Bailiffs and Debt Collection Agencies

There are two kinds of Bailiff: Court Bailiffs and Private Bailiffs.

Private Bailiffs and Debt Collection Agencies amount to the same thing. The Agents of a DCA will often call themselves Bailiffs.

They are all a pretty nasty, psychopathic, bunch. However they all have "soft underbellies", as we shall see.

First of all, I'll explain what a Bailiff actually is. The title comes from "bailiwick". A Sheriff was, historically, given the job of keeping the peace in a shire. Keeping the peace, on behalf of the King. To do this, the shire was notionally divided up into bailiwicks, and a subordinate to the Sheriff (a Bailiff) was given the job of keeping the peace within his defined bailiwick.

So a Sheriff (and yes, there are still some left in the United Kingdom) is - essentially a Peace Officer. And his subordinates, Bailiffs, are - essentially - or at least supposed to be - Peace Officers.

In other words, there to protect and serve the communities.

And that is still their "Oaths of Office".

Now - as we all know - the very last thing Bailiffs are noted for is their fair-mindedness, tolerance, and peaceable natures. Quite the reverse.

So what is happening?

Well, it's very simple. They take an Oath as Peace Officials, and then completely ignore it, as they climb on board the 'power trip' of assuming they can break people's doors down - and steal their possessions - with impunity.

That's what's happening.

The plain facts are that they generally have no lawful entitlement to do that, are not acting under their Oaths, and are - indeed - just the thugs we actually see them to be.

Because they are not acting under their Oaths, they are not Bailiffs at all (however much they may claim to be). They are merely impersonating Bailiffs.

Now, I wrote "generally have no lawful entitlement" because there are circumstances where they would have entitlement. But these circumstances are so rare (these days) that I - for one - have never seen them in my entire life.

The circumstances are that they have obtained a lawful Warrant.

What is a lawful Warrant?

Well it is a Warrant that is valid in Law. In the Common Law. It must have arisen as the result of a verdict of a Court of Common Law (a Court de jure) - when a Jury has decided that an Accused is guilty, and should recompense an Accuser accordingly. Under these circumstances a Bailiff in entitled to break in, and take the property of, the Accused (and convicted), and hand it to the Accuser in recompense.

Another way the Warrant can be lawful is that it is based on the signature of a Justice of the Peace (note the word "peace" in that title!), a JP aka a Magistrate or Judge. But this signature must be based on sworn affidavits (Statements of Truth) from the Accuser (from the Accuser's personal knowledge), and supported by affidavits from as many independent witnesses as possible. And these witnesses must make statements based on personal knowledge.

If support from independent witnesses is not available, then a Jury Trial is the only avenue available by which a lawful Warrant can be obtained.

What is happening is that this latter method is being subsumed for the convenience of CORPORATIONS.

In my first book I explained that a CORPORATION can be considered to be a "person" for legal purposes (and how utterly absurd that is!). And what is happening is that "person" is making a complaint (as the Accuser), and the complaint is being taken for granted. Not being backed up with any evidence whatsoever.

Mainly because there is none!

This is where the absurdity arises. To be lawful, the complaint must come from "personal knowledge". But a CORPORATION cannot possess "personal knowledge", because it has no Mind in which some "knowledge" could be held!

In the desperate quest to find the Accused "guilty", this is ignored. Indeed any protestations the Accused may make is generally ignored. Indeed Accused won't even be told when the JP made the so-called "decision", until after the event. Thus giving the Accused no say in his or her own defence.

If he or she writes a letter, explaining a defence, it will be ignored as "irrelevant" - because nothing must be allowed derail this utter corruption.

When the JP makes the Order, they (too) are not acting under their Oaths. If they were, then would not be able to make the Order. Because there is no lawful evidence, and no Jury has reached any verdict.

The vast majority of (in fact quite possibly all of) the Warrants obtained in this way are entirely unlawful, and nothing more than toilet paper. (And not even very good for that … personally I prefer Andrex).

In summary they are all sworn in as Peace Officers - and then immediately forget all about that. (Policymen included!)

Thus, when a Bailiff appears on your doorstep, claiming to have a Warrant to arrest you, or a Warrant to levy distress on you, his piece of paper is worthless.

