margo tamm

A copy of the public notice record below:

Common Law Courts

Great Britain & International

Reference No: PN / 18 / 50623

Name margo tamm
Date 11/12/2019

margo:tamm,Elus Inimene,lihast ja aVerest
Suverään,Kõik Õigused Reserveeritud
Lõpmatu Väärtusega lien claimant
39 Brownlow St
Weymouth
British Isles

Alar Jäger,doing business as Juhatuse Esimees
CREDITREFORM EESTI OÜ lien respondent
Harju maakond, Tallinn,
Kesklinna linnaosa, Pirita tee 20/4, 10127

Dated:12th November 2019

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent;
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal

This fiduciary interest in the property, real and moveable, of the respondent arises from a complaint of a wilful neglect of duty,Extortion,Fraud,Criminal Coercion Surety for the value of this Notice of Distress is the respondent’s public indemnity insurance bond and, if this is insufficient, all of the respondent’s personal and private property to the value of this Notice.

For the avoidance of doubt, the claimant intends to make a civil claim, valued at £1,625,007.00 (one million, six hundred and twenty five thousand,-seven pounds).

The Respondent has twenty one (21) days to respond.

The Commercial Lien Process
A Common Law Commercial Lien is a process that any Human Being can employ in order to obtain lawful remedy from the actions of another Human Being(s) who have – or have attempted to – or have conspired to – damage said Human in some way. Such wrongs are known as “torts”, and are the subject of Tort Law. This includes ‘harassment’, such as ‘threats with menaces’, which is considered to be ‘psychological damage’, and also ‘defamation of character’, which is also considered to ‘damage a reputation’. The reason for this is very simple: Since all are equal under the LAW, then each Human Being has a Duty of Care to each other Human Being, such as to make sure that – whatever action we take towards each other – we have the Common Law behind those actions, and thus can live together in peace. Abrogating said Duty of Care is a CRIMINAL ACT, and constitutes a tort.
I believe that you have created a tort, or torts, against My Human Self.
The process comprises of:
1. The subject of the harassment (myself in this case), will write a Statement of Truth (Affidavit), under penalty of perjury. This being the case, what I will write will be “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, and will thus be based on first-hand knowledge.
2. You will be sent a copy of this Affidavit, comprising of my allegations. You will have to REBUT EACH POINT in order to ward off the possibility of a Lien. You will be given thirty (30) days to do so, but I can assure you that you will not be able to rebut EVEN ONE SINGLE POINT. You will need to rebut by means of a sworn Affidavit of your own, written under the same criteria, namely: From first-hand knowledge, and under penalty of perjury. Any points you manage to rebut will be removed from my allegations, and the remainder kept as my final Affidavit. The result will be witnessed to become My Statement of Truth, which will not only become THE TRUTH, IN LAW – but will also become A JUDGMENT, IN LAW.
3. That being the case, no Hearing will be required. Because the judgement has already been made by the truth. (That’s Common Law!)
4. I will then place a Public Notice, warning whomsoever may be concerned, that your creditworthiness is henceforth highly suspect. I will inform Credit Reference Agencies to this effect. I would then be LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO SIEZE ANY OF YOUR PROPERTY, up to (and including) the value of the Lien.
5. This process will occur in a LAWFUL manner – because you are given the chance to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE – and I will thus retain entirely ‘clean hands.’
6. As footnotes, I should add that
a. Even if I make an honest mistake, WHICH YOU FAILED TO REBUT, my mistake BECOMES THE TRUTH, IN LAW. You will not be able to claim ‘libel’, ‘slander’, etc, because you were given thirty days to rebut the allegations, before public announcement.
b. By a failure to REBUT IN SUBSTANCE you would have tacitly acquiesced to my Statements as Truths, in Law.
c. REBUT IN SUBSTANCE does not comprise of simply dismissing my allegations. That is mere gainsaying. “IN SUBSTANCE” means “accompanying with HARD proofs” (in this case, “to the contrary”).
7. Being Common Law construct, the only way this Lien can be removed is:

a. By Full Payment … in which case I will remove it

b. The passage of 99 years

c. The verdict of a Jury of 12, deciding that the Lien should not have been imposed. But this will require YOU to take ME to a Court de Jure (Common Law Court) … whereupon I will be able to explain (to said Jury) exactly how you took actions which comprised of the tort(s) against me WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL EXCUSE WHATSOEVER. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSUME THAT ANY JUDGE CAN REMOVE A LIEN. A JUDGE CONNOT DO THAT, AND JUDGES KNOW THAT (because it is a Common Law, NOT A STATUTORY, process)

This was your last and final warning. If I receive communication from any of your Agents by means of mail, phone call, or knocks on my door, then I will undertake the Commercial Lien process against those individual(s) to whom this Notice is addressed.
That being the case, I suggest that you take full Notice of this Notice. You will find, in the future, that you will need to contend with this Commercial Lien process more frequently as time goes on, and more people discover it.

Sincerely, without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,

By:margo clc

margo, subject SOLEY to The Common Law.

Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.