Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[mufc1959]

Northern Irish Footler tries to get £50,000 of mortgage arrears wiped out on a technicality of a mis-spelled name and an extra set of parentheses.

When that fails, he provides the court with a "Certificate of Re-Cission" which "formally declares that all and any contracts, all and any instruments derived from same, and all powers and appointments derived from same, and all past commercial dealings, between all and any legal persons: applicant of the edward:ward estate, allegedly in contract, with an entity known as Santander UK Plc: respondent have been re-scinded in full, abinito, as if the contracts never existed, as if the estates lawful entitlement:
And let it be known to all, that this certification is derived wholly from the applicant's/affiants unrebutted correspondences to the respondent, using the maxim "silence is consent, verified by the signed, sealed and delivered, registered judgment/statement of truth, as witness to the seal by the jurats of the court of record convened on 28 March 2018 AD, and notarized for validity."

Oh, and he also claims he's owed £150K for "fees".

The Judge's opinion? "Various arguments had been raised which I have looked at in detail and determined that they are devoid of any merit, whether legal or factual."

https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Ch/2020/2.html

[TBL]

I am endlessly amused by concept that the same sovrun idjits that claim the government has no contract with me because there is no wet-ink signature then attempt to foist the unilateral contracts upon others.
I know this has been rehashed multiple times before, but it still amuses me.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

To be honest, I'm impressed that he and his wife blew £39k on holidays.

Zoopla has the property down for between £135k - £203k. Others in the road indicate that the valuation should be at the high end of that or higher, so Santander are unlikely to lose out. And as we've seen before, all these legal geniuses do is eat into any surplus they may have recovered by having to pay the banks' legal fees.

[John Uskglass]

If I am wrong and the plaintiff did advance money to the Wards but did not obtain a valid security on the property then equity demands that the property in question should be subject to a mortgage by way of subrogation in the sum of the £120,000 approximately being the debt owed by the Wards to UCB. It follows therefore that even if Mr Ward is correct and the present mortgage is for some reason, which has not been brought to my attention unenforceable, the plaintiff is still entitled on the basis of the law relating to subrogation and mortgages to possession of the property: see 43.2 of Fisher and Lightwood's Law of Mortgage (15th Edition).

IANAL, but doesn't this have, shall we say, implications for MOB/TGBMS?

[Footloose52]

If I am wrong and the plaintiff did advance money to the Wards but did not obtain a valid security on the property then equity demands that the property in question should be subject to a mortgage by way of subrogation in the sum of the £120,000 approximately being the debt owed by the Wards to UCB. It follows therefore that even if Mr Ward is correct and the present mortgage is for some reason, which has not been brought to my attention unenforceable, the plaintiff is still entitled on the basis of the law relating to subrogation and mortgages to possession of the property: see 43.2 of Fisher and Lightwood's Law of Mortgage (15th Edition).

IANAL, but doesn't this have, shall we say, implications for MOB/TGBMS?

IIRC this is exactly what has already happened to MOB in one of his cases.

[mufc1959]

Someone on Crabby's Facebook group wants to know if anyone doesn't pay Council Tax and has become 'exempt' from paying it.

Scott Taylor is proud to announce that he doesn't pay.



Naturally, on further enquiry, this doesn't appear to be the 'win' he seems to think it is.

[NYGman]

So by making yourself homeless, purposefully, is he now exempt? Is that how it works? Simply wandering the country as a homeless vagabond will get you out of this? So Simple, i guess. Seems a bit of a drastic step though.

[aesmith]

You can apply for exemption if you're in prison. Unless you're in prison for not paying Council Tax.

[TBL]

You can apply for exemption if you're in prison. Unless you're in prison for not paying Council Tax.

Win?

[Burnaby49]

To be honest, I'm impressed that he and his wife blew £39k on holidays.

The decision said that they spent some of it on house renovations.

[notorial dissent]

Snipty snip

The Judge's opinion? "Various arguments had been raised which I have looked at in detail and determined that they are devoid of any merit, whether legal or factual."

https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Ch/2020/2.html

The judge should have also devoid of any attempt at humuor.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So by making yourself homeless, purposefully, is he now exempt? Is that how it works? Simply wandering the country as a homeless vagabond will get you out of this? So Simple, i guess. Seems a bit of a drastic step though.

