Claimants Pay the Price!

Kicking the Devil Out of the Banks!

How can it be that a claimant that has paid his/her court fees, who is taking a bank to court for not keeping in line with the requirements of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act according to a House of Lords edict, then sees the case taken out of court by a test case relating to utiliiarianism, relating to Government interference be then in effect be found guilty by default?

 

We have specific logs that show harassment by the defendant against the claimant!

 

Is this a new Britain now -

not keeping the demands of its Christian Constitution?

 

On reading these massive logs - that is if you can stand the pace you will see they represent bullying tactics, serious harassment of a claimant by a defendant whilst a case is on its way to court and as you see from our House of Lords Edict presentation - a complete disregard to the Upper House in Britain which we put to you OUR CONSTITUTION KEEPERS a complete disregard to the legal system of Britain to a new global order that does not have any place whatsoever in our Christian nation.

Did Brown sign away at Lisbon our Legal Heritage we once could put our trust in?

Our Battles with MBNA - the Bank we were told always win!

Specific Banking Case 1

MBNA of E M Lindsay Griffiths being shown as an example only of how you can have a Bank on the way to Court & have the Case mysteriously removed

 

The case involves MSB Solicitors of Liverpool who in practical terms have withdrawn from the case after in our view giving very firm assurances of its ability to well win in Court. This was emphasized time after time again until Justice Flaux came on the scene - when MSB Solicitors backed off and we fought on as CONSTITUTION KEEPERS!

 

This firm of solicitors from Liverpool have now apparently given our court fees to charity as we refused to cash them - as we were not withdrawing from Court or have Court forcibly removed from us by a UNCONSTITUTIONAL TEST COURT CASE.

 

We still stand AS CONSTITUTIONAL KEEPERS - MSB Solicitors of Liverpool seemingly ARE NOT!

 

We refused to cash return fee cheques from them holding them as we see it to the firm assurances they gave on winning the case

 

We now have taken up the case which we know Constitutionally we have already won.

 

MSB Solicitors seemingly refused to continue the fight after the McGuffick case which we believe was out of line with our Constitution which is written despite of the intellectual statements to the contrary, Britain's Constitution having spiritual rather than intellectual roots.

 

For the Context Please CLICK HERE

 

 

 

1) MBNA EUROPE BANK LTD:

Case been ongoing for nearly seven years and unresolved

              

I.                       02 11 08: All documentation received notice from MSB.

Information sent to MSB Solicitors, Liverpool

II.                       02 04 09: Notice from JC (MSB) of consideration that account unenforceable. £250 asked for and paid. At this point now alleged balance = £9110-41

 

MSB Solicitors, Liverpool deem that MBNA had not kept the requirements of law in relation to the handling of this & so deemed the account unenforceable.

III.                       07 05 09: Notice from EMLG to Martin Supple MBNA that no payments whilst in dispute.

 

This is a Very Important Point - for at this stage - this case was on its way to court & we say no payments till case heard - A Dispute was clearly established and since when In Britain has it been compulsory to pay during disputes?

 

IV.                       07 05 09: Notice from EMLG to MBNA Collections Office of referral to MSB.

We had established an excellent notification system - keeping in touch at all times

            

 V.                       23 05 09: Asking for payment with balance at £9332-75

A Dispute had been established - take careful notice of the alleged balance

        

VI.                       01 06 09: MBNA “Notice of Sums in Arrears” and replied with referral to MSB.

How can there be "arrears" when an established dispute is on?

     

VII.                       04 06 09: MBNA Threats of adverse credit rating, legal actions etc. Balance now £9541-25

Threats from MBNA during a dispute

 

VIII.                       15 06 09: MBNA threat to pass onto third agency

Further threats

         

IX.                       17 06 09: Julie Malton intimating agreement enforceable. MSB view is that it is not and so a dispute firmly established.

 

MBNA say one thing; our solicitors another = a dispute

            

X.                       19 06 09: Letter from EMLG to Martin Supple, Head of Customer Assistance re-emphasizing no payments whilst in dispute.

We continued communication

         

XI.                       30 06 09: Letter from Bev Dulson, Customer resolution Services Manager saying she has received EMLG letter.

     

XII.                       03 07 09: Letter from Nicola Turnbull to say MSB got their final response on 18 03 09. Demand for payment.

  

XIII.                       07 07 09: Default Notification from MBNA

 

Very important Point here - Despite an Established Dispute - at this point on its way to Court - MBNA Defaulted EMLG thus affecting her excellent payment record and ability to trade in future. It is for this - we now demand compensation and a clearing of adverse information on EMLG Credit file 

 

XIV.                       08 07 09: E Mail from DG to MSB reporting aggressive phone calls from MBNA saying they always won in court, a lady called Meghna calling from India saying harassment would continue followed by aggressive callings.

 

Defaulting and threatenings from MBNA

    

XV.                       08 07 09: Letter from EMLG to Nicola Turnbull MBNA encouraging dialogue with MSB.

 

Still trying to be friendly

 

XVI.                       10 07 09: Letter from JC of MSB advising not to contact MBNA or other creditor but had we not raised the issues we have = we would have been battered by the banks.

XVII.                       20 07 09: Offer from MBNA to get us back on track – but we were on track with all undisputed accounts up to date.

XVIII.                       23 07 09: Letter from Kirsty Hulme, Customer Assistance saying our account is not in dispute but we dispute this!

 

Incredible Statement from MBNA  - "not in dispute!"

 

XIX.                       28 07 09: Referral from EMLG to Kirsty Hulme to MSB.

     

XX.                       28 07 09: EMLG letter to MSB saying referring banks to them.

 

XXI.                       03 08 09 MBNA Notice of Sums in Arrears (disputed)

XXII.                       04 08 09 Letter from Gail Powell, Vice President. States that MSB only dealing with claim – not repayment plan. (Disputed) Says we are obligated to repay. Says credit agreement valid. Offers help re. financial difficulty and asks for domestic cash flow report.

 

Very strange letter

XXIII.                       13 08 09: Optima Legal – Solicitor Chris Taylor - Notice of legal action for £10,001-93. Threatens charging order on home and other legal threats.

 

Threatening our home for the first time comes into play which we regard illegal

XXIV.                       15 08 09: EMLG reply to Gail Powell, Vice President referring her to MSB. EMLG says asking MSB to stop MBNA phone harassment.

 

We had to endure very serious harassment at this time by phone - it really affected our home and we asked our Solicitors to take legal action to stop it!

