Bankster in Dishonour - Updated: Notice of Acceptance For Value

Bankster in Dishonour -
Updated
1327 days ago
The following is a sanitised transcription of the genuine attempt of a former executive

level chartered accountant to enforce payment using a credit card remittance slip
(cheque) in the geographical area known as England.
Robin Hoody
Managing Director
Capital Two Bank (Europe) plc
PO Box 666
1 December 2008
Notice of Acceptance for Value
Dear Robin,
Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080
Please find enclosed the financial instrument your company sent me in relation to the
above account, accepted for value and returned for settlement, and prepayment against
future transactions.
Please also be advised that this instrument, once accepted for value, is lawful specie of
money which can be used to credit/off-set the balance of the above account with the
authorised use of my exemption ID number. This properly endorsed remittance can be
redeemed by depositing it with Her Majesty’s Treasury, as I am sure Capital Two’s Chief
Financial Officer is already well aware.
Therefore, please forward this letter and remittance to the appropriate accounts facility
within Capital Two and instruct them to act accordingly, providing me with evidence that
the account balance has been adjusted.
If no written response from Capital Two is received by mail within ten days of your
receipt of this notice, it will be assumed that the account has been credited as per these
instructions and that this fact will be reflected in the next monthly statement of account.
Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,
By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT.
Robin Hoody
Managing Director
PO Box 666
29 December 2008
NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSE
Dear Robin,
With reference to the financial instrument, accepted for value and returned for settlement
and prepayment against future transactions, that was enclosed with the Notice of
Acceptance for Value dated 1 December 2008, both of which were delivered to Capital
Two by registered mail.
As no written response from Capital Two has been received within ten days of your
receipt of said notice, it has now been assumed that the above account has been credited
in accordance with my previous instructions. However, this fact is not reflected in the
current balance of the account.
Therefore, please send me written confirmation that payment has been received and
accepted, as well as an appropriately adjusted statement for the above account, within
three working days of your receipt of this notice.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – WITHOUT PREJUDICE – NON ASSUMPSIT
Robin Hoody
Managing Director
PO Box 666
29 December 2008
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF STANDING ORDER
Dear Robin,
Acceptance for Value dated 1 December 2008, both of which were delivered to Capital
Two by registered mail.
In accordance with the original instructions in the said notice, since Capital Two have
accepted the said financial instrument as means of payment, I hereby deliver notice that
the standing order related to the above account has been cancelled, as of 29 December
2008.

They might choose to cancel the facility, but they refused legal tender of payment so the
debt has now been legally dicharged in accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act.
The credit agencies are about to be served notice that should they record false
information in relation to this account they will be immediately reported the Office of
Fair Trading and invoiced for a substantial fee schedule.
Robin Hoody
Managing Director
PO Box 666
12 January 2009
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR
Dear Robin,
Acceptance for Value dated 1 December 2008, Notice of Non-Response, dated 29
December and Notice of Cancellation of Standing Order, dated 29 December 2009, all of
which were delivered to Capital Two by recorded mail.
I hereby give notice that Capital Two has dishonoured each and every one of the said
Notices by failing to respond appropriately within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore,
Capital Two has agreed to all the terms set forth therein; namely:
1. In accordance with the original instructions given in the Notice of Acceptance for
Value, Capital Two have accepted the properly indorsed remittance slip as means of
settlement and prepayment; and
2. The above account will be credited accordingly.
Since Capital Two has accepted the above, Capital Two therefore also accepts the
following:
1. Capital Two has no claim to any interest payment, or additional charges, neither of
which can be legally added to the account balance; and
2. Capital Two has no authority to adversely affect the credit rating of the card holder.
Therefore I request Capital Two send me written confirmation that payment has been
received and accepted, as well as an appropriately adjusted statement for the above
account, within three working days of your receipt of this notice, sent by recorded mail.
Please be advised that Section 43(a) of the English Bills of Exchange Act, which is still
in full force and effect in the UK, clearly states that a bill of exchange is discharged when
it:
‘…is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is
refused or cannot be obtained’.
Therefore, in accordance with the law, in the event that you fail to provide me with what
has been so reasonably requested once again, Capital Two’s dishonour of a legal tender
of payment discharges the outstanding balance on the above account.

Robin Bandit
Director of Collections
PO Box 666
15 January 2009
NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR CAUSE
Dear Robin,
In relation to the above account, I hereby serve notice that since 1 December 2008, I have
presented legal tender of payment and served four notices by registered mail to ROBIN
HOODY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAPITAL TWO EUROPE, all of which have been
dishonoured.
Therefore, please find enclosed Capital Two’s invalid claim that I have defaulted on the
above account, along with an invalid statement of the above account, both of which were
received on 15 January 2009, and both of which are hereby REFUSED FOR CAUSE.

Theevin Basterd
Executive Office Manager
PO Box 666
22 January 2009
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE DISHONOUR
Dear Theevin Basterd,
Firstly, I must respectfully decline your offer of title and kindly request that any future
correspondence be addressed to Uppercase: Lower, a flesh and blood man. ‘Mr’ is the
title to a corporate fiction, otherwise known as my Legal Person, for which I am acting as
fully authorised agent and administrator.
Thank you for your letter dated 9 January 2009, which was received at the above mailing
location on 21 January 2009, some 11 days after the registered date of posting. Contrary
to your claims, I do not feel that Capital Two has given an appropriate response to the
serious issues that my legal notices have raised, nor do I consent to your offer of this case
being considered closed.
You refer in your letter to my ‘letters’. It is important that Capital Two understand and
acknowledge that far from sending Capital Two letters, I have, in fact, sent several
‘Notices’, which are a different specie of correspondence altogether. The Notices, which
were all sent by recorded mail, were:
• Notice of Acceptance for Value, dated 1 December 2008,

• Notice of Non-Response, dated 29 December 2008,
• Notice of Cancellation of Standing Order, dated 29 December 2008,
• Notice of Dishonour, dated 15 January 2009 and
• Notice of Invalid Claim Refused for Cause, dated 15 January 2009
Your correspondence was the first response I have received from Capital Two in relation
to any of the above. I do not believe it to be acceptable business practice for a company
to take 40 days to respond to a Notice sent in good faith by a customer, nor should it take
11 days from the date of writing for a letter to be received by the customer. Your tardy
response is the only reason matters have yet to be resolved. Therefore, I do not give my
consent for you to record negative information on my Legal Person’s credit file and feel
compelled to reiterate that Capital Two has made an invalid claim that STRAWMAN has
defaulted on the above account, notification of which was Refused for Cause in the
Notice dated 15 January 2009.
Furthermore, as set out in each of the said Notices, by failing to respond appropriately
within a reasonable timeframe, which was also set out in each Notice, Capital Two has in
fact given its tacit acceptance to all the claims made within these Notices, including, but
not limited to:
1. Capital Two have accepted the properly indorsed remittance slip as means of
settlement and prepayment,
2. The above account will be credited accordingly,
With reference to your confusion regarding the financial instrument I sent to Capital
Two, the legal definition of remittance is:
‘REMITTANCE, comm. law. Money sent by one merchant to another, either in specie,
bill of exchange, draft or otherwise.
In commercial law, to remit is to send money, bills, or something which will answer the
purpose of money.’
It is my understanding that, in accordance with the English Bills of Exchange Act, my

acceptance and indorsement of the said financial instrument as Holder In Due Course,
validates it as a legal tender of payment. Therefore, the legal definition of ‘remittance’
clearly includes without restriction, the properly indorsed financial instrument I sent to
Capital Two as legal tender of payment in relation to the above account.
In addition to all of the above, if, as you claim, Capital Two does not accept prepayment,
or if, as you also claim, the ‘giro bank payment slip’ is not legal tender, why has the
remittance not been returned to me with an instruction to amend the amount or send
alternative payment before now?
Please be advised that Section 43(a) of the English Bills of Exchange Act clearly states
that a bill of exchange is discharged when it:
‘…is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is
refused or cannot be obtained’.
Therefore, in accordance with all of the above stated facts, I have provided Capital Two
with a valid method of payment and an account number from which Capital Two may
effect payment and clear instructions as to how to effect this payment.
I hereby serve notice that if Capital Two should choose not accept the properly indorsed
remittance, currently held by Capital Two, as legal tender of payment within ten days of
your receipt of this notice, sent by recorded mail on 22 January 2009, the debt will be
considered legally discharged and the account must be adjusted accordingly.
I hereby declare that notice to principal is notice to agent, and notice to agent is notice to
principal, shall apply to all correspondence referenced herein, as well as all future
correspondence in relation to this matter.

Theevin Basterd
Executive Office Manager
PO Box 666
23 January 2009
NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR CAUSE
Dear Theevin Basterd,
Please find enclosed Capital Two’s invalid claim that I have defaulted on the above
account, received at the mailing address above on 23 January 2009, the entire contents of
which are hereby REFUSED FOR CAUSE.
In relation to the above account, I hereby serve notice that since 1 December 2008, I have
presented legal tender of payment and served six notices by registered mail to Capital
Two, all of which have been dishonoured. It is important that Capital Two understand
and acknowledge that far from sending Capital Two letters, I have, in fact, sent several
‘Notices’, which are a different specie of correspondence altogether. The Notices, which
were all sent by recorded mail, were:
• Notice of Acceptance for Value, dated 1 December 2008,
• Notice of Non-Response, dated 29 December 2008,
• Notice of Cancellation of Standing Order, dated 29 December 2008,
• Notice of Dishonour, dated 12 January 2009,
• Notice of Invalid Claim Refused for Cause, dated 15 January 2009, and
• Notice of Opportunity To Cure Dishonour, dated 22 January 2009.
Ignoring legally served notices in relation to the above account and making invalid
claims against STRAWMAN will result in following fee schedule being charged to
Capital Two:
- GBP£150.00 per invalid claim made by Capital Two – GBP£150.00 per notice sent by
registered mail by STRAWMAN – GBP£150.00 per hour of the Agent & Administrator’s
time
The law of agent and principal shall apply this notice and all other notices sent to Capital
Two in relation to this account.

