Background
The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 defines how financial transactions must take place in ways which try to ensure that no-one defauds anyone else. It defines that any demand for payment must be made on an Invoice, which clearly states the reason for the demand, the amount of the demand, the date of the demand, and who is making the demand.
AND THE “WHO” MUST BE A REAL, NON-FICTIONAL, PERSON WHO SIGNS THE INVOICE IN WET INK.
99% of all demand documents – these days – do NOT meet those criteria. But they ARE the criteria defined in (what they call) LAW.
Consequently a valid argument in any Court would be that “I have not yet paid because I have not yet received a valid Invoice”.
However, because the Utterly Corrupt Courts System has an Overriding Rule Zero (THEY DON’T OBEY THEIR OWN RULES) making that valid argument will invariably carry no weight … and the argument will be simply brushed aside.
However, if the VAT argument is added, the Utterly Corrupt Courts System finds it much more difficult to brush the argument aside because – by doing so – they would be acting to undermine Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
And we are in the position of bringing the VAT argument into the equation because it is something that they have all forgotten about ever since the start of VAT.
Value Added Tax is supposed (according to the rules) to be added to EVERY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION … for Goods AND Services. Businesses ‘register’ for VAT and, because of their ‘registration’, they are entitled to re-claim any VAT they have paid out.
(For that reason 95% of VAT goes goes round in a circle and comes all the way back to the start. It is the most INEFFICIENT system any one could ever devise)
However, what it means is that EVERY INVOICE SHOULD ALSO SHOW VAT … even if the status of the transaction is ‘Zero-Rated’ or ‘Exempt’. It needs to specify that – in addition to those items defined by the Bills of Exchange Act.
And just think how many times – and in how many circumstances – you get a ‘demand’ THAT BEARS NO MENTION OF VAT?
A demand that you are expected to pay – with ‘menaces’ if you don’t!
Apart for the fact that 99% of all demands contain a printed ‘squiggle’ in place of a wet ink signature, there is no mention whatsoever of VAT. This renders the demand COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. In a way that – we have discovered – a Court can’t just brush aside.
And so the Drabble Brothers (Peter Thomas and Richard) have devised the BoEVAT Remedy. This has now been tested in a Southampton Court … and has shown to successfully nullify a Parking Fine attempt by a firm called Parking Eye.
Details are on their website http://www.BoeVAT.org.uk, including very simple templated letters that can be downloaded for free. There are also descriptions of instances of success … for example “cancellations by Parking Eye” … and also the case in Southampton Court … which resulted in the case being ‘stayed INDEFINITELY’ (details below).
The reason why the BoeVAT Remedy works is because you “agree to pay” the demand. This removes ALL CONTROVERSY and – since Civil Courts operate on the basis of “resolving controversy” – it has nothing to do if there is no controversy.
And they know that. BUT THEY COULD NOT SIMPLY DISMISS THE CASE … for reasons I will give below.
The reason is that – while you “agree to pay” (thereby removing controversy) you add a few conditions WHICH SIMPLY REFLECT THE LEGAL POSITION DEFINED BY THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT and THE VALUE ADDED TAX RULES.
And by adding these conditions you have done TWO things:
1. NOT added one iota of controversy …
2. … but created what is currently an insurmountable problem for any Claimant.
The Judge can’t award the case to you … because by doing so he or she would invalidate every PCN, Council Tax Demand, Court Fine, TV Licence Demand, Road Tax Demand etc. etc. etc. i.e. every demand that was not properly Invoiced and showing the VAT position.
But the Judge can’t award the case to the Claimant without allowing the Claimant to COERCE YOU INTO BREAKING THE LAW.
The Court don’t obey many rules – but even the most psychopathic of Judges or Clerks would balk at making a ruling to the effect that someone can “legally bound to BREAK THE LAW”!
So the case was “stayed” … INDEFINITELY – that being the Court’s only viable option.
See http://www.BoeVAT.org.uk/success
WARNING: TO USE THE BOEVAT REMEDY SUCCESSFULLY YOU NEED TO STAND UP TO THE INTIMIDATION AND CALMLY STICK TO YOUR GUNS. If taken to Court - and you have followed the exact same templates as downloaded from BoEVAT.org.uk - you can conjoin yourself to the Southampton Case "D4FC175X 16th October 2017"
