi empties your bins?" To this I replied "Not sure, I think he is called Steve. If you like I could try and find out for you if it would help?"

He came back two days later. I waved at him through the front window, he posted another notice and left.

Same day I contact the local magistrates to file a statutory decclaration against the Order. I was told that the court held no record of my liability order, it was held by SRBC!!!!!!!!

No court record, no legal liability order!!!

I have just served notice on the Bailiffs and SRBC (and my mortgage company but thats another story!) asking them to clarify the order. Both notices from the Bailiffs say:

"We are in the possession of a Liability Order issued by the Magistrates Courts."

No they are not! I have a copy!!

To cut a long story short, if every council tax liability order was not issued by a court they are illegal AND unlawfull!! There is going to be a lot of pissed of people!!

So I went to Leyland Police station to report the crime.

There was no argument. The lady at the desk asked questions and just looked totally stunned at what I was telling her.She eventually got me an officer.

I spoke to PC Cooke 254, who was a lovely man. He got it straight away. He told me he had no problem looking into it but it would not be his decision to prosecute, that would be down to the CPS. It then really hit him as I was submitting criminal complaint against the court aswell ! He was waking up right infront of my eyes! I looked him in the eye and reminded him of the oath he took to serve the Queen and me! How many pollice do you think get a member of the public reminding them of this!

I told him no one is above the law and that even if he believed his boss was a criminal he is duty bound to arrest him! He agreed and looked rather excited as he said I can log it!

This was all for a Bill from last year so my stance with this years Bill will be not to negotiate it untill this matter is resolved first. How can I honour their bill when their last one is still in dispute!

Update coming soon!

Mike

[arten]

Just thought my dealings with SOUTH RIBBLE BOROUGH COUNCIL would be enlightening to some here!

In Novemeber last year, SRBC got a Liability Order against the legal fiction I used to associate with. Since then I have learnt much and put it into practice. I stopped paying in Jan 09.

They started threatening me with Bailiff action. At this time I was starting my investigation into LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL. Needless to say SRBC suddenly went quiet. Then, about two weeks ago I got a very nice letter telling me I may be able for exemption because I was a student. I am not a student but they had pressumed this as I had been telling that I was studying the Law! LOL

Up until this point I had sent them one very simple notice asking about the Liability and asking for proof.

I had taken a couple of pics of adverts fom the police in my local area and they got posted on the TPUC website. I showed a friend the site pics and he said "Get ready, they are going to come knocking soon!"

He wasn't wrong. Next morning a Bailiff arrived acting for SRBC! This was dealt with by not answering the door! I imediately phoned the Bailiff who was on the notice that had been posted. I had a lengthy discussion with this man who eventually concluded that he was just doing his job and he would have to call back. I told him fine but I wouldnt answer the door and if he didn't go awat I would phone the police. He told me that if the Bailiffs cannot "Attend" your property the case will go back to the council and they will go for a commital to prison and an arrest warrant would be issued! The Bailiff had got a bit arsey at one point, asking "Whoi empties your bins?" To this I replied "Not sure, I think he is called Steve. If you like I could try and find out for you if it would help?"

He came back two days later. I waved at him through the front window, he posted another notice and left.

Same day I contact the local magistrates to file a statutory decclaration against the Order. I was told that the court held no record of my liability order, it was held by SRBC!!!!!!!!

No court record, no legal liability order!!!

I have just served notice on the Bailiffs and SRBC (and my mortgage company but thats another story!) asking them to clarify the order. Both notices from the Bailiffs say:

"We are in the possession of a Liability Order issued by the Magistrates Courts."

No they are not! I have a copy!!

To cut a long story short, if every council tax liability order was not issued by a court they are illegal AND unlawfull!! There is going to be a lot of pissed of people!!

So I went to Leyland Police station to report the crime.

There was no argument. The lady at the desk asked questions and just looked totally stunned at what I was telling her.She eventually got me an officer.

I spoke to PC Cooke 254, who was a lovely man. He got it straight away. He told me he had no problem looking into it but it would not be his decision to prosecute, that would be down to the CPS. It then really hit him as I was submitting criminal complaint against the court aswell ! He was waking up right infront of my eyes! I looked him in the eye and reminded him of the oath he took to serve the Queen and me! How many pollice do you think get a member of the public reminding them of this!

I told him no one is above the law and that even if he believed his boss was a criminal he is duty bound to arrest him! He agreed and looked rather excited as he said I can log it!

This was all for a Bill from last year so my stance with this years Bill will be not to negotiate it untill this matter is resolved first. How can I honour their bill when their last one is still in dispute!

Update coming soon!

Mike

Nice one Mike and has you know I am active on TPUC I am with you all the way I to am in confrontation with the Banks and will be taking the council to task as well. I have had enough at the end of the day Prison if that is what it is coming to don't seem that bad an option, three meals a day, no bills and no worries, sound like holiday camp to me.

[dharmic one]

Going to prison is an offer. To which the response is I waive the privilige and I waive all benefits. I think mate until you know what you are completely doing you better just pay your council tax. Someone has suggested this to me and I felt really paranoid that they weren't on my side. There is way too much to learn and it's real clear to me you haven't a clue what you are doing and No6 is right. I think you might just wind up in prison. They do put people in prison for non-payment of council tax.

While I appreciate your concern, I continue to read your posts as friendly advice. In very few of your posts do you actually state anything of factual substance, most of what you write is opinion. I do not feel that I need instruction from ANYONE in my life as I am more than capable of making my own informed decisions. If you had watched Rob Menard and others with a depth of understanding you will have heard them state that they cannot give advice like you are trying to do. They are only experts on their own experience just as you yourself can be. So I appreciate your concern yet remind you that the only thing you are an expert on is your own experience.

I don't believe anyone can know all about ANY subject in 10 lifetimes. I do not think that there exists in itself an objective reality.

I am entitled to ask questions.......the people who speak of there being way too much to learn are ignoring the basic principles of everything these guys are trying to do. I am not giving advice or instruction. I am taking what I feel is the safest and most appropriate action to let these guys no they can't just bully me into acquiescence. This is all ANY one of us can do. Not one person you will talk to on here will claim to be an expert. So if it's all the same I'll heed only advice that can be backed by something of substance that makes sense to me as an individual more than capable of inductive reasoning. I am fearful in no way of the amount I am to learn as I learn very quickly and realise I only need to know what's best for me in any given situation...

In answer to your other query, I haven't had any of it notarised as I am dealing with bully bailiffs that I have no contractual or statutory obligation to contract with. I only need it notarised if I intend to get them in the public record or the evidence file of a court. That is if I ever want to deal with the matter in court that is......from post #78....

I am tomorrow posting the following letter, discharging their notice with one of my own....still admittedly in the private realm but let's see how far they wanna take it!!

Peace......

[number_6]

It then really hit him as I was submitting criminal complaint against the court aswell !

May I ask, if as you suggest, the magistrates have not issued a Liability Order, what is the nature of your criminal complaint against the Court?
You must always bear in mind that any paperwork such as a warrant that the bailiff shows you will not be the actual warrant issued by the Court, and probably won't bear the Court stamp. But this does not mean that one is not in existence. The stamped original will be held by the Council.

[girlgye]

While I appreciate your concern, I continue to read your posts as friendly advice. In very few of your posts do you actually state anything of factual substance, most of what you write is opinion. I do not feel that I need instruction from ANYONE in my life as I am more than capable of making my own informed decisions. If you had watched Rob Menard and others with a depth of understanding you will have heard them state that they cannot give advice like you are trying to do. They are only experts on their own experience just as you yourself can be. So I appreciate your concern yet remind you that the only thing you are an expert on is your own experience.
I don't believe anyone can know all about ANY subject in 10 lifetimes. I do not think that there exists in itself an objective reality.

I am entitled to ask questions.......the people who speak of there being way too much to learn are ignoring the basic principles of everything these guys are trying to do. I am not giving advice or instruction. I am taking what I feel is the safest and most appropriate action to let these guys no they can't just bully me into acquiescence. This is all ANY one of us can do. Not one person you will talk to on here will claim to be an expert. So if it's all the same I'll heed only advice that can be backed by something of substance that makes sense to me as an individual more than capable of inductive reasoning. I am fearful in no way of the amount I am to learn as I learn very quickly and realise I only need to know what's best for me in any given situation...

