Suggestions on this r most welcome peeps

[VisuJulz]

I decided to change the beginning of our letters so as to leave no room for misinterpretation, for I was getting sick & tired of them pretending & acting like they didn't quite understand, or were unsure of what I was saying. So I thought why not make it extremely fecking clear to them from the start what the rules of my contract with them are, but this is just in regards to the 1st two paragraphs so far (the ones in red after "Dear Interloper"). Comments are most welcome, in fact that's what I'm counting on in order to judge if the following is a job well done or not. I'm after finding out if there are any grammatical mistakes, or any kind of mistakes whatsoever with this shit. The words that are crossed out have been replaced with the preceding words in square brackets, these changes came about as a result of valid points made by other people’s advice after I wrote this and asked for opinions:

For and on the record, in accordance with my inalienable human rights under the common law which supersedes all laws and as attested to by our British Coat Of Arms motto “DIEU ET MON DROIT” which this legal document stands under, you are hereby officially [informed of the fact] notified that it is my right to ask for proof of your claim against me. Therefore this document which represents the start of my [new agreement] contracting with you, cannot be called, or taken to be anything other than me exercising my right (in writing) and as a result; should you treat it as a complaint, a query, a request for a statement/agreement or anything other than me exercising my right, you will agree to pay me £5,000.00 in damages per inadmissible response nunc pro tunc, through deliberate malicious ignorance of this fair [warning in advance] notice.
Also, DO NOT refer to me as “Mr” or any title, which is a legal fiction and is not me. “Mr” is the title of something with LEGAL PERSONALLITY (STATUS). Upon my live birth I was given one appellation by my parents of the clan Irimia. I do not have a SURNAME for I am one, not two, nor three. My one given appellation did not include MR and I [did not CONSENT to REPRESENT such a fiction created not for my benefit but to my detriment] do not REPRESENT such a fiction created without my CONSENT. Therefore you are hereby officially [warned in advance] notified that; should you chose to refer to me in any and all of the above prohibited manners, you will also agree to pay me £5,000.00 in damages per unauthorised appellation nunc pro tunc, through deliberate ignorance of this fair [warning] notice. [As I am of a generous disposition I would like to give you this opportunity to CEASE-AND-DESIST the aforementioned infringements, ignoring these fair warnings will be used as evidence that the infringements were wilful.]

If the mention of the coat of arms perplexed you take a look at where I put it on my letters on this link http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=36029&p=81742#p81742 the picture of my letter on that link should clarify things and though you can't see the two mottos on it for it's too small, everybody should know what they are & what they stand for, but to make life easier for anyone who doesn't know I shall repeat it; on the shield it says: "HONI SOIT QUI MALY PENSE" = Evil to him who evil thinks and underneath it says "DIEU ET MON DROIT" = God and my right.

Notice that my other intent for these changes I’ve made were so that I have extra shit to use when it’s time to bill them so if I don’t wanna bill them for any copyright name infringements I can still bill them plenty just on the basis that you know they’re gonna fuck up plenty of times in regards to not adhering to the rules in the very 1st two paragraphs of my letters alone (never mind all the rest of the methods via which they can become even more indebted to us) and each time they’ll fuck up that will be an extra £5000.00 on their bill after the estoppel letter. So please people, let me know what you think, good, bad, better with this or that change...!? Let me know how it can be improved in any way.

[stoneybroke]

i reckon its pretty damm good well done all ways good to see new idieas and new ways of giving it these scum

[ceylon]

i see a couple of contradictions.

1 is it a letter or a notice?

2 is it a contract or a agreement?

apart from that it looks pretty good

[wishy]

No fines without court.But service charges are great.If they cannot prove what they are saying then you will be utterly delighted to help them with adjusting their records for the following service charges works a treat

[VisuJulz]

i see a couple of contradictions.
1 is it a letter or a notice?
2 is it a contract or a agreement?
apart from that it looks pretty good

Dear ceylon I would very much appreciate it if you could take a quick look at the changes I’ve added in the square brackets as a result of your very valid points. Many thanks in advance and yes I'm glad you mentioned the notification part for even though I know what I meant by that, I wasn't sure if others could tell or mistake it for a notice, notice. I guess in this case notice would mean something similar to: “you have been notified / you have been warned” it’s a warning as in: "so that there may be no doubt as to the penalties, you have now officially been warned that should you do this, then you will have in effect agreed to this clearly stated consequences in advance of you potentially doing it", I have notified them of my rules of the contract which is also what this document/vessel of commerce actually is (even though it might not be wise to use words such as CONTRACTING) and the rules of my vessel are bla, bla, bla for I’m the captain of my ship and if you wanna come on board I’m gonna notify you of my rules, but above all even though this is a NESTED NOTICE within a CONTRACT, what it most importantly is and was stated as such from the word go, was the fact that this is me exercising a HUMAN RIGHT of mine, which is to ask the demanding party to HONOUR me with PROOF of their claim (exempt of any other bullshit), or PAY the consequences for their dishonourable behaviour as NOTIFIED.
Another potential mistake I’ve just noticed could well be: “...and I do not REPRESENT such a fiction created without my CONSENT...” perhaps I should change that to: “...and I did not CONSENT to REPRESENT such a fiction created not for my benefit but to my detriment...”.