Robin Bandit
PO Box 666
2 February 2009
NOTICE OF DISCHARGE
Dear Robin,
I hereby serve notice that Capital Two have chosen not to reply to a Notice sent in
relation to the above account on 22 January 2009 by recorded post. As detailed in that
Notice, failure to reply within ten days of Capital Two’s receipt of that notice can be
taken as Capital Two’s tacit acceptance to all the claims made within that, and previous
Notices, including, but not limited to:
1. Capital Two have accepted the properly indorsed remittance slip as means of
settlement and prepayment,
2. The above account will be credited accordingly,
Therefore I request Capital Two send me written confirmation that payment has been
received and accepted, an appropriately adjusted statement for the above account, within
three working days of your receipt of this Notice sent by recorded mail, along with
evidence that the credit rating of the account holder has not been adversely affected.
Furthermore, as explained in the NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR

CAUSE sent by recorded mail to Capital Two on 23 January 2009, ignoring legal Notices
in relation to the above account will result in the following fee schedule being charged to
Capital Two:
- GBP£150.00 per invalid claim made by Capital Two – GBP£150.00 per notice sent by
registered mail by STRAWMAN – GBP£150.00 per hour of the Agent & Administrator’s
time

Robin Bandit
PO Box 666
INVOICE
4 February 2009
In accordance with the Fee Schedule clearly defined in legally served Notices to Capital
Two Europe, all of which have been tacitly accepted by said debtor, Capital Two are now
liable to pay a total sum of SIX HUNDRED GREAT BRITISH POUNDS to
STRAWMAN, in return for the considerable and valuable time, skills and energy
expended by the authorised Agent in the administration of the following:
- GBP£150.00 for one dishonoured legal notice – GBP£150.00 for one invalid claim,
enclosed REFUSED FOR CAUSE – GBP£300.00 for two hours of the Agent &
Administrator’s time GBP£600.00 TOTAL AMOUNT NOW DUE
Cheques should be made payable to STRAWMAN and should be sent to the mailing
location below within ten days of receipt of this Invoice, which was sent by recorded
mail.

The credit card company are now sending notices of their own refusing to accept that the
debt has been discharged. They are denying that they agreed to the proposed terms with
their silent consent and they are falsely claiming they have a right to charge late payment
penalties and adversely affect the credit rating.
They’re also pretending they haven’t received an invoice for the Fee Schedule, which is
now in excess of £1200 and that they have not been asked for verification and validation
of the liability. In other words, they are fecked and they know it!
DECLARANT: Uppercase: Lower

c/o Non-Residential Mailing Address
RESPONDENT: THE ROBIN HOODIES 1-5

CAPITAL TWO BANK EUROPE PLC
RE: Account number: 123412341234

Registered Mail Number: 123412341234
Return Receipt Requested
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT

A verified plain statement of facts
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
I, the flesh and blood Man known as Uppercase: Lower, hereinafter “Declarant”, do
hereby affirm and declare that I am of legal age, have first hand knowledge of the facts
contained herein, am expensively educated, highly qualified and a former chartered
accountant. Therefore, I certainly feel more than competent enough to make this verified
plain statement of the facts in relation to the account referenced on Page 1 of 4 of this
Affidavit.
Therefore, let it be known by those responsible for the corporate entity known as
CAPITAL TWO EUROPE (“Respondent”), and any relevant parent or subsidiary
company, including its directors, shareholders, agents and affiliates, that I do hereby state
that the following is, to the very best of my knowledge, true, correct and complete,
presented in good faith, and not intended to mislead in any way.
1. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not in multiple dishonour of

registered legal notices served by the Declarant in relation to the above account, and
believes that no such evidence exists.
2. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has not dishonoured legal tender
of payment presented by STRAWMAN in relation to the above account, and believes that
no such evidence exists.
3. Declarant has seen no evidence that a properly endorsed ‘remittance’ is not legal
specie of money, and believes that no such evidence exists.
4. Declarant has seen no evidence that STRAWMAN’S liability has not been legally
discharged by RESPONDENT’S dishonour of said presentment of payment, and believes
that no such evidence exists.
5. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has returned the balance to zero
on the account referenced on Page 1 of 4, as agreed by RESPONDENT in its dishonour
of said legal notices, and believes that no such evidence exists.
6. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has the legal right or the
Declarant’s consent to telephone STRAWMAN’S place of work, mobile phone or
mailing location, and believes that no such evidence exists.
7. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT, in its telephonic harassment of

the Declarant at STRAWMAN’S place of work, and its repeated telephoning of
STRAWMAN’S mailing location, does not constitute contacting the alleged debtor at
unreasonable times, and believes that no such evidence exists.
8. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT, in its pursuit of the exclusively
authorised Agent & Administrator for STRAWMAN, is not pursuing a third party who is
not liable for payment, and believes that no such evidence exists.
9. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT, in its psychological harassment

of the exclusively authorised Agent & Administrator, is not putting pressure on a third
party that is considered to be oppressive, and believes that no such evidence exists.
10. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has ensured that adequate
history of the discharged debt has been appropriately passed on, resulting in both
repetitive and frequent contact by different parties, and believes that no such evidence
exists.
11. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has ignored and/or disregarded
the Declarant’s claim that any previous liability has now been discharged, and believes
12. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is legally entitled to disclose or
threaten to disclose details of the alleged debt to third parties, and believes that no such
evidence exists.
13. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has not failed to investigate a
disputed debt in the appropriate manner, resulting in the wrongful pursuit of an alleged
debtor, and believes that no such evidence exists.
14. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has ceased collection activity
whilst investigating said disputed debt, and believes that no such evidence exists.
15. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not claiming collection costs
from an alleged debtor in the absence of express contractual or other legal provision, and
16. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not applying unreasonable
charges which are not based on actual and necessary costs, and believes that no such
evidence exists.
17. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has not engaged in business
practices which appear deceitful, oppressive, unfair and improper, whether unlawful or
not, and believes that no such evidence exists.
18. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has fully disclosed information
pertaining to any assumed, presumed or implied Consumer Credit Agreement between
the parties, and believes that no such evidence exists.
19. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT has not, through its multiple
dishonour of legal notices and tender of payment, agreed to pay the exclusively
authorised Agent & Administrator’s Fee Schedule in relation to the account referenced on
Page 1 of 4, legal notice of which has already been appropriately served, and believes
Furthermore, following detailed and extensive research on the deception, greed and
corruption that is all too common in the fictional world of commerce:
20. Declarant has seen no evidence that a legally enforceable bilateral contract exists
between RESPONDENT and STRAWMAN, excluding the offers presented by
STRAWMAN to RESPONDENT, which were tacitly accepted by RESPONDENT, as
evidenced by the legal notices that were sent by STRAWMAN by recorded mail and
subsequently dishonoured by RESPONDENT, and believes that no such evidence exists.
21. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not attempting to aggressively
enforce an invalid claim, and believes that no such evidence exists.
22. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is able to provide verification of
the alleged debt owed by STRAWMAN, and believes that no such evidence exists.
23. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is able to provide validation of
the alleged debt owed by STRAWMAN, and believes that no such evidence exists.
24. Declarant has seen no evidence of RESPONDENT’S valuable consideration
pertaining to the account referenced on Page 1 of 4, and believes that no such evidence
exists.
25. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT does not balance its accounts
every time the exclusively authorised Agent & Administrator signs for a credit card
purchase or enters the appropriate pin number, and believes that no such evidence exists.
26. Declarant has seen no evidence that the RESPONDENT’S dishonour of Declarant’s
tender of payment did not transfer all liability in this matter to RESPONDENT, as holder
in due course of Declarant’s consideration, and believes that no such evidence exists.
27. Declarant has seen no evidence that notary certification of said dishonour would not
comprise RESPONDENT’S confession to offering a chose in action for all such
liabilities, and believes that no such evidence exists
comprise the RESPONDENT’S stipulation that no facts are in dispute and no controversy
exists in the above-noted matter, and believes that no such evidence exists.
comprise Administrative Default Judgment, binding RESPONDENT pursuant to
voluntary agreement, and believes that no such evidence exists.
30. Declarant has seen no evidence that such notary certification would not create a
permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence as an operation of law, barring the
bringing of any and all further judicial or administrative actions pertaining to this matter,
whether against Declarant’s property, collateral, interests, freedom and liberty, and
31. Declarant has seen no evidence that, upon such notary’s certification, the
RESPONDENT would not have waived for all time all rights, remedies and defences in
and at law, equity, commerce and admiralty regarding the above-referenced matter and
consequential actions which may be brought to cure the RESPONDENT’S commercial
dishonours, and such waiver of rights shall include, without limitation, waiver of the right
to argue, raise a controversy or initiate litigation or arbitration in any venue or
jurisdiction, whether foreign or domestic, and believes that no such evidence exists.
32. Declarant has seen no evidence that the said dishonour does not comprise
RESPONDENT’S agreement by way of default to the filing of such consequential
actions, judicial or administrative, as Declarant may deem necessary, and believes that no
such evidence exists.
33. Declarant has seen no evidence that the said dishonour does not comprise
RESPONDENT’S tacit agreement of the facts listed on all Notices and Schedules
delivered to the RESPONDENT in relation to this matter, and believes that no such
evidence exists.
34. Declarant has seen no evidence contravening the maxim of law that silence comprises
agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy, and
35. Declarant has seen no evidence contravening the maxim of law that an affidavit
stands as truth in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy, unless
rebutted, point-by-point, by an affidavit which is sworn to the same degree of commercial
risk, and believes that no such evidence exists.
36. Declarant has seen no evidence that an answer indicating “NA”, “not applicable”,
“inapposite” or similar dishonours, or failure to answer any point herein would not be
unresponsive and comprise stipulation to all facts in this Affidavit, pursuant to the maxim
that silence comprises agreement, and Declarant believes that no such evidence exists.
37. Declarant has seen no evidence that failure to respond to this Verified Affidavit of
Facts, point-by-point, will not comprise the RESPONDENT’S affirmation, attestation
and agreement to all terms and statements contained herein, and believes that no such
evidence exists.
COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT OATH AND VERIFICATION
“I, Upper-Case: Lower , the exclusively Authorised Representative, Agent &

