top of page

Victims of the System

Word from the Lord through David P Griffiths, 28/01/12




“You are to place on the Christian Financing website, (now Constitution Keepers) a page called ‘Victims of the System.’ It is well known & accepted in thy nation, that there has been widespread banking malpractice, the banks being bailed out by Government, with the victims made to pay in effect twice: once, through the malpractice itself; & twice, through government taxes to pay for the malpractice, through the government bail-out.


“Justice for the victims must include a full compensation for the severe mental stress the malpractices caused; mental stress that in many cases has contributed to physical conditions, for which now , there needs not only to be a wiping clean of tarnished credit records, but substantial compensation paid out to these victims of banking practice, that has been proved on this website to have been entwined with foreign law practice, & alien philosophies like utilitarianism.


“In addition to this, this website has shown there to be behind-the-scenes manipulation of a House of Lords edict that has affected the lives of many people, with the threat of financial ruin looming over the victims. It is clear that it is they who should have received the bail-out, rather than banks who have not abided by Constitutional Law.

“So, what is the solution?


“(1) The victims must know that there is a Burden-Carrier. He is the Lord of our Constitutional Acts, who sent His only begotten Son , that whosoever believeth on Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.


“(2) As in the year of Jubilee, there is a writing off of all debts, including credit records. But these victims have had tarnished records whilst taking failing banks to court, this breaking the principles of Habeas Corpus. They must be compensated for this.


“(3) The nation itself must repent before God, for allowing mammon to rule its thinking. Going back to the yuppie days of the Filofax, when a thinking came into the nation, of making money at any price, a moving away from its standing together of war years, to a dog-eat-dog society of winners & losers; the love of money, however, bringing an attitude amongst bankers, of them holding the purse-strings, rather than the Constitutional Head of State, who is there to apply law, with law in justice & mercy.


“Thus now, we have victims & a nation of bailed-out failures, & potential successful business people, who now cannot trade, due to the failures of those running the system; those running the system still gaining bonuses at the expense of the victims who should be gaining their compensation out of that bonus money.


“(4) These victims now have a major wall to face; & like the children of Israel facing the Jericho wall, they must see that their hearts are pure. They must see this battle can only be won through the Lord; for this wall being faced, is a stronghold protecting the system from the application of the Constitutional Acts of the nation. These Acts are based upon My Word, your nation’s monarch having authorized the Bible, which must now be lifted up as you face this wall of antichrist.


“Be assured, the anointing of God is against this wall; & your monarch is obligated by lawto increase virtue (that is, the anointing) in Christ’s religion.


“The victims, with their tarnished records, must have their slates wiped clean.

Kicking the Devil Out of the Banks!
CASES STILL ONGOING IN 2023 & we are still not backing down - a House of Lords Edict walked over!

“That is Stone number 1. For this wall is as a great Goliath, looking so strong against the victims. He looks impenetrable; but by coming to the Lord, he has to bow to the virtue entwined in the nation’s Constitutional Acts.


“Stone number 2: These victims have had to endure the bully-boys of collecting agencies, whilst they were legitimately taking the banks to court, cases taken out by the antichrist system, who applied European law, & utilitarianism against the Protestant Reformed religion established by law; which has at its very root, the God who sent His Son to die for the victims of the god of this world. Here, the god of this world, who has been ruling the banking systems of this nation for too long, gave ‘phone call after ‘phone call to hard=pressed business people, to hard-pressed families, destroying their reputations & credibility; operating behind the scenes to take these cases out of court, that under British Law they were bound to lose.


“So, foreign legal systems were brought in; alien philosophy was brought in, of a greater good; this greater good being based on protecting the credibility of the banks, at the expense of the lives of the victims.


“And so, I say to My Davids, Declare to this wall, declare to this giant, thy ways have been found, the Authorized Word of God declaring that when a thief is found, he as to restore sevenfold.


“The harassment against those taking banks to court, was illegal under every type of law & justice one can ever consider. A system like that has to be taken out, to be replaced by a banking system under the God of our Constitutional Acts, rather than the love-of-money god of mammon.


“Stone number 3: The refusal to accept guilt is based on pride. What the nation wants to see is repentant bankers putting things right with the people & the victims, rather than continue to take bonuses, for what is in effect failure. Global business is destroying local business. Global brands have taken over local identity; & support for the global brand has been higher than that for the local business person.


“This stone knocks out that unfairness. These victims are now to become the people entrusted by God, to build up the wealth of the nation; Napoleon himself being afraid of this nation of shop-keepers; of local people, with their local businesses, serving the people; making a fair living, rather than the system of going to poverty-ridden countries, & placing massive profit margins for personal gain, rather than promoting the Constitutional demand of having Common Wealth nations, under a monarch obligated to God to promote a Common Wealth.


“This global exploitation, & promotion of global brands, must be replaced by the return of local identity; of local shopkeepers & business people, serving the people. A local bank manager having built up years of wisdom & experience, serving those who were once victims, with the encouragement they need, to build the nation’s wealth once again.


“Stone number 4: You are Great Britain because of God. The people did not vote for political & legal integration into Europe. On numerous occasions, the people have shown their loyalty to the monarch, & all she stands for, rather than the stars of Europe.


“But, as has been seen in these cases, Europeans law has taken precedence over British law; an activity illegal whilst the nation has a monarch, bound by her oath to God, to promote the Protestant Reformed religion established by law, that has benefits for all the people, whatever their race or creed.


For what must not be allowed to happen, is continued infiltration of the Treaty of Rome, & all the other treaties around it; for the monarch’s oath to God is higher than the signatures of politicians, who in practice, signed the nation’s Constitution away; but in reality, as God is higher, this stone is being thrown at all these signatures, these politicians being brought before God, for judgement, yet mercy, to be applied on these politicians.


First of all, repenting before the God of these Constitutional Acts; but also towards the people who have in effect become the victims of these signatures; this God of mercy looking to bring the people & their politicians together, as one under God. This can only take place once the nation is together again, putting into practice its Constitution, rather than bowing down to the integration of Europe.


“Stone number 5: My Word declares the love of money is the root of all evil. Thy nation is to be prosperous again, under the following conditions:


“(i) It is a sharer of its wealth, thy nation being legendary in world affairs, by bringing relief to impoverished people. But there are two factors here –


“I have provided provision for all the peoples of the world to flourish. My resources are endless. But in revival, thy Christian nation has sent out missionaries to deal with the sin & corruption that has prevented the resources of the world from being properly shared.


“This stone is against the sin. It is sin that causes famines, not lack of resources.


“And so, missionaries are vital to thy nation, to deal with the root of the evil, so that thy nation’s resources can be used to promote the building of nations under God; & that thy nation is one with a passion for justice, rather than personal greed.


“And so, this stone has been thrown, at that that looks to suppress a passion of a nation that wants to give. Its obsession with lottery rather than giving, being one that has promoted love of money rather than generosity; & superstition, rather than reliance on God (the crossed fingers logo of the National Lottery).


“And so now, with these stones being thrown, with these stones being the sword of My Spirit, one can now witness this wall of Antichrist Jericho being removed. For those called of God to rule the nation; those with a pure heart; My warning being to them: do not syncretize thy Christian nation again, with foreign control & philosophy, but stay pure on the side of thy God of the Constitutional Acts.


“And using the David & Goliath analogy, I declare you must remove every infiltration of foreign legal & political structures, & worship Me with thy whole hearts, to enable you to enjoy once more a land full of milk & honey. “They are the five stones.”

Credit Reference Agencies


I believe with all of my heart that these are illegal, writes Rev. David P. Griffiths.I know with my "knower" that they are and I prophetically place my reasons for this belief:


1)  UNDEMOCRATIC: We are forced to take part in it if one is going to partake in business acrivity - and most people do. In effect one cannot buy or sell unless one agrees to this!


2)  CARRY FALSE INFORMATION: A regional banking manager recently admitted to me that she had had a client who was being refused credit. She was unable to find out the problem but the client did. He had bought shoes from the "Next" catalogue which did not turn up so he did not pay for them, this decision affecting his credit rating as it would seem "Next" had written adversely on his record.


3)  IT WOULD SEEM THAT THESE AGENCIES SELL YOUR PRIVATE INFORMATION TO OTHERS! I recently had a phone call from a company trying to see me a financial service. The seller was able to tell me about my own private financial information. "How do you know these things", I asked! They were sold to us from a reference agency came the reply.


I asked at my local Branch of Barclays what would happen if a member of staff sold to another my private information. I was told that they would be sacked. Well that's what should happen to Credit Reference Agencies!


4)  PART OF THE GLOBALISATION BIG BROTHER CULTURE: Information keeping that is unaccountable in a local environment. It's global data storing gone mad bringing in an order that is outside of local understanding, but inside a culture that has global thinking under the "god of this world"; II Cor. 4:4

Debt Cancellation is the Biblical Key!

Debt Cancellation: Biblical Norm, Not Exception

By Tim Atwater


The Jubilee campaignís origins are linked with the Biblical Year of Jubilee, outlined in Leviticus 25-26, a magnificent and widely ignored text which calls for periodic complete overhaul of the economy.


In the Jubilee, there is release for those enslaved because of debts, a Sabbath rest for land and people, redistribution of lands lost because of debt, and a reordering of prices for land and labor based on proximity to the next Jubilee.


Leviticus 25 never even explicitly mentions debt--but the Jubilee is all about debt cancellation, restored community, and freedom from debt bondage.


The Jubilee cycle of release builds on the Sabbath Year debt release and rest cycle outlined in Deuteronomy 15 and Exodus 21:2 and 23:10-11, building from an every seventh year rest and release to a super-release in the fiftieth year.


It was no accident that rebels against colonial authority chose a line from Lev. 25:10 "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof...." as the inscription for their liberty bell.

The theme of Jubilee runs deep in Scripture. Godís identity as liberator is fundamental (Ex. 20:1-3; Deut. 5:6-7). A good case can be made that the Bible actually considers Jubilee non-negotiable ó if people do not obey, the demands of Jubilee justice remain outstanding until fulfilled, regardless of chronological time.


Leviticus 26:34-35 says the land will take her Sabbath even if we humans ignore Godís word.


