Jump to content
vjohn82

A different tactic perhaps? FMoTL rubbish?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3666 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I've been reading a lot on being a "freeman" and looking into lots of different issues about "Accepted for Value" transactions etc. If you don't know what they are have a quick google.

 

Anyway, a poster on a forum proposed a novel way of having debts settled for you. It goes something like this...

 

If someone is in ‘debt’, and someone else comes to the rescue - and pays off the debt - what is the situation?

 

I think you’ll agree that the situation is something like this:

 

Whoever was paid off, is now perfectly happy, and isn’t likely to re-demand being paid (although this does mistakenly happen, of course!). But, generally speaking, once they are paid off, they toddle off into the sunset.

 

In other words, the so-called ‘debt’ has been ‘extinguished’ by payment of it.

 

Now, if whoever paid it off was a friend, they might do so on the basis that you pay them back as soon as you are able, or they might say “Oh, that’s all right … I can afford it …I’m just glad to see you out of trouble. That’s what friends are for.”.

 

It’s only the former case that is important. Where someone pays off the debt, but expects to be paid back.

 

Now, I suggest for your consideration that, if someone is prepared to extinguish a debt for you, but expect you to pay it back to them, there are certain things that must happen due to the demands of good faith all round, and civilised behaviour. And these are:

 

1. That they make sure that you actually owe the debt, in the first place. And they can only do this by discussing it with you.

 

2. That they make sure you agree to pay them back, and (again) they can only do this by discussing it (up front) with you (a verbal or sometimes a written contract)

 

3. You should only expect to pay them back what they, themselves, paid out … otherwise they are taking the p@@@.

 

Do you think those three are fair, honest, honourable, and reasonable?

 

I do.

 

So, when you get a letter from Bailiffs or Debt Collection Agencies, what has happened? Well, they have PAID off your so-called ‘debt’ (very, very, very cheaply) and are demanding that you pay them back.

 

That’s what’s happening...

 

BUT!!!

 

1. They never checked with you first to see whether you actually owed anything

 

2. They didn’t agree with you beforehand that you would pay it back

 

3. They aren’t demanding repayment of their outlay, they are demanding upto 1,000 times that amount (if not more)

 

No. They just muscled in. Did you ask them to? No, you didn’t.

 

Well, they muscled in, and paid of you alleged ‘debt’. So that no longer exists.

 

And, if they had wanted to be paid back, they should have got your agreement BEFOREHAND… shouldn’t they?

 

Not that you would have agreed, of course. Because:

 

1. You didn’t owe it anyway or there is a significant dispute

 

2. You never agreed to pay them back

 

3. Why should you let them take the p@@@ by demanding a 1,000 times more than they actually paid?

 

Well, that’s the scenario.

 

All you have to do is to explain it to them. (AND STAND FIRM! If you are not going to stand firm, then don’t bother … just roll over … play dead … and pay up. It’s your choice. You either walk all over them … or let them walk all over you or we play the usual game).

 

But I come back to what I said earlier. THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND.

 

So, here, I’m going to propose an alternative, which should be comprehensible to an 8-year old (I will actually try to verify this by asking an 8-year old).

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I write in response of your letter of the… yada …

 

It seem to suggest that you paid off some alleged debt to … yada … on my behalf.

 

It seems you expect me to pay you back. Unfortunately, however, your expectation is not going to be fulfilled for the following reasons:

 

1. Before involving yourselves, you failed to check that the so-called amount was actually owed. (It wasn’t)

 

2. That I, myself, am the debtor. (I’m not)

 

3. That I, myself, agreed to pay you back. (I didn’t)

 

4. That you are anyway attempting to take the ****, because your actual outlay would have 10%, or less, than your demand to me.

 

You need to make the most of this reply, because it is all you are going to get. You have now been told the situation in the plainest of English, I therefore intend to shred any further communications from you (however ‘dramatic’ you care make them. You are going to have to come to terms with the fact that your psychology no longer works).

 

Moral: If you go around paying off other people’s debts, make sure that you have an agreement with them BEFOREHAND. That is the accepted rule of good faith and civilised behaviour. It's also basic Common Sense - being the same thing as having a good look around first - before you jump into the water - only to discover there are sharks swimming around. Because once you've jumped ... it's a bit too late to discover the sharks.

 

Sincerely without frivolity,

 

 

X: of the Y family (as commonly called), English(Welsh/Scottish/Irish/etc) Sovereign.

Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible, Rights reserved.

Fredericksons have engaged some Solicitors called Bryan Carter & Co. They wrote to me a "Solicitor's Letter".

 

This was my response:

 

Tuesday, 23 March 2010.

 

NOTICE OF C@@TISHNESS & CONSEQUENT FEE SCHEDULE

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I write in response to your letter of 18/03/2010.

 

Even the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 says that - once a debt is paid - said debt is extinguished.

 

Thus when Fredericksons paid Thames Water for some so-called ‘debt’ … said so-called ‘debt’ was extinguished. (FACT)

 

Consequently your letter doesn’t make any sense at all, in point of fact it is total [naughty word]. You have your head totally up your arse for the following reasons:

 

1. I recall NO CONTRACT with you.

2. I recall NO CONTRACT with Fredericksons.

3. I recall NO CONTRACT with Thames Water.

4. I will NOT GRANT Contract to any Court de facto, should anyone decide to go to litigation. And, anyway, you will be wasting your time because there is no dispute, as explained above. There is only the FACT that any so-called ‘debt’ was extinguished.

 

So you are, basically, stuffed. And, that being the case, you must be a complete ****** to have even considered writing to me, because you should have checked all this out before putting electronic pen to paper.

 

Fredericksons have no right to pursue anyone for a non-existent so-called ‘debt’, and only a complete Piers Morgan would conjoin with them in such a CRIMINAL activity of attempted:

 

FRAUD/BLACKMAIL/EXTORTION/RACKETEERING

 

(Call it what you will).

 

Perhaps you could redeem your blatant ****ishness by explaining it to them nicely?

 

Maybe you should take some LAWFUL advice? It is, after all, childishly simple. It goes like this. If you intend to pay off someone else’s debt, make sure – beforehand – that they have agreed, via BINDING CONTRACT, to pay you back. Otherwise it is rather stupid to go ahead and do it. (And even more stupid to conjoin with them). Unless, of course, you are all philanthropists … but you don’t sound like that.

 

This is so simple, and basic, that anyone who did not comprehend would need to be mentally retarded. It is the basis of good faith and civilised behaviour, and forms a part of the bedrock of the Law-of-the-LAND (aka the Common Law). (So now you know).

 

I hereby send you Notice that my fee for any further responses in this matter (which constitute unwarranted intrusions into my privacy, and attempts at trespass on my sovereignty) will be £1,000 per letter (irrespective of content), and that by sending me a communication, you accept said Fee Schedule.

 

So, make the most of this response, and the education contained herein, because it is all you and/or Fredericksons are likely to get from me.

 

Sincerely without frivolity,

 

Veronica: of the Chapman family, as commonly called (English Sovereign). Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.

I have amended some parts to make it more readable or clarify a point but I do not take credit/responsibility for the drafting of the above.

 

But this is worth discussing anyway... I see this particular method only working in conjunction with a full and absolute assignment. Equitable assignment retains the rights of the original creditor to work in conjunction with the relevant party interested in recovering funds for them.

 

Thoughts/opinions/objections/improvements etc :D

 

...and another letter

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I write in response of your letter of the… yada …

 

It seem to suggest that you paid off some alleged debt to … yada … on my behalf. Your claim to be "acting as Agents" is entirely fraudulent, and will be proved upon close inspection of your accounts, should this matter ever get to litigation. This is well-known, and blatantly obvious by the fact that you could (and will be forced to) either "sell it on" or take the "hit".

 

It seems you expect me to pay you back. Unfortunately, however, your expectation is not going to be fulfilled for the following reasons:

 

1. Before involving yourselves, you failed to check that the so-called amount was actually owed. (It wasn’t)

 

2. That I, myself, am the debtor. (I’m not)

 

3. That I, myself, agreed to pay you back. (I didn’t)

 

4. That you are anyway attempting to take the ****, because your actual outlay would have 10%, or less, than your demand to me.

 

You need to make the most of this reply, because it is all you are going to get. You have now been told the situation in the plainest of English, I therefore intend to shred any further communications from you (however ‘dramatic’ you care make them. You are going to have to come to terms with the fact that your psychology no longer works).

 

Moral: If you go around paying off other people’s debts, make sure that you have an agreement with them BEFOREHAND. That is the accepted rule of good faith and civilised behaviour. It's also basic Common Sense - being the same thing as having a good look around first - before you jump into the water - only to discover there are sharks swimming around. Because once you've jumped ... it's a bit too late to discover the sharks.