No fines without court.But service charges are great.If they cannot prove what they are saying then you will be utterly delighted to help them with adjusting their records for the following service charges works a treat

Wishy thanks for what I think you just made me aware of in reference to fines vs. service charges, If I'm right what you're saying is that the £5000.00 for treating it as a complaint, a query, a request for a statement/agreement etc. as well as the other £5000.00 for the privilege of referring to me via any of the afore mentioned prohibited titles, count as SERVICE CHARGES which doesn't involve court, which is something we all want to avoid, but for me to professionally understand the latter even better I'd like to ask what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that for a fine to be accepted as payable the courts have to get involved but for service charges it doesn't require a judge’s ruling...!? Anyhow, responses so far were most appreciated (including yours stoneybroke). Thank you

P.S. I've just seen a beautiful explanation in one of the forums in regards to the difference between agreements and contracts:

You need an agreement so you can contract. You and I must agree (legal obligations) before the contract can be enforced. A credit agreement becomes a contract (allegedly) through your actions (acceptance), i.e you use the card! But seeing as the card issuer doesn't provide any consideration, then we have an alleged contract. That's my perspective.

I didn't know this but now that I do, it all makes sense.

[VisuJulz]

Now I've also gone and changed the ENDING of our first copyright letter (to debt collectors) because I wanna hit them hard from the get go. This of course will be written in black on the actual letter. After I wrote this, the sentence in square brackets was introduced as a lasting addition which came about as a result of smilingalltheway's very valid point with the words "notarised / certified" thrown in there as well for good measure as a result of wishy's input:

Should you provide sufficient evidence that I owe your organisation or your client any outstanding amount and that you can provide proof that they have assigned you agency / that the debt was legally and lawfully assigned to you, I should be happy to pay any verified claim in full. The valid assignment in admissible form should identify the particular account at issue, should be signed by each party who sold the debt and should have been created for routine business activity, not for litigation. [A reconstituted or original "notice of assignment" is not admissible, only a notarised / certified copy of the DEED OF ASSIGNMENT / SALE with the terms of the contract between you and your client, along with the PURCHASE RECEIPTS will do.]

You may only use my name when sending payment. The only other exemption would ONLY occur in the unlikely event that you should provide me with absolutely everything that was my right to ask for, which I have now officially asked for and is your duty to provide me with in FULL in order to stay in honour. Should you use my name in any other circumstances, you will agree to pay me a maximum of £1,000,000.00 ONE MILLION POUNDS STERLING per unauthorised use of © nunc pro tunc.

In fact I changed a bit more than just the beginning and the end to make it as scary as possible for them to dare think I don't know what I'm on about or that they could fuck with me (see http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=36029&p=81742#p81742 for pictures of both sides of the page), it's just a shame I hadn't done this when I sent them my very first letter, (but fortunately for me, I've got two other so called creditors and soon enough they will be graced with this new improved version so I can still have some fun). If you're a bit confused as to why I only gave them six (6) days, I've given an explanation in here http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=135&t=34671&p=85273#p85273. So again suggestions are and will be very much appreciated. Words are our tools/weapons, so if a word is misspelled it is like using a bent fork and if a sentence isn’t formulated properly it is like a car engine that has only partially been screwed and soldered together, hence not good enough to make a car run.

[smilingalltheway]

The valid assignment in admissible form should identify the particular account at issue,

(they will push a notice of assignment as being what you're looking for, which it isn't)

do a search on the forum for deed of assignment,
what they usually use is a notice of assignment....which either a dca or whoever it was originally with can produce.... and they can even make one up and pretend they sent it.

the reason i say this is that they may also use the excuse that "whoever it was originally with" sent you a letter stating they would pass this onto them (which is a notice of assignment) ..... and theres the chain of title in a sense.... (not what you're looking for, but they will have sneakily answered your question.)


what you want is the deed assignment / sale, plus in incase they haven't purchased it, the terms of the contract between them and their clients and any purchase receipts etc.


and they will never show you the deed of assignment, otherwise if they bought this alledged debt everyone would find out how much they paid ....

