Search This Blog

Thursday, 30 August 2012

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 23

"Debt Collection - There's Lots Of

Nasty Swearing On This Posting"



Before we start this posting, we would like the reader to know, and acknowledge, that anything in this posting is "NOT" Legal Advice, and should "NOT" be perceived as such. Everything written here is merely our own theory.
Please also note, that anyone using these tactics or copying what we have done here, "MUST" know how to defend themselves properly in a courtroom. Lawyer's and Judges have a wealth of knowledge and trickery to get you to consent to their codes of practice, thereby rendering you liable to their penalties after you have been coaxed into giving up your "Inalienable Rights".
"Common Law is the greatest protection anyone has against tyrannical Government and injustice. The States of Jersey have trampled the Law of the land into the dirt."
"The Great Deception"

Common Law Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man,

Debt collection code of conduct created

Islanders struggling to cope with the aggressive tactics of debt collection agencies have been given hope. Yes, it's called Common Law!!!

As a result of an exclusive Channel Television investigation a code of conduct to regulate the debt collection industry has now been drawn up. The code of conduct is in the Magna Carta!!!

The new code aims to protect those who end up in the hands of debt collection agencies as well as providing guidelines for the companies themseleves. The real protection is below!!!

We want to know your views.

Have you been affected by Debt collectors?

"Fuck Off Channel TV"
"We Will Take Over From Here You Ill-Informed Idiots"

Below is some very good advice that puts the debt collection parasites in their place, and free's YOU from debt :)

I suggest you read the whole page before using the links

Freeman On The Land
Veronica Chapman
On Debt

What to do with Bailiffs and Debt Collectors.

Postby Veronica » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:32 pm
I’ve left the best till last.

Well, I’ve a lot of personal experience of this, lately.

However, before I come to how to deal with them, perhaps I should try to explain the precise ‘scenario’ that involves them.

It goes like this (think about it … it is not hard!):

If someone is in ‘debt’, and someone else comes to the rescue - and pays off the debt - what is the situation?

I think you’ll agree that the situation is something like this:

Whoever was paid off, is now perfectly happy, and isn’t likely to re-demand being paid (although this does mistakenly happen, of course!). But, generally speaking, once they are paid off, they toddle off into the sunset.

In other words, the so-called ‘debt’ has been ‘extinguished’ by payment of it.

Now, if whoever paid it off was a friend, they might do so on the basis that you pay them back as soon as you are able, or they might say “Oh, that’s all right … I can afford it …I’m just glad to see you out of trouble. That’s what friends are for.”.

It’s only the former case that is important. Where someone pays off the debt, but expects to be paid back.

Now, I suggest for your consideration that, if someone is prepared to extinguish a debt for you, but expect you to pay it back to them, there are certain things that must happen due to the demands of good faith all round, and civilised behaviour. And these are:

1. That they make sure that you actually owe the debt, in the first place. And they can only do this by discussing it with you.

2. That they make sure you agree to pay them back, and (again) they can only do this by discussing it (up front) with you.

3. You should only expect to pay them back what they, themselves, paid out … otherwise they are taking the piss.

Do you think those three are fair, honest, honourable, and reasonable?

I do.

So, when you get a letter from Bailiffs or Debt Collection Agencies, what has happened? Well, they have paid off your so-called ‘debt’ (very cheaply) and are demanding that you pay them back.

That’s what’s happening.


1. They never checked with you first to see whether you actually owed anything

2. They didn’t agree with you beforehand that you would pay it back

3. They aren’t demanding repayment of their outlay, they are demanding about 1,000 times that amount.

No. They just muscled in. Did you ask them to? No, you didn’t.

Well, they muscled in, and paid of you alleged ‘debt’. So that no longer exists.

And, if they had wanted to be paid back, they should have got your agreement BEFOREHAND … shouldn’t they?

Not that you would have agreed, of course. Because:

1. You didn’t owe it anyway.

2. You never agreed to pay them back

3. Why should you let them take the piss by demanding 1,000 more than they actually paid?

Well, that’s the scenario.

All you have to do is to explain it to them. (AND STAND FIRM! If you are not going to stand firm, then don’t bother … just roll over … play dead … and pay up. It’s your choice. You either walk all over them … or let them walk all over you).

Now, the DebtBust Application contains Templates that create ‘nice’ letters. And you can use that if you wish.

But I come back to what I said earlier. THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND.

So, here, I’m going to propose an alternative, which should be comprehensible to an 8-year old (I will actually try to verify this by asking an 8-year old).

Dear Sirs,

I write in response of your letter of the… yada …

It seem to suggest that you paid off some alleged debt to … yada … on my behalf.

It seems you expect me to pay you back. Unfortunately, however, your expectation is not going to be fulfilled for the following reasons:

1. Before involving yourselves, you failed to check that the so-called amount was actually owed. (It wasn’t)

2. That I, myself, am the debtor. (I’m not)

3. That I, myself, agreed to pay you back. (I didn’t)

4. That you are anyway attempting to take the piss, because your actual outlay would have 10%, or less, than your demand to me.

You need to make the most of this reply, because it is all you are going to get. You have now been told the situation in the plainest of English, I therefore intend to shred any further communications from you (however ‘dramatic’ you care make them. You are going to have to come to terms with the fact that your psychology no longer works).

