UPDATE: 12 08 20
UPDATE: 12 08 20
UPDATE: 02 06 23
Thanking you all for your great prayer and financial supports - this is so important for without your heart felt giving to this non-waged ministry, we cannot get this message out - CLICK HERE
NEW - WHO HAS GOD CHOSEN TO BE KING AFTER REJECTING CHARLES? CLICK HERE
NEW - WHAT HAS GOD CALLED THE NATION TO RECOGNIZE? CLICK HERE
NEW - FROM THE OXFORD MARTYRS TO BEING A MULTI-FAITH, PAGAN CULT CLICK HERE
WHAT HAS INFILTRATED PENTECOSTAL/EVANGELICAL MOVEMENTS GLOBALLY CLICK HERE
NEW - IS CHARLES THE OR A ANTICHRIST? CLICK HERE
SCOTLAND'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL "KIRK" AND THE CURE CLICK HERE
The Citi Bank Case
The point in this case is simply the harassment, the defaulting, threatenings on a claimant by a defendent.
It is simply wrong, illegal and unconstitutional!
We tried in 2012 & 13
to resolve the issue - but found Citi not wanting to take on the Constitution Issue!!!!!!!!!!!!
Customer Relations Adviser,
Citi Financial Europe PLC
P.O. Box 49930,
Dear Sir or Madam,
CITI BANK CARD
4508 3118 6900 3509 ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE
In positive fashion we raise the issue of this account with you, it being an account seemingly lost in the after effects of a now famous court case involving RBofS and McGuffick, its finding we believe to have founded to be illegal and are taking action politically and legally to prove it.
This, however, is not the reason we write. The reason we write is over an age old British tradition of being able to hold payments on accounts in dispute. The dispute is far from over and it is our intention to continue holding back payments under British Constitutional law and custom to await the result of our own court case – not a so-called test case wiping out all cases!!!!!!!!! Such a phenomena is not permitted in our British system!
Amongst many things we found foreign political, legal and philosophical influences on the case and also it would seem the apparent legality of being able to blacken a customer’s credit file and reputation during a dispute. We put to you that this is very one-sided and we firmly believe illegal.
Going through the following log of our dealings with your company shows we believe illegal activity on your part and ask for you to put it right.
I. 06 03 09: Notice from JC (MSB) of £250-68 found on card re. mis-sold insurance.
The context of all of this came when it was found by our solicitors that your company had mis-sold us insurance.
II. 10 03 09: Notice from JC (MSB) that this is likely to be “unenforceable.” Request for £250 and paid. £6,036-53 was on account when taken off EMLG accounting system on 16 03 09. Our solicitors viewed the account we had with you came under the House of Lords edict in the way banks were to operate their accounts. Our Solicitors viewed your bank as not keeping the demands of the House of Lords edict.
III. 14 03 09: Notice from EMLG to Citi stating that we only pay undisputed accounts.We were very frank with you that we have a policy of not paying disputed accounts, certainly not those on their way to court.
IV. 27 03 09: Notice from Citi to MSB arguing their case.
It would seem that you quite rightly presented your side of the argument to our solicitors.
V. 27 03 09: Letter to EMLG from Citi. Says our complaint is closed! It simply is not!
You seemed to say that the matter was closed, a strange response as clearly it was not!
VI. 01 04 09: Letter from EMLG to Ms. Jacqueline Moore of Citi Cards. A pointing out that “the matter is closed” is not the case for after discussions with MSB the matter is on-going. Stated that it is likely that funds from Citi to MSB were due and that in future to keep in line with Habeas Corpus then the word “alleged” debt had to be used in future correspondence.
This is a very important point for if a case is on its way to court, then clearly what is being raised becomes “alleged”. It would seem you did not use this word with a case on its way to court!
VII. 17 04 09: Letter from EMLG to Citi stating extra charges were disputed.
Indeed with a disputed case on its way to court – you put extra charges on!
VIII. 29 04 09: Letter to EMLG showing a now “alleged” balance of £6214-85 – the amount going up! This letter came from M. Green, Head of Collections saying our non-payment may have been an oversight. It was not.
IX. 30 04 09: Reply from Citi Customer Relations Office in relation to EMLG complaint. Inquiries continuing they said!
X. 06 05 09: EMLG letter to Mike Green warning not to harass us during build up to a possible court hearing.
Yes your company or representatives of your company went through a period of harassing us for money when the account was in dispute – and still is!
XI. 07 05 09: EMLG referral to Mike Green to MSB.
XII. 08 06 09: Citi Mis-Sold PPI notice from MSB saying chasing Citi!
XIII. 25 07 09: Notice from Richard Clewer, Citi to MSB saying a section 78 request does not entitle us to withhold payment. We say that is correct. The reason for withholding payment is not due to the request but overall proceedings against Citi leading at that time to a court hearing.
