Dear Sirs,
I write in response to the <whatever>, issued by your company, including the demand for payment.
I write to question the lawfulness of your demand.
Please be so kind as to demonstrate the lawful nature of your demand by signing the enclosed Affidavit under penalty of perjury. Upon receipt of said signed Affidavit I will be in the position of being able to take out a Private Criminal Prosecution against you (see below). If you cannot sign the Affidavit, then that would be an admission that your demand is totally unlawful.
Perhaps I should point out – before you even think about signing it - a few aspects of Law, some of which you may not be aware.
First of all, the only Law is the Common Law. The Law-of-the-Land. The Law for Land-Dwellers. There is no other Law. According to the Common Law, I have the Indefeasible Right to go about my business in a peaceful manner, unhindered by anyone else. Under the Common Law I am free to go about my daily business without any charge being levied upon me, for any reason. Only if I commit a Criminal Act (i.e. were to "breach someone's peace"), can charges be levelled against me. This must take the form of a Complaint, lodged in a Crown or High Court, and there must be a Human Being who makes the Complaint. Furthermore, that Human Being must be able to show some form of physical or mental injury, before such a Complaint becomes valid. This injury, and me creating it, would have to be demonstrated to a Jury of 12 using first-hand evidence (no hearsay!), sworn under penalty of perjury.
That's the Law. The Common Law.
And the Common Law underpins our society 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, and 365/6 days per year. The Common Law is applied by Juries, and sworn Affidavits of Truth. That is why you need to complete the sworn Affidavit of Truth that has been enclosed, because I assume your demand has not been based on the Verdict of a Jury.
Perhaps I should also point out that, if you sign any Affidavit (under penalty of perjury, remember) that contains an obvious contradiction to the Common Law, then that is immediately an attempt to pervert the course of justice on your part, and subject to a term of imprisonment.
That is why you should be very careful, before signing the enclosed Affidavit.
If you have a Legal Team, or a Legal Department, consulting them will not help you in the slightest. If you think that quoting a Statute (some Act of Parliament) will help you, I must tell you it won’t. Simply because the Common Law is “Law” … and thus superior to anything “legal”. That is precisely why a Jury can ignore any and all Statutes, when coming to their Verdict. (This process is called “Jury Nullification”. Google it, if you need to find out what it means. A Jury Verdict is capable of rendering ANYHTHING Null & Void that has been enacted by Parliament. It only takes the Court Case – which I can provide, and the right arguments with first-hand evidence, which I can also provide).
For your further information, when considering whether or not to sign the enclosed Affidavit, you could be held to be “in Public Office”, since your occupation seems to be one of communicating with Members of the Public, and (effectively) ordering them to settle your demands. Therefore you would be subject to a charge of “Misconduct in Public Office” if any of your behaviours, acts, or omissions are not lawful. I strongly urge you to investigate your position in relation to this aspect. To help you in this, here is the link to the Crown Prosecution Service Website:

If you read that link, you’ll see that “Misconduct in Public Office” is a Common Law misdemeanour, “indictable only” – which means that you would immediately face a Jury of 12 in a High or Crown Court (no Magistrates or County Court could intercede to protect you - that's because it's Common Law!), with myself prosecuting you, via a Private Criminal Prosecution. And the maximum penalty – should you be found guilty - is Life Imprisonment (to add to your term for attempting to pervert the course of justice!).
This would also apply to any Deputy District Judge who may rubber-stamp, for you, an unlawful demand via the Northampton Bulk Clearing Centre, because he or she would be acting as your Accomplice, in Law
I therefore suggest that you consider your position very carefully before putting pen to paper. In summary, and upon receipt of this letter, you seem to have the following choices:

  1. To sign the enclosed Affidavit, send it back to me, and still proceed with your demand, which would be all the evidence I would need to bring a charge of “Misconduct in Public Office” against you as a Private Criminal Prosecution. I would also add the charges of “Abuse of Office” and “Treason”.
  2. To ignore this letter, and the enclosure, and proceed anyway. This letter has been sent “Received Signed for” and I will keep that receipt, and a copy of this letter. This would provide all the evidence I would need to place in front of a Jury for a Private Criminal Prosecution, equivalent to (1), above
  3. To cancel your demand, and notify me accordingly.
  4. To do absolutely nothing from this day onwards.

There is one alternative that could be listed as (5), above. And that is the Common Law position of “Customer & Supplier”. This is where a Customer places an Order for goods or services, and a Supplier accepts the Order, and carries out the necessary duties. However, in this scenario, you would have to consider yourself to be the Customer – placing the Order, which is your demand – and I would have to be considered the Supplier. That’s fine, by me. It is perfectly honourable, in Law. However do please remember that the Supplier (me) would set the Fee for the service. And the Customer (i.e. you) decides whether or not you can afford the service. If you can’t afford it, then you don’t place the Order (that’s the normal day-to-day situation, isn’t it?).

So, my Offer is this: My Fee Schedule says that I would charge you £730 for servicing your demand/Order. Thus, if you send me a cheque for £730, I will send you back a cheque in full payment of your demand/Order of <the amount of their demand> (once your cheque has become cleared funds in my account). If you wish to take up this Offer, then please send a cheque for £730 by return.

Yours sincerely, without ill-will, vexation, or frivolity
<Your Given Name goes here>:
<Given Name>: of the <Family Name> family, as commonly called.
(Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Indefeasible Natural Rights, reserved)

Statement of Truth

By ______

1.THAT I am competent to state the matters herein, and do take Oath and swear as follows;

2.THAT the matters stated herein are true, certain, and correct;

3.THAT I can quote the Law-of-the-Land (the Common Law) that obliges the PeacefulInhabitant commonly called <Given Name>: of the <Family Name> family, to be a subject to any demands I may choose to issue at any time without lawful recourse or remedy on the part of said Inhabitant;

4.THAT I can prove the violation (specifically “failure to respond to my demand”) is, indeed, a violation of the Common Law, and is indeed, a criminal act;

5.THAT I fully and completely understand – before any charge can be brought – it must be firstly proved that the charge is valid in Law (otherwise I, myself, would be committing – or encouraging others to commit - a CRIMINAL TRESPASS on the Innate and Indefeasible Sovereignty of said Peaceful Inhabitant);

6.THAT I understand for a crime to have been committed it must be capable of being named in Law (‘theft’, ‘fraud’, ‘murder’, etc), and there must be an Injured Party (corpus delecti) which must comprise a Human Being (e.g. homicide) or Group of Human Beings (e.g. War Crimes, genocide). I state herein that I can name the crime, and can (as may be necessary, in Court) guarantee the corpus delecti will attend said Court, and can, as first-hand evidence, demonstrate the injuries sustained;

7.THAT I understand ALL criminal acts (as opposed to mere Statutory violations) are the subject to the Common Law, and must (therefore) be proved in a Common Law Court. I understand that a Common Law Court comprises a Jury of 12 impartial people, and that evidence to convict must be sworn under penalty of perjury, based on first-hand knowledge, and evidence of guilt must be proved to criminal standards – namely “beyond reasonable doubt”;

Signed: ______
(Signed under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability)

Dated: ______