But little things like that won't stop him.

The fact that he is acting no better than a common thug won't stop him.

Because he is an Organic Robot.

So what can you do?

Well, the first thing to do is to understand your Sovereignty. And your indefeasible Right to self-defence.

Self-defence not only of yourself, but your possessions.

And, based on that, to not bat an eyelid when he throws all the psychology in the world at you. Because, at least initially, it is all psychology. In fact - in many cases - that's all it ever ends up being.

The essential point is this: Knowing the score (as explained above) is one thing … this means you know you are right. But the other thing to know is that these bastards will go the whole 9 yards (sometimes). So you must be prepared for that. And you must be prepared to go 9½ yards to their 9, if necessary.

And, if you aren't prepared to do that, then the best thing to do is to bow to all the psychology, and let them walk all over you.

Because, fundamentally, it comes down to this: You either walk all over them … or they will walk all over you.

(I did not make these rules. All I'm doing is explaining them)

Having said that, it is important to know the rest of the score.

First of all, Court Bailiffs will be acting on the basis on an unlawful Warrant - for your arrest - obtained from an unlawful Court. This will be due to an unpaid fine from the unlawful Court.

One technique (only in this circumstance i.e. only if you are being arrested - never do this if they are simply trying to seize your goods! In this latter case the Policymen will HELP the Bailiffs, because they don't understand the Law) is to call the Policymen, and to go with them to the Court. You have a good chance of being treated more graciously that way. (The Policymen will like the idea of putting one over on the Bailiffs. It will give them the chance to tickle the ribs of the Bailiff, at a later date).

Having got to Court, you then deal with the Court. That's the subject of another discussion, here.

All other (Private) Bailiffs and Debt Collectors (they are the same thing) will be chasing so-called 'debts' into which you have been placed by CORPORATIONS.

These people do not have a leg to stand on, and can be the subject of a lot of fun for you, because they generally dare not go any further. (Not if you know the score, and you let on that you know the score).

Here's why.

If someone is in so-called 'debt', and that 'debt' is paid, then the 'debt' no longer exists.

If this were not the case then you could receive a demand, pay it, and then receive another for the same thing. You could pay that, and then receive yet another demand for the same thing. This would never stop.

Everyone knows that, if you paid for something - it's paid for. And that's it. Finito.

Everyone also knows that, it doesn't matter who makes the payment. You can, for example, pay off your son's Credit Card. The Credit Card Company will accept the payment, and that will be that.

They won't say: "Hey … you can't pay that off! Only your son can pay that off. We will only accept his money … not yours!"

Do I need to go on?

So, when the Debt Collecting Agency (DCA) bought 'your so-called debt', they paid it off! So the 'debt' (if there was one) no longer exists! Because they upped and paid it off. On your behalf!

Which was very kind of them. Like it's very kind of a father to pay off his son's 'debt'.

The problem is this. The DCA, having paid off your 'debt', now expects you to pay them.

This would be all very well if - before paying it off - they had:

1. Contacted you, and asked you whether or not you believed you owed it, and

2. Agreed with you - before doing anything - that you would pay them back, and

3. Only expected to be reimbursed for their kindness, plus a reasonable amount extra due to "administration".

In that case, it would be all very well.

But that's not the case, is it?

They never asked you beforehand. They never ascertained whether or not you actually owed it in the first place, and they never got your agreement that you would be obliged to pay them back.

Did they?

They just went ahead - waltzed in - and did it. Off their own bat.

And, worst of all, they bought it for 10% or less than the demand on you … yet expect you to reimburse them the full amount! Plus some expenses!

Now, using your Common Sense, what do you think about that?

Are they in the right?

Do you think - if this were explained to a Jury - that the Jury would find in their favour?

Or, do you think a Jury might say: "Well it would have been all right if you had established all this beforehand, and agreed to be paid back, and had expected to be reimbursed plus some reasonable costs … but to just waltz in, uninvited, take over, and start flinging your weight around, isn't really on. Especially when you started to demand about 900% of your outlay. And, by the way, if YOU could buy it for 10% or less … why was it not possible to directly sell it to the original person at that same price? Why was the original demand so high, if it could be sold at 10% or less? What special favour do you have, to buy it at 10% or less?"