Prophets and leaders regularly called Israel to account for neglecting the demands of the Sabbath and Jubilee texts (for example, Nehemiah 5:1-13; Jeremiah 34:8-18; Amos 2:6-7, 8:5-6; Ezekiel 18: 7-9, Isaiah 58).


Whether the Sabbath and Jubilee Years were ever adequately observed is a secondary question for the prophets ó we are called to accountability, irregardless.


In the Biblical view, debt is always the responsibility of creditors as well as debtors. In the ancient Near East, even pagan kings periodically cancelled debts to allow the poor a measure of respite from harsh conditions.


The Biblical mandate goes much further, reordering the whole economy around the need for periodic cancellation of debt and restoration of community.


The Talmud (the oral law teachings collected by the Rabbis) strictly forbids charging interest to either Jews or non-Jews when a loan is made for basic needs rather than profit. The Rabbis held that the testimony of anyone who charged interest on a loan was not acceptable in court. In our global economy built on compound interest--consider the implications!


Jesus begins his public ministry in Lukeís gospel by quoting a Jubilee text from the prophet Isaiah (61:1-2), salted with sermon illustrations on Godís mission to all the nations. He says the scripture about good news for the poor, release for captives, and freedom for the oppressed is now fulfilled in folksí hearing (Luke 4:16-30).


By proclaiming the kingdom of God as a form of Jubilee, in the present tense, for all the nations, Jesus opens the Jubilee up to layers of additional meaning and interpretation.


In the Jubilee, as in all of Scripture, nothing occurs in isolation.

Debt cancellation is not just an economic transaction, nor simply a spiritual matter. Jesus linked forgiveness of money debts and spiritual debts (Luke 7:36-50,11:2-4,16:1-13), and made forgiveness of our debts contingent on our forgiveness of the debts of others (Matthew 6:9-15,18:21-35).


Early Christians applied the call to practice debt cancellation literally and spiritually. The parable of the unrighteous steward (Luke 16:1-13) speaks of a man who apparently cheats his master by writing-down debts. The masteróperhaps understanding the linkage with the reordering of prices according to Jubilee standards (Lev. 25:14-16, 26-27, 50-52), approves of the stewardís action.


The book of Acts resonates with Jubilee and Sabbath imagery, as disciples sell property and fields, share wealth, break bread together, rest and study and restore community (Acts 2:43-46, 4:32-37). The Sabbath-Jubilee theme gets extra emphasis in Acts 4:34ís close paraphrase of Deuteronomy 15:4: "There was not a needy person among them..." And Barnabas, a Levite, sells a field and gives the proceeds to the whole community, modeling Jubilee restoration of blessed community.


What about forgiving the debts of impoverished nations today? In both the Torah and the New Testament, Israel is a model of a covenant that is for all the nations (Genesis 12:2-3; Exodus 4:23; Acts 3:25-26). Thus Jubilee is not just for Israel. Christians believe Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises, law and prophets.


What would Jesus do? Would not Jesus, the one who said the nations will be judged by what they do and do not do for the least of these my brethren, (Mt 25:31-46) stick with his original lineóforgive us our debts?


Would he not say further that debts incurred by the rich in the Global South and North together, debts which are now paid by orphans and widows, the poor and oppressed--are not only forgiven but fundamentally illegitimate?


What do we say?

Questions Credit Reference Agencies do not want to answer!

We use our approaches to Experian as an example but found them so entrenched in a system that we see as totalitarian - communistic rather than Constitutional in Great Britain!

LATEST NEWS - 23 April 2014 - GUESS WHAT?


Circumstance behind this follow our latest letter to this agency that it would seem legally stop claimants from trading!!!!!!!!!!! 



23/04/2014 19:08:02

Tom Doidge

Customer Relations Consultant


PO Box 9000


NG80 7WP


Dear Mr Doidge,


Re. Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths

Your ref. EXP/M00246193

The Holding of Unbalanced Financial Information about me by your company that has made it difficult for me to trade normally.


Thank you for your letter of 1. April 2014.


Before I ask you again for the answers to our questions which again you have failed to address, what we are defending here is the fundamental right of a claimant to withdraw payment from a defendant in a dispute.


What we are attacking here is your policy of recording defaults without giving the claimants side on the credit file, highly illegal under British Constitutional Law but obviously legal under your global law, which highly illegal in Great Britain.


Despite of your apparent attempt to conclude this correspondence, let me assure you it will not end till justice is done and the answers to my questions received:


These again are the questions:


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. If “no” we await action against your company for in effect it would be a major constitutional breach. You are a company operating in Great Britain that has the ability to affect my ability to trade. Please answer my questions. There are many thousands of people awaiting your answer on these questions. I am pressing you to reply and will continue to do so.



Please answer – YES OR NO


Yours sincerely





Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths


Experian,  perhaps the largest credit reference agency in UK - it seems takes adverse comments from Defendants and places those comments on a Credit File thus finding a Claimant Guilty who is taking a Bank to court ....


In an incredible set of circumstances E M L Griffiths has found herself black listed by Experian for taking banks to court as a Claimant during the times her cases were on their way to court.


Following a negative reply from Experian seemingly saying this is perfectly legal, we have asked this company these questions:


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


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


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


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

16/10/2013 22:01:58


PO BOX 7710
NG80 7WE.

Dear Sir or Madam,


Re. Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths

The Holding of Unbalanced Financial Information about me by your  company that has made it difficult for me to trade normally.


It has been one of the great traditions of our country that in a dispute both sides should have their say. It is also one of the great traditions of our country that when a case is on its way to court, then one awaits the decision of that court in relation to a matter. It is also one of the great traditions of our country that when one is awaiting a court hearing one does not harass the opponent, default the claimant as I was in these cases before a court hearing. It is also one of the great traditions of our country that government does not interfere with edicts of the Upper House which we believe has happened here. It is also one of the great traditions of our country that foreign philosophies, references and adherences does not influence our legal processes and this letter categorically proves in this case that they have contrary to the law of our nation.


Where does that leave Experian? I believe that the contents of this letter will prove in a very difficult position which we are happy to work through with you but please understand we are not going to accept the unconstitutional position I have found  myself in isolated by your company and I assume other credit reference agencies.


The Story:


It goes back to 2008 when I employed Consumer Credit Solicitors MSB Solicitors  Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley, MSB House,20-22 Tapton Way, Wavertree  Business Village, Liverpool L13 1DA.


They looked at each and every one of our credit agreements which were fully paid up to date. At that time there was great emphasis being placed in the consumer marketplace that to be “enforceable” then strict criteria had to be met in line with the 1974 Consumer Credit Act. They advised as to which banks were meeting the criteria set by the House of Lords edict and the 1974 Consumer Credit Acts.


 From our accounts we divided those in dispute and those not in dispute using the criteria that those in dispute must await the court hearing before continuing to pay. We put to you that what we went through by bank who were in dispute with can only be described as “hell on earth”, the “cease anddesist” notices of MSB Solicitors being ignored by offending banks to appalling consequences on I and my family.


I live under the philosophy of paying undisputed accounts on time but when an account is in dispute I firmly know that the disputed account must await the court hearing particularly as I was the claimant! To default and harass a claimant is illegal, unconstitutional and appalling behaviour as you will see from the detailed case notes to follow.


It is my view that I was subject to mafia style tactics similar to those used to intimidate and bully witnesses featured in the Chicago movies of the 1930’s, in this case the violence being against my resolve and reputation.


The Cases:


1)   AA VISA Card operated by Bank of Scotland.  MSB Solicitors Case No. JC/JM/48744.001 MSB recovered excess charges on the account & PPI but found 

the account enforceable so all payment were paid ON TIME and the account has 

been paid off in full per the agreement although it remains our view excess interest 

charges were charged to us. Despite of this AA Visa withdrew credit facilities despite the excellent payment record which is possibly because of adverse information you are 

holding on me that is absolutely out of context to the situation in hand.


 2)  CAPITAL ONE CARD. MSB Solicitors Case No. JC/SA/48744.005. 

On 02 10 08 MSB Solicitors found this account ENFORCEABLE resulting in 

my excellent payment record as you will probably be able to see the account is 

regularly used and paid off each month.


3) Barclaycard that was Morgan Stanley and Goldfish =  

MSB Solicitors Case No. JC/SA/48744.008. This was considered 


by MSB Solicitors, Liverpool on 28.April, 2009.


Considerable harassment came to my family and I with harassing phone calls 

demanding payment whist the matter was awaiting a court hearing. This harassment 

came through two apparent debt collecting agencies called Mercers and Calders – 

the calls from whom were very aggressive. Our study on these agencies led us to 

believe that these two named agencies were part of Barclays and we pointed out at 

the time that this being the case Barclays were PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE by harassing a claimant at that time taking the matter to court.


The crucial point here that another agency to whom they passed on the account Debt Managers Ltd admitted a dispute, our argument being that payments or non – payments occurs when a dispute is settled which remains the case.


MSB Solicitors intimated to us that a positive outcome had occurred after a Case Management Conference in Manchester.


On 28.April 2009 I received a notice from MSB Solicitors that they considered the accountUNENFORCEABLE by virtue of Section127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act and/or Section 78/77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.


We went through processes of payment demands and on the 26. July 2009 a default notice, illegal in the context of these events was served through Mercers and on the 28. July 2009 I sent a notice to Mercers not recognising the “default” which we do not do to this day and if the ”default” is to remain on my credit file then I insist that my side of the story be placed on the file– that is only fair.


Calders then became involved and on 28. July we asked the question whether their legal actions were of European Corpus Juris orBritish Habeas Corpus, the latter meaning that one is innocent before a court hearing, Juris meaning entirely the opposite so here is an example of foreign practice in this case; illegal under the 1534 Act of Supremacy re-established in the Elizabethan Settlement 1559.


Mercers then threatened they would send local debt collectors to our house when we were communicating, trying to negotiate whilst under great pressure because at the time we were looking after two special needs people in this house, the impact of debt collection visits being something that caused serious stress.