XXV.                       18 08 09: EMLG reply to Solicitor Chris Taylor of Optima Legal to go to MSB.

XXVI.                       01 10 09: MBNA Threat to bring adverse credit report.

 

Threatening a person taking another to court used to be illegal! What's changed in Britain?

XXVII.                       01 10 09: MBNA “Notice of Sums in Arrears.” – referred to MSB on 06 10 09

XXVIII.                       12 10 09: MBNA Notice of a potential court order in EMLG Property.

 

Quite a technique from MBNA towards us  - in effect because of our stand - to put us out of our home!

XXIX.                       15 10 09: EMLG letter to JC & SA of MSB. Notice of the constitutional issues.

 

You can see these by CLICKING HERE

XXX.                       15 10 09: EMLG letter to Dee Dillistone, Head of Customer Assistance re Constitutional Issues.

XXXI.                       20 10 09: MBNA E Mail threatening to default.

 

Yet to reach court - but we are going to be defaulted again it would seem!

XXXII.                       23 10 09: Complaint from EMLG to MBNA of threatening EMLG ability to trade.

 

Very important point here as it seems MBNA have done this - thus our compensation claim

 

XXXIII.                       28 10 09: Letter from Gail Powell MBNA who now seems to have been demoted from Vice President to Department Manager, Customer Advocate Office. There may be 2 Gail Powells of course!

XXXIV.                       04 11 09: Letter from JC (MSB) saying file passed to counsel for opinion.

 

Important Point Here as MSB Solicitors passing file to counsel - thus proving a clear dispute & default had occurred during the time leading to this

 

XXXV.                       06 11 09: Letter to EMLG from Paul Campbell, Head of Customer Assistance with threats.

XXXVI.                       15 11 09 “Limited Time” to help us letter.

Now offering to help - now would you trust someone offering to help who had defaulted on a disputed account on its way to court?

XXXVII.                       19 11 09: Threat to “default” in a few days.

Here we go again!

XXXVIII.                       23 11 09: Complaint from EMLG and reply to Paul Campbell, MBNA about MBNA use of social stationery, default threat of 19 11 09. We clearly showed we do not pay on disputed accounts referring them to MSB.

Very important Point here - for we were showing further intimidation techniques by MBNA that included the use of social stationery to get at us!

XXXIX.                       25 11 09: Further threat to grab our property.

MBNA seemed to like this technique!

       

XL.                       03 12 09: Further EMLG complaint to MBNA for investigating EMLG homeowner status without permission, threat of County Court Judgment.

Yes, we complained to MBNA about these tactics!

   

XLI.                       04 12 09: MBNA Breach Notice.

MBNA issued a "Breach Notice"

 

XLII.                       09 12 09: EMLG Constitutional Breach Notice to Ben Erwin, Head of Recovery & Risk Operations MBNA.

So did we!

XLIII.                       15 12 09: Letter from Gail Powell who seems to have been promoted back to Vice President.

XLIV.                       18 12 09: MBNA Notice of account sold to Direct Legal of Brackley, Northants.

The saga takes another turn!

XLV.                       23 12 09: MBNA letter from Rachel Nixon, Customer Advocate Office Manager saying response delayed but would issue response by 29 01 10.

XLVI.                       29 12 09: DLC notice that they own account threatening a reporting to credit file.

It seemed that MBNA had passed this over to another body for another session of harassment!

XLVII.                       02 01 10: EMLG letter to Paul Campbell, Head of Customer Assistance with warning that we would not tolerate harassment from DTL on this disputed account.

Who can blame us?

XLVIII.                       05 01 10: DTL says they have contacted Land Registry and found EMLG a homeowner. Threatens charging order.

MBNA threatened our home and now DLC!

XLIX.                       05 01 10: EMLG letter to Sarah Revens, Team Leader DTL that the account is in dispute.

              

L.                       13 01 10: EMLG letter to Revens giving constitutional warnings.

           

LI.                       15 01 10: Aplins Solicitors threat issued.

An apparent new solicitors firm after us now -

or is this a front for the same company?

       

LII.                       18 01 10: EMLG reply to Aplins threat, saying payments not paid on disputed accounts.

Despite all the harassment - we stay consistent!

    

LIII.                       18 01 10: EMLG letter to JC & SA of MSB reacting to Manchester apparent victory to banks. Points out it was a House of Lords edicts we acted on, that we had answered letters and kept in touch with everyone, that it would seem that EMLG once perfect credit record ruined, intimation to fight on with the belief banks had used foreign legal systems against us illegally and that clergy of the ream had constitutional obligations to stop this.

 

No wonder MBNA had stayed confident of winning - our report on their apparent win having mysterious roots!

 

CLICK HERE FOR OUR APPRAISAL OF THE APPARENT COURT CASE THAT CAUSED ALL THIS

   

LIV.                       18 01 10: Confident victorious letter from Gail Powell, now Vice President of MBNA saying they could blacken EMLG credit file and clearly they have! Quotes recent High Court Judgment of McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland in which Mr Justice Flaux found that activities like MBNA had attacked EMLG with was legal.http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mcguffick-v-rbs.pdfLooking at the case ourselves – no wonder MBNA are confident – it was in Chester where they are based but we still maintain that to harass us and ruin credit files before a hearing IS NOT LEGAL under Habeas Corpusand we will prove it!

 

We believe we have proved it!

      

LV.                       20 01 10: Letter to JC & SA of MSB. As a result of the Court’s apparent support of banks we are glad to have raised the Constitutional issues which do not seem to have been raised. The right to not pay a disputed account is a right we have under Habeas Corpus a point that does not seem to have been raised by the Claimant.

 

Yes, this is extremely important for whatever the result of the Court Case - MBNA clearly pre-empted the result and default befor a Judge can give a decision

   

LVI.                       03 02 10:  Notice from Hillesden Securities intimating case referred back to MBNA

More collectors on the scene!

LVII.                       03 02 10:  Notice from Hillesden Securities intimating case referred back to MBNA (Note an error – two notices issued)

LVIII.                       12 03 10  Intimation from MSB re. UPDATE – emphasis on s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – true copy.

   

LIX.                       15 03 10  Intimation from MSB re. UPDATE – emphasis on s.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – true copy.

