Form 4 Complaint. Debtor ordered to pay £10,000 "interim payment"

[tomtubby]

This particular Form 4 Complaint was heard in court a few weeks ago and we are waiting for a copy of the Judgment but I can report that the District Judge has ordered the Complainant to pay an "interim payment" to the bailiff of £10,000 and I am advised that the likely cost payable by Mr Dragon (the complainant) will be in the region of £25,000 !!!

 

This is a very worrying Form 4 Complaint indeed as Mr Dragon appears to have some involvement with the Freedom on the Land movement (which I will be writing more about later).

 

With regards to bailiffs and debt, Freeman on the Land (FOTL) supporters will take as gospel the "advice" given on FOTL websites. These sites actively encourage debtors to display "Removal of Implied Right of Access" notices at the boundary of their homes in the "mistaken" belief that a bailiff will not come to the door and, that if they do so...the bailiff is committing trespass. I have just completed a Newsletter for the forum on this very subject following a recent court case where the judge dismissed the claim for trespass and ordered the claimant to pay the bailiff companies costs.

 

Given the links with the Freeman on the Land movement, a company called Debt Free TV ( associated with the owners of Get out of Debt Free) got involved with Mr Dragon at an early stage and filmed some background to his complaint and representatives of Debt Free TV even went to court with Mr Dragon at his Form 4 hearing. Naturally they could not film events inside the court.

 

There are MANY references to this particular complaint on various websites that support Freeman on the Land theories and there is even a You Tube video (just put the name of Mr Dragon....Corfe Castle ....and bailiffs into Google).

 

What is noteworthy is that barely anywhere will you find any details at all of the OUTCOME of Mr & Mrs Dragon's Form 4 complaint. That is until now.......

 

I will be providing a lot more information as soon a I get it.

Edited May 18, 2013 by tomtubby

[unclebulgaria67]

I have seen the video before and note that the claimant is actually a district councillor. You would have thought that they could have dealt with the wrongful behaviour of the bailiff in a different way. I am presuming it was a business van that incurred the PCN and this was why the bailiffs went to the businesses premises.

 

Hope that the Get out of debt free people are helping with the costs.

[caledfwlch]

Is it likely that such a hefty penalty has been levied due to wasting the Court and the Defendants time with typical FOTL nonsense?

 

In line with the article linked the other day, regarding that FOTL Court Case in Canada.

 

If so, then once you have added your info, TT, then maybe this thread should be stickied as a warning to new posters of the danger of falling for the snake oil salesmen of the FOTL movement.

 

Who of course, will not have to fork out a penny of this potential £35,000.

[brassnecked]

More than likely the complaint was far below the seriousness required to deprive the bailiff of their certificate and put them on JSA, so was therefore classed as vexatious.

[caledfwlch]

More than likely the complaint was far below the seriousness required to deprive the bailiff of their certificate and put them on JSA, so was therefore classed as vexatious.

 

It sounds like it is this guy

[tomtubby]

Sorry,

 

I have just sent a message to the moderators to amend the title of this thread.

 

The court ordered Mr Dragon to pay an "interim" payment of £10,000 to the bailiff and not £20,000. The remainder of the bill is subject to taxation and the "likely" eventual cost that Mr & Mrs Dragon are to pay is in the region of £25.000.

 

 

Caldfwlch.....it is indeed my understanding that the "trial" took two days as a lot of time was wasted listening to the "FOTL nonsense".

 

PS: Time for me to make a visit to "Specesavers" to get my first ever pair of glasses!!!

Edited May 18, 2013 by tomtubby

[tomtubby]

It sounds like it is this guy

 

caledfwlch

 

You are correct.

 

Interestingly, of all the comments that have been left there is NO MENTION whatsoever that Mr Dragon has lost his Form 4 complaint.

 

In other words, in keeping with the Freeman of the Land activities they do NOT want their followers ( for want of another word) to find out that their "theories" are nonsense.

