Rat's Nest wants to play games, bless !

[IamallthatIam]

Apologies in advance because this is a REALLY long post, but it had to be said, please take the time to read it

I am open to all suggestions on this, havent sent it yet , still some bits to add me thinks, that's why I am posting it here

Saturday 11th July , half past six at night , Rats Nest got some poor little GDB to hand deliver a Statutory Demand under section 268(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986. Debt for Liqudidate Sun Payable Immediately

Here goes........


In care of
address removed by me

National Westminster Bank Plc
Credit Management Services
Kendal Court
Ironmasters Way
Telford
TF3 4DT

Date: 16th July 2009

NOTICE OF REBUTTAL OF STATUTORY DEMAND

Dear Recovery: of the Manager family,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a Notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

Firstly, a Statutory Demand was incorrectly delivered to the address at which I am free to trade even though it was addressed in the name MR XXXXXX at XXX address removed by me XXXXX and you claim that this has been done so by way of service upon MR XXXXX

I have been led to believe this signifies that the paperwork was addressed to a legal fiction known as a PERSON, which is, in point of fact, the name of some CORPORATION.

I would be most grateful if you would kindly confirm or deny my understanding in this respect.

As a sovereign Human Being, with a living soul, and consequently (as I understand it) under Common Law jurisdiction (i.e. the law-of-the-land, as opposed to Corporate or Statute Law, namely the law-of-the-sea), I am not entirely sure why I have received this paperwork, and would be grateful for any clarification in this matter. I have no wish to dishonour any valid and lawful obligation on my part.

I have however presumed that you may have meant this paperwork for the attention of my self, XXXXX: of the XXXXX family, who is the authorised agent and signatory for MR XXXX, and all other capitalized variations of name of that legal fiction person.

I have enclosed for your perusal a legally and lawfully perfected instrument, my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, notarised on the 19th March 2009 which bears significance in this matter. I urge you to read it thoroughly and comprehend its contents before you proceed any further.

I am also enclosing for your further scrutiny notice sent to Alistair: of the Beat family which has so far been ignored, leaving you in dishonour.

I do not wish to dishonour any lawful obligation I may owe, I have stated that.

I have also offered conditional acceptance thereby removing all controversy and any need for recourse to a court of law as there is nothing to adjudicate on. This has been tacitly refused by default due to your lack of response. My intent is not to discredit your alleged claim, in fact I have on a number of occasions now, requested proof of your claims against me so that I can ascertain whether or not I do in fact have a lawful obligation to you and your company, your lack of compliance leaves me no alternative other than to dispute your demands in whole, until such a time occurs when you comply with my requests.

For your information I am disputing your claims against me, and consequently your Statutory Demand issued under section 268(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 as you have not provided any evidence of a debt incurred by yourselves, for “Liquated Sum Payable Immediately” or for any other purpose. On the contrary this is the exact same evidence that I have requested from you and thus far you have repeatedly refused to comply with my demand.

Full particulars of your claim against the legal fiction, Mr XXXXXXX, are supposed to be set out on page two of the Statutory Demand under the heading “Particulars of Debt”.
I quote: “These particulars must include
(a) when the debt was incurred
(b) the consideration for the debt ( or if no consideration the way in which it arose) and,
(c) the amount due as at the date of this demand”

Your response by way of completion of this section is not substantial.

You state;
“The debtor is indebted to the creditor1 in respect of the following amounts:-

Account numbered –XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Formal Demand has been served3 on the debtor by the creditor4 and the following amounts remain outstanding to the Creditor from the Debtor5 as at the 8th July 2009:-
On Account numbered – XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX AMOUNT XX”

1. There seems to be some confusion here as to your position. It is my understanding that a little clarification is required in order to establish your standing in this matter. By definition the term “debtor”, according to Black’s law dictionary means,
“One who owes a debt, he who may be compelled to pay a claim or demand, Anyone liable, on a claim whether due or, to become due. “Debtor” means “the person who owes payment or other performance of the obligation secured, whether or not he owns or has rights in the collateral, and includes the seller accounts or chattel paper (Promissory Note). Where the debtor and the owner of the collateral are not the same person, the term “debtor” means the owner of the collateral in any provision of the Article dealing with the collateral, the obligor in any provision dealing with the obligation, and may include both where the context requires so.”

