now it is getting nasty

Income Tax, Council Tax, National Insurance and VAT issues.

now it is getting nasty

Postby Chipper » Mon May 10, 2010 1:11 pm

Had two Sherriffs officers around today acting very threatening (at least the guy was acting threatening).
They put a notice of attachment to my vehicle and the wife's vehicle. they wouldn't listen to anything I had to say so out came the camera and I started taking photos which didn't turn out that good anyway, this made the sheriff officer guy freak out on me a bit and he said he was going to phone the police so i told him to go ahead and I laughed at him.
Anyway the police was a no show, but they said I have fourteen days to pay the council tax bill or they are taking the vehicles. Why was I not given a chance to have my say in court? Any advice?...Anyone?
Chipper
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: now it is getting nasty

Postby Veronica » Mon May 10, 2010 1:18 pm

They can't take you to Court ... and run the risk of losing ... they are PSYCHOPATHS!

PUT THEM ON THEIR OATH! (How many times do I say that?

OFFICIAL NOTICE/DEMAND by an English Sovereign


Greetings;

<name … no “mr.”, etc e.g. “A. N Other”> <Sheriff, Judge, or whoever> of <where>.

This response where you swore the Oath of Office on that date.

I accept and acknowledge your Oath of Office and hold you to that office, for now we have a binding contract.

You <name … no “mr.”, etc e.g. “A. N Other”> as <Sheriff, Judge, or whoever> are to uphold and protect my God given Rights, Bill of Rights, Treaty Rights in these matters. I am me myself English Sovereign without the State of England.

I appointed you to your office in these affairs to protect me from the criminal conversion of the civil statutes of the State of England.

For failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

by <your name> <your date>

(Signature in blue ink)


Enclosures: List anyone else e.g. County Registrar, etc.

His Name & Address goes here

UNDERNEATH YOUR SIGNATURE
,
BECAUSE YOU as a sovereign … ARE ABOVE HIM


It is best if this is handwritten, using carbon paper to make “duplicates” (NOT “copies” … duplicates!). Send each enclosure only photocopy of same Notice/Letter and mail to that enclosure. “Enclosures” = Courtesy Copies in normal parlance.

On the back, diagonally, write “OFFICAL NOTICE/DEMAND”

This works because ALL Oaths are subservient to the Queen’s Coronation Oath … which was an Oath TO THE PEOPLE … and “So help me God”, she said.


(And hide your vehicles ... if you can)
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
Veronica
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: now it is getting nasty

Postby Chipper » Tue May 11, 2010 2:07 pm

Thanks Veronica, I forgot to mention the two most important parts so here they are, one vehicle is a work vehicle so it should be safe even although he (the jobsworth bailiff) was told it was a work vehicle but went ahead and put an attachment on it anyway, the other vehicle is registered in my wife's name although the vehicle belongs to her father. getting her father to confirm this is easy enough BUT how should I go about this do you think? Should I get him to write out an affidavit and have it witnessed by a notary?
Chipper
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: now it is getting nasty

Postby Revs » Tue May 11, 2010 9:06 pm

I'd let them know they're not your cars and you have been assured, by the owners, that taking them would be considered theft, which is a breach of Common Law.
Revs
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: now it is getting nasty

Postby huntingross » Tue May 11, 2010 9:26 pm

Export the cars to a foreign jurisdiction, using the DVLA V5 slip
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: now it is getting nasty

Postby Jim » Wed May 12, 2010 9:42 pm

Veronica wrote:
OFFICIAL NOTICE/DEMAND by an English Sovereign


Greetings;

<name … no “mr.”, etc e.g. “A. N Other”> <Sheriff, Judge, or whoever> of <where>.

This response where you swore the Oath of Office on that date.

I accept and acknowledge your Oath of Office and hold you to that office, for now we have a binding contract.

You <name … no “mr.”, etc e.g. “A. N Other”> as <Sheriff, Judge, or whoever> are to uphold and protect my God given Rights, Bill of Rights, Treaty Rights in these matters. I am me myself English Sovereign without the State of England.

I appointed you to your office in these affairs to protect me from the criminal conversion of the civil statutes of the State of England.

For failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

by <your name> <your date>

(Signature in blue ink)


Enclosures: List anyone else e.g. County Registrar, etc.

His Name & Address goes here

UNDERNEATH YOUR SIGNATURE
,
BECAUSE YOU as a sovereign … ARE ABOVE HIM

This is a belter, V. There's a couple of bits I can't decipher, though.

This response where you swore the Oath of Office on that date.

This sentence seems incomplete to me. I can't get it to make sense grammatically in my head.

For failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

What's the relief to be granted on? The claim or the failure? And who's granting it?

Sorry if I'm being dense but I like this Notice and I want to be sure I understand it properly...

:peace:

J
All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.
User avatar
Jim
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:03 pm
Location: Sitting on the sofa in my living room

Re: now it is getting nasty

Postby Freeman-B » Fri May 14, 2010 9:50 am

Jim wrote:This is a belter, V. There's a couple of bits I can't decipher, though.

This response where you swore the Oath of Office on that date.

This sentence seems incomplete to me. I can't get it to make sense grammatically in my head.

For failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

What's the relief to be granted on? The claim or the failure? And who's granting it?

Sorry if I'm being dense but I like this Notice and I want to be sure I understand it properly...

:peace:

J


Taking the second part first, Jim, my understanding is that the relief can only be granted on the claim. i.e. if there is no verifiable claim, then there is no way of disproving that claim or otherwise refuting it and consequently, any reference to the "non-claim" is, in effect, a fraud. It is incumbent on the prosecution, NOT the defence, to prove their case. Apologies for butting in, V - checking my own understaning as much as anything!

I won't try to explain the first sentence, as I am similarly challenged by it at present!

:peace: :love:
B
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. Einstein
Banking doesn’t “involve” fraud...banking IS fraud. Tim Madden
Freeman-B
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:04 pm
Location: Scotland/France


Return to Taxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest