Discussion / Debate for Bill of Exchange v Law of Property Act.

[sillygirl1]

And incorporated into the CCA act and other legislation....

 

This lot are trying to take over where the Rankines left off.

[postggj]

Basil and Amanda have a lot of questions to answer from the people they conned money out of

[citizenB]

I think it would help if the campaigners for the Bills of Exchange Act would, instead of spouting reams of ancient legislation, would come up with one or two cases where the BoEA actually worked in a defence. Current cases.

 

If they cant, then they should not try to encourage the use of this act.

 

I hived off lots of posts from other threads where the FoTL crowd were spamming this rubbish in order to give them a platform to provide this evidence. It would appear that there is none and this thread is now going round in circles and going nowhere.

 

I would suggest, anyone who has been trying to enter sensible debate and is now becoming frustrated with the lack of proper responses, should unsubscribe from this thread and let the BoEA campaigners talk to themselves.

[postggj]

Don't you think the forum has an obligation though on making sure people who read this freeman crap on the forum are made aware their views have no legal substance in the 21st century.

 

I will always uphold free speech, but this freeman crap is dangerous if used in court, and people will end up getting burnt in front of a judge

[citizenB]

Squaddie, I think it has been made reasonably obvious that anyone who takes the advice of these people are not doing themselves any favours and that there is no legal substance. On this thread and others.

 

What we cant have is the thread descending into fisticuffs.

 

If I were taking away your right to Free speech I would not have requested the thread be reopened !!

[postggj]

i agree on your reasoning,

 

as stated, we need say 2 cases that have been to court in which the respondent has used this freeman crap as a defence and received judgement in their favour

 

i would think hell would freeze over before we get any sort of response

[citizenB]

i agree on your reasoning,

 

as stated, we need say 2 cases that have been to court in which the respondent has used this freeman crap as a defence and received judgement in their favour

 

i would think hell would freeze over before we get any sort of response

 

And as many where we know that it has cost the defendant dearly by attempting to use the BoEA !!

[filrobbo]

So what your saying is, that common law as no power in the modern day law,even though we are a common law state.I just need to get this right before I get myself in to something over my head. Thanks.

[postggj]

statutory legislation is derived from common law

 

the common law principles are ingrained in civil law, that is common law. Common law stems from 1066 in which the kings justice was dispensed to the common people

 

common law has its place in the judicial system, precedence is derived from common law

 

the judges under judicial interpretation under common law can have the final say in proceedings

 

common law and statutory law are one and the same, statutory legislation has to be compatible with common law principles

[renegadeimp]

What squaddie means is that FOTL stuff is a load of crap and you'd do well to ignore it.

[filrobbo]

Thanks eveyone for your replies .

[postggj]

There have been quite a few threads advocating this freeman of the land garbage as a way of escaping your debts. I thought i would draw the line and explain the legal standing of this freeman crap and welcome any freeman to challenge my reasoning.

 

Our laws stem from two constitutional documents, one being the Magna Carta, or great charter of 1215, the other being the Bill of Rights signed by William and Mary in 1689

 

Freeman state our constitutional rights come from Magna Carta. Well my friends, Magna Carta is all but symbolic now, there are only three fundamental rights still afforded under Magna Carta

 

No man shall be imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions, be outlawed or exiled, or force proceeded against him without lawful judgement, or deny the right to justice

 

Magna Carta was more to do with feudal rights than legal theory (jurisprudence)

 

Magna Carta was deemed no more than symbolic by the Bill of Rights signed by William and Mary in 1689.

 

The Bill of Rights laid down principles controlling the monarchs powers and the rights of parliament.

 

Going on from the Bill of Rights, we have Habeas corpus Act 1679 and the parliament Act

 

So my freeman friends, Magna Carta no longer exsists in its entirety under English law, (SYMBOLIC) even though the Magna Caeta is a Constitutional document, so is the Bill of Rights of 1689, Which our uncodified constitution stems from

 

Over to you my freeman friends, i will open up the debate to end this once and for all and end this lawful rebellion rubbish

Edited March 31, 2013 by squaddie

[citizenB]

Please keep all discussion regarding Bill of Exchange and Law of Property act to this thread.

[filrobbo]

Have you read sect 135 of law of property Act 1925? It reads: "...Equitable waste.An equitable interest for life without impeachment of waste does not confer upon the tenant for life any right to commit waste of the description known as equitable waste, unless an intention to confer such right expressly appears by the instrument creating such equitable interest...." . Or

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999???

[postggj]

DEBTS ARE ASSIGNED UNDER SECTION 136 LOP ACT 1925

 

136 Legal assignments of things in action

 

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

[filrobbo]

The way I look at it only works if you agree to it and thethird party (DCA)name, is stated on the original contract.

[postggj]

You are talking of a tripartite agreement

 

The contract is between the assignee and assignor, not the debtor

[filrobbo]

Can you please tell me which part of Law Of Property Act 1925

relates to consumer credit debt been able to be passed to athird party. Cheers

[renegadeimp]

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/sectors/finance/news_and_updates/consumer_credit_act_agreements.aspx

 

Seriously, can we end this stupid FOTL crap. IT has not basis whatsoever in reality or law. This has been proven over and over ad infinitum.

[postggj]

i do feel i keep on repeating myself, all the answers are contained within 136 Law of Property Act 1925 FOR WHICH I HAVE ALREADY POSTED THE LEGISLATION

 

The link given states case law, which is precedent, so please give it up now

Edited April 1, 2013 by squaddie

[postggj]

for your reference also

 

Section 189(1) of the CCA 1974 “clearly contemplates that an assignee may become a creditor”;

[sequenci]

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/sectors/finance/news_and_updates/consumer_credit_act_agreements.aspx

 

Seriously, can we end this stupid FOTL crap. IT has not basis whatsoever in reality or law. This has been proven over and over ad infinitum.

 

Hear, hear.

[filrobbo]

Thanks people for your help.

[inneed2011]

This post ended a few months ago. I did a Bill of Exchange out of desperation. I did not realise the total ins and outs and was lead to believe it was a way to clear my debt and save my house from repossession. 1 year later my house has been repossed, but the fraud squad are after me for sending a cheque which was a bill of exchange. What is the likelihood of me being done for fraud? Scared and terrified and naive for believing this was a solution to help my situation.

[NiteHawk2003]

but the fraud squad are after me for sending a cheque which was a bill of exchange.

 

I don't understand this part. Can you elaborate?