Subject: Back from Luton
From: Veronica
Date: 6/12/13 5:22 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

… and no response (so far) (from the Local Council) to my last letter … challenging them bring their Council Tax Claim in front of a Jury.

However, I’ve been thinking what to do, if they are stupid enough to whack a Summons my way.

I’m not sure which plan to use, at this time.

But I’m tempted to ‘not do what I threatened to do’ … but ‘to do something slightly different’.

This would have added advantage of presenting them with the ‘unexpected’ (which is ALWAYS a WONDERFUL thing!)

So, based on my previous e-mail, “Council Tax. A Rational Discussion”, I might just write something like this:

To the Clerk of the Court

I am in receipt of your literature, dated such & such, and notice that the Legal Fiction Person “MS. VERONICA CHAPMAN” has been invited to your offices on such & such a date, in order to assess liability for a forfeiture.

FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, THE RESPONSE IS HEREIN PRESENTED.

1.       The Bill of Rights 1688/9 says (very clearly):  That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.

(Reference:  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction)

 

2.       According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, the Bill of Rights 1689 is the secondmost founding document of the British Constitution.

(Reference: STATUTES (VOLUME 44(1) (REISSUE))/1. NATURE OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION/(2) DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION/(iii) Particular Types of Act/A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS/1221. Constitutional Acts

 

3.       The case of R v Thistlewood (1820) established that "To destroy the Constitution of the country is an act of treason".

 

4.        “MS. VERONICA CHAPMAN” has not been convicted of anything related the matter defined in your literature.

 

5.       Thus the forfeiture demanded by any Liability Assessment is “illegall and void”.

 

6.       A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [1961]).

 

7.       Consequently any ‘process’ that may take place on such & such a date, is incurably void, i.e. void ab initio.

 

8.       As the late Lord Denning said (above): “Something cannot be founded on nothing”. This would obviously include any further actions of aggression taken, such as engagement of Bailiffs and/or initiation of Bankruptcy Proceedings, and/or initiation of Committal Proceedings.

 

9.        As a consequence to the above, any ‘proceeding’ that may take place on such & such a date has already been dismissed, in Law. It was dismissed some 325 years ago, i.e. in 1689.

 

10.   Consequent to (9), above, if any proceedings take place on such & such a date, they will be illegal and void.

 

11.   A representative of MS. VERONICA CHAPMAN will appear on that date, at that time, to ensure that no such illegal proceedings take place.

 

12.   In the event that any illegal proceedings DO take place, the representative of MS VERONICA CHAPMAN will be left with no other option but to make a Citizen’s Arrest on all Parties involved, leading to charges of Misconduct in Public or Judicial Office (as appropriate), Abuse of Process, Unlawful Administration of Oaths of Office, Perversion of the Course of Justice, and Treason.

 

13.   FOR THE FURTHER AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT: Said charges will then be pursued vigorously by means of Private Criminal Prosecutions, which may include Indictments raised by Grand Juries, should that become necessary.

Sincerely, without ill-will, vexation, or frivolity

Peaceful Inhabitant and Recipient of Your Literature.

Without any admission of a any liability for anything whatsoever, and with all Indefeasible, Fundamental, Natural, Rights reserved.