I am of the opinion that I do not owe a debt. I do not recognise any debt as there is no lawful debt to which I could possible be liable. I have not been furnished with any original agreement or accounting that proves the existence of such a debt. I have requested copies of such an agreement and full accounts and there appears not to be any. Without proof of a debt I cannot, by reason, be a debtor to such a claim.

On the contrary, it is my understanding that, should any such amount be outstanding then it is to MR XXXXXX that payment is due. As any funds created at the instigation of such an “agreement”, could have only been obtained using a signature on a promissory note, signed by a party wittingly or unwittingly.

Research has led me to understand that a signature on an alleged loan agreement, affords the holder of such a document the ability to use said document as a Promissory Note or cheque, which whist valueless in it self, can be exchanged for something to be considered of value. Such a document then effectively becomes a Bill of Exchange.

The “something to be considered of value” is the funds, or figures, that are created as digits on a computer screen or “credit” upon receipt of that promissory note being treated as a debit. The exchange of debit and credit balances your books and therefore no debt exists.

The implied “loan” of “funds that you already own”, is in actual fact a fabrication designed in part to deceive those in a position to be duped mainly as a money making exercise.

It is my understanding that not only have you not “loaned” anything, substantial or otherwise, you have not suffered a loss either. I have asked you to provide evidence of your loss which you would surely have been able to do should my understanding be incorrect. I quote again “please show the full accounting necessary to prove that your company's CONSIDERATION was derived wholly and entirely from your own funds, and not in any way derived from any original Promissory Note or Agreement I may have signed. This to constitute:-

The original Contract and Agreement or Promissory Note documents. (In the absence of the original documents and Promissory Note, it will be necessary for you to compensate or otherwise indemnify me for the loss or non-return of my documents). Full accounting records, ledgers, bookkeeping entries signed and sworn by the person who made the entries under penalty of perjury and his/her full commercial liability. Certified true copies of all audited statements of accounts sworn under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability of the person or persons who made and or audited the statements.”

In a court of law, I will be demanding these as evidence.

I will, of course, amend my stance concerning this matter should you provide me with substantial proof of your claim against me as requested.

Show me details of your loss, if you have actually sustained one. It is my understanding that NatWest bank are not “out” any money. Its books are balanced since they were electronically credited by the ‘other’ bank (Bank of England) when it presented the loan agreement for payment. Is the “other” bank out of pocket, or has it suffered a loss? No, the returned cheque, or promissory note, or loan agreement (whatever name you want to assign to that piece of paper with the signature on it) was their credit. So their books were balanced.

Were my books balanced? Of course! My debit was my signature and my credit was the cash. It is all just bookkeeping entries. The transactions are complete. It was simply an exchange of debit/ credit. Why would I give anything more than that which I may have already given – my signature, which is, by the way, far more valuable than your claim against me because the funds can, and most probably will, be lent against that signature many times, earning NatWest, depending upon the rate of interest, an unlimited number of times that amount. This is called ‘fractional banking’ and the fact that NatWest failed to apprise me of this is called ‘bank fraud’. So in fact I did you a huge favour by selling you my signature. You are now trying to inform me that I have not ‘repaid my loan’; that there is a debt and I owe you. This is called ‘double billing’. ‘Double billing’ is fraudulent. Any such contract set up in this way is fraudulent when entered without the knowledge and full consent of all parties.

I think it is only just and fair that I bring to your attention the fact that to use mischief in ones contracts is actually a punishable common law offence. It is unlawful.

In consequence of the above, logic dictates that the “creditor” in such an arrangement, as discussed, can only be the party providing such a signature to be used for the purpose of creating funds upon exchange of said promissory note. Therefore, in such an assertion whereby NatWest have obtained funds using the signature they claim I have given, concludes that the only side that can declare the title of creditor is Mr XXXXXX, as without said signature no transaction could exist and no funds would have been created.

