mufc1959 wrote:FMOTL on prime-time TV!
Last night on "Can't Pay, We'll Take It Away" a couple of bailiffs were executing a warrant to collect on an unpaid debt. The debtor was being unco-operative, and after a few minutes a bunch of throwbacks, described by the commentator as "an anti-bailiff group" showed up. All attempts by them to intimidate the bailiffs failed miserably, their demands to see a warrant with a wet ink signature were ignored, and in the end the police were called to disperse them.
The debtor agreed to pay half the debt, which I think in total was about £7,000, and then the rest in a month. When the bailiff said "and if you don't pay it, we'll be back" one of the idiots screamed "you're threatening him!"
My other half, who has minimal interest in FOTL and so has never seen any of the YT videos, thought they were equally hilarious and pathetic.
It'll be on Channel 5 on catch up, if you didn't see it.
Be afraid Channel 5, be very afraid, ETFOTB is on your case !!
Francis Hanney NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL; NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT APPLIES
Without prejudice
27th September 2016
Dear Ms Sufia Von Bismarck Head of Airtime Management at Channel 5.
I am emailing in regards to a most urgent and serious matter.
Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited is a company that is featured on your programme ‘Can’t pay? We’ll take it away’ of which I am sure you aware. Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited is a privately owned limited company with limited liability (a third party interloper or debt collection agency and has no connection what so ever to the CROWN CORPORATION. Fraudulent documents are used to deceive people into paying bogus debts, and a fraudulent document is always a fraudulent document no matter how many decisions have been made upon it.
After thorough professional forensic investigations into documents that so called high court enforcement officers use, the following evidence has been established time and time again, the documents have No witness nor a judge’s wet ink signature/autograph (sign of nature)… No high court number (fraud)… No date on the stamp and all paperwork void ab initio or void from the beginning and fraudulent) no liability by signing their correspondence with a wet ink signature of a judge but sometimes the use of a computer graphic signature, which is counterfeit and fraud. You cannot process a cheque with a computer graphic and you cannot process a cheque without a signature in wet ink… It is that simple. They also use what is known as Gloss (Glossa) or dog Latin language, this is fraud and deception.
These criminal pretenders do not have valid or lawful letters of assignment from the court so therefore they cannot act upon that of which they do not have, (also where is the evidence of the fee that the company making a claim would have to pay the courts before a case can be made) although they do act upon fraudulent documents thus conspiring and become directly implicated in the activities of fraud extortion theft intimidation harassment manipulation deception in a public office acts of terrorism trespass threats of menace often assault and battery, amongst other most serious criminal offences, are you aware of this? As it implicates everyone involved, including you. Whether aware of the facts or not, ignorance of the law (whether it be common law or legislative code of acts and statutes) is NO excuse and abuse of the statutory process is a common law offence. A computer graphic signature is fraud by misrepresentation, No wet ink signature is a violation of the fraud Act 2006 section 4 (2) Fraud by abuse of position (2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act. Section 135 of the County Courts Act 1984: Penalty for falsely pretending to act under authority of court. Any person who—(a) delivers or causes to be delivered to any other person any paper falsely purporting to be a copy of any summons or other process of a county court, knowing it to be false; or (b) acts or professes to act under any false colour or pretence of the process or authority of a county court; shall be guilty of an offence and shall for each offence be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
Serious crimes are being committed on a daily basis and also violation of the Data protection Act 1998. I now require you to cease and desist from the showing of these criminals and blatant propaganda programmes with immediate effect. Failure to do so will result in mass action (the peoples of this country have had enough of the lies propaganda and corruption, it is time for the truth to be told) and criminal charges with private prosecution and trial by jury, also commercial liens or international instruments being attached to every man/woman involved and this will be perused vigorously. So do the right honest transparent truthful thing by publically apologising and give support to the people of this country (your people) and indeed the globe, of which millions have now become aware of the criminality that these so called debt collection agencies have become embroiled in.
Yours sincerely
Francis Glanmor