In answer to your other query, I haven't had any of it notarised as I am dealing with bully bailiffs that I have no contractual or statutory obligation to contract with. I only need it notarised if I intend to get them in the public record or the evidence file of a court. That is if I ever want to deal with the matter in court that is......from post #78....



Peace......
Would you like some names of those who have gone to prison? I'll get back to you on that if that's what your hedging at.



I take it by saying you ain't saying anything of 'factual substance' and it is only my understanding of what you are levelling at. That I should post up some Notices? Letters? Legal documents? Yeah I'll do that when something has actually worked for me. Otherwise it is just plain bullshit and I wouldn't want people going the way of some of the Redemptionists now would I? See I don't have a choice whether I pay my council tax or not. I simply cannot pay it because I do not have any money and no access to benefits.


Now you seem to be very much learned on bailiffs perhaps you could enlighten me on Certified Court Bailiffs. You, know, the ones who come to act on behalf of the Court when you haven't paid your Council Tax and are acting on Committal to Prison proceedings. Not the illegal bailiffs the ones who won't give you their names when you ask who the company directors are. You see the Certified Bailiffs are quite happy to give you the names of their Directors and believe whole heartedly that they act in accordance with the State. It is my understanding, so far, and it IS my opinion, and I have a God given right to express my opinion and ain't no-one gonna tell me otherwise - with all due respect, that should they fail to answer a set of questions in the manner that you ask you then file for Court proceedings against them. If you want to get your Fee Schedule recognized then it must be legally noterized. I say this, why, because, so far they claim, not to recognize my fee schedule signed by credible witnesses (a solicitor, a nurse, University lecturer).

You seem to have taken real exception to my asking you whether you got your 'factual Notice' legally recognized. Please, pray, keep us informed of your success or not as the case may be.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with asking questions to these people except it seems to waste their time and befuddle them whilst I find the money to cough up eventually. As I will have to cough up eventually and by then it may well be too far gone for me to cough at all. With all look I might croke first.

I'd really like to understand Rob's postulations and the Freeman route seems a tempting option and one far simpler than CR. Only I'm getting confused about whether my NOUI and CoR WOULD ACTUALLY STAND AS A LEGAL DOCUMENT IN ANY COURT IN UK LAW. See that is what they are saying. Your NOUI is not a legal document. Seeing as you are such an Authority, as you claim you are , and that I am not, you might post a few tips on how to do beat Court appointed Bailiffs Rob's way. That way I might actually make some headway and get some sleep at night. Those would be real facts that I'd really appreciate.

And did I mention the word ADVICE in any of my postings? Or is that just your humble EXPERIENCE of my posts again? Perhaps I should have crassly put inane mutterings about none of this being exposed as legal advice but then I wouldn't think anyone would be a twit enough to think that I was dumb enough to think I could offer any advice.

Many thanks

Oh.. and .......

Peace.

[girlgye]

May I ask, if as you suggest, the magistrates have not issued a Liability Order, what is the nature of your criminal complaint against the Court?
You must always bear in mind that any paperwork such as a warrant that the bailiff shows you will not be the actual warrant issued by the Court, and probably won't bear the Court stamp. But this does not mean that one is not in existence. The stamped original will be held by the Council.

No6 I really appreciate your experience here. You seem to be the voice of reason. The type of experience that understands the Statutes and the way that the system works. It's useful to me. Not least because the 16 or so separate bailiff files in my ever expanding file has all number of rebuttals based on the Law of Statute and they do seem to marry along the lines of what you argue.

So could you tell me why they never sign anything in their own hand to you. Why (THIS IS MY EXPERIENCE) when you demand the original Certificate/Court Order they send you a letter from a junior member of staff, with his/her wet signature and title? When you try and pin it down to an Authority such as Head of CPS, or CJ for the Court, (I can't afford the $300 I would need to stump up to find out who is the CEO of the Magistrates court corporation) they just send it from a CJ Court Manager? I mean if it is so transparent why not send me the original that I'm asking for. Or.. if that is too much to ask, a photo copy of it with the name of the person stamping the order? Thus sealing my doom. I know this person is very, important, and probably WAY too busy to deal with a little minion like me but surely whoever, presides over the Court case that states YES you can go after her and take her for all she's worth (worm that they are) surely they should be happy enough to put their name to the order so that I may in turn rebut it.

Someone said to me that Companies don't need to do this. (sign court papers from recognized individuals) So surely then if I make myself a Trade mark Company I do the same. Only because I'm a private company I have to get it Noterized in order for it to be legally looked at.

I must be tired. My latest edit to this (how can I forget that lovely psychopath that is the head of the Magistrates Courts). See i'm compartmentalising my fear. I'm pretending to myself I have no idea who he is when really somewhere deep down inside I knew all along who is was.

[girlgye]

The first one is dated 7th March and they responded twice, first time with another notice that I am posting tomorrow discharging their notice dated 23/03/09. I am not considering a reply to their letter dated 24/03/09 as it is unsigned and does not contain any of the info I asked for so I have referred to it as a PS on the end of the second letter I'm posting tomorrow....If that makes sense???

I'm sure they replied to my letter twice to confuse me!!!!! Don't be scared and back down immediately, they have no right to enter your property and you can engage them without argument or controversy - just be confident about what you want to say by doing a bit of homework on statutory instruments, primary legislation and their difference in authority to law, also don't be afraid to ask the meanings of words and phrases that they use as they speak legal language which has many words that have a vastly different meaning to what we think they mean The ones we're dealing with have never used the same phrases twice so that I cannot claim that they are misleading me but it's handy for them as they can avoid the issues I have raised.....

We want to help as many people as we can but can only state factual info based on our own experiences.......


Whilst I muse at your attacks on my musings. I'm not quite getting the FACTS here. Just read some statutory instruments, just be confident about what I'm saying, words have a VASTLY different meaning to what we are saying. Yes indeed my learned friend, indeed they do.

WE want to help as many people as we can. Who exactly are 'we'?

[abigail]

I have been trying to call them up and find out......... line permanently engaged. Will let you know what happens.
abi

[miked]

May I ask, if as you suggest, the magistrates have not issued a Liability Order, what is the nature of your criminal complaint against the Court?
You must always bear in mind that any paperwork such as a warrant that the bailiff shows you will not be the actual warrant issued by the Court, and probably won't bear the Court stamp. But this does not mean that one is not in existence. The stamped original will be held by the Council.

Hi No6

Its quite simple really. The courts are renting a room privately to the council so that people 'think' they are being dealt with by the court when infact they are just there to make arrangements to pay. The courts are allowing the council, either willingly or not, to run there are justice system and this is a fraud. They thouched the tar baby!

The doccuments I have in my possession have been supplied by the council and are supposed to be copies of the court liability order. There is not court seal, no signature of a magistrate and no court records held by the court.

All good fun:)

Cheers
Mike

[number_6]

Hi No6

Its quite simple really. The courts are renting a room privately to the council so that people 'think' they are being dealt with by the court when infact they are just there to make arrangements to pay. The courts are allowing the council, either willingly or not, to run there are justice system and this is a fraud. They thouched the tar baby!

So, are you saying at such a hearing that there are no judges or registrars sitting?

[miked]

So, are you saying at such a hearing that there are no judges or registrars sitting?

If there was there would be court records, would there not?

[number_6]

Sorry, my last post was incorrect. For some reason I was thinking about County Court! A Liability Order for Council Tax is heard in the Magistrates Court.

[miked]

Sorry, my last post was incorrect. For some reason I was thinking about County Court! A Liability Order for Council Tax is heard in the Magistrates Court.

Yes, this is true. A liability order should be issued by a magistrates court. Unfortunately this is not the case. They have no legal or lawful authority to enforce the 'Order'.

Best wishes

Mike

[dharmic one]

No committal proceedings, no replies, no phonecalls, no visits. People have nothing to fear from these "bailiffs" and so-called authorities. For all the fear mongering re these ideas and opinions no party I am in correspondence with has made any further threats or taken any "action" against me that they have assured me of.

Birmingham City Council are not able to provide my bro with any documents establishing his liability to pay council tax, I have helped him halt threats of County court action with Severn Trent water and Barclays have stated that they cannot provide a signed copy of a repayment agreement or loan agreement to my girlfriend and have made no further attempt to deduct monies from my girlfriends account without her consent.