The reason we withdrew payments was in honour to the House of Lords edict & to Habeas Corpus which shows that payment would be pre-empting a court hearing.
XIV. 25 07 09: Letter from Citi to EMLG re. MSB letter.
XV. 28 07 09: Letter from EMLG to Clewer of Citi saying our response given to MSB.
XVI. 14 09 09: Letter from JC (MSB) to EMLG saying MSB had served a copy of the Part 8 claim form for a Declaration of Unenforceability under s 78 CCA 1974 prior to proceedings. A court issue fee of £150 was paid.
A court issue fee was paid proves the case was on its way to court and Citi were harassing us and demanding payment. Not legal we say!
XVII. 09 11 09: Notice that the MSB Consumer Credit Team was involved in a Case Management Conference (CMC) in Manchester on 08 10 09 – outcome very positive. In this you stated claimants and defendants got together with the Court to discuss the manner Consumer Credit matters should progress through the court system.
XVIII. 01 12 09: Collect Direct UK notice of account overdue. We still deny this. Amount they say now
£6934-09 - £719-24 more than when the account went into dispute.
XIX. 05 12 09: Letter from EMLG to Collect Direct UK referring to two strange phone calls – the intimations being difficult to understand and identities of the callers. Collect Direct UK informed account in dispute!
You seem to have set collectors on us at this time!
XX. 09 12 09: Strange notice from Collect Direct UK saying they had made numerous attempts to contact EMLG – yet our availability is not generally questioned. Threat to send Personal Representative to our address.
We regard threatening to send personal representatives to us as very serious during a dispute on its way to court.
XXI. 12 09 09: EMLG request to Collect Direct UK for list of the “numerous attempts” to contact EMLG.
No reply to this.
Gave warning of Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Told no payments whilst account in dispute.
XXII. 18 02 10 “Attention” notice from Collect Direct UK threatening enforcement action.
The threats continued.
XXIII. 12 03 10 Intimation from MSB re. UPDATE – emphasis on s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – true copy.
XXIV. 31 03 10 Intimation from MSB saying dropping case and return of Court Issue Fee.
We refused to cash the Court Issue Fee as it is not under British Law that a House of Lords edict can be over-run like this and we are challenging this to this day!
XXV. 08 04 10 Return letter returning cheque saying no way – all the way to House of Lords if necessary.
We are acting in view of doing this.
XXVI. 20 04 10 Return of cheque from MSB
XXVII. 06 05 10 Letter to MSB saying we are not going to cash the cheque – will be claimants and not defendants
XXVIII. 21 09 10 Cabot Financial come on scene with letter saying they have bought account!
You seem to have sold this account to this company!
XXIX. 05 10 10 Reply pointing out the reality of the situation.
XXX. 08 10 10 Phone dialogue with Mike – prepared for dialogue – not threat.
XXXI. 15 10 10 Cabot awaiting info from Citi
Kicking the Devil Out of the Banks!
CASE STILL ONGOING IN 2020!
XXXII. 16 02 11 MSB return cheque refused
XXXIII. 29 09 11 MSB Return cheque refused & threat to give to charity not recognised legally
XXXIV. 23 05 12 MSB Cheque to be refused
XXXV. 05 06 12 Letter to MSB again putting down our position
XXXVI. 09 07 12 Letter to CITI looking to face issues
09 July 2012
For the bearer of this letter, there has been years of frustration, disappointment; while the banks have combined fear with bullying tactics, not only against myself, but the people of Britain who have entrusted their savings, borrowings & other business to you in all good faith.
What would my father, a London banker in the early 1930s, have said about such commandeering of people’s hard-earned savings & pensions? What would he have said about the manipulation, control & apparently legalised money-laundering, false accusations, slander, misrepresentation of the truth, all carried out under the name of “banking practice”?
What would he have said about the demise of small business, about the fear & mistrust, if not downright hatred, sown into the lives of the British public by the banking institutions?
“High time this was stopped!” he would have said. And it has been stopped. We the customers have said “Enough!” We are calling you to account. It is pay-back time.
For defaulting me, for threatening me either by post or consistent aggressive phone calls (Citi); for threatening to blacken my credit file while I was taking Citi to court; for use of harassment techniques to try and get me to pay on the disputed account I now demand the sum of £50,000 compensation; a complete removal of all adverse comment on my credit file and a complete stop to harassing me for a now alleged account that was on the way to Court but strangely removed – we believe for the reasons we have shown.
