My rough Conditional Acceptance for responing to civil court under common law jurisdiction

Affidavit of John Doe for 10th day of April 2015


in relation to J JONES claim it is unclear to me if he is in fact a witness in this case but either way please note the following.


In relation to ALL Exhibits A - G and witness statements on the case Number 1005xxxxxxx


All statement here are in relation to (case J JONES) are the true facts and nothing but the true facts.


1. A crime of Tort against me by lead witness on 10th day of April 9 am as I felt intimidated by all the witnesses refusing to leave unless I signed under duress rendering contract terminated and null and void. (i advised all present I stand under common law) jurisdiction


2. Evidence I have called Exhibit E has been tampered with after it was signed rendering it null and void by myself. (witnessed by all witnesses and myself after it was signed, it was changed).




3 a true bill of assumed service has never been issued and expect that there isn’t a true bill in accordant with bill of exchange act.
Exhibit A paragraphs 1 to 6 are accepted upon valid proof of claim.


in relation to exhibit B


I have filled this out and expressed I require all witnesses be present on the date originally 7/7/15 and do not wish to waive any common law right.


reference to "number of unsuccessful visits" it was stated by a man I believe to be Scott Robinson in the presence of all the witnesses acting on the behalf whether directly or indirectly as 3rd party interlopers and also peace officers all heard him say that:


"I do not wish to contract with you!" and was agreed that was the response to an offer made by himself or an employer doing the same job and is in fact the correct answer I gave him upon a visit, capita, or BBC, and I agreed to that statement and stand by it under contract law and common law whereby im declaring I do not consent to a contract, and as such I then advised all there present as witnesses that:


I stand under common law and I do not wish to contract with BBC, capita or any other 3rd party interloper of any kind unless under common law upon valid proof of claim.


these are more true facts on this case.


statement in Exhibit E was modified after it was signed (in front of all present as witnesses)


rendering it invalid and furthermore was signed under duress as was intimidated by the amount of persons in my very small living space whereby I couldn’t move.


also that, alot of facts have been omitted contrary to there statements such as in exhibit A witness statement.


On para graph 7 on exhibit A contrary to what Scott Robinson states within hes statement,


that in fact Scott Robinson
changed the statement after it was signed rendering it null and void and also that this is witnessed by parties relating to Exhibits as witness statements B, C AND LASTLY Exhibit D.


In relation to exhibit F:


4 TV licence 3rd party interlopers for me, I stand under common law and wish not be a victim of Tort and perjury not to mention disruptive and intimidating to say the least and hereby claim that


I in fact show 3rd party interlopers working for capita acting for the BBC a "removal of implied Right Of Access Notice" to which then they then ambushed me with a stamped warrant not a signed warrant with a name or any signature and in fact also without a valid proof of claim or reason to issue a warrant Exhibit F without such proof of claim.


Any assumed contract is therefore and hereafter considered null and void and any implied or assumed contract is hereby terminated to all parties it may concern.


it is fair to say a lot was said on this matter and if necessary all will be known that I do not wish to fund BBC for ethical reasons as well as moral and financial reasons and not just financial reasons as implied by that of J.Jones to pursue this case as he may be an incompetent witness only seeing heresy evidence and thus not reliable if he is not a witness on 10 day of April 2015 (9:36 am).


I conditionally accept that if J.Jones is in fact a witness that wishes to go under oath with a valid proof of claim against me in respect to all my above statements and my affidavit of fact as all statements are true facts.


It is fair to say this is fabricated evidence that has 1 been signed on separate days and times rendering memory unreliable in some cases thus in this case maybe affected with that inconsistency of witness statement dates and the fact that they are very specific on visit time and hour and that not show that they have clearly not using there own account but rather that of a 3rd party witness serving the same 3rd party interlopers I specifically gave notice of remove of implied right of access, 2 which the exact same information in relation the the specificness of the date hour and time of the day in question, it is fair to say this has been pre arranged and coordinated to appear to be a valid proof of claim that I a man is legally contracted to pay for a service that I John Doe did not request or consent to, if a valid proof of claim contrary to this please also let me know within 5 days.


In relation to all A - E I accept upon valid proof of claim.




if all conditions are met within 5 days then I accept your invitation to attend 7/7/15 please let me know no more then 5 days after above date or default judgement in this matter will be considered resolved and all matters and cases dropped without liable for any amount in GBP without the expressed and written consent for any liability orders or court fees. I stand under common law and intend to enter any court case under common law jurisdiction.


in relation to Exhibit C witness statement where he states "a true record of the interview" when in fact no facts I declared has been disclosed by him or any other witness present on that day and the fact is I can only accept that statement upon valid proof of claim and as full disclosure has not been presented to me in reference to a true record so it is unclear if such a thing that they claim actually exists, I can swear that I have not seen that and can not confirm that without valid proof of claim that there is in fact such a thing as claimed by matt Bessant of TV Licence Regional Centre, furthermore I have no contract with this 3rd party agent and only accept any offers made by him upon a valid proof of claim.


An unknown man attempted to read me rights as I stated when he finished that I do not understand nor do I stand under hes assumed authority, to which he replied nothing in this respect, no contract or jurisdiction was or nor will it ever be granted without my expressed consent and permission and also note I do not waive any common law rights!


Please see Exhibit D whereby I require all witnesses by the original date of 7/7/15 I do not waive any common law right, all rights are reserved!


and agree to accept to attend that day upon proof of claim for all facts outlined as above in full within 5 days of above sent date!.


I also conditionally accept upon proof of claim that I a man have caused any harm injury or loss with respect to this case and if should this be the case, I should be informed of this claim upon proof of this claim immediately.


There is no evidence that a crime has been committed and by me, a living man who is governed with consent and therefore is free and able to choose weather or not to consent to any contract or contracts and lastly the questionable warrant was requested without a valid proof of claim and as such makes is without proof of claim and as such I swear under Oath all these statements are the facts and are to be treated as such.
I do own a TV however choose not to watch live tv broadcasts for BBC and very rarely even watch catch up or on demand either. A contract should not be forced upon anyone just because they are capable of doing something and especially without my expressed written consent.


By john from the family commonly known as Doe


(its very rough not quite finished yet) how can i improve or shorten it to be more to the point without having to ramble on for 2 pages? any ideas please help.