       

LX.                       08 04 10  Intimation saying we now liable according to High Court!!!!!!!

 

We have found serious errors to the judgment and we believe goings on behind the scenes - CLICK HERE

   

LXI.                       15 04 10  DLC now saying £10,717-81 owing.

Note how much this now alleged balance has gone up since the beginning of the dispute

 

LXII.                       21 06 10  letter from Hillesden Securities saying account on hold for 21 days till they hear from MBNA

LXIII.                       24 06 10 EMLG reply

LXIV.                       18 08 10  Hillesden Securities awaiting info from MBNA Letter

LXV.                       04 10 10  “Notice Of Sums in Arrears” from DLC

LXVI.                       06 10 10  Rejection Notice from DG to DLC

LXVII.                       08 10 10 Letter from Hillesden saying still awaiting original documentation from MBNA

LXVIII.                       13 10 10 Letter from Hillesden: No enforcement whilst dispute on

LXIX.                       10 11 10 Letter from Hillesden saying still awaiting documentation from  MBNA

LXX.                       02 12 10  Letter from Hillesden saying still awaiting documentation from  MBNA

LXXI.                       20 12 10  Letter from Hillesden saying still awaiting documentation from  MBNA

LXXII.                       11 01 11  Letter from Hillesden saying still awaiting documentation from  MBNA

LXXIII.                       15 02 11  Letter from Hillesden supporting MBNA position

LXXIV.                       01 04 11  Notice from Hillesden Notice of Sums in Arrears

LXXV.                       Reply Letter to DLC 18 04 11

LXXVI.                       01 01 11  Notice from EMLG to DLC of denial of above

LXXVII.                       28 09 11  Notice from Hillesden Notice of Sums in Arrears

LXXVIII.                       11 10 11  Annual Statement of Account received

LXXIX.                       11 10 11  Notice of Rejection being sent

LXXX.                       14 10 11  Constitutional Acts Archaic and Irrelevant letter

LXXXI.                       19 10 11  Financial Offer Notice

LXXXII.                       02 04 12  DLC False statement received

LXXXIII.                       05 07 12  Mercantile Data Bureau Ltd letter asking to resolve issue

LXXXIV.                       26 07 12 Reply to MDB with full summary of situation and invoice for £150,000

 

2011 & 2012 has seen a great reduction in harassment, but severe harassment had gone on previously on a disputed account on its way to court. We await the compensation and a complete withdrawal of all adverse comment from EMLG credit file.

 

DLC which seems to be the same collecting company have written letters of 08 & 09 August saying they are investigated the issues of our complaints and sent a sheet illustrating a procedure involving the Financial Ombudsman.

Our reply is as follows:

Kicking the Devil Out of the Banks!

CASE STILL ONGOING IN 2020- TWELVE YEARS ON!!!!!!!

11 August 2012

Ms. Samantha Tobin,

Administration Manager,

Direct Legal & Collections,

Hillesden Securities Ltd.,

Buckingham Road,

BRACKLEY,

Northants,

NN13 7DN.

 

Dear Ms. Tobin,

 

Re. Your reference: 479212450

Hillesden Securities Limited (MBNA)

4129 8504 0610 9849

 

Thank you for your letters of the 8. and 9. August which seem to be replies to my letters to MDB which seems to be the same company as yours!

 

First of all, we are quite happy to discuss matters with you in a courteous way but we are not accepting the harassment we had to endure from MBNA at the point when we were a claimant taking MBNA to court. We regard what MBNA did as highly illegal and have kept a log of it all.

 

The background of all this in the general sense has been a national breakdown in banking services hence all the claims and complaints going through the banking system. What makes our complaint serious is the fact that MBNA defaulted EMLG & in the process harassed our family whilst awaiting a hearing in court.

 

The so called “test case” – McGuffick v RBofS that put cases like ours out of court we regard as an unsafe verdict, and we have presented a paper  we believe proves it!

 

It is a fundamental right of a customer under British Law to hold payments on disputed accounts and not be subject to the pain, harassment and scamming techniques undertaken by MBNA to bow down to their enforcement system – we regard as highly illegal.

 

Your letter includes explanation of a process involving the Financial Ombudsman Service. We respectfully point out however that we do not feel that this process can resolve our issue with MBNA. This is because we believe criminal law has been broken here by the Bank. We accept the financial position of the nation dramatically changed, but we do not believe it right to introduce utilitarianism to the legal system, EMLG being a victim of this with the blackening of the EMLG credit file by MBNA before a court hearing. We cannot see this matter therefore as one that can be fully solved through the Financial Ombudsman and so our road is to take this all the way to the House of Lords/Bishops if necessary.

 

After all it was an edict of the House of Lords, the Upper House we acted upon and through solicitors went through the processes of taking MBNA to court, and we have given evidence to show government and banking interference in relation to that edict by use of a Utilitarian Judge to put our case and others out. This is our belief and we present evidence to support that belief. We believe it was a foreign philosophy (“greater good” belief at a time of a brewing banking crisis) that put out these cases, illegal under our Constitution and it is on this Constitution we present our case, determined to take it back to the House of Lords where it began!

 

Our log shows all this going back to the 2. November 2008, nearly four years ago, and even if you accept the Judge’s verdict in the McGuffick case, the fact remains that MBNA blackened EMLG Credit File and harassed our family whilst the Claimant (EMLG) was taking MBNA (Defendant) to court. This is not acceptable and thus we issued our compensation claim to you.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Rev Dr Cllr David P Griffiths

 

 

 

Rev Dr Cllr E M Lindsay Griffiths (Claimant)

 

DLC seemingly on behalf of MBNA replied with a letter dated 30th. August 2012 which we at Christian Financing see as alien to British Justice, yet common to European Global approaches.

 

There seems to be denial of harassment on us, acceptance of the legality of defaulting whilst a case is on its way to court and that we had not provided evidence to substantiate our claims!

 

Here is our reply ....

 

07/09/2012 21:19:53

Data Controller,

Compliance Team,

Direct Legal & Collections,

Hillesden Securities Ltd.,

Buckingham Road,

BRACKLEY,

Northants,

NN13 7DN.

 

 

Dear Data Controller,

 

 

Re. Your reference: 479212450

Hillesden Securities Limited (MBNA)

4129 8504 0610 9849

 

 

Well, your recent reply letter of 30. August 2012 seems to show no progress between us in this case that goes back to 2. November 2008.

 

 

We still say that we do not pay on disputed accounts. You seem to say it is not a disputed account, despite of us having been a “claimant” on the way to Court with MBNA proudly announcing their apparent win with the test case of McGuffick v RBof S, a case we say was not our case and also a case influenced by foreign law and philosophy, completely illegal we say under our Constitutional Acts.

 

 

Yes, we have claimed £150,000 from MBNA and that remains our claim. Let us deal with your letter.