Rev Dr Cllr E M Lindsay Griffiths
Part of a letter to Citi Bank - October 2013
Citibank International plc
Global Consumer Banking
PO Box 49930
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re. Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths
Your Reporting of Unbalanced Financial Information about me to Credit Reference Agencies including Experian, the following being a copy of a letter being sent to them about your behaviour in defaulting me when I was a claimant and you were a defendant! This has made it difficult for me to trade normally despite of my excellent payment record of undisputed accounts.
COPY OF LETTER TO EXPERIAN with Citi Bank References:
It has been one of the great traditions of our country that in a dispute both sides should have their say. It is also one of the great traditions of our country that when a case is on its way to court, then one awaits the decision of that court in relation to a matter. It is also one of the great traditions of our country that when one is awaiting a court hearing one does not harass the opponent, default the claimant as I was in these cases before a court hearing. It is also one of the great traditions of our country that government does not interfere with edicts of the Upper House which we believe has happened here. It is also one of the great traditions of our country that foreign philosophies, references and adherences does not influence our legal processes and this letter categorically proves in this case that they have contrary to the law of our nation.
Where does that leave Experian? I believe that the contents of this letter will prove in a very difficult position which we are happy to work through with you but please understand we are not going to accept the unconstitutional position I have found myself in isolated by your company and I assume other credit reference agencies.
It goes back to 2008 when I employed Consumer Credit Solicitors MSB Solicitors Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley, MSB House, 20-22 Tapton Way, Wavertree Business Village, Liverpool L13 1DA.
They looked at each and every one of our credit agreements which were fully paid up to date. At that time there was great emphasis being placed in the consumer marketplace that to be “enforceable” then strict criteria had to be met in line with the 1974 Consumer Credit Act. They advised as to which banks were meeting the criteria set by the House of Lords edict and the 1974 Consumer Credit Acts.
From our accounts we divided those in dispute and those not in dispute using the criteria that those in dispute must await the court hearing before continuing to pay. We put to you that what we went through by bank who were in dispute with can only be described as “hell on earth”, the “cease and desist” notices of MSB Solicitors being ignored by offending banks to appalling consequences on I and my family.
I live under the philosophy of paying undisputed accounts on time but when an account is in dispute I firmly know that the disputed account must await the court hearing particularly as I was the claimant! To default and harass a claimant is illegal, unconstitutional and appalling behaviour as you will see from the detailed case notes to follow.
It is my view that I was subject to mafia style tactics similar to those used to intimidate and bully witnesses featured in the Chicago movies of the 1930’s, in this case the violence being against my resolve and reputation.
1) Citibank Card 4508 3118 6900 3509. MSB Solicitors Case No. JC/JM/48744.007. We begin this saga on 06 03 09 with Joanna Connolly of MSB discovering mis-sold PPI, a further notice from Joanna Connolly on 10 03 09 stating that this account was likely to be “unenforceable.” A fee was paid to MSB Solicitors and on 14 03 09 I issued a notice to Citi stating that I only paid undisputed accounts.
On 27 03 09 Citi issued a notice to MSB Solicitors arguing their case and a letter was received by me from Citi saying that our complaint was closed. Of course it was not.
I wrote a letter on 01 04 09 to Ms. Jacqueline Moore of Citi cards pointing out that the matter is not closed for it was clear after negotiations with MSB Solicitors that the matter was on-going. I also pointed out the importance of using the word “alleged” in the case as the matter was on its way to court.
Extra charges were instilled by Citi and I wrote a letter to Citi on 17 04 09 stating these charges were disputed.
I received a letter and now alleged account balance which despite the dispute was now going up! M Green, Head of Collections stated my non-payment may have been an oversight. It was not! On 30 04 09 a reply from the Citi Customer Relations Office stated that enquiries into the matter continued and I issued a warning to Mike Green of Citi on 06 05 09 not to harass us during the build-up to a court case in which I was to be claimant! On 08 06 09 MSB Solicitors stated that they were chasing Citi for miss-sold PPI.
On 25 07 09 MSB Solicitors received a notice from Richard Clewer of Citi saying a Section 78 request did not give entitlement to no payment. I agree with this but the reason for non-payment had nothing to do with the request but overall proceeding against Citi leading at that time to a court hearing. The reason I withdrew payments was in honour to the House of Lords edict and to Habeas Corpus which shows that payments would be pre-empting a court decision.
On 14 09 09 I received a letter from Joanna Connolly of MSB Solicitors saying they had served a copy of the Part 8 claim form for a Declaration of Unenforceability under Section 78 CCA 1974 prior to proceeding and a court issue fee was paid.
