The Cases Barclaycard seemingly want to forget all about -

after all Global Law, government interference &

foreign philosophies have won the day - or have they for

THE CONSTITUTION KEEPERS are on the March!

Yet another case of being a claimant, paying your court fees (not returned) and taking a Bank to court in relation to a House of Lords Edict and having the case

mysteriously removed and in effect being found guilty yourself!!!!!!

The Long Events are listed here - Go on! Enjoy!!!!!!!

We wrote on the 8th. February 2012

and we still await answers to the questions and proper response to the logs ........

08/02/2012 17:45:47

Barclaycard,

Barclays Bank PLC

P.O. Box 9131,

51, Saffron Road,

LEICESTER,

LE18 9DE.

Dear Sir or Madam,

E M L GRIFFITHS

Serious Complaint re.

the Actions of Barclaycard Against Me and My Family

For Now Alleged Account Numbers – please see enclosed log

I write to you carefully listing the now alleged accounts I have had with you, with copies of this letter to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Crown Prosecution Service for I passionately believe both criminal and civil law has been broken by your company, it being very easy for me to prove this by the enclosed logs of your activities.

At a time when credibility of banking is seriously being questioned in our country, I am putting to you that due to the severity of attack by your company towards us, it would be far better to “put your hands up≠” and admit what we put to you are clear serious breaches of Constitutional Law & Modern Law both civil and criminal.

# This is an expression meaning to be open about serious errors of operation.

I, my family and the nation are waiting to hear the word “sorry” and action to put things right for I put to you that we have been victims of what we believe to be a vicious operation of attack against us by your company.

Our examination of events has been thorough, our angle coming from the side of British Constitutional Law with the crest and all it stands for that is at the back of every Judge’s seat in the land meaning something for the 1534 Act of Supremacy insists the Monarch of the Crest suppress all foreign infiltrations into our legal processes.

In this context I intend to prove that you have use foreign laws and customs against us that are contrary to British Law, a point we are putting to the Financial Ombudsman and the CPS reminding them that there is no electoral mandate for integrating legal and political processes into British Law, the demand on the Monarch being to suppress all this; 1534 Act of Supremacy.

We are putting towards the Ombudsman and CPS our conviction that your company is guilty of breaking the 1997 Harassment Act in its dealing with us at a time we were taking you to court. In addition we intend to prove that your company was guilty of “Perverting the Course of Justice” at the same time whilst a court case was pending.

We put to you that examination of the logs proves the following:

I. Before not paying you on what became alleged accounts we had taken professional legal advice and that was you had not met the provisions stated by the House of Lords to make the accounts enforceable. The fact that we have paid other accounts up to you up to date proves our policy to be correct.

II. What the logs show is that you mercilessly hit us with collecting agent after collecting agent thus we put to you breaking the provisions of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 Section 1 and Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Harassing someone who is taking you to court is we put to you very serious in British Law and we are asking the Crown Prosecution Service to act in relation to the breaking of criminal law and the Financial Ombudsman to act in relation to the breaking of civil law. We can show from May 2009 you continued to harass us despite legal warnings from our Solicitors.

III. You have also very seriously broken Constitutional Law in that you in effect found EMLG guilty by registering defaults on a disputed accounts with credit reference agencies thus pre-empting a court’s decision on the accounts. We put to you that by these actions you have been using foreign law systems in our case with you, foreign law systems of Corpus Juris rather than Habeas Corpus.

IV. If our information is correct at least two of the agencies you set upon me and my family are owned by Barclays. These are Mercers and Calder who have the same address so it would seem when Mercers failed you set Calder on us along with a whole heap of other agencies. Remembering this harassment was whilst cases were on their way to court and so in effect we put to you that you changed identity before a hearing. Not legal we say and we are asking the Crown Prosecution Service to issue proceedings against you in relation toPerverting the Course of Justice.

V. In the Monarch’s Diamond Jubilee Year Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath will no doubt be brought to the attention of the nation. One of her promises on behalf of the nation to God is this:Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?" We believe we are proving that you have not kept the constitutional customs set out in our Constitutional Acts and you will note the only philosophy allowed to be used in our nation in legal matters – the laws of God not utilitarianism as we show in our presentation of the McGuffick v RBofS so called test case that seems to be part of putting out the court system our cases against Barclaycard. As my husband and I are ordained Ministers of the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law we are saying constitutionally we can bring your Bank to account for its behaviour. This we do! On 28 07 09 we asked your Calder Agency – Juris or Habeas Corpus to which question we got no reply. By defaulting whilst a case is on its way to court we say you areJuris.

VI. For a long time your company denied that the accounts were in dispute and then you admitted the dispute. How is it therefore you did not withdraw the default reference from the Credit Reference Agencies when you admitted a dispute. How can a disputed account be defaulted?We insist by British Law that you immediately remove all adverse comment from the credit file of E M Lindsay Griffiths and suggest you advise us of compensation you are offering in relation to the inability to fully trade by EMLG.

VII. On 04 June 2009 I (EMLG) had become ill with the constant barrage of phone calls from your many agencies, Barclaycard not responding to the notice from MSB Solicitors to Mercers in relation to the breaking of two laws, Administration of Justice Act and the Protection from Harassment Act. What kind of compensation are you offering for breaking these laws and causing sickness out of the stress and pressure of it all? We put to you that your company has been a bully and we put to you that we on behalf of the nation are facing up to you. London Mayoral Candidate Ken Livingstone when pressed on banking in this country declared that “the world was run by monsters”. I have to tell you after all the suffering we have endured, this is our experience with you and we declare it has to stop and proper compensation paid.

VIII. Cases Coming Out of Court: We have looked into this and in our report on the now well-known McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland Test Case we have easily shown unconstitutional foreign influence on the findings of the Honourable Justice Flaux whose career we have shown to have utilitarian philosophical leanings rather than those demanded upon in the oath of H M The Queen whose crest every Judge in the land sits under! I enclose proof of this.In addition to this, it is legally correct to point out our position as Ministers of the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law, for our position is there in the Oath itself. We are applying the rights given to us in this case stating that the Constitutional Principles have not been applied in this case.

IX. On the two accounts we have continued with you and regularly paid you have suspended use of them, and on one of them charged a PAYMENT BREAK PLAN of about sixteen pounds a month! What is that? We did not order it to our knowledge?

Please find enclosed the logs and our report on the McGuffick v RBofS Case which is seen as a test case relating to the now alleged accounts we have had with you.

You can see what our research has found out, our case being that the findings of this case did not relate to our cases with you at all and so we are still pursuing the legal action that now includes the additional points that have been raised in this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths

Dr David P Griffiths

Kicking the Devil Out of the Banks!
CASE STILL ONGOING IN 2023!

2) The Logs

09/02/2012 21:10:21

E M L GRIFFITHS

Serious Complaint re.

the Actions of Barclaycard Against Me and My Family

The Logs.

a) Barclaycard that was Morgan Stanley and Goldfish:

5301 2710 1411 1001.

When the account was numbered 5505 3430 0182 7271 our solicitors MSB Solicitors of Liverpool considered the account UNENFORCEABLE on 28th. April 2009.