Moral: If you go around paying off other people’s debts, make sure that you have an agreement with them BEFOREHAND. That is the accepted rule of good faith and civilised behaviour. It's also basic Common Sense - being the same thing as having a good look around first - before you jump into the water - only to discover there are sharks swimming around. Because once you've jumped ... it's a bit too late to discover the sharks.

Sincerely without frivolity,

X: of the Y family (as commonly called), English(Welsh/Scottish/Irish/etc) Sovereign.
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible, Rights reserved.

(Actually they should get Oscars for some of the ‘dramatics’ I’ve seen recently)
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Founder Founder
Posts: 4519
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: For Newbies, as much as anybody ...

Postby Veronica » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:54 pm
There's a Topic called "Veronica's Water Bill".

Thames Water have sold the so-called 'debt' to Fredericksons International.

Fredericksons have engaged some Solicitors called Bryan Carter & Co. They wrote to me a "Solicitor's Letter".

This was my response:

Tuesday, 23 March 2010.


Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your letter of 18/03/2010.

Even the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 says that - once a debt is paid - said debt is extinguished.

Thus when Fredericksons paid Thames Water for some so-called ‘debt’ … said so-called ‘debt’ was extinguished. (FACT)

Consequently your letter doesn’t make any sense at all, in point of fact it is total bollox. You have your head totally up your arse for the following reasons:

1. I recall NO CONTRACT with you.
2. I recall NO CONTRACT with Fredericksons.
3. I recall NO CONTRACT with Thames Water.
4. I will NOT GRANT Contract to any Court de facto, should anyone decide to go to litigation. And, anyway, you will be wasting your time because there is no dispute, as explained above. There is only the FACT that any so-called ‘debt’ was extinguished.

So you are, basically, stuffed. And, that being the case, you must be a complete wanker to have even considered writing to me, because you should have checked all this out before putting electronic pen to paper.

Fredericksons have no right to pursue anyone for a non-existent so-called ‘debt’, and only a complete twat would conjoin with them in such a CRIMINAL activity of attempted:


(Call it what you will).

Perhaps you could redeem your blatant cuntishness by explaining it to them nicely?

Maybe you should take some LAWFUL advice? It is, after all, childishly simple. It goes like this. If you intend to pay off someone else’s debt, make sure – beforehand – that they have agreed, via BINDING CONTRACT, to pay you back. Otherwise it is rather stupid to go ahead and do it. (And even more stupid to conjoin with them). Unless, of course, you are all philanthropists … but you don’t sound like that.

This is so simple, and basic, that anyone who did not comprehend would need to be mentally retarded. It is the basis of good faith and civilised behaviour, and forms a part of the bedrock of the Law-of-the-LAND (aka the Common Law). (So now you know).

[b]I hereby send you Notice that my fee for any further responses in this matter (which constitute unwarranted intrusions into my privacy, and attempts at trespass on my sovereignty) will be £1,000 per letter (irrespective of content), and that by sending me a communication, you accept said Fee Schedule.[/b]

So, make the most of this response, and the education contained herein, because it is all you and/or Fredericksons are likely to get from me.

Sincerely without frivolity,

Veronica: of the Chapman family, as commonly called (English Sovereign). Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.

Within a couple of days I get a letter from Fredericksons asking me to "Please confirm when the debt was paid off".


My reply to Frederiscksons:


Notice to Bailiffs & Debt Collectors (etc)

Notice to Agent is notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is notice to Agent

It is a basic rule of Common Sense that – if you pay someone else’s so-called ‘debt’ - then you make sure – BEFOREHAND – that they are prepared to pay you back. If you had done that, your demands would have the force of LAW behind them.

Since you never checked anything with me BEFOREHAND, then you & your Company are either:

1. Philanthropists, acting non-philanthropic
2. A collection of mentally retarded wankers, devoid of basic Common Sense/comprehension of LAW.

Don’t bother knocking, because you’ll be unlikely to get an answer. If you do get an answer, then the only one you’ll get will be “Fuck off you pathetic little wanker” … so you’ll be wasting your time.

If you put a letter through the door it will be immediately shredded. Yet another waste of your time & effort … but hey … you’re a complete wanker … so you’ll do it anyway!



(By all means take a copy of this Notice back to your office)

I think that just about sums it all up ... and that's the latest in the saga of "Veronica's Water Bill".
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)

REMEMBER to do your homework and study this stuff hard, you need to know ALL the tricks!!!

Have Fun



  1. I read the above with great interest. However, could you clarify for me whether debt collection agencies usually pay off a debt that is alleged to be owed before they come knocking at the door, or do they attempt to collect a debt on commission from the person employing them?
    In the latter case, the debt has not been "paid" by the debt collector, he is sim;ply working on commission and will claim a previously agreed percentage when he obtains the money.

  2. They usually do buy the debt first for around 10% or 20% of the original debt, however, this is not always the case. You can write a notice to them denying them their implied right of access to your home, and a further notice asking them for proof of claim of the alleged debt. Remember that they cannot act against a man or woman, only against the legal fiction, and only with your consent.

    Please visit for help

  3. I might add that if they have not bought the debt then they are just a third party interloper with no legal standing whatsoever!

  4. Many thanks for the clarification.
    Just hope that I don't need to use the info!

  5. Have a look through the series of postings and learn the rules, this knowledge is priceless. Take the time to watch the videos and make notes, the deception is breathtaking!