Well, Members of the Jury (reading this rant) what would be your verdict?

The point is that they are very shy about having this exposed, even in the most corrupt of Kangaroo Courts. Simply because there are no answers to those questions.

And you, dear Reader, know that. And I know that.

So: "Take me to Court, then!" … is a good answer to any Bailiff.

Followed up with: "No Contract = no obligation, mate! Do you want me to explain, Bonehead?"

"If you'd agreed something with me beforehand, you'd have a case, mate! But you didn't, did you? Too late now! You've hung yourself by your own arrogance".

(The Author of this rant generally goes a lot further than this, with the "verbals" … but modesty prevails within the written word here. I don't have the time nor the place to store "prisoners", so I don't take prisoners. I let go with all the "verbals", and the derisive laughter!

Your choice).

Note: This Author has yet to find a way of stopping them posting their moronic "Notices" through the door. This seems to be a fixation with them. "TAKE FORMAL NOTICE" and "FINAL NOTICE" … and so on. Keep your Shredder well-oiled.

Ignore them, as far as possible. In face-to-face situations DON'T ANSWER THE DOOR, but point everything out through the letterbox.

It is wisest not to call the Policymen. They have habit of holding the doors open for Bailiffs to do their dirty work.

"Dirty work"? Yes, because I've just explained why. But that explanation is far too simple, and rational, for a Policyman to comprehend - so don't deliberately involve them.

If the Bailiff involves them, then you must address that situation specifically.

You do this by putting the Policyman back on his Oath. The result of which could be that his duty is to arrest the Bailiff (or being arrested himself, for failing in his duty).

One of the first things to ascertain (in any case … Policymen or no Policymen) is whether or not the Bailiff is carrying his Warrant Card. Without that, on his person, at the time, he is not a Bailiff - but just an ordinary "Joe Soap". And the Policymen do know that - because they must have their own Warrant Cards on them while on duty.

Thus if you have discovered he does not have a Warrant Card - and many of them don't - (AND ONLY IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE) then you could immediately call the Policymen and have him arrested for impersonating a Bailiff (and thereby attempting to perpetrate a fraud).

Many of them don't for the simple reason that it takes "effort" to become a Certificated Bailiff. And firms don't bother to certificate all their Agents. Their logic is that - if they have at least one Certificated Bailiff on their staff, then that will do. (All for cutting corners, and cutting costs).

So, it's always a good idea to demand to see the Warrant Card.

It's also a good idea to demand to see the unlawful Warrant, itself. And then to dismiss it, saying: "That's not a lawful Warrant, Good day!"

(They will, of course argue ... but it will have been produced by a non-JP … as explained above)

The arrival of Policymen is dealt with by putting them on their Oath.

It is a good idea to have the following Notices pasted on the outside of your front door:

To all that it concerns

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT APPLIES

Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access

You are advised to read the following notice thoroughly and carefully. It is a lawful notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

I hereby give notice that the implied right of access to the property known as <your postal address>, and surrounding areas, has been removed, along with all associated property including, but not limited to, any private conveyance in respect of the following:

1) ANY employee, principal, agent, third party or representative or any other person acting on behalf of or under the instruction of HER MAJESTY'S COURT SERVICE, or any other CORPORATE BODY (i.e. Company) howsoever named and,

2) ANY POLICE OFFICER who is acting for the CORPORATE POLICE and NOT acting as a Constable for and on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her people as expressed in the Oath of Office of all POLICE men and women, that is as Public Servants, upon your Oath of Office to serve "with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property"

COMMON LAW JURISDICTION APPLIES EXCLUSIVELY

Please also take notice that the land known as England is a Common Law jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with according to Common Law.

Any and all access to the above mentioned properties shall be by strict invitation only and shall be subject to terms and conditions, available by written request.

We do not have, and have never had, a contract. And any permission that you believe you may have from me is hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired, and any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or otherwise, is hereby withdrawn. If you feel so inclined as to enforce statutes as a consequence of this matter I will report your conduct to ALL relevant bodies and will pursue Proof of Claim in affidavit form, under your full commercial liability and under the penalty of perjury.