We stopped paying the account on 29. April 2009 with the balance at £4,252-21 awaiting a court hearing. It is simply our policy to pay all undisputed accounts and so if a case is on its way to court then we consider the account to be in dispute.

We endured considerable harassment from Collecting Agents Mercers & Calders (both seemingly owned by Barclays) & so in my view they perverted the course of justice by changing identity with a court hearing on the way at that time. Seriously illegal in my view!

They then passed the now alleged account to Debt Managers Ltd. On 6. January they recognised an on-going dispute despite of Barclaycard denials returning the account to Barclays.

The Saga:

I. 28 04 09: Issue of a Notice from MSB Solicitors considering the agreement as it stands unenforceable by virtue of Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit and/or Section 78/77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The balance (now alleged) was at £4252-21.

II. 04 05 09: Letter from EMLG to Barclaycard (Morgan Stanley) saying future correspondence was to be between themselves & MSB, a request you ignored for great harassment was to follow.

III. 31 05 09: Request for Payment from Collections Manager.

IV. 17 06 09: Request for Payment from Collections Manager with threats of affecting credit rating.We regard threatening customers taking your company to Court as very serious going against all the legal customs of our nation since the coming in of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 which we believe your company has broken.

V. 26 07 09: Default Notice served through Mercers with alleged balance of £4,501-64. Whilst a Court Hearing is Pending an an account is in dispute with Solicitors you issue a default affecting EMLG ability to trasde. We believe this to be illegal for you have decided guilt by registering this with Credit Reference Agencies making no comment that the account is in dispute.

VI. 28 07 09: EMLG reply to Mercers not recognising “Default” and referring to MSB Solicitors.

VII. 28 07 09: EMLG reply to Calder asking Habeas or Juris.Another apparent agency now comes on the scene called Calder who we believe to be another of your companies so in the build-up to a court hearing you are harassing us using two different names! We say Perverting the Couse of Justice” and we now are reporting this to the CPS for their consideration in relation of bring a conviction for breaking the Harassment Act of 1997, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 as well as the very serious charge of perverting the course of Justice.

VIII. 09 08 09: Threat from Mercers to send local debt collector. Did not happen!

IX. 25 08 09: Further threat from Mercers to send local debt collector. Did not happen!These threats were ongoing from your company in its guise as being another company it would seem!

X. 08 09 09: Section 78 Copy sent.

XI. 09 09 09: Intimation to Barclaycard of passing info onto MSB.

XII. 17 09 09: Letter from EMLG to Mercers pointing out their use of social rather than business stationery.Various aggressive techniques were being used by your agencies at this time putting very great upset and pressure on our family.

XIII. 29 10 09: Notice from Calder threatening summons, bailiffs, taking money out of wages, local collector, adverse credit rating.None of this has happened and all this was going on when a case was on its way to course, the so called test case that seems to have taken our case out of course we in this letter to you, the Financial Ombudsman and the CPS as illegal.

XIV. 02 11 09: Intimation from MSB Solicitors – still waiting documentation.

XV. 09 11 09: Told of CMC in Manchester – outcome very positive. We were being told by our solicitors at this time of a very likely win against your company at this time.

XVI. 23 11 09: Overlimit charge – but I had not used the card that was in dispute.You were still adding charges to the account when the case was pending, we say illegally!

XVII. 03 12 09: Reply letter to Elaine Mockler asking Habeas or Juris.This is a crucial point in our case for really we were asking your Elaine Mockler whether she was using British systems or foreign systems of law for in Britain our customs is to wait for the findings of a court before finding who is liable for what. We were patient, we put to you that you were breaking the protections of the 1997 Harassment Act in continually harassing us with agency after agency chasing us.

XVIII. 23 12 09: Notice of Formal Demand from Debt Managers Ltd of Edinburgh with alleged balance now at £4840-64.The balance keeps going up with you!

XIX. 01 01 10: EMLG reply to Debt Managers given story and constitutional principle we live our lives by.

XX. 05 01 10: Urgent Final demand from Debt Managers with threats of court action, court costs, adverse credit rating.

XXI. 06 01 10: Debt Managers Close File & return account to Barclaycard.This agency got very heavy with us but on being told our case and the Constitutional Position we live by, they return the file to you.

XXII. 01 02 09: Phone call from Apex Credit chasing account who on told of dispute say returning account to Barclaycard.You tried someone else!

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

XXIV. 08 04 10 Intimation saying we now liable according to High Court!!!!!!!This is when we heard that our case was not going to be heard in court due to an apparent test case! A detailed study of the legality of this case has been undertaken that appears later in this report.

XXV. 2012 - Feb & August: Letter/invoice, Log, McGuffick case appraisal sent

6th. June 2013: Still awaiting reply!

What we are now putting to Barclaycard on this matter:

We put to you that despite of you being told that the case was on its way to a Court Hearing you pressed on with serious harassment against me and my family. These calls that were often aggressive caused great distress to us all here.

You were told of our Constitutional Position but did not back off. We were patient. You were not.

That you illegally defaulted me whilst awaiting a result of a hearing. This now has affected my ability to trade and there needs to be an immediate withdrawal of the default and considerable compensation paid from your company to me as recompense for the harassment plus recompense for my inability to trade.

We are putting to you that we are asking the Financial Ombudsman to look into your practices on disputed accounts and it is clear this was one. We are asking the CPS to proceed towards a criminal prosecution in the area of harassment, perverting the course of justice and deciding a result of a court case before a hearing and black listing me thus deciding my guilt.

That Barclaycard has acted unconstitutionally, has acted against modern law both civil and criminal, your company needing to be shamed by the nation before being able to grow again on proper constitutional foundations.

…………………………………………………………………………………….

b) Barclaycard: 4929 4705 6295 7006

This is a long running saga and I take it from 10. October 2008

I. 10 10 08: Letter from MSB considering unenforceability virtue of Section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

II. 03 12 08: EMLG informed by Joanna Connolly, Solicitor, MSB, Liverpool that Barclaycard had been informed that the agreement is “irredeemably unenforceable.” (Please note a definite statement here – not a consideration.)

At this point the account was showing at £10,977-02)

III. 20 01 09: Letter to EMLG from Colin Sefton, Legal Regulatory Compliance, Barclaycard seemingly arguing with the edict of Joanna Connolly.

Comment: If a professional solicitor has issued an edict to a company – then the company has argued back – then there is a DISPUTE! At the very least Barclaycard should not have abused us the way they did during a dispute and build up to a very likely court hearing as it was at the time. This has included defaulting and harassing EMLG. This is wrong and illegal. We are very emphatic about this in what is now our quest for justice.

IV. 01 02 09: Request for payment from Barclaycard for an amount now grown to £11,222-98. The format of the request was the same as was to come from Mercers.Balance size keeps growing whilst account in dispute!

V. 11 02 09: Reply from EMLG to Ms Dineen & Mr Sefton of Barclaycard stating that the account was in dispute despite of Mr. Sefton’s denial.Comment: It seems to be a strategy by banks to deny a dispute to enable them to harass former customers to make them give up. We did not! The issue of EMLG credit record was raised to as Barclaycard seemed to go for the credit file and even default EMLG on a disputed account. We firmly state ILLEGAL! The issue of Barclaycard’s threats was raised too.