2. With reference to Account numbered –XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, I still require all
proofs of claim as previously notified and requested

3. Formal demand has not been served correctly. As pointed out at the
beginning of this Notice, my assumption has been that your intention was to
serve your demand on Mr XXXXXXX. This legal fiction is a corporate body
created at the time of my birth, without my knowledge or consent I might
add. This corporate body was created partly for the purpose of extortion. My
legal fiction has no hands with which to hold your demand. It has no brain
with which to comprehend the contents of your demand and therefore cannot
respond in substance I, XXXXX: of the XXXXX family, as authorised agent and
signatory for said legal fiction, on the other hand, have responded in
substance.

4. “Formal Demand has been served on the debtor by the creditor”. I am of the
opinion that Formal Demand should be served on the “ debtor” Natwest, by
the “creditor” , namely Mr XXXXXX, in order to recoup all of the funds
removed from his accounts by deception.

5. “The following amounts remain outstanding to the Creditor from the Debtor
as at the 8th July 2009:-

On Account numbered – XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXAMOUNT XXX”

With relation to the above account, any ‘contract’ you believe you had with Mr XXXXXX is invalid because there was not full disclosure – one of the requirements of a valid legal and lawful contract.

You have not provided the original true “contract” stating when this “debt” was incurred, I believe you cannot do this as previously outlined NO debt has been incurred.

You have not shown any CONSIDERATION for this debt, be it FULL consideration, EQUAL consideration, SUBSTATIAL consideration or otherwise , because I believe there is NO consideration put forth by NatWest Back in this or any arrangement.

The amount due as at the date of this demand should include not only money pertaining to this account number which were fraudulently obtained by yourselves on production of my signature, without my knowledge and consent, but should also include all amounts stolen from my account as “payment” for a non existing debt, plus any and all compounded interest, charges and costs incurred , plus losses suffered by me as a result of such debits, along with compensation for physical, psychological and emotional injury to my person as a result of your actions which, ultimately have cause suffering and hardship, as well as mental anguish and stress to my self, my spouse, my young children and my business.

I have a responsibility to point out to you that under the Debtor Act of 1869
Part II Punishment of Fraudulent Debtors
13 Penalty on fraudulently obtaining credit, &c
Any person shall in each of the cases following be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction thereof shall be liable to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding one year, . . . . . . F1; that is to say,
(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2
(2)If he has with intent to defraud his creditors, or any of them, made or caused to be made any gift, delivery, or transfer of or any charge on his property:
(3)If he has, with intent to defraud his creditors, concealed or removed any part of his property since or within two months before the date of any unsatisfied judgment or order for payment of money obtained against him.
F1 = words omitted by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c.58) s 1(2) repealed by the Prison Act 1952 (c. 52), Sch. 4 Pt. I
F2 = S. 13(1) repealed by the Theft Act 1968 (c.60) sch. 3 pt.1

Further more I would like to point out that

Credit Management Services
Kendal Court
Ironmasters Way
Telford
TF3 4DT

are third party interveners intervener in this matter acting without authority, I DO NOT give you permission to interfere in my commercial affairs as you have no legal standing. We do not have 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.

I am now formally requesting that you cease all correspondence including but not limited to: letters, Notices , Demands, phone calls and text messaging.

I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and I believe, should you continue in contacting me after my request for you to cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment and blackmail and you will be in breach of these acts and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.

Please also note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading and take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as evidence.

Do not contact me again.

Please note that my administration charges for responding to any further notices sent to me without enclosure of the above documents are currently £200 per hour or part thereof for my time and labour, and £350 per letter sent to Credit Management Services from me in response.

A copy of all correspondence and claims, including a letter from Her Majesty’s Treasury, shall be forward as evidence to the appropriate courts in an formal request to set aside his demand along with counterclaims should you persist with your intended action to recover a fraudulent “debt”.

Tenon Recovery, Norison Stoneham & Co and all agents thereof, are also third party interveners, and likewise, as previously informed and ignored, in this matter they are acting without authority, I DO NOT give you permission to interfere in my commercial affairs as you have no legal standing. We do not have 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.

I am now formally requesting that you cease all correspondence including but not limited to: letters, phone calls and text messaging.

I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and I believe, should you continue in contacting me after my request for you to cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment and blackmail and you will be in breach of these acts and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.

Please also note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading and take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as evidence.

