More Home Office Dialogue

I received a response today to my last letter to our servants manning the Home Office.

So, their answers are speeding up slightly. What it made up in speed, it lost in wordiness.

Check out their brief reply:

Dear Mr Ranty,

Thank you for your further e-mail on this matter, I regret that this is not something the Home Office would deal with.


Yours sincerely,


Sam Irvine

Naturally, I have responded.

My reply is slightly longer:

Dear Sam of the Irvine family,

Thank you for your reply dated today.

It is clear to me that you have no idea how to respond to my letters, emails and Notices. It may be because you do not understand them, or it may be because you are not trained to understand matters involving law.

In either case, you are now required to take all of my letters, emails and Notices to your legal department. Sending missives back and forth between us will get us nowhere.

Please be aware that I am not:

1. Complaining
2. Asking for advice
3. Requesting information.

Please be aware that I am:

1. Making a lawful claim.

Your standard 20 day time limit to reply is hereby reduced to 7 days. This is no “ordinary” matter. My communiqués have serious connotations in law.

All of the Notices, letters and emails I have sent to you thus far have a lawful bearing. If you are not trained in the law then you are unable to deal with my Claims. At the risk of repeating myself, I will tell you, just like I told your two colleagues, that I have sworn an affidavit and signed it in front of three witnesses. My affidavit was then sent to your office, and you had time to rebut the claims I made but you did not. In law, my affidavit now becomes law. In law, there is no more powerful document than a signed, witnessed, unrebutted affidavit. The Claims I made remain unrebutted, as they will forevermore, so I now demand that you deliver the Rights that I claimed.

Your (short) reply says that you “regret that this is not something the Home Office would deal with”.

I regret that your answer is woefully inadequate. I regret that you chose not to carry out my instructions. I regret that you failed to notify your legal department.

Mostly, I regret that you failed to read and understand the documents that I sent you.

My Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right (NOUICOR) is crystal clear on this. Please reread it. It says “Notice to principal is notice to agent, and notice to agent is notice to principal”. In law this means that the onus is on your office to promulgate my Claim of Right. I will not be held responsible for your failure in this matter.

If you have no desire to deal with my Claims, so be it. However, you now have a duty to:

a) Instruct UKBA that I must be issued with a Diplomatic Passport.
b) Instruct HMRC that I am no longer obliged to pay UK Income Tax.

Or, c) Furnish every government department with a copy of my NOUICOR and advise them to engage with me. You can start with UKBA and HMRC and I will interact with the rest when I am ready to do so.

If my words sound harsh, that is not my intent. This is a serious matter that you, and two of your colleagues, have seriously misunderstood. None of you has forwarded my communiqués to your legal team. Had any of you done so, we would be well on the way to closure. Instead I have withstood weeks of inaction. This has to stop. Instruct your legal team to engage with me immediately so that these matters can be resolved.

Without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,

Captain: of the Ranty family.

Freeman On The Land


And so, the ping pong continues. I will keep you updated.

Now, who else can I mess with........