"Ceylon" the UK's top Goodfer nothing

[PeanutGallery]

I also found this thread in which Ceylon posts a video of advice given out by Daniel Bostock on how to deal with a parking charge letter from Parking Eye.

Having listened to the advice and also done some actual research (not Sovrun research, even though it also involved looking stuff up on t'internet) Mr Bostock isn't right about how to get a charge cancelled, which is shocking because their is a way to appeal these tickets with a 100% success rate that is currently going around the internet. A way that has actually been reported to work.

The current advice when a notice from a PPC regulated by the BPA arrives is to make a soft appeal to the ticket company. If you want to tip them off that you know what you are doing you can mention that the charge is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss (GPEOL). If you don't you can invent any old waffle.

If that soft appeal is rejected (which it usually is be the PPC unless you've hinted at the GPEOPL) you can ask for a POPLA code. When you make your appeal to POPLA you just say that the charge is not a GPEOL and also claim that they don't have the authority of the landowner to operate on the site and a few others (a better resource for this stuff is Peppipoo and Parking Prankster).

To date POPLA has always held that the charge is not a GPEOL and as such is unenforceable.

So even when there are actual magic words that will do the trick somehow the Sov's miss them and keep rattling on about their conspiracy theories and promote extremely bad advice.

[Normal Wisdom]

A round up from Ceylon of most of the UK sovereign nuttery. Apparently the corrupt system will come crashing down sometime in 2015. Mind you he also says that people aren't laughing at him any more so he already has that wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA1WLItX ... freload=10

[wanglepin]

Ceylon leading the charge again
***** URGENT HELP NEEDED ****
Monday 15th Dec 2015
12 midday
34 Marmion Ave, Bootle Merseyside L20 6HW
PLEASE COME AND HELP THIS FAMILY FROM BEING EVICTED FROM THERE FAMILY HOME AT CHRISTMAS
Monday 15th Dec, 2014
12.00 Midday
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... I8dmTSsV8E
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/34-mar ... w/12344883
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.46738 ... PVJ6Dg!2e0
that Zoopla maybe an old valuation?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Valuation looks OK to me.
Looks like the rent-a-mob have managed to delay the eviction. Bailiff(s) will probably come back when there isn't an audience.

[PeanutGallery]

Most likely early in the New Year. Bailiffs generally shut down around this time of year (largely because the various council authorities and housing departments that would step in close down and wouldn't be able to assist people made homeless because of an eviction, that and it's Christmas and bailiffs aren't THAT mean).

They'll be back after though, most likely in the New Year. As it stands all Response and the GOOFs can achieve at these events is to delay the inevitable (and add to the costs being put onto the debt).

[wanglepin]

A round up from Ceylon....... Mind you he also says that people aren't laughing at him any more so he already has that wrong.

He certainly has

[Burnaby49]

I've just posted an extensive review of a new Canadian decision that specifically noted that part of our idiot's arguments was based on Ceylon's stupidity;

[

71] The Three Letters variation usually omits the 'second dishonour notice' and 'the judgment'. In this instance the Three/Five Letters scheme used by the Rogozinskys omits 'the judgment' document, but otherwise conforms to the usual Five Letters pattern.

[72] Bloy in his paper identified one particular OPCA material commercial source that markets this scheme: the website "Get Out Of Debt Free" (http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/), which is operated by guru Mark "Ceylon" Laining. The template documents offered by this UK based OPCA scam match those used by the Rogozinskys. It seems likely that this website and its guru are the source for Mr. Rogozinsky's legal information.

The court's conclusion on this argument was;

After a ramble through the extensive precedence hostile to these "bizarre, inexplicable" "nonsensical" claims the Master concluded that the alleged breach of copyright through the use of Aileen's name was frivolous. Her attempts to enforce them were without merit and had no prospect of success.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10373

[Pimpernel]

Interesting. There are quite a few sovereign-esque loonies in that city -
http://roguemale.org/blog/ & http://self-realisation.com/ link to the Thinkfree site and "Universal Community Trust".

Perhaps we didn't put enough flouride in the local water supply?