VI. 15 02 09: Letter from Barclaycard threatening to wop EMLG credit record which they seem to have done. A credit record previously clean.They showed an account owing of £11,231-57

VII. Letter from MSB to EMLG saying papers sent to counsel.This is MSB Solicitors saying our papers had been sent to counsel, yet Barclaycard were pre-empting the Court Case by defaulting and adding on interest. We say illegal!

VIII. 26 02 09: Barclaycard letter to say they were sorry to learn of EMLG dissatisfaction. They aimed to resolve matters by 19 March 2009. We are still waiting!

IX. 14 03 09: Serious Harassment Complaint from EMLG to Barclaycard. Statement from EMLG about family life being affected by barrage of phone calls.

X. 18 03 09: Letter from Barclaycard Customer Relationship Unit saying they aimed toresolve matters by 20 04 09. We are still waiting!

XI. 19 03 09: DG E Mail to MSB Solicitors giving information about Barclaycard harassment!

XII. 20 03 09: Serious Harassment Complaint from EMLG to Barclaycard.The harassment my family had to endure was horrendous. This is horribly wrong! It is a disgrace for Barclaycard to behave in such a manner!

XIII. 20 03 09: Letter received from Candice Skelton, Customer Relationship Manager, Barclaycard referring to our request to stop the harassing phone calls. She stated that we were aware that our account had become overdue for payment.We most certainly were not aware of this. We were aware of a dispute only! We seem to be referred to one of their agents, professional debt counselling service, CAB or Consumer Credit Counselling Service – or contact Financial Ombudsman Service.The letter made no sense to us as we were in dispute using professional solicitors – MSB Solicitors.

XIV. 21 03 09: Letter from EMLG to Ms Dineen, Colin Sefton of Barclaycard, JC & SA of MSB –Plea for a sensible way forward without the considerable Barclaycard harassment.

XV. 23 03 09: Reply from Lewis Cook, Customer Relationship Manager, Barclaycard which seems to be a complete copy of letter of 20 03 09 – Candice Skelton.Evidence here of Barclaycard replying with standard letters rather than addressing the specific issues intimated by EMLG in her letters.

XVI. 25 03 09: Reply from EMLG to Barclaycard’s Candice Skelton & Lewis Cook as they seem to have replied with an identical reply without regard to previous correspondence. EMLG denies stating that phone calls be stopped – but emphasises that it was the harassment that had to be stopped. EMLG stated a longing for sensible dialogue. We believe we are entitled to substantial compensation for the harassment we endured. EMLG states she most certainly unaware of overdue account but aware of disputed one.Habeas Corpus mentioned in the context of awaiting a court hearing and to harass in the build up to a court hearing broke across all well established British codes of behaviour. Refers to Barclaycard’s reference to “difficult time for us” with reply about the well documented “difficult time” for banks! Refers to Barclaycard’s statement of having to give factual information to Credit Reference Agencies. In a dispute, however, we are legally entitled to give our side to the agencies but under this unconstitutional system it would seem we would be denied that. A desire for dialogue was again intimated.

It is a fundamental right of a customer to hold payment during a dispute. It is fundamental right not to have to endure harassment from the other side before a coming Court Hearing.

XVII. 01 04 10: Further letter from EMLG to Dineen & Sefton of Barclaycard & JC & SA of MSB – Complaint of Barclaycard’s reply to our letters with standard letters – not specific addressing of issues. Complaint to Barclaycard that despite of us being up front to them – we have been subject to great harassment. Constitutional issue raised again building up to our statement that we believe that there is Treason operating here with Barclaycard as they have ignored the country’s constitutional way of operating law in preference to global systems.

Yes, we believe it to be fundamentally wrong to harass the opposing party in what was scheduled to be a coming court case.

XVIII. 05 04 09: Default Notice issued by Mercers who seem to be owned by Barclaycard so they have changed identity to issue this. As Barclaycard had been informed of our intention to take the matter to court – it seems to us that Barclaycard have “perverted the course of justice” by their actions.

Alleged Account balance now at £11719-30. As it would seem Mercers is owned by Barclays we believe it fundamentally wrong for the defence in a coming court hearing to default a disputed account and pretend to be someone else thus perverting the course of justice.

XIX. 06 04 09: EMLG Letter To Mercers referring them to MSB.

XX. 07 04 09: Letter from EMLG to Ann Vivemar & Karen Conman of Mercers stating their default notice “not recognised” stating to them that they had not recognised the account in dispute and that the principles of Habeas Corpus had been breached.

Not recognised by us but recognised by people we need to trade with so EMLG now can only trade in a limited way.

XXI. 14 04 09: Barclaycard Reply re. Robert Wallace. Denies being involved in harassment or criminal activity.We believe Barclaycard have broken the Harassment Act, 1997, perverted the course of justice and acted treasonably by not recognising a dispute on its way to as court hearing at that time.

XXII. 16 04 09: Reply from EMLG to Wallace of Barclaycard. Stated by EMLG that all payments up to date till statement of MSB Solicitors of their consideration on the matter.

We believe that it is plainly obvious that a dispute has been well and truly determined by all this and that Barclaycard have illegally and disgracefully operated in harassing us and not referring to a now “alleged” account.

XXIII. 20 04 09: Elaine Mockler of Barclaycard letter with Barclaycard Terms and Conditions.

XXIV. 20 04 09: Further letter from Barclaycard with Terms and Conditions and balance (still not saying “alleged”) of £11,719-30.

XXV. 21 04 09: Mercers Notice of threat to send local debt collector to our home. Did not happen!

XXVI. 22 04 09: Letter from EMLG to Mr. Dave Clark of Mercers confirming our referring to MSB Solicitors

XXVII. 23 04 09: Warning issued by EMLG to Mercers to use the term “alleged” in future.

We argue if a case is on its way to court to determine if a body has kept the terms given out by a House of Lords edict – then the word “alleged” should be used when referring to what has become an alleged balance.

XXVIII. 23 04 09: Wallace of Barclaycard denies harassment & criminal activity by Barclaycard. We disagree giving further evidence of a dispute.

WE put it forward that it is plainly obvious that we have had to endure harassment illegal under all forms of law.

XXIX. 30 03 09: Candice Skelton of Barclaycard sorry we remain dissatisfied! Tells of six months to contact Financial Ombudsman service.

Why should we inform the Financial Ombudsman when the case was already in the legal process – unless they knew something we did not know?

XXX. 01 05 09: MSB Letter to Mercers in which MSB warns of a formal complaint being issued to the Office of Fair Trading & other relevant authorities under Section 40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 & Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The harassment continued with Barclaycard passing the “alleged” account around different named operations that seem to have all been owned by Barclays.

XXXI. 01 05 09: Evidence of this harassment continuing from Mercers with a threat of a local debt collector turning up at our home to collect full payment.

Mercers took no notice of the warning from our Solicitors. What is the point of solicitors letters when they are taken no notice of?

XXXII. 07 05 09: Letter from Barclaycard Public Relations Team saying they aim to resolve matters by 29 05 09. We are still waiting!

XXXIII. 15 05 09: Letter from Barclaycard Public Relations Team saying they aim to resolve matters by 05 06 09. We are still waiting!

