For Newbies, as much as anybody ...

[Veronica]

I’m breaking this Topic up into segments, so that you don’t get overwhelmed.

I will try to ensure that it is suitable for Newbies, as much as anyone else.

FMOTL is now just over 1 year old. And we have learned a hell of a lot in that year.

One of the fundamental things we have learned – any many, many Members here will vouch for this – is that those we are up against (Police, Bailiffs, Debt Collectors, Magistrates, Clerks of Courts) find it (a) impossible to perform the simple act of reading, (b) impossible to perform the simple act of writing, (c) have the comprehension skills of a lamp post.

It doesn’t matter what you say, or do, they will not understand. Consequently it doesn’t matter what you say or do.

Thus you are free to do whatever is necessary (I’ll come to that).

It doesn’t matter whether you open their letters or not. Thus any “Return to Sender Campaign” doesn’t really go anywhere (ultimately). It may work – to some extent – but it is not the panacea for everything.

We’ve now, in the past year, been through the stage of “trying to ensure that we don’t Contract” … but they don’t understand what a Contract is … so why bother? Why worry?

So my message to Newbies is this: “Don’t worry about it”. Don’t even give it a second’s thought. At the end of the day, any Contract is only valid if it can be shown that YOU FULLY INTENDED TO CONTRACT, WITHOUT DECEPTION, AND NOT UNDER DURESS … so that means any & every so-called Contract isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

I missed out Judges from the list of so-called ‘officials’, above. Most of them do fit that category, but there are a few who do not. But none of them are a problem, as you’ll see if you read on.

[Veronica]

It all comes down to the following facts:

They are all Public Servants, dealing with ghosts & spectres (Legal Fictions), and you are a living Human with a living soul. Thus you are SOVEREIGN and out-rank all of them, at all times. Because YOU ARE THEIR MASTER. Fundamentally all you have to do is to act sovereign, and not take any shit. (I’ll come on to this in detail).

They have the brawn - but the mentality of an amoeba - and you have the brains (and experience) of FMOTL behind you.

So let’s get down to brass tacks. There are many scenarios, and I’ll limit this discussion to the three main ones (a)What to do in Court, (b) What to do with the Police, (c) What to do with Debt Collectors & Bailiffs.

[Veronica]

Take it over. Dismiss everyone, and dismiss the case.

That’s the short answer.

You do NOT ask the Magistrates or Judge whether or not they are on their Oath. If it is a Court de facto (i.e. a Court WITHOUT a Jury), then they are NOT on their Oaths.

So you turn it into a Court de jure by putting them on their Oaths. And, since there is no Jury convened, no de jure proceedings can take place.

Thus there are 2 possibilities:

1) They will not accept acting under their Oaths. In which case they will probably walk out (recusing themselves). If they do, then you take control, and declare the proceedings dismissed.

2) They will accept acting under their Oaths, in which case they are sworn to PROTECT & SERVE YOU … and thus their only possibility is to dismiss the proceedings themselves. (This has not happened to the best of my knowledge).

You can envisage the following scenario (my responses in italics):

“Call the next case!”
“Uh … it’s Miss Veronica Chapman, your Worships. Is Miss Chapman here?”
“No, Miss Chapman is a ghost … a fiction … a legal fiction … so she can’t possibly be here, and you cannot possibly proceed against a ghost, can you?”
“And just who are you?”
“Who’s asking?”
“I’m asking”
“And who are you?”
“I’m the Clerk of the Court”
“And what is your role?”
“I’m here to provide legal advice to their Worships”
“And just who is providing LAWFUL advice to these people?”
“Ah … I am”
“Then why do they need legal advice, when you can provide lawful advice?”
“I … ahh … are you Miss Chapman?”
“Well, firstly I’m not fictional, as you can see, and secondly I didn’t miss anything, did I? However, it appears that I’m the only Member of the Public around here, so I out-rank you because you are all Public Servants. Therefore I’m taking over these proceedings to start with.”
(Turn to the Magistrates or Judge)
“Under God, so help me God. That was your Oath. I accept your Oath and I acknowledge it. And I hold you to that Oath, and now we have a binding contract. You are sworn to serve and protect me, and I appointed you to your office, in these affairs, to uphold all my indefeasible Rights, and to protect me from the criminal conversion of the civil statutes of the State of England. Are you prepared to do that, or to recuse yourselves?”

