Billboards stating "It's illegal to use a legal name".

[paolo]

Have we already speculated about who this is?

I'll go with Noel Edmunds. He's probably still got just enough telly money stashed, and is going bonkers.

 

[A380]

I am not the name Mr Blobby and I claim maritime law.

Have we already speculated about who this is?

I'll go with Noel Edmunds. He's probably still got just enough telly money stashed, and is going bonkers.

 

[NoXion]

<looks forward to the coming pages where Urbanites defend debt collectors>

Debt collectors are just doing their jobs. That's what makes them scum.

 

[kabbes]

?????
I'm wondering how I obtained a certified copy of an entry in a birth register then.

There are registers of births and deaths but not names. You can change your name at any time just by asking people to call you something different. There is no need to register the change.

 

[DotCommunist]

There are registers of births and deaths but not names. You can change your name at any time just by asking people to call you something different. There is no need to register the change.

apply for a passport though and they want either the old one or a short form birth certificate. I was asked what name I wanted on my passport as my use name conflicts with the name on the BC.

 

[kabbes]

apply for a passport though and they want either the old one or a short form birth certificate. I was asked what name I wanted on my passport as my use name conflicts with the name on the BC.

If you can show a history of using a different name and/or a reason for the change (eg a separation), they are happy to give you whatever name you have established.

Individual issuers of ID can do what they please, though -- still doesn't mean there is any "official" version of your name. Just a name which that issuer is willing to endorse as something you are known by.

 

[BigTom]

Is this a new style or have I missed this type posted earlier?
(Hyde rd, manchester in case anyone is interested)

 

[two sheds]

That's different - it's not all in capitals SPLITTERS

 

[Dogsauce]

Seen someone claiming this is something to do with the KLF, but I'm skeptical.

Aren't they supposed to reappear sometime soon after a deliberate 21 or 25 year hiatus?

 

[keybored]

Here's a guardian article written by Jon Witterick, creator of the getoutofdebtfree.org site I linked to earlier.

Here's a follow-up article for balance.

Witterick was given space in Comment is free this week as part of the Occupy takeover. He used that platform to promote the supposed debt avoidance service that his site offers. Witterick uses a few freeman-on-the-land tropes to support his claims, including the Bills of Exchange Act and fractional reserve banking. As I've explained in detail elsewhere, his statements about the law are utterly wrong.

 

[DotCommunist]

Seen someone claiming this is something to do with the KLF, but I'm skeptical.

Aren't they supposed to reappear sometime soon after a deliberate 21 or 25 year hiatus?

I do hope so. Now more than ever do we need more KLF

 

[squirrelp]

Here's a follow-up article for balance.

I think this guy makes some possibly fair points but is wrong on a few points.

Firstly, he really cannot say with confidence that the successes on the 'getoutofdebtfree' forums are not due to the defences employed and are simply cases that would have been dropped anyway. Or if he is, his confidence is misplaced. I've seen these things myself first hand, and really you know your letters are working when you get back replies saying that "no further action is being taken" etc. And these are the letters that the GOODF forum guys are getting. I've seen a couple of these myself.

My experience of debt collection operations is that they do not send out letters saying they are dropping the matter unprovoked. They'll happily send letters for years. And if they get hold of you they'll just become more persistent.

two sheds quotes a case where the plaintiff couldn't prove the debt existed - this is a classic freeman strategy, forcing the plaintiff to prove the debt, you won't really find it recommended on mainstream advice pages. I've seen a bailliff's bill for hundreds of pounds vanish on sending of a statutory declaration declaring no knowledge of the debt, as recommended by one of the leading UK freemen guys (theory is the statutory declaration stands as truth, and if you sign with your unlimited commercial liability, they have to match it to rebut it and they will never do that working for the limited company - I don't fully understand it in all honestly but it certainly worked just as predicted).

in his article he comments:

“I also realised how debt collectors trick us into contracts with them, by asking us how much we could pay. When you agree to one pound a month, which costs more to administrate, they now have a contract with you, where none existed.”

So, to recap: either the debt collector is acting as agent for the original creditor, or the rights of the original creditor have been assigned to them. Either way, the relevant contract is the credit agreement under which you originally borrowed the money.