I received a notice from the MSB Consumer Credit Team who had been involved in a Case Management Conference in Manchester on 08 10 09 reporting how there was a very positive outcome. In the conference representatives of the claimants got together with the defendants and that these matters should progress through the court system. What was to go wrong? A report follows.
On 01 12 09 Collect Direct UK issued a notice of account overdue with £719-24 added to the total since the dispute was established!
I wrote a letter to Collect Direct UK in relation to two strange phone calls I had received, the intimations being difficult to understand and the identities of the callers. I informed this agency of the dispute!
A strange notice was then issued by Collect Direct on 09 12 09 saying they had made numerous attempts to contact me, yet my availability is not generally questioned. I received a threat that I would receive a Personal Representative to my address. I wrote to Collect Direct on 12 09 09 asking for a list of the “numerous attempts” to contact me and receive no reply! I issued a warning relating to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and I told them no payments whilst the account was in dispute!
On 18 02 10 I received an “Attention” notice from Collect Direct UK threatening enforcement action. After this strange events occurred relating to the coming court hearing now mysteriously disappearing from the system. I suspected foul play and believe my husband has proved this in his enquiry into the now famous McGuffick “test case” to follow. MSB returned cheques to cover monies paid to them which I refused to cash stating we would take the case to the House of Lords if necessary, a path we are now on!
On 21 09 10 Cabot Financial came on the scene with letter saying they have now bought account. On 05 10 10 I pointed out to them the reality of the situation. By phone I spoke to Mike of Cabot on 08 10 10 saying I was happy for dialogue but not threat! On 15 10 10 I was informed by Cabot that they were awaiting information from Citi.
On 16 02 11 I refused to cash the return cheques of MSB Solicitors as I was not backing out and this occurred again on 29 09 11, MSB Solicitors now turning on me by threatening to give the money to a charity of their choice which they seem to have done.
On 05 06 12 I wrote to MSB Solicitors putting our position in not backing down. I further wrote to Citi on 09 08 12 asking them to face the issues here but with no reply from them or MSB Solicitors.
Our Legal Position and the McGuffick “Test Case”
Where We are At Now: the Legal Position
We stopped paying disputed accounts at the time leading up to court hearings, hearings that no longer seem to be taking place.
We question the ability of a lower court to wipe out hearings that came about as a result of an edict from the highest court in the land – the House of Lords.
We question the references to the European Court of Justice in the now well know McGuffick case which was presented to us particularly by MBNA as a test case apparently proving their position against us. We believe the case actually proves the case for us – for disputes are legally recognised in the case – thus how can these banking institutions now marginalised by British Society take enforcement action against us when a court has recognised a dispute? We believe this to be Corpus Juris – illegal under British Constitutional Law.
We believe we can prove the illegality of this case as the position given to Protestant Clergymen by H.M. The Queen in her Coronation Oath clearly gives rights and privileges to ensure the Constitutional Acts of 1534, 1689 and 1700 as well as The Elizabethan Settlement be kept to. We do not believe this has occurred with the Mc Guffick Test Case and intend to challenge it even to the Highest Court in the Land – The House of Lords.
You will have noticed my issuing of constitutional breaches now despite of being called “archaic” and not relevant to our account by DLC – they actually all relate to the Monarch’s Oath to God which is highly relevant in everything!
Ms Sandra Collett
Customer Relations Adviser
PO Box 4904
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re. Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths
4508 3118 6900 3509
Your Reporting of Unbalanced Financial Information about me to Credit Reference Agencies including Experian.
In answer to your reply, we absolutely reject the notion that you were legally entitled under the principles of Habeas Corpus that you had any right whatsoever to record non-payments to credit reference agencies whilst the account was in dispute, on its way to court with you company as defendants and E M Lindsay Griffiths as claimant.
We absolutely reject the notion that the McGuffick case was remotely legal with its references to foreign philosophies and law and clear leaning to Government interference to Upper House hearings at the time. The foreign references are illegal under the Constitutional Act of 1534 featured here. Note the clear obligation on the Monarch to repress such foreign interference, her crest being above the Judge in the McGuffick case!
The Financial Ombudsman Service do not deal with these matters but who does is the Monarch and those upholding this Constitution, namely Christian Ministers who have been authorised through the Coronation Oath to see our Constitutional Acts are kept to.
I therefore cannot accept your reply and demand that immediate action be taken to remove all adverse information against me and negotiations take place immediately to see adequate compensation is paid to me by your bank in its attack against me in disenabling me to trade normally.
It is your bank who issued these references whilst the court case was still open. It is also clear that we can prove Government interference in a Upper House Edict and the illegality of the McGuffick case.
Breaking a nation’s constitution is a very serious offence and I suggest your organisation examine itself and apologise not only to me but to the British people who you have clearly abused.