I am to post my third letter to TV licensing using the same process. They do not want to discuss any definitions in any of the legislation they quote.

With regard to notaries, it is my understanding that a document carrying the signatures of three members of the community of good repute serving as witnesses carries the same force as a notarised document.

I intend to serve all of these organisations with the appropriate notices signed and witnessed as per Pleasuredome's info in his talk at the Birmingham Freeman meeting, when I have established a trail of communication in which I am attempting to establish agreement by acquiescence to all of the statements, understandings and claims that I intend to establish as my/our own truth and law.

The documents are still in draft stage so I continue to negotiate with these companies and remain in honour.

I will establish the correct procedure at court to serve these documents and observe it. I genuinely believe in the maxim of equality before the law and I am happy to remain in contact with them and behave with honour and respect, providing they do the same, which to date they have.

I am confident in my ability to discern between truth and fiction and use my knowledge gained so far take creative steps to establish my own sovereignty.

People I know are only keen to try these things after I have taken the so-called "risk" of "fighting" the government.

I am a man of peace, I fight nor intend to harm no-one and try to behave so. I am attempting to have my own promissary notes accepted in my community for my labour and fulfill my first promise tomorrow.....exciting times.....

peace and love everyone,

[abigail]

Well done and good wishes to you for doing what you do.

[thefonz1]

I was just wondering how you were getting on with this:confused: I sincerely hope it is going well. I have my own battles with FCC at present and wish you well with yours. Can you bring all of us up to date please?

Peace love and best wishes

[girlgye]

No committal proceedings, no replies, no phonecalls, no visits. People have nothing to fear from these "bailiffs" and so-called authorities. For all the fear mongering re these ideas and opinions no party I am in correspondence with has made any further threats or taken any "action" against me that they have assured me of.

Birmingham City Council are not able to provide my bro with any documents establishing his liability to pay council tax, I have helped him halt threats of County court action with Severn Trent water and Barclays have stated that they cannot provide a signed copy of a repayment agreement or loan agreement to my girlfriend and have made no further attempt to deduct monies from my girlfriends account without her consent.

I am to post my third letter to TV licensing using the same process. They do not want to discuss any definitions in any of the legislation they quote.

With regard to notaries, it is my understanding that a document carrying the signatures of three members of the community of good repute serving as witnesses carries the same force as a notarised document.

I intend to serve all of these organisations with the appropriate notices signed and witnessed as per Pleasuredome's info in his talk at the Birmingham Freeman meeting, when I have established a trail of communication in which I am attempting to establish agreement by acquiescence to all of the statements, understandings and claims that I intend to establish as my/our own truth and law.

The documents are still in draft stage so I continue to negotiate with these companies and remain in honour.

I will establish the correct procedure at court to serve these documents and observe it. I genuinely believe in the maxim of equality before the law and I am happy to remain in contact with them and behave with honour and respect, providing they do the same, which to date they have.

I am confident in my ability to discern between truth and fiction and use my knowledge gained so far take creative steps to establish my own sovereignty.

People I know are only keen to try these things after I have taken the so-called "risk" of "fighting" the government.

I am a man of peace, I fight nor intend to harm no-one and try to behave so. I am attempting to have my own promissary notes accepted in my community for my labour and fulfill my first promise tomorrow.....exciting times.....

peace and love everyone,


Yes well done to you indeed.

I have come a long way in the months since I posted on this thread. I just fired one off to the same bailiffs. They keep leaving it a few weeks and then resurrecting it. Now I know the procedure to take I'm going to stick to it but it is hard when they won't say who they are. Now I trust and have no fear whatsoever. I will not turn up to court until I'm actually sure about my processes. I'm much less swayed by the opinions and attitudes of others and understand that something this powerful will inevitably get people infiltrating it and being as disrputive as they can possibly be. Most likely they will pose as friendly first and then skew the support later down the line. It almost worked and pretty much put me off but now I've introduced some friends slowly to this I'm feeling a little more secure that if I'm slung in the cells I might actually get someone looking out for me but if I must go the cells to prove my point I'm prepared for that now.

So really I'm on my own and must take responsibility for my own research and my own decisions.

I've learned how to question the decisions of a judge quite recently too, so I've sent one off like that regarding my driving offenses.

Happy learning. Great site and a lovely bunch of people. Even the spooks.

[abigail]

No committal proceedings, no replies, no phonecalls, no visits. People have nothing to fear from these "bailiffs" and so-called authorities. For all the fear mongering re these ideas and opinions no party I am in correspondence with has made any further threats or taken any "action" against me that they have assured me of.

Birmingham City Council are not able to provide my bro with any documents establishing his liability to pay council tax, I have helped him halt threats of County court action with Severn Trent water and Barclays have stated that they cannot provide a signed copy of a repayment agreement or loan agreement to my girlfriend and have made no further attempt to deduct monies from my girlfriends account without her consent.

I am to post my third letter to TV licensing using the same process. They do not want to discuss any definitions in any of the legislation they quote.

With regard to notaries, it is my understanding that a document carrying the signatures of three members of the community of good repute serving as witnesses carries the same force as a notarised document.

I intend to serve all of these organisations with the appropriate notices signed and witnessed as per Pleasuredome's info in his talk at the Birmingham Freeman meeting, when I have established a trail of communication in which I am attempting to establish agreement by acquiescence to all of the statements, understandings and claims that I intend to establish as my/our own truth and law.

The documents are still in draft stage so I continue to negotiate with these companies and remain in honour.

I will establish the correct procedure at court to serve these documents and observe it. I genuinely believe in the maxim of equality before the law and I am happy to remain in contact with them and behave with honour and respect, providing they do the same, which to date they have.

I am confident in my ability to discern between truth and fiction and use my knowledge gained so far take creative steps to establish my own sovereignty.

People I know are only keen to try these things after I have taken the so-called "risk" of "fighting" the government.

I am a man of peace, I fight nor intend to harm no-one and try to behave so. I am attempting to have my own promissary notes accepted in my community for my labour and fulfill my first promise tomorrow.....exciting times.....

peace and love everyone,

HI there,

DO you have copies of the documents that you have used for council tax? I would like to start the same process. I would be most grateful for any tips.

Love to you

Abigail

[miked]

Hi all!

Two weeks ago I was in court to hear a case for non payment of council tax against my former legal fiction! I was sat in the public gallery until my case called out. I stood up and siad " I am here to deal with this matter. Does anyone present object to my engaging in the proceedings with a full resevervation of my unalienable rights"

The chairwomen magistrate and the court solicitor munmbled "ErH? Yes, yes! Please step forward" and gestured towards thw dock.

I said " If it is ok with you I wil remain here on dry land as I am not a vessel so I do not need to go in a dock!"

The chairwomen magistrate siad with a big grin on her face " That was fine" The court solicitor in my case was a total cunt!!! He took over the whole proceedings. It was my first standing in court and I had totally geared myself up for dealing with a magistrate!

He said to me something like this " I am an independent solicitor working for the court, blah, blah blah" at the end I agreed without realising I had just contracted with him! I said " Er, Yes, ok".

From that point on this twat shouted me down and claimed all sorts of shit! It was only 5 or 10 mins but it was madness!

He asked if I was Mr.X " I am commonly known as Mike of the Dobson family!"

"ARE YOU MR.X?"

I am who I say I am. Are you the magistrate inthis case sir?

It went on like this until the court solicitor stood up and protested to the magistrates over my behaviour saying it was now deemed I was Mr.X!

I don't know how I managed it but I undid this deeming which left the court solicitor fuming! A couple more exchanges and I was asked to leave, not told, not heald and charged with contempt just simply saked to leave! I asked on what grounds twice and then the court solicitor shouted out "SECURITY"

At this point I chuckled because both security guards both looked like they have been working well into their retirement and I thought of sitting back down whilst waiting for them to come in :)

Grab my coat and left! Great, I hope they do the same think at the commital trial!! Ha Ha

House possession hearing next week! Bring it on, I will take the fucking lot of ya!!

Peace to you all

[dantesinferno]

Forgive me if this has been covered in this thread already but if by some miracle you get away with not paying your council tax does that mean you will cease to avail yourself of all your local council services?