 Various “underarm” tactics took place with the use of “social stationery” rather than business stationery followed by a notice from Calder in 29 10 09 threatening summons, baliffs, taking money out of wages, local collector and adverse credit ratings none of which happened except with you the adverse credit rating it would seem! All this when I was the claimant taking Barclaycard to court!!!!!!!!!!


At the same time we were getting word through MSB Solicitors that an outcome to all this looked very positive legally and so the saga continued.


Debt Managers of Edinburgh got involved on 23 12 09 with a formal demand and so on 01 01 10 I gave them this story and the constitutional demand we live by. Debt Managers replied with threat of court action (difficult when we were the claimant on the way to court at the time) court costs and again the adverse credit rating which they all seem to have been successful with – with you!!!!!!!!


On 06 01 10 we were told by Debt Managers that they were closing the file and returning the now alleged account to Barclaycard.


On 01 02 10 I then received a phone call from Apex Credit chasing the account but on being told this saga they too returned the now alleged account to Barclaycard.


On 12 03 10 we received intimation from MSB Solicitors in relation to their emphasis in the case of section 78 of the Consumer Credit act 1974 but then we receive word on 08 04 10that even though our case had not come to court I had become liable according to the High Court, a detailed study of the very strange McGuffick “test case” following which I present through the work of my husband as completely unconstitutional and illegal.


4)  Barclaycard  MSB Solicitors Case No. JC/SA/48744.002. This is a long running saga which I take from 10.October 2008. On 10 10 08 I received a letter from MSB Solicitors considering unenforceability virtue of Section 127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974.


On 03 12 08 I was informed by Solicitor Joanna Connolly that Barclaycard had been informed that the agreement is “irredeemably unenforceable” a definite statement rather than an opinion.


On 20 01 09 I received a letter from Colin Sefton, Legal Regulatory Compliance of Barclaycard seemingly arguing with the edict of Joanna Connolly. Now the point of me mentioning this is very clear. If an professional solicitor has issued an edict on an company –then the company argues back – then one has a dispute but instead of accepting this awaiting the court hearing Barclaycard went on a campaign of aggression and abuse against me and my family. This included defaulting admidst all the harassment and abuse.


At the time Barclaycard were simply adding onto the alleged amount owing with Colin Sefton denying there was a dispute!!!!!!!! On 15 02 09 a letter was received by Barclaycard threatening to wop my previously perfect credit file which they now seem to have done with your company Experian as a means to black list my name! This makes you as an accessory to the crime!!!!!! Following this I was informed by MSB Solicitors saying the papers on this case had been sent to Counsel.


 Following on 26 02 09Barclaycard wrote to me stating they were sorry to hear of my dissatisfaction aiming to resolve matters by 19. March 2009. I am still waiting!!!!!!!

 On 14 03 09 I issued a serious harassment complaint to Barclaycard saying that family life had been  affected by a barrage of phone calls. A letter from Barclaycard Customer Relationship Unit was received stating that they aimed now to resolve the complaint by 20 04 09 and again I am still waiting.


On 19 03 09 my husband informed MSB Solicitors by E Mail of the serious Barclaycard harassment. I followed with a further complaint to Barclaycard on 20 03 09. A reply from a Candice Skelton, Customer Relationship Manager of Barclaycard was received. This referred to my request to stop the harassing phone calls on a claimant on the way to court at that time! She stated that I was aware that my account had become overdue for payment. I was not aware because the now alleged account was on its way to court and in dispute. I was referred to one of their agents, professional debt counselling service, CAB or the Consumer Credit Counselling Service but the refusal to pay had nothing to do with inability to pay at the time, but everything to do with my constitutional right to not pay a disputed account on its way to court.


On 21 03 09 I wrote a letter to Ms Dineen, Colin Sefton of Barclaycard and to Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley of MSB Solicitors with a plea to find a sensible way forward without the continuous Barclaycard harassment but all I received back was standard rather than specific letters from Barclaycard that addressed the serious matters in hand.


 On 25 03 09 I emphasized the need for sensible dialogue rather than the considerable harassment that I believe Barclaycard today owe us compensation for. I mentioned the position of Habeas Corpus in legal matters to a reply that Barclaycard had to give factual information to Credit Reference Agenciesand I am proving here that they have not! In a dispute I am legally entitled to give our side to the agencies which in your case I am doing now but under the harassment we came under it seems on your credit file you are only giving one side in a dispute. Does this mean you are biased towards the banks or will you either remove the adverse comments or allow me to give my side?


On 01 04 10 I wrote a further letter to Ms Dineen and Colin Sefton of Barclaycard complaining of standard reply letters rather than specific ones addressing the issues over which my family had to endure great harassment. I issued a notice on Barclaycard stating my belief that they were acting treasonably as they had conducted themselves under illegal global law systems rather than our own British Law.


What followed on 05 04 09 was a Default Notice by Mercers who seem to be owned by Barclaycard this in my view being guilty of perverting the course of justice by changing identity before a court hearing. The alleged account balance was rising!!!!!!!


 On 06 04 09 I wrote to Mercers referring them to MSB Solicitors of Liverpool and then on 07 04 09 I wrote to Ann Vivemar and Karen Conman of Mercers stating their “default notice” was not recognised but seemingly it has been by you!

 On 14 04 09 a reply was received from Robert Wallace of Barclaycard denying involvement in harassment or criminal activity but my perspective is that Barclaycard had broken the Harassment Act of 1997, perverted the course of justice and acted treasonably by not recognising a dispute which at the time was on its way to court.


 On 16 04 09 I relied to Robert Wallace stating that all my payments were up to date until the beginning of the dispute.


 On 20 04 09 Elaine Mockler sent a letter with Barclaycard Terms and Conditions which of course are under the relevant House of Lords edict relating to the 1974 Consumer Credit Act.

 On 21 04 09 Mercers issued a notice threatening to send a local debt collector to our door! On 2204 09 I wrote to Mr Dave Clark of Mercers confirming our referring to ours solicitors MSB of Liverpool. On 23 04 09 I issued a warning to Mercers saying the legal requirement that when a case is on its way to court the term “alleged” should be used!


 On 23 04 09 Robert Wallace denied harassment and criminal activity by Barclaycard, Candice Skelton of Barclaycard having apologised on 30 03 09 saying sorry we remained dissatisfied telling us we had six months to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service which we have since found out have no brief to consider these matters of dispute!!!!!!!


On 01 05 09 MSB Solicitors wrote to Mercers warning of an official complaint being issued to the Office of Fair Trading and other relevant authorities under Section 40 Administration of Justice Act 1970 and Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Strong words but the harassment continued with MSB Solicitors simply issuing a threat but not taking action when the threat was ignored.


On 01 05 09 the harassment continued with a threat by Mercers of sending a local debt collector turning up at our home to collect full payment! On 07 05 09 the Barclaycard Public Relations Team stated they aimed to resolve matters by 29 05 09, a further letter of 15 05 09 saying they aim to resolve matters by 05 06 09. I still await this resolving!!!!!!!!!!!


 On 26 05 09 Phil Clark put Barclaycard’s side in a letter followed on 27 05 09 with Frances Chambers putting her version for Barclaycard! This is all showing there was and is a dispute!

 On 04 06 09 Mercers issued a “48 hour notice” with an ever expanding balance of monies owing adding to the balance during a dispute.


 On 04 06 09 I wrote to MSB Solicitors (who had issued a legal threat to Barclaycard) stating that severe harassment from both Barclaycard and Mercers had occurred during a time of legal action and a dispute. I had become ill at this time with the strain and Doctor’s visits occurred. I asked MSB Solicitors to consider a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading which they had threatened. I reminded MSB Solicitors of their quoted Administration of Justice Act 1970 and I also expressed the view to them that Barclaycard had broken criminal law in the context of the Harassment act of 1997.


I wrote a further letter to MSB Solicitors on 13 06 09 intimating a use by Barclaycard of European legal systems prohibited in the 1534 Act of Supremacy. It seemed that no action was taken by MSB Solicitors leaving us at the mercy of this powerful bank.


 On 16 06 09 the first intimation from Power 2 Contact of Crewe (looks like another Barclays company)stating that they were a “finding agency”! After showing the 1534 Act of Supremacy to MSB Solicitors I wrote to Power 2 Contact referring them to MSB Solicitors who issued a Cease and Desist notice on Power to Contact!


 On 26 09 09 I wrote to MSB Solicitors saying I was seriously considering taking Barclays to the then DPP reminding Ms Dineen of Barclaycard on 29 06 09 that there would be absolutely no payments whilst account was in dispute. My husband put a series of questions to Barclaycard:

 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?


On 29 06 13 intimation was received from MSB Solicitors that Counsel had agreed to act on a “no win –no fee” basis but court fees had to be paid which MSB did return with cheques that I did not cash because we never backed out due to our finding of foreign and what we believe is illegal government interference in the course of justice at the time. Proof follows later in this letter.


 On 05 07 09 Calder now comes on the scene with an ever increasing alleged amount owing! Their threats included summons costs but again I was the claimant first! Other threats included increasing the harassment and so it went on!


 On 08 07 09 I put to MSB Solicitors the change of identity whilst a court case was pending case thus perverting the course of justice. On the same day I wrote to Colin Rogers of Calder who have the same address as Mercers thus surely proving the identity change. On the same day I receive a letter from Barclaycard Public Relations Team saying they were sorry to hear of my dissatisfaction and that they aimed to resolve matters by 28 July 2009. Again I am still waiting!

 On 14 07 09 I received a letter from Frances Chambers of Barclaycard relating to section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and then we had an admission by Stacey Shaw of Barclaycard admitting for the first time a dispute between us! How can I be defaulted therefore when Barclays admit a dispute! You cannot default a disputed account and now the dispute is uncontested! How can you harass a claimant during a uncontested dispute?


On 01 08 09 my husband wrote to Sam Audley of MSB Solicitors pointing out Barclaycard’s acceptance of a dispute! Despite of this on 02 08 09 Calder demanded a sum £1,751-48 higher than the beginning of the now uncontested dispute! I trust you are now getting my point over the illegal “default” against my name here!