 

 

You say, “Our understanding is that we have harassed you and you require £150,000 compensation …….” I have looked through our letter of 26. July 2012 and it is clear that we have shown that most of the harassment came from MBNA. DLC are not in MBNA’a league when it comes to harassment and it is MBNA we claim against. It is interesting that you deny harassment when it is clear that in our letter that it was MBNA that did the harassment. It surely it is for them to deny the harassment or is DLC really MBNA in disguise?

 

 

You say that the now alleged account was defaulted by MBNA on 30. November 2009, yet it was on 18. January 2010 that we got the apparent victorious letter from Gail Powell, apparent Vice President of MBNA of the great “victory” with the McGuffick case!

 

 

We, however have questioned the legality of this case particularly when was one of the cases on its way to court with us claimant and MBNA as defendant. It now seems under British law that the defendant can default a claimant on the way to court, but oif course it was not British law was it? It was European law influencing British law forbidden under the Elizabethan Settlement that includes the 1534 and 1559 Acts of Settlement.

 

 

Of course, MBNA does not recognise these laws for on 14. October 2011 we received a letter saying these acts were irrelevant and not relevant to our account. So now we have an American Banks saying our British Constitutional Acts are irrelevant. If I went to America and declared their Constitution irrelevant in America I would expect to be arrested for high treason! It is our view that MBNA has broken seriously the acts of our nation that has held it together for centuries and the now alleged account remains in dispute with MBNA defaulting whilst the alleged account was on its way to court. Very serious indeed!

 

 

Along with your admitted reporting to the Credit Reference agencies will you be giving our side or just yours? This is one of the reasons why we claim compensation. Another is the serious stress this has brought on our family and the inability to fully trade MBNA and now you have organised illegally in our view.

 

 

You say that on several occasions you have requested evidence to substantiate our claim. It is our view that your response is ridiculous in the extreme as we have been very transparent in our dealings and given no end of evidence to prove our claim.

 

 

You say we have failed to provide sufficient information to confirm a valid outstanding dispute! Well, our file is massive proof and we have shown it to MBNA, you and others continuously since 2 November 2008 but it seems you have the power to destroy our reputation and ability to fully trade which is why we apply the protecting Constitutional Acts against that ability, but of course to you these are archaic!

 

 

Please find these acts minus the Elizabethan Settlement (can be provided on request as it is clear that you need to know this) which includes the 1534 and 1559 Acts of Supremacy – interesting in this case when it comes to McGuffick case and its references to European law and its foreign Utilitarian approach.

 

 

Also interesting is our custom of Habeas Corpus in which a dispute is settled in court without foreign interference with one side not being allowed to threaten the other during the period before the court hearing.

 

 

Also interesting is the way our case was mysteriously taken out of court, not by us – theDaily Mail reporting on outside interference to court cases, activity these now “archaic” as MBNA calls them protect us from.

 

 

Whilst you clearly remain confident of victory against our “archaic” acts of protection, we remain British in our dealings under these acts.

 

 

It will be interesting to find out what system of laws the Financial Ombudsman brings to this case but you will be I am sure amazed to see the rights given to Ministers of the “Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law” to ensure our “archaic” way of life as MBNA seems to interpret our primitive activities, the seemingly archaic “House of Lords” or “Bishops” still the highest court in the land or is that to MBNA now Europe??????

 

 

Are you prepared to answer that?

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Rev Dr Cllr David P Griffiths

 

 

 

Rev Dr Cllr E M Lindsay Griffiths

XCVIII.   08 08 12  Reply from DLC saying acknowledgement of complaint received

 

XCIX.       09 08 12  Still investigating the issues letter from DLC

 

C.               11 08 12 Letter to DLC – saying fundamental right to hold payments on disputed accounts

 

This is at the heart of the dispute, the ability of a claimant to hold payments on an account awaiting the decision of a Judge that operating under the Crest of the Monarch and all She Promised God!

 

CI.               30 08 12  Gives Financial Ombudsman details and denial letter

 

CII.             07 09 12  Replyto DLC – saying no progress

 

CIII.           08 09 12 Reporting to Financial Ombudsman

 

This is extremely important as we are doing what we can to solve this dispute and so we bring in the Ombudsman but would this office be under a restriction?????

 

CIV.             24 09 12 Reply from Ombudsman

 

CV.               24 09 12 DLC “ARREARS NOTICE”

 

CVI.             02 10 12 DLC ANNUAL STATEMENT

 

CVII.            02 10 12 Ombudsman Reply – still looking at case

 

CVIII.          25 10 12 Nicola Manning Ombudsman contact gaining relationship letter

 

CIX.              23 11 12 Letter from Ombudsman showing what she can do– refer to OFT

 

CX.                28 11 12 Letter to Vice President, MBNA offering an addressing of issues otherwise Ombudsman

 

CXI.              28 11 12 Info to OFT

 

Here we involve the Office of Fair Trading for is it fair for a claimant to have this case and many others like this taken out of court by Government and Banks getting together?????? (We ask this allegedly but the Daily Mail seems to have presented proof of this) Should the House of Lords edict been allowed to stand above the utilitarianism of the Mc Guffick case? Would the OFT be brave enough to take this on?

 

CXII.             29 11 12 Copy of OFT Letter and other info letter to Ombudsman

 

CXIII.           30 11 12  Letter from Ombudsman saying letter written to MBNA intimating complaint. SEND ENCLOSED COMPLAINT FORM if no reply or no progress within 8 weeks – end January 2013

 

CXIV.            05 12 12 Letter from Ombudsman – will keep us updated 

 

CXV.               06 12 12  Letter from MBNA saying investigating complaint 

 

CXVI.             10 12 12  OFT Letter  (Point is MBNA defaulted when EMLG a claimant & harassed her & her family whilst awaiting court decision – taken away from Griffiths due to out of line with UK law test case)

 

On the 6th. June 2013 - we are still awaiting reply from OFT!

 

CXVII.            11 01 13  E Mail from Ombudsman saying awaiting news from MBNA

 

CXVIII.           08 01 13  MBNA Letter denying as usual

 

CXIX.              12 01 13  Letter to Ombudsman with MBNA Letter

 

CXX.                25 01 13  Letterfrom Ombudsman saying they are asking MBNA questions 

 

CXXI.               04 02 13  E Mail Reply from Ombudsman

 

CXXII.              05 02 13  Our reply to Ombudsman 

 

CXXIII.            05 02 13  Reply from Ombudsman to say that it seems our complaint with MBNA rather than Hillesden

 

What this is about - is that the Ombudsman has ascertained the complaints is against MBNA rather than Hillesden DLC who bought the alleged debt from MBNA.