 

Sincerely without frivolity,

 

 

X: of the Y family (as commonly called), English(Welsh/Scottish/Irish/etc) Sovereign.

Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible, Rights reserved.

bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mrs Hobbit

Didn't a Judge throw the Freeman theory out of court? I am trying tho think what the case was, but it certainly didn't fly in the Courtroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, as I understand it-

 

A "freeman" wouldn't contract with the court in the first place, ie "NCRTS" (write "no contract, return to sender" on the claim form envelope).

Should the freeman actually appear at a hearing, he wouldn't answer to his "legal fiction" and would ask the judge for certain proofs of contract with the court etc. (There is a website about this). The judge would not/could not comply with those requests, and would dismiss the case.

 

As far as the DCA paying off the debt, I expect that would fail because the DCA doesn't "pay off the debt" but buys the "rights" under an absolute assignment to collect sums under the agreement (if any;)).

 

Vjohn, have you researched the ramifications of sending a "Legal Notice of Estoppel by Acquiescence". This notice could have the same effect, under certain circumstances.

 

Bill.

Edited by Bill Shidding
Spilling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't a Judge throw the Freeman theory out of court? I am trying tho think what the case was, but it certainly didn't fly in the Courtroom.

 

It depends on whether the individual contracted with the court (as Bill Shidding has mentioned above).

 

As far as the DCA paying off the debt, I expect that would fail because the DCA doesn't "pay off the debt" but buys the "rights" under an absolute assignment to collect sums under the agreement (if any;)).

 

I don't expect this would work on a genuine Consumer Credit Agreement because you would have contracted with the original lender. However, where no credit agreement exists the debt buyer has, in effect, not bought a contract.

 

It's complicated for sure.

 

Vjohn, have you researched the ramifications of sending a "Legal Notice of Estoppel by Acquiescence". This notice could have the same effect, under certain circumstances.

 

Bill.

 

I haven't but this is something I am looking into more and more. I think the concept is more appealing than the application of it (for someone like me who is completely ingrained in the system). But for someone keen on anarchy, and judging by the success of previous patrons of the freeman art, I think it would be a pretty reasonable way of sticking it to the man.

 

You already seem quite knowledgeable on these matters... are you into this sort of thing Bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US President Barack Obama referred to Ugland House as the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax SCA* in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi vjohn,

 

are you into this sort of thing Bill?

 

Like practically everyone, I was conditioned to accept the status quo without question. However, when I saw the freemen on English Freemen Standing In Court - Council Tax Hearing - The Takedown Begins! on Vimeo openly challenge magistrates to show their oath, and accusing the people on the bench of "masquerading as judges" (police attending and doing nothing), I was intrigued.

 

If only I had cojones like that:cool:

 

Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi vjohn,

 

 

 

Like practically everyone, I was conditioned to accept the status quo without question. However, when I saw the freemen on English Freemen Standing In Court - Council Tax Hearing - The Takedown Begins! on Vimeo openly challenge magistrates to show their oath, and accusing the people on the bench of "masquerading as judges" (police attending and doing nothing), I was intrigued.

 

If only I had cojones like that:cool:

 

Bill.

 

I've just been served with a summons for the 16th August... I fully intend to go there and put the Judges on their oath.

 

I need to do some more reading before then but I think this is a challenge I cannot possibly turn down :)

 

I'd be happy to chat about this sometime if you have anything to share?

 

Cheers

 

VJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi vjohn,

 

 

 

Like practically everyone, I was conditioned to accept the status quo without question. However, when I saw the freemen on English Freemen Standing In Court - Council Tax Hearing - The Takedown Begins! on Vimeo openly challenge magistrates to show their oath, and accusing the people on the bench of "masquerading as judges" (police attending and doing nothing), I was intrigued.

 

If only I had cojones like that:cool:

 

Bill.

 

interesting! :)


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi VJ, you may have seen this canadian guy already, but his take on "sticking it to the man" is refreshing. Canada, along with most other ex-empire colonies, use the English common law as a grounding for their respective judicial systems.

 

It is surprising how many of his countries statutes, have equivalents here too.

 

Maybe worth a watch - search for Robert Menard on goooogle vids.

"Bursting bubbles" is particularly good.

 

Cheers

 

Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...