Middlesbrough Council - News Forum - Setting a light to the News

Let's have a little quiz:
1. Who meets there?
2. What do they do there?
3. Do they help you in any way?

If your answers were:
1. "Members of the government"
2. "They represent all the people living in the country" and
3. "Yes, they create laws to protect me and my family"

Then let me congratulate you on getting every one of the answers wrong.

Didn't do too well on that quiz? OK, let's have another go:
4. When was slavery abolished?
5. Was slavery legal?
6. Are you in debt to a financial institution?

Here are the answers:
1. The serving officers of a commercial company.
2. They think up ways to take money and goods from you.
3. No, absolutely not, they help themselves and not you.
4. Slavery has NEVER been abolished and you yourself, are considered to be a slave right now.
5. Yes, slavery is "legal" although it is not "lawful" (you need to discover the difference).
6. No. You are NOT in debt to any financial institution.

Does this seem a little strange to you? If it does, then read on:

Postal Demands
Each person generally gets a number of demands for amounts to be paid. As an example of this, in Britain there is an annual charge for a television Licence. This is something which Americans find bizarre and highly amusing as they have nothing like it and find the notion laughable. If you get a demand for payment for any such licence, you will notice that it is not addressed to you, the human, but to the fiction which is the strawman which has a name which sounds like your name but is not the same. The name will be printed on the demand in all capital letters, or in rare cases will be preceded by "Mr", "Mrs" or "Miss", and any of those names refer to the strawman who sounds like you and which has a creation date which matches what you have been told was your birthday. You can pay this demand if you want to, but it is entirely optional and remember that it is not YOU who is being billed. Also worth remembering that you, the human, are bound by Common Law and not legal statutes, and Common Law does not require you to pay any form of tax.

The company invoicing the strawman is hoping that you don't catch on to the fact that it is not you who is being billed, and so make the payment as a mistake on your part. Interestingly, the strawman does not own a television set and so is not required to have a licence anyway. Being only a piece of paper, the strawman can be considered to be deaf, dumb, blind and paralysed as it can't perform any action, can't see anything, can't hear anything and can't say anything. Anyway, the company looking for the money is in the business of fooling people, so it sends out batches of letters to an area, claiming that a "detector van" will be in the area in a few days and so anyone without a licence will be detected and prosecuted, so better get one now. This is done in the hope that a percentage of the people mailed will fall for it and start paying them money. They may even send around a van with all sorts of peculiar attachments on it, in the hope that it will frighten residents of the area who are not already paying them. A driver of one of those vans says that none of the equipment in the van does anything and certainly can't detect anything to do with television - it's all there as window dressing for the operation. The reality is that they just check the addresses against their database of who is already paying them.

If you don't want to pay this unnecessary charge on behalf of a strawman, then you can mark the envelope "NO CONTRACT - Return to Sender" and put it in a post box. Any subsequent letters can be treated in exactly the same way. As in all cases, do not have any telephone conversations about it, as verbal communications bristle with Legalese verbal traps. At most, say that you wish to deal with any such matters by post and terminate the call. It does not matter in the slightest if an employee turns up at your home and hands you a letter or puts it through your letter box. The letter is NOT for you or even addressed to you - it is addressed to the strawman, so it can be posted back the same as any other letter.

If you wish, you can take a more forceful, direct stance as demonstrated here by a letter issued by Christopher Lees when dealing with a Fixed Penalty Notice:

Dear Sirs,

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

The reason why you need to read carefully is simple. I am offering conditional agreement. This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate. You always have the option of dragging these conditions into a court of law only to be told that they are, indeed, perfectly lawful. That is, of course, always your prerogative should you decide to waste your time.

For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, and consequently is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.

On the other hand there is a time-limit on the agreement being offered. It is reasonable, and if it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter.

For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance, which means actually addressing the points raised herein.

You have apparently made allegations of criminal conduct against me.

You have apparently made demands upon me.

I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them. I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of inalienable Natural Rights.

Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 (seven) days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am legal fiction 'person' Mr Christopher Mark Lees and that I owe £70 for services rendered by your company, upon proof of claim of all of the following:

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person, and not a human being.

2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a 'person' actually is, in legal terms.

3. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference between a 'human being' and a 'person', legally speaking.

4. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference between 'legal' and a 'lawful'.

5. Upon proof of claim that I am legal fiction 'person' Mr Christopher Mark Lees, being the entity to which your paperwork was addressed, and not Christopher: of the Lees family, as commonly called.

6. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.

7. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.

8. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.

9 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within any alleged transgressions state that they apply to me within that named society.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

By: ***_____________________ *** (Agent)
Christopher: of the Lees family

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved

Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely Christopher: of the Lees family, as commonly called.

Encl: Original paperwork as received.

Dealing With "Debt"
Because of the very high percentage of the money earned being taken away from the average person, it is not unusual for people to end up with what looks like "debt". Most people spend their time worrying over the statement of what they are told they owe, and do endless calculations to see if they agree with the numbers which they have been sent. Again, this is the sort of misdirection which magicians use to fool audiences, distracting their attention away from where the action is really taking place. Here, the question is really not "How much is owed?" but instead it is "Is anything actually owed?".

You need to remember that any financial institution is a legal fiction and does not actually exist. As a result of this, it can only deal with other legal fictions (essentially, other pieces of paper) and it can't have any dealings with a man or a woman as they are not legal fictions. It is also important to understand what passes for money nowadays. Let's say our trusty friend James Martin goes looking for a loan and he fills in an application form with the Swindle Bank Limited for £10,000. Interestingly, the form which he is asked to sign, says that he has already received the £10,000 although the loan has not yet been approved.

The next day, the loan is approved and James is handed a cheque which he is asked to sign and lodge to his account with the bank. We won't follow up on that very interesting procedure at this time, but please remember that he has now provided two signatures for £10,000 in the strawman name, and all he has received is a 1 and four zeros in the accounts of the Swindle Bank Limited.

All goes well for several months until James loses his job and does not manage to get another one. This is financial trouble which he does not know how to deal with. Time goes by and James has not had sufficient money to make payments against his loan from the Swindle Bank Limited. He starts getting letters from the bank saying that he must pay the arrears immediately and keep up with the payments in future. There is not the slightest chance of that happening as James just does not have the money and he does not know what to do.

Fortunately, Peter, the next door neighbour of James happens to be an independent financial advisor with years of experience, and James has the brainwave of asking him for help. Peter is willing to help and so he sits down and goes through all of the paperwork. Then he tells James: "You must not ignore this situation. Write back immediately and say that you agree to pay any financial obligation which you might lawfully owe, ON CONDITION that they:

1. Provide validation of the debt, that is, the actual accounting.
2. Verification of their claim against you, that is, a signed Invoice.
3. A copy of the Contract binding both parties (you and them), and send that letter by recorded delivery so that there is an independent witness to it having been delivered."

Every letter you write should be marked clearly "Without Prejudice" which means that you reserve all your lawful rights and accept no contract unless it is shown to be lawful by meeting the four conditions essential to a lawful, binding contract, namely:
1. Full Disclosure (you were not told that you were actually creating the credit with your signature)
2. Equal Consideration (they brought nothing of value to the table and so have nothing to lose)
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (yours were actually based on fraud), and
4. The signatures of both parties (corporations can't sign because they have no Right or Mind to contract since they are soul-less legal fictions, and no third party can sign a contract on their behalf)

Peter then tells James that agreeing to pay, provided that evidence of a lawful debt can be produced, stops him being taken to court because courts only adjudicate between parties who are in dispute, and as James has agreed to pay, there is no dispute, so the court would not accept any application for a hearing. If the Swindle Bank were foolish enough to try, James has only to send the court a copy of his letter agreeing to pay and the case would be thrown out immediately (and the Bank might well be penalised for wasting court time).

The bank is now in trouble as it has been running a con game on James and so can't produce the documents for which James has asked. The request by James was reasonable in every respect. However, a loan agreement is a contract and so there has to be full disclosure of all the details (which there wasn't), both sides have to put up something of equal worth (which didn't happen) and the contract has to be signed by both parties (which the bank can't do). So, the bank has a real problem.

The bank will probably send a Statement of what it wants James to believe is the outstanding amount. James should return this with a polite note saying that a Statement is not an Invoice, so would they please provide a signed Invoice as requested. They will also probably send a photocopy of his Loan Application form, at which point James should write back and point out politely that it does not constitute a contract as it is only signed by one of the parties (himself) and he has asked for a copy of the Contract signed by both parties.

The bank is likely to go silent at this point and stop corresponding with James. James should then write again, requesting that the necessary documents be sent to him within the next fourteen (or perhaps 28) days, and if that does not happen, then he will consider the debt to be fully discharged.

The bank will either remain silent or write back to say that the debt is fully discharged. If the bank tries phoning, then just tell them politely that you only wish to deal with this matter in writing, and ring off. If the bank remains silent for the stated period, then James should write back stating that due to the bank's failure to provide the necessary evidence of a lawful debt within the reasonable time provided, that James now considers that the debt is fully discharged and ask the bank to confirm that in writing. The bank will normally write back confirming that the debt is fully discharged and that there is nothing owing and if it does not do that, then it will just stop asking for any further payments.

The reasons for how and why this takes place, takes a good deal of explaining and many people find it difficult to understand. So, it is covered in detail here. Many people think that this process sounds like you ripping off the bank, but this is definitely not the case.