Administrator for STRAWMAN, hereby certify upon my own commercial liability that I
have read Pages 1-4 of this Affidavit, and, to the very best of my knowledge, the facts
contained herein are true, correct and complete, not misleading, and should be considered
a verified plain statement of the facts as I perceive them.”
Use of a Notary Public is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not
constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.
Autographed and sealed this, the sixteenth day of March, in the year known as two
thousand and nine. Void where prohibited by law.
Right thumbprint:
Sworn & Subscribed By: Uppercase:Lower
_____________________________________________
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Non-Assumpsit
Autographed & Sealed in the presence of:
Notary Public: Seal:

Dated: _____ Day of ______________________, 200___
Notary Public’s Signature:__________________________
Directions for Response
All responses to this affidavit must be made upon full commercial liability and under
penalty of perjury, and received by mail at the above Notary’s office within 7 (seven)
days of service. Failure to respond to this affidavit in an appropriate and timely manner
will result in an automatic default judgement, establishing permanent and irrevocable
estoppel by acquiescence, forevermore barring the bringing of any charges, claims or
liens under any statute, act, code and by-law against Upper-Case: Lower (Declarant).
Surprise suprise, no response was received at the notary’s office within the stated time
and the following Notice of Dishonour was duly served.
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR
Notice to the principal is notice to the agent

Notice to the agent is notice to the principal
Dear ROBIN HOODY,
Following the recorded delivery of the AFFIDAVIT OF NEGATIVE AVERMENT to

CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC on 20 March 2009 in relation to the above
account, and the subsequent failure of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC to
deliver a response within the stated time and in the appropriate manner, I hereby serve
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR.
Legal Maxims:
Silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public
policy.
An affidavit stands as truth in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public
policy, unless rebutted, point-by-point, by an Affidavit which is sworn to the same degree
of commercial risk.
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’S failure to respond to the VERIFIED

AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT, point-by-point, at
the same level of commercial risk, comprises the Respondent’s affirmation, attestation
and agreement to all terms and statements contained therein.
Therefore, since the parties are now in agreement that the liability of STRAWMAN has
been discharged, please return the endorsed instrument for reconsideration, along with
confirmation that the balance of the above account is zero, within three days of your
receipt of this notice.
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC should also be advised that any further
demands for payment may be in contravention the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud
Act 2006 section 3, the Theft Act 1968 sections 17, 18, 21 and the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997. At no time have I abandoned, implied or given consent for any
party to claim or withhold proceeds as abandoned funds.
In the event that the said instrument has been lost, then section 69 and 70 of the Bills of
Exchange Act 1882 may apply, in which case, please supply both your Public Liability
Insurance policy number and your TIN (Tax Identification Number), in order that the
necessary claim might be effected.
By: Upper-Case: Lower (Authorised Representative)

The usual threats we have all experienced at the hands of credit bandits have been
conspicuous by their absence, as has ANY correspondence from Robin Hoody’s in-house
debt collection arm, and a delinquent debtor report to the credit referencing agencies
has not been filed.
The executive in question, rather than risk being held personally liable for fraud, has
now closed the account and passed the legally discharged debt on to a third party
interloper with no legal standing, who has sent a very polite letter attempting to establish
a new agreement.
Nevertheless, it has taken five months to achieve this, using a process which is definitely
not for the faint-hearted. Since the beginning of the tale new information has come to
light that suggests that there is a much more efficient way to enforce Accepted For Value
technology.
NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM
Dear Chief Executive Officer of 3rd Party Interlopers,
INTERLOPER REFERENCE: 123123123
I hereby serve legal notice that INTERLOPER has made an invalid claim against
STRAWMAN, in relation to a discharged liability with CAPITAL TWO BANK
EUROPE.
The alleged debt has been legally discharged pursuant to the English Bills of Exchange
Act 1882, following CAPITAL TWO BANK EUROPE’S dishonour of legal tender of
payment, and its subsequent failure to respond to a notarised AFFIDAVIT OF
NEGATIVE AVERMENT, which was delivered to your client on 21 March 2009 by
recorded mail, creating permanent, irrevocable estoppel and administrative Default
Judgement, vitiating any and all previous agreements between CAPITAL TWO BANK
EUROPE and STRAWMAN.
Please be advised that INTERLOPER’S pursuit of this false claim against STRAWMAN
may be in contravention of the Statute of Frauds Act 1667, which clearly states:
“IV Noe action shall be brought…F2 whereby to charge the Defendant upon any special
promise to answer for the debt default or miscarriages of another person…F3 unlesse the
Agreement upon which such Action shall be brought or some Memorandum or Note
thereof shall be in writing and signed by the partie to be charged therewith or some other
person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.”
For the avoidance of doubt, at no point has STRAWMAN entered into or consented to
any Agreement of any kind with INTERLOPER, nor does STRAWMAN consent to any
Agreement, whether express or implied, with INTERLOPER.
Furthermore, the Fraud Act 2006 states that:
“1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection
(2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are –
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
© section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable –
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a

fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to
a fine (or to both).
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he –

(a) dishonestly makes false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation –
(i) to make gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if –
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or
anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to
receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
Please be aware that making any further invalid claims against STRAWMAN and/or
attempting to contact the Authorised Representative by mail, mobile phone and/or
telephone, whether at the above mailing address or at STRAWMAN’S place of work,
will constitute the agreement of INTERLOPER to the following Fee Schedule:
- GBP£1500.00 per invalid claim in writing – GBP£1500.00 per notice sent by recorded
mail – GBP£150.00 per hour of the Authorised Representative’s time – GBP£150.00 per
attempt to contact by telephone
Furthermore, please supply me with your Public Liability Insurance Policy Number and
your Tax Identification Number (TIN) in order that I can instigate any and all
administrative and/or judicial procedures necessary to redeem the liability that you have
created by bringing this invalid claim against STRAWMAN.

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM

Dear Chief Executive Officer of Interlopers Limited,
RE: 123412341234
In response to your Calling Card, received at the above mailing location today, 20 April
2009, please find enclosed a copy of NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM, which was
delivered to the Chief Executive Officer of Interlopers Limited by Post Office recorded
mail on 17 April 2009.
I hereby record the assumption that your Calling Card and said NOTICE OF INVALID
CLAIM crossed in the post and that Interlopers Limited have now ceased from all
attempts to collect a legally unenforceable claim against STRAWMAN, which could be
construed as fraud by false representation, pursuant to the Statute of Frauds Act 1667 and
the Fraud Act 2006.
Please be advised that should you or any other representative of Interlopers Limited call
in person at the above mailing location in any further attempts to collect on this invalid
claim, a liability of GBP£1500.00 per visit will be incurred and a complaint will be filed
with the Chairman of the Office of Fair Trading, for the purposes of which Interlopers
Limited’s licence number ******** has been duly noted.
administrative and/or judicial procedures that I deem to be necessary in relation to this
matter.
By: Uppercase: Lower (Authorised Representative)

WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT
NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS
Dear CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
RE: ####/######
In response to your company’s letter dated 02 June 2009 (enclosed Refused for Cause),
please find enclosed a certified copy of the NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS, which
was sent to you at the above address on 28 April 2009.
Please be advised that POWER2INTERLOPE LIMITED, in sending another invalid

claim in writing, have now incurred a liability of GBP£1,500.00, in accordance with the
Fee Schedule set forth within said notice.
administrative and/or judicial procedures that I deem to be necessary, in relation this
invalid claim against STRAWMAN.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON ASSUMPSIT
In response to your company’’s INPORTANT NOTICE, sent for and on behalf of

POWER2INTERLOPE LTD, I hereby serve NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS made
by Interloper Limited, on behalf of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC.
Contrary to Interlopers Limited’s claims, a NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS was

delivered to Robin Bandit on 12 May 2009 by Post Office Recorded Delivery
***************. Since this NOTICE was ignored, a certified copy of it was sent by
Post Office Recorded Delivery *************** on 16 May 2009. Please find enclosed
certified copies of all correspondence sent by STRAWMAN to Interlopers Limited in
relation to this matter.
Please be advised that any further invalid claims made by POWER2INTERLOPE LTD
following service of this NOTICE, and/or further attempts to contact the Authorised
Representative in person, by mail, mobile phone and/or telephone, whether at the above
mailing location or at STRAWMAN’S place of work, will constitute the agreement of
POWER2INTERLOPE LTD to the following Default Fee Schedule:
- GBP£1500.00 per invalid claim in writing, nunc pro tunc – GBP£1500.00 per visit to
the above mailing location – GBP£1500.00 per notice sent by recorded mail by
STRAWMAN, nunc pro tunc – GBP£150.00 per hour of the Authorised Representative’s
time, nunc pro tunc – GBP£150.00 per attempt to contact by telephone, nunc pro tunc