 

CXXIV.                06 02 13 Reply to Ombudsman saying it seems Hillesden have a complaint too!

 

What we are saying here is that it looks Hillesden DLC bought what they thought was a debt from MBNA when in reality they knew nothing of the history, and that MBNA had defaulted a claimant on the way to court which under our Constitutional Acts is highly illegal and in our view treasonable.

 

CXXV.                  04 03 13  Reply from Ombudsman saying cannot uphold complaint against Hillesden

 

Seems to us that Hillesden DLC are a victim of MBNA like us!

 

CXXVI.                07 03 13  Reply to Ombudsman re DLC

 

CXXVII.              18 03 13  Reply from Ombudsman re DLC uphold

 

CXXVIII.             22 03 13 Disputed Arrears Notice from DLC

 

CXXIX.                 27 03 13  Reply to DLC

 

CXXX.                  02 04 13  Reply from DLC

 

CXXXI.                02 04 13  Annual statement from DLC when they had issued another one on 02 10 12 – Returned with comments

 

CXXXII.              19 04 13 Financial Ombudsman looking into complaint re MBNA (E Mailed to say –can communicate this way)

 

CXXXIII.               25 04 13  DLC communication on hold 

 

CXXXIV.                01 05 13 Financial Ombudsman Service rejection of our case letter

 

Despite of all this the Financial Ombudsman finds in favour of MBNA that we have to pay on disputed accounts, we have to put up with harassments whilst awaiting a court hearing. We put to you THIS IS NOT BRITAIN and want our nation back.

 

 

CXXXV.                       11 05 13  Reply to rejection

 

 

CXXXVI.                     30 05 13   Reply from Ombudsman about review

 

CXXXVII.                   01 06 13    Reply to Ombudsman laying down legalities about review

CXXXVII.  Here the case takes a particular turn as defying all Constitutional (not Global Law that is not permitted under the British Constitution) logic - the Ombudsman finds for MBNA but gives opportunity for a review - This letter puts our Constitutional terms for a review

01/06/201310:47:43

 

Stephen Thorne

 

Adjudicator

 

Financial Ombudsman Service

 

Quay Plaza,

 

183, Marsh Wall,

 

LONDON,

 

E14 9SR.

 

 Dear Stephen Thorne,

 

 

 

Re. Your reference:4 79212450

 

Hillesden Securities Limited (MBNA)

 

4129 8504 0610 9849

 

Pre-2007 Credit Cases that were on their way to court

 

until mysteriously removed which we see as illegal

 

 

I reply to your letter of 30. May 2013 for which I did not receive the assurances I was looking for.

 

 As an independent ombudsman there are great issues at stake here for you to look at. I am not convinced that your service has done this. I am not convinced that you are keeping to British Constitution Law but I am convinced you are under global-European law, illegal in our country. The two are completely opposite in character, the latter placing restrictions on thorough investigations, and clearly you seem to have admitted criteria preventing you from conducting a serious investigation into this.

 

 On 30. May 2009 the Daily Mail seemingly reported the then government had stepped in to stop these cases. In other words Government overturned an upper house edict!!!!!!! Can you investigate this for this is the context we are dealing with?

 

 This case is simple. On these pre 2007 cases that came out of a House of Lords edict, did Government and the Banking community come to a deal to put these cases out of court? This case was on its way to court when MBNA defaulted before the decision of a judge. Since when has it been legal to pre-empt a decision of a Judge and default an account?

 

This is not the Britain we were brought up in – one was innocent before a hearing and now an American bank can find EMLG guilty and default her account before it reaches court with Government apparently behind the scenes doing a deal! Will you be investigating this? If you were independent you would or are you under guidelines of government to prevent Government being investigated?

 

The people have had enough quite frankly. Will this review be investigating all this or have the guidelines (even though possibly illegal) to be kept to?

 

Was the Judge using Utilitarian doctrine in his findings in the McGuffick case rather than the Habeas Corpus principles of the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law that the Monarch swore to uphold 60 years ago this month? Is the Monarch (and you are an employee of the Monarch) still obligated to uphold the 1534 Act of Supremacy returned to law by Queen Elizabeth I that demands a suppression of foreign influences and dogmas into our legal and political processes?

 

It is our position that to find for MBNA in this case is laughable. You say you cannot take into consideration past legal cases but why not? MBNA have already been found seriously guilty in court for appalling harassment seemingly at the time of our harassment.

 

PROOF - CLICK HERE

 

Yet you say that you cannot consider this! How ridiculous and in our view unconstitutional. So is this review worthwhile or do we have to continue the fight through other avenues for I can assure you our battle has already been won by the God our Monarch swore to 60 years ago. It is the obligations of that oath that has won us this fight, obligations to God which you are under as employees of the State and I can assure you that it is your duty to openly deal with issues given here and in previous correspondence for anything else in our view would be unconstitutional.

 

 Yours faithfully,

 

 

Rev Dr Cllr David P Griffiths

 

 

Rev Dr Cllr E M Lindsay Griffiths

When a case is on its way to court - it is a fundamental right to await the court's decision - claimants should not be harassed by defendants!

We find out MBNA do lose!!!!!!!!

American Bank Operating in UK as MBNA does not seem to know how we do business here

 

Great Britain has Constitutional Acts we must keep to that are not to be described as "archaic and irrelevant" as one of MBNA's collectors called them.

 

E M Lindsay Griffiths  on 2nd. April 2009 established a dispute with MBNA, her solicitors MSB of Liverpool describing the account as "unenforceable", the American Bank being unable to fulfil requirements linked to the 1974 Consumer Credit Act as given by a House of Lords edict.

 

Triumphally proclaiming their apparent "test case victory" of the McGuffick case as shown on this site MBNA used tactics to try and bring the Griffiths family to submission even to the point of taking over their house!

 

This last letter to the Financial Ombudsman relating to a recent MBNA letter shows the point we make:

 

12/01/2013 21:48:44

Ms Nicola Manning

Adjudicator

Financial Ombudsman Service

Quay Plaza,

183, Marsh Wall,

LONDON,

E14 9SR.

 

Dear Ms Manning,

 

Re. Your reference: 479212450

Hillesden Securities Limited (MBNA)

4129 8504 0610 9849

Pre-2007 Credit Cases that were on their way to court

until mysteriously removed which we see as illegal

 

Further to our efforts on this case the reply from MBNA has come and I send you a copy!

 

It is the view of my wife and I that MBNA have failed to face up to fundamental issues and that we as a nation should not let them get away with it.

