May 13, 2014 4:28 AM

What does the police have to do with this? :P

Well, what ya gonna do about that?

Pete helped me with a response...

Dear Ms. Campbell,

The FACTS are as follows;

I am the SOLE authorized Administrator for GAIL BLACKMAN, and I am using my right to GAIL BLACKMAN's SURETY/SECURITY, which resides in Bank of Canada to discharge this debt.

As sole authorized administrator I take my DUTY very seriously.

If you OBJECT, please notify me in writing, with proof that I am mistaken, I will be only too happy to pay what is allegedly owed to Enbridge. If there is no response within 10 days, I can only assume that you have accepted THE FACTS, and previously COMPLETED bills of exchange and the alleged debt has been discharged.

Authorized by: Sole Authorized Administrator

Looks familiar. Just a few different words. They are at least acknowledging that you sent some terms and conditions. Never even got that much. "Obligations as an Enbridge Gas Account holder." YOU are holding that account? Hmmmm. So where is it Gail? Come on cough it up. I know you're hiding it some where.

What happened in your case Cara Small?

We kept getting replies that ignored ANY questions we asked and ANY instructions we s-p-e-l-l-e-d for them. The only time we never heard a word was when we sent a notice of mistake along with a cheque for the balance owing with conditions attached.

Did it last for a long period of time, the sending back and forth without buying back the debt?

We even reminded them of it and STILL NOT A WORD. Then we got a threatening letter from a third party interloper (CRA). We let them know we weren't interested in their help and they sent an even MORE threatening letter. Lien and seizure. We bought the debt. :(

It lasted for months.

Did you post these letters here by any chance? :D

I did not post the last 2. One each from the provincial finance minister's office and one from some "dude" at CRA.

Most of the other correspondence is here somewhere, along with some of the "story" line. I am a little computer illiterate and have had a hell of a time learning how to post shit here after scanning something.

Also I got tired of the "story" and I want nothing more than to post the names of the individuals that were so kind as to "keep in touch" but Tom is not comfortable with it. I figure it is about the ONLY reason to post ANY more communication.

Names.

Meads vs Meads they always use this rant by a cross dressing whiner who signed up for nice quaint legalese conversations between good friends what they never say is the guy who was using the approach won

The lawyers for CIBC used the same mumbo jumbo with me over a credit card debt they bought off of Citibank i told the legal eagle that when they purchased that debt they also purchased the conditional offer i made to Citi and thus no one has ever addressed it. Not only that i called and recorded several conversations with 2 of the last collection agencies they hired to recover the debt I asked them specific questions like have you ever validated the debt they replied no even after they were notified they were being recorded The lawyer sent a reply to my offer quoting meads vs meads and told me not to send any more replies to him

incidently the lawyers are no different then collection agencies they are used as a last resort to extort you and separate you from your money

I agree with Rick here... if you can write things, be able to talk the walk. In other words Gail, phone them up and record the conflab. Bombard them with questions. They might obviously think you are copy/pasting someone else's writing? The letter that you wrote there REALLY sounds like Pierre... not you.

i called the banks lawyers started asking him questions and then he caught on and refused to answer anymore questions i posed to him so i laughed at him and told him i would wait for his letter

This is brilliant stuff folks; I'm only starting out with TTFL but already can see that a good few people aren't taking crap anymore and standing up. Well done all.

Notice of Mistake for a BoE...hmmmmm

Pete, did you do a Notice of Mistake yet? for anything?

I have had debt thugs lie/coerce etc etc with their lies, threatening court action etc:

My response has been along the lines of:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an honourable man & it is my intent to always act with honesty and integrity in ALL of my dealings.

It is my understanding that I have ALWAYS endeavoured to deal with this matter in accordance with Australian law, specifically the Bills of Exchange Act (1909).

I specifically draw your attention to Section 96: 'A thing is deemed to be done in good faith, within the meaning of this Act, where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not.'

I assure you that I am acting in good faith, with only the best of intentions.

If for some reason You believe that there is a defect in the instrument, please have the decency to return it, along with specific reference to the defects therein, so that this matter can be dealt with quickly and efficiently.

As it is my intention to act honourably, and as I have repeatedly requested information from you that has not been forthcoming, then may I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your position.

As there is no controversy here, I am concerned that the court may take a very dim view on your bringing an unsubstantiated claim before them.

May I reiterate, I am more than willing to deal with any substantiated claim, once I am able to reasonably validate it. I urge you to provide written evidence of your claims so that I may deal with this matter as quickly as possible,

Kind regards,

By: (Signature) Sole Authorised Administrator for (Account Name).

This part: 'As there is no controversy here, I am concerned that the court may take a very dim view on your bringing an unsubstantiated claim before them.'...calls their bluff seems to put a lid on them.

By: (Signature) ....I wouldn't signe there....I would use my seal, or just write:

By: The Sole Authorized Administrator.

Why "give" my signature ? :/

What if one signs For or Per in front of the name

For what purpose ?

I am using my seal to give authority to my communications, and stopped signing crap. Surety, and signing stuff go hand in hand, so avoid using it, and if I use it, I qualify the signature as the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR.

Gail Marie, Cara Small, and the rest, the other day we drafted an affirmation of the truth.

I will include a notarized copy of that sucker in all communications, if I have to. I will send them PROOF of who is surety, under affirmation. That way, from the beginning, they will know who I am, and who I am not. There is no discussion that I am the administrator, and that I am not liable for all those public debts.

We know the power of affirmations and/or affidavits in the LEGAL world! :D

its rather obvious if you are signing for some one how could you ever be that which you are signing for

The "signature" is something you GIVE, it is NOT something you ARE.....

When you "give" that signature, it is best to QUALIFY it, and knowing WHY you give it.....

WHY would I give MY "signature" on this document, should be a QUESTION to ask my self all the time...

WHY SIGNING THSI SHIT Pierre ?

Duhh, I dunno :D

Well don't sign it idiot :D

(that's the kind of discussion I am having with me all the time :D )

:D

:/

A judgement by the late Lord Denning can be quoted, based on this. It says a Bill of Exchange, once tendered, has to be treated as cash . . . The principle is that a bill, cheque or note is given and taken in payment as so much cash, and not as merely given a right of action for the creditor to litigate a counterclaim (see Jackson v Murphy [1887] 4 T.L.R. 92). "We have repeatedly said in this court that a Bill of Exchange or a Promissory Note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary" (see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar [1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA)

Great news !! :D

I saw that affirmation Mackximus Minimus, it was awesome, and that definitely is a great idea :)

so, then we can just write I.O.U.'s that have to be accepted and treated as cash. they can either choose to hold the note as credited, or sell it to another, unless it says to the contrary [non negotiable].

why a bank has to make available a certain ammount immediately of 'funds' by a depositor when a cheque is given in deposit made in good faith.

if i make a mistake, and ask forgiveness it must be granted. so the plan, write my own cheque for a million dollars non negotiable and deposit it. what happens first? the cheque is credited, then the authorized withdrawal... so, if i do that every saturday...

Interesting idea David Johansen, you could use the person to discharge the national debt to the tune of 52 million a year :D

However, I'm not sure how much of that will make it directly into your pocket :P