NOTICE OF ATTEMPT TO COLLECT AN INVALID CLAIM


In response to your comaony’s INPORTANT NOTICE, sent for and on behalf of
POWER2INTERLOPE LTD, NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIMS was sent to you by
Post Office Recorded Delivery ************* on 28 May 2009, a Certified Copy of
which has been enclosed with this notice, along with NOTICE OF FEE SCHEDULE.
Please be advised that an employee of POWER2INTERLOPE visited the above mailing

location at 11am GMT on Thursday 18 June, claiming that he was “looking for MISS
STRAWMAN”. Since I was not present at the time my partner spoke to Mike Atkinson
(Ref: 1904), who asked him if “MISS STRAWMAN” lived there, to which my partner
replied “No”, since MISS STRAWMAN is a fititious entity, who can neither live or be
seen anywhere, and for which I am the exclusively authorised representative, as you have
already been informed.
For the avoidance of doubt, this alleged liability has been settled administratively by a
notarial proces; the outstanding balance of the above account has been legally discharged
pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882; and any and all previous agreements have
been vitiated because of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s failure to provide
validation and verification of the alleged debt and an original bilateral credit agreement,
in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Agreements)
Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). Please be aware that the House of Lords, in the case of
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul), ruled that a credit
agreement must contain the prescribed terms and must be signed in the prescribed
manner for the agreement to be legally enforcable.
Therefore, POWER2INTERLOPE are clearly attempting to enforce an invalid claim after

being served due legal notice that the debt has already been discharged. Certified Copies
of all relevant correspondence will now be forwarded to Chairman of the Office of Fair
Trading, John Vickers, along with a request that he initiates an investigation into
POWER2INTERLOPE’s entirely dishonourable business practice, which may well be in
contravention of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Consumer Credit (Agreements)
Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553), the above referenced ruling of the House of Lords and
the OFT’s Guidance Notes on Fair Debt Collection.

The Robin Hoodies sold the discharged liability to yet another 3rd party interloper, who
immediately served a blood red, highly aggressive and threatening CREDITOR’S
NOTICE, stating clearly that county court proceedings would be initiated if the alleged
debt was not settled within 7 days. the sanitised version of my favourite accountant’s
nuclear-powered response appears below.
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Dear INTERLOPERS,
Re: Capital Two Mistercard 1234 1234 1234 1234
Following the receipt of your company’s NOTICE dated __________________, I hereby

serve notice that I conditionally accept the alleged debt of ALLEGED AMOUNT DUE,
and will use my best endeavours to settle and close the account in the most expedient
manner possible, upon receipt of the following items at the mailing location above:
1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink by the Authorised
Representative for STRAWMAN
2. Verification of the balance due in the form of a true bill
3. Validation of ROBIN HOODIES’ valuable consideration pertaining to the alleged
debt, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses
4. Proof of claim that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally
discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when ROBIN
HOODIES refused to accept the payment tendered on DATE OF TENDER OF
PAYMENT
5. Proof of claim that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated when
ROBIN HOODIES failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt, or a
legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the
Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords
ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
6. Proof of claim that this alleged liability has not been settled administratively, following
ROBIN HOODIES’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
7. Proof of claim that ROBIN HOODIES is not in multiple breach of the Office of Fair
Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices July 2003 (updated December
2006)
Dishonour of this NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE by failing to provide

these reasonably requested items within seven (7) days of ROYAL MAIL SPECIAL
DELIVERY BAR CODE NUMBER, will constitute the voluntary agreement of
INTERLOPERS LIMITED that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an
invalid claim, and in so doing, it has caused injury to STRAWMAN, for which the
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN is legally entitled to make a commercial
claim through the county courts for three times the value of the alleged debt, in the event
that all available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.
In sincerity and honour, without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Within three days of receiving this, the interlopers replied with the following letter:
Dear STRAWMAN,
Re: Capital Two Mistercard 1234 1234 1234 1234
Further to your recent contact with our office and your request for further information in
relation to the above account, we would confirm that your account is now on hold for 28
days whilst we obtain the information required.
If you have any proof of payments or correspondence that would assist with your query,
please forward these documents, with a brief covering letter, to our Collections
Administration department, so that we can resolve the matter as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Collections Administration Department.
Oh dear. It seems that the CEO has created a liability of the 3 times the value of the
invalid claim, which is why he is attempting to establish a new agreement with the
collections department. With a notarised administrative judgment in hand, there can be
no doubt that the final settlement and closure of the matter has materialised on the
horizon.
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

CHIEF EXECUTIVE ROBIN HOODY
ROBIN HOODIES LIMITED
ADDRESS
POST CODE
COMPANY NUMBER: XXXXXX

LICENCE NUMBER: XXXXXX
DATE

Dear CHIEF EXECUTIVE ROBIN HOODY,
Re: Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Following the receipt of your company’s NOTICE dated __________________, I hereby

serve notice that I conditionally accept the alleged debt of ALLEGED AMOUNT DUE,
and will use my best endeavours to settle and close the account in the most expedient
manner possible, upon receipt of the following items at the mailing location above:
1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink by the Authorised
Representative for STRAWMAN
3. Validation of ROBIN HOODIES’ valuable consideration pertaining to the alleged
debt, in the form of the actual accounting of its losses
discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when ROBIN
HOODIES refused to accept the payment tendered on DATE OF TENDER OF
PAYMENT
ROBIN HOODIES failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged debt, or a
legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the
Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the House of Lords
ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul)
ROBIN HOODIES’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated
______________.
7. Proof of claim that ROBIN HOODIES is not in multiple breach of the Office of Fair
Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices July 2003 (updated December
2006)
Dishonour of this NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE by failing to provide

these reasonably requested items within seven (7) days of ROYAL MAIL SPECIAL
DELIVERY BARCODE NUMBER, will comprise the tacit procuration of ROBIN
HOODIES’ agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid
claim, and in so doing, it has caused injury to STRAWMAN, for which the Authorised
Representative for STRAWMAN is legally entitled to make a commercial claim through
the county courts for three times the value of the alleged debt, in the event that all
available private administrative remedies have already been exhausted.
In sincerity and honour, without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Errors & Omissions Excepted
At this point, my favourite former chartered accountant saw fit to appoint an Agent in
Commerce, in the genuine hope of settling and closing the matter…

ROBIN HOODY
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666
24 July 2009
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,
I hereby serve notice that AGENT’S STRAWMAN™ has been appointed as the
exclusively authorised Agent for STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof), in the genuine
hope that we might settle and close any and all disputed matters pertaining to the above
account, in the most honourable and expedient manner possible.
Therefore, please be advised that all further correspondence must be sent to:
AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent for STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN’S ADDRESS
Failure to honour this express stipulation will result in a charge of GBP£150.00 being
levied against CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC for every item of unauthorised
correspondence received by STRAWMAN.
Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,
By: Upper-Case: Lower

Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™
Agent for STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit

ROBIN HOODY
PO BOX 666
07 August 2009
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Dear ROBIN HOODY,
Following your company’s dishonour of STRAWMAN’s NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL

ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, I hereby serve NOTICE OF DISHONOUR &
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Kindly provide the following items at the mailing location
below without further delay:
1. A legally enforceable original credit agreement signed in blue ink

3. Validation of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s valuable consideration
pertaining to the alleged debt, in the form of the actual accounting of your company’s
losses
discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when CAPITAL
TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC refused to accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2008
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC failed to provide validation and verification of
the alleged debt, or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer
Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553)
and the House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All
ER (D) 187 (Jul)
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16
March 2009
7. Proof of claim that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is not in multiple
breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices
(updated December 2006)
Dishonour of this NOTICE, by failing to provide these reasonably requested specific

items within seven (7) days of service, will comprise the tacit procuration of CAPITAL
TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly
attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC has caused injury to STRAWMAN, for which STRAWMAN is legally
entitled to make a commercial claim through the county courts for at least three times the
value of the invalid claim, plus the alleged principal, in the event that all available private
administrative remedies have already been exhausted.
Agent in Commerce for STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)

NEIL MACFUCK, DIRECTOR
MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED
2 HEARTLESS GARDENS
HOCKPORT HP66 6FU
11 August 2009

Dear NEIL MACFUCK,
Following receipt of your company’s letter on 10 August 2009, in my capacity as Agent

in Commerce (notice enclosed), I hereby serve notice that MISS STRAWMAN
conditionally accepts the alleged debt of Five Hundred & Ninety Two Great British
Pounds & Sixteen Pence, and agrees to use best endeavours to settle and close the
account in the most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following items at the
mailing location below:

8. Validation of your client’s valuable consideration, in the form of the actual accounting
of its losses
9. Proof that the outstanding balance of the above account was not legally discharged
pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when your client refused to
accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2009
10. Proof that any and all previous credit agreements were not vitiated, when, upon
reasonable request, your client failed to provide validation and verification of the alleged
debt or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act
1974, the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and the
House of Lords ruling in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd – [2003] All ER (D)
187 (Jul)
11. Proof that this alleged liability has not already been settled administratively,
following your client’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March
2009
12. Proof that MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED and its client, CAPITAL
TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC, are not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair
Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)
Dishonour of this NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, by failing to provide

these reasonably requested items within seven (7) days of your company’s receipt of this
notice, will comprise the tacit procuration of MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY
LIMITED’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an
invalid claim, and in so doing, your company has caused injury to MISS STRAWMAN,
for which the injured party is legally entitled to make a commercial claim through the
county courts, for at least three times the value of your company’s invalid claim, plus the
principal, in the event that all available private administrative remedies have already been
exhausted.