That said I am sending this Notice so that you are fully aware of my intentions, that is to set side this fraudulent demand for an invalid debt under an alleged contract that does not seem to exist unless of course you can furnish me with the requested proofs of your claim against me by return of post. At no point are you to take this Notice of Rebuttal of Statutory Demand as an offer to contract as it most certainly is not. I do not give my consent nor have I previously, implied or otherwise. Under no circumstances is this to be construed a transaction of a security interest, I shall not be supplying another signature for you to use without my consent.

Yours Sincerely, without ill will, frivolity or vexation

XXXXX: of the XXXXX family, authorised agent and signatory of Mr XXXXX and all variants thereof. WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with all inalienable Rights and Powers reserved. Please send all future correspondence to a direct human self, namely XXXXX: of the XXXXX family as commonly called, otherwise they may be returned unopened and unread without dishonour



THOUGHTS PLEASE

love and light
Angie x x

[IamallthatIam]

gonna BUMP this thread , as i would like some response guys even if to tell me its crap and i cant spell for toffees. i know its a long read, so open to suggestions on abreviations - just this is very much time sensitive

cheers
angie x x x

[HappyCat]

Hi IamallthatIam,
Read through your notice and although I'm still a novice in these matters it seems fine to me. However, just to let you know, I think you may have the same text in two places;

I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and I believe, should you continue in contacting me after my request for you to cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment and blackmail and you will be in breach of these acts and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.

Please also note that if you contact me by telephone, after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading and take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my permission to use or process my personal data in any way and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data with regard to me and that you immediately destroy all of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will result in a report being submitted to The Information Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.

You will be deemed to have been served notice of my request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded delivery. I am advising you that any communications from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls and text messages received after this date will be recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as evidence.

Hope this helped, (just a little bit as I said, still a novice but getting up to speed fast.)


Danielle

[IamallthatIam]

Hi Danielle ,

thank you so much for taking the time to read through it all , it is very much apreciated as i have got to get this up to the court and get affidavits done etc.

i shall go through again and make more of a distinction between the two sections as the were aimed a two separate parties , namely Tenon Recovery and Credit managenment Services who are both listed on the Statutory demand , although I know for a fact that two separate DCAs cannot go afer the same debt at the same time , I just cant find the right section of the right act at the moment to prove it , but I will , unless someone can point my in the right direction

love and light

Angie x x

[elemental mechanic]

it reads ok as best as can comprehend it, it's concise and really gets to the nitty gritty, a lot of the differing aspects of what i feel a freeman needs to have a good grasp of is included. it certainly points to areas i need to develop, i think i will have to start my own personal "back into real education home classes" it looks and reads sound.

all the best with it



"namaste"

[kevin]

Yes it's long but they've got all day sitting on their backsides in their office to read it, it looks fine to me, it'll certainly give them something to think about, either that or they'll ignore it and send another standard letter which will put them in trouble.

good luck

[IamallthatIam]

Thanks guys , going to get it tarted up so that i can get it to the court on Monday, just taking some points from there to go in the affidavit , will post them in sec, got 6 points so far

Yes it's long but they've got all day sitting on their backsides in their office to read it,

exactly and they have been boring me shitless with the crap they have been shoving through my door!!

[IamallthatIam]

there we go , one affidavit completed - just using points raised in the Notice

If anyone else can think of anything to add please let me know

Affidavit made in support of application to set aside Statutory Demand

I, Simon: of the Elder family , freeman on the land , under common law jurisdiction only(i.e. the law-of-the-land, as opposed to Corporate or Statute Law, namely the law-of-the-sea), do make oath and say as follows that on 13th July 2009 that statutory demanh exhibited hereto and marked “A” came into my hands.
That, I,do not admit the debt on the following grounds;-

1) Firstly, a Statutory Demand was incorrectly delivered to the address at which I am free to trade even though it was addressed in the name MR xxxxxxx address remonved by me x x x x by way of service upon MR S ELDER who is in actual fact a legal fiction and the name of a corporate body, my assumption has been that Natwests intention was serve their demand on Mr S Elder. This legal fiction is a corporate body created at the time of my birth, without my knowledge or consent. This corporate body was created partly for the purpose of extortion. My legal fiction has no hands with which to hold your demand. It has no brain with which to comprehend the contents of your demand and therefore cannot respond in substance I, Simon: of the Elder family, as authorised agent and signatory for said legal fiction, on the other hand, have responded in substance.