Call me a cynic if you will but I think there are less "sovereign-esque loonies in that city" than there would appear. If we take the sites you mention

Roguemale
http://roguemale.org/blog/about-rogue-male/

Just who is this self proclaimed Roguemale of whom we speak ?

The link posted directs us to a tale told by the Roguemale and this tale ends with

Yours faithfully,

Michael O’

http://thinkfree.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2706.0

"The Rogue Male known as Michael of Bernicia"

The Roguemale is Michael O' a.k.a Michael of Benicia

Michael of Benicia is also the person behind the second site you make reference too http://self-realisation.com/ - he is also the person behind the "Universal Community Trust"

So with have The Roguemale a.k.a Michael O' a.k.a Michael of Benicia and now a.k.a "the bank busters"

Even though you can see where this is going, please bear with me

Moving onto the last site you meantion "think free"
http://thinkfree.org.uk/forum/

The forum is run and controlled by a moderator called M O'D who just happens to be, our dear old friend the Roguemale a.k.a Michael O' a.k.a Michael of Benicia a.k.a "the bank busters" and now a.k.a M O'D

All three site are in fact the same sovereign-esque loony in that city. He just posts on different sites to support his posts on different sites. You could say, he is his own fan club and his loudest cheerleader.

So who is the Roguemale a.k.a Michael O' a.k.a Michael of Benicia a.k.a "the bank busters" and now a.k.a M O'D - he is none other than Michael Waugh

[littleFred]

... he is none other than Michael Waugh

Just to put needle to thread, see this forum's thread about him.

[wanglepin]

Ceylon's main partners in Nottingham are KingAbdullahKey with whom he has until recently ....

There was an interesting new video which was up yesterday, but seems to have been pulled, which featured Ceylon with Jon in the place normally occupied by KingAbdullahKey

The return of the backend of the horse.
PART 3 KINGABDULLAHKEY IS DEAD LONG LIVE THE KING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpw4mvrvKZE

[Flying Daggers]

I know this is posted elsewhere here but I think it is important for any visitors to be able to read it here too

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... qb771.html

[69] Canadian courts frequently encounter this general pattern of correspondence in attempts to evade debt collection. This scheme is referred to in OPCA circles as the “Three Letters” or “Five Letters” procedure. As is apparent from a review of the above cases and in other proceedings before this court, the correspondence used in the Three/Five Letters process follows a stereotypic pattern:

The Conditional Acceptance: the target receives a document that says the OPCA litigant conditionally admits something, but the target has to jump through some hoops to prove the admission. (It is not unusual that these hoops are onerous or impossible.) There is a deadline to do so and if that deadline is not met then the target is deemed to have accepted something, usually that there never was a debt.

The Dishonour Notice: once the deadline for the Conditional Acceptance is past the target is sent a notice warning that since the target did not respond to the Conditional Acceptance that means the target has accepted the intended result of the first document, such as the target has admitted there is no debt. This too is a foisted unilateral agreement because it also offers the target a chance to respond to this and the Conditional Acceptance within a deadline. Failure to respond, of course, allegedly means the target has admitted the intended result.

The Second Dishonour Notice: this is basically a repeat of the first, again providing a new window for response.

The Estoppel Notice: the Estoppel Notice document alleges that the since the target has not responded (or responded inadequately) to the prior three documents that means the target is now legally estopped from pursuing something, such as collection of a debt.

The Judgment: the final document in the scheme is a ‘judgment’ which allegedly concludes the dispute. This document may take several forms. A common variant is an “affidavit” which allegedly provides conclusive proof of something. Another common kind of ‘judgment’ is a notarized document that allegedly has the same (or superior) effect to a court document.

[70] There are many variations on this basic scheme. Documents that serve the same purpose may have different names. In Royal Bank of Canada v Skrapec the first document in the process was called a “Conditional Acceptance upon Debt Verification” (para 39). The corresponding document in Royal Bank of Canada v Place was a “Demand for Disclosure” (at para 15), while in Whitfield v Chrysler Credit Canada Ltd. this was called a “Notice for Cause”. Myers v Blackman, at para 6 reproduces a ‘conditional acceptance’ document titled “COUNTER OFFER” that targeted a law firm. The OPCA litigant in Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Lorin Rubbert v Boxrud, 2014 SKQB 221 (CanLII) started the Three/Five Letters procedure with an “Affidavit of Commercial Claim”: para 30. While these names vary the documents’ essential contents and function remain the same.

