strawman

stated that if you were not able to do so with a reasonable period, that your non-compliance in the matter
constituted a legally-binding agreement on your part that there was no debt. You failed to present any lawful
basis for your claim within that period and as a consequence you have agreed in law that there is no
outstanding debt.
6. As estoppel has been established, your instructing bailiffs to take action is clearly a fraudulent action as well as
being a criminal act of harassment.
7. There is a requirement for the Council to issue 14 days clear prior notice of a visit by a bailiff, stating the day
and approximate time of any such visit. You have failed to do that as a bailiff from Rossendales, claiming to
be acting as your agent, came knocking on my door within a few minutes of your last letter reaching me. The
bailiff expressed astonishment that I had not received this prior notice from the Council. The bailiff left papers
which claim a charge of £24.50 for his visit and since there was no possibility of dealing with the matter before
his visit, due to your lack of the required prior notice, it is difficult not to view this as being a fraudulent attempt
to extract additional payment.
8. Naturally, I have written immediately to Rossendales to make them aware of the situation and I attach herewith,
for your information, a copy of that letter which was sent to them by recorded delivery.
9. I have already stated and continue to confirm that there is no one other than myself, the human being, living at
this address and that all furniture, fittings, goods and chattels at this address belong to me and not to anyone
else. I have full allodial title to each item and bearing in mind that Bury Magistrates Court have ruled that I,
the human being, am not the (fictitious) ‘person’ to whom your Council Tax demand is made out, there is no
reason to send a bailiff here and the act of doing so when fully aware of the facts, constitutes a clear act of
harassment. Being present at the time, you will no doubt recall that the Court hearing your allegation of nonpayment
of Council Tax, considered the matter and then required me, the human, to leave the Court as I was
not involved in the matter in any way whatsoever. So, to summarise this: the Court states that I am not
involved, I am willing to swear under oath that there is nothing at this address which does not belong to me
personally, and yet you persist in attempting to obtain assets from me, actions which appear to me to be
contempt of court on your part as well as being harassment of me personally.
10. You appear to be under the impression that because of a form signed by me, the human being, that a written
contract exists between myself and Forest Heath District Council, under the terms of which, I am required to
pay Forest Heath District Council such amounts of money that they choose to select on a regular basis and
for an unlimited period of time. Let me draw your attention to the fact that this is not the case. For a valid
written contract between two parties (Forest Heath District Council and myself in this instance) there are four
absolute requirements, namely:
1. Full disclosure
2. Equal consideration
3. Lawful terms
4. The ‘wet-ink’ signature of both parties
These essential requirements have not been met and I challenge you to produce any such valid contract
setting out the full terms and with the wet-ink signature of both myself and Forest Heath District Council.
Without these things there is no “meeting of the minds” and no valid contract.
These terms have not been met. For example:
1. Full disclosure is required. At no time was it ever stated that the U.K. is a Common Law jurisdiction and
that there is no law that requires any human being to pay any kind of tax whatsoever.
Also, it was never made clear that Council Tax is part of legislation which only applies to members of the
Law Society and any human beings who choose to be bound by those regulations of that society.
Also, it was never made clear that the payment of Council Tax is optional, your paperwork constituting an
“offer” which has to be accepted by the individual to have any effect at all. On the contrary, you present it
as a demand, stating that there will be serious negative consequences for anyone who refuses to sign.
3. Lawful terms were not met in this case as there is a most serious level of intimidation and openly made
threats in your Council Tax literature. You state that the recipient must pay whatever amount Forest
Heath District Council chooses to select, or else there will be “enforcement” action taken (to quote your
own wording). Any contract where the signature of one party is obtained through intimidation, is void ab
initio and so is completely worthless.
92