Me Vs Northumbrian Water

Me Vs Northumbrian Water

Postby WireInTheBlood » Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:22 pm

This is the letter I sent them earlier this month:

Address

14th January 2010
NOTICE

CUST REF NO:

Dear Sirs,

I write with reference to the above account.

Notice of Agreement of Offer and Request for Clarification

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you.

The reason why you need to read carefully is simple. I am offering agreement. This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate. The agreement is conditional.

For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, neither will an automated or standard reply, and consequently any such is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.

For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance.

Please note that the above account is currently in dispute. Payment will not be forthcoming until this matter is resolved to my satisfaction during which time I do not consent to receiving text messages, phone calls or letters regarding “overdue” payment.

Northumbrian Water supplies artificially fluoridated water to the above address.

I am aware that you will state that under new water regulations, water companies do not initiate or enforce artificial fluoridation, but have a legal duty to dose fluoride when requested to do so by a Strategic Health Authority. It is irrelevant that all costs associated with fluoridation are met by the Strategic Health Authority, including the cost of installation, chemicals, maintenance, electricity and manpower.

You state that the decision to add fluoride is a medical one, therefore you should also invoice my water charges to the Strategic Health Authority.

What Parliament failed to recognise in passing the Water Act 2003 was that existing English legislation on medicines and foods already prohibited the implementation of fluoridation. Proponents repeatedly argue that fluoridated water is not a medicinal product but a food, and that fluoride is added to supplement the consumer's supposed deficiency in the non-nutrient, fluoride.

In support of this misrepresentation, the Regulator, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA - subsequently renamed the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency MHRA) refused to recognise the medicinal nature of the product, heedless of a number of clear definitions in English law, European Community Directives, and European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings.

The result is that although it continues to be used for medicinal purposes, in English law fluoridated water has no medicinal marketing authorisation. Consequently, even describing it as having medicinal properties, for example when proponents of fluoridation describe it as being effective in preventing dental decay, is a criminal offence. But even if it is not classified as a medicine, but as a food additive, its use is still illegal. The fluoridation chemicals - fluorosilicates - are not authorised as permissible sources of the 'mineral' fluoride as an additive in any consumable food product.

The most widely cited study into the benefits of water fluoridation was conducted in New Zealand between 1954 and 1970, and it is used by fluoridation advocates to this day. But the study failed to meet the most basic criteria for scientific objectivity, not least because the decline in tooth decay that the community in question experienced was also seen in other non-fluoridated communities in the region. The then Mayor of Auckland, Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, described the so-called Hastings Experiment as a "swindle".
In the United States, where 65 per cent of people are routinely subjected to the chemical, the worst tooth decay occurs in poor neighbourhoods of the largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades. When fluoridation was halted in parts of Finland, East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay actually decreased.
One of the reasons for this is that fluoride is believed to work best when applied directly, for example to the tooth. Drinking fluoride to prevent cavities is like swallowing bandages to cure a broken arm. Another reason is that a policy of mass medication through the water supply assumes that we are all the same age, size and weight, and therefore require the same dose.
What we do know is that fluoride is toxic – so toxic, in fact, that in 1984, the makers of Colgate, Procter & Gamble, reportedly admitted that a small tube of their toothpaste "theoretically at least contains enough fluoride to kill a small child".
Fluoride has been linked to cot death, eczema and Alzheimer's. It has been shown, at low doses, to cause genetic damage. And it has been linked by doctors from the National Cancer Institute and the National Health Federation to cancer.
Because fluoride causes collagen, an essential structural component in skin, muscle, ligaments and bone, to disintegrate, big question-marks are being raised over its possible contribution to arthritis, a problem that has increased by 63 per cent since 1997, and which now affects 70 million.
Other reports are appearing that link the accumulation of fluoride in bones to an increase in hip fractures among the elderly. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported recently that "with increasing dose of fluoride in the drinking water, the hip fracture ratio increases," a view echoed by The Lancet, The Annals of Epidemiology and other science journals.
Further studies have linked fluoride use to hyperthyroidism (underactive thyroid glands), one of the most widespread medical problems in the US, affecting more than 20 million people and leading to fatigue, weight gain, depression and heart disease. That's scarcely surprising, given that fluoride used to be prescribed by European doctors to depress thyroid activity.
Alan Johnson's principal concern is for the poorest in society. But studies as far back as the Fifties, by the American Dental Association and the Canadian National Research Council, have shown that people with poor diets are more susceptible to the health risks of long-term ingestion of fluoride.
Even if fluoride had no adverse health effects, I do not consent to be medicated against my will! The European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine distinctly states that individuals have the right not to be medicated without their consent. As already advised, fluoride has well documented and dangerous side effects, and it is clearly wrong to expose people to these against their will.