You are deemed to have been served this notice with immediate effect.

In sincerity and honour, without ill-will, frivolity, or vexation,

X: of the Y family, as commonly known, English Sovereign. Without any admission of any liability whosoever, and with all Indefeasible Rights reserved.

And the Policyman's Oath separately, thus:

Policyman … this was your Oath.

You will raise your hand and carefully read it out to me, or I will read it out to you, and we will be discussing it fully.

"I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

If you opt to stay, we WILL discuss FULLY AND COMPLETELY, words such as "fairness", "integrity", "diligence", "impartiality", and so on, including your knowledge of "fundamental human rights" … and so on …and you will be expected to justify any action you eventually decide to take within those contexts.

We will also be discussing your knowledge of the last word, "law". Quite simply because, by actually being here, you obviously haven't a clue what that word means.

Be prepared for this to be a very long visit. If you are anywhere near the end of your shift, I suggest that you come back at the start of your next shift, since our discussions will probably take up most of that time. (Bring a thermos flask)

You can then patiently go though his Oath, along the following lines (have the Oath pasted on your side of the door, as well):

Now where, therein, does it actually say you are an "Officer"? It talks about "an office of constable", but it doesn't say "… well and truly serve the Queen as a Police Officer, …"

You'll find "Officers" in the Army. You'll also find them in the Navy & Air Force. Their job is to fight. And to do that externally. To go by air or sea to far-away distant places, meet exotic and unusual people of different cultures, who have never lifted a finger against Britain, and kill them. Such as Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

That's what "Officers" do.

"Office of constable" is merely similar parlance to "office of fair trading", etc. A general term, implying some form of 'dignity', by virtue of being physically located somewhere (in office buildings?) … as opposed to some rag, tag, and bobtail cowboy outfit.

The essential word is "Constable". Because this word DOES appear in the Magna Carta … whereas the word "Officer" doesn't.

So, you are actually a Constables … and often call yourselves a Constabulary … as opposed to an "Officestabulary".

And we can see this because nowhere in that Oath, is any implication that you are expected to fight (or actually even use force). In fact, quite the reverse as "… cause the peace to be kept".

So, what is expected of you, Constable?

Well, you are expected to act with:

fairness

integrity

diligence

impartiality

"Diligence" means attempting - as far as possible - to try to stay awake and listen! To actually try your hardest to actually take it in (hard as that may be!). "Diligence" does not mean "Riding roughshod over anything anyone else but you says". "Diligence" means remembering you are a Constable, and never forgetting your solemn Oath. That's what "diligence" means!

And so on.

Then we have:

upholding fundamental human rights

according equal respect to all people

cause the peace to be kept (instead of continually breaching it YOURSELF ... as you are doing here & now with MY PEACE!)

prevent all offences against people and property

… and to do all of this:

faithfully according to law

And 9, is the bummer. Because you don't know what "the law" means. But you should, for the simple reason "the law" is fully described within the Oath itself. All you actually need to do, in order to "know the law", is to look back at what you solemnly swore to do.

And that is the law. The Common Law. Beginning, middle, and end. Could it be simpler?

And any Statute that violates "the law" is null & void, and can't be enforced by a Constable under his or her Oath.

And, if a Constable is not acting under his/her Oath, then they are not a Constable … but merely impersonating … which (as everyone knows) is a very serious offence.

And if, after all this, Policyman still persists, then: "Who is your boss?" is the thing to do.

"I want your boss brought here, right now, I wish to have him arrest you for failure to do your duty, and impersonating a Police Constable. You swore a solemn Oath in order to obtain your badge, and you blatantly don't understand it"

The likelihood is a call, via radio, to his Sergeant, who will tell him to return to base or get back on watch, and leave the Bailiff to his own devices.

Because: "It's getting too complicated…"

And, whenever a Policymen tries to impound your car, always quote Magna Carta, Clause 30:

"No Sheriff, or Bailiff  ours, or anyone else, shall take the horses or carts of any free man for transport work save with the agreement of that freeman" ...

... and ... apart from the Common Sense and essence and spirit of that Clause ... your car is measured in "horse-power".