Englands Wesley Ahmed, he doesn't beat the bailiffs he baits

[PeanutGallery]

I would like to share for you an individual who I think is one of the lowest in the Freeman circle, not simply for his beliefs but for how he acts. I worry that it is only a matter of time before one of his stunts leads to a serious incident or accident which will cause harm. At any rate all Mr. Ahmed’s stunts could possibly achieve is to add more costs onto a debt.

Meet Wesley Ahmed. He has a plan on how to deal with bailiffs, he likes to bait them. What Wesley’s plan involves is having the debtor call the bailiff and offer to pay the amount owed and arrange a time for them to come round and collect payment. Unbeknownst to the debtor Mr Ahmed is rounding up his gang, with the sole aim of intimidating and threatening the bailiff to prevent them from taking payment. This video shows a debtor arranging for a visit. This is what happens when the Bailiff arrives (of note is the man wearing a pig mask dressed as a police officer who I believe to be one Russ McGarry who I have posted about before). Of course the Bailiff calls the police, who are then ‘educated’ by Mr Ahmed.

Mr Ahmed’s method of attempting to educate is to spout off the usual freeman woo. He makes a number of false allegations and spurious claims.

I’m not sure what Mr Ahmed hopes to achieve by his game of Bailiff baiting apart from hoping that a bailiff when threatened will respond unfortunately and in so doing creating a criminal incident. Mr Ahmed and his gang are very keen to claim that the Bailiffs are intimidating the debtor however with typical Sovrun flexible logic refuse to accept that they are intimidating the bailiff and that their conduct is likely to cause a breach of the peace. It would only take one person with a short fuse or lack of intelligence or even latent instability to create a serious incident in which a person is harmed, that is not something which should be tolerated and nor should it be triumphed.

[fortinbras]

I don't know why the bailiffs were trying to collect anything from Ahmed; it is possible that he got someone else, someone who did owe a judgment, to make the call to the bailiff (there was a mention of an impending eviction from someone in the crowd). But I can guess why the police were so mellow when confronted with Ahmed and his screamers -- Wesley Ahmed is the cousin of a man whom the police mistakenly shot dead, back in March 2012, when they thought they were springing a trap on a band of armed robbers. Since then Ahmed has been a thorn in the side of the Manchester PD, organizing calls for serious punishments for the police who were involved in his cousin's death:

Daily Mirror
January 17, 2014, Friday

"I'm sick that killer cop will avoid court"
Stephen White


The cousin of a man shot dead by police is "sick" that the officer who pulled the trigger will not be charged.

Anthony Grainger, 36, a father from Salford, was killed in Warrington, Cheshire, in March 2012.

He died from a single shot into a car. A charge against three others of plotting armed robbery was dropped because none was armed.

Wesley Ahmed said: "I feel sick. I can not believe they are only facing charges over health and safety. I thought this case was clear cut."

Greater Manchester Police chief constable Sir Peter Fahy will be charged. He is accused of failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act as he is "corporation sole" for the force, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

It means he does not share criminal liability.

[KickahaOta]

I’m not sure what Mr Ahmed hopes to achieve by his game of Bailiff baiting apart from hoping that a bailiff when threatened will respond unfortunately and in so doing creating a criminal incident.

I haven't looked into Mr. Ahmed; but similar tactics in the past have been based on a misreading and perversion of the UCC rules regarding tender of payment. Essentially, UCC § 3-603 says that if are obligated to pay some instrument, and you offer payment to the person entitled to enforce the instrument, and that person refuses your payment, then the obligation is reduced or eliminated just as it would have been if you had made the payment.

This is designed (among other things) to prevent a creditor from abusing you by refusing your initial payment and then charging you interest on the money you're now involuntarily borrowing.

So Sovran types say, hey, if we call the bailiff to collect a payment, and then the bailiff doesn't collect a payment, debt solved.