 From 12 08 09 new harassments begin this time from a new agency called RMA of Preston. Threats of sending debt collectors and CCJ’s was in their barrage of threat! On 18 08 09 I wrote to Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley of MSB Solicitors pointing out again illegal behaviour by Barclaycard but this firm of solicitors seemed to be all threat and no action. I wrote to RMA referring them to MSB Solicitors of Liverpool. On 25 08 09 I wrote to Sam Audley of MSB Solicitors informing her of RMA harassment. On 02 09 09 RMA stated that Barclaycard had accepted a settlement figure of £12,728-50, a figure that had grown by £1,751-48 since the start of the now uncontested dispute. On 08 09 09 RMA stated that they cannot help us unless we speak to them. I think we have proven with all the phone calls and letters, and E Mails that a lot of speaking and writing had already taken place.


 On 09 09 09 MSB Solicitors informed me that my claim against Barclaycard had been issued at Liverpool County Court and on the same day I informed RMA to stop harassing me and here I present evidence of harassment with the case now issued at court! It is my view strange events which are presented later were going on behind the scenes with these cases for just two days after MSB Solicitors issued at Liverpool a transfer notice was issued to transfer the case to Manchester under His Honour Judge Waksman.


On 12 09 09 my husband replied to MSB Solicitors pointing out that we had respected the House of Lords ruling and by doing so endured merciless harassment, come under treasonable activity, acts of perverting the course of justice and failure to keep MSB Solicitors Cease and Desist edicts.


 On 22 09 09 despite of the case being issued in court RMA looked for a payment arrangement! Despite of admitting a dispute on 28 09 09 Stacey Shaw of Barclaycard stated we should carry on paying, odd I felt in Britain! On 28 09 09 I again referred RMA to MSB Solicitors who issued a notice on 29 09 09 stating I had failed to keep the agreed payment plan! What agreed payment plan? I pointed this out in my return letter of 06 10 09, Jon Huckfield of RMA replying to say the account was on hold!!!!!!!


 Joanna Connolly of MSB Solicitors writes on 16 10 09 thanking me for Barclaycard correspondence requesting I continue to send the information, Stacey Shaw of Barclaycard writing on 06 11 09 saying she has nothing further to add and so no correspondence occurred between 06 11 09 and 18 01 10.


 On 18 01 10 Joanna Connolly states that our claim was listed for a hearing on 2.February 2010 but due to a ruling by His Honour Judge Waksman my claim had been removed. My husband researched the background to this amazing change of course in this case and believes he has found background that is not legal to this amazing change of course, a change completely at odds with a House of Lords ruling. Report follows.


 On 16 06 10 Apex Credit Management Ltd looked for payments from me, a threat of 28 06 10 occurring of a “home visit appointment.” On the same day Apex issued a notice that our information had been passed onto Barclaycard and that the account was on hold! We then on the same day heard from Josh Lorento of Apex that the account was closed on their systems.

 In July 2010 another agency turned up called Wescot saying I could send further information and this went on through July and August with a letter of 14 09 10 from Barclaycard saying they had informed Wescot to proceed with formal recovery but on the 1509 10 Wescot replied in effect saying they had backed out!


 I wrote to Barclaycard on 29 09 10 seeking relationship and I have no record of reply. In February and August of 2012 I wrote to Barclaycard with an invoice for compensation, a letter, log of events and my husband’s research on the McGuffick “test case”which follows in this letter to you. I sent a House of Lords information letter to Barclaycard on 09 02 12; a Logs letter on the same date; a reminder letter on09 07 12 and a further reminder letter on 08 08 12 all without reply. The harassment has gone but the smearing of my name continues now under your banner. I ask for this smearing to be removed or at the very least allow me to present my side of events on now unbalanced information advertised by you affecting my ability to trade, despite of being completely up to date on undisputed accounts!


 5)  Citibank Card 4508 3118 6900 3509. MSB Solicitors Case No. JC/JM/48744.007. We begin this saga on 06 03 09 with Joanna Connolly of MSB discovering mis-sold PPI, a further notice from Joanna Connolly on 10 03 09stating that this account was likely to be “unenforceable.” A fee was paid to MSB Solicitors and on 14 03 09 I issued a notice to Citi stating that I only paid undisputed accounts.

 On 27 03 09 Citi issued a notice to MSB Solicitors arguing their case and a letter was received by me from Citi saying that our complaint was closed. Of course it was not.

I wrote a letter on 0104 09 to Ms. Jacqueline Moore of Citi cards pointing out that the matter is not closed for it was clear after negotiations with MSB Solicitors that the matter was on-going. I also  pointed out the importance of using the word “alleged” in the case as the matter was on its way to court.


Extra charges were instilled by Citi and I wrote a letter to Citi on 17 04 09 stating these charges were disputed.


I received a letter and now alleged account balance which despite the dispute was now going up! M Green, Head of Collections stated my non-payment may have been an oversight. It was not! On 30 04 09 a reply from the Citi Customer Relations Office stated that enquiries into the matter continued and I issued a warning to Mike Green of Citi on 06 05 09 not to harass us during the build-up to a court case in which I was to be claimant! On 08 06 09 MSB Solicitors stated that they werec hasing Citi for miss-sold PPI.


 On 25 07 09 MSB Solicitors received a notice from Richard Clewer of Citi saying a Section 78 request did not give entitlement to no payment. I agree with this but the reason for non-payment had nothing to do with the request but overall proceeding against Citi leading at that time to a court hearing. The reason I withdrew payments was in honour to the House of Lords edict and to Habeas Corpus which shows that payments would be pre-empting a court decision.


 On 14 09 09 I received a letter from Joanna Connolly of MSB Solicitors saying they had served a copy of the Part 8 claim form for a Declaration of Unenforceability under Section 78CCA 1974 prior to proceeding and a court issue fee was paid.


 I received a notice from the MSB Consumer Credit Team who had been involved in a Case Management Conference in Manchester on 08 10 09 reporting how there was a very positive outcome. In the conference representatives of the claimants got together with the defendants and that these matters should progress through the court system. What was to go wrong? A report follows.

On 01 12 09 Collect Direct UK issued a notice of account overdue with £719-24 added to the total since the dispute was established!


 I wrote a letter to Collect Direct UK in relation to two strange phone calls I had received, the intimations being difficult to understand and the identities of the callers. I informed this agency of the dispute!


 A strange notice was then issued by Collect Direct on 09 12 09 saying they had made numerous attempts to contact me, yet my availability is not generally questioned. I received a threat that I would receive a Personal Representative to my address. I wrote to Collect Direct on 12 09 09 asking for a list of the “numerous attempts” to contact me and receive no reply! I issued a warning relating to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and I told them no payments whilst the account was in dispute!


On 18 02 10 I received an “Attention” notice from Collect Direct UK threatening enforcement action. After this strange events occurred relating to the coming court hearing now mysteriously disappearing from the system. I suspected foul play and believe my husband has proved this in his enquiry into the now famous McGuffick “test case” to follow. MSB returned cheques to cover monies paid to them which I refused to cash stating we would take the case to the House of Lords if necessary, a path we are now on!


On 21 09 10 Cabot Financial came on the scene with letter saying they have now bought account. On05 10 10 I pointed out to them the reality of the situation. By phone I spoke to Mike of Cabot on 08 10 10 saying I was happy for dialogue but not threat! On 1510 10 I was informed by Cabot that they were awaiting information from Citi.


 On 16 02 11 I refused to cash the return cheques of MSB Solicitors as I was not backing out and this occurred again on 29 09 11, MSB Solicitors now turning on me by threatening to give the money to a charity of their choice which they seem to have done.


 On 05 06 12 I wrote to MSB Solicitors putting our position in not backing down. I further wrote to Citi on 09 08 12 asking them to face the issues here but with no reply from them or MSB Solicitors.


 6) MBNA EUROPE BANK LTD. MSB Solicitors Case No. JC/GW/48744.004.This saga begins on 02 11 08 with documentation sent to MSB Solicitors, Liverpool who considered the accountUNENFORCEABLE on 02 04 09 and a fee was paid to them.


 I issued a notice to Martin Supple of MBNA on 07 05 09 declaring that there would be no payments whilst the account was in dispute. This remains the case and on the same date I referred MBNA to MSB Solicitors in relation to the case.


This did not stop MBNA however who took on a war of harassment against me and my family. They issued on 01 06 09 a “Notice of Sums in Arrears” and I replied referring them to MSB. On 04 06 09 I was threatened with adverse credit rating which I am now suffering from and legal actions etc. in the context of I becoming a claimant against them! On 15 06 09 MBNA threatened to pass this onto a third agency!


 On 17 06 09 Julie Malton of MBNA intimated to me that the agreement as she put it was enforceable. MSB Solicitors declared that this was not the case so a dispute was firmly established. In this context I wrote a letter to Martin Supple, MBNA Head of Customer Assistance re-emphasizing no payments whilst in dispute. On 30 06 09 Bev Dulson, MBNA Customer Resolution Services Manager replied saying she had received my letter. On 03 07 09 Nicola Turnbull of MBNA intimated that MSB Solicitors had got their final response from them and despite of a dispute being firmly established MBNA issued a Default notification on 07 07 09. The attack then followed.


 On 08 07 09 my husband E Mailed MSB Solicitors reporting aggressive phone calls from MBNA saying they always won in court which has since been disproven. We were threatened by a lady called Meghna calling from India admitting that harassment would continue and she was really right, exceptionally right!


 On 08 07 09 I wrote to Nicola Turnbull of MBNA encouraging dialogue with MSB Solicitors and on 10 07 09 I received a letter from Joanna Connolly of MSB Solicitors advising not to contact MBNA or other bank but had we not raised the issues to them then we would have been battered! The lack of activity by MSB Solicitors to defend us meant that we had to defend ourselves.


On 20 07 09 an offer came from MBNA to get me back on track but I was on track with all undisputed accounts. On 23 07 09 I received a letter from Kirsty Hulme, MBNA Customer Assistance saying our account was not in dispute and on 28 07 09 I referred her to MSB as solicitors tend not to be employed if there is no dispute!


