talkmagic.co.uk

Continuing the theme of commercial remedy. My boyfriend has a couple of debts, both with the same company. I had myself named as Agent & Administrator for both accounts and sent the CEO of the debt bandit a Notice of Conditional Acceptance. This basically says that we will make efforts to settle the account in the most expedient manner possible upon proof of claim. Here is the sanitised Notice.


Debt Bandito
Crook House
1 Criminal View
Leeds


19 February 2010


NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT


Dear Bandito,

Your ref: XXXXX
Our ref: LHBOS


I have recently been named by STRAWMAN as the exclusively authorised Agent and Administrator in relation to the above account. I have full authority to act as his representative in all matters relating to the above account.

As the duly authorised representative of STRAWMAN, I hereby conditionally accept your proposal to settle any and all outstanding liabilities with your client in the most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following:

1.Proof of claim that your client exists in the form of their NAME, ADDRESS and Public Liability Insurance Policy Number.
2.Proof of claim that the alleged liability has been created in the form of an original agreement signed by the authorised representatives for STRAWMAN and your client.
3.Proof of claim that the alleged liability exists in the form of a verified true bill signed in blue ink by your client and charged to STRAWMAN.
4.Proof of claim that the alleged debt can be validated in the form of the actual accounting of your client's consideration, pursuant to said original agreement of the parties.
5.Proof of claim that DEBT BANDITS LIMITED has the legal right and lawful authority to attempt to enforce collection of the alleged liability, in the form of an original agreement signed by the authorised representatives for STRAWMAN and your company.

I look forward to receiving these reasonably requested items within 7 days of this notice, following which I will make the appropriate arrangements to effect payment. However, should DEBT BANDITS LIMITED dishonour this notice by failing to deliver all of the above items to the mailing location above in the stated time, said dishonour will constitute the agreement of all concerned and affected parties that Proof of Claim cannot be provided upon request and your client's claim against STRAWMAN is an invalid one.

Please be advised that pursuit of any and all false claims against STRAWMAN may be in contravention of the Fraud Act 2006, which clearly states:

“ 1 Fraud

(1)A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2)The sections are -
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable -
(a) on summary conviction, to impronment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

2 Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he -
(a) dishonestly makes false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation -
(i) to make gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if -
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).”


Finally, please supply me with your Public Liability Insurance Policy Number, Licence Number and your Tax Identification Number (TIN), in order that I can instigate any and all administrative and/or judicial procedures that I deem necessary, in the event that an invalid claim against STRAWMAN is established.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,




By: Freeman-on-the-Land, GARY of the family dickson
Authorised representative for STRAWMAN
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE - NON-ASSUMPSIT

Some of you may be wondering what STRAWMAN means.

When you are born, your birth is registered. This creates a PERSON. The third edition of Black's Law Dictionary (which is in Legalese, the language of the Law Society that uses English but gives them different meanings) defines person as "a fiction".

So, a LEGAL PERSON bearing the same name as the flesh and blood human being is created. This person bears the same name as yourself, but all the letters are CAPITALISED, and the name is preceded by an appelation of status, such as MR.

So, in my case, my legal person is called MR GARY DICKSON. This person is often referred to as a STRAWMAN by the Freeman movement.

ahh freemen. freeman of the worshipful company of card tossers. now that is something

I don't understand the root cause of your issues? Reading the above and your previous post on a similar topic, it seems you are contracting debts you cannot afford to repay with high interest companies (credit cards?), then fighting to get out of these debts using legal loopholes?

Le Petit Bateleur wrote:I don't understand the root cause of your issues? Reading the above and your previous post on a similar topic, it seems you are contracting debts you cannot afford to repay with high interest companies (credit cards?), then fighting to get out of these debts using legal loopholes?

This is a very interesting question and one struggled with. However, there are a couple of points worth bearing in mind. The debt itself is fraudulent in that the credit bandits don't actually lend you the money. The credit is created by your signature. In any event, even if the credit bandit did bring equal consideration, given that (certainly in the UK) currency is no longer based on the gold standard, it is a fiat currency, a made up number. So, what have they actually given us? Nothing, they've just conned us into thinking they have.

I am not using legal loopholes. In this instance, I am merely, quite reasonably, asking the debt bandit for proof of claim. In the other instance I am using a perfectly lawful method of discharging a liability using a financial instrument.

These financial instruments are extremely valuable. It is telling that the credit bandit said they could not accept the financial instrument as payment yet did not return it.

It is the bandits who are using loopholes to con us. They created them!

Gary Dickson wrote:

Le Petit Bateleur wrote:I don't understand the root cause of your issues? Reading the above and your previous post on a similar topic, it seems you are contracting debts you cannot afford to repay with high interest companies (credit cards?), then fighting to get out of these debts using legal loopholes?

This is a very interesting question and one struggled with. However, there are a couple of points worth bearing in mind. The debt itself is fraudulent in that the credit bandits don't actually lend you the money. The credit is created by your signature. In any event, even if the credit bandit did bring equal consideration, given that (certainly in the UK) currency is no longer based on the gold standard, it is a fiat currency, a made up number. So, what have they actually given us? Nothing, they've just conned us into thinking they have.

I am not using legal loopholes. In this instance, I am merely, quite reasonably, asking the debt bandit for proof of claim. In the other instance I am using a perfectly lawful method of discharging a liability using a financial instrument.

These financial instruments are extremely valuable. It is telling that the credit bandit said they could not accept the financial instrument as payment yet did not return it.

It is the bandits who are using loopholes to con us. They created them!

I must say that I am also confused by your posts (interesting as they are, and I hope you continue to post them!). Are they asking you to pay a bill that you haven't run up yourself?

I realise that the answer probably lies somewhere in the legalese above but from my perspective, if I had used a credit card to purchase goods and/or services that I didn't have the cold hard cash to pay for myself, I would expect to repay that debt at some point in the future.... You say that the 'bandits don't actually lend you the money' - but that's not really the point is it? They are extending a line of credit to you so that the provider of the goods or services gets paid - not you....

Or am I missing the point totally?


Sean

Klangster1971 wrote:I must say that I am also confused by your posts (interesting as they are, and I hope you continue to post them!). Are they asking you to pay a bill that you haven't run up yourself?

I realise that the answer probably lies somewhere in the legalese above but from my perspective, if I had used a credit card to purchase goods and/or services that I didn't have the cold hard cash to pay for myself, I would expect to repay that debt at some point in the future.... You say that the 'bandits don't actually lend you the money' - but that's not really the point is it? They are extending a line of credit to you so that the provider of the goods or services gets paid - not you....

Or am I missing the point totally?


Sean

The whole economic system is a lie. We are deceived into thinking that currency has value when it is a made up number (don't forget that a bank note is a promise to pay (and in a bankrupt economy a promise to pay is the only kind of payment there is) - it is the signature of the Chief Cashier on the note that gives it value). We are deceived into thinking that we are being extended credit, when we are creating it. We are deceived into thinking that the financial instruments issued in our name are not a lawful method of payment. We are then deceived into thinking that we are powerless to do anything in the face of all of this deceit, which is simply not the case.

Once one begins to get even a basic grip on what is really going on, one then has a responsibility to stand up to these bandits.

It's worth pointing out that all I'm doing in the Notice of Conditional Acceptance is asking for proof of claim. If they can provide proof of claim the account will be settled, if they can't, they're committing fraud.

Surely its monetary worth is a lie by common consent. We agree to believe in a convention to make the madness work.


(edited for apostrophe abuse)

Yeah - money is like an imaginary number. Can't exist on its own, but you can use it to solve equations.

Gary Dickson wrote:The whole economic system is a lie. We are deceived into thinking that currency has value...

Currency does have a value. I use it to buy things all the time.

Ted wrote:
Currency does have a value. I use it to buy things all the time.

Yeah.. that's the bit I don't get. I understand the arguments that currency has no inherent worth but in terms of transacations with others, what is the alternative?

I'm still not totally sure of your actual problem either - you've mentioned that your boyfriend has a couple of debts (whether they may be legal or not - bear with me!). However, how did he accrue these debts? Was it by using credit cards to procure goods or services? If so, is it not true to say that without being afforded the use of said credit card, he would be bereft of these goods or services?

If that is the case, then it does sounds like you are simply trying to get something for nothing, hiding behind strict legalities whilst ignoring the fact that, as Tomo points out, society has 'agreed' to assign a value to our currency, in order to facilitate simple transactions.

Sean

It's all similar to the pseudo legal waffle that gets thrown around by the anti-terrorist. Any decent barrister or judge will absolutely destroy your arguments.

I preferred the old days when if one wanted to buy a plough (for example), one would go to the plough maker, hand over several chickens and exchange them for the plough of your choice. And of course if one had no chickens, one could always opt for the "club over the head" approach. Ah, the good old days.

i may have missed the point of all this - someone's borrowed some money, and then doesn't want to pay it back?

or am i wrong?

don't make a deal with the devil if you want to keep yourself intact...

IAIN wrote:i may have missed the point of all this - someone's borrowed some money, and then doesn't want to pay it back?

That's the condundrum I'm struggling with.... I think the argument is that because the currency has no real value(??) and the fact that the credit card company didn't actually lend you the money (simply gave you the ability to avail yourself of the goods on offer) somehow means that there actually is no money to be paid back....

Or something....

I'm awaiting Gary's response eagerly though... If true, I'm heading into town with my credit card this afternoon.... Or I might even order myself a Master Prediction System!


Sean