Of course, there are at least two crucial problems with this. One is that UCC § 3-603 is talking about "instruments" in the UCC sense of the word -- checks and so on -- and the debts that the sovrans are trying to weasel out of aren't "instruments" in that sense. Another is that no judge in his or her right mind would agree that the offer of payment was genuine.

[PeanutGallery]

I can see a third problem with the misapplication of the UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code only applies in America and not in the UK and certainly not in Greater Manchester.

As far as I can see Mr. Ahmed does indeed get a debtor or a third party to call the bailiff (as also shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S_pPuz ... tQyUtV68XA. Sometimes he does start to talk to them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWEAm61 ... A&index=23 and of course threatens that he will clamp and impound bailiff vehicles if they do attend.

Ahmed is a member of the GOODF sponsored group 'Response' which aims to frustrate evictions. This is video of him protesting a bailiff attempting to collect on a debt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnt9Amz ... tQyUtV68XA.

I did not know about his family history with the GMP however, while I believe that any sudden death is tragic and certainly when it is as contentious as a Police shooting it is especially so, I do not feel that excuses his behaviour.

[Normal Wisdom]

The following new video on the SriLankerC Youtube channel features quite a bit from Wesley as well as Guy Taylor and the increasingly involved Tom Crawford who earlier this year gained notoriety in the mainstream media as the poor cancer victim whose eviction was prevented by hundreds of "well wishers" in a move which the Daily Mail likened to It's a Wonderful Life.

It's the usual self help stuff about how to beat corrupt bailiffs etc but in includes the startling news that Wesley Ahmed and his team are equipped with clamps, a tow truck and pound which they will use to clamp and impound bailiff vehicles and charge for their return. I hope he gives it a try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmVWIyD ... index%3D2)

[PeanutGallery]

It was that video popping up which convinced me to start a thread on Wesley, he's gaining a bit of a reputation and I think his schemes are going to see if in front of a magistrate soon. I also feel obliged to point out that the advice they have given, including the snippet edited in from Watchdog, regarding just throwing parking tickets from private companies away is sadly outdated. That was the old advice, which was based around the liability for parking being with the person driving and that the registered keeper had no obligation to disclose who was driving at the time of the alleged infraction. This changed with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it is also this act which is likely to get Wesley in some reasonably serious trouble if he carry's out his plan to clamp a bailiff's vehicle.

The Protection of Freedoms Act effectively outlawed clamping on private land, however in order to appease the parking industry (which could have been destroyed if they had no legitimate way of offering paid parking and no means to prevent unauthorised use of their facilities) the act made the liability for a parking offence rest with the keeper, unless they identified another person as the driver. Of course the savvy among us soon worked out that the parking companies could only sue for breach of contract, under which their damages would need to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and soon started raising this with POPLA (a parking ticket arbitration scheme) to date no parking complaint with POPLA where the genuine pre-estimate of loss defence has been used has led to the parking charge being enforced. That is the current advice on how to deal with these tickets and is generally endorsed by leading protestors within the Private Parking sphere such as the Parking Prankster.

However the section of that act which will cause Wesley some trouble is section 54, which makes it an offence to clamp any motor vehicle without lawful authority. Lawful authority is effectively having ownership of the vehicle. Which is what Bailiffs have and Wesley doesn't. Of course all that can happen is he can be fined (which will likely lead to more Bailiffs and more clamps and more arrests).

[PeanutGallery]

Wesley's just had a new video posted up on Mark "Ceylon" Haining's YouTube account regarding a warrant attempt to fit a prepay meter inside someone's home. They claim that the warrant was struck out because they 'paid' the outstanding amount owed on the account with a promissory note.

This tactic which is going to boil down to an argument about whether a promissory note counts as payment or if it is, as the name implies, a promise to pay is fundamentally flawed and frankly fraudulent. I would argue that sending a diy promissory note should be prosecuted as fraud so that this tactic can be stamped out.