Agent in Commerce for MISS STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)
Following a letter from a powerful law firm, which issued an explicit request for the
Agent in Commerce to cease and desist from sending any more correspondence to Robin
Hoody, as well as an allegation that the entire administrative process has no power and
effect under English law…

DUPLICITOUS SOLICITORS
BULLSHIT HOUSE
12 RED LIARS SQUARE
11 August 2009

Dear SIR/MADAM,
Following receipt of your company’s letter on 10 August 2009, in my capacity as Agent

in Commerce (notice enclosed), I hereby serve notice that MS STRAWMAN
conditionally accepts the alleged debt to your client, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE)
PLC EUROPE LIMITED, of Five Hundred & Ninety Two Great British Pounds &
Sixteen Pence, and agrees to use best endeavours to settle and close the account in the
most expedient manner possible, upon receipt of the following items at the mailing
location below:

of its losses
187 (Jul)
6. Proof that this alleged liability has not already been settled administratively, following
your client’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF
FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March 2009
7. Proof that your client is not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final
Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)
8. Proof of your claim that the ‘numerous documents’ sent by MS STRAWMAN to your
client are ‘wrong in law and without foundation’
9. Proof that your client is not concealing material facts pertaining any existing and/or
previous agreement of the parties by refusing to respond appropriately to the issues raised
10. Proof that your client is not subject to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Consumer
ER (D) 187 (Jul)
In good faith, MS STRAWMAN looks forward to receiving these items within seven (7)
days of your receipt of this NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.


ROBIN HOODY
PO BOX 666
17 August 2009
NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,
Following your company’s dishonour of STRAWMAN’s NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL

ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, and the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR &
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, STRAWMAN hereby serves
NOTICE OF DEFAULT. Your company has failed to provide the following reasonably
requested items:

3. Validation of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s valuable consideration
pertaining to the alleged debt, in the form of the actual accounting of your company’s
losses
discharged pursuant to Section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, when CAPITAL
TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC refused to accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2008
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC failed to provide validation and verification of
the alleged debt, or a legally enforceable credit agreement, pursuant to the Consumer
ER (D) 187 (Jul)
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’s failure to respond appropriately to a notarised
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16
March 2009
7. Proof of claim that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is not in multiple
breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices
(updated December 2006)
The failure of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC to provide these specific items
within the stipulated time, comprises the tacit procuration of CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an
invalid claim, and in so doing, CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC has caused
injury to STRAWMAN, for which STRAWMAN is legally entitled to make a
commercial claim for at least three times the value of the invalid claim, plus the alleged
exhausted.


2 HEARTLESS GARDENS
HOCKPORT HP66 6FU
19 August 2009

Dear NEIL MACFUCK,
Following your dishonour of NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 11

August 2009, as expressed in your company’s vexatious NOTICE OF INTENDED
LITIGATION, received on 19 August 2009, MISS STRAWMAN hereby serves
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Please provide the
following items at the mailing location below without further delay:

of its losses
187 (Jul)
7. Proof that MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED and its client, CAPITAL TWO
BANK (EUROPE) PLC, are not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s
Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)
Failure to provide these reasonably requested items within seven (7) days of your
company’s receipt of this notice, will comprise the tacit procuration of MACFUCK
DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly
attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, your company has caused injury to
MISS STRAWMAN, for which the injured party is legally entitled to make a commercial
claim for at least three times the value of your company’s invalid claim, plus the alleged
exhausted.


BULLSHIT HOUSE
NOXIOUS CITY NC6 66FU
21 August 2009

Dear SIR/MADAM,
Following the dishonour of NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 11

August 2009, as expressed in your company’s letter dated 19 August 2009, the contents
of which are rejected as an entirely inappropriate response, MS STRAWMAN hereby
serves NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Please deliver these
specific items on behalf of your client without further delay:

of its losses
when your client refused to accept the payment tendered on 3 January 2009
debt or a legally enforceable Consumer Credit Agreement, pursuant to the Consumer
ER (D) 187 (Jul)
7. Proof that your client is not in multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final
Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December 2006)
8. Proof of your claim that the ‘numerous documents’ sent by MS STRAWMAN to your
client are ‘wrong in law and without foundation’
9. Proof that your client is not concealing material facts pertaining to any existing and/or
previous alleged agreement of the parties, by refusing to respond appropriately to the
issues raised
10. Proof that your client is not subject to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Consumer
ER (D) 187 (Jul)
days of your receipt of this NOTICE, the dishonour of which, in the form of another
inappropriate response, will comprise the tacit procuration of your client’s agreement that
the alleged debt cannot be verified or validated upon reasonable request.

Once again, the next notice was sent to the credit bandit and its legal representatives:
ROBIN HOODY
PO BOX 666
31 August 2009

Dear ROBIN HOODY,
RE: ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Following your dishonour of the NOTICE SEEKING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF

DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Therefore, please provide
me with specific answers to the following questions without further delay:
1. According to the alleged loan agreement, did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
lend its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note (loan
agreement) from MS STRAWMAN? Please answer YES or NO.
2. According to the relevant bookkeeping entries, did CAPITAL TWO BANK

(EUROPE) PLC lend its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the
promissory note (loan agreement) from MS STRAWMAN? Please answer YES or NO.
3. According to the alleged loan agreement, was MS STRAWMAN to provide valuable

consideration to fund the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

(EUROPE) PLC accept anything of value from MS STRAWMAN that was used to give
value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same
value of the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.
5. Did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC follow UK GAAP (the Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution of the alleged
loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.
6. Can CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC provide evidence that its chartered
accountant and auditor at the time of the alleged loan(s) can confirm that it followed UK
GAAP in the execution of the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.
7. Was it the intent of the alleged loan agreement that the party who funded the loan(s) is
the party that is to be repaid the money? Please answer YES or NO.
8. Have all the material facts of the alleged loan(s) been fully disclosed in the alleged
loan agreement? Please answer YES or NO.
9. According to the alleged loan agreement, was MS STRAWMAN obliged to lend the
promissory note to CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC or another financial
institution, in order to fund the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.
10. Was the alleged loan agreement, and/or any and all other documents and/or
instruments affixed thereto, registered as a Bill of Sale within seven (7) days of its
alleged execution? Please answer YES or NO.
In good faith, MS STRAWMAN looks forward to receiving specific answers to the

foregoing questions within seven (7) days of your receipt of this NOTICE, the dishonour
of which, in the form of another inappropriate, incomplete or non-response, will comprise
the tacit procuration of your agreement that the alleged debt cannot be verified or
validated upon reasonable request, and that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is
concealing material facts pertaining to any existing, and/or previously existing, alleged
agreement of the parties.

Agent in Commerce for MS STRAWMAN (& all derivatives thereof)
The following notice was then duly served on Robin Hoody:

ROBIN HOODY
PO BOX 666
10 September 2009
NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

RE: ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Following your dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE

OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR
& OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves
NOTICE OF DEFAULT.
Pursuant to the clearly expressed terms of the above referenced NOTICES, your
company’s failure to respond appropriately comprises the tacit procuration of your
agreement, by acquiescence, that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is concealing
material facts pertaining to any existing, and/or previously existing, alleged agreement of
the parties, and that the alleged debt cannot be verified or validated, and in so doing,
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC also accepts that it has caused injury to MS
STRAWMAN, for which the injured party is legally entitled to file a claim in the
commercial courts for at least three times the value of your company’s invalid claim, plus
the alleged balance outstanding, in the event that all administrative remedies have been
exhausted.

The following doument was served on Robin Hoody, as well as his lawyers, none of
whom are confident enough to put their names to their predictable responses:

BULLSHIT HOUSE
21 August 2009
NOTICE REQUESING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE

Dear SIR/MADAM,

While I am certainly no legal expert or a practicing member of the Law Society, it has
come to my attention, following extensive research on the banking industry, as well as
diligent study of the statutes governing Consumer Credit Agreements, that there is every
reason to believe that CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC is not Holder-in-due-
Course of the original loan agreement (promissory note), and/or CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC may be in breach of the alleged existing agreement, concerning the
above referenced account.
Therefore, I am once again serving notice of MS STRAWMAN’s intention to discharge

the alleged debt in full, using the same specie of money that CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC used to fund the alleged loan, provided that the clearly expressed terms
of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 11 August 2009 are fully
satisfied, and MS STRAWMAN receives specific answers to the following questions:
1. According to the alleged loan agreement, did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
lend its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note (loan
agreement) from MS STRAWMAN? Please answer YES or NO.

(EUROPE) PLC lend its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the
promissory note (loan agreement) from MS STRAWMAN? Please answer YES or NO.
3. According to the alleged loan agreement, was MS STRAWMAN to provide valuable

consideration to fund the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.

(EUROPE) PLC accept anything of value from MS STRAWMAN that was used to give
value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same
value of the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.
5. Did CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC follow UK GAAP (the Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution of the alleged
loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.
6. Can CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC provide evidence that its chartered
accountant and auditor at the time of the alleged loan(s) can confirm that it followed UK
GAAP in the execution of the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.
7. Was it the intent of the alleged loan agreement that the party who funded the loan(s) is
the party that is to be repaid the money? Please answer YES or NO.
8. Have all the material facts of the alleged loan(s) been fully disclosed in the alleged
loan agreement? Please answer YES or NO.
9. According to the alleged loan agreement, was MS STRAWMAN obliged to lend the
promissory note to CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC or another financial
institution, in order to fund the alleged loan(s)? Please answer YES or NO.
10. Was the alleged loan agreement, and/or any and all other documents and/or
instruments affixed thereto, registered as a Bill of Sale within seven (7) days of its
alleged execution? Please answer YES or NO.
days of your receipt of this NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF
DUE PERFORMANCE.

Meanwhile, back in the land of the third party interlopers…

2 HEARTLESS GARDENS
HOCKPORT HP66 6FU
29 August 2009
NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Dear NEIL MACFUCK,
Following your dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated

11 August 2009, and the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
dated 19 August 2009, MISS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF DEFAULT.
The failure of your company to provide the reasonably requested validation and
verification of the alleged debt comprises the tacit procuration of MACFUCK DEBT
RECOVERY LIMITED’s agreement that it has aggressively and unfairly attempted to
collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, your company has caused injury to MISS
STRAWMAN, for which the injured party is legally entitled to make a commercial claim
for at least three times the value of your company’s invalid claim, plus the alleged
exhausted.