I have read this board from its outset and still think it’s mostly wishful thinking, even if you are correct in your legal standing the PTB will just ignore and uphold there system.

Also if you wish to still use local services then you are just out for a free ride and that isn’t what the freeman this is supposed to be about is it?

[wakeupworld]

How can anyone get a free ride when there is tax on petrol, tax on goods etc etc.
The council tax is set out with basic categories such as
County Council
Police Authority
Fire and Rescue Authority

Your council will send on request a complete breakdown of where the money is being spent, for example roadworks.

Now in the example of roadworks the council generally under budget and rather than give rebates, in March every year they allocate extra works to be carried out for work that is non existence, hence wasting the remaining budget.

I don`t believe the freeman is all about cheating anyone, more about realising the corruptness of the system.

It`s about taking control of your own life in a peaceful way, why should anyone or orgnasation dictate what you must have a pay for?

[dantesinferno]

I agree with the essence of the freeman idea, but a lot of focus here is about not paying for stuff, if you don’t pay council tax will you dispose of your own waste?

Will you put your own fire out or pay a bill if you need help from the fire brigade or have had a break in and need the police to help etc?

I the answer is yes then I applaud you.

[dharmic one]

I agree with the essence of the freeman idea, but a lot of focus here is about not paying for stuff, if you don’t pay council tax will you dispose of your own waste?

Will you put your own fire out or pay a bill if you need help from the fire brigade or have had a break in and need the police to help etc?

I the answer is yes then I applaud you.

Bloody good questions...at last someone who wants to know what's going on who comes with an open mind and doesn't just shout us all down.

First and foremost, I plan to take 100% responsibility for my life. This includes, but is not limited to........

Disposing of my own waste (the less I waste the less I have to dispose of!)

Protecting my own home from burglars etc

Protecting myself against fraud, Fire, Terrorism, in fact all forms of crime
(most can be repelled using reasonable force where necessary) and most can be avoided by using common sense.

If I take responsibility instead of constantly relying on others and paying them seemingly extortionate rates without the ability to have these corporations audited so that we can all actually see where the money goes, I am able to live my life instead of unquestionably nodding my head in a wholly subservient "yes sir, no sir, whatever you say sir" manner.

It does not take a genius to discover that there is very very little in the way of accountability and transparency in any government department.

If what they are doing is straight up then why can't they answer the questions and why won't any of them sign the documents they send??

We are all being deceived on a massive scale. That is all it is. Deception. Regardless of what anyone else on here thinks or opines, these guys ( council, barclays etc) do not want to discuss these issues.

If you stay silent when you receive notices or letters demanding payment it is assumed that you agree and the process continues until the money is retrieved by whichever method the court authorizes, or you rebut the assumptions that are being made against you. This is what I have done. I have attempted at every stage to rebut (express) the implied and assumed authority of these people over me. If I ignored them or refused to pay I would have ended up in court.

This is very important.

AT NO STAGE HAVE I "GOT AWAY WITH NOT PAYING" OR "REFUSED TO PAY" OR "AVOIDED" PAYING ANYTHING.

I have simply read the maxims....

"the burden of proof lies with he who affirms, not he who denies"

The council AFFIRM via a written demand that X payment is DUE by MR PAUL FORD.

The burden of proof lies with the council to show me why they have levied this amount against my person (for I am a MAN who HAS a person).

I try to make this distinction as often as possible and it has never been refuted.

I have asked this many times. If a waiter comes to your table and demands payment for the products you have consumed YOU NEVER AT ANY STAGE if you are wise, just give him your credit card and tell him to "crack on" do you?

You ask them for proof in the form of a bill. All I have done is asked the bailiffs etc for proofs of their claims against me. They have provided none and have ceased attempting to contact me.

THEY WERE AND ARE NEVER ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT ME. THEY ARE ADDRESSING MY PERSON. Why?

Because as far as I am aware the statute/ secondary legislation that gives rise to liability for council tax does so for persons only

That is why you will never get a demand in the name of Paul : Ford.

It will always be MR P FORD, MR PAUL FORD, MR FORD. They are simply attempting to trick you into providing them with surety against this imaginary debt in the form of YOUR BODY, LABOUR, MONEY ETC.

This is the motive behind our "education" system drilling it into our heads that we are our names on our birth certificates.

They begin every session with a "register".

The government views me as their employee and their property. More accurately they view my person as their property. At no point would I disagree, it is wholly owned and created by them without my permission and with the totally uninformed permission of my parents. This is perfectly legal.

But that does not mean it is right and that it doesn't lead to a lifetime of slavery. Becoming a freeman does not entail defrauding the system or as one of my friends put it "swindling the system".

I did not point out to him that his cynicism was a product of 20 odd years of indoctrination with the ideals that "government is right always and has all the power so respect their authority no matter how ludicrous or destructive or financially crippling their instructions". How do any of us get to say who is swindling who without any knowledge of the laws pertaining to the discussion?

The beauty of the whole freeman idea is that if I did cause a fire or need a fire putting out, wouldn't I much prefer to pay them for that 1 occasion that I needed their help rather than pay £90 per month every month out of my own pocket "just in case I need the police or the fire brigade"? The latter is pure insanity and follows the other maxim..."let he who will be deceived, be deceived".

The whole system is what enables us all to live at the expense of each other. This entire system is completely dependent upon whims and wishes and desires of the state/elite instead of the empowerment of the individual so that we may all prosper in co-operation instead of some of us prospering in competition

I really hope that answers your Q's and I mean no offense or anger that may be construed or interpreted from my arguments.

Peace and love to you......

[dharmic one]

HI there,

DO you have copies of the documents that you have used for council tax? I would like to start the same process. I would be most grateful for any tips.

Love to you

Abigail


I haven't dealt with the council directly as I only began to learn about this when I was at the bailiff stage, I have recently received another summons for this year's tax and helped my bro rebut the assumptions they are making about him.

I would be happy to show you letters i've written and ones I've received but not exactly sure how to get them up on here...any tips???

[dantesinferno]

dharmic one

You make great points and they are in the spirit of what I would imagine the freeman principle is all about.

In my mind the only way for this to be real is that one takes full responsibility for ones selves, having a piecemeal approach is just a way to circumvent certain things, i.e parking fines, council tax etc.

Now these are things I have struggled with for many years and have for a long time wished to live off grid, and that is my long term plan.

After reading a lot of this forum lots I must confess not to understand I still don’t see any real success, more a slowdown of the system.

I have the already stated opinion that TPB will always just do what they want and we are in their eyes anyway bound by their system regardless.

Dante

[dharmic one]

I have the already stated opinion that TPB will always just do what they want and we are in their eyes anyway bound by their system regardless.

Dante

you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it completely. Take Barclays as an example. The next letter we write will state clearly and specifically the following;

Dear barclays,

Re your letter dated xxx.

It is my understanding that in law, "what is expressed renders the implied silent".

Following this understanding and given the fact that I have now given you two opportunities to confirm that you ARE the holder in due course of the said contract authorizing you to demand payment from me and satisfy the obligations of said contract,

I expressly state the following:

YOU ARE NOT THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF ANY CONTRACT UNDER WHICH I HAVE ANY OBLIGATIONS TO ACT OR PERFORM OR IN ANY WAY COMPLY WITH YOUR DEMANDS.

YOU HAVE NOT STATED THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE, NOR HAVE YOU PRODUCED A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY UNDER OATH, ATTESTATION UPON FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY AND PENALTY OF PERJURY, OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN BARCLAYS AND MISS X

Therefore I shall now give you seven(7) days to do so. Should you decline or ignore this offer that act shall be deemed by myself to be tacit acceptance and agreement by acquiescence of the facts as I have stated above.

Further demands or deductions from my account will be treated as harassment and theft respectively and I will not hesitate in contacting the appropriate authorities so that they may protect me against any potential threat to me, my person or my interests.

How are they ever going to be able to get £7.5k from someone who effectively they cannot prove owes them a penny???

I believe your opinion to be slightly misguided for the following reason, it is easy to assume that these guys have the power to force you to do something. But let me ask you this....at any stage of your life when you have made any application or acted in any way in commerce or everyday business have you ever been forced to perform any action?

Almost everything you do in your life requires something very special which only you can give, your consent.