 On 03 08 09 MBNA issued a “Notice of Sums in Arrears.” I received a letter on 04 08 09 from Gail Powell, MBNA Vice President stating that MSB only dealing with claim – not repayment plan. She said that I was obligated to repay as the credit agreement was valid offering to help re. financial difficulty and asked for a domestic cashflow report. My decision at the time was not based on inability to pay however, it was based on the constitutional right not to pay a disputed account so this approach from MBNA meant no sense to me and now they were wanting to know my private affairs.


 On 13 08 09 I received a notice by Solicitor Chris Taylor of Optima Legal threatening legal action against me but I had already taken through my own solicitors legal action against MBNA. On 15 08 09 I replied to Gail Powell referring her to MSB Solicitors and I asked MSB to stop MBNA phone harassment which they failed to do. On 18 08 09 I referred Solicitor Chris Taylor of Optima Legal to MSB Solicitors. On 01 10 09 MBNA threatened to bring an adverse credit report and they issued on 01 10 09 a further “Notice of Sums in Arrears.”


 The harassment continued with MBNA issuing a notice of a potential court order on my property that contained at the time two special needs individuals. I issued a letter to Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley of MSB Solicitors a notice of constitutional issues as I remained convinced that MBNA had broken the whole principle on which legal disputes were sorted in our nation. This does not involve harassing claimants before a court hearing. This I put to you is extremely serious and out of line with our culture, our heritage and the Constitutional Acts of our nation. On 15 10 09 I issued a letter to Dee Dillistone of MBNA Head of Customer Assistance pointing this out.


 On 20 10 09 I received an E Mail from MBNA threatening to default but it seems they already had. On 23 10 09 I issued a complaint to MBNA  in relation to their threat to affect my ability to trade which it would seem they have using your company!


On 28 10 09 I received a letter from Gail Powell, MBNA who now seemed to have been demoted from Vice President to Department Manager of the Customer Advocate Office but of course there may be two Gail Powells!


 On 04 11 09 Joanna Connolly of MSB Solicitors issued a notice saying that the file had gone to Counsel for opinion. On 06 11 09 Paul Campbell, MBNA Head of Customer Assistance continued with threats against me and here the case was coming into the hands of counsel. I put to you that this is disgraceful and completely out of line with British tradition that honoured edicts of the Upper House! It did not stop MBNA however who on 15 11 09 issued a limited time to help us letter. On 19 1109 a further threat to “default” was issued and at this time all kinds of strange harassment procedures took place by MBNA including use of social stationery to lure me into paying them! I complained to Paul Campbell of MBNA about this clearly showing we do not pay disputed accounts. I was not to be bullied like this!


 On 25 11 09 I received a further threat to grab my property and on 03 12 09 I issued a complaint to MBNA for investigating my homeowner status without permission and their threat of a County Court Judgment for how can that happen against a claimant?


 On 04 12 09 MBNA issued a breach notice and on 09 12 09 I issued a Constitutional Breach Notice to Ben Erwin, MBNA Head of Recovery and Risk Operations, a further letter on 15 12 09being received from Gail Powell who now seemed to have been promoted back to Vice President of MBNA.


 On 18 12 09 MBNA issued a notice that the account had been sold to Direct Legal of Brackley, Northants.


 On 23 12 09 I received a letter from Rachel Nixon, MBNA Customer Advocate Office Manager saying MBNA response to my complaints had been delayed but I would receive a response by 29 01 10.


 On 29 12 09 I received a notice from DLC threatening a report to my credit file which could be with you! On 02 01 10 I issued a warning to Paul Campbell of MBNA that I would not tolerate harassment from DLC on this disputed account. On 05 01 10 DLC said they had contacted the Land Registry and discovered I was a homeowner and they threatened a charging order. I issued a notice on 05 01 10 to Sarah Revens, Team Leader that the account was in dispute. I issued Constitutional warnings to her on 13 01 10.


 The story continues now with solicitors called Aplins who issued a threat on 15 01 10. I replied on 1801 10 to say that I did not pay on disputed accounts.


 It is about this time that strange events took place relating to these disputes in the courts which is expanded on in the coming McGuffick “test case” report which we categorically prove is a million miles away from British law. Reacting to the apparent court victory to the banks I pointed out to Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley of MSB Solicitors that it was a House of Lords edict I had acted on, that we had answered letters and kept in touch with everyone and yet it had now seemed that my perfect credit record was ruined. I showed my firm belief that banks in their defence had used foreign legal systems against us and that my husband and I as clergy of the realm had constitutional obligations to stop this.


On 18 01 10 I received a confident victorious letter from Gail Powell, now Vice President of MBNA saying they could blacken my credit file. She quoted the recent at the time High Court Judgement of the McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland case in which Mr Justice Flaux found that activities like MBNA had involved themselves in were legal but my husband’s research into the case found major constitutional errors in the findings of Mr Justice Flaux discovering an alien philosophy in his thinking outside of our Constitutional boundaries and constitutionally we as Clergy of the Realm could stand against it which we are doing. We are presenting a clear constitutional breach by MBNA by harassing and defaulting a claimant who was taking them to court and as we will show a case based on an Upper House edict that had been illegally tampered with in our view by the government of the time because of the banking crisis, the Judge of the McGuffick “test case” using foreign reference from a utilitarian philosophical base illegal in our country.


 On 20 01 10 I again raised the point to Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley of MSB Solicitors, Liverpool of the constitutional right not to pay a disputed account under Habeas Corpus.


On 03 02 10 Hillesden Securities which seem to be the same as DLC intimated to us that the case had been referred back to MBNA and on 12 03 10 MSB Solicitors intimated the emphasis of the case being on Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. On 08 04 10 intimation was received saying we were now liable because of the High Court, but action had been taken against me before this High Court result with harassment and defaulting and so this did not make sense.


On 21 06 10 a letter was received from Hillesden Securities saying the account was on hold for 21 days till they heard from MBNA. On 18 08 10 a further notice came from Hillesden saying they were still waiting! On 16 09 10 we issued a defence to Aplins Solicitors whilst on 28 09 10 a DLC arrears notice was received and on 04 10 10a further “notice of sums in arrears” notice. On 06 10 10 my husband issued a rejection notice of all of this.


On 08 10 10 Hillesden stated they were still awaiting original documentation from MBNA and on 13 1010 I received a letter from Hillesden saying no enforcement whilst dispute on. On 10 11 10 a letter from Hillesden saying they were still awaiting documentation from MBNA and again on 02 12 10 and again on 20 12 10 and again on 11 01 11.


 Hillesden then stated on 15 02 11 that they were supporting MBNA position and issued a further notice of sums in arrears sheet on 01 04 11. I denied all this on 01 01 11 and 24 05 11!I insisted on no harassment to DLC on 25 05 11. I received information on 03 0911 that Aplins would proceed against us and I issued a warning of Constitutional Breach to DLC on 01 10 11. A further notice of sums in arrears came on 28 09 11; an annual statement on 11 10 11 and a notice of rejection sent on the same day. On 14 10 11 I was told by DLC that our Constitutional Acts were archaic and not relevant to our account which we put to you is a statement of treason. A financial offer notice was issued on 19 10 11 to which I replied with a notice of our belief in the illegality of the whole thing on 24 10 11. I showed the illegal harassment methods of MBNA and use of social stationery and on 18 11 12 Hillesden stated that a litigation department would contact us. On 30 11 12 a further financial offer was made and on 05 07 12 a Mercantile Data Bureau letter was received asking to resolve issue to which I replied on 26 0712 to them with a full summary of the situation and our invoice for £150,000 to compensate for the harassment and hard work put into this by their constitutional breach.


 On 08 08 12 a reply from DLC acknowledging my complaint and on 09 08 12 a letter saying they were still investigating the issues and on 11 08 12 I wrote to DLC saying of my fundamental right to hold payment on disputed accounts.


 On 30 08 12 I gave the Financial Ombudsman the details who advised we contact the Office of Fair Trading which I did with no action on their part as indeed we were to find outwith the Ombudsman, this case being outside their scope of enquiry it would seem.

7)  Barclaycard:  MSB Solicitors Case No.JC/GW 48744.006. On 18 11 08 this account was found UNENFORCEABLE but the Barclaycard was mixed up in our system andt reated as enforceable so it was paid off although Barclaycard have prevented use of the card.


 8) Awaiting Stage 2 notification. MSB Solicitors passed no judgment on these two cards so they have both been paid off.


i)             Barclaycard Platinum

ii)            The GM Card


Our Legal Position and the McGuffick “Test Case”


Where We are At Now: the Legal Position


We stopped paying disputed accounts at the time leading up to court hearings, hearings that no longer seem to be taking place.


We question the ability of a lower court to wipe out hearings that came about as a result of an edict from the highest court in the land – the House of Lords.


We question the references to the European Court of Justice in the now well know McGuffick case which was presented to us particularly by MBNA as a test case apparently proving their position against us. We believe the case actually proves the case for us – for disputes are legally recognised in thec ase – thus how can these banking institutions now marginalised by British Society take enforcement action against us when a court has recognised a dispute? We believe this to be Corpus Juris – illegal under British Constitutional Law.


We believe we can prove the illegality of this case as the position given to Protestant Clergymen by H.M. The Queen in her Coronation Oath clearly gives rights and privileges to ensure the Constitutional Acts of 1534, 1689 and1700 as well as The Elizabethan Settlement be kept to. We do not believe this has occurred with the Mc Guffick Test Case and intend to challenge it even to the Highest Court in the Land – The House of Lords.


You will have noticed my issuing of constitutional breaches now despite of being called “archaic” and not relevant to our account by DLC – they actually all relate to the Monarch’s Oath to God which is highly relevant in everything!

The obligations of this act that was re-instated by Queen Elizabeth I in 1559 are as follows:


1)    Increase in virtue (anointing) of Christ’s Religion. This means being bound to Christ, the present turning away from the real Christ Jesus of the Reformation being completely and absolutely unconstitutional.


2) Repress and extirpate all errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses.


3)  The Monarch to act in the line of repressing the extremities that are religiously affecting the nation. This is extremely serious in the context of today for we are seeing a complete breakdown of all that is precious to us.


4)  To conserve the peace, unity and tranquillity of the realm.