XXXIV. 26 05 09: Phil Clark puts Barclaycard’s side in a letter. We have put our side showing there is a dispute!

XXXV. 27 05 09: Frances Chambers puts Barclaycard’s side in a letter. We have put our side showing there is a dispute!

XXXVI. 28 05 09: Donna Farley puts Barclaycard’s side in a letter. We have put our side showing there is a dispute!

XXXVII. 04 06 09: Mercers “48 hour Notice” issued with a account owing notice of £12,226-07 so they are adding to the balance during a dispute. Massively adding to the balance!

XXXVIII. 04 06 09: Letter from EMLG to MSB Solicitors stating severe harassment from both Barclaycard and Mercers in a time of legal action and a dispute. Lindsay had become ill under this pressure and Doctor’s visits occurred. EMLG asked MSB to consider a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading. EMLG quoted Administration of Justice Act 1970 to MSB. EMLG expresses a view to MSB that Barclaycard had broken criminal law in relation to the Harassment Act of 1997.

WE believe this absolutely to be the case!

XXXIX. 13 06 09: Letter from EMLG to MSB Solicitors intimating a believed use by Barclaycard of European legal systems (prohibited under the 1534 Act of Supremacy) rather than British Habeas Corpus.

We believe Barclaycard have broken principles of British Constitutional Law.

XL. 16 06 09: First Intimation from Power 2 Contact of Crewe (looks like Barclays company) stating it would seem that they are a “finding” agency.

Why did Barclays use a finding agency? We had not moved and we had solicitors on the case who had not moved!

XLI. E Mail from DG to Joanna & Sam (MSB Solicitors) showing the Act of Supremacy 1534 (in context of use of foreign legal systems)

XLII. 17 06 09: Letter from EMLG to Power to Contact referring them to MSB.

XLIII. 19 06 09: Power to Contact confirmation of passing on information to relevant client.

XLIV. 24 06 09: Confirmation from MSB of a Cease & Desist Letter to Power to Contact.

Barclaycard had denied harassment. Warnings from MSB Solicitors had been issued and now a Cease and Desist Letter!

XLV. 29 06 09: Letter to MSB saying we are seriously considering taking Barclays to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This is what we are doing now in our letter to the Crown Prosecution Service.

XLVI. 29 06 09: Letter to Dineen of Barclaycard stating no payments whilst account in dispute.

We believe it to be a fundamental right not to have to pay what is now an alleged account during a dispute.

XLVII. Series of Questions were thought out by DG over the behaviour of Barclays in this, to be asked of Barclays. These began with the statement: Bearing in mind it is well known in departments of Barclaycard and MSB that we are in process of taking Barclaycard to court .......

· Do you believe it is legal for one party to hound another whilst a case is on its way to court?

· Do you believe it is legal for one party to describe itself under another name whilst a court hearing is on the way as it was at this time? (Mercers and Calder are seemingly owned by Barclays so when MSB sent a Cease and Desist letter to one – the alleged account was passed to another.)

· Do you believe it is legal to ignore solicitors’ letters asking you to contact them rather than harass us?

· Do you believe it is right for us to be compensated for legal breaches that caused stress and illness to EMLG – Doctor’s visits occurred! (phone call after phone call – threat after threat harassment)

· Do you believe it is right to threaten home visits by collectors when a case is on its way to a court hearing?

· During the time the matter was on its way to a court hearing – do you think it is right to refer to a balance in notices – rather than an “alleged” balance?

· During the time the matter was on its way to a court hearing – do you think it is right to “default” EMLG?

· In amongst all this activity – do you think it is right for us to negotiate with people who have behaved in what we would call an unconstitutional way?

XLVIII. 29 06 09: Intimation from MSB that Counsel had agreed to act on a “no win – no fee basis” and that you needed a Court Issue fee of £150.

XLIX. 05 07 09: Calder Financial (another operation of Barclays it would seem) come on the scene with them saying we owe £12,486-79. It keeps going up!!!!!!Their intimation threatens summons costs but it is us who are taking them to court! Other threats are included increasing the harassment. How much more evidence do we need to get a criminal conviction against them under the Harassment Act of 1997?????

Despite of being told time after time that we were taking Barclaycard to court – Calder now threaten us with summons charges!!!!!!! This is HARASSMENT!

L. 08 07 09: DG Letter to Sam & Joanna of MSB Solicitors. We obtained information of Mercers & Calder really being Barclays meaning that in the processes of us taking them to a court hearing – they changed identity.

Reading legal intimation on Perverting the Course of Justice the activities of Barclays in changing identity clearly show that this has taken place.

LI. 08 07 09: Letter from EMLG to Colin Rogers of Calder who have the same address as Mercers which surely shows an identity change.

EMLG intimates no payments on accounts in dispute.

LII. 08 07 09: Letter from Barclaycard Public Relations Team to EMLG: Barclaycard letter to say they were sorry to learn of EMLG dissatisfaction. They aimed to resolve matters by 28 July 2009.

We are still waiting!

LIII. 14 07 09: Letter from Frances Chambers, Barclaycard relating to Section 78 of Consumer Credit Act 1974. Seems to relate to what they have sent out but not to more serious complaints intimated in this summary.

LIV. 28 07 09: ADMISSION BY BARCLAYCARD THAT THERE IS A DISPUTE by Stacey Shaw, Customer Relationship Manager. We now have an acknowledged dispute and so why all the harassment, systems against us rather than dialogue with solicitors? PROOF TOO THAT BARCLAYCARD HAD DEFAULTED EMLG during the time of an acknowledged dispute.

This is highly significant because up until now Barclaycard had not intimated that there had been a dispute – now there is an acknowledgement of a dispute so how then has the harassment been legal on a now fully accepted dispute?

LV. 01 08 09: Acknowledgement back to Stacey Shaw with Solicitors details.

LVI. 01 08 09: DPG letter to Sam Audley pointing out Barclaycard’s acknowledgement of dispute. Even though they have acknowledged a dispute – they still say they are entitled to continue collections activity!

This does not make sense!

LVII. 02 08 09: Formal Demand for Payment from Calder – now at

£12,728-50 having put onto the bill £1751-48 during the period of an acknowledged dispute!

LVIII. 05 08 09: EMLG letter to Joanne King, Calder referring them to MSB Solicitors

LIX. 12 08 09: First letter and phone calls from new agency called RMA of Preston. Threats of sending debt collectors, CCJ’s etc.

Agency after agency against us & just as Barclaycard denied a dispute and then admitted a dispute – can we reach a point of establishing the fact that they harassed us time after time.

LX. 18 08 09: Letter from EMLG to Joanna & Sam in relation to unconstitutional & illegal behaviour by Barclaycard. Question about other accounts on MSB books.

LXI. 18 08 09: Letter to RMA referring them to MSB Solicitors.

LXII. 25 08 09: Letter to Sam Audley MSB informing of RMA harassment

LXIII. 25 08 09: Letter to RMA referring them to MSB.

LXIV. 02 09 09: Notice from RMA stating that Barclaycard had agreed to accept a settlement of current outstanding debt of £12,728-50. This alleged debt had grown by £1751-48.