Evidenced by your signature. The sign of your nature.

My nature is that of a living blessed soul serving god alone. Who do you think will be prepared to stand in court against me and claim that any body other than god is superior to me in the eyes of the law???

I am confident in stating that no corporation or government official will ever do so as they know it to be a lie and they cannot lie in court. Simple. They know the hierarchy of law.

Creator

Man

Contracts, merchant law, admiralty, etc.

Governments

slaves


If I entered court I would be the only blessed living soul operating with full commercial liability. All other PERSONS i the room are fictional legal entities, ACTING (HENCE THE COSTUMES AND RAISED BENCHES) with limited liability who must , whether they like it or not, recognize that only god alone can be above the creator of the law - man. Therefore I would be the highest authority in the room in the capacity of a living blessed soul, a Freeman-on-the-Land.

As the guy who went to court recently said in a previous post...He is who he says he is, who is anyone else to tell him otherwise???

The created cannot be above the creator, the real cannot be mixed with fiction, the dead cannot interact with the living. These are the basic principles that Rob Menard eloquently explains in his vids...to comedy effect sometimes too!!!

peace and love my friend......

[dantesinferno]

I understand what you are saying, but if you borrowed this money why use legalese to get out of paying it back?

If you despise the system and corporations and think screw them then that is one thing, but you are stating you are a freeman and fully responsible for yourself, there for why not pay what you owe?

please understand not having a go just trying to understand.

Dante

[dharmic one]

I understand what you are saying, but if you borrowed this money why use legalese to get out of paying it back?

If you despise the system and corporations and think screw them then that is one thing, but you are stating you are a freeman and fully responsible for yourself, there for why not pay what you owe?

please understand not having a go just trying to understand.

Dante

Another good question, why don't I pay them?

Because they have already been paid.

Banks are not allowed to lend out other people's money and risk other people's savings. They are not allowed to lend their own assets either. What they are allowed to do through the fractional reserve banking system is something else entirely legal.

They MONETIZE CREDIT. They are the only institution allowed to do this in the world.

When my GF submitted a loan application NO MONEY WAS EVER TRANSFERRED FROM ONE PART OF THE BANK TO THE OTHER.

Essentially what the bank did was monetize the contract and provide credit in the form of cash which is not money, merely 7500 promises to pay. They have no intrinsic value. They do this in total collusion with the BOE who are the head of the financial pyramid. They print the promissary notes that the banks use in the fractional reserve system. Money these days does not exist in the form of a valuable commodity. Only promises to pay exist because the UK is an insolvency as I think it is stated in the Administration of Estates Act 1925. The crown ( a sole corporation - not the queen or the throne), manages this bankruptcy, hence all crimes are commercial in nature as "transactions of Security Interests".

The cash has no intrinsic value because it was created out of nowhere on the banks books. As I said, this is entirely legal. They just don't tell you any of this because it is a MASSIVE money making scheme. They can only do this however, with a SIGNATURE. they are authorised to change this signature into a security which they then count on the books as an asset. Against this asset they can loan up to nine times the value of the asset in the form of promissary notes.

They then sell this "security" to the highest bidder and make a nice healthy return. As long as you keep paying them ( which you would right cos you "borrowed" the money?) they keep making money. Lots of money.

No. They didn't lend you anything that belonged to them. They loaned you credit which they could only produce with your signature.

Therefore it is my signature that gives the security any value.

As they have sold the contract they are no longer the holder in due course and have been fully compensated through the sale of the document and the £4500 that has already been "paid off" the "loan".

There was never any loan, never any consideration that they brought to the table in the form of something valuable, so the contract in my opinion is void ab initio, or invalid from the start.

Effectively all they did was use their ability to monetise securities into promissary notes using my signature. It was I who created the credit by signing the document. I cannot "pay back" what I created in the first place.

Basically they bought my sig for £7.5k and are now attempting to charge me interest of £4.5k when they have already been compensated with a fat check off someone else. This is why they are very careful and never lie to you. But niether do they ever tell you the truth.

" A lie is one thing...silence is another entirely"

[oghene]

Another good question, why don't I pay them?

Because they have already been paid.

Banks are not allowed to lend out other people's money and risk other people's savings. They are not allowed to lend their own assets either. What they are allowed to do through the fractional reserve banking system is something else entirely legal.

They MONETIZE CREDIT. They are the only institution allowed to do this in the world.

When my GF submitted a loan application NO MONEY WAS EVER TRANSFERRED FROM ONE PART OF THE BANK TO THE OTHER.

Essentially what the bank did was monetize the contract and provide credit in the form of cash which is not money, merely 7500 promises to pay. They have no intrinsic value. They do this in total collusion with the BOE who are the head of the financial pyramid. They print the promissary notes that the banks use in the fractional reserve system. Money these days does not exist in the form of a valuable commodity. Only promises to pay exist because the UK is an insolvency as I think it is stated in the Administration of Estates Act 1925. The crown ( a sole corporation - not the queen or the throne), manages this bankruptcy, hence all crimes are commercial in nature as "transactions of Security Interests".

The cash has no intrinsic value because it was created out of nowhere on the banks books. As I said, this is entirely legal. They just don't tell you any of this because it is a MASSIVE money making scheme. They can only do this however, with a SIGNATURE. they are authorised to change this signature into a security which they then count on the books as an asset. Against this asset they can loan up to nine times the value of the asset in the form of promissary notes.

They then sell this "security" to the highest bidder and make a nice healthy return. As long as you keep paying them ( which you would right cos you "borrowed" the money?) they keep making money. Lots of money.

No. They didn't lend you anything that belonged to them. They loaned you credit which they could only produce with your signature.

Therefore it is my signature that gives the security any value.

As they have sold the contract they are no longer the holder in due course and have been fully compensated through the sale of the document and the £4500 that has already been "paid off" the "loan".

There was never any loan, never any consideration that they brought to the table in the form of something valuable, so the contract in my opinion is void ab initio, or invalid from the start.

Effectively all they did was use their ability to monetise securities into promissary notes using my signature. It was I who created the credit by signing the document. I cannot "pay back" what I created in the first place.

Basically they bought my sig for £7.5k and are now attempting to charge me interest of £4.5k when they have already been compensated with a fat check off someone else. This is why they are very careful and never lie to you. But niether do they ever tell you the truth.

" A lie is one thing...silence is another entirely"

Good deductive reasoning.

[vienna]

great posts dharmic one you 've obviously put the time in

Only promises to pay exist because the UK is an insolvency as I think it is stated in the Administration of Estates Act 1925. The crown ( a sole corporation - not the queen or the throne), manages this bankruptcy, hence all crimes are commercial in nature as "transactions of Security Interests". "

although shouldn't that be Insolvency Act 1986, Section 123 not Administration of Estates Act 1925 ?

:)

[dantesinferno]

Great post, at least you have reasoned thoughtful argument, you have my respect on this.

I would argue that when you take a loan you tacitly agree to their system, so should be bound to it.

But so we are clear, I would not pay the debt back just because I despise the system and corporations, but then i wouldn’t take the freeman route, I would take the fuck you route :D

Dante

[wakeupworld]

dharmic one, from your excellent posts I can only guess that you`ve read that book with a long title by Mary Elizabeth Croft, a superb book yet many aspects I`m yet to comprehend.

[dharmic one]

great posts dharmic one you 've obviously put the time in although shouldn't that be Insolvency Act 1986, Section 123 not Administration of Estates Act 1925 ?

:)

I am in a place of confusion regarding the exact legislation under which we (The UK) entered bankruptcy. If it is possible that such an event can be hidden across several documents or Acts then I think we can all rest assured that the PTB would go to every length to make the exact date of such a horrendous event obscurable beyond definition.

The reason I have quoted this Act is because it is included as a claim in my NOUI and COR.

Some might ask whether it is important to specify exactly the particulars of such a claim before making it. I do not agree with this. I am attempting to make certain claims. If these claims are not objected to lawfully under oath within the stated time then they stand as my truth and my law.

As difficult as it is to find the truth, I have included in my NOU the following passage:

" Furthermore, I claim that the Crown's claim of "Escheat to the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duke of Cornwall or to a mesne lord for want of heirs" stands as a lawful claim and wheras the UK is an insolvency, an estate owned by God and held in trust under the Crown until a competent heir(s) appear(s) and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction."

