The Clerk of the Court,
Notice of Business Malpractice and Intent to Prevent Widespread Blackmail/Extortion
Notice to Principal is notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is notice to Principal
A situation of business malpractice has come to my attention, and I write advising you of it.
It is suggested that you do not ignore the contents of this notice.
Under the normal conventions between peaceful, civilised, peoples it is established practice that, if an order is placed, the person or company making the order must expect to pay for the servicing of such an order.
This is absolutely standard throughout the entirety of civilisation. No reasonable person ever expects to place orders and have them serviced for free. Even your good self, if you have a superior, and carry out said superior’s orders or wishes, do so on the basis that you are paid a salary for doing so. This same situation holds even for military service personnel, and police offices, etc. They are all paid a salary in order to carry out any orders they are given.
In short, and order is chargeable for the service of carrying it out. And, furthermore, it is whomsoever carries out the order that sets the amount to charge. The party placing the order may be given a quotation, and will either accept to have the order carried out for the stated fee, or decline because it is too expensive. In the latter case the order is not placed.
Your court is nothing more than a franchise of HMCS, which is private company claiming limited liability, and offering the service of adjudication for a fee.
The only difference between yourself (a company employee), a military serviceman, a police officer etc., and people at large (people invited to attend your courts), is that the service charges in the former cases are non-negotiable on a per order basis, having been agreed (at the time of first employment) to be fixed by the salary.
So what this all means, in summary, is that if your company makes Liability Orders, then they must expect to pay a fee to have those orders carried out, as per normal business practice. And, furthermore, since those invited to attend your courts are not employees of your court on a fixed salary, said fee or Service Charge is always negotiable.
Any other situation is untenable, uncivilised, dishonourable, constitutes business malpractice, and flouts Natural Human Rights. And furthermore it is simply a recipe for rancour and disharmony.
I trust, therefore, that henceforth you will make this abundantly clear to everyone concerned especially to any Claimant, and particularly those who are invited to attend your courts that, if a Liability Order is made against them, they should charge a fee for servicing said Order. Perhaps you could include the suggestion that a reasonable Service Charge would be amount of the Liability Order (as demanded) plus an Administrative Overhead of £50? And that, if said Claimant declines to pay, then any created order was a waste of everyone’s time, was spurious, and was frivolous.
As an alternative it may be possible to hold the order in abeyance until such time as the Claimant decides to pay the Service Charge. (This being in line with established rules of conduct, whereby someone should not order something they cannot afford at the time).
While you are adjusting the paperwork you issue, it might be an idea to point out that, by pleading guilty or not guilty, the Recipient is creating a contractual joinder for the adjudication service your company is offering. And that said Recipient has the Natural Human Right to decline your company’s offer. By making this clear, less deception would be occurring and it might go some way to reducing the malpractices of the Claimants.
Arguments claiming that ‘a service’ was provided by the Claimant to originally cover the costs of servicing the Liability Order, fail on two grounds:
1. A lawful contract, not obtained by any deceptive means whatsoever, needs to exist. And this to be proved to exist showing the agreement to exchange, the considerations of the exchange, and intent to contract by both Parties.
2. The Considerations must be equal as both sides consider them to be. And must come entirely from the resources of each Party. And neither Party is able to dictate the Consideration of the other. Thus any situation where a UNILATERAL demand is made is UNLAWFUL, since the other Party has not been able to determine their own Consideration. And any such contract is thus void under Common Law, the fundamental Law-of-the-Land. Any supposed Statutory Obligation that attempts to operate outside the Common Law is null and void (again, in law). This was pointed out by Sir Edward Coke, Lord High Chief Justice of England.
Yours sincerely without ill-will, vexation, or frivolity.