Media silence deafening [redacted]
On Thursday, 24 September, a social media channel MouseInTheCourt and journalists from Bloomberg were in a race to be first to publish the news that a [redacted debt collection process] had been served on [redacted] through the [redacted].
Twenty four hours later and the mainstream British media dare not mention it. Are they in shock or did the lawyers from [redacted] obtain a super-injunction?
On the cover of the [redacted document] the High Court officials have stamped the date for a hearing on [redacted / seven weeks later]. In practice, disputes like this are often resolved long before the hearing date. On the one hand, some companies fail very quickly and on the other hand, if the company can find cash, they usually pay the bills and [redacted].
With that much time, unscrupulous debtors can very easily move their assets out of the company before it is looked at by the Official Receiver.
To avoid that asset-stripping scenario, creditors and other interested parties can demand the appointment of an administrator.
From an ethical perspective, I feel there are [redacted]. Therefore, I asked the Artificial Intelligence to write a submission to the court demanding the immediate appointment of an administrator.
The BBC recently published a report Surge in AI-assisted complaints putting extra strain on councils and schools. Why not use the same technology against the far right?
A rising tide of complaints written with the help of AI is substantially increasing the workload of schools, local councils and other public bodies, the BBC has been told.
Chatbots can produce complex arguments, often quoting regulations or acts of Parliament, with documents running to dozens of pages long.
Here is the exact text of the question I asked the Artificial Intelligence. Notice there is serious mistake in the question: I actually served the statutory demand on 1 September and the document served on 24 September was a [redacted]. Yet Artificial Intelligence creates a response based on the actual situation, the service of the [redacted] that occurred on 24 September.
Here is a screenshot:
Will [redacted] accuse the Artificial Intelligence of being part of a conspiracy with the Establishment?
What about the fact that I am part of another legal case where Google is a defendant? Does the Artificial Intelligence suffer from a Conflict of Interest drafting my legal documents? We already demonstrated that Google AI is creating fake news to obfuscate scandals in Switzerland.
Here is a screenshot of the submission to the court:
Here are the Daleks liquidating Doctor Who:
I made a couple of small tweaks to the petition. They are placed in parentheses. Normally the creditor / petitioner will propose the name of an [redacted] practitioner who is ready to take over the company. In this case, as it is extremely political, I've proposed that the name of an [redacted] practitioner should be drawn out of a hat. Then die-hard [redacted] supporters will not be able to claim the administrator was part of an Establishment conspiracy all along.
Ultimately, the day will come when a director or auditor may be required to stand in front of the judge and answer a simple question: when the Government's Representation of the People Bill attains Royal Assent, will [redacted] still be a going concern, in other words, will it still be solvent?
Now the name of [redacted] is [redacted], the judge will not want to let the company off the hook without asking that question at least once.
If the judge allows the party to continue trading and then the party is wound up anyway a few months later, the judge who let them off the hook will [redacted].
If [redacted / any company/party] owes you money and if you wish to be formally notified about future developments in this case, please see the form comp-4 available for download.
With [redacted] [redacted]? [redacted] claims to be against censorship and cover-ups.