[ims21]

Thread title changed

[caledfwlch]

caledfwlch

 

You are correct.

 

Interestingly, of all the comments that have been left there is NO MENTION whatsoever that Mr Dragon has lost his Form 4 complaint.

 

In other words, in keeping with the Freeman of the Land activities they do NOT want their followers ( for want of another word) to find out that their "theories" are nonsense.

 

I don't understand why people never seem to "click" that the supposed "wins" are nothing of the sort. Just seeing what they want to see in the hope of making their debt/bailiff woes vanish I suppose.

[wonkeydonkey]

A CLEAR warning to show the making of Form 4 complaints is not to be entered into lightly, I fear we are going to see a lot more of these incidents whereby people have followed the wrong advice....... it will be interesting to see results to the 1300 bailiffs awaiting hearings to the Form 4's another site claims to have provided at cost to unsuspecting members of the public?

WD

[brassnecked]

A CLEAR warning to show the making of Form 4 complaints is not to be entered into lightly, I fear we are going to see a lot more of these incidents whereby people have followed the wrong advice....... it will be interesting to see results to the 1300 bailiffs awaiting hearings to the Form 4's another site claims to have provided at cost to unsuspecting members of the public?

WD

 

It is a horror story in the making, problem is these people probably could not have afforded the original fees whether legit or dodgy, there is no way they will be able to afford to pay the bailiffs costs awarded by a DJ that may run into thousands from a failed Form 4.

[tomtubby]

As I understand it the matter of the "costs" is still ongoing but is "looking to be" approx £23,000K.

 

Yet another warning the Form 4 complaints should only ever been issued as a last resort and only in the most exceptional of circumstances.

[HCEOs]

As an enforcement business over the last few years we have begun to receive many letters from people using various 'Freemen of the land' templates and notices. Much of this is found on another well known bailiff forum that is costing debtors financially through their continual incorrect advice.

 

Many of these letters have included monstrous fines (usually in the millions), threats of criminal proceedings for a list of crimes as long as your arm and various other tosh.

 

We have invited the senders to see through their claims in court and to date not one has obliged. No surprise really.

 

Clearly these people are deluded.

 

But it is a shame that they lure people in (Mr Dragon appears to have cause for some compliant) and yet when matters go wrong I'm sure they won't be putting their hands in their pockets.

 

The sums owed thus far could likely see his business go down... and for what?

[tomtubby]

HCEO

Your post is a real coincidence !!

 

As you will see from another thread about Rossendales and Removal of Implied Right of Access, I mentioned that I would be starting a new thread on the subject of such notices.

 

They of course have their origins with Freeman on the Land movement and it is therefore necessary for me to write two articles.

 

I have spend almost all weekend on this and should have both articles finished by tomorrow evening. They are looking pretty decent at the moment and hopefully everyones patience will be rewarded very soon !!!

[HCEOs]

tomtubby, just as an example here is part of an email I have received today (from a Freeman client!!):-

 

"Take note that, under penalty of perjury, you, personally are liable for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud by abuse of position - offences which are criminal, as are Contempt of Court, Harassment, Misconduct in Public Office, Perjury and Perverting the Course of Public Justice.

 

I look forward to a non-threatening response (be warned that I will; use the powers conferred upon me by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if I so deem it necessary) to my questions by no later than 4pm on Tuesday 22 October 2013 by way of email to this address.

NB: this email is deemed by the Trust to be an OPEN email and therefore capable of publication to the world. If you make a false move now, it might just tarnish the image you like to promulgate.

 

TAKE NOTICE that your responses will be under penalty of perjury. A failure to respond will result in a private criminal prosecution taken out against you for perverting the course of public justice and for conspiracy to do the same, as well as other offences."

 

The above relates to a matter that we refused to enforce as judgment had been set aside. We even refunded the creditor his £60 cheque as the court refused to issue a Writ (rightly). Laughable.

[brassnecked]

HCEOs you acted in good faith, and refunded the fee, and refused to enforce as the writ was set aside, even a rabid FMOL, should have no quarrel with you!