They’ll walk out., and I will call “Case dismissed”, and tell the Clerk to write that down, or I will sack her from her job.

[Veronica]

Even if you did what you are accused of, it is still better to say nothing at all … however persuasive the arguments put to you.

“What is your name?”
“If I give you that information, how do you propose to use it? What will you do with it?”

Here, of course, he or she will use it to shaft you, and he or she will know that – but dare not admit it outright. So the probable answer will attempt to turn the screw by telling you that: “You can be held for so and so days if you don’t give your name”.

In which case you can respond: “If you can do that WITHOUT knowing my name, heaven alone knows what you could do WITH knowing my name!”

Then there is:

“Who are you?”
“Who’s asking?”
“I’m a policeman, and I’m asking you your name”
… and we are back to the original scenario.

If, eventually, arrested and charged, as you are likely to be – even though you are more than likely to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing - do not say anything at all. Under any circumstances. Otherwise you will undoubtedly ‘hang’ yourself. If told you need to make a Statement, say:

“Have you arrested me … yes or no?”
“Yes, but …”
“Have you cautioned me … yes or no?”
“Yes, but …”
“Have you charged me … yes or no?”
“Yes, but …”
“In that case you have done everything you can, and I’ll say everything necessary to the Judge. I don’t intend to enter into any pre-Trial Trial with you, because you are not a qualified Judge”.

As an alternative it is possible to put a policeman back on his or her Oath – just like all other so-called ‘officials’. In which case his or her job would be to serve and protect you. However their imagination, depth of knowledge, and comprehension, is so limited and otherwise ingrained that they are unlikely to understand the meaning of what you say.

It is possible to ask:

“Are you a Police Constable, or a Police Officer?”

This will confuse him, because he thinks they are the same thing.

Which they are very much not.

A Police Constable (they call themselves PC XYZ), is a Constable who is acting under his Oath to prevent breaches of the peace, and up hold the Law(-of-the-Land). Possibly (you could say) a PEACE Officer.

A Police Officer is not acting under his Oath, and is nothing more than a Tax Collector.

[Veronica]

I’ve left the best till last.

Well, I’ve a lot of personal experience of this, lately.

However, before I come to how to deal with them, perhaps I should try to explain the precise ‘scenario’ that involves them.

It goes like this (think about it … it is not hard!):

If someone is in ‘debt’, and someone else comes to the rescue - and pays off the debt - what is the situation?

I think you’ll agree that the situation is something like this:

Whoever was paid off, is now perfectly happy, and isn’t likely to re-demand being paid (although this does mistakenly happen, of course!). But, generally speaking, once they are paid off, they toddle off into the sunset.

In other words, the so-called ‘debt’ has been ‘extinguished’ by payment of it.

Now, if whoever paid it off was a friend, they might do so on the basis that you pay them back as soon as you are able, or they might say “Oh, that’s all right … I can afford it …I’m just glad to see you out of trouble. That’s what friends are for.”.

It’s only the former case that is important. Where someone pays off the debt, but expects to be paid back.

Now, I suggest for your consideration that, if someone is prepared to extinguish a debt for you, but expect you to pay it back to them, there are certain things that must happen due to the demands of good faith all round, and civilised behaviour. And these are:

1. That they make sure that you actually owe the debt, in the first place. And they can only do this by discussing it with you.

2. That they make sure you agree to pay them back, and (again) they can only do this by discussing it (up front) with you.

3. You should only expect to pay them back what they, themselves, paid out … otherwise they are taking the piss.

Do you think those three are fair, honest, honourable, and reasonable?

I do.

So, when you get a letter from Bailiffs or Debt Collection Agencies, what has happened? Well, they have paid off your so-called ‘debt’ (very cheaply) and are demanding that you pay them back.

That’s what’s happening.

But:

1. They never checked with you first to see whether you actually owed anything

2. They didn’t agree with you beforehand that you would pay it back

3. They aren’t demanding repayment of their outlay, they are demanding about 1,000 times that amount.

No. They just muscled in. Did you ask them to? No, you didn’t.

Well, they muscled in, and paid of you alleged ‘debt’. So that no longer exists.

