The Four Corner Rule

[pleasuredome]

hi everyone. my first post here after finding this excellent DB. im currently studying the freeman philosophy and commercial law as way to beat fraudulent money lenders.

 

one thing i discovered is this:

 

The term is ordinarily included in the phrase within the four corners of the document, which denotes that in ascertaining the legal significance and consequences of the document, the parties and the court can only examine its language and all matters encompassed within it. Extraneous information concerning the document that does not appear in it—within its four corners—cannot be evaluated.

 

Four Corners legal definition

 

so anything that is not in the four corners of the document has no effect on it.

 

if a box is put onto the document, a new 'four corners' is created. it follows that anything inside that box has no effect on the language outside of it and vice versa.

 

most CC agreements i have seen contain a signature box. if you sign within the box, you agree to the terms within the box, not on the whole document. if there were no terms in the box where you signed and there is no signature of the bank rep in the box, then there cant be an agreement.

[underdog13]

:D:D Brilliant! I have a feeling you are going to be a very helpful addition to these forums - Welcome to CAG, Pleasuredome

[Rooster-UK]

The only flaw to your argument is that you are citing American Law, Not UK law.

[underdog13]

Ah, what a shame.

 

Keep at it pleasuredome, I'm sure you'll find lots more to hit them with:)

[pleasuredome]

The only flaw to your argument is that you are citing American Law, Not UK law.

 

it's commercial law, merchant law, admiralty law (whatever you want to call it). it applies here just as much as it does in the US, hence why a bank in england would put a box around the signature on there documents. if there was no need for a box, why put it on? there's a need, but im not 100% sure why.

[pleasuredome]

Ah, what a shame.

 

Keep at it pleasuredome, I'm sure you'll find lots more to hit them with:)

 

only bullets can stop me now ;-)

[underdog13]

I think that's the one tactic DCAs don't use -yet:p

[flyingdoc]

only because they havent thought of it

[underdog13]

don't give them ideas!:D

[pleasuredome]

sorry, can you tell me what DCA stands for?

[flyingdoc]

Debt Collection Agency

[pleasuredome]

Debt Collection Agency

 

thanks.

 

does anyone on here have a DCA demanding money from them? if so, do they have a contract with the DCA?

[Happyfeet24]

I have 3 DCAs demanding money. I don't have a contract with any of them.

[pleasuredome]

I have 3 DCAs demanding money. I don't have a contract with any of them.

 

here's something called a notice of discharge. you can use this for parking tickets, speed camera fines etc.

 

when someone sends you a notice saying that you owe them something, it is an offer. you cannot refuse their offer. to do so will put you in dishonour. ignoring it is agreement by aquiesence. you have to accept conditionally, which is a counter-offer. if they do not respond to your offer the original is void.

 

this is basically how its done (this is for a parking ticket, you can alter this to suit you circumstances. but do a bit of research first so you understand what you are doing. you can change proof of claims to 'proof of claim that a contract exists between [YOUR NAME] and [their company name]):

 

[ADDRESS]

 

 

[DATE]

 

Re: FIXED PENALTY NOTICE AB12345678 - Issued [date]

 

Notice of Discharge of Outstanding Penalty Notice and Request for Clarification.

 

To [address]

 

You have apparently made allegations of illegal conduct against me.

You have apparently made demands upon me.

I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them.

I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of God given Natural Rights.

Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 10 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

 

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am [NAME] and that I owe £......., upon proof of claim of all of the following:

 

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person and not a human being.

2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.

3. Upon proof of claim that you know what the difference between a ‘human being’ and a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.

4. Upon proof of claim that I am NAME[all capitals] and not Name[upper and lower case]

5. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.

6. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.

7. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.

8 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within this alleged transgression state that they apply to me within that named society

 

Answers to these questions must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and received via registered mail to:

 

[ADDRESS]

 

no later than TEN (10) days from the date of original service as dated by way of Royal Mail

recorded delivery service. Further Notices issued or demands for payment thereafter by you or any third parties will be seen as a breach of Section 1 of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if you fall into dishonour by failing to respond within the ten days.

 

 

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

[signature]

[flyingdoc]

If that gets you off a parking ticket I will be absolutely amazed.

 

it is the biggest crock I have ever seen and would immediately be binned

Their FPN is not an offer.... it is a penalty notice under statute and anyone that attempts to use this is most likely at the very least to lose their opportunity to pay the reduced amount and if they use it against a speed camera offence will end up in breach of s172 of the road traffic act and 6 point on their license.

 

I love the way you spout rubbish about "statutes not being law" and then quote the protection from harassment act .

 

You cannot have it both ways - either acts of parliament are laws or they are not. You cannot decry the laws as invalid and then expect to use them in your defence.

[42man]

Pleasuredome, have you got evidence of this working ? has this ever been used in a UK court of law ? Any case law to back this up ?

[pleasuredome]

Their FPN is not an offer....

 

yes it is.

 

I love the way you spout rubbish about "statutes not being law" and then quote the protection from harassment act .

 

You cannot have it both ways - either acts of parliament are laws or they are not. You cannot decry the laws as invalid and then expect to use them in your defence.

 

let me try to enable understanding for you. statute is not law unless you contract to it. all corporations are governed by statute law (they cannot get out of it), a human being is not. hence why you can use a statute against a corporation. this is why a policeman needs evidence of the person for a breach of any statute, because the person (your name in capital letters) is a corporation. if a common law is broken then the policeman does not require evidence of the person.

 

the courts, police forces, fire brigades, hospitals, the government, the councils, social services, are all corporations and can be found listed in databases such as Dunn & Bradstreet, creditgate.com etc

 

there are people who have used these types of notices of discharge successfully and corporations cannot get around them.