There is therefore no need for the debt collector to “trick” anyone into a new contract, because the old one is perfectly good enough to enforce all the way to court and beyond (they might well want to get you to make a token pay for the purposes of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980, but that’s a different story).

I can’t helping pausing to note, however, that even if the original contract couldn’t be relied on, it’s not clear that an agreement to pay a pound a month would create a new contract in the absence of consideration on the part of the debt collector. Oh, and regulated consumer credit agreements (which this would presumably be in most cases) have to be made in writing.

I think Witterick is basically right on this one. If the debt collector cannot prove the debt originally existed, and a valid chain of assignment, then their only hope of proving the debt is to get you to agree to all that. If you agree that you owe them them the money, then that's you agreeing that the debt originally existed and you are happy with the legality of the claimed assignment).

If he thinks that these guys can always prove the original debt and valid chain of assignment, in the face of well-crafted paperwork, he's just wrong - I've seen them drop myself (bailliff giving up after sending one 'stat dec' (statutory declaration) and I dare say there are many examples of such backing down or losing in court on the goodf forums.

“[Mary Elizabeth Croft] explained that fractional reserve banking is basically fraud, as the banks do not have the money they lend us.”

Well, yes, fractional reserve banking is odd when you try to concentrate on it. And yes, to an extent the system relies on confidence and people not thinking about it too hard.

But fraud? No, because it is not deception with a view to making a wrongful profit. And because it is expressly recognised as lawful behaviour. And… oh, what’s the point?

I think it is absolutely fair to say that fractional reserve banking is fraud in the colloquial sense.

"And yes, to an extent the system relies on confidence..." That's because the whole thing is a shell-game, which relies on the rug not being pulled, much like a ponzi scheme, only the fractional reserve ponzi scheme resets when it crashes with the banks claiming the securities, and then starting the thing over again. Any sensible system of money would not rely on confidence - the wealth is simply there, and the money is properly backed so its value is not going to vanish.

If passengers in a plane suddenly started worrying about its mechanical soundness, does that make the plane fall out of the sky? Of course not. But with economics we have this insanity to the point where lies become necessary to maintain 'confidence' to prevent bank runs. It is absolutely crazy!

"... and people not thinking about it too hard."
The banks like it like that.

 

[BigTom]

two sheds quotes a case where the plaintiff couldn't prove the debt existed - this is a classic freeman strategy, forcing the plaintiff to prove the debt, you won't really find it recommended on mainstream advice pages.

This is not a fotl strategy (they might use it but it doesn't involve any legal nonsense babble talk, it's a standard legal move, not a fotl one) and it's absolutely recommended on mainstream advice pages eg the cab Avoiding bailiff action - Citizens Advice
The section are you responsible for the debt? directs you to get them to prove you owe this debt.

 

[Whagwan]

Dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble

dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble

dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble


dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble dribble

Is what I've just read.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

You've got to laugh at the idea that asking them to prove a debt exists is some sort of clever magic that 'they' don't want you to know about.

How's it going to work otherwise?

'You owe me a million quid. But I'm not saying why.'

'OK, well, you owe me two million.'

 

[Plumdaff]

Back up in Canton, Cardiff...

 

[ddraig]

ooh, where to?

 

[bluescreen]

JC Decaux must be making a fortune out of someone.

 

[Plumdaff]

ooh, where to?

Roundabout of Broad St, Sanatorium Road and Grosvenor St.

 

[mrs quoad]

JC Decaux must be making a fortune out of someone.

I think you mean some, of the family one.

Thumbs.

Good luck to them in getting paid (!)

 

[squirrelp]

This is not a fotl strategy (they might use it but it doesn't involve any legal nonsense babble talk, it's a standard legal move, not a fotl one) and it's absolutely recommended on mainstream advice pages eg the cab Avoiding bailiff action - Citizens Advice
The section are you responsible for the debt? directs you to get them to prove you owe this debt.

Fair point, but the freemen are taking it much further. The conventional approach, dispute the debt if you think it is incorrect. The freeman approach - whether there is a debt depends on whether they can prove it.

 

[BigTom]

Fair point, but the freemen are taking it much further. The conventional approach, dispute the debt if you think it is incorrect. The freeman approach - whether there is a debt depends on whether they can prove it.