[71] The Three Letters variation usually omits the ‘second dishonour notice’ and ‘the judgment’. In this instance the Three/Five Letters scheme used by the Rogozinskys omits ‘the judgment’ document, but otherwise conforms to the usual Five Letters pattern.

[72] Bloy in his paper identified one particular OPCA material commercial source that markets this scheme: the website “Get Out Of Debt Free” (http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/), which is operated by guru Mark “Ceylon” Laining. The template documents offered by this UK-based OPCA scam match those used by the Rogozinskys. It seems likely that this website and its guru are the source for Mr. Rogozinsky’s legal information.

[73] Justice Harrington in Drosdovech v Ashfield, at para 15, neatly summed up:

The Drosdovechs can speak all they like about administrative processes, their “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure”, settlement by silence or inertia, collateral estoppels, failure to provide prima face evidence and “Petition for Agreement and Harmony within the Admiralty...”, all they want. In fact and in law, they have no cause of action. These proceedings are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[Burnaby49]

Most recently discussed here in my posts of January 21st and January 30th.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=400#p183067
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=420#p183528

[Flying Daggers]

Tweedle Dee has uploaded a new video to you tube and keeps telling the police man, that he is going to arrest him and keeps referring to s.24 of Pace which he claims he will arrest the Police Officer under

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1 ... l=85114404

I can't see where is says what he claims - has he misread it or just making things up as he goes along ?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24

24 Arrest without warrant: constables

(1)A constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is about to commit an offence;

(b)anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;

(c)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;

(d)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

(2)If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

(3)If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(4)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.

(5)The reasons are—

(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

(b)correspondingly as regards the person's address;

(c)to prevent the person in question—

(i)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii)suffering physical injury;

(iii)causing loss of or damage to property;

(iv)committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or

(v)causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d)to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e)to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f)to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

(6)Subsection (5)(c)(iv) applies only where members of the public going about their normal business cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the person in question.F1]

[tm169]

Goodf have found this thread and are beginning a ferocious backlash. Sigh

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 11#p357453

[Flying Daggers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1 ... l=85114404

See if you can count the number of times ceylon says that he will arrest the police officer (especially within the first 60 seconds) but doesn't

I feel for this guy, despite ceylon/srilankac's bravado and claims that he would arrest the Police Officer, this guy still lost his boat and ceylon didn't arrest the Police Officer, despite the number of times that he said he would.

ieman2 says in this thread

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... M4eSy4jCzU

"Excellent work by Ceylon"

Excellent work ? It is said in that video that the boat was worth £30,000 and nothing Ceylon said or did changed anything - Very peculiar definition of excellent work ieman2 has there

[wanglepin]

Excellent work ? It is said in that video that the boat was worth £30,000 and nothing Ceylon said or did changed anything - Very peculiar definition of excellent work ieman2 has there

Ah but you haven't taken into account are those two crusading Forensic Detectives Mr Taylor and Dr Ebert, have you? just you wait until they are on the case. They will have that boat back on the water in a few days once they have studied the “file”. It’s all elementary.

[PeanutGallery]

So far I'm half way through the video. It seems that the boat is being removed for causing an obstruction to a waterway, of course the freetards present seem to think EVERYTHING is financial and that the boat is being removed because finance is owed.

The officer explains a number of times why the boat is being removed, it seems that it didn't have a licence to be in the water. They don't want to understand that owning the land isn't relevant, it's the fact it was in water. A good equivalent would be if you parked a car on the road outside your house and declared it SORN, it would be removed once detected. Of course our lovely Sovrun friends don't want to understand this or think that owning land adjoining a river gives them some right to that portion of the river itself. It doesn't. The right to the land, ends with the land.