 

there is plenty of information on the web, examples and cases where people are using this avenue re-claim back their common law rights.

 

some sites to go to are:

 

www.tpuc.org | News for positive people

Think Free Be Free - Welcome to ThinkFree.ca

 

some videos:

 

Think Free : Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception

 

DemockeryWEB.mov

 

 

you can shout and scream 'rubbish' as much as you want. its just information and you can make of it what you will. i realise this route isnt for everyone. im not trying to convince anyone that this is ultimate truth and the only way, all im saying is it is an avenue that people can try if they want to. i didnt join this DB to argue over opinions and who's right and who's wrong, or try to get personal with people. all im here for is to share info.

[flyingdoc]

statute is not law unless you contract to it

You just cannot "opt out" of the law. you do not contract to it - it is not an optional extra - it is THE LAW.

 

there are holes in it no doubt - some big enough to drive busses through but the premise that you, as an individual can declare yourself to be a "freeman" and therefore not subject to statutory law is lunacy.

[pleasuredome]

You just cannot "opt out" of the law. you do not contract to it - it is not an optional extra - it is THE LAW.

 

there are holes in it no doubt - some big enough to drive busses through but the premise that you, as an individual can declare yourself to be a "freeman" and therefore not subject to statutory law is lunacy.

 

then i can only say that 'lunacy' is working for people using it, not just in this country, but those countries England gave the common law to.

 

finding loopholes is an area that is very legit and i applaud all who use that method, hence i why i started this thread. imo, the signature box is a loophole that probably could never be filled.

[Happyfeet24]

I do hope that the letter template you showed doesn't allow somebody driving at 130mph in a 30mph limit to be let off:eek:

 

I replied on post 13# because you asked if anybody had DCAs demanding money and if the person being demanded of had a contract with those DCAs. I'm still not sure how the letter would apply for dca's? Is there a different one that deals directly with DCA's and the issue of no contract with them?

 

Many thanks

Happyfeet:)

[pleasuredome]

I do hope that the letter template you showed doesn't allow somebody driving at 130mph in a 30mph limit to be let off:eek:

 

I replied on post 13# because you asked if anybody had DCAs demanding money and if the person being demanded of had a contract with those DCAs. I'm still not sure how the letter would apply for dca's? Is there a different one that deals directly with DCA's and the issue of no contract with them?

 

Many thanks

Happyfeet:)

 

ok. lets see if we can use our creative imagination to come up with notice that you can send them.

 

 

[ADDRESS]

 

 

[DATE]

 

Re: NOTICE (ok here put in the title of the notice they sent you, demand for payment etc) - Issued [date]

 

Notice of Discharge of... (Demand of Payment)

 

To [address]

 

You have apparently made allegations of that I owe you money. You have apparently made demands upon me to pay the money allegedly owed. I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them.

 

I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law.

 

Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 10 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

 

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am [your NAME in capitals] and that I owe £......., upon proof of claim that there exists a signed two party contract between us, and that if you can prove that said contract exists, you make presentation of a bill of exchange for the aforementioned amount.

 

Proof and presentation must be sent via registered mail to:

 

[ADDRESS]

 

no later than TEN (10) days from the date of original service as dated by way of Royal Mail

recorded delivery service. Further demands for payment thereafter by you or any third parties will be seen as a breach of Section 1 of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if you fall into dishonour by failing to respond within the ten days.

 

 

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

[signature]

 

 

so basically, its quite simple. all you are doing is disharging their offer for you to pay them by making a counter-offer to pay on condition. its just negotiation, which any judge will have assumed to have been undertaken by the 2 parties before entering court.

 

DCA's have no contracts with the persons they demand money from and cannot enforce those demands if you conditionally accept.

 

if you receive no reply, you can then go to a public notary and get him to send a copy of your notice with his own. if that is ignored, the PN will send the same one last time. if it ignored again, the PN will make a default judgment in your favour, an estoppel.

 

if the DCA take you to court, you can file the estoppel into the evidence file of the judge, and it all goes tits up for the DCA

Edited January 5, 2009 by pleasuredome

[flyingdoc]

so let me get this straight - at what point would you send this letter? would it be when you first get the demand to know who was driving or have you, at this point already confirmed to the police who was driving?

[pleasuredome]

so let me get this straight - at what point would you send this letter? would it be when you first get the demand to know who was driving or have you, at this point already confirmed to the police who was driving?

 

the one above is to be sent to the DCA.

 

that particular situation, and with other driving offences could be very difficult to get out of as the car is registered in your person. you could claim that you dont know who was driving, which would mean they would try to get you to pay the fine. at that point you would send that notice.

 

a funny story that a policeman told my bro-in-law was that, to put it in a nutshell, the police went chasing after 3 lads in a car, the car had gained some distance on police, but the police eventually caught them when the car had stopped. they went to the car and all three lads were sat on the backseat. the police asked who was driving and they said they didnt know, none of them gave their name and there was nothing the police could do.

 

im not condoning irresponsible behaviour, but these days the 'authorities' are acting that way all the time and are screwing the people for as much as they can get.

[Rooster-UK]

Did you, by any chance, supply the defence in the Rankine Case?

[flyingdoc]

the police went chasing after 3 lads in a car, the car had gained some distance on police, but the police eventually caught them when the car had stopped. they went to the car and all three lads were sat on the backseat. the police asked who was driving and they said they didnt know, none of them gave their name and there was nothing the police could do.

 

in the case of a s172 notice - the registered keeper is REQUIRED BY LAW to give the name of the driver. if they fail to do so they themselves are prosecuted for failing to do so.

 

when this process was challenged under the Human rights act the EU court held that simply by DRIVING A CAR the driver agreed to forfeit some of their rights.