NOTICE OF ACCORD AND SATISFACTION OF THE PARTIES Notice to Agent is notice to Principal. Notice to Principal is notice to Agent. 3rd January 2014 RE: Your Ref xxxx xxxxxxxxx To whom it may concern. Are Yorkshire Water trying to claim legal authority over a man? YWs original charging instrument described itself as: Your Water & Sewerage Bill. I call it a Bill of Exchange. The fact that it is a Bill of Exchange, is not immediately apparent. Its crafty construction appears to contain much extraneous and misleading material, extracted from other documents and enclosed upon its face. Its unconditional nature, is further disguised by the accompanying literature, which seems designed to give the impression that the payment demanded is directly linked to the provision of water services advertised. YW state that it covers “the cost of removing, treating and returning safely to the environment, all the water you dispose of”. This is would appear to be a fraudulent claim. Here are the clues. It is based on rateable value like a tax. It claims to be a counterfoil, ie a part of a Bank Check/Money Order etc, that is retained by the issuer as a record. As a Bill of Exchange however it would only need a signature, a date and amount, to be a specie of money. This could then be cashed at any bank by a corporation such as yours, having a turnover of more than 2 million a year. By enclosing a private cheque along with the said counterfoil, it is my belief, that we would be paying twice, that you would be fraudulently ‘twinning a stream of revenue’. This is also known as Double Dipping. Your letter claims that a ‘fiction’ Officer B H, is liable for the outstanding amount. You have mistakenly attributed the Admiralty title of MR to him, which we have disputed in our ‘NOTICE OF MISTAKE’, which you have accepted, as you have provided no substantive proof to the contrary so far, it remains totally un-rebutted. On its face your Bill of Exchange says Payment due now. It orders Officer H to unconditionally accept the charges stated and to pay the suggested sum, within the suggested time to a third party, via YWs account with Nat West Bank, in the City of London, The Square Mile. It’s my belief this customer reference is your account. You mistakenly presume that Officer H is holding and operating in the fictional public office of TAXPAYER and is willing to help pay the annual statutory obligation that YW owes to HMRC. However, as a private flesh and blood man, bryan: son of john henry, is not acting in any such public capacity. YW have been informed of this via a ‘NOTICE OF MISTAKE’. This notice has remained Un-Challenged & Un-Rebutted in substance. Therefore it represents the truth in law. YW are avoiding any meeting of the minds on this issue. Are you now seeking to avoid liability by neglecting to sign any of your communications? Bank of England Notes “Promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of” This would appear to be a pledge to SET OFF a debt into the future. Making them an I O U, a DEBT LIABILITY. Are YW attempting to defraud a man into believing that a debt can be settled with another debt? This would double the debt, thereby eventually doubling the National Debt. No wonder the country’s in such trouble. The Bills of Exchange Act of 1882 would appear to be rules of bankruptcy, as in a Bankrupt State debts cannot be paid. They can only be SET OFF into the future by a signature (sign of nature) on an IOU such as the signature of the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England. Why else would his signature be there? It is our opinion that the British economy is now being weakened by corrupt officials who have appropriated the countrys resources for their own use. YW appear to be dishonestly claiming to have been given statutory rights against a man, by misrepresenting his status in order to demand debt money. It remains our opinion that you are operating in fraud. Your refusal to accept our lawful set off via the bills of exchange act would have extinguished any alleged debt in its entirety, from day one. As a gesture of good will however, I offer you a further 14 days in which to substantially rebut, refute or amend our above realisations, UPON YOUR FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. If we receive no such response within 14 days, it shall constitute the accord and satisfaction of all parties concerned. I will therefore assume that you agree with my realisation and I shall consider this matter as permanently closed. If however you later decide to start proceedings in court, I will be prepared to accept any judgement that is in line with this un-rebutted letter of agreement of the parties concerned. Any further unsigned communications from either YW or Rockford, that do not directly address the above points will disregarded. We require a signed rebuttal from our public servants either the CEO or a Senior Director of YW, substantially rebutting, refuting or amending our above realisations and accepting full commercial liability under penalty of perjury. We await your reply. Govern yourself with honour in this matter.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 01:01:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015