2) I do not wish to dishonour any lawful obligation I may owe, I have stated that, therefore, I have also offered conditional acceptance thereby removing all controversy and any need for recourse to a court of law as there is nothing to adjudicate on. This has been tacitly refused by default due to NatWests lack of response. My intent is not to discredit their alleged claim, in fact I have on a number of occasions now, requested proof of their claims against me so that I can ascertain whether or not I do in fact have a lawful obligation to Natwest, their lack of compliance leaves me no alternative other than to dispute thier demands in whole, until such a time occurs when they comply with my requests.

3)NatWest have not provided any evidence of a debt incurred by themselves ,despite repeated requests to do so

4)I am of the opinion that I do not owe a debt. I do not recognise any debt as there is no lawful debt to which I could possible be liable. I have not been furnished with any original agreement or accounting that proves the existence of such a debt. I have requested copies of such an agreement and full accounts and there appears not to be any. Without proof of a debt I cannot, by reason, be a debtor to such a claim

5)Any funds created at the instigation of such an “agreement”, could have only been obtained using a signature on a promissory note, signed by a party wittingly or unwittingly.I understand that a signature on an alleged loan agreement, affords the holder of such a document the ability to use said document as a Promissory Note or cheque, which whist valueless in it self, can be exchanged for something to be considered of value. Such a document then effectively becomes a Bill of Exchange.It is my understanding that not only have NatWest not “loaned” anything, substantial or otherwise, they have not suffered a loss either. I have asked Natwaest to provide evidence of thier loss i.e “please show the full accounting necessary to prove that your company's CONSIDERATION was derived wholly and entirely from your own funds, and not in any way derived from any original Promissory Note or Agreement I may have signed. This to constitute:-The original Contract and Agreement or Promissory Note documents. (In the absence of the original documents and Promissory Note, it will be necessary for Natwest to compensate or otherwise indemnify me for the loss or non-return of my documents). Full accounting records, ledgers, bookkeeping entries signed and sworn by the person who made the entries under penalty of perjury and his/her full commercial liability. Certified true copies of all audited statements of accounts sworn under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability of the person or persons who made and or audited the statements.”Still awaiting proof of claim.In a court of law, I will be demanding these are disclosed as evidence before proceedings start.

6)This is called ‘fractional banking’ and the fact that NatWest failed to apprise me of this is called ‘bank fraud’. selling them my signature. Natwest are now trying to inform me that I have not ‘repaid my loan’; that there is a debt and I owe then. This is called ‘double billing’. ‘Double billing’ is fraudulent. Any such contract set up in this way is fraudulent when entered without the knowledge and full consent of all parties.To use mischief in ones contracts is actually a punishable common law offence. It is unlawful.

7)In consequence of the above, logic dictates that the “creditor” in such an arrangement, as discussed, can only be the party providing such a signature to be used for the purpose of creating funds upon exchange of said promissory note. Therefore, in such an assertion whereby NatWest have obtained funds using the signature they claim I have given, concludes that the only side that can declare the title of creditor is Mr S Elder, as without said signature no funds would have been createdtransaction could exist and no funds would have been created.

8)I am of the opinion that Formal Demand should be served on the “ debtor” Natwest, by the “creditor” , namely Mr S Elder, in order to recoup all of the funds removed from his accounts by deception, hencewith a counterclaim for £ XXXXX the sum exceeding the claim in respect of not only the fraudulently obtained monies pertaining to this account number, but should also include all amounts deceitfully obtained from my account as “payment” for a non existing debt. Plus any and all compounded interest; charges and costs incurred, losses suffered by me as a result of such debits. Along with compensation for physical, psychological and emotional injury to myself as a result of Natwests actions which, ultimately have caused suffering and hardship, as well as mental anguish and stress to my wife and my young children. Natwests conduct has also had a detrimental impact on my businesses.