 

1)   The Dispute Issue

 

My wife and I believe the MBNA position to be ridiculous in that if a case is on its way to course – then it is in dispute!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We have notice dated 02 04 09 from Joanna Connolly of MSB Solicitors, Liverpool saying in their view ACCOUNT UNENFORCEABLE. Whether it is or whether it is not, the fact is if then MBNA say it is – we are in dispute awaiting a court decision. IT IS ABSOLUTE BRITISH RIGHT NOT TO PAY AN ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE ON ITS WAY TO COURT.

 

On 07 07 09 received DEFAULT NOTIFICATION then serious harassment.

 

They say that the authorities have confirmed that a cardholder is not relieved from their obligation to maintain their account once a Section 78 request has been made. We say after asking which authorities are MBNA talking about for if it is the Court connected with the McGuffick case – we question its validity but what is more important here is that solicitors have questioned the validity of the account consulting counsel and have the case on its way to court – THAT IS A DISPUTE WHATEVER MBNA may say. We put to you that the denial of a dispute claim is nonsense and out of line with British law and we ask who the authorities are that MBNA refer to – for we have seen evidence of foreign infiltration into these cases which is unconstitutionally illegal.

 

Where We are At Now: the Legal Position

 

We stopped paying MBNA 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 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 MBNA therefore 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 is 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, but first I believe we must start with you – The Financial Ombudsman.

 

We do not believe it to be constitutionally right for a defendant to take enforcement action against a claimant before a hearing or do we believe it right to sell on private information to a third party so as to make money out of the claimant. We have received several phone calls from people we don’t know seemingly knowing our personal financial affairs intimately.

 

We do believe there have been treasonable actions taking place here, perverting The Course of Justice as well as complete disregard to previous cases that followed the House of Lords Edict, previous cases that include past clients of MSB Solicitors.

 

2) Introduction

 

There are a number of technical requirements listed relating back to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and we employed MSB Solicitors to check that our now alleged agreements met the demands of this order and the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

 Considerable delay occurred in many cases in the banks returning information and it was clear that once Stage Two was reached that the likelihood of validity was unlikely - such was the wording of the House of Lords Order.

It is clear that the House of Lords Order resulted in a number of legal firms advertising a service that would wipe out debts without affecting credit rating – indeed enhancing them.

Our experience to date is that EMLG credit rating is showing an MBNA default to stay on for 6 years unless the default can be taken away. We believe we have a strong case to fight back.

On 30 May 2009, however the Daily Mail reported that the Government had stepped in to stop this activity. However, the Lords had issued an Order and that Order is higher than Government Action as the House of Lords is the higher court. We believe our analysis shows reference to the European Court of Justice having influence in all this which we believe to be treasonable under British Constitutional Law.

MBNA seem to have been very confident of victory, their Vice President intimating to me a great victory for RBofS in the MsGuffick case, the Judge there passing other cases to Manchester. At Manchester all the hearings seem to have been halted – but how can that be? The Lords had issued an Order!!!!!! How can a lower court reject a higher court’s order? To try and answer this we now present points from the McGuffick case that has been analysed here.

It is our case that MBNA have issued a default reporting EMLG to credit reference agencies whilst not giving EMLG opportunity to present her case to the Credit Reference Agencies for clearly they do not know the case was on its way to court.

 

We put to you that this if legal is a totalitarian approach illegal under our constitution.

 

The Harassment Issue

 

MBNA seem to deny harassment saying no timeframe provided. We see this as ridiculous. A well referred to log has been kept and referred to in the letters mentioned in this MBNA reply which we see as far from addressing the issues.

 

We have kept a log of what we have had to endure including threats to our property:

 

Here are some of our logs:

 

                  I.                        08 07 09: E Mail from DG to MSB reporting aggressive phone calls from MBNA saying they always won in court, a lady called Meghna calling from India saying harassment would continue followed by aggressive callings. PROOF 14

 

Let’s look at this – a Bank that claims to be a “responsible lender” threatens that harassment will continue and that they always won in court. This letter shows evidence contrary to this MBNA view.

 

               II.                        13 08 09: Optima Legal – From Solicitor Chris Taylor - Notice of legal action for £10,001-93. Threatens charging order on home and other legal threats. PROOF 23

 

During this time we were being bombarded with phone calls and our home put on the line whilst still a claimant! It goes on and on with a notice of 05 01 10 saying DLC had contacted the Land Registry and found EMLG a home owner threatening a charging order.

 

At the time there seemed no end to it!

 

           III.                        23 11 09: We issued a complaint to Paul Campbell of MBNA about the use of social stationery to try and get us to pay. This technique we found dishonest, the convention being to communicate with normal business stationery but now we were getting coloured envelopes and a picture postcard! This was followed two days later by a further threat to grab our home, hardly the action of a person who is sending friend communications with social stationery!

 

            IV.                        18 01 10:  Gail Powell, now Vice President writes a MBNA victorious letter to us quoting the McGuffick v RBof S case as their proof that they had won. Examination of the case however clearly shows that there was acceptance of the case being a dispute whereas in this case MBNA refused to accept this and we argue that if we can prove that this matter is a dispute – then MBNA had no right to default EMLG whilst a claimant on the way to court, to make adverse comment to the Credit Reference Agencies without opportunity for EMLG to put her side and now because of this EMLG cannot trade as she used to! We say this is not fair, the actions of MBNA being out of line with our Constitutional values.

 

               V.                        14 10 11: DLC who seem to now own the account reply to one of our letters challenging their side constitutionally that the Acts we mentioned that included the Monarch’s Oath that relates to law and protocol in this nation were archaic and irrelevant. So what the Queen promised God in 1953, her Crest being above every seat of every Judge in the land is archaic and irrelevant. We say this is High Treason!

 

3)  MBNA Responsible Lender Claim

 

The OFT seems to question this claim however in relation to the debt collecting practices of MBNA and we can fully understand this with the severe harassment we received.http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2010/136-10

 

We also notice from this time 19 09 09 – that there is a blog entitled MBNA harassment whilst account is in disputehttp://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?19196-MBNA-and-Harrassment-The-OFT-want-to-hear-from-you

 

As MBNA seem so keen to refer to authorities, we do have a precedent in court that proves that MBNA have illegally harassed customers ……

 

Judge Nicholas Chambers and the victor over MBNA!