5)   To repress the infiltration of foreign laws and systems into our nation. Roman countries use the principles of Corpus Juris that have their origins in Babylon whereas our Protestant system ofHabeas Corpus has its origins in Jerusalem, Greece and Protestant Britain. Foreign law is taking away our freedoms and so those in Christian Ministry today must demand by quoting this act of Supremacy that our Monarch repress as she is obligated to do these infiltrations into our society.

This is the oath of the present Monarch’s Coronation in 1953. It has to be adhered to, there being very serious consequences for anyone who should have persuaded the Monarch to behave in away contrary to her oath.


 Here are the demands of the Oath:



*   Maintain the statutes, laws and customs of the realm. We believe the banks we have presented to you have not


*  Government of the People is the Monarch’s responsibility according to the statutes of Parliament and the laws and customs of the same. We believe the complete ignoring of the House of Lords edict relating to the Consumer Credit Act of 1974 was unconstitutional and treasonable.


*  Law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgements.


*  The Laws of God maintained, the Monarch being obligated to do this by the utmost of her power meaning she is honour bound not to allow laws onto the statute book that contravene the Word of God, any such law being null and void according to this constitutional demand.


*  The utmost of the Monarch’s power has to be used in relation to the on-going profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion that has been established by law.


*  Rights and privileges are given by law to Bishops and clergy meaning in reality whom we see as being unconstitutional we have every right to expose and bring situations back to British law which we are doing here.


 In this context 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.




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 defaults 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.


The McGuffick Case


Phillip McGUFFICK – Claimant and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC Defendant before The Honourable Mr Justice Flaux


DISPUTE POINT PROVEN: Consistently banks had denied there being a dispute– thus giving them apparent legal rights to take enforcement actions against us the Claimant.


Immediately on Page 1 of the McGuffick case – there is a major error in the case. The report introduction relates the case as being one of a large number of cases in relation to disputes that had occurred between banks and debtors. The Court had recognised disputes here – disputes consistently denied in EMLG case by the banks except Barclaycard who admitted a dispute yet still carried on with enforcement action.


Since when in British law has there arisen a situation where one party can default another, affect their ability to trade over a disputed account awaiting a court hearing? We believe this to be global law (Corpus Juris) manifesting in our legal system. Throughout we have paid undisputed accounts – not disputed ones on their way to a hearing. We intend to take this all the way back to the Lords if necessary.


Banks seemed to have defaulted EMLG at the same time as in the McGuffick case that R B of S took enforcement action against McGuffick during the time when they did not have signed papers and the account was “irredeemably unenforceable”:


All law has to be applied with “law and justice in mercy” and so if there is a delay in finding papers then it can be expected that both parties would discuss this together. We believe MSB Solicitors did this in our cases but still considered seven cases irredeemably unenforceable.


Point 9 of the report covers action by the claimant (like ours) of not paying while the account was in dispute. It is noted that R B of S had received hundreds of requests from solicitors and claims management companies on behalf of clients for documents from the bank in relation to legal action.


1689 Act Establishing the Coronation Oath which deals with the application of law in Great Britain:Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgements?" King and Queen, "I will." We believe through MSB Solicitors we have offered this to the Banks – but have had enforcement actions against us whilst we were showing mercy.


Point 11 intimates the testimony of Clare Price of R B of S who stated that although it was the policy of the bank to keep all copies of loan agreements – it was not always possible to provide them in the prescribed period.


It is my recollection in our case that MSB informed us that when the prescribed period was over MSB reminded the bank of their obligations and seemingly did not act on the basis of not meeting the time period.


Point 12: It seems R B of S were looking for the agreement when they defaulted the account. Surely the account should have been on hold in this time of dispute instead of going for McGuffick! Point 13: R B of S admitted that they had not issued a signed copy of the agreement during the time period and still defaulted the account! It is admitted that this signed agreement was required by Section 77 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. So why has the case been lost? Point 14: R B of S after considerable delay finds signed agreement which seems to have made the agreement enforceable again under Section 77 (4) but during the time when the account was unenforceable – the Bank defaulted McGuffick. This seems to have been discussed in point 15. Point17 places doubt by Mr Moran for the claimant that this was not a good test case& in this legal equation there seems to have been in this case a period when the agreement was unenforceable (when the collecting system went against him) and a period when it was enforceable. There was also the added complication of an insurance deal being active in the case which it is not in our cases.


The Point Over whether The Credit Deal and the Implications of the deal were properly set out to McGuffick: Point 18brings to the fore the actual credit deal itself and whether the costs involved were properly set out, point 19 pointing out that in this case there seems to be an understanding of temporary unenforceability but surely it cannot be legal to act against the claimant with a default during the period of unenforceability. The technicalities of the claimant’s case are put forward in Point 19. There is a note in the transcript that the phrase “irredeemably unenforceable” was used by Lord Hoffman (see the link to the House of Lords) in Dimond v Lovell 2002. What is interesting is that a certain Mr. Flaux (an unusual name) was involved in a 2003 appeal that followed this case. Is this the same person as the Judge in this case and what position did he take then? The Appeal case was one between Lagden and O’Connor.


Appeal Case between Lagden & O’Connor in which it would seem The Honourable Mr. Justice Flaux was involved. The Case related to a dispute between motor hire companies and motor insurers, thes imilarity between this case and ones that relate to credit agreements today is whether the demands of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act have been made. In the 2002Case the agreement was found to be unenforceable – hence the beginning of the use of this phrase. Point 21:The main issue that had to be resolved in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384 was whether the form of agreement which had been used in that case satisfied the requirements of a regulated consumer credit agreement for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. For reasons that it is not necessary to explain for the purposes of this case where the same difficulty does not arise, the agreement was held to be unenforceable. But one of the points that was argued was whether, even if the claim had been sound, the damages recoverable ought to be limited to the spot hire rate quoted by hirers other than credit hire companies.


In this case a Mr. Flaux took the wider view of the harm placed on the big insurance companies that would have an effect on premiums rather than the individual keeping to the law – this individual decision seemingly being under to the wider view of Mr. Flaux.39. The view of the majority in Dimond v Lovell was based on their analysis of the law, not on consideration of issues of policy. But Mr Flaux sought to invoke policy considerations in this case in order to support his argument that claims handing charges should not be recoverable under any circumstances. He submitted that, if there were to be a relaxation of the rule that claims handling charges were irrecoverable in the case of the cost of car hire, this would increase the burden of insurance premium payments on the whole community. There was also the prospect of claims handling charges being built into damages claims in other fields as well as that relating to car hire. He pointed out how important it was to distinguish between costs and damages in cases brought in the county court in view of the costs limits that are applied to cases under the small claims track. He submitted that, if the claimant were to be allowed to recover the full cost oft he Helphire scheme, that would be tantamount to awarding him costs to which he would not otherwise be entitled. To allow the impecunious to recover claims handling charges as part of their claim of damages would encourage accident management companies to market and direct their services at those of limited means with results that would be undesirable.


Utilitarian Position of Mr. Flaux?: A clear viewo f Mr. Flaux’s perspective on life is shown here, that view clearly to me showing a bias towards the big company and the wider apparent good over the individual keeping of law under the 1974 Consumer Credit Act. This tells me if we are dealing with the same Mr. Flaux here that there is a philosophical bias in the judge based on past statements and actions.


It is my view that in the case McGuffick has become the scapegoat of taking the rap for the greater good in that his keeping of law has to be put aside for the greater good of banks ability to operate – something the Royal Bank of Scotland failed to do – they only being in existence because of taxpayers help.


Utilitarian Position of U.K. Government who remember are not the Head of State – H.M. The Queen is and the Obligations of Her Office that have been outlined in this report:


This Daily Mail article showed Government interference in these cases and so if we can prove this then we can show a Judge might well have been put into place to call for the “greater good” over individual keeping of law.


It is clear after the bail out of the banks that if the thousands of cases had gone through giving the now scapegoats compensation and their now alleged debts written off – it could have bankrupted the banks again –involving a further bail out from the taxpayer thus placing the nation under greater debt.


This is what I believe has happened in this case which is in my view grossly illegal for these activities clearly “pervert the cause of justice.” Is it worth “perverting the cause of justice” for the nation? I believe that this Mc Guffick case shows the answer to be “yes”! “Greater Good” seems to have taken precedence over justice.


This is Utilitarianism.


Utilitarianism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


This article discusses utilitarian ethical theory. For a discussion of John Stuart Mill's bookUtilitarianism, see Utilitarianism (book). For the architectural theory, see Utilitarianism (architecture)


Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form ofconsequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.


Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people", and is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), althoughpreference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.


Utilitarianism can be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with othervarieties of consequentialism.


In general usage, the term utilitarian (Katrin Joost) refers to a somewhat narrow economic or pragmatic viewpoint. Philosophical utilitarianism, however, is a much broader view that encompasses all aspects of people's lives.


Back to the case McGuffick v Royal Bank of Scotland: in point 20 – the Judge is invited to give guidance in relation to the lender’s refusal to meet the requirements of Section 77(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In Point 21 we read Mr Richard Handyside QC urging the court not to embark on such rulings or guidance – this being an inappropriate test case it would seem. There seems to be no disagreement in the case that the Bank had not kept to the terms of Section 77(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – yet the Judge founded against the Claimant – we believe because of his utilitarian rather than Constitutional stance.


Similar Activity Against McGuffick as we have had to endure: The activity of the Bank R B of S against McGuffick seem to be similar to the actions against EMLG which relate to contractual obligation to pay, the reporting to credit reference agencies during the time of dispute, claimants personal data being given to a third party which we suspect has happened to EMLG due to the large amount of calls from debt management companies, the demands to pay, the issuing of default notices, the threatening of legal action, the instructing to a third party to demand payment.


We argue – how can any of this be possible during a dispute on its wayt o court for had EMLG paid during the dispute – she would have been pre-empting the Court’s decision – and breaking the principles of British Constitutional Law?


Other factors in relation to the activities of McGuffick’s solicitors came into the equation too – including the signing of agreements etc., consequences of improper execution, fixed sum credit agreements, ineffective securities, enforcement orders, unfair relationships (we regard it grossly unfair that during the time of dispute – disputes recognised by this court that creditors should take enforcement action before the court has passed judgment).