We never accepted this as owing.

LXV. 08 09 09: Notice from RMA saying they cannot help us if we do not speak to them. The problem with this is – is that we had given Barclaycard every opportunity to speak to MSB Solicitors.

LXVI. 09 09 09: Notice from MSB that our claim issued at Liverpool County Court.

So it is a fact we had the claim in court. It is a fact therefore that the defendant had harassed us & threatened us whilst a matter was on its way to court!

LXVII. 09 09 09: On same day that court hearing intimated EMLG informs RMA to deal with MSB and not harass us!

LXVIII. 11 09 09: Just two days after MSB notice of the claim being issued at Liverpool County Court – transfer notice to Manchester to go before His Honour Judge Waksman.

Not just one court, but now the second!

LXIX. 12 09 09: Reply from DPG to JC & SA at MSB.

It was pointed out that we had respected the House of Lords ruling and endured merciless harassment. We had noted treasonable activity, perverting the course of justice and failure to keep to Cease and Desist edicts.

LXX. 22 09 09: RMA letter looking for payment arrangement.

LXXI. 28 09 09: Letter from Stacey Shaw, Barclaycard saying we should carry on paying the debt.

This person has already acknowledged a dispute so who pays accounts in dispute awaiting a court hearing? It is a fundamental right not to pay an account in dispute!

LXXII. 28 09 09: EMLG further referral to MSB for RMA.

LXXIII. 29 09 09: RMA letter saying we had failed to keep the agreedpayment plan.

Since when was there an agreed payment plan? So we have a letter with false information sent!

LXXIV. 06 10 09: Above point made to RMA in reply letter from EMLG.

LXXV. 13 10 09: RMA reply letter from Jon Huckfield. States account on hold!

LXXVI. 16 10 09: JC letter (MSB) to EMLG thanking for Barclaycard correspondence requesting we continue to send the info. This we have done!

LXXVII. 06 11 09: Further letter from Stacey Shaw, Barclaycard saying she has nothing further to add!

NO CORRESPONDENCE between 06 11 09 and 18 01 10

LXXVIII. 18 01 10: JC (MSB) letter saying our claim was listed for a hearing on 2. February 2010. Due to a ruling by His Honour Judge Waksman our claim has been removed.We have not gone through all this to have our claim removed on the notion that our creditor has now complied with MSB requests for documentation under s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The fact is that Barclaycard had not complied with the House of Lords Edict & that something was going on behind the scenes to see these case out of court. This “something” we have studied and put in this report.

LXXIX. 16 06 10 Letter from Apex Credit Management Ltd looking for us to pay.

LXXX. 28 06 10 Threat from Apex “Home Visit Appointment”

LXXXI. 28 06 10 Saying our info passed onto Barclaycard and account on hold!

LXXXII. 28 06 10 Letter from APEX Josh Lorento saying account closed on their systems.

LXXXIII. July 10 Letter from Wescot saying they are now here

LXXXIV. Reply to Wescot saying we can send further information

LXXXV. 28 07 10 Wescot ask for further information

LXXXVI. 30 07 10 Wescot sent further information

LXXXVII. 09 08 10 Wescot saying investigation on way

LXXXVIII. 10 08 10 Barclaycard acknowledgement

LXXXIX. 14 09 10 Barclaycard letter saying informing Wescot to proceed with formal recovery.

XC. 15 09 10 Letter from Wescot saying they have backed out

XCI. 29 09 10 Letter to Barclaycard

One can only say, "What a mess"!

XCII 2012 – Feb and August: Letter/Invoice, Log, McGuffickCase Appraisal sent

XCIII. 09 02 12 House of Lords Info Letter to Barclaycard

XCIV. 09 02 12 Logs Letter to Barclaycard

XCV. 09 07 12 Reminder Letter

XCIV. 08 08 12 Further Reminder Letter

6th. June 2013 - no reply or attempt to solve these issues!

………………………………………………………………………………….

c) BARCLAYCARD 4929 4231 0571 7007

Use suspended by Barclaycard despite of up to date payments

Why am I paying a PAYMENT BREAK PLAN of about sixteen pounds a month on this account? I do not know what this is!

………………………………………………………………………………………….

d) 4929 4260 4134 5007 Barclaycard Platinum:

Use suspended by Barclaycard despite of up to date payments

………………………………………………………………………………………………

The McGuffick Test Case and how it relates to Barclaycard!

09/02/2012 21:10:21

E M L GRIFFITHS

Serious Complaint re. the Actions of Barclaycard Against Me and My Family

THE HOUSE OF LORDS and UTILITARIANISM

Part 1

Rev David P Griffiths investigates

This is quite a saga for those like my wife Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths PhD D Min who took out credit card and loan agreements pre-2007, agreements we put forward have not been adhered to by banking institutions. We using MSB Solicitors of Liverpool were taking these institutions to court in relation to a House of Lords edict that identified breakages by such institutions of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act thus making in effect the agreements null and void as one side had not kept to the requirements of the agreements.

In effect in Christian Terms - one side had broken their side of an agreement by not keeping to laws that surround that agreement which is our presentation of the argument backed up by a House of Lords edict, an edict we put forward was suppressed by a test case that we believe had utilitarian discussions going on in the background that came about as a result of the banking crisis, and European references in the test case - illegal if the nation is keeping to its God given Constitutional Acts.

Acts of Parliament which are all signed by the Monarch thus placing them all under our Constitutional Acts are there to protect the people, and in this case the House of Lords was simply doing its job as the House is in effect is the highest court in the land constitutionally under God.

According to the Elizabethan Settlement this God part places ecclesiastical persons in position to ensure our nation is run under the principles clearly outlined in our Constitutional Acts. Within this context I have been firmly led by the Lord to take action here not only against the institutions in question but also against a utilitarian infiltration that has manifest alongside foreign influence to a particular legal case.

This is being presented here as our test case to prove the illegality of such influences that are effecting the decisions of our Highest Court in the Land! The repercussions of the actions we are taking here will bring much relief to hard pressed citizens of our nation that have in our view been taken by a banking system that has not adhered to our Constitutional Acts, their motivation coming from the spirit of mammon rather than the God of our Constitution.

God is looking for a national repentance and a Commonwealth of Nations that has a banking community working with a helping the people rather than using behind the scenes manipulations to suppress our hard won Christian Heritage, a heritage our military over two world wars fought for and gave their lives for.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS and UTILITARIANISM

Part 2

In relation to current legal actions that have now been taken out of the legal process, hence our legal ability to name specific cases on this site, we now move on from our presentation of the House of Lords case shown in Part 1 to see how the House of Lords ruling seems to have been cancelled out by a Court Hearing conducted by the Honourable Mr Justice Flaux. We believe we can show Utilitarianism as a philosophy being used in relation to British Law as well as unconstitutional references to European Law and the European Court of Justice.

Presented by Rev. Dr. David P Griffiths PhD DD

Clergyman of the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law

1689 Act that Established the Coronation Oath

was sworn by Her Majesty the Queen at her Coronation in June 1953.

Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?"
King and Queen, "All this I promise to do."

After this, the King and Queen laying his and her hand

upon the holy Gospels, shall say, King and Queen,

"The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep: So help me God."