I can't wait to see someone object to this and be willing to discuss it in public in front of a video camera, as is another of my claims should I receive any objections.

This an intriguing Act of Parliament because like many, definitions are few and far between and they appear to be specifying Estate law with regard to DEAD PERSONS. I believe that from this Act onwards, all laws and customs pertaining to the administration of estates were changed. I think this is significant because it precedes the stock market crash of '29 by 4 years and the Geneva conventions of 1930 (yes 1930) by 5 years.

But I think you might be right Vienna, the Crown's claim of escheat of all property may differ in fact from a declaration of insolvency, which could be the Act you speak of...I'm gonna have a look!!!

What is really difficult in this mire is gaining the actual truth to read for yourself. From what I know about AOP's they can have the whole meaning of the document altered by inserting one paragraph. This is to do with hermeneutics and rules of interpretation - things that I am finding difficult to grasp. Which is why state that I think such things and not know them. I am finding actual knowledge very difficult to come by these days!!!!!

I think we can all benefit from sharing what we think with others.

We got a funny letter from barclays this morning......

DEFAULT NOTICE.

What a laugh. signed by someone different again, they have ceased their attempts to contact my GF by phone, realising that we know very well we have no obligation to speak to them. What's funny is that it can be possible to default on an agreement that is no longer in their possession.

This to me is like a farmer giving me "credit" in the form of eggs. I promise to pay him later and he gives that written promise to an undisclosed third party for a fee that will cover any potential non payment for the eggs. After he gets the fee he calls me back and says.."you still need to pay me for those eggs" I cannot remember owing him anything and state that because it was some time ago now and I have paid him once a month for two years, I would like to see some proof as it is becoming an extortionate price for some eggs. He states, I don't have any but I don't need any, give me my money or I'm taking you to court. I ask him how he intends to do that without being able to show a judge any evidence whatsoever that I ever promised him anything. He declines to comment.

What's great is that I outlined the basis of our next letter and lo and behold another letter comes through giving us ample chance to discharge their notice by seeking clarification and stating certain pertinent facts.

What a strange world????

[girlgye]

Gosh Dharmic One. Really coming on well aren't you! Brilliant. Whats more you are communicating unselfishly to those who still don't understand - including me. LOL.

I would like to add. I've though real long and hard about guilt tripping myself at every turn. For example, I was with a mate in casualty the other night and up until I left she received excellent care. This didn't transpire after I left. If she had been paying for that care out of her own purse at the time oh how different it would have been. However, because it is supposedly free, it gives staff carte blanche reason to treat people who need treatment like shite. That has incensed me. Needless to say, the burden is now on us, her friends, to see that she gets the care and support she needs. So why should I pay for it?

I am taxed on absolutely everything I touch, my education, my life - in every conceivable area where I spend money. Where I could save money that is also taken off me too. So in effect, I am being kept low. I am being kept in bare minimum standards unable to rise out of the poverty to which I was born. Take away my taxes and debts and I still pay tax on what I save and on what I spend. so I'm not just being taxed once, I am being taxed many many times. Why not take it from me once? No that wouldn't make sense. I'd have too much money and therefore way too much power and that can never happen. Where I pay a mortgage I ripped of by 100% ensuring that to keep the basic needs of food, and shelter I am strung up for the most part of my life. You don't seriously expect me to believe that these service really cost the gigantic rip off that I am subject to for my labour do you? If they do, they can piss off. I don't want them. I'd rather have my house burn down, risk the nutcases, who might try and rape me and go about being free. The reality is I'd be living with my protective clan, (my family and friends) and we'd police and protect each other. As for my health care? If I saved the amount it would be likely to cost me in a life time of needing health care I figure I'd pretty have lots of spare change. In truth these taxes are means to keep me down and keep me poor and keep me slaving for the Mr.

Oh..to further add. they have received the Notice now and they have sent a letter back (this will be a year now after the first van threat lol) that the Van is now coming. So now they are getting a hefty fee schedule. they've also now told me to contact the council regarding my demands in my notice. funny that cos the council said they couldn't deal with me as it is in the hands of the bailiffs. It's the bloody letter writing that is wearing me down. I h ave so many of them, and it looks like I'm gonna get them every year.
Wake up.

[dharmic one]

Oh..to further add. they have received the Notice now and they have sent a letter back (this will be a year now after the first van threat lol) that the Van is now coming. So now they are getting a hefty fee schedule. they've also now told me to contact the council regarding my demands in my notice. funny that cos the council said they couldn't deal with me as it is in the hands of the bailiffs. It's the bloody letter writing that is wearing me down. I h ave so many of them, and it looks like I'm gonna get them every year.
Wake up.

I really do empathise here. The sheer weight of the paperwork can feel too much to deal with. I have trouble every day going out into a world trying to be honest when it seems that everywhere I look there is blatant incompetence, ignorance and deceit. But if you look carefully you can see the whole thing built on lies that are coming to the surface daily and making the system crumble faster and faster. You only have to watch the news to see the system failing daily. Let em wallow in their own shit I say. If we all try to do our best by each other I genuinely believe we will come out of this intact. As hard as it is try to keep your spirits up eh?

Also, I try (even though I like the sound of my own voice!) to keep things simple and remember how powerful I really can be. I think we're all going through major changes in our lives. It is a real rollercoster and I agree that the system is totally designed to keep the masses desperate and stressed so that we don't reach our full potential.

Viva la revolution!!!

Strange though - Years ago I was serving a jail sentence with a guy who told me that the revolution was coming. I laughed off his musings as nonsense. That was 2002. I wish I'd listened more closely now!!!

Keep your chin up and remember what the buddha said - What we think we become.

If we think peace and love we really can be it. And thank you for your kind words!!

Peace

[dharmic one]

dharmic one, from your excellent posts I can only guess that you`ve read that book with a long title by Mary Elizabeth Croft, a superb book yet many aspects I`m yet to comprehend.

I did my friend and do not pretend to fully understand it either but found it absolutely inspiring. Freeman meetings in derby have been inspired by her work and I have alot of respect for the book....might give at another read now I've learned more........

[merlincove]

hm, i have just found this thread.

in the last fifteen years i have never paid a single penny by way of council tax, poll tax, whatever it is called.

i ignore all letters pertaining to such.

i ignore all baliff's who call.

i ignore all court orders sent.

i'm not sure how i get away with not paying but i have done.

it is only recently that i have even thought about sending mail requesting contracts.

i sometimes speak with the balif in respect of contracts. one balif once told me that lawful was the same as legal, which amused me.

One baliff once said that he had a court order to remove my 'chatells'. i questioned its validity. He did not remove any chatells.

Haven't read all posts her, so am bumping to read at liesure

peace all

[girlgye]

hm, i have just found this thread.

in the last fifteen years i have never paid a single penny by way of council tax, poll tax, whatever it is called.

i ignore all letters pertaining to such.

i ignore all baliff's who call.

i ignore all court orders sent.

i'm not sure how i get away with not paying but i have done.

it is only recently that i have even thought about sending mail requesting contracts.

i sometimes speak with the balif in respect of contracts. one balif once told me that lawful was the same as legal, which amused me.

One baliff once said that he had a court order to remove my 'chatells'. i questioned its validity. He did not remove any chatells.

Haven't read all posts her, so am bumping to read at liesure

peace all

MERLIN that means you are officially the first UK free man on the land then?

Oh NEEEEEEEEEERvana. I just came across your post being diverted from what I'm supposed to be doing which is staying in honour and responding to endless threats by gangsters.

Thank you soooooh much. I've got one now and I quote

Liverpool City Council Tax
Outstanding Amount

Your debt has been passed to us by the above client and we intend to recover this debt immediately.

You can avoid this being passed back to our client for consideration to apply for your COMMITTAL to PRISON.

It is in your interest to make full payment IMMEDIATELY BLAH BLAH EFFING BLAH.

They have been sent NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTE

Was just about to send a NOTICE OF DEFAULT WITH OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.

You know what I'm hacked off and need to get some rest and to really learn this stuff as I'd really like to run the gauntlet in court. Just to be one of the first women to do so and I can't coz I'm weighed down by all this.