The Role of Credit Reference Agencies who seemingly have processed adverse information on behalf of defendant banks during times of Dispute leading up to Court Hearings: Under Points26 to 36 the Court heard of information that is sent to Credit Reference agencies.


We regard the activity highly illegal in times of dispute – for since when has it been part of British law for one side to adversely affect the ability of the other side to trade?


Under British Constitutional law in times of dispute it would be seen customary for both sides to give their side on the record or await a court hearing. A person with a clean criminal record facing a Crown Court hearing would retain his good character until the moment a jury finds him guilty and the Judge has pronounced the verdict – why should EMLG therefore have a credit criminal record before the Court Hearing?


This is an example of Corpus Juris under which legal system a person has to prove his/her innocence which is happening in this case. This is highly treasonable as there is constitutional demand on the Monarch to repress all foreign infiltration into our legal systems.

The Global Order of Financing does not want to take on our Precious British Constitutional Acts but now with the Constitution Keepers rising Up in Holy Ghost Power -

in the Name of Jesus .........

Experian replied negatively and so to assist - 

we asked these questions - Despite several tries they have still mot answered these questions!!!!!!!!


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


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


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



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

....... and to our solicitors who backed out -

we gave opportunity to come back on board .....

Our case is ongoing. My wife Lindsay and I have a policy of paying suppliers and upholding credit deals we have been a part of.


When the House of Lords however produces an edict questioning the legality of a financial deal, and in the individual case opinion is given by professional solicitors or accountants that there is question over the legitimacy of a deal - then we will stop paying as the account becomes under legal dispute.


We believe this to be our right legally and constitutionally as paying would be pre-empting a court decision, a use of the laws of

Corpus Juris rather than the God Given principles of Habeas Corpus.  


We employed solicitors in Liverpool to communicate, liaise and work with all parties involved. What we received however is what we believe to be severe brutality from the Banking Community, what we believe to be Government Interference with cases related to a particular House of Lords edict and what we believe to be a backing off by our solicitors when they should have been making a Constitutional stand in the situation.


It is our desire for the solicitors to get a hold of their responsibility of upholding our Constitutional Acts which they do not seem to have heard of, to actually take legal action against

financial institutions that have clearly broken criminal and civil law.


It is also important for them to realise that Ordained Ministers of the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law" have a right to take a legal stand to ensure our Christian Constitution is upheld.


We are active in doing so in this case, the publishing of this letter not being done just for our benefit but for the benefit of what we have heard to be thousands who have become victims of a legal system infiltrated by utilitarianism, rather than being of

"the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law"

which constitutionally it has to be!


It is our desire that these solicitors come back on board in

consumer credit cases having in our view backed out due to what we see as

infiltrated utilitarianism in the British Legal System.


14/01/2011 15:45:39

Mrs Joanna Connolly & Ms. Sam Audley,

Mrs. Joanna Connolly Office,

MSB Solicitors

MSB House

20-22 Tapton Way

Wavertree Business Village,


L13 1DA  


Dear Mrs Joanna Connolly and Ms. Sam Audley, 


Re. Our Various Cases With You 


A major appraisal of your performance in dealing with legal matters has now taken place and I am sorry to say that both Lindsay and I expected a much greater result than you have achieved.  


A log has been kept of our dealings with you, part of that log showing your seeming intention to back off from cases you had taken on. This includes the First Plus case recently sent to you. We never accepted the “back off” from you because when we work with solicitors, we expect those solicitors to continue till the case is won. 


We expected you to continue the passion your very own Managing Partner Paul Bibby showed in 2008. 


You are a firm of solicitors based in my home town, a town that has a history of great legal representation including the legendary E. Rex Makin. I don’t think he would have backed off in the way you seem to have done. He took on the system for the benefit of the people and we expect you to carry on the tradition of fighting for ordinary people, a tradition of the legal profession in Liverpool, our great city. 


It would seem through all the cases we have given you; you have not won one case! I have now taken up these cases because of your apparent impotence and Lindsay and I expect the necessary legal back up from you in these matters. 


Our log shows the following, the numbering relating to our coding system. 


1)    An original MSB Solicitors handout relating to unenforceable credit agreements which do exist even to this day.


2)  Information from another company called Debt Movers intimating a similar service to yours.


3)  E Mail from you dated 25 June 2008 stating the following, I have reviewed the list of credit card providers you have supplied and would confirm that assuming all have been taken out pre 6. April 2007, a significant number will in all likelihood be unenforceable (this means that effectively the loan can be written off by us.)


4)  Letter from us to Sam Audley intimating our excellent credit record.


5)   Details of loans to MSB


6)  14 07 08 Invoice from you


7)   14 07 08 Return of ID documents


8)  01 07 09 Details of disputes sent to MSB


9)  11 07 09 Information Letter sent to Family Plus and series of letters from Family Plus.


10)                    Family Plus reply letter


11)                       Reply to Family Plus with details


12)                      11 07 09 Letter to MSB reporting what we believe to be a case of Perverting the Course of Justice by 2 collecting agencies that seem to belong to Barclays – Mercers and Calders which in effect means that a company you were taking to court on our behalf were harassing us with a change of name for the same company. Two laws had clearly been broken, Perverting the Course of Justice and the Harassment Act. We know you huffed and puffed at these agencies on our behalf but did you act on these breakings of law! No you did not! We intend to now and expect your legal back up in our actions.


13)                      16 07 08 Invoice


14)                      16 07 08 Invoice


15)                      27 08 08 Invoice


16)                      27 08 08 Invoice


17)                      27 08 08 Invoice


18)                     24 07 09 – MSB Consumer Credit Update. This stated that Joanna Connolly attended a Case Management Conference in Manchester County Court with barristers representing the leading creditors Halifax, HSBC, MBNA, Nat West, Citi Financial, Capital One, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland with His Honour Judge Holman. You report that the outcome was very positive. The technicalities of proceeding with cases were discussed, so here we have a Judge going through the technicalities of procedure. It is obvious therefore as these cases were going to go through the system, then something stopped them going through. We have investigated this and believe we have found what this is. Our findings will come out in a later report to you.


19)                      Our letter to MSB stating we were holding payments to Banks we were on the way to court with and we did not want to pre-empt a court decision on cases you had said in all “likelihood” were unenforceable by banks.


20)                    04 11 09: Consumer Credit Update relating to a CMC on 08 10 09 in which you talk about “lead cases”


21)                      17 02 09: Letter to MSB in which we informed you of the infiltration of utilitarianism into these matters with evidence from our constitutional acts that this philosophy is illegal in British law as is reference to European law which we have evidence has taken place in these cases. Did you take this up or not? It would seem you have not so we are!


22)                    12 03 10: Further update from you on court technicalities.


23)                    13 03 10: Further letter from us on our studies on utilitarianism in the Mc Guffick case. Did you take this up or not? It would seem you have not so we are!


24)                    15 03 10: Further update from MSB, again on procedure technicalities.


25)                     07 04 10: GM Card Disbursements cheque for £11 to enable you to clear the client balance. Not cashed, we are clearing nothing, the cases go on!


26)                    25 06 10: A warning to MSB of our intention to take your work to the Law Society out of concern for your apparent impotence in these matters.


27)                     Your Website September 2008 Update on Consumer Credit Matters: you talk of a fast tract/multi track system in dealing with Consumer Credit matters. Our initial letter to you on joining the fast tract was in June 2008. It is now January 2011. We have been patient with you but we are on the point of reporting this lack of success to the Law Society, hoping the necessity for this does not apply with your renewed vigour to win these cases and point out the serious actions of banks against us that we believe involves the breaking of criminal law. MSB on this website page quotes actual cases you have won so there is a legal precedent for winning these cases. Please name and send me the details of your Miss “L” who had home improvements,  your Mr “C” who had an unenforceable credit card who went to Northampton County Court and your Mr “B” who had dealt with a company like First Plus who had been involved in secret commissions. We researched this in our case v First Plus. Why did you not do what you did for Mr “B” for us? I have done it now in the First Plus case. We are looking for you to back us in this case and work for us like you seemingly worked for Mr. “B”!

28)                    MSB Website showing services on Credit Agreements, PPI in our case you failed to act over the PPI put on by First Plus, we having evidence of one case where £25,000 worth of compensation was paid by First Plus to its victim. You also mention court representation but in our case you seem to have backed out from this in all cases.


29)                    MSB website quotes a businessman whose credit card debts were made unenforceable. You quote Ben Schofield of the Liverpool Daily Post quoting MSB successfully seeing off the credit card company. You obviously set a precedent there. I ask you for full details of this case if you are not going to represent us as obviously I then have to do the work myself, despite of you taking this work on! Managing Partner Paul Bibby of MSB said, This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large sophisticated financial institutions, organisations, comply with legislation laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer. Great talk! What is he now saying about our cases? I have given you the information. A fighting solicitor never says die for his client, so why have you?


30)                    Another sheet from your amazing website with even more successes. You won for a Mr “N” v Northern Rock, you won for Mr “E” v RBS/Tesco Personal Finance, you won for Mr “W” v Direct Auto, you won for Mr “O” v Lowell Portfolio and Lloyds TSB, you won for Mr “C” v Hillesden Securities who are having a go at us, you  won for Mr “D” v Juice FM who had made him bankrupt so there is precedent for clearing a credit record, and you won for Mrs “C” v GE Money. Full details of all these precedents please if you are not going to represent us. I will do so with constitutional law behind me, clear evidence of banking houses breaking criminal and civil law and your large number of precedents behind me.


31)                      This our original enquiry letter to you.


32)                    This is my accounts page on MSB Solicitors showing we have paid you £2988-22 for no success to date. We are giving you opportunity to put that right.


33)                    06 05 10 letter to you re Citi and GM


34)                    The cards themselves


35)                     09 04 10 E Mail from MSB – you talk about the McGuffick precedent on which I am about to make a major study, a copy of which I will send to you but on initial examination there is clear use of a utilitarian philosophy, illegal reference to European law and I hold secondary evidence, I trust shortly to be primary evidence that the last Labour Government interfered with these cases which if proven would be activity against an edict of the House of Lords which we would see as treason. How can McGuffick be a precedent when you advertised previous precedents you had won?