Then the King and Queen shall kiss the book. IV. And be it enacted, That the said oath shall be in like manner administered to every King and Queen, who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this Realm, at their respective coronations, by one of the archbishops or bishops of this Realm of England, for the time being, to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queen respectively, and in the presence of all persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such their respective coronations; any law, statute, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

Rev. Dr. David P Griffiths PhD DD hereby uses his right as an Ordained Clergy man of the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law" to ensure the laws of God are maintained in the nation, to truly profess the true Gospel and the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law."

In relation to the Protestant Elizabethan Settlement I will expose all foreign infiltration into our legal processes and look to honour and respect British Law in line with H.M. Queen Elizabeth II oath to maintain the laws of God.

The Case McGuffick and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC

The case is outlined here with a summary on each of the 118 points following

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 2386 (Comm)Case No: 2009 Folio 910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL06/10/2009

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FLAUX
____________________

Between:
PHILLIP McGUFFICK
Claimant
- and -

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC

Defendant

____________________

Mr Andrew G. Moran QC and Mr Brendan Burke (instructed by MJP Justice Limited) for the Claimant
Mr Richard Handyside QC and Miss Julia Smith (instructed by DLAPiper UK LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 23rd and 24th September 2009
____________________

This case was heard on 23rd and 24th September 2009 and is described as an "Approved Judgment"!

Introduction

The introduction contains information on the history of the case that began at Chester County Court as one of a large number of claims before County Courts all over the country. The court document describes these cases as "disputes" whereas in our cases my wife Lindsay and I had experience of our cases being denied as being "a dispute".

This is particularly interesting in relation to our disputes with Barclaycard as for a long time Barclaycard rejected claims from us that we were in dispute, the admission of this not coming till later.

This case clearly shows a dispute and we argue to Barclaycard that one cannot default accounts in dispute without giving opportunity to us to put our side on the Credit Record.

Point 1 of the judgment refers to the 1974 Consumer Credit act as did the House of Lords ruling previously. The judgment refers to Section 77 of that act which renders agreements unenforceable in certain circumstances.

1974 Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77

77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement. E+W+S+N.I.

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [F1£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

(c) the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.

(2)If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (1)(c), he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a)an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or

(b)a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.

(4)If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a)he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; F2. . .

(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(5)This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.

In the cases outlined to Barclaycard on the log it was understood by my wife and I through MSB Solicitors of Liverpool that Barclaycard could not meet the demands as outlined in Section 77 of the act.

This case (McGuffick) had been referred to this Commercial Court by His Honour Judge Halbert as a TEST CASE!

What we ask here is be it that this was one of many cases, and be it that a ruling had been given by the House of Lords, how is it that this case was going to be the same as all the other cases, there having been a distinction made in the Lords of two types of cases, namely "discretionary unenforceability" and irredeemably unenforceablity"!

The Essential Facts

Points 3 to 18 come under this heading in the judgment.

This particular case relates to a "fixed-sum regulated loan agreement" of 3rd. October 2005. The sum borrowed was £17,034, £20,781 to be apparently paid back in 60 monthly instalments of £346-35.

The Claimant in this case did not suggest that the agreement was improperly executed so Sections 61, 65 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was according to the judgment not directly in issue.

1974 Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 61

Signing of agreement. E+W+S+N.I.

(1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

(a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b)the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

(c)the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

(2)In addition, where the agreement is one to which section 58(1) applies, it is not properly executed unless—

(a)the requirements of section 58(1) were complied with, and

(b)the unexecuted agreement was sent, for his signature, to the debtor or hirer [F1by an appropriate method] not less than seven days after a copy of it was given to him under section 58(1), and

(c)during the consideration period, the creditor or owner refrained from approaching the debtor or hirer (whether in person, by telephone or letter, or in any other way) except in response to a specific request made by the debtor or hirer after the beginning of the consideration period, and

(d)no notice of withdrawal by the debtor or hirer was received by the creditor or owner before the sending of the unexecuted agreement.

(3)In subsection (2)(c), “the consideration period ” means the period beginning with the giving of the copy under section 58(1) and ending—

(a)at the expiry of seven days after the day on which the unexecuted agreement is sent, for his signature, to the debtor or hirer, or

(b)on its return by the debtor or hirer after signature by him,

whichever first occurs.

(4)Where the debtor or hirer is a partnership or an unincorporated body of persons, subsection (1)(a) shall apply with the substitution for “by the debtor or hirer ” of “by or on behalf of the debtor or hirer ”.

There is an obligation here for the Bank to prove this is in order but be it that there was many more cases than this one, cases where it would seem the banking institutions were unable to provide such proof - then how could this be a test case putting all the others it would seem out of court?

1974 Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 65

Consequences of improper execution. E+W+S+N.I.

(1)An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only.

(2)A retaking of goods or land to which a regulated agreement relates is an enforcement of the agreement.

1974 Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 127

Enforcement orders in cases of infringement.

E+W+S+N.I.

(1)In the case of an application for an enforcement order under—

(a)section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or

(b)section 105(7)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or

(c) section 111(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or

(d) section 124(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention of section 123),

the court shall dismiss the application if, but F1. . . only if, it considers it just to do so having regard to—

(i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and the degree of culpability for it; and

(ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections 135 and 136.

(2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question.

There is clearly here provision for cases were documentation has not been provided by the banking institution and even so if this case the bank has provided, again we ask, is this the case in all the other cases?

Point 4 relates to the specific monetary sums involved in this case, point 5 relating to a default notice that had been issued by the Bank as indeed does point 6 that refers to Credit Reference Agencies Callcredit plc; Equifax Europe Limited and Experian Limited, this default reference not only affecting the ability to get credit by the individual involved but also other members of the household in question for a period of up to six years.

We strongly question the legality of this, in this case and in all other cases. We in Britain have traditionally enjoyed living under the principles of Habeas Corpus which means that one is innocent before being found guilty in court. In the European system of Corpus Juris then it is up to the individual to prove his innocence.

This is not the case in Britain so here we have the Royal Bank of Scotland issuing a default notice on Mr McGuffick whilst the case is on its way to court and giving him a "criminal" record (in other words finding him guilty before a court case) by issuing notice to Credit Reference Agencies before his hearing, not only on him but members of his household too.

If this principle therefore operated in criminal law, when the Police arrested a man they could put the guilt of the man on record before going to court. In addition members of his household would be guilty too.

We regard this practice as an extreme example of the use of Corpus Juris, a system totally outlawed under British law and this way of operation should be resulting in an outrage amongst the British people whose whole tradition of law is being set upon by philosophies that have no place under our Constitution.

Even though Point 7 shows the Bank not adding interest during all of this, it does show that the Bank has already found him guilty thus pre-empting the Court decision of the Honourable Justice Flaux.

(IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WHERE R B of S did not add interest during all of this – BARCLAYCARD MOST CERTAINLY DID making our Barclaycard Cases different to this one!)

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINT WHEN IT COMES TO BRITISH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!

Point 8 refers to two agencies that attempted to receive funds from Mr McGuffick, that is Apex Credit Management and Capquest Debt Recovery Limited.