After another unworthy effort was received by Robin’s lawyers, the following notice was
suitably dispatched, with a similarly styled missive going to their incresingly sleepless
client…

DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS
BULLSHIT HOUSE
15 September 2009

Dear DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS,
Following your letters dated 10 and 14 September 2009, in relation to the ongoing
commercial dispute between MS STRAWMAN and your client, CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED, I hereby serve NOTICE OF
INVALID CLAIMS.
With all due respect, the palpable implication within your assertion that the facts of
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd bear no relation to the alleged “argument put forward”
by MS STRAWMAN and the undersigned Agent in Commerce; to wit, that the
provisions of the Consumer Credit Agreement 1974 (the Act) do not apply to your client
in relation to this matter, is hereby rejected as erroneous. For your information, MS
STRAWMAN takes the position that it is the legal precedent set by the Wilson case that
is relevant on this occasion. In paragraph 29 of the 2003 House of Lords ruling on Wilson
v First County Trust Ltd, referring to the Act, Lord Nicholls stated that:
“The court’s powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two
types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1) (a), regarding signing of agreements,
is not complied with. In such cases the court ‘shall not make’ an enforcement order
unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed
terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document
containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court’s power to
make an enforcement order.”
Furthermore, the esteemed barrister and draftsman of the Consumer Credit Agreement
1974, Francis Bennion, stated on his own website:
“…I included the provision in question (section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It
seemed right to me that if a creditor company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the
prescribed particulars were accurately included in the credit agreement it deserved to find
it unenforceable, and that the court should not have the power to relieve it of this penalty.
Nobody queried this, and it went through Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House
of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and confirmed that nobody’s human rights
were infringed.”
Therefore, since the Act is still in full force and effect, and the above referenced section
127(3) has not been repealed by any subsequent Act of Parliament, it seems reasonable to
presume that the eventual resolution of this disputed debt will be determined by the
provisions of the Act in question, which is applied to all consumer credit agreements in
the United Kingdom.
Moreover, the claim that your client has delivered the items repeatedly requested in order
to validate and verify the alleged debt is entirely incorrect, as is any implication and/or
assertion that your client is not legally required to give adequate assurance of due
performance upon request. The only items that have been received are: an unverified
digital record of an electronic credit application; a set of photocopied statements of
account; and a photocopied consumer credit agreement, which clearly states on the first
page, “CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT
ACT 1974”, but does not bear either the name or the signature of the alleged debtor,
while the questions posed in the NOTICES REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE
OF DUE PERFORMANCE remain unanswered.
Finally, serving notice that it has advised its client to “proceed accordingly” in respect of
issuing proceedings to recover the alleged debt, and/or forwarding the file to one of its
external agents for collection seems somewhat belated, since CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC has already forwarded the file to MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY,
which hasn’t been able to verify or validate the alleged debt upon request.
For the avoidance of doubt, MS STRAWMAN does not consent to your request to cease
corresponding with either DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS and/or your client; until
such time that this matter has been settled and closed.

Goodnight Vienna for the fourth set of 3rd party interlopers…

2 HEARTLESS GARDENS
HOCKPORT HP66 6FU
16 September 2009
NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM

Dear NEIL MACFUCK,
Following the service of the NOTICE OF DEFAULT dated 29 August 2009, and the
subsequent receipt of your company’s letter, signed in blue ink by Mrs K Murray, MISS
STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM.
In response to the issues raised by Mrs K Murray, I can confirm that, to the best of her
knowledge, the Authorised Representative for MISS STRAWMAN did in fact open the
above referenced account, and subsequently used some of the available services and
facilities. However, she now believes that material facts pertaining to the alleged
agreement of the parties may have been concealed by your client, thereby vitiating it, ab
initio; that any existing or previously existing consumer credit agreement (promissory
note) may have been lost, altered, deposited in the wrong account, sold or stolen; and that
your client may have perpetrated a fraud in the factum against MISS STRAWMAN, for
which its debt collection agents are held jointly and severally liable because of their
dishonourable lack of due diligence before proceeding with collection.
For the avoidance of doubt, it has already been established administratively that the
failure of your company to validate and verify the alleged debt comprises the tacit
procuration of MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED’s agreement that it has
aggressively and unfairly attempted to collect an invalid claim, and in so doing, your
company has caused injury to MISS STRAWMAN, for which the injured party intends to
file a commercial injury claim for TWO THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED & SIXTY
EIGHT POUNDS STERLING & SIXTY FOUR PENCE, in the event that all available
private administrative remedies have been exhausted.

Well would you credit it, within 3 days of receiving that MACFUCK sent a letter
thanking STRAWMAN for bringing the matters to their attention and insisted that the
account was not closed, with all the related correspondence being forwarded to their
former client, to whom the following notice was duly served:

ROBIN HOODY
PO BOX 666
25 September 2009
NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST & COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM

Dear ROBIN HOODY,
Following your dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated

27 July 2009, the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07
August 2009, the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE
PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR &
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, and the service of the NOTICES OF
DEFAULT, dated 17 August and 10 September 2009 respectively, all served by Royal
Mail Recorded Delivery, MS STRAWMAN hereby serves NOTICE OF LIEN
INTEREST & COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM.
With firsthand knowledge of the evidence, I also hereby certify that the Authorised
Representative for MS STRAWMAN believes that material facts pertaining to the
alleged agreement of the parties may have been concealed by CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC, thereby vitiating it, ab initio; that any existing or previously existing
consumer credit agreement (promissory note) may have been lost, altered, deposited in
the wrong account, sold or stolen; and that your company may have perpetrated a fraud in
the factum against MS STRAWMAN, for which its debt collection agents are held jointly
and severally liable because of their dishonourable lack of due diligence before
proceeding with collection.
Pursuant to the clearly expressed terms of the above referenced NOTICES, MS

STRAWMAN is claiming TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED & NINETEEN
POUNDS STERLING, in compensation for the injury caused, plus any and all further
costs incurred.
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC has seven (7) days from service of this notice
to raise any issues, disputes or counterclaims pertaining to this matter, or to deliver an
appropriate offer of settlement, in order to prevent further action.
Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

When the lawyers tried to argue that an unsigned agreement without a name on it, a set
of photocopied statements and an undated printout of somebody making an electronic
credit card application were enough to validate and verify the alleged debt, it was clear
that they had no sustainable evidence that their clients lent any money.

DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS
BULLSHIT HOUSE
26 September 2009
NOTICE COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM

Dear DENY EVERYTHING,

Following receipt of your letter dated 22 September 2009, the contents of which MS
STRAWMAN rejects without dishonour, on the grounds that, regardless of Wilson,
DENY EVERYTHING PARTNERS’s arguments are, with all due respect, unsustainable,
I hereby serve NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM.
With reference to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications Act) Order
2004, MS STRAWMAN takes the position that your interpretation of this particular
statutory instrument offers little or no adequate protection for consumers against the
unscrupulous actions of internet fraudsters and the ever-increasing threat of identity theft,
and for that reason, does not consent to the application of the order.
Furthermore, having read the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination
Notices) Regulations 1983, its subsequent amendments and the judgment of the
Honourable Mr Simon Brown QC, in the case of Rankine v American Express (the legal
precedent to which you seem to be referring), it is clear that the circumstances of this
matter, as well as the issues raised, are almost entirely different from Rankine. To wit:
your client has repeatedly failed to substantiate its alleged losses with the actual
accounting of the loan(s); your client has repeatedly failed to give adequate assurances of
due performance upon reasonable request; there is no evidence to suggest that the alleged
liability was not originally discharged, pursuant to section 43 of the Bills of Exchange
Act 1882, when your client refused to accept the specie of payment tendered by MS
STRAWMAN; and neither the Agent in Commerce for MS STRAWMAN, not the
Authorised Representative, are seeking to profit from any perceived “loopholes” in the
Consumer Credit Act 1974. On the contrary, we are seeking to enforce its honourable
provisions.
Therefore, with firsthand knowledge of the supporting evidence, MS STRAWMAN

hereby serves notice that there is every reason to believe that facts pertaining to the
alleged agreement of the parties may have been concealed by CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC, thereby vitiating it, ab initio; that any existing or previously existing
consumer credit agreement (promissory note) may have been lost, altered, deposited in
the wrong account, sold or stolen; and that your client may have perpetrated a fraud in the
factum against MS STRAWMAN, for which its debt collection agents will be held jointly
and severally liable for their dishonourable lack of due diligence before proceeding with
collection.
MS STRAWMAN will now initiate any and all administrative and/or judicial
proceedings deemed to be necessary in order to cure all commercial injury caused by
CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’S debt collection agents, unless your client
delivers an appropriate offer of settlement by 05 October 2009.
Following receipt of the above missive, the lawyers wrote a disingenuous reply, restating
their unsustainable position and gave notice that they saw no benefit in continuing in any
further correspondence on the matter. So, pursuant to private and international law…

ROBIN HOODY
PO BOX 666
14 October 2009
NOTICE OF TERMINATION

Dear ROBIN HOODY,
Pursuant to the established conventions on private and international law, with regard to
the above referenced account; following your dishonour of the NOTICE OF
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR &
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, the NOTICE REQUESTING
ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, the
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, and
the service of the NOTICES OF DEFAULT, dated 17 August and 10 September 2009
respectively, all served by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, MS STRAWMAN hereby
serves NOTICE OF TERMINATION.
As your have already been informed, the Authorised Representative for MS

STRAWMAN believes that material facts pertaining to the alleged agreement of the
parties may have been concealed by CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC, thereby
vitiating it, ab initio; that any existing or previously existing consumer credit agreement
(promissory note) may have been lost, altered, deposited in the wrong account, sold or
stolen; and that your company, its partners and/or affiliates, may have perpetrated a fraud
in the factum against MS STRAWMAN, for which its debt collection agents are held
jointly and severally liable for their dishonourable lack of due diligence before
proceeding with collection.
Pursuant to the clearly expressed terms of the NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST &
COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM dated 25 September 2009, MS STRAWMAN is
claiming TWO THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED & NINETEEN POUNDS STERLING
from your company and each of its agents, in compensation for the commercial injuries
caused, plus any and all further costs incurred during any and all further administrative
and/or judicial proceedings deemed to be necessary. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing
expressed in this notice can be construed as any form of waiver of MS STRAWMAN’s
legal and/or lawful rights to proceed with this claim against CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC SERVICES EUROPE LIMITED and its debt collection agents.