Sure, something like the CAB is never going to openly advise people how to get out of a debt they say they do owe but I certainly knew to advise friends getting bailiff letters to challenge the debt in that way long before fotl stuff came into my horizon and I can only think I learnt that from my mum who was a CAB debt advisor when I was a younger, idk though may have been from political stuff. Mixing in actual real stuff is a good way to pull people into believing the fotl things actually work though. Whenever there's been a "fotl" success I've heard of it always turned out they'd actually used a standard legal move.

 

[AverageJoe]

Item about this on The Wright Stuff now

 

[comrade spurski]

There's one on Plumstead Bridge by the bus stops opposite Plumstead Train Station...has been up for months ...Dumbass that I am, I thought it was an advert for a tv reality show

 

[craigxcraig]

Re the CAB - I received a baliffs letter and spoke with CAB who told me what to write back and under what statute (I think?) But also adding 'without prejudice' never heard owt back.

Would advise anyone to go there in the first instance rather than this blx.

 

[8ball]

Item about this on The Wright Stuff now

Anything interesting?

 

[8den]

Fair point, but the freemen are taking it much further. The conventional approach, dispute the debt if you think it is incorrect. The freeman approach - whether there is a debt depends on whether they can prove it.

I'd only known squirrelp from the Trump thread, but him being a FOL fits.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'd only known squirrelp from the Trump thread, but him being a FOL fits.

nailed on man, we even had the 'paris shootings were a false flag' and utoya massacre also false flag

 

[Pickman's model]

I think this guy makes some possibly fair points but is wrong on a few points.

Firstly, he really cannot say with confidence that the successes on the 'getoutofdebtfree' forums are not due to the defences employed and are simply cases that would have been dropped anyway. Or if he is, his confidence is misplaced. I've seen these things myself first hand, and really you know your letters are working when you get back replies saying that "no further action is being taken" etc. And these are the letters that the GOODF forum guys are getting. I've seen a couple of these myself.

My experience of debt collection operations is that they do not send out letters saying they are dropping the matter unprovoked. They'll happily send letters for years. And if they get hold of you they'll just become more persistent.

two sheds quotes a case where the plaintiff couldn't prove the debt existed - this is a classic freeman strategy, forcing the plaintiff to prove the debt, you won't really find it recommended on mainstream advice pages. I've seen a bailliff's bill for hundreds of pounds vanish on sending of a statutory declaration declaring no knowledge of the debt, as recommended by one of the leading UK freemen guys (theory is the statutory declaration stands as truth, and if you sign with your unlimited commercial liability, they have to match it to rebut it and they will never do that working for the limited company - I don't fully understand it in all honestly but it certainly worked just as predicted).

in his article he comments:

I think Witterick is basically right on this one. If the debt collector cannot prove the debt originally existed, and a valid chain of assignment, then their only hope of proving the debt is to get you to agree to all that. If you agree that you owe them them the money, then that's you agreeing that the debt originally existed and you are happy with the legality of the claimed assignment).

If he thinks that these guys can always prove the original debt and valid chain of assignment, in the face of well-crafted paperwork, he's just wrong - I've seen them drop myself (bailliff giving up after sending one 'stat dec' (statutory declaration) and I dare say there are many examples of such backing down or losing in court on the goodf forums.


I think it is absolutely fair to say that fractional reserve banking is fraud in the colloquial sense.

"And yes, to an extent the system relies on confidence..." That's because the whole thing is a shell-game, which relies on the rug not being pulled, much like a ponzi scheme, only the fractional reserve ponzi scheme resets when it crashes with the banks claiming the securities, and then starting the thing over again. Any sensible system of money would not rely on confidence - the wealth is simply there, and the money is properly backed so its value is not going to vanish.

If passengers in a plane suddenly started worrying about its mechanical soundness, does that make the plane fall out of the sky? Of course not. But with economics we have this insanity to the point where lies become necessary to maintain 'confidence' to prevent bank runs. It is absolutely crazy!

"... and people not thinking about it too hard."
The banks like it like that.

i look forward to the day when

 

[Ranbay]

Another in Cardiff behind the traders in the NCP car park that backs on the the CIA, not calling it by the new name, fuck em.