I will therefore never consent to be liable for any water charges (at this address or any other) until the day you cease this ill advised mass medication.

I am not however, an unreasonable human being and note that a significant part of my bill relates to Sewerage Charges which of course relate to water drainage from my property into your sewerage system. I am aware that there are a number of different methods used to enable you to calculate the assessed charge and I will require a detailed breakdown of exactly how you have arrived at the figure of £129.90.

Upon receipt of your reply and breakdown I will give your Sewerage Charges my careful consideration and response.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Many thanks.

Yours,
WireInTheBlood
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. England.

Re: Me Vs Northumbrian Water

Postby WireInTheBlood » Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:53 pm

Recently they replied. I do not have a scanner, which is a pity as their letter is 3 pages long, however, I will type out the relevent parts. I would appreciate your comments on how to word my reply. Thanks:

"The reason for adding fluoride to water supplies is to provide increased protection against dental decay (www.nwl.co.uk/yourtapwater and www.northeast.nhs.uk) which is done at the request of the local health authority. We are therefore unable to remove fluoride from you water supply which is min m/l 0.05, max mg/l 1.00, average 0.55 mg/l. For more info contact your local health auth on fluoridation (they go on to give full details)

The drinking water inspectorate are the regulatory and legislative bosy responsible for drinking water within England and Wales. The fluoridation of water supplies is remitted under The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (Amendment) Regulations 2007 as long as the permitted concentration does not exceed 1.5 mg/fl and the product conforms with the requirements of Regulation 31 from the above regulations.

The chemical used to achive a concentration of 1mg/fl by us in behalf of the Strategic Health Auth is Hexafluorosilicic acid, the product complies with BS EN 12175:2001 Chemicals used for the treatment of water intended for human consumption.

If I understand your letter correctly, you are declining to pay the water charges element of your bill but are prepared to pay our sewerage charges.

Whilst your ref into entering into some sort of agreement is noted, I must point out that liability for water and sewerage charges is not governed by the law of contract. The charges are covered by statue and therefore cannot be accomodated. You are liable as occupier to pay the water charges by virtue of section 144 of the Water Inductry Act 1991. As such it is not something you can opt out of, or make conditional upon your own terms.

The main reason a customer is liable for sewerage charges include where a property or any part of a property benfits from either surface water or foul water being drained to the public swere or forms part of or is inside a building that has roof drainage which is draned into the public sewer.

Please note that we will only issue invoices to the properties that are being charged for a water supply. Therefore, as you are using the supply, it would be inappropriate to invoice your charges to the Health Authority."
WireInTheBlood
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. England.

Re: Me Vs Northumbrian Water

Postby holy vehm » Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:03 pm

well first off, if they put floride in to the water at the request of the local health authority, cant you request that it be taken out? how many people would it take before your request is bigger than theirs?

So they are saying that water charges are not contractual, the mind leaps all over the place with that one.

If its an act of parliment then i suppose we owe the government then. so its a form of tax?

so is the water company just a collection agent on behalf of the uk plc?

sorry mate, more questions than answers.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Me Vs Northumbrian Water

Postby Arten » Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:29 pm

The charges are covered by statue and therefore cannot be accomodated. You are liable as occupier to pay the water charges by virtue of section 144 of the Water Inductry Act 1991. As such it is not something you can opt out of, or make conditional upon your own terms.

tell them the statutes are the rules of their society and you do not consent to them. Also who said the Health Authority is the Authority? It is all a grand Deception tell them to fuck off which is the way I am dealing with them. Notice do not work in my experience you invite rebuttals and hence controversy and end up in their corporate courts.
Refused for Cause equals No Contract which is Fuck off in polite language. :grin:
Arten
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: Me Vs Northumbrian Water

Postby Oshun » Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:06 pm

Interesting - it would seem Northumbrian Water are in the 'sights' of a significant number who are waking up to their poisonous activities.
This link will provide you with more encouragement, insight and momentum. Use it to whet your sword of truth... :8-): http://freetheplanet.net/articles/132/liening-on-the-water-poisoners

Namaste

oshun :sun:
Oshun
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: Me Vs Northumbrian Water

Postby rockinsoul » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Here is my most recent letter to the court regarding of payment of "bills" to Northumbria of the Water family...