Point 9 refers to a letter dated 25th February 2009 from MJP Solictors for the claimant to Royal Bank of Scotland with a Section 77 Information Request.

The letter stated that the claimant considered the account to be in dispute and that no reference was to be given to Credit Reference agencies which is exactly our point.

Mr Guffick had given his solicitors opportunity to ascertain from the papers the Bank were to send whether the agreement was enforceable under sections 61 and 127 of the act.

It is noted under Point 9 that the Bank had received hundreds of similar requests from solicitors and claims management companies.

Point 10 outlines Section 77

.

Point 11 gives an admission from the Royal Bank of Scotland's Clare Price that although it was the practice of the Bank to keep all copies of credit agreements, it sometimes was not possible to comply with requests under Section 77 within the prescribed period.

Here it would seem that the Royal Bank of Scotland have admitted that sometimes they could not keep to the terms of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act within the prescribed period, but what they could do is default a customer whilst legal processes were going on.

WE PASSIONATELY DECLARE THIS ILLEGAL AS WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO AS PROTESTANT REFORMED MINISTERS THE MONARCH HAS AGREED TO TAKE NOTE OF - THE JUDGE BEING A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MONARCH. OUR POINT HAS TO BE LISTENED TO BY LAW AND ABIDED BY!

Point 12 informs us that the Bank initially could not find a copy of the agreement and wrote to MJP to inform them of this.

It seems from Point 12 that there is a further incredible admission, the Bank stating to the claimant: in the circumstances, if the claimant decided not to meet his obligations under the agreement, the bank would not be able to enforce repayment of the loan.

Point 13 relates to correspondence by MJP threatening proceedings for a declaration of unenforceability by the court if the copy of the agreement was not produced within 28 days and for an injunction if the claimant's credit rating were affected.

Section 77 does have a time period stated, and even though by May 11 2009 the Bank had located a copy of the agreement, through inadvertence a signed statement of account as required by Section 77 had been overlooked.

There comes a question here that as the Bank could not provide a copy of the agreement in the prescribed period, this being admitted by the Bank, the same Bank on not being able to view a copy of the agreement defaulted an account blackening not only the name of Mr McGuffick but also his household. How can that be under British law or are we to find European Global law coming into the equation?

Point 14 shows that collection activity was again activated by the Bank on 13 May 2009 but on the Bank realising that the claimant had issued proceedings ceased the activity. This remained the case up till the hearing although Capquest had got involved by mistake, the Bank at this stage holding fire to enable the Court to decide.

It is clear however that the Bank had already pre-empted the hearing by defaulting before the hearing, putting disputed information to collection agencies before the hearing not only reducing the ability of Mr McGuffick to trade but also the ability of his household to trade also! This we present as aCorpus Juris style stranglehold on McGuffick in that the Bank had blacklisted him before the hearing, the backing off by the Bank on knowing the hearing was near is to us proof that the Bank was aware of the dangers of pre-empting a court decision.

The Relief Sought

Point 15 related to the relief sought by the claimant. It would seem from the evidence that the Royal Bank of Scotland had placed adverse information against McGuffick to Credit Reference Agencies in the process of the case being brought to this hearing. McGuffick was looking to obtain an injunction against the Bank doing what seemingly it had already done!

Indeed part 2 of Point 15 gives an alternative to the Court that if the Bank was entitled to continue reporting to CRA's and indeed it would seem they were still reporting even whilst accepting they had been in breach of Section 77 of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act - then the Court was being asked to make a statement of there being no enforceable liability.

We say - what a ludicrous situation! The Bank it would seem had accepted their breach of Section 77 yet was reporting against McGuffick whilst accepting their breach. It seems to us that it should have been Royal Bank of Scotland appearing on the Credit Reference Agency's record for being in breach of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act and that McGuffick was innocent!

But oh no! The Big Boy was the one with the access and be able to give an equivalent to a criminal record to McGuffick even though the case had not been heard in court yet and even though the Bank had admitted its breach.

Well if we are going to stick up for Habeas Corpus its now by saying that in our view this case has no link whatsoever with both the principles and actual law of our Constitutional Acts, and in addition that even when there is an admission of guilt which there seems to be by the Royal of Scotland - it is the victim of the breach that gets the equivalent of the criminal record.

We are blowing the trumpets in Zion, we are sounding the alarm in God's Holy Mountain with our deep conviction that this is not only illegal, not only immoral but also a breach of what our nation has held precious for centuries.

Joel 2:1 (King James Version)

Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

Part 3 looked for a mandatory injunction for the Bank to inform the Credit Reference Agencies that McGuffick had not been in default after all and that from 11 March 2009 onwards the claimant's "default" was in a time of the Bank's breach of Section 77, the latter part 4 asking for a mandatory injunction ordering the bank to provide the claimant with a signed statement of account by Section 77(1).

The Parameters of the Case

Points 16 & 17 gives the way the case was to be conducted under certain parameters, the claimant's QC speaking for the claimant instead of emphasizing the very real constitutional points outlined in our commentary declared the case as not being as appropriate a test case as others might have been.

To us the "test case" had more than adequately shown the finding of guilt before a case, even when the Bank had seemingly admitted a breach.

The reason for the QC's comments however is outlined in that it would seem that the Claimant had admitted a time of validity which clearly in other cases this is not the case.

If this is the case there is clearly a major difference here, but why then should this case impact others cases to be taken out the system if there are major differences?

Point 17 does give further particular peculiarities to this case which certainly would not apply to many other cases.

Point 18 relates to the case being left open as to whether the agreement had properly set out the total charge for credit under Section 61(1)(a) and the regulations made under section 60(1)(b) of the 1974 Act, there being an apparent agreement with parties here that when the Bank had issued the agreement, then the agreement would come enforceable again.

Just because there seems to be an acceptance of this in this case, this does not mean that there would be similar agreements in every case!

The parameters in Point 19 further show the case to be one of temporary or redeemable unenforceability concerned only with Section 77 of the act.

This in our view is not good enough. Parameters are being put into place in this case which would in our view be antagonistic against the claimant. It is extremely serious to only cover one avenue of the Bank's behaviour. It is important as we do here to cover the behaviour of the Bank before the case and their action in effect finding McGuffick guilty by "criminalising him" before a hearing. It is our our view that this parameter brought about a false context to the case.

Mr MoranQC in Point 20 seems to be very generous to the defendant in Point 20 by asking the Judge to give guidance.

We have an admitted breach here and during the time of the breach Royal Bank of Scotland seemingly "criminalised" the claimant.

Mr Richard Handyside QC for the defendant seems to have taken this up not only to benefit his own client, the Royal Bank of Scotland but for all the banking institutions involved in these cases, that even though the case was a "test case," it would seem only the specifics to this case could be considered by the court because the wider issues which seem to be described here as "hyporhetical facts" as they relate to other cases not before the court could not be considered.

This is fair enough in our view as long as it is not a "test case". It is a "test case" however and of courses there are differences in this case to other cases. Of course a court could not decide on other cases so why has this case become part of a process pulling out all the other cases.

We see this as unconstitutional and illegal.

The Issues

Point 22 relates to Mr Handyside's list of issues with a skeleton argument not formally agreed that is nonetheless described as "a useful summary" even though to an extent the list had been overtaken by events!