[tomtubby]

HCEO,

 

Thank you for your post. It is bloody funny and absolute typical "Freeman on the Land" rubbish.

 

Out of interest, how did the writer address himself?

 

For instance: did he refer to himself as:

 

▪ John of the family Smith

▪ John of Smith

▪ John:Smith

▪ John (commonly known as)

 

PS: I dont mean to say that his name was John Smith ( at least...I hope not). The above are examples...

 

I would be interested to know.

[Ganymede]

tomtubby, just as an example here is part of an email I have received today (from a Freeman client!!):-

 

"Take note that, under penalty of perjury, you, personally are liable for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud by abuse of position - offences which are criminal, as are Contempt of Court, Harassment, Misconduct in Public Office, Perjury and Perverting the Course of Public Justice.

 

I look forward to a non-threatening response (be warned that I will; use the powers conferred upon me by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if I so deem it necessary) to my questions by no later than 4pm on Tuesday 22 October 2013 by way of email to this address.

NB: this email is deemed by the Trust to be an OPEN email and therefore capable of publication to the world. If you make a false move now, it might just tarnish the image you like to promulgate.

 

TAKE NOTICE that your responses will be under penalty of perjury. A failure to respond will result in a private criminal prosecution taken out against you for perverting the course of public justice and for conspiracy to do the same, as well as other offences."

 

The above relates to a matter that we refused to enforce as judgment had been set aside. We even refunded the creditor his £60 cheque as the court refused to issue a Writ (rightly). Laughable.

 

 

Hillarious.

[HCEOs]

HCEO,

 

Thank you for your post. It is bloody funny and absolute typical "Freeman on the Land" rubbish.

 

Out of interest, how did the writer address himself?

 

For instance: did he refer to himself as:

 

▪ John of the family Smith

▪ John of Smith

▪ John:Smith

▪ John (commonly known as)

 

PS: I dont mean to say that his name was John Smith ( at least...I hope not). The above are examples...

 

I would be interested to know.

 

This didn't actually come from our client but from the executor of his "private trust". A little Googling shows their connections the FMOL movement. Between their little group of cohorts they have accused various councils, police forces, judges, solicitors, company directors and pretty much every man and his dog of exactly the same.

 

It's worth having a look at the list of 'offenders' on the right hand side of this webpage: Weblink

Edited October 22, 2013 by HCEOs

[brassnecked]

What happens when FMOL meets Form 4? the Freeman gets fleeced with mega costs. Did the Freeman rip up their "Berth Certificate" to deny maritime law jurisdiction?

 

QWhat remains to be seen is what they coome up with for post April, wonder how Freemen will deal with interpleader?

[tomtubby]

Oops!!!

 

As you will note from my opening post, that this complaint (about the bailiffs) features very heavily on the Freeman on the Land favorite 'media' outlet; You tube. What is astonishing is that there is simply no mention whatsoever as to wthe outcome of Mr Dragon's complaint.

 

There has indeed been a recent update.

 

It is my understanding that in fact Mr Dragon has now settled the legal costs that he was ordered to pay for THIS particular failed Form 4 Complaint.

 

According to very reliable 'blogs' it would seem that the legal fees were finally assessed at significantly more than the predicted £10,000 and reached over £20,000. They have been settled in full.

 

A few days ago I had started another thread which once again highlighted the dangers of filing Form 4 Complaints and where the debtor had again lost his application and once more the court had ordered him to pay the bailiff companies legal costs.

 

I had not wanted to cause any further embarrasement to Freedom on the Land websites or their supporters but it would seem that this cannot be avoided because; from the number of private members and emails that I have received this week it would seem that many people were indeed aware that the other thread concerns ANOTHER failed Form 4 for this very same debtor (Mr Dragon).

 

Details of his second failed Form 4 can be read here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?417571-Form-4-Complaint-and-yet-ANOTHER-cost-order-imposed-against-the-Complainant!!!