As for Ceylons threats to arrest, I believe the area of PACE he is looking for is section 24A however if Ceylon or one of his followers were to try and arrest under this section it would fail due to the provisions of 24A(3)(b). That and they don't seem to have a plan for what happens AFTER they arrest someone, or at least they haven't thought that bit of woo through yet. It's notable that Ceylon, states he was only going to arrest the officer until 'his friends' showed up then he seems to have gotten scared.

Now none of what they did achieved anything, except tying up the removal truck for a couple of hours, the fees for which would go onto the amount the boat would owe.

[wanglepin]

the fees for which would go onto the amount the boat would owe.

Got into more debt free then. Another success for Ceylon.

[littleFred]

I think that even Ceylon has enough sense to realise that "arresting" a police officer won't end well (for Ceylon). Or perhaps he wants to be arrested, to be carted off to the cells, and so on. Free board and accommodation, after all.

I admire the sergeant's patience in the face of provocation.

I wonder if the land owner paid council tax on the occupied mooring?

[PeanutGallery]

Having spent a few minutes researching the law relating to boats in British Waterways (finally a Sovrun question that actually requires attention to something not unrelated to maritime law) I believe I can proffer the following hypothesis as to what was happening, why it was happening and why the arguments espoused against that action were fruitless.

The boat seems to have been removed as part of the canals and rivers trusts' enforcement of licensing through their licence it or lose it campaign. This is designed to ensure that the trust receives revenue which is in turn placed into maintaining the waterways and keeping that network flowing.

The power behind this enforcement campaign, comes from Section 8(2) of the British Waterways Act 1983. This act gave the British Waterways Board (the predecessor of the Canal and Rivers Trust) the power to 'remove any relevant craft after giving not less than 28 days notice to the owner of the relevant craft', 'Relevant craft' is defined in Section8(1) quite broadly, however the relevant section in relation to this boat would appear to be "means any vessel which is sunk, stranded or abandoned in any inland waterway or in any reservoir
owned or managed by the Board or which is left or moored therein without lawful authority and includes any part of such vessel." The emphasis has been added to highlight the relevant section.

Now the Sov is claiming that he had lawful authority to moor the vessel where he did and even produced the landowner to show this. I don't doubt that he had permission for his boat to be there from the landowner. However the landowner doesn't own or manage the river in which his boat resided. In order to properly interpret this section, we have to include the meaning of the word "therein" and the context in which it appears. I would suggest that therein can only refer to the earlier examples, inland waterway and reservoir, owned or managed by the board. I can see no other statement to which therein could possibly relate without the meaning of the statute becoming absurd. So while the Sov had permission for the boat to be tied to the land, he didn't have the lawful authority for it to be in the water.

A part of the Sov's argument is that the British Waterways Board had the power to remove boats and not the Canal and Rivers Trust. However the powers of the British Waterways Board were transferred in The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012. As such the trust had full authority to remove the boat in question.

His other argument is that there was no finance owing on the boat. The question of finance is not relevant, it's not been removed because of any amount owed, it's been removed because it didn't have a licence to be in the water.

The Sov claims that he was doing the boat up to sell, this may or may not have been true, we don't know what his intentions for the boat were. However if he was doing it up to sell, he's likely taken quite a hit from trying to avoid a licence, he could have gotten a short-term 3 month licence for considerably less than the £7-8,000 costs of the removal action (precisely how much depends on the length of the boat as explained here).

Ceylon et al seem to think that the Canal and Rivers Trust did not have the power to do what they did. When in fact they did. You don't need to be a solicitor to understand which powers are at work here or how they are used (I'm not one and I can find this stuff out). Ceylons threats are probably empty, he's not the sort who would martyr themselves for a cause, not when he has Tom Crawford, Paul Campbell, or any of the others he's 'helped' to do it for him.

I also feel that I need to say that I am disturbed by the readiness of the freetards to accuse anyone in authority who doesn't march to the beat of the freetard drum (ie anyone in authority) or being Nazi's which I feel contrasts rather poorly with what I have observed to be a number of highly anti-semetic postings both on GOODF.