Wesley claims that this is part of a protest related to warm homes, stating that every three minutes a person in the UK died as a result of not being able to heat their home. While I recognise that warm homes is important (having personally attended a talk at the House of Commons, followed by a dinner hosted by National Energy Action and later a reception at the House of Lords also arranged with the NEA), I do think that Wesleys figures are a little bit inflated.

Also featured in the video are Stephen Spy and Peter of England. This seems to be the first time, to the best of my knowledge that Peter has worked with another Guru. Peter claims that Werebank, is going to be issuing chequebooks so members can write cheques which will be worth absolutely nothing, of course whether passing such cheques and representing them as cheques would constitute fraud will be a matter for the courts to decide.

The video is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5QFf_3ynO4#t=28

[fortinbras]

....similar tactics in the past have been based on a misreading and perversion of the UCC rules regarding tender of payment. Essentially, UCC § 3-603 says that if are obligated to pay some instrument, and you offer payment to the person entitled to enforce the instrument, and that person refuses your payment, then the obligation is reduced or eliminated just as it would have been if you had made the payment. ....

First, the video and Ahmed are in the UK, which does not have the American UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), altho I would not be surprised if it had something similar to govern financial transactions. Second, the UCC 3-603 does not say that the obligation is reduced if payment is refused. It says that if payment is tendered (meaning the entire amount owed is presented, not merely talked about) and refused, then secondary debtors such as co-signers are relieved of liability AND interest and late payment charges stop as of the moment of refusal. A crucial matter is that payment (that is, the entire amount owed) must be tendered - an attempt to negotiate any sort of delay or partial payment doesn't qualify, and providing a bouncing check doesn't qualify either.

Another UCC provision says that if the debtor tenders payment is something such as a check or money order and the creditor demands instead payment in legal tender (US Currency), the debtor is allowed reasonable time to get the cash for the payment. The point being that the vendor/creditor doesn't have to accept a check or some other substitute for cash.

[notorial dissent]

And further promissory notes, bad checks, other fictitious paper doesn't count as payment, a fact that the crowd who wants to use this seems to miss every time.

[Normal Wisdom]

And further promissory notes, bad checks, other fictitious paper doesn't count as payment, a fact that the crowd who wants to use this seems to miss every time.

Promissory notes seem to be making a bit of a resurgence. I'm currently having a discussion (a rather circular one) with one of Hannah Shotbolt's supporters in the comments section of her new YouTube channel regarding her attempt to pay her Court fine and Council Tax bill with PNs.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrpEhQ ... freload=10

[littleFred]

I admire your fortitude in your discussion with Team Truth. I would be tempted to point out that by section 89, provisions about acceptance such as s42 and s43 don't apply to promissory notes. But a true FOTLer would reply, "But I don't consent to that part of s89, so acceptance does apply to PNs."

[Normal Wisdom]

I admire your fortitude in your discussion with Team Truth. I would be tempted to point out that by section 89, provisions about acceptance such as s42 and s43 don't apply to promissory notes. But a true FOTLer would reply, "But I don't consent to that part of s89, so acceptance does apply to PNs."

I was saving that. I was just playing with him really so didn't want to close down the discussion too quickly. I wanted him to explain how he thought a PN would fit the bill (pardon the pun) for Hannah when she obviously had no intention of actually paying any money. As you can see, he wasn't going to be pinned down that easily so we started with "acceptance" and "dishonour" under the Bills of Exchange Act, then moved on to Council Tax being a fraud anyway and then back to PNs being the same as cash. One point I originally missed was that he said that a PN must be accepted as payment just like a cheque - I had to go back on that one.

YouTube comments are where I let "evil me" out. I like teasing FOTLers etc; a bit like teasing the cat with a laser pointer. I rarely, if ever "win the argument' but watching them go round in circles is fiendishly pleasing. Like the cat, they normally give up before I do.

[littleFred]

Tee-hee. I bought a laser pointer recently, £2.99 in Lidl. Never had one before. I've been wondering what to do with it. Now I know: get a cat.

[fortinbras]

Promissory notes seem to be making a bit of a resurgence.

The SovCit twits, and others, actually regard a promissory note as payment, they even use fancy captions on theirs, such as "Bonded Promissory Note", "Registered Promissory Note," etc. The flashier words mean nothing - the document is churned out of their word processor with absolutely nothing backing it.

A promissory note is Not a payment. It is essentially an IOU, it promises payment (cash) at some future date. It cannot be forced on a creditor/vendor - it can be refused if immediate payment is what is wanted. It is most assuredly not a tender of payment, instead it is evidence of a continuing indebtedness.

The twits - not all of them SovCits - seem to believe that when the moment comes to pay the creditor/vendor they can pull out their promissory note and the creditor has to accept it. Wrong. Moreover, they think that (if the creditor accepted a promissory note), when the due date comes around they can push yet another promissory note (with a payment date even further into the future) at the creditor and he has to accept it, maybe because he accepted the first one. Wrong again.

Now a particular SovCit wrinkle: They may complicate the promised payment date with some reference to gold or silver coinage or the holdings of the US Treasury; they will pay when some official "makes a determination of the substance" of US money. This is, in reality, dating the payment to sometime after the Second Coming. Similarly, some fine print that payment will be made by some govt agency such as the Post Office or the Treasury.

I got a bundle of court cases about all of this.

[notorial dissent]

When you're a sovcit/FOTL with limited long term memory, everything old is new again, and again, and again...... It failed the first time it was used, it failed the next time it was used, and every other time after that, but it'll work fer shure this time!!!!!

[Normal Wisdom]

Promissory notes seem to be making a bit of a resurgence.

The SovCit twits, and others, actually regard a promissory note as payment, they even use fancy captions on theirs, such as "Bonded Promissory Note", "Registered Promissory Note," etc. The flashier words mean nothing - the document is churned out of their word processor with absolutely nothing backing it.

A promissory note is Not a payment. It is essentially an IOU, it promises payment (cash) at some future date. It cannot be forced on a creditor/vendor - it can be refused if immediate payment is what is wanted. It is most assuredly not a tender of payment, instead it is evidence of a continuing indebtedness.

The twits - not all of them SovCits - seem to believe that when the moment comes to pay the creditor/vendor they can pull out their promissory note and the creditor has to accept it. Wrong. Moreover, they think that (if the creditor accepted a promissory note), when the due date comes around they can push yet another promissory note (with a payment date even further into the future) at the creditor and he has to accept it, maybe because he accepted the first one. Wrong again.

Now a particular SovCit wrinkle: They may complicate the promised payment date with some reference to gold or silver coinage or the holdings of the US Treasury; they will pay when some official "makes a determination of the substance" of US money. This is, in reality, dating the payment to sometime after the Second Coming. Similarly, some fine print that payment will be made by some govt agency such as the Post Office or the Treasury.

I got a bundle of court cases about all of this.

I may call on your bundle of court cases. As I said earlier I've been discussing PNs with one of Hannah Shotbolt's fans and most recently he has sent me the following slightly patronising response ..

"I don't think you've quite understood it and are getting a little confused. A PN isn't made up as you can see from the gov link I sent you. And you have to accept it as payment. Again, this is all in the gov doc above, in legalise. You are probably better of talking to a financial advisor about them rather than us keep going around in circles here! Or alternatively, search YouTube for the many videos where people have successfully done this. Like the one I posted above! Thanks for your time and I hope you get an understanding of this soon!"

The link he posted of someone who had "successfully done this" was to a Roger Hayes video!!

[fortinbras]

Most people regard my writing as chloroform in print, so I give you just a small dose:

A parolee submitting a worthless promissory note as payment of his court-ordered restitution has violated the terms of his parole and can be sent back to prison. US v. M.J. Kearns (5th Cir 2/22/07) 218 Fed.Appx 373; ditto (pretending his worthless promissory notes were payment of restitution got the perp an additional sentence for obstruction of justice) US v. D.J. Fitzgerald (D.Ida 2/25/12); similarly US v. F.H. Banks (3d Cir 3/14/08) 269 Fed.Appx 152; (a scam artist who sent his investors worthless promissory notes through the US mail can be convicted of mail fraud) US v. J.J. Miller (7th Cir 7/18/06) 188 Fed.Appx 502; attempting to con the IRS by sending it Leroy checks is an offense made more serious by threatening the IRS agents who rejected the worthless checks and tried to collect the tax debt. US v. Wishart (9th Cir 2005) 146 Fed.Appx 171, 96 AFTR2d 5890 cert.den 547 US 1154; the perp was told directly by the chief of the fraud section of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that his Leroy Checks were worthless and fraudulent, and yet the perp still tried to pass them. US v. R.J. Finley (9th Cir 2002) 301 F3d 1000; ditto (told by the FBI his “bills of exchange” were worthless and the account they purported to draw upon did not exist, but persisted in using them and was convicted of false claims and mail fraud) US v. F.B. Gibbs (4th Cir 6/3/05) 132 Fed.Appx 502 cert.den 546 US 1153; ditto (told by Dept of Treasury) US v. E.E. Brown (DC Cir 2010) 389 US App DC 300, 597 F3d 399; (defendant had tried to cash two “bills of exchange”, each claiming to be worth $5 Billion, and her inability to explain coherently her threadbare business or why someone would pay her so much money was considered evidence of fraudulent intent) K.E. Butler v. State (Tex.App 3/1/12); (defendants knew, from a previous judgment against them in a case in which they did not attempt to defend their funny money, that their funny money was worthless and this default judgment could be used as evidence in a subsequent trial for mail and bank fraud) US v. Adamson (9th Cir 6/12/95) 59 F3d 176(t); similarly (defendant was already aware that his funny money had been rejected by banks, especially when he lied that the funny money was issued by the govt, so the jury was upheld in rejecting his good faith defense) US v. Wooten (DNJ 8/27/04) affd (US v. Harris) 271 Fed.Appx 188; (perps persisted in trying to pass enormous denominations of funny money and fake financial paper even after repeatedly being told by the FBI and bankers that these were false and worthless, this not only justifies an enhanced penalty for fraud but justifies suspicions that they may attempt similar frauds in the future so the court may issue a permanent injunction against their trafficking in financial papers) SEC v. Todt (SDNY 2/25/00) Fed.Sec.L.Rep para 90770, NY Law Journal (3/30/00) page 25, affd 7 Fed.Appx 98; similarly US v. T.S. Dutson (D Ariz 3/10/05); similarly use of funny money gives rise to “unjust enrichment”. Kendrick v. East Ohio Gas Co. (Cleveland Muni.Ct 2007) 146 Ohio Misc.2d 6, 886 NE2d 292; [expectation or experience that funny money would not be accepted is evidence of fraudulent intent, see essay, H.G. Hirschberg, Admissibility to Establish Fraudulent Purpose ... of Evidence of Similar Attempts, 78 ALR2d 1359(1961 & suppl.)].

[Hercule Parrot]

I've been discussing PNs with one of Hannah Shotbolt's fans and most recently he has sent me the following slightly patronising response ..

"I don't think you've quite understood it and are getting a little confused. A PN isn't made up as you can see from the gov link I sent you. And you have to accept it as payment.

There really isn't much hope for idiots like this. Perhaps ask them if they would accept a promissory note from another private citizen, if they were selling a house or car.

Or just give up and let reality educate them the hard way.

[grixit]

Apparently none of these footloosers have ever been to a store with a sign that says CASH ONLY, NO CHECKS.

[littleFred]

Wesley doesn't want his gas meter to be read.

Meter reader: I'm here to do a job, aren't I?

Wesley: Yes, well, that's what they said in Germany at the Nuremberg trials.