June 17, 2011

UKBA: The Plot Sickens

Arrived home yesterday to find a letter from UKBA. Their last letter said that the next step was for them to issue a Writ. No such Writ was issued, just another letter.

They have mysteriously found my goods. (In their last letter they said that they had been destroyed). The tone of the new letter is just as dismissive and just as threatening. They asked that I decide whether I wish to continue to challenge the legality of the seizure (I don't) or if I wish to withdraw my claim (I don't). They also bang on about "their" costs, so I thought it fair to mention mine.

Here is my reply:

"(Address removed)

17 June 2011


I refer to your letter dated 7 June 2011. My reply is late because I was abroad on business.

You have sent me a form on which I need to select one of two options: challenge the legality of the seizure or withdraw my claim. I do not wish to withdraw my claim, nor do I wish to challenge the legality of the seizure. I believe that your officers did as they were trained to do.

However, it is clear to me from reading your letter that you did not even bother to read mine (dated 21 April 2011) in which I explained to you what my lawful standing is. I even included supporting documentation. How you missed it is beyond me. I must now insist that you take advice from a constitutional lawyer. You obviously do not understand the ramifications or the importance of my standing as a Lawful Rebel. Your statutes are meaningless to me. I have opted out. Lawfully. I am under no obligation to obey statute law. Indeed, I am obliged to ignore it.

I appreciate that the concept is alien to you, and it will mystify any lawyer who has no experience in constitutional matters. I forgive your (collective) ignorance, just this once.

I wish to attend court to obtain a ruling on this. But do you? When I win my case the publicity will be massive. My blogging friends and I have (between us) over 1.5 million daily readers. If, by some tiny chance I lose, I will appeal. All the way to the European Court if necessary. As a matter of fact, I have already won. If you had sought the advice of a constitutional expert you would know this.

Finally, a word on costs. I conditionally agree to pay your costs as long as you agree to pay mine. For my special appearance at the court, my fee is one thousand (1,000) ounces of silver per hour. I expect to be paid in bullion, not fiat currency. This is non-negotiable.

Or, you can simply send my goods back to me at the above address, accompanied by an apology.

You have seven (7) days from receipt in which to reply.

Without frivolity, ill-will or vexation,

(my mark)

Captain: of the Ranty family."

Let's see what happens next, shall we?



Found A Voice said...

Cheers for the update CR,

I bet that they will return your goods soon, but not within 7 days and certainly without an apology.

And if they don't, you'll get your day in court.

Either way, you win! Well played sir!

Captain Ranty said...


The goods are unimportant.

What I need is the ruling. An acknowledgement of my status.

THEN I can really have some fun.


Jack Cade said...

Spot on Captain...as always!

Ampers said...

You won't get that nate! :-)

Just your goods back, and yes, probably not even a letter enclosed.


Bollixed said...

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping that it will eat him last".


Wayne said...

Love it

mescalito said...


our right under article 61 of magna carta gets a mention in the european parliment

Captain Ranty said...


Thanks Mescy!

I just published it.

Great find!


mescalito said...

nice letter ranty man, keep it up, your wining and you know it.

Stealth said...

Fucking awesome (as always) :)

bryboy said...

Oh nice one! You have balls of steel Captain. I am on my knees!!!

Dr Evil said...

You are a brave man and I damn well hope you win!