And, if they had wanted to be paid back, they should have got your agreement BEFOREHAND … shouldn’t they?

Not that you would have agreed, of course. Because:

1. You didn’t owe it anyway.

2. You never agreed to pay them back

3. Why should you let them take the piss by demanding 1,000 more than they actually paid?

Well, that’s the scenario.

All you have to do is to explain it to them. (AND STAND FIRM! If you are not going to stand firm, then don’t bother … just roll over … play dead … and pay up. It’s your choice. You either walk all over them … or let them walk all over you).

Now, the DebtBust Application contains Templates that create ‘nice’ letters. And you can use that if you wish.

But I come back to what I said earlier. THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND.

So, here, I’m going to propose an alternative, which should be comprehensible to an 8-year old (I will actually try to verify this by asking an 8-year old).

Dear Sirs,

I write in response of your letter of the… yada …

It seem to suggest that you paid off some alleged debt to … yada … on my behalf.

It seems you expect me to pay you back. Unfortunately, however, your expectation is not going to be fulfilled for the following reasons:

1. Before involving yourselves, you failed to check that the so-called amount was actually owed. (It wasn’t)

2. That I, myself, am the debtor. (I’m not)

3. That I, myself, agreed to pay you back. (I didn’t)

4. That you are anyway attempting to take the piss, because your actual outlay would have 10%, or less, than your demand to me.

You need to make the most of this reply, because it is all you are going to get. You have now been told the situation in the plainest of English, I therefore intend to shred any further communications from you (however ‘dramatic’ you care make them. You are going to have to come to terms with the fact that your psychology no longer works).

Moral: If you go around paying off other people’s debts, make sure that you have an agreement with them BEFOREHAND. That is the accepted rule of good faith and civilised behaviour. It's also basic Common Sense - being the same thing as having a good look around first - before you jump into the water - only to discover there are sharks swimming around. Because once you've jumped ... it's a bit too late to discover the sharks.

Sincerely without frivolity,


X: of the Y family (as commonly called), English(Welsh/Scottish/Irish/etc) Sovereign.
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible, Rights reserved.

(Actually they should get Oscars for some of the ‘dramatics’ I’ve seen recently)

[Veronica]

There's a Topic called "Veronica's Water Bill".

Thames Water have sold the so-called 'debt' to Fredericksons International.

Fredericksons have engaged some Solicitors called Bryan Carter & Co. They wrote to me a "Solicitor's Letter".

This was my response:

Tuesday, 23 March 2010.

NOTICE OF CUNTISHNESS & CONSEQUENT FEE SCHEDULE

Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your letter of 18/03/2010.

Even the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 says that - once a debt is paid - said debt is extinguished.

Thus when Fredericksons paid Thames Water for some so-called ‘debt’ … said so-called ‘debt’ was extinguished. (FACT)

Consequently your letter doesn’t make any sense at all, in point of fact it is total bollox. You have your head totally up your arse for the following reasons:

1. I recall NO CONTRACT with you.
2. I recall NO CONTRACT with Fredericksons.
3. I recall NO CONTRACT with Thames Water.
4. I will NOT GRANT Contract to any Court de facto, should anyone decide to go to litigation. And, anyway, you will be wasting your time because there is no dispute, as explained above. There is only the FACT that any so-called ‘debt’ was extinguished.

So you are, basically, stuffed. And, that being the case, you must be a complete wanker to have even considered writing to me, because you should have checked all this out before putting electronic pen to paper.

Fredericksons have no right to pursue anyone for a non-existent so-called ‘debt’, and only a complete twat would conjoin with them in such a CRIMINAL activity of attempted:

FRAUD/BLACKMAIL/EXTORTION/RACKETEERING

(Call it what you will).

Perhaps you could redeem your blatant cuntishness by explaining it to them nicely?

Maybe you should take some LAWFUL advice? It is, after all, childishly simple. It goes like this. If you intend to pay off someone else’s debt, make sure – beforehand – that they have agreed, via BINDING CONTRACT, to pay you back. Otherwise it is rather stupid to go ahead and do it. (And even more stupid to conjoin with them). Unless, of course, you are all philanthropists … but you don’t sound like that.