Yes, that is how it works. Council Tax is a property tax, payable by either a resident by virtue of their lease (like me) or the owner. If you are homeless, couch surfing, Waterloo roundabout underpass dwelling etc., your personal liability for council tax is zero. It's why I don't understand Princess Nutbag's CT summons. If the property is owned by her brother-in-law and she's just staying there, then she is not personally liable. On the other hand, if she inherited her sister's share then that would make a difference.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It's why I don't understand Princess Nutbag's CT summons. If the property is owned by her brother-in-law and she's just staying there, then she is not personally liable.

If it's her only address and she's permanently living there she is liable, isn't she? OK jointly with the brother-in-law, but still liable.

[notorial dissent]

Again, the issue of taking ANYTHING she says as even remotely true.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

It's why I don't understand Princess Nutbag's CT summons. If the property is owned by her brother-in-law and she's just staying there, then she is not personally liable.

If it's her only address and she's permanently living there she is liable, isn't she? OK jointly with the brother-in-law, but still liable.

No, she is not. Unless she has a lease and is a lawful tenant. Lodgers, and by extension guests, are not personally liable for council tax.

He wouldn't be able to claim single person discount, but she would not be legally liable. If he has moved out then that does affect the situation.

Further back up the thread there is an idiot with one property in Cornwall and another in Bristol who tried this and then found she was still liable for both properties. Sadly she's not posted what the outcome of her prosecution was.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Careful folks. The CLC has certified geniuses as members.

Joe Perrin is in a fight for multiple years council tax owed to Cardiff City Council. He has written to them telling them that it's all illegal and that it all doesn't count because his name is wrong.

Our hero complains:

I should mention that I've never signed anything regarding council tax and that any correspondence from the council has been addressed to the wrong name although similar to my name, try they've apparently managed to obtain Court liability orders against me.

Well that told them!

But hang on. I think he's been rumbled by some master detective work. The council's response:

You can be easily identified from the notices issues and additionally have signed recent correspondancr "J Perrin", therefore I don't believe there is a case to answer regarding this.

He'd have got away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling council tax collection officer!

[hucknallred]

So which clause of Magnum Charter allows you to keep a caravan & grow veg on somebody else's land?

https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news ... fXrt_mMlT4

He had been ordered by Forest of Dean District Council on October 12, 2017 to remove the caravan, a poly tunnel and its associated fixtures, fittings and relevant paraphernalia, building materials and other materials and equipment from land at Brockweir Common by December 10 of that year.

However, when representatives from the district council checked on the situation in March 2019 they noticed that the items were on the site in breach of an enforcement order, it was alleged.

Chaloner, of Hawthorn Rise did not enter a plea, but elected to stand trial at the crown court.

Chaloner, who was not legally represented, cited clauses in the Magna Carta, and said that under common law there was no case to answer.

He was released on bail to attend a plea and trial hearing at Gloucester Crown Court on March 13.

[TBL]

Anybody running a RePool on if he shows for trial?

[longdog]

But hang on. I think he's been rumbled by some master detective work. The council's response:

You can be easily identified from the notices issues and additionally have signed recent correspondancr "J Perrin", therefore I don't believe there is a case to answer regarding this.

He'd have got away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling council tax collection officer!

It's always a little slip like that that causes the damage.

My forged twenties we absolutely perfect until a lack of concentration led to me using my passport photo instead of the queen's head and I mistakenly used my own signature and put "C/O Flat 7, 43 Crap-Towers, Hull" instead of "Governor of The Bank of England".

Just one little slip!

Well... Three.

[The Observer]

My forged twenties we absolutely perfect until a lack of concentration led to me using my passport photo instead of the queen's head and I mistakenly used my own signature and put "C/O Flat 7, 43 Crap-Towers, Hull" instead of "Governor of The Bank of England".

Slips? Hardly, sir. You were demonstrating well-founded sovereign citizen/freeman beliefs in embellishing the currency with your identifiers instead of relying on the artificial constructs of the government.