strawman

Recommendations

Info

1. In September 2010, Mr Oxborough claimed that I, a human being, owed Council Tax. I stated that I wouldcertainly pay any lawful debt and asked for evidence of that debt to be shown. No such evidence was providedduring the very generous 28-day period specified. In law, that constitutes tacit, legally-binding agreement thatno such debt exists and Mr Oxborough was made aware of that fact, both at the start of the 28-day period andsubsequently.2. Mr Oxborough refused to accept that fact and asked Bury Magistrates Court to rule on the matter, which theydid, stating that I was not the person against whom the claim was being made.3. It appears that Mr Oxborough refuses to accept the ruling of the court as he is still getting his agents to harassand threaten me.I therefore, wish to make a further complaint and I again request that you press charges of continuing harassmentagainst Steven Oxborough and his agent Natalie Brookes of Rossendale. I attach herewith the harassing letterfrom Natalie Brookes and a copy of my reply to that letter.PatrickThe response from Suffolk Constabulary was a phone call that evening:The caller was Sgt. Keith Grant who stated that Steven Oxborough had not been spoken to following either of thecomplaints because Suffolk Constabulary do not consider it to be harassment if the person claimed to be doingthe harassing believed that he was entitled to perform those actions. (I leave you to decide whether or not thatmeets the requirements of Common Law and to decide if Suffolk Constabulary are being influenced by the factthat they are funded through Forest Heath District Council). When I pointed out that the actions to date appearedto constitute, harassment, intimidation, demanding money with menaces and fraudulent deception, he did expressthe personal opinion that a criminal offence had indeed been committed.He stated that he was unable to understand the information provided in my written complaint. I explained it to himin simple terms and he then said that he could not understand the explanation. I will leave you to form your ownopinion of the calibre of Sgt. Grant who is the decision-maker in this matter.He asked me three questions which seem inappropriate to me: Do I own the property in which I live? How longhave I lived there? and What is my date of birth? If you can see there relevance of these questions in relation to acomplaint of harassment, then please let me know as the relevance is not obvious to me.I then quoted the following two reports of the actions of Rossendale bailiffs which I had come across on the web:“I had the misfortune of the local bailiff from Rossendale CB appearing on the doorstep with exorbitant demandsfor over £200 in addition to the NE Lincolnshire Council tax debt. The bailiff threatened me that he "will have tenbig blokes sat outside your house tomorrow at dawn to break in and clear your house" , he threatened my wifethat she would end up in prison were the debt not paid . Also he said he would be coming back with the Police toforce entry and take the goods for the outstanding debt.”and:“The knock at the door came from a Jason Shaw who works for Rossendales. He spoke to my partner andthreatened her with actual violence. When I arrived home I called this Jason Shaw and asked why he would usethreatening behaviour. His reply was "where is my fucking money?". He then said he was going to arrive at myhouse in the morning to seize goods. He knocked at the door in the morning and said "I want my fucking money(or else)". I turned away and he grabbed me from behind and swung a punch at me.”I then asked what I would be entitled to do if I were assaulted by Rossendale’s bailiff. At this point there was animmediate and major change in his demeanour. Previously, I would assess his attitude as being amusedcontempt, but it promptly switched to what I would assess as being very cautious and defensive. His reply wasthat I was entitled to use a ‘reasonable level of force’ to protect myself. When asked what actions would bedeemed to be ‘reasonable’ he stated that it would depend entirely on the circumstances.I then asked him if Rossendale’s bailiff would be entitled to forcibly break into my home, he stated that it woulddepend on what the court had directed. It was clear that he was not going to provide any information from hisexperience as to what had been considered reasonable actions in the past, so the conversation ended.114
A letter was then sent to the Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary:XXXXXXXXXXX,Red Lodge,Bury St Edmunds,SuffolkIP28 XXX8th February 2011The Chief Constable,Suffolk Constabulary,Police Station,Kingsway,Mildenhall,SuffolkIP28 7HSYour Ref: P1101260159Dear Sir,On 26th January 2011, I lodged a complaint with the Suffolk Constabulary at the Kingsway Police Station,requesting that charges be pressed against Steven Oxborough of 71 Churchill Road, Thetford, IP24 2JZ as it ismy opinion that he is guilty of both harassment and demanding money with menaces. In the light of furtherharassment, I lodged a second written complaint on 7th February 2011. I was telephoned by a member of stafflast night and while he conceded that in his opinion there has been a breach of the law, he stated that SuffolkConstabulary do not intend to press charges or even discuss the matter with Steven Oxborough. As everypoliceman swears a solemn oath to uphold the law, I find this very difficult to understand. Since verbalcommunications are liable to give rise to misunderstandings, would you please state in writing:1. Why you do not intend to press charges against Steven Oxborough or even discuss the matter with him.and2. The specific legislation upon which your decision is based.I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.Yours faithfully,Patrick-James of the Kelly familyWithout any ill will, vexation or frivolity, and with all Indefeasible Rights reserved.A letter was also sent to Forest Heath District Council, keeping it very short and to thepoint in order not to provide any excuse for avoiding the question:115
Page 1 and 2:
Meet Your StrawmanThis is a picture
Page 3 and 4:
not aware of these things, but by t
Page 5 and 6:
persuade you to represent your stra
Page 7 and 8:
They have a number of well-proven m
Page 9 and 10:
You need to remember that any finan
Page 11 and 12:
and what happened then was that the
Page 13 and 14:
You might wonder why they would wan
Page 15 and 16:
on the term of the mortgage contrac
Page 17 and 18:
Dealing With The PoliceYears ago, a
Page 19 and 20:
The change of ownership is shown by
Page 21 and 22:
in the business of fooling people,
Page 23 and 24:
remember, courts only deal with dis
Page 25 and 26:
People who have been caught in this
Page 27 and 28:
Isn't it great to be paying vast su
Page 29 and 30:
Mr Banker is doing very well out of
Page 31 and 32:
http://www.free-energy-devices.com/
Page 33 and 34:
Testing the Application of the LawI
Page 35 and 36:
XXXXXXXXXXXX,Red Lodge,Bury St Edmu
Page 37 and 38:
37
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
The response was:41
Page 43 and 44:
Att. Ms L. Talbot,Forest Heath Dist
Page 45 and 46:
45
Page 47 and 48:
You speak of disputes and suggest t
Page 49 and 50:
Next, drawing the attention of the
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has l
Page 55 and 56:
Whereas it is my understanding that
Page 57 and 58:
(1) Exercise my “common law right
Page 59 and 60:
59
Page 61 and 62:
Then to Forest Heath District Counc
Page 63 and 64: Court hearing 18/11/10:I then atten
Page 65 and 66: XXXXXXXXXXXXX,Red Lodge,Bury St Edm
Page 67 and 68: 67
Page 69 and 70: And this prompted the following rep
Page 71 and 72: Yours faithfully,Patrick-James of t
Page 73 and 74: 73
Page 75 and 76: Please notice that this letter is t
Page 77 and 78: incorrect as no Magistrates Court i
Page 79 and 80: This is a very clear and well-prese
Page 81 and 82: Anyway, may I again urge you to sto
Page 83 and 84: 83
Page 85 and 86: 85
Page 87 and 88: 87
Page 89 and 90: The first response was immediate an
Page 91 and 92: Steven Oxborough,East Cambridgeshir
Page 93 and 94: 4. The signatures of both parties.
Page 95 and 96: Your Ref: 71146498STATEMENT OF ACCO
Page 97 and 98: In care of:XXXXXXXXXXXRed LodgeBury
Page 99 and 100: To which the response was:99
Page 101 and 102: I state again that no debt is owed
Page 103 and 104: 18th November 2010. I attended Bury
Page 105 and 106: aware that I would charge you for m
Page 107 and 108: 4. Proof that no employee or repres
Page 109 and 110: XXXXXXXXXXX,Red Lodge,Bury St Edmun
Page 111 and 112: Judge: If you are not MR ROGER HAYE
Page 113: As a result of your continuing hara
Page 117 and 118: 117
Page 119 and 120: Let me again state for the record,
Page 121 and 122: This, of course, ignores everything
Page 123 and 124: To which the response was:123
Page 125 and 126: No response has been made to this a
Page 127 and 128: To which the response was:In care o
Page 129 and 130: them, estoppel has been established
Page 131 and 132: XXXXXXXXXXXX,Red Lodge,Bury St Edmu
Page 133 and 134: 133
Page 135 and 136: XXXXXXXXXXXX,Red Lodge,Bury St Edmu
Page 137 and 138: In spite of estoppel having been so
Page 139 and 140: In care of:XXXXXXXXXXRed LodgeBury
Page 141 and 142: 141
Page 143 and 144: To which the response was:XXXXXXXXX
Page 145 and 146: TV Licence:Having recently become a
Page 147 and 148: need your permission to watch telev
Page 149 and 150: 149
Page 151 and 152: 151
Page 153 and 154: 153
Page 155 and 156: The inner “City of London” is a
Page 157 and 158: 157
Page 159 and 160: 159
show all

strawman

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?