[yozhik]

I am in a place of confusion regarding the exact legislation under which we (The UK) entered bankruptcy. If it is possible that such an event can be hidden across several documents or Acts then I think we can all rest assured that the PTB would go to every length to make the exact date of such a horrendous event obscurable beyond definition.


Why would there be legislation, specifically for the bankruptcy of the UK?

I'm starting to look at this differently.
The Acts and the Statutes of bankruptcy and the Debtors Act, are merely the framework for such proceedings.

The UK is a corporation.
Registered as a business or company.

Why would there be a specific Act for the bankruptcy proceedings of a specific company?

I'm wondering if searching through Acts and Statutes is chasing a red herring.
An anomaly is the fact that the Debtors Act and the Bankruptcy Act were passed on the same day; one in the morning, the other in the afternoon.

That sure is a hell of a day in parliament!

I propose that more time be spent on finding the "mask" that the UK Plc wears; i.e. what name is it registered under? Then try and find insolvency proceedings filed with the normal authorities.

In my mind, the Acts and Statutes merely provide the framework in which to action the insolvency; they will not give details of the specific insolvency themselves.

But then again ... I could be way off base and completely wrong.
Its just an idea.

[merlincove]

MERLIN that means you are officially the first UK free man on the land then?

Oh NEEEEEEEEEERvana. I just came across your post being diverted from what I'm supposed to be doing which is staying in honour and responding to endless threats by gangsters.

Thank you soooooh much. I've got one now and I quote

Liverpool City Council Tax
Outstanding Amount

Your debt has been passed to us by the above client and we intend to recover this debt immediately.

You can avoid this being passed back to our client for consideration to apply for your COMMITTAL to PRISON.

It is in your interest to make full payment IMMEDIATELY BLAH BLAH EFFING BLAH.

They have been sent NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTE

Was just about to send a NOTICE OF DEFAULT WITH OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.

You know what I'm hacked off and need to get some rest and to really learn this stuff as I'd really like to run the gauntlet in court. Just to be one of the first women to do so and I can't coz I'm weighed down by all this.

:D

i think that Merlin himself might have been THE original freeman on the land, lol

And if you tried to contract, he'd perhaps contract you into a frog or somethin....

i don't know about original, i just keep dodgin it.

i'm pretty sure if you write a letter and ask for all the relevant stuff as per usual, contract, bill etc, proof of claim that i am a person, that i shpowed some id etc....

And quote that their insistance on council tax being a law / statute being a law is a lie and equivalent to fraud and i shouldn't think it will get to court?

have you seen the 'how to act in court' on tpuc and antiterrorist site?

Good luck with it, i do try to avoid court at all costs tbh....

i'll see if i can locate my frog turning into spell, and pm it to you if you like?

;)

Respect

[girlgye]

you are entitled to your opinion and I respect it completely. Take Barclays as an example. The next letter we write will state clearly and specifically the following;

Dear barclays,

Re your letter dated xxx.

It is my understanding that in law, "what is expressed renders the implied silent".

Following this understanding and given the fact that I have now given you two opportunities to confirm that you ARE the holder in due course of the said contract authorizing you to demand payment from me and satisfy the obligations of said contract,

I expressly state the following:

YOU ARE NOT THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF ANY CONTRACT UNDER WHICH I HAVE ANY OBLIGATIONS TO ACT OR PERFORM OR IN ANY WAY COMPLY WITH YOUR DEMANDS.

YOU HAVE NOT STATED THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE, NOR HAVE YOU PRODUCED A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY UNDER OATH, ATTESTATION UPON FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY AND PENALTY OF PERJURY, OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN BARCLAYS AND MISS X

Therefore I shall now give you seven(7) days to do so. Should you decline or ignore this offer that act shall be deemed by myself to be tacit acceptance and agreement by acquiescence of the facts as I have stated above.

Further demands or deductions from my account will be treated as harassment and theft respectively and I will not hesitate in contacting the appropriate authorities so that they may protect me against any potential threat to me, my person or my interests.

How are they ever going to be able to get £7.5k from someone who effectively they cannot prove owes them a penny???

I believe your opinion to be slightly misguided for the following reason, it is easy to assume that these guys have the power to force you to do something. But let me ask you this....at any stage of your life when you have made any application or acted in any way in commerce or everyday business have you ever been forced to perform any action?

Almost everything you do in your life requires something very special which only you can give, your consent.

Evidenced by your signature. The sign of your nature.

My nature is that of a living blessed soul serving god alone. Who do you think will be prepared to stand in court against me and claim that any body other than god is superior to me in the eyes of the law???

I am confident in stating that no corporation or government official will ever do so as they know it to be a lie and they cannot lie in court. Simple. They know the hierarchy of law.

Creator

Man

Contracts, merchant law, admiralty, etc.

Governments

slaves


If I entered court I would be the only blessed living soul operating with full commercial liability. All other PERSONS i the room are fictional legal entities, ACTING (HENCE THE COSTUMES AND RAISED BENCHES) with limited liability who must , whether they like it or not, recognize that only god alone can be above the creator of the law - man. Therefore I would be the highest authority in the room in the capacity of a living blessed soul, a Freeman-on-the-Land.

As the guy who went to court recently said in a previous post...He is who he says he is, who is anyone else to tell him otherwise???

The created cannot be above the creator, the real cannot be mixed with fiction, the dead cannot interact with the living. These are the basic principles that Rob Menard eloquently explains in his vids...to comedy effect sometimes too!!!

peace and love my friend......

I like this letter. However, they have stated they do not need to do any of this. So what do you say to that?

[alisa2]

girlgye wrote: I like this letter. However, they have stated they do not need to do any of this. So what do you say to that?


They need not do any of that because today’s government is essentially the sovereign now, and we the sheep, the slaves. The government has taken charge of the educational system which doesn’t teach Civics 101 (your rights) or common law anymore. Under government law, which is statutes and codes, there is no law against what they are doing to you, which is why and how get away with what they are doing. People are basically helpless without knowledge of the common law, which is the way the government likes it.

[dharmic one]

Why would there be legislation, specifically for the bankruptcy of the UK?

I'm starting to look at this differently.

In my mind, the Acts and Statutes merely provide the framework in which to action the insolvency; they will not give details of the specific insolvency themselves.

But then again ... I could be way off base and completely wrong.
Its just an idea.

I think you are onto something here, my friend. You are right about the UK and that it may just have had the framework provided for it through several documents and the rest be affected by colossal business interests behind closed doors, entirely possible. Look at the authors of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.............the rabbit hole don't stop in my opinion, It's more like a rabbit wormhole through which you peek and never see the same world that you were looking at before.....


I like this letter. However, they have stated they do not need to do any of this. So what do you say to that?

Hello Girlgye.....I'm not sure what you mean here....I've emboldened your statement....Barclays have not specified to us that they do not need to do any of what we request...Why would they? They want what they see as their money. They will try anything to trick you into contracting with them over the phone and do not dare sign letters with lies contained therein.

The monkies on the front line are told nothing of all this and they do their damn best to pressure you whichever way the can.....good news though, we usually get 2 calls a day and those have stopped as every person who called got an identical response.....I speak to them with respect as I know they are specifically kept ignorant of this othwerwise everyone in the company would have to be as crooked as the directors for it to function. Most of us are good people so without the deception it would be near impossible.

Have the bank told you they do not need to prove their claims? Because what banks say doesn't equal fact just because they say so.......they use this all the time.

I started getting involved with my GF's phonecalls because they specifically told her that they do not have to identify themselves for her to speak to them. I soon sorted that out by explaining to one of them that "its Barclays" isn't identifying himself. Barclays is a corporation, it lacks a soul, the ability to think and especially the ability to decide to and carry out the dialing of a telephone number.......who are you?" The phone goes dead every time...try it! They don't want to talk to anyone who knows anything they don't.

They are such one sided agreements aren't they? You have to do everything they demand or go to court and when you want something done they give you some speel to get you off the phone. Time to level the playing field I think folks..........


Peace all...

[karl j]

I know this is an old thread but i wanted to bump it back into view as it has some excellent information and views and techniques. There are new people signing up everyday in this forum and they have the same questions, the're in this thread as are some inciteful answers. Now coming from a point of some knowledge i understand everything said, but i believe the information given is sufficient to educate many who still don't yet get it or at least to give them a starting point from which to move forward.

