strawman

Recommendations

Info

The response to this was:XXXXXXXXXX,Red Lodge,Bury St Edmunds,SuffolkNear IP28 XXX21st January 2011Joanne Osborne,Customer Services,TV Licensing,Bristol,BS98 1TLNOTICEYour Ref: 2975323738Dear Joanne,I am in receipt of your demand for a TV licence renewal which I attach. I have recently become aware of theimplications of a licence of any description both in law and otherwise and quite frankly, I find your demand to behighly insulting.Requesting a licence is in effect, begging permission from a superior, to undertake some activity. Your demandthat I request a licence from you has to be on the basis that I accept you personally as superior to myself and thatI am subservient to you. That, understandably, I find offensive and I do not accept that I am subservient to you.The whole concept of the licence itself is ridiculous. I am a sovereign human being, born equal to all other humanbeings, and with all of the God-given rights and entitlements of every human being. I do not need your permissionto make a cup of tea. I am fully entitled to make a cup of tea as that action does not harm anyone else. I do not146
need your permission to watch television as I have every right to watch television should I wish to do so. I do notneed to beg you to grant me permission to watch television in my own home and I most certainly will not pay youto allow me to do something which I am already fully entitled to do. To make this absolutely clear, as a matter ofprinciple, I will never, under any circumstances, pay you to grant me permission to watch television as I amalready fully entitled to do that.You have managed in the past, to deceive me into paying you. I consider that to be a fraudulent action on yourpart, which most definitely does not constitute any kind of continuing contract between us and in fact should reallybe subject to the refunding of all payments already made. If you consider that my having been fooled intorequesting and paying for a TV licence in the past constitutes a contract for indefinite continuing payments in thefuture, then send me a certified copy of the two-party contract between the company which employs you andmyself, the human being. That contract must show the verifiable wet-ink signatures of both parties and you alsoneed to provide proof that there was full disclosure on your part at that time, that is, evidence that you made itclear that the law does not require any such payment.In your literature you state: “You need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch or record televisionprogrammes as they’re being shown on TV – on a computer, mobile phone or, well, anything. It’s the law.” Thatstatement is wholly incorrect. It is NOT the law. Either you know that, and you are guilty of fraudulent deception,or you are not aware of the fact, in which case, due to your position, you are guilty of Gross Negligence whichgenerally equates to fraud. These are not trivial matters, and please note that I am addressing you personally,and not the company which employs you.Giving you the benefit of the doubt and presuming that you are unaware of the difference between the Law andthe Legal System, let me clarify matters for you.The UK is a Common Law jurisdiction. That means that everyone living in the UK is subject to Common Law.Common Law is created by the decisions of juries of ordinary people who sit in judgement on criminal cases. It isa common misconception that a judge rules in a court of law. The reality is that the jury creates and updates thelaw by it’s decisions on the case which it tries. Common Law, known as “the Law of the Land”, is the collection ofall of those jury decisions and it can be summarised as:4. You must not kill or injure anyone.5. You must not steal or damage the property of another person.6. You must be honest and upright in your dealings with others.There is no law which says that anyone must pay any form of tax or licence fee. Your statement that the Lawsays that I must beg you for a TV licence and pay you for it, is wholly incorrect, and clearly so.In addition to Common Law, the people living in the UK also have an odious legal system foisted on them. This isthe invention of the Law Society and intended to enslave and impoverish ordinary people. In the last thirteenyears, this reprehensible system added a further 7,000 statutes to their already overflowing pile of offensivedemands. These statutes and statutory instruments only apply to those people who are part of that society andanyone else who consents to be bound by them.I am not one of those people. I am not a member of any named society and I do not consent to be bound bythose statutes or statutory instruments. Instead, I claim my God-given right to live a quiet life, abiding by the Lawof the Land and free from any other restrictions invented by any society. Again, let me state that I, personally, amnot a member of any such society. If you wish to dispute that, then show me written evidence of my knowinglyand willingly joining that society, my membership card and evidence that I have never resigned from that society.If, in spite of all this, you wish to continue to demand that I beg a licence from you and pay you for that demeaningact, then, within the next twenty one days from the date of this Notice, you need to demonstrate the lawful (not“legal”) basis for your claim by:1. Providing proof of claim that I am a “person”, and not a human being. This is necessary as legal statutes andstatutory instruments only apply to the legal fictions known as “persons”.2. Providing proof of claim that you know the difference between a 'human being' and a 'person', legally speaking.3. Providing proof of claim that you know the difference between 'legal' and 'lawful' and I am advised, that in yourposition, not knowing the difference would be considered gross negligence.4. Providing proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you areattempting to enforce. That there is a named society to which I belong and that the statutes covered within any147
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 and 114: As a result of your continuing hara
Page 115 and 116: A letter was then sent to the Chief
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: TV Licence:Having recently become a
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?