9) With relation to the above 'account', any ‘contract’ Natwaest believe they had with Mr S Elder is invalid because there was not full disclosure – one of the requirements of a valid legal and lawful contract.They have not provided the original true “contract” stating when this “debt” was incurred; I believe Natwest cannot do this because, as previously outlined, NO debt has been incurred.

10) Natwest have not shown any CONSIDERATION for this debt, be it FULL consideration, EQUAL consideration, SUBSTANTIAL consideration or otherwise, because I believe there is NO consideration put forth by NatWest Bank on this occasion in the alleged contract.

11) that under the Debtor Act of 1869:- Part II Punishment of Fraudulent Debtors 13 Penalty on fraudulently obtaining credit, &c . It i s my understanding that by way of using my signature to fraudulemtly obtain and create credit without my knowledge or consent that Natwest have commited an offence

12), that is is an offence under the Consumer Credit Act 1984 to pursue a “debt” that is in serious dispute and this alleged debt has been in dispute since 29th October 2008

13)why was this account was even been passed to Tenon Recovery in the first place, as it is in dispute with NatWest and has been since 29th October 2008. Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited, another third party intervener, was informed of this, along with Notices to them to cease harassment.Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

14) enforcement action is NOT permitted; under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law. Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS

15)Lawful Notices have been ignored , see enclosed copies, infringing Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997,Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003,the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and the Data Protection Act 1998 again

16) On and for the record;
It is My Understanding that it was lawful for me to send you the previous Notice.
It is My Understanding that I could and did provide, within that Notice, time for objections to be resolved honourably on both sides.
It is My Understanding that it is lawful for me to assume that, since you have not responded in substance (to the best of my knowledge) I have your tacit consent (by acquiescence) to … the statements I made/Proofs I requested … which now stand as My Truth, in Law.
It is My Understanding that it is now possible for me to assume that, since the proper time for your objections has expired, I have gained a lawful estoppel by your acquiescence.
It is My Understanding that I have acted in honour at all times, since you have not objected to what I said.
It is My Understanding that it is now possible for me to point out that you must henceforth cease and desist from all and any activity regarding this current matter, or that any further communications from you will be considered to be unlawful harassment, and can be disregarded by My Self without dishonour.

Therefore I claim that, this Statutory demand is to be set aside, as this fraudulent demand for an invalid debt under an alleged contract that does not seem to exist unless of course Natwest can furnish me with the requested proofs of your claim against me . i have informed Natwest that at no point are they to take this my Notice of Rebuttal of Statutory Demand, which covers all the above mentioned points, as an offer to contract as it most certainly is not. I do not give my consent nor have I previously, implied or otherwise. Under no circumstances is this to be construed a transaction of a security interest, I shall not be supplying another signature for Natwest to use without my consent. In the same context, I do not give my consent to adjudication under admiralty law nor do I stand under any jurisdiction other than common law. I am making a special appearance as authorised agent , for the legal fiction person MR S Elder, I do not consent to contract, I waive all benefits and reserve and maintain all inalienable powers and rights.
without ill will, frivolity or vexation
Simon: of the Elder family, authorised agent and signatory of Mr S Elder and all variants thereof. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Farmer]

With the little knowledge I have, it looks very good to me.

[IamallthatIam]

well , a brief update you let you know we were back at the court yesterday, ( not for the hearing I hasten to add) just to hand the forms in and and get them stamped.

Along wth the application to set aside the statutory demand and supporting affidavit (NOTE application was crossed through and I made a point of stating it was not such - but a demand to set it aside) were 9 exhibits , all Notices previously issued and ignored , all gaining estoppels etc and a counterclaim.


just in the process of sorting affidavits for both a common law lien and a commercial lien on Natwest, too. well they did want to play didn't they?

Will let everyone know as soon as we hear anything. i would imagine it will not be for a while though as we were informed that the bloke that deals with such is on holiday for two weeks and by the sounds of it there is not another competant person in the whole of Swansea County Court that could possibly deal with it - does that mean if he gets run over by a bus tomorrow then , that the demand gets set aside automatically?? I think not !! Personally i think they exaggerated with their claim. i do not agree that there is not another competant person within Swansea County Court ,as i do not think their was One competant person in Swansea Coubty Court in the first place , well not on the judical side of things anyway. perhaps they could give all paperwork to a cleaner in his absense ???