This is so simple, and basic, that anyone who did not comprehend would need to be mentally retarded. It is the basis of good faith and civilised behaviour, and forms a part of the bedrock of the Law-of-the-LAND (aka the Common Law). (So now you know).

[b]I hereby send you Notice that my fee for any further responses in this matter (which constitute unwarranted intrusions into my privacy, and attempts at trespass on my sovereignty) will be £1,000 per letter (irrespective of content), and that by sending me a communication, you accept said Fee Schedule.[/b]

So, make the most of this response, and the education contained herein, because it is all you and/or Fredericksons are likely to get from me.

Sincerely without frivolity,

Veronica: of the Chapman family, as commonly called (English Sovereign). Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.

Within a couple of days I get a letter from Fredericksons asking me to "Please confirm when the debt was paid off".

LMAO! THEY PAID IT OFF!

My reply to Frederiscksons:

TO WHOEVER IT MAY CONCERN:

Notice to Bailiffs & Debt Collectors (etc)

Notice to Agent is notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is notice to Agent

It is a basic rule of Common Sense that – if you pay someone else’s so-called ‘debt’ - then you make sure – BEFOREHAND – that they are prepared to pay you back. If you had done that, your demands would have the force of LAW behind them.

Since you never checked anything with me BEFOREHAND, then you & your Company are either:

1. Philanthropists, acting non-philanthropic
OR
2. A collection of mentally retarded wankers, devoid of basic Common Sense/comprehension of LAW.

Don’t bother knocking, because you’ll be unlikely to get an answer. If you do get an answer, then the only one you’ll get will be “Fuck off you pathetic little wanker” … so you’ll be wasting your time.

If you put a letter through the door it will be immediately shredded. Yet another waste of your time & effort … but hey … you’re a complete wanker … so you’ll do it anyway!

THE REASON IS VERY SIMPLE: DON’T BUY DEBTS BEFORE ESTABLISHING FIRST OF ALL, THAT YOU’LL GET PAID BACK … OTHERWISE YOU ARE

A STUPID FUCKING WANKER.

(By all means take a copy of this Notice back to your office)

I think that just about sums it all up ... and that's the latest in the saga of "Veronica's Water Bill".

[enegiss]

like a knife edge v, love it. peace

[the trojan]

well Veronica,
I have always thought that the people who join/contribute to these type of forums have a major problem in that everyone is playing catch up and will continue to do so until a book/manual is kept and updated daily.

But ,you have just updated the whole thing for me.
that was a wonderful piece of writing and readin ,
thank you.

[Veronica]

If asked "Where do you live?", the answer is: "Here". (i.e. "In my body, that where I am alive")

When the Police make an arrest, it is nothing more than a Citizen's Arrest (backed up with 'numbers', 'muscle' & 'technology' ... but still no more than a Citizen's Arrest).

A Citizen's Arrest is: Place your index finger on their right shoulder and say "You are under arrest and I am placing you into the safe custody of this Constable/Bailiff in a Court". You would need to prefer charges. The most common one would be "Common Assault".

You have been subjected to "Common Assault" if you felt that your personal safety had been threatened. This DOES NOT have to be PHYSICAL IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. It can be purely MENTAL' as they approached you (e.g. in a 'menacing' manner) or threatened you e.g. "We'll break your door down". That's Common Assault.

When Richard Harrison was arrested a while ago, the Bailiffs threatened to break his door down. There were at least 4 other people in that residence at the time. Even if Richard 's claim to Common Assault was 'iffy' (it wasn't ... but suppose it was) ... any claim, by the other 4, was perfectly valid. IF A BAILIFF THREATENS YOU - OR YOUR PROPERTY - he has committed Common Assault ...

... UNLESS ...

... he is acting on the basis of a Warrant ISSUED BY A COURT DE JURE ... I.E. THE VERDICT OF A JURY OF 12 (so sayeth the Magna Carta, 1215)

[jonboy]

Yes the where do you live one has amused me before.

"where do you live?"
"everywhere I go"
"what do you mean?"
"since childhood everywhere I have been, I have been alive at the time."
"eh???"


And the other favourite:

"whatis your name"
"no it isnt"
"what do you mean?"
"what isnt my name, why did you say what is my name, that is incorrect officer"

I could go on all day!