Agent in Commerce for MS STRAWMAN
Then, on the 5th of November 2009, a Commercial Lien was served upon the Chief
Executive Officer.
Affidavit of Obligation
Commercial Lien
the Parties:
AGENT’S STRAWMAN™ for & on behalf of STRAWMAN

STRAWMAN’S ADDRESS
Hereinafter known as “Lien Claimant”
ROBIN HOODY for & on behalf of CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC
PO BOX 666
Hereinafter known as “Lien Debtor 1”, unless otherwise stated
& it’s Agent
NEIL MACFUCK for & on behalf of MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED

2 HEARTLESS GARDENS, HOCKPORT HP66 6FU
Hereinafter collectively known as “Lien Debtors”, which shall include Lien Debtor 1
without limitation
Notice to agent is notice to principal
Notice to principal is notice to agent
The Laws of Commerce
All are equal under the law. See Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21;
Matt. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: No one is above the law;
Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a
monopoly and the private gain of a few.
In commerce, truth is sovereign. See Exodus 20:16; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor.
13:8. Legal maxim: To lie is to go against the mind.
Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13;
Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.
An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce. See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal
maxim: He, who does not deny, admits.
An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment in commerce. See Heb. 6:16-17. Any

proceeding in court, tribunal or arbitration forum consists of a contest of commercial
affidavits, wherein the points remaining unrebutted at the end of the contest stand as the
truth to which the judgment of the law is applied.
He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond appropriately to an Affidavit)
loses by default. See Book of Job; Matt 10:22. Legal maxim: He who does not repel a
wrong when he can occasions it.
Sacrifice is the measure of credibility. One who is not damaged, put at risk or willing to
swear an oath or make an affirmation on his full commercial liability for the truth of his
statements and the legitimacy of his actions, has no basis to assert claims or charges, and
forfeits all credibility and right to claim the authority to do so. See Acts 7. Legal maxim:
He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.
A lien or claim, under commercial law, can only be satisfied by one of the following
actions: A full rebuttal by an Affidavit of Truth, point-by-point, supported by evidence
and sworn or affirmed at the same level of commercial risk; the satisfaction of the
claimant, whether by payment or mutual agreement; resolution by a jury, in accordance
with the rules of common law. See Gen. 2-3; Matt 4; Revelation. Legal maxim: If the
plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved
A party injured by the fraud of another may claim triple damages, plus the principal.
“And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give
to the poor, and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him
fourfold.” Luke 19:8.
Bouvier’s Maxims
Contra veritatem lex numquam aliquid permittit. The law never suffers anything contrary
to truth. 2 Co. Inst. 252. But sometimes it allows a conclusive presumption in opposition
to truth. See 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3061.
Contractus ex turpi causa, vel contra bonos mores nullus est. A contract founded on a
base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null. Hob. 167; Dig. 2, 14,
27, 4.
Culpa lata aequiparatur dolo. A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who
affirms, not he who denies. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev.
Sec. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.
Error qui non resistitur, approbatur. An error not resisted is approved. Doct. & Stud. c.
70.
Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom’s
Max. 349.
Ex facto jus oritur. Law arises out of fact; that is, its application must be to facts.
Ex tota materia emergat resolutio. The construction or resolution should arise out of the
whole subject matter.
Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.
Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions.
Idem est facere, et nolle prohibere cum possis. It is the same thing to do a thing as not to
prohibit it when in your power. 3 Co. Inst. 178.
Incerta pro nullius habentur. Things uncertain are held for nothing. Dav. 33.
Incerta quantitas vitiat acium. An uncertain quantity vitiates the act. 1 Roll. R.
Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.
Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide
Assent.
Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur. The judge is condemned when the guilty are
acquitted.
Judicium non suo judice datum nullius est momenti. A judgment given by an improper
judge is of no moment. 11 Co. 76.
Manga negligentia culpa est, magna culpa dolus est. Gross negligence is a fault, gross
fault is a fraud. Dig 50, 16, 226.
Magna culpa dolus est. Great neglect is equivalent to fraud. Dig. 50, 16, 226; 2 Spears, R.
256; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 646.
Peccatum peccato addit qui culpae quam facit patrocinium defensionis adjungit. He adds
one offence to another, who, when he commits a crime, joins to it the protection of a
defence. 5 Co. 49.
Quando do una et eadem re, duo onerabiles existunt, unus, pro insufficientia alterius, de
integro onerabitur. When two persons are liable on a joint obligation, if one makes
default the other must bear the whole. 2 Co. Inst. 277.
Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat, proditor est verilatis. He, who does not willingly
speak the truth, is a betrayer of the truth.
Qui non obstat quod obstare potest facere videtur. He who does not prevent what he can
seems to commit the thing. 2 Co. Inst. 146.
Qui non prohibit quod prohibere potest assentire videtur. He, who does not forbid what
he can forbid, seems to assent. 2 Inst. 305.
Qui non propulsat injuriam quando potest, infert. He, who does not repel a wrong when
he can, induces it. Jenk. Cent. 271.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.
Reprobata pecunia liberat solventum. Money refused liberates the debtor. 9 Co. 79.
English Law
BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1882
43 Dishonour by non-acceptance and its consequences
(1) A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance-
(a) when it is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by
this Act is refused or cannot be obtained; or
(b) when presentment for acceptance is excused and the bill is not accepted.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act when a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, an
immediate right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers accrues to the holder, and
no presentment for payment is necessary.
CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974
PART IX JUDICIAL CONTROL
Enforcement of certain regulated agreements and securities
127. (3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section
61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or
not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself
containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer
(whether or not in the prescribed manner).
FRAUD ACT 2006
1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection
(2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are –
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),

(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
© section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
Private & International Law
UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS
Article 3.8 – Fraud
A party may avoid the contract when it has been led to conclude the contract by the other
party’s fraudulent representation, including language, practices, or fraudulent
nondisclosure of circumstances which, according to reasonable standards of fair dealing,
the latter party should have disclosed.
Article 5.1.3 – Cooperation between the parties
Each party shall cooperate with the other party when such co-operation may reasonably
be expected for the performance of that party’s obligations.
Article 7.3.4 – Adequate Assurance of Due Performance

A party who reasonably believes that there will be a fundamental non-performance by the
other party may meanwhile withhold its performance. Where this assurance is not
provided within a reasonable time the party demanding it may terminate the contract.
Article 7.4.1 – Right to damages
Any non-performance gives the aggrieved party a right to damages either exclusively or
in conjunction with any other remedies except where the non-performance is excused
under these principles.
Article 7.4.2 – Full compensation
(1) The aggrieved party is entitled to full compensation for harm sustained as a result of
the non-performance. Such harm includes both any loss which it suffered and any gain of
which it was deprived, taking into account any gain to the aggrieved party resulting from
its avoidance of cost or harm
(2) Such harm may be nonpecuniary and includes, for instance, physical suffering and
emotional distress.
A Verified Plain Statement of Fact
I, Upper-Case: Lower©, Authorised Representative for AGENT’S STRAWMAN™, the

legal person acting as Agent in Commerce for and on behalf of STRAWMAN, do hereby
state clearly and unequivocally that I have first hand knowledge of the facts, and that to
the very best of my understanding, the following statements are true, correct, complete
and not misleading.
Allegations:
The following allegations arise from the conduct of Lien Debtors, both directly and
indirectly, in relation to an alleged legally enforceable consumer credit agreement,
pertaining to CAPITAL TWO MISTERCARD XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
1. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that the alleged outstanding balance of
GBP£839.66 on the above referenced account was not legally discharged when Lien
Debtor 1 refused to accept the payment tendered by Lien Claimant on 3 January 2009,
and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
2. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors can substantiate Lien
Debtor 1’s alleged losses with the actual accounting of the alleged loan(s), and Lien
Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
3. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor 1 has not failed to
provide adequate assurances of due performance upon reasonable request, and Lien
4. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that a legally enforceable original
consumer credit agreement is in existence between the parties, and Lien Claimant
5. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that, according to the actual
bookkeeping entries, Lien Debtor 1 lent its own money as adequate consideration to
purchase the promissory note (alleged loan agreement) from Lien Claimant, and Lien
6. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors have not committed
multiple breaches of the Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business
Practices (updated December 2006), as well as its guidance on Unfair Relationships (May
2008), and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
7. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that, according to the actual
bookkeeping entries, Lien Debtor 1 did not accept something of value from Lien
Claimant, which was then used to give value to a cheque, electronic transfer or similar
instrument, of approximately the same value of the alleged loan(s), and Lien Claimant
8. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor 1 followed UK GAAP
(the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles of the United Kingdom) in the execution
of the alleged loan(s), and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
9. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor 1 is not concealing
material facts pertaining to any existing, and/or previously existing, legally enforceable
consumer credit agreement between the parties, and Lien Claimant believes that no such
evidence exists.
10. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor 1 lent its own money
as valuable consideration to purchase the promissory note (alleged loan agreement) from
Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
11. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that the intent of any existing, and/or
previously existing, consumer credit agreement was that the party who funded the loan(s)
is not the party that is to be repaid the money, and Lien Claimant believes that no such
evidence exists.
12. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant did not provide the
valuable consideration to fund the alleged loan(s) to Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant
13. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that the original consumer credit
agreement (promissory note) has not been altered, lost, deposited in the wrong account,
sold or stolen, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
14. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that the alleged borrower (Lien
Claimant) did not provide the funds that the alleged lender (Lien Debtor 1) claims it lent
to Lien Claimant, and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
15. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors do not owe Lien
Claimant, jointly and severally, a sum of money treble the value of each of Lien Debtors’
invalid claims, plus the alleged amount outstanding, and Lien Claimant believes that no
16. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant has not already
procured the tacit agreement of Lien Debtors that all of the allegations set forth in this
Affidavit are factually correct, true, and complete, and Lien Claimant believes that no
17. Lien Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that any existing, and/or previously
existing, consumer credit agreement has not been terminated by Lien Claimant, and Lien
Proof of Allegations:
1. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY

SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT dated 16 March 2009, as expressed in NOTICE
OF DISHONOUR dated 26 March 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that the alleged outstanding
balance of the above referenced account was legally discharged when Lien Debtor 1
refused to accept the payment tendered by Lien Claimant on 3 January 2009. If no timely
rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
2. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL
ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR &
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that the alleged
outstanding balance of GBP£839.66 on the above referenced account cannot be
substantiated with the actual accounting of the alleged loan(s). If no timely rebuttal it is
AFFIRMED.
3. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE REQUESTING ADEQUATE
ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE dated 21 August 2009, and the subsequent
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 31 August 2009, Lien
Debtors affirm that adequate assurance of due performance has not been provided upon
reasonable request. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
4. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL
ACCEPTANCE dated 27 July 2009, and the subsequent NOTICE OF DISHONOUR &
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 07 August 2009, Lien Debtors affirm that there is no
legally enforceable original consumer credit agreement in existence between the parties.
If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
5. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, Lien
Debtors affirm that according to the actual bookkeeping entries, Lien Debtor 1 did not
end its own money as adequate consideration to purchase the promissory note (alleged
loan agreement) from Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
6. Following Lien Debtors’ repeated attempts to aggressively enforce Lien Debtor 1’s
invalid claim, Lien Debtors affirm that they have committed multiple breaches of the
Office of Fair Trading’s Final Guidance on Unfair Business Practices (updated December
2006, as well as its guidance on Unfair Relationships (May 2008). If no timely rebuttal it
is AFFIRMED.
Debtors affirm that according to the actual bookkeeping entries, Lien Debtor 1 did accept
something of value from Lien Claimant, which was then used to give value to a cheque,
electronic transfer or similar instrument, of approximately the same value of the alleged
loan(s). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
Debtors affirm that Lien Debtors 1’s chartered accountant and auditor at the time of the
alleged loan(s) cannot confirm that Lien Debtor 1 followed UK GAAP in the execution
of the alleged loan(s). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
Debtors affirm that Lien Debtor 1 has concealed material facts pertaining to any existing,
and/or previously existing, legally enforceable consumer credit agreement between the
parties. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
Debtors affirm that Lien Debtor 1 did not lend its own money as valuable consideration
to purchase the promissory note (alleged loan agreement) from Lien Claimant. If no
timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
Debtors affirm that any existing, and/or previously existing, consumer credit agreement
stipulated that the party who funded the loan(s) is the party that is to be repaid the money.
If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
Debtors affirm that Lien Claimant provided the valuable consideration to fund the alleged
loan(s) to Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
Debtors affirm that the original consumer credit agreement (promissory note) has been
altered, lost, deposited in the wrong account, sold or stolen. If no timely rebuttal it is
AFFIRMED.
Debtors affirm that the alleged borrower (Lien Claimant) provided the funds that the
alleged lender (Lien Debtor 1) claims it lent to Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is
AFFIRMED.
15. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, as well as
its agents’ dishonours of further NOTICES OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and
NOTICES REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE,
and the subsequent NOTICES OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITIES TO CURE, Lien
Claimant has seen no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtors do not owe Lien Claimant,
jointly and severally, a sum of money treble the value of each of Lien Debtors’ invalid
claims, plus the alleged amount outstanding, in compensation for the commercial injury
caused by Lien Debtors. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
16. Pursuant to Lien Debtor 1’s dishonour of the above referenced NOTICES, as well as
its agents’ dishonours of further NOTICES OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and
NOTICES REQUESTING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF DUE PERFORMANCE,
and the subsequent NOTICES OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITIES TO CURE, Lien
Debtors affirm that Lien Claimant has already procured the tacit agreement of Lien
Debtors that all of the allegations set forth in this Affidavit are factually correct, true and
complete. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
17. Pursuant to the NOTICE OF TERMINATION dated 14 October 2009, served on Lien
Debtor 1 by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, Lien Debtors affirm that any existing, and/or
previously existing, consumer credit agreement has been terminated by Lien Claimant. If
no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
Ledgering:
This Commercial Lien is ledgered at treble the value of Lien Debtors’ invalid claims of
£839.66 Pounds Sterling (or functional currency of the UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, &/or its successors), plus £839.66
Pounds Sterling (or functional currency of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT
BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, &/or its successors), the amount alleged to be
outstanding by Lien Debtors.
TOTAL AMOUNT OWED BY CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC GBP£

2,519.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OWED BY MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED GBP£
2,519.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OWED TO LIEN CLAMANT BY LIEN DEBTORS

FIVE THOUSAND & THIRTY EIGHT GB POUNDS STERLING GBP£ 5,038.00
Sureties:
Sureties for the value of this Commercial Lien are the assets of CAPITAL TWO BANK
(EUROPE) PLC, MACFUCK DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED, including, without
limitation, any and all property, products, proceeds, bank accounts, fittings and fixtures,
held or administered at Lien Debtors’ registered offices.
Default:
In the event of Lien Debtors’ default; should payment in full not be received by Lien
Claimant from Lien Debtors within thirty (30) days of notice of said default, triple
damages plus costs will be added to the value of this Commercial Lien and the public
liability insurance policies of Lien Debtors may be seized in order to satisfy any
remaining value.
If this Commercial Lien has not been satisfied in full within ninety (90) days of service,
Lien Claimant reserves the right to issue any and all recovery proceedings deemed to be
necessary, as well as the right to claim exemplary damages for the commercial injuries
caused, which will be charged at ONE HUNDRED TIMES THE VALUE OF THIS
COMMERCIAL LIEN.
AFFIRMATION
I, Upper-Case: Lower©, in my capacity as Agent in Commerce for STRAWMAN (Lien
Claimant), and with firsthand knowledge of the facts of the matter, hereby affirm upon
my own unlimited commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, that I have read all
of the contents of pages 1-8 of this Affidavit of Obligation, and to the very best of my
knowledge, I believe that the facts expressed herein are true, correct and complete.
______________________________________________
By: Upper-Case: Lower©
All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
VERIFICATION
Affirmed, autographed and sealed (with a red thumbprint) before me, __________,
Notary Public, on the fifth day of the month of November, in the year two thousand and
nine AD.
Notary Public: Seal:
Signature:_______________________________________
NOTICE is hereby given that the Lien Debtors has seven (7) days following receipt of
this Affidavit of Obligation to rebut, deny, or otherwise prove invalid the allegations
contained herein, by delivering an appropriate and timely response to the notary’s office
referenced above. Failure to rebut, deny or otherwise disprove any of the allegations,
upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, will be construed as Lien
Debtors’ affirmation that said allegations are true, correct and complete.
Void where prohibited by law.

Bankster in Dishonour - Updated: Notice of Acceptance For Value

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Bankster in Dishonour - Updated: Notice of Acceptance For Value

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Bankster in Dishonour -

1327 days ago

The following is a sanitised transcription of the genuine attempt of a former executive

Notice of Acceptance for Value

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF STANDING ORDER

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE DISHONOUR

Dear Theevin Basterd,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

• Notice of Acceptance for Value, dated 1 December 2008,

It is my understanding that, in accordance with the English Bills of Exchange Act, my

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR CAUSE

Dear Theevin Basterd,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

Furthermore, as explained in the NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM REFUSED FOR

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 8080808080808080

By: Uppercase: Lower (Agent & Administrator)

DECLARANT: Uppercase: Lower

RESPONDENT: THE ROBIN HOODIES 1-5

RE: Account number: 123412341234

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

1. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT is not in multiple dishonour of

7. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT, in its telephonic harassment of

9. Declarant has seen no evidence that RESPONDENT, in its psychological harassment

COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT OATH AND VERIFICATION

“I, Upper-Case: Lower , the exclusively Authorised Representative, Agent &

Sworn & Subscribed By: Uppercase:Lower

Autographed & Sealed in the presence of:

Notary Public: Seal:

Notary Public’s Signature:__________________________

Directions for Response

Notice to the principal is notice to the agent

Dear ROBIN HOODY,

Re: Capital Two Mistercard – Account Number: 123123123

Following the recorded delivery of the AFFIDAVIT OF NEGATIVE AVERMENT to

CAPITAL TWO BANK (EUROPE) PLC’S failure to respond to the VERIFIED

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,

By: Upper-Case: Lower (Authorised Representative)

NOTICE OF INVALID CLAIM

Dear Chief Executive Officer of 3rd Party Interlopers,

INTERLOPER REFERENCE: 123123123

Furthermore, the Fraud Act 2006 states that:

(2) The sections are –