When any so-called "Debt Collection Agency" (which includes Solicitors and Bailiffs threatening to obtain Court Orders) place any demand on you they are perpetrating a fraud. In the case of Court Orders, their original application to the Court conjoined said Court in the fraud.

Here are the reasons.

They will write a demand to you, claiming to be "Agents" of the Originator (the "originator" being whomsoever made the demand in the first place e.g. Bank, Building Society, Local Authority, etc.). This is a lie. They are not "Agents" at all, but have purchased the so-called 'debt' with their own 'money'. They do this by buying very cheaply, and then attempting to collect the full amount from you. This is how they expect to make a profit.

Please Note: Those who work for these "Agencies" (in the lower echelons) do not, necessarily, know anything about this, however they will have some kind of "Purchasing Department", who will know exactly what is going on.

In Law, however, by purchasing the so-called debt, they have EXTINGUISHED THE DEBT. This means that the 'money' is no longer owed.  By you. In Law. Anything you may (or may not) have actually 'owed' has been written off, by the Originator. And it was yourself and the Originator that may (or may not) have had any Contract to which you may have been obligated.

Thus, for anyone to claim that you still 'owe' anything is a bare-faced lie, and a FRAUD. It is DEFAMATION, plain and simple. Fundamentally what has happened is that 'someone' has paid off any debt you may (or may not) have owed, on your behalf. (It is perfectly acceptable for Human "B" to pay off Human "A"s debts ... this happens all the time, where, for example, parents may bail out their children, and vice versa. Friends can do this for each other all the time).

But, once any so-called 'debt' has been paid, it has been paid. And that's all there is to it.

But, when Debt Collection Agencies do this, they continue to pursue you for a debt that has been - in actual fact - extinguished by their very purchase.

So they are actually pretty stupid ... going around paying off someone else's 'debts'. And they do this out of avarice (greed). And it is long past time that these greedy people got their 'come-uppance'.

And that is happening. And the Genie is out of the Bottle.

This point is this. By purchasing so-called 'debts' in this way, they had no interest in any original Contract. Thus, when they purchased, they did so of their own volition, out of pure avarice, without any legal, lawful, or moral obligation to do so.

In short, THEY UPPED AND VOLUNTEERED. And we all know what happens when you volunteer for anything ... YOU TAKE ALL THE RISKS AND ANY COMEBACKS UPON YOURSELF. (That's what volunteering means).

Because, by volunteering, you have agreed to take all the risks yourself, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to involve anyone also, and try to palm the risks off on someone else.

Which is of course, precisely what they are doing when they try to palm it off on you, by claiming to be "Agents" and sending you demands.

They are perpetrating a FRAUD. Any original 'debt' has been extinguished, and no longer exists, so any claim to the contrary is a lie. They claim to be Agents when they are, in point of fact, nothing more than 'volunteers' who decided (RATHER STUPIDLY) to take on all the risks UPON THEMSELVES.

In "legal" terms, they try to get around all of this by considering the Volunteer to be a "Holder in Due Course". This is, of course, nothing more than a "Legal wrangle" to try to get over the basic FRAUD. This does not get around the basic fact that the so-called 'debt' was extinguished when it was purchased. Neither does it get around the fact that the Agency is NOT acting as an "Agent" of the Originator (which is therefore a deception), but is acting totally on their own behalf. This is because, as far as possible, "Legal" will always turn a blind eye to "Reality & Law".

The result of this is, therefore, nothing more nor less than "Totally Legalised Fraud" (to go along with, for eample, "Totally Legalised State Genocide" in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). And, for that reason these sound arguments are very risky to use in a Court. Therefore it is better to fall back in the 'base' augment: Prove the original debt.