Dear Sirs,


Thank you for your letter (dated 28th January 2010) sent in response to my defence, which I submitted to your court via email first in October 2009 and then again in January 2010. The following sentence is the ruling quoted from your letter:

“It is ordered that the defence is struck out as revealing no viable issue of having any reasonable prospect of success.”

I must point out however that there is no lawful reason or justification contained in your letter to attempt an explanation as to why this decision was reached. I stated in my defence that you MUST address and disprove in your correspondence all of the lawful points I have raised, which are:

1. It is not revealed under which jurisdiction of Law this case is listed. Please clarify. If it is under criminal law then please see point 2. If it is civil or contract law then please see point 3.
2. There is no MR JOHN ROSE living at this address. This title pertains to a legal fiction known as a PERSON, which is a statutory title. I enclosed with my original defence a copy of my affidavit to HRH and Sovereign Lady the Queen, which is a lawful declaration of my invocation of Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 (Lawful Rebellion) against this treasonous government; hence any and all statutory rights and obligations are outside of Common Law jurisdiction and are not lawfully binding to my sovereign human being, John Dean of the Rose family.
3. There is no written or unwritten, spoken or unspoken contract existing or implied between myself and Northumbrian Water whereby I have promised or intimated that I am prepared to pay for the service of providing me and my fellow countrymen with poisoned water (see point 4.) If such a contract exists then please provide proof otherwise there is NO CASE TO ANSWER.
4. I was informed by Northumbrian Water that the decision to fluoridate water is a medical one. However they have been unable to substantiate this with relevant medical documentation. In point of fact the sodium fluoride added to our water by said corporation is NOT classified as a medicine, as said corporation would then be lawfully liable for forced mass medication. The fluoride used is actually a by-product of the aluminium industry, and is a highly toxic substance with a toxicity level halfway between those of lead and arsenic, all of which are lethally harmful to human beings. Furthermore it is known by informed Government and Scientific authorities that fluoride was used by the Nazis and Soviets in concentration camps to pacify their prisoners by suppression of their mind via calcification of the pineal gland portion of the brain. This is direct physical harm which the water authorities are engaging in.
5. In British Law, a human being is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Your letter of judgement assumes guilt without explanation, and is therefore grossly unlawful.

I must respectfully insist that you explain to me in LAWFUL terms why your order was reached without addressing any of the facts of my defence, and why you are attempting to pass a rushed judgement without trial or lawful explanation on the basis of your opinion that my defence has “no viable issue of having any reasonable prospect of success.” How was this decision reached, and by whom?

Before any lawfully binding ruling can be applied, all points of law MUST be discussed in full. Please address all of my above points in your next correspondence, they being the lawful basis of my defence. If you do not, and any further attempts are made to bypass lawful procedure and rule against me, I will reasonably claim that I am being unfairly denied due process and my lawful rights by your court. This will place the court and its employees in breach of its charter to uphold the law and thus guilty of treasonous misrepresentation to the crown. It is my intent in that instance to bring charges of criminal misconduct against everyone involved.

Please review, set aside, vary, stay or otherwise amend and fully explain your ruling accordingly under your Rule 23.10 and include your name for future reference. Note I have on record all history of correspondence in this case which I intend to submit as evidence in my defence and any counter claims, under the constitution of British Common Law.


Yours sincerely, without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,


John Dean of the Rose family (as commonly called.)
A Living Cosmic Coloured Synthesis of Progressive and Psychedelic Consciousness Expanding Rock'n'Soul

www.deanrosemusic.com
rockinsoul
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:26 pm
Location: Durham, UK

Re: Me Vs Northumbrian Water

Postby somenick » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:51 pm

Great thread. Nice work and very clearly justified. I will be following your progress :)
Magna Carta never applied in Scotland, and the writ of habeas corpus, standardised in England under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, has no meaning in Scotland.
User avatar
somenick
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 3:49 pm


Return to Utility Bills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron