strawman

To which the response was:
XXXXXXXXXXX,
Red Lodge,
Bury St Edmunds,
Suffolk
IP28 XXX
21st March 2011
PC Sinden,
Thetford Police Station,
Norwich Road,
Thetford,
Norfolk
IP24 2HU
Your ref: Cad NC-10022011-198
Dear PC Sinden,
Thank you for your letter dated 25th February 2011. I appreciate the fact that you addressed me by my name and
I thank you for that.
I must still request that you withdraw your Police Information Notice. It is based on two incidents, neither of which
are grounds for a PIN. Firstly, there is no possible way that my complying with the requirements of the Court
when initiating a court action for payment of an amount owed, could be considered to be ‘harassment’. If that
were the case, then any company which issued an invoice for work requested and completed would also be guilty
of harassment and that clearly is not the case.
The Court requires that the defendant (Steven Oxborough in this case) be notified in writing of the alleged debt
and given 28 days to either dispute the amount, pay the amount, or come to some agreement for dealing with the
matter. That is what I did as it is a requirement of the Court. You cannot possibly base a PIN on my compliance
with the required Court procedure and so I request that you withdraw the PIN.
Additionally, I fully accept that Steven Oxborough is entitled to carry out the requirements of his employment and
request payment of Council Tax. I have no problem with his doing that. However, in this case, that procedure
terminated when he, as representing Forest Heath District Council, was required to show any lawful basis for the
charge, and he failed to do so. At that point in time, Forest Heath District Council is deemed in law to have
entered into legally-binding tacit agreement that no such debt exists (or that any such debt has been fully
discharged). That terminated the right of Steven Oxborough to make demands for payment of Council Tax and in
law, his continuing actions were no longer on behalf of Forest Heath District Council (which was then in full
agreement that no debt existed) but were personal decisions of his own, in spite of the fact that this had been
explained to him in detail. I even offered to meet with him, unofficially and without any implications, at a venue of
his choice, at a time of his choosing, so that I could explain the situation fully to him and answer any questions he
wished to ask. He did not avail himself of that opportunity.
There can be little doubt that his actions, subsequent to Forest Heath District Council’s legally-binding agreement
that no debt exists, do in fact constitute harassment on his part and my writing to him to draw his attention to that
fact cannot be deemed to be harassment on my part. There can be no doubt that I believe that he was guilty of
harassing me, in that on two separate occasions, I lodged a written complaint for harassment against him with
Suffolk Constabulary. Considering the situation and my continuing belief that he is guilty of harassing me, it is
unreasonable in the extreme to base a PIN on my written request to him to stop harassing me, and again, on
those grounds, I request that you withdraw your PIN.
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Patrick-James of the Kelly family
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Indefeasible, Rights reserved.
143