[VisuJulz]

The valid assignment in admissible form should identify the particular account at issue,

what you want is the deed assignment / sale, plus in incase they haven't purchased it, the terms of the contract between them and their clients and any purchase receipts etc.
and they will never show you the deed of assignment, otherwise if they bought this alledged debt everyone would find out how much they paid ....

I like your style buzzer, that was some good shit, very good stuff, that's exactly the sort of thinking and help I was after. With that, you've basically provided me with the last piece of the puzzle in regards to the whole assignment saga that I’ve had problems understanding since the very beginning, but now it all makes sense.
However the reason why I was banging on about the chain of assignment is because CabQuest couldn’t have bought my debt off Barclays as Barlclays sold it to another corp. before CabQuest and in their notice of assignment it didn’t show the 2nd buyer and yes the notice of assignment was a reconstituted one for I have the original and it looks similar but they’re not the same.
Thanks to you my good man I have now added your wise words to remove any opportunities that they might have had to fob me off with a notice of assignment as they did actually try to do and even though I didn’t fully understand why that wasn’t admissible as I knew it couldn’t be, I was at one point rather desperate to know exactly why and now you have answered all my queries on that subject matter. That was brilliant info m8; I can’t tell you how happy you made me, thanks a million.

[wishy]

The original lender can assign several assignee's,if they dont send notice of assignment then their could be conflict in the hierarchy
of assignment. I like your notice so far,especially the " proof of purchase " or " consideration" which makes the deed of assignment a valid contract. I would ask for a certified copy of this or notorised. Fined out who the ombudsman is and tell them to open a file with a reference number for you to attach all correspondence to and from the DCA and tell them you have done this. Also the DCA should have sent you a "Notice of Fair Process" with the notice of assignment that means they have permission from the information commissionaire to hold your details. If they have'nt done this they are very naughty and should be paying rent for the use of the details.
As far as the fines you are trying to impose, you are trying to collect fines for Tort/Trespass/Harm,these are all in the realm of criminal,which is un collectable without first winning a court case,which you cannot win because the amounts are extortionate and you risk counterclaim. However i know from experience that small service charges are collectable.
So the burden of proof lies with them, if they cannot provide proof then you will be only to glad to help them in adjusting their records for the following service charges bla bla bla.
You will not hear from them again. If you do,then send them an invoice and thank them for their continued use of your services.
If they have brought your debt they will use another DCA as agent to collect "who may also need your services in adjusting their files"

If they have no proof,then you can easily collect what they owe you

[VisuJulz]

Also the DCA should have sent you a "Notice of Fair Process" with the notice of assignment that means they have permission from the information commissionaire to hold your details. If they haven’t done this they are very naughty and should be paying rent for the use of the details.

My man, Notice of Fair Process... Seriously, can I just say you guys have been amazing, the shit I've just learned from this one topic has reached new heights all thanks to all of your input, one piece of priceless information after another, this notice of fair process is gonna get a professional digestion from me.

As far as the fines you are trying to impose, you are trying to collect fines for Tort/Trespass/Harm, these are all in the realm of criminal, which is uncollectable without first winning a court case, which you cannot win because the amounts are extortionate and you risk counterclaim. However I know from experience that small service charges are collectable. So the burden of proof lies with them, if they cannot provide proof then you will be only too glad to help them in adjusting their records for the following service charges bla bla bla. You will not hear from them again. If you do, then send them an invoice and thank them for their continued use of your services. If they have brought your debt they will use another DCA as agent to collect "who may also need your services in adjusting their files" If they have no proof, then you can easily collect what they owe you

And from this I now know you meant those first two £5000.00 charges are fines not service charges and many thanks to you for clearing that up for me, perhaps I should reduce them to £500.00 or £1000.00 then it won't be so extortionate what do you reckon, they will still rack up to something worthwhile before it comes to an end and just to be clear, are these examples of service charges?:
"8.You have not proven any debt and as a result:

• a) if you sell the alleged liability, pass it back to your client and/or appoint an agent to act on your behalf on this matter you will have broken our agreement and you agree to pay the following fee schedule 3 x your claim against me for dishonouring our agreement,

• b) £1,000.00 per hour or part of it of authorised representatives time nunc pro tunc,

• c) £1,000.00 per recorded delivery or any other response nunc pro tunc and

• d) £1,000,000.00 ONE MILLION POUNDS STERLING per unauthorised use of © nunc pro tunc.

Also any further contact is now not necessary, if however you deem a need to contact me by phone, letter or physically the fee is £100 per item payable in advance, place the cheque in the envelope; if no payment is made in advance the fee will rise to £1,000.00 per item and you will also be held culpable for any cost incurred while recovering the debt you owe."

P.S. in regards to the proof of purchase / "purchase receipts" that came about as a result of smilingalltheway's input which was brilliant to say the least.