[the worm that turned]

I know this is an old thread but i wanted to bump it back into view as it has some excellent information and views and techniques. There are new people signing up everyday in this forum and they have the same questions, the're in this thread as are some inciteful answers. Now coming from a point of some knowledge i understand everything said, but i believe the information given is sufficient to educate many who still don't yet get it or at least to give them a starting point from which to move forward.

And I have done nothing on this one since I started it WAY BACK!!!! LOL

Other matters have somewhat taken over :D

[yozhik]

I think you are onto something here, my friend. You are right about the UK and that it may just have had the framework provided for it through several documents and the rest be affected by colossal business interests behind closed doors, entirely possible.

Just taking to its most simple form ...

IF ... IF ... the often suggested concept is accurate; that being, the UK is a corporation and statutes are merely policies ...

IF ... IF ... you then bring that into the 'business world' as we [have been programmed to] know it ...

A corporation does not make policy about their own bankruptcy.
It will have the bankruptcy adjudged [or volunteered] and from that judgement, policies may result to provide an operating framework within the polocies of 'operating in bankruptcy'.

So the policies are internal ... the statutes are rules for those inside the corporation [the people/employees/citizens/beneficiaries of the UK corporation].

The rules re: 'operating in bankruptcy' and in fact, the procedure for bankruptcy itself, are not internal matters. There is no need for there to be statute [internal policy] regarding the establishment of the bankruptcy status. That would be handled by the regulatory body and its policies for its members [i.e the IMF and the rules used to govern over the 'borrowing nations' ... i.e. the T's & C's of the contract]

I'm sure there is a much simpler way of explaining my hypothetical, but I seem to be making a real pig's ear of it.
:D

[tien an]

Never mind....more coffee?

...and try later?
tian an.

[yozhik]

Never mind....more coffee?

...and try later?
tian an.

Well in even simpler terms, if Yozhik Ltd was about to go bust and be thrown into bankruptcy, Yozhik Ltd would not be passing policies [statutes] governing the bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy is adjudged and administered externally.

Statutes are internal policies, so you're not going to find a statute governing the bankruptcy of the corporation [external process] in the corporation statutes [internal policies]!

If you want to find the rules for corporation bankruptcy at 'that level', then best to research the IMF Terms and Conditions of 'sovereign default'.

[karl j]

Just taking to its most simple form ...

IF ... IF ... the often suggested concept is accurate; that being, the UK is a corporation and statutes are merely policies ...

IF ... IF ... you then bring that into the 'business world' as we [have been programmed to] know it ...

A corporation does not make policy about their own bankruptcy.
It will have the bankruptcy adjudged [or volunteered] and from that judgement, policies may result to provide an operating framework within the polocies of 'operating in bankruptcy'.

So the policies are internal ... the statutes are rules for those inside the corporation [the people/employees/citizens/beneficiaries of the UK corporation].

The rules re: 'operating in bankruptcy' and in fact, the procedure for bankruptcy itself, are not internal matters. There is no need for there to be statute [internal policy] regarding the establishment of the bankruptcy status. That would be handled by the regulatory body and its policies for its members [i.e the IMF and the rules used to govern over the 'borrowing nations' ... i.e. the T's & C's of the contract]

I'm sure there is a much simpler way of explaining my hypothetical, but I seem to be making a real pig's ear of it.
:D

Essentially, all the bankrupt countries, because they are bankrupt, cannot govern themselves it must be done from outside the 'corporations' as is done in all bankruptcy cases so would that then imply that the PTB mentioned by so many are the ones running the show... ??!?!!!

[yozhik]

Essentially, all the bankrupt countries, because they are bankrupt, cannot govern themselves it must be done from outside the 'corporations' as is done in all bankruptcy cases so would that then imply that the PTB mentioned by so many are the ones running the show... ??!?!!!

Companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy; do they 'govern' themselves?
They have limited autonomy, with an administrative overlord ... to ensure they comply with the guidelines of their status.

Is this accurate in very simple terms?

Countries in bankruptcy [sovereign default or trading in bankruptcy] would be no different.
They would have lightly limited autonomy, with administrative oversight from the IMF [administrator].
As long as they 'played ball' [kept within the trading terms and conditions], then the administrator wouldn't have to step in.

[girlgye]

Yeah me you and Yozza are all spotty teens now. F me I forgot I even posted on it.
They've given up on me. Foul stinking threat letters must have put a stop to it.
Still there is just simply NOTHING MORE TO TAKE or threaten me with. I think they must have realised that it perhaps wasn't a good idea to take my licence off me afterall.
Yeah too many other fish to fry to be bothered by this lot. LOL.
Remember No6 threats to imprisonment. Been there done it worn the t-shirt, learned nowt, next.

[karl j]

Companies in Chapter 11 bankruptcy; do they 'govern' themselves?
They have limited autonomy, with an administrative overlord ... to ensure they comply with the guidelines of their status.

Is this accurate oin very simple terms?

Countries in bankruptcy [sovereign default or trading in bankruptcy] would be no different.
They would have lightly mimited autonomy, with administrative oversight from the IMF [administrator].
As long as they 'played ball' [kept within the trading terms and conditions], then the administrator wouldn't have to step in.

Point is the PTB (IMF, world bank) set the terms and conditions and all Governments have to follow, that is why they wont change the monetary policies and banking systems to get back the power (from the bankers) to create money without interest. My view anyway, so don't look for help from the governments to set things right, we the people are going to have to do that, the governments may be bound by contracts signed decades ago but the people are not and we should go to debt free money immediately...!!!

[yozhik]

Point is the PTB (IMF, world bank) set the terms and conditions and all Governments have to follow, that is why they wont change the monetary policies and banking systems to get back the power (from the bankers) to create money without interest. My view anyway, so don't look for help from the governments to set things right, we the people are going to have to do that, the governments may be bound by contracts signed decades ago but the people are not and we should go to debt free money immediately...!!!

Well ... yes and no.

The government has bound your person [by various joinders; mostly implied and construed without full knowledge or disclosure], and writes promissory notes off the value of your 'assured labour', which secure those borrowings and the corporations debts.

[karl j]

Well ... yes and no.

The government has bound your person [by various joinders; mostly implied and construed without full knowledge or disclosure], and writes promissory notes off the value of your 'assured labour', which secure those borrowings and the corporations debts.

Sorry, i don't see how it can be yes and no, The PTB control the government and the government cannot impose a contract on us, only by current deception is it happening, however, if we the people know what is being imposed on us then we can remove the government and thereby the contract being imposed on us.

[yozhik]

Sorry, i don't see how it can be yes and no, The PTB control the government and the government cannot impose a contract on us, only by current deception is it happening, however, if we the people know what is being imposed on us then we can remove the government and thereby the contract being imposed on us.

Therein lies the rub ;)

Knowledge is power, right?
:)

[girlgye]

I'm in a maxim mood tonight

He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden

[karl j]

Therein lies the rub ;)

Knowledge is power, right?
:)

Never a truer word was said... ;) and sometimes ignorance really is bliss...!!

[asky]

I'm in a maxim mood tonight

He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden

Good post girlgye

So you accept that to recieve the benefits of a society you should be prepared to accept its burdens?

Or am I taking your post out of context? ;)

asky

[yozhik]

I'm in a maxim mood tonight

He who enjoys the benefit, ought also to bear the burden

The issue is when the 'benefit' is nefariously disguised as a right or an obligation.
The burden may not be obvious.

Example; passport.
It is a 'benefit' of being a 'citizen' ... and comes with many burdens.
However, if travel sans passport is an unalienable right and by adhering/contracting to the offer made of it being a 'benefit of citizenship', it necessitated the voluntary surrendering of the unalienable right ... then is this a 'just' and enforceable contract?

Which is greater?
The need for full disclosure, meeting of minds and agreement ... OR ... the adage that ignorance is no defence?

Do you bear the burden of comprehending the conditions of the benefit?
Or are you protected by the contract being fraudulent and void ab initio?

Ignorance and burden or fraud and void?
Chicken or egg?

[jimmi]

never a truer word was said... ;) and sometimes ignorance really is bliss...!!

pmsl:d

[girlgye]

Like Karl says alot better to learn from here folks. There are some good contributions here from people who don't entertain trolls.

[girlgye]

bump.