Let me introduce to you a Judge who sat in our part of the World North Wales saying this of MBNA Collection techniques in a particular case:

'Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the defendant went about recovering their debt':

Judge Nicholas Chambers QC

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362603/Judge-writes-customers-20-000-credit-card-debt-hearing-hounded-repay-money.html#ixzz2Hno5WZX0

 

Where does this leave the MBNA “Responsible Lender” claim we ask? A responsible lender awaits a court result and does not terrorize a claimant who then saw his case taken out of court in mysterious circumstances which we ask to be investigated. There is a lot to our case and we insist the real truth come out.

 

Quoting the Daily Mail: The judge said the card firm and Link had hounded the self-employed commercial designer from Devon, whose mother, wife and daughter had all fallen ill and required hospital treatment in a short period of time.

 

Judge Chambers said: ‘Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the defendant went about recovering their debt.

‘I am satisfied that the claimant’s description of the way that he was hounded by his creditors is essentially correct, not least in the use of non-traceable telephone calls.

 

‘It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt.’

 

He suggested the tactics seemed to be designed ‘to make the claimant’s life so difficult that he would come to heel’.

Mr Harrison’s lawyer, Paul Tilley, said other banks and firms which pursue debts should take note.

 

‘I think this verdict will give hope to many who are being pursued very aggressively,’ he said.

Keith Harrison referred to MBNA approach as “exceptionally hostile” and we say the same when we were taking MBNA to court and they say they are a “responsible lender” and we say like Mr. Harrison proved to court that we suffered severe harassment.

In a home of two special needs people, one diagnosed with autism and another nearly 100 years old – to threaten one’s home, use constant threatening phone calls taking no notice for the reasons for non-payment is in our view the actions of an irresponsible lender rather than what MBNA presents itself in its letter to us of 8. January, 2013.

 

1)   The Way Forward

 

It has already been proven in the Harrison case that at the time of our complaint MBNA used harassment techniques illegal in British law.

It has already been proved that MBNA defaulted EMLG during a dispute on its way to Court.

It has already been proved the nature of the Mc Guffick case so victoriously presented by MBNA. We ask the question as to why MBNA were so confident of victory against us?

 

We have already studied the McGuffick case and a newspaper article relating to government action behind the scenes taking these cases out of court contrary to a House of Lords edict.

 

Where MBNA part of this?

 

We insist on an enquiry but in the meantime ask you the Ombudsman to please accept the wrong of defaulting during a dispute, the wrong of harassing with a case on its way to court and bring this bank to justice over these issues.

 

Yours sincerely,

Rev Dr Cllr David P Griffiths

 

Approved by the one harassed by MBNA in this case

Rev Dr Cllr E M Lindsay Griffiths

The Ongoing Saga goes on E M Lindsay Griffiths (Claimant) - 

with MBNA (Defendant) and their apparent agents DLC

 

Despite of being MBNA being"Defendant" DLC issued "Notice of Sums In Arrears) dated 17th. March. Our reply is as follows:

 

21/03/2014 12:04:53

Direct Legal & Collections,

Hillesden Securities Ltd.,

Buckingham Road,

BRACKLEY,

Northants,

NN13 7DN.

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Re. Your reference: 479212450

Hillesden Securities Limited (MBNA)

4129 8504 0610 9849

 

Please receive back your “Notice of Sums in Arrears” dated 17. March 2014.

 

The notice is “rejected” as it is full of inaccuracies. It quotes the Consumer Credit Act of 1974 which MBNA were on the way as “defendant” to court by us for breaking, this court action relating to a House of Lords edict on this matter.

 

Whilst a claimant my family went through merciless harassment by MBNA, a company who have already been found guilty in court for this evil activity.

 

This is the precedent we have found:

 

 

Let me introduce to you a Judge who sat in our part of the World North Wales saying this of MBNA Collection techniques in a particular case:

‘Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the defendant went about recovering their debt’: Judge Nicholas Chambers QC
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362603/Judge-writes-customers-20-000-credit-card-debt-hearing-hounded-repay-money.html#ixzz2Hno5WZX0 
 

Where does this leave the MBNA “Responsible Lender” claim we ask? A responsible lender awaits a court result and does not terrorize a claimant who then saw his case taken out of court in mysterious circumstances which we ask to be investigated. There is a lot to our case and we insist the real truth come out.

 

Quoting the Daily Mail: The judge said the card firm and Link had hounded the self-employed commercial designer from Devon, whose mother, wife and daughter had all fallen ill and required hospital treatment in a short period of time.

 

Judge Chambers said: ‘Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the defendant went about recovering their debt.

 

‘I am satisfied that the claimant’s description of the way that he was hounded by his creditors is essentially correct, not least in the use of non-traceable telephone calls.

‘It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt.’

He suggested the tactics seemed to be designed ‘to make the claimant’s life so difficult that he would come to heel’.

 

Mr Harrison’s lawyer, Paul Tilley, said other banks and firms which pursue debts should take note.

 

‘I think this verdict will give hope to many who are being pursued very aggressively,’ he said.

 

 

Keith Harrison referred to MBNA approach as “exceptionally hostile” and we say the same when we were taking MBNA to court and they say they are a “responsible lender” and we say like Mr. Harrison proved to court that we suffered severe harassment.

 

 

Now, if you want to talk to us in relation to the significant compensation MBNA owe us on this matter, then we are happy to hear from you. In the meantime please remove all adverse “non-payment” information you have placed on me with the credit reference agencies for I have never agreed payments with you so how can there be arrears?

 

A copy of this letter is being sent to Experian demanding them to not to accept adverse comments on my “so called” credit file on this matter, this whole matter in my view being akin to Stalinism rather than a decent society our Constitution insists on.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths

 

The Questions MBNA or their representatives

seemingly do not want to answer!!!!!!

Letter to DLC representing MBNA - 23 April 2014 with questions we wonder if we will get a "YES" or "NO" to!

 

23/04/2014 20:54:45

Direct Legal & Collections,

Hillesden Securities Ltd.,

Buckingham Road,

BRACKLEY,

Northants,

NN13 7DN.

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Re. Your reference: 479212450

Hillesden Securities Limited (MBNA)

4129 8504 0610 9849

Your “Annual Statement of Account and Letter of 3. April 2014

 

Hello again, we regret we have to write to you again stating with gross inaccuracy on your Notice. Our records show this dispute has been going on since 2. November 2008, this year the dispute celebrating its sixth anniversary.

 

We still say after all these years that there are no arrears because we have never agreed any payments to you, and the account that was MBNA is a very serious dispute which we very confident of having won!

 

It is apparent you bought a “disputed account” which you seem to say are still reporting to credit reference agencies without giving us opportunity to give our side on the credit file which we say is a “Constitutional Breach!”

 

What this is all about is the fundamental right of a claimant (because that remains the status) to withhold payment on a disputed account, to reject the ability of a defendant to default a claimant in the build up to a court case, a case mysteriously taken out of court by a strange test case seemingly overruling with foreign law a House of Lords Edict. Also in the build-up we have evidence of serious harassment by the defendant in the build up to a court case, that defendant having already been found guilty in a similar case of serious harassment.

 

So here we are, approaching the sixth anniversary! We ask you to answer these questions which we have asked Experian. A simple YES OR NO is what we ask. We have thousands awaiting your answers. The questions are not complicated yet Experian seem reluctant to answer. Let’s see if DLC will break the mould!

 

These questions relate to the fundamental constitutional right of a claimant to withdraw payment from a defendant in a dispute and indeed not be harassed.

 

What we are attacking here is your policy of recording defaults without giving us the claimant’s opportunity to put our side on the credit file, highly illegal under British Constitutional Law but obviously legal under your global law, which is highly illegal in Great Britain.

 

These are the questions which we have asked Experian and are asking you:

 

Are you saying that a financial institution can legally default a customer whilst a disputed account is on its way to court, the customer having withheld payment until hearing the court result?  YES OR NO

Please answer – YES OR NO

 

Are you saying that if it can be proven that there has been Government interference in a court hearing relating to a customer account in effect overturning an Upper House Hearing that this interference is legal?  YES OR NO

Please answer – YES OR NO

 

If the court cases relating to these accounts can be proven to involve foreign law interference and foreign philosophies alien to the British Constitutional Acts then are you saying the defaults are still legal? YES OR NO

Please answer – YES OR NO

 

Do you accept that the British Constitutional Acts of 1534, 1559, 1689 and 1700 are still applicable today? YES OR NO

Please answer – YES OR NO

 

On hearing your “yes” to this then I expect a withdrawal of all adverse comment against me. Your actions have seriously affected my ability to trade. All my undisputed accounts are fully up to date.

 

YES OR NO

Please answer – YES OR NO

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

E M Lindsay Griffiths

 

MBNA - It's Time to Realize the Constitution Keepers are rising up and harassment on the claimant and possible behind the scenes dealings to overturn with Government

a House of Lords Edict is simply NOT ON!

Send your "Constitutional Breaches" to Ministers of the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law - ecctv4219@gmail.com

MBNA - Finally we did challenge the UK Financial Ombudsman over what legal system they were keeping -  

we still await the reply!!!!!

CXXXVII.  Here the case takes a particular turn as defying all Constitutional (not Global Law that is not permitted under the British Constitution) logic - the Ombudsman finds for MBNA but gives opportunity for a review - This letter puts our Constitutional terms for a review

01/06/201310:47:43

 

Stephen Thorne

 

Adjudicator

 

Financial Ombudsman Service

 

Quay Plaza,

 

183, Marsh Wall,

 

LONDON,

 

E14 9SR.

 

 Dear Stephen Thorne,

 

 

 

Re. Your reference:4 79212450

 

Hillesden Securities Limited (MBNA)

 

4129 8504 0610 9849

 

Pre-2007 Credit Cases that were on their way to court

 

until mysteriously removed which we see as illegal

 

 

I reply to your letter of 30. May 2013 for which I did not receive the assurances I was looking for.

 

 As an independent ombudsman there are great issues at stake here for you to look at. I am not convinced that your service has done this. I am not convinced that you are keeping to British Constitution Law but I am convinced you are under global-European law, illegal in our country. The two are completely opposite in character, the latter placing restrictions on thorough investigations, and clearly you seem to have admitted criteria preventing you from conducting a serious investigation into this.

 

 On 30. May 2009 the Daily Mail seeminglyreported the then government had stepped in to stop these cases. In other words Government overturned an upper house edict!!!!!!! Can you investigate this for this is the context we are dealing with?

 

 This case is simple. On these pre 2007 cases that came out of a House of Lords edict, did Government and the Banking community come to a deal to put these cases out of court? This case was on its way to court when MBNA defaulted before the decision of a judge. Since when has it been legal to pre-empt a decision of a Judge and default an account?

This is not the Britain we were brought up in – one was innocent before a hearing and now an American bank can find EMLG guilty and default her account before it reaches court with Government apparently behind the scenes doing a deal! Will you be investigating this? If you were independent you would or are you under guidelines of government to prevent Government being investigated?

 

The people have had enough quite frankly. Will this review be investigating all this or have the guidelines (even though possibly illegal) to be kept to?

 Was the Judge using Utilitarian doctrine in his findings in the McGuffick case rather than the Habeas Corpus principles of the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law that the Monarch swore to uphold 60 years ago this month? Is the Monarch (and you are an employee of the Monarch) still obligated to uphold the 1534 Act of Supremacy returned to law by Queen Elizabeth I that demands a suppression of foreign influences and dogmas into our legal and political processes?

 

It is our position that to find for MBNA in this case is laughable. You say you cannot take into consideration past legal cases but why not? MBNA have already been found seriously guilty in court for appalling harassment seemingly at the time of our harassment.

 

Yet you say that you cannot consider this! How ridiculous and in our view unconstitutional. So is this review worthwhile or do we have to continue the fight through other avenues for I can assure you our battle has already been won by the God our Monarch swore to 60 years ago. It is the obligations of that oath that has won us this fight, obligations to God which you are under as employees of the State and I can assure you that it is your duty to openly deal with issues given here and in previous correspondence for anything else in our view would be unconstitutional.

 

 Yours faithfully,

 

David P Griffiths

 

 

Cllr E M Lindsay Griffiths

Join the Constitution Keepers

From UK Telephone: 01492 544451

From Overseas:  0044 1492 544451

A Ministry of ECCTV.ORG

and the Bible College of Wales -

The Orginal Vision

Give Net by Stewardship - 

UK Tax Payers (Gift Aid Claim) may give offerings at  

https://www.give.net/2020everycreatureappeal

23-27 George Street, Whithorn, Wigtownshire, DG8 8NS

Non Waged Ministry - Funds all used for the cause - EMail ecctv4219@gmail.com

FINANCIAL YEAR OF THE MINISTRY: 1st May 2020 to 30 April 2021

31 10 20 amount in (un-audited as yet) = £18,676-49 ; $24,176-60; 20,703-58 EURO

LCMI Trust: England & Wales - Charity Commission No. 1065192

Scotland – OSCR Registration No. SCO48778