36)                    29 04 10: Letter from us to MSB firmly laying down the legal position.


37)                     Details of your operations.


38)                    28 04 10: E Mail to you about the McGuffick case and our approach to Lord Carey of the House of Lords.


39)                    25 06 10: Further letter from us giving our stand. Seems you have stopped replying to our letters. We have kept a detailed log of events. Already we can see clearly the decadence of the activities of mammon in banking institutions. Your very own Managing Partner Paul Bibby clearly had a passion to take these institutions on with the passion for justice E. Rex Makin had. Where is that passion now? We are giving your firm a chance to join the fray once more for justice for victims or are you really going to fall under the trap of utilitarianism and mammon our nation has been pulled down by for too long!  Yours faithfully,     


Rev Dr David P Griffiths PhD DD     





Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths PhD D Min


We are giving MSB Solicitors of Liverpool every chance to represent their clients passionately, aggressively and compassionately.


What we are doing is pointing out serious errors in the dealings of banking institutions with absolute evidence of the sin of mammon; the Minister of the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law having every right to expose what MSB Managing Partner Paul Bibby has previously shown.


We take this action so as to bring our nation and its major institutions on its knees before God. MSB Solicitors and other legal institutions representing clients in Consumer Credit should thoroughly know the protection our Constitutional Acts give. This website is for that use.


If you are having problems with your CONSUMER CREDIT SOLICITOR contact NOW and give us permission to write a similar letter to this one to bring justice back on track.


We will expose with real names Solicitors who are not standing on the great Constitutional Acts that have been given to bring protection from the Spirit of Mammon.


We quote again Paul Bibby, Managing Partner of MSB Solicitors of Liverpool. He is absolutely right. His own firm setting precedents in the field of Consumer Credit if the cases that were intimated on his website are correct.


This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large sophisticated financial institutions, organisations, comply with legislation laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer.


We are asking him to come up with full details of those cases. We are asking him to understand our work exposing what we see as infiltration in what was known as "test cases" in Consumer Credit and come on board once more in the fight against the mammon of banking institutions.


This website will give him the Constitutional Clout as it does with all solicitors and accountants in Britain.


We are a Christian Nation with a Christian Constitution. This ministry is all about applying what God has given to us through the history of Christian Monarchy we have enjoyed till this day.


This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large sophisticated financial institutions, organisations, comply with legislation laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer.

This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large sophisticated financial institutions, organisations, comply with legislation laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer.

 Paul Bibby, Managing Partner of MSB Solicitors of Liverpool, the Solicitors that backed out of these cases

Now seemingly banned from dealing

with this firm of Solicitors ........

We showed them how another firm of Solicitors helped their client win a case against MBNA but MSB Solicitors do not want to help!

MSB Solicitors of Liverpool were acting on banking cases for E M Lindsay Griffiths which we have used on this site as an example of the clear financial and legal breakdown our nation has come under.


As a Charity and Ministry we are helping others through similar battles, battles we will never back down from. Our aim is to restore our nation back to the ROCK - the only pre-requisite to having a nation enjoying the "Life, Health and Peace" it once had.


We do not blame entirely MSB Solicitors of Liverpool who we see as victims of this breakdown, we see them as solicitors embracing the new ideology that has totally disregarded our Constitutional Acts and the Monarch's promise to God. 


Please read PART 1: Our letter of 9th. October 2013 relating to the example banking cases featured on this site.


09 October 2013

Paul Bibby,

Managing Partner,

MSB Solicitors,

Silkhouse Court,

Tithebarn Street,


L2 2LZ


Dear Mr Bibby,


I trust you will give us the time of day because we were clients of your company under Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley. Up to now doing business with your company has lost us a load of money because of your gross failure to win consumer credit cases. This is despite of all your company’s encouragement at the time and threats by your Joanna and Sam to aggressive banking institutions that came to nought. In our view it was all mouth and no action!


When your company backed down on the cases, we of course did not and continue to fight them refusing to bank your return cheques as we saw that as backing down. We still do. It would seem you gave our money to charity not of our choice but yours. We feel very let down by your company!


Despite of all this, there might be a way to restore relationship. One of our cases v MBNA is now hotting up. Using the Constitutional principle of not paying accounts under dispute we have kept this up since 2009 as you can see from the enclosed copy letter to DLC.


MBNA put us under tremendous pressure, this company recently being found guilty of harassment.

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 

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.

There is therefore a precedent and we have kept a detailed log on MBNA. Having paid thousands of pounds to your firm which you seemingly have given away, is it unreasonable to ask for your help on this?


Yours faithfully,






E M Lindsay Griffiths

A Letter from David P Griffiths to MSB in relation to the "Citi Bank" Case asking MSB to help his wife. This letter followed a phone call from Mr Chiffers wanting to close a file by paying a cheque back to EMLG. We have stayed consistent by refusing cheques for the cases are not over:


08/03/2014 11:58:21

Joseph Chiffers

MSB Solicitors,

13. Floor

Silkhouse Court,

Tithebarn Street,


L2 2LZ


Dear Mr Chiffers,


Re. Your ref. MF/JSC/SM/48744.007


I say this very frankly to you Mr. Chiffers, it was a very major surprise to hear from you and your firm, a firm who has left us at the mercy of attacking banks, a firm that threatened banks that action would be taken against them for harassing us but oh no, Mr. Chiffers not even a reply to our letters.


Now you send us a cheque which we return. We do not want returned money – we want you to act on our behalf in relation to the banking cases you took on way back in 2008. We have continuously refused to cash your cheques as we do not want our file of papers closed for the cases go on! We are fighting them instead of you.


I understand instead of representing us your firm has given our money to a charity of your choice!


In addition to fighting those cases we reported your firm to the Law Society who referred us to the Legal Ombudsman who told us we were too late in reporting you so it seems you have got away with it. Well done!


We continue to expose your firm in its dealings with those who have come under serious unconstitutional oppression by banks. We still have some kind of hope you will help us but past history tells us otherwise. Please find following copies of the last two letters sent to your firm, of course with no reply.


Yours faithfully


Rev Dr David P Griffiths


Part 3: The Reply from MSB Solicitors - 

first reply we have had for a long time to any of our many communications:

Our Reply which apparently we will not be getting a reply to:


16/03/2014 09:31:36

Joseph Chiffers

MSB Solicitors,

13. Floor

Silkhouse Court,

Tithebarn Street,


L2 2LZ


Dear Mr Chiffers,


Re. Your ref. MF/JSC/SM/48744.007 7 &



Both of us do not accept you can legally back out like you seemingly have!


Way back your Paul Bibby said:


This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large sophisticated financial institutions, organisations, comply with legislation laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer.


In addition to this your Joanna Connolly and Sam Audley made repeated promises and assurances to us including “Cease and Desist” letters that were not acted on. A “Cease and Desist” letter according to Wikipedia is as follows:


A cease and desist is an order or request to halt an activity (cease) and not to take it up again later (desist) or else face legal action.


Your company even accepted the case of a miss-sold mortgage with First Plus taking fees but not acting and this had nothing to do with the pre 2007 cases and the un-constitutional “test case” you seemingly backed out of.


A great deal of suffering has been received by our family and your firm despite of issuing “cease and desist” letters did not act on the true meaning of the term by taking the legal action required when such letters were ignored. It is our view that instead of protecting the consumer your company has placed us into greater danger by banking institutions who undoubtedly are out to destroy us. Our letter to you was a cry for help.


You clearly are confident that what you are doing in our case you can do legally and under the way law is practiced in Britain at the moment you are probably right, but constitutionally your firm is in our view extremely guilty. The present way of practicing law in UK is an ideology like all the others that will pass away and at that point we will look to re-visit this matter.


Two points you raise – our refusal to pay in numerous cheques you sent to us was a sign that we had not backed out of the cases and we have not given permission for you to give that money to charity only to use it for acting on our behalf versus large banking institutions that seemingly have us in a corner undefended had it not been for God and his given to Britain Constitutional Acts.


The second point relates to the Law Society and the Legal Ombudsman, the reason for the Ombudsman’s refusal to deal with the matter was because the time limit had passed, the time limit being passed for we were giving you every opportunity to act which we still do.





Yours faithfully




Rev Dr David P Griffiths






Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths 


MSB Solicitors, Liverpool -

we still want to deal with you and complete these cases you took on!

Psalm 103:1-5  King James Version (KJV)


Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name.


2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:


3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;


4 Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;


5 Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things; so that thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.


Lindsay and I have been warned by a modern day Peter and a Paul that we would be destroyed by banks if we take this on .......


Word from the Lord through DPG, 23/02/14



There is an understanding that if you present the old-style gospel today, then the world system will destroy you. The modern-day Paul warned you about this. The modern-day Peter warned you that if “Throughout what is known as My church, is a series of compromises to the world. you take on the banking system, this will destroy you.


“In effect, this is what has happened. You are right in the gutter, as far as the world is concerned.


“The world, however, is not the criteria for measuring truth; for thou hast shown Me that one is prepared to ignore what seems as sensible advice, and be entirely led by My Spirit.


“You have overcome by My Spirit. The horned goat of masonry has not been able to get you. But my! How it has tried to get you to conform! This places you in a very special position. You have shown that you are prepared to give up family to follow Me; houses and homes for My sake and the gospel. My Word promises you the hundredfold, now in this time. For thou art believers, who believe My Word above all natural advice.


“Thou hast shown thou can be trusted to fulfil callings without the spirit of compromise; for thou hast trusted Me, and Me alone; and thou will go forward in My strength, power and dominion; and the modern-day Peter and Paul will be amazed, as thou fulfils the call in My strength, and My strength alone.


“Fear not. Go forward. Fulfil My call, and hand it over to the next generation, as thou hast been called to do.


“Thy sacrifice has been great. For as Abraham was prepared to offer up Isaac, thou hast given up one’s natural means to fulfil the callings of God.

“Be prepared for much travel, and receiving of resources to fulfil this call of God. 


“Be excited; thou hast passed the test.”

First Plus Case

bottom of page