Oh dear!

Point 23 is a summary of issues awaiting decision.

(1) This relates to £15,066-21 with a statement in the point that the figure had been outstanding under the agreement since June 2007.

Has the Court stopped using the word "alleged". The decision of the Court has not been given yet. We are awaiting the decision of the Judge yet in the transcript we read of an amount outstanding under the agreement.

As it would seem that this is just coming towards the Court, then surely we are dealing with an "alleged" sum outstanding, the agreement and its validity being brought under question because under the 1974 Consumer Credit Act an agreement to be an agreement has to be under certain criteria in law. It has not been decided yet whether this is an agreement in law or not.

Where was Mr Moran QC with his "Objection - Your Honour!"

(2) Part 2 gives a statement of a period of non-compliance.

It would seem from the case that there is a period of accepted "breach", the parameters set out however not allowing there to be consideration of reporting to CRA's during that period!

However, the behaviour of the Bank is lists in the area of the Bank's reporting to CRA's; the enforcement action of the Bank with defaulting, the threatening of legal action and the Bank's instruction to a third party.

(3) This relates as to whether the Claimant has any right to be protected by an injunction.

(4) This relates as to whether theCourt can grant an injunction to force the Bank to serve the signed statement of account as requited by Section 77(1) of the 1974 Act.

(5) This relates as to whether the Bank can continue reporting to CRA's.

(6) This relates to Unfair Trading Regulations.

(7) A reference to a letter from MJP Solicitors of 10 June 2009 as to whether it was a valid notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

(8) This relates to the Banks and CRA's carrying information as passed on by the Bank in these circumstances.

(9) A very important point here relates to the failure of the Bank to inform the CRA of the full facts, unfair to the claimant within the meaning of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act.

140AUnfair relationships between creditors and debtorsE+W+S+N.I.

(1)The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—

(a)any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;

(b)the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;

(c)any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

(2)In deciding whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor).

(3)For the purposes of this section the court shall (except to the extent that it is not appropriate to do so) treat anything done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, an associate or a former associate of the creditor as if done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, the creditor.

(4)A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended.

(5)An order under section 140B shall not be made in connection with a credit agreement which is an exempt agreement by virtue of section 16(6C).]

It is our view that in a dispute both sides should have opportunity to give their view to an outside agency like a CRA.

Point 24 relates to the following points (in part 3) relating to provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as oulined by the McGuffick case.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS and UTILITARIANISM

Part 3

In relation to current legal actions that have now been taken out of the legal process, hence our legal ability to name specific cases on this site, we now move on from our presentation of the House of Lords case shown in Part 1 to see how the House of Lords ruling seems to have been cancelled out by a Court Hearing conducted by the Honourable Mr Justice Flaux. We believe we can show Utilitarianism as a philosophy being used in relation to British Law as well as unconstitutional references

to European Law and the European Court of Justice.

Presented by Rev David P Griffiths

Clergyman of the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law

1689 Act that Established the Coronation Oath

was sworn by Her Majesty the Queen at her Coronation in June 1953.

Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and

will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?"
King and Queen, "All this I promise to do."
After this, the King and Queen laying his and her hand

upon the holy Gospels, shall say, King and Queen,

"The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep: So help me God."
Then the King and Queen shall kiss the book. IV. And be it enacted, That the said oath shall be in like manner administered to every King and Queen, who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this Realm, at their respective coronations, by one of the archbishops or bishops of this Realm of England, for the time being, to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queen respectively, and in the presence of all persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such their respective coronations; any law, statute, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

Rev. David P Griffiths hereby uses his right as an Ordained Clergy man of the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law" to ensure the laws of God are maintained in the nation, to truly profess the true Gospel and the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law."

In relation to the Protestant Elizabethan Settlement I will expose all foreign infiltration into our legal processes and look to honour and respect British Law in line with H.M. Queen Elizabeth II oath to maintain the laws of God.

The Provisions of the Consumer Credit Acts

(as outlined in the Mc Guffick Case)

Point 25 of the case outline the provisions of the act that fall for consideration in this case.

Form and Content of Agreements

60 Form and content of agreements.E+W+S+N.I.

(1)The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the form and content of documents embodying regulated agreements, and the regulations shall contain such provisions as appear to him appropriate with a view to ensuring that the debtor or hirer is made aware of—

(a)the rights and duties conferred or imposed on him by the agreement,

(b)the amount and rate of the total charge for credit (in the case of a consumer credit agreement),

(c)the protection and remedies available to him under this Act, and

(d)any other matters which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it is desirable for him to know about in connection with the agreement.

What is interesting in this case is that only Part 1 of Section 60 has been brought towards the Court for consideration.

We bring the rest of section 60 for our consideration as a "Protestant Reformed" Ministry established by law in our Constitution.

(2)Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular—

(a)require specified information to be included in the prescribed manner in documents, and other specified material to be excluded;

(b)contain requirements to ensure that specified information is clearly brought to the attention of the debtor or hirer, and that one part of a document is not given insufficient or excessive prominence compared with another.

This is very important to the case as it would seem Royal Bank of Scotland were unable to do this, specified information it would seem by the Royal Bank's own admission they were unable to supply.

In our specific cases with Barclaycard the witness from MSB Solicitors is that Barclaycard was not able to comply.

(3)If, on an application made to the [F1] by a person carrying on a consumer credit business or a consumer hire business, it appears to the [F1OFT] impracticable for the applicant to comply with any requirement of regulations under subsection (1) in a particular case, [F2it] may, by notice to the applicant direct that the requirement be waived or varied in relation to such agreements, and subject to such conditions (if any), as [F2it] may specify, and this Act and the regulations shall have effect accordingly.

The Office of Fair Trading clearly has a role to see fair play.

(4)The [F1OFT] shall give a notice under subsection (3) only if [F2it] is satisfied that to do so would not prejudice the interests of debtors or hirers.

Annotations: Annotations are used to give authority for changes and other effects on the legislation you are viewing and to convey editorial information. They appear at the foot of the relevant provision or under the associated heading. Annotations are categorised by annotation type, such as F-notes for textual amendments and I-notes for commencement information (a full list can be found in the Editorial Practice Guide). Each annotation is identified by a sequential reference number. For F-notes, M-notes and X-notes, the number also appears in bold superscript at the relevant location in the text. All annotations contain links to the affecting legislation.

Amendments (Textual)F1Words in s. 60(3)(4) substituted (1.4.2003) by Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40), ss. 278, 279, Sch. 25 para. 6(23); S.I. 2003/766, art. 2, Sch. (with art. 3)F2Words in s. 60(3)(4) substituted (1.4.2003) by Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40), ss. 278,279, Sch. 25 para. 6(23); S.I. 2003/766, art. 2, Sch. (with art. 3)

Signing of Agreement

61 Signing of agreement. E+W+S+N.I.

(1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

(a)a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b)the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

(c)the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

How could McGuffick's solicitors give opinion on the documentation if the Royal Bank of Scotland did not provide the information in the prescribed time?

Again - only Part 1 of Section 61 was presented in the transcript possibly understandably here due to the context of Section 58. We nevertheless present the rest of the section to put the section in context: