“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy.”
Alfred Thompson “Tom” Denning, 23 January 1899 – 5 March 1999.
Over the course of the last four years I have watched the Illuminati Empire I have studied for more than a decade begin to crumble into shiny ruins before my world-weary eyes, catalysed by the controlled demolition of what formerly appeared to be the sovereignty of the independent nation state, for the sole purpose of replacing one quintessentially elitist, violently corporatist, piratical, feudal hierarchy, with another version of the same unelected, unaccountable World Government, bought and paid for by the House of Rothschild, which seized control of international trade, the Bank of England and [according to author and researcher Greg Hallett, quoted below] royal breeding rights, in the days following the Battle of Waterloo, since when there has been almost perpetual war in continental Europe:
“Perhaps we should start with Queen Victoria being named ‘The Grandmother of Europe’ and her son King Edward VII being named ‘The Father of Europe’. Now, around the time that Queen Victoria was being conceived, her supposed father The Duke of Kent and Strathearn was virtually bankrupt. He was a gambler and a womaniser and it was debatable whether he was able to sire a child. So, soon after the Rothschild takeover of the Bank of England on the 22nd of June 1815, the Duke of Strathearn and Kent needed to get his banking debt payed, and it appears that Nathan Mayer Rothschild payed for those gambling debts in exchange for breeding rights, and that Nathan Mayer Rothschild is the biological father of Queen Victoria… with the monarchy being at least three quarters Rothschild from King Edward VII on, the Rothschilds own the British monarchy, and they own the European monarchies.”
It has been estimated that more than thirteen and a half million men were massacred, the majority by machine guns, on the blood-soaked fields of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Poland and Serbia in the Great Slaughter of 1914-18 CE. Peripheral circumstances appeared to have changed considerably by the time of the genocide known as World War II, during which another sixty million people were killed, but the controlling hegemony of consolidated interests and hereditary privileges that has now been responsible for the murder of hundreds of millions of men, women and children, fraud on a multinational, industrial scale and the theft of the ancestral lands and resources from the indigenous peoples of this beautiful planet, still like to think they will always reign over us, whether we choose to accept it or not.
Over the course of the last few years I have witnessed friends and associates lose their homes over alleged mortgage debts that cannot be substantiated at law or in equity. Time and again judges at every level of Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service have ignored or dismissed perfectly legitimate administrative processes served on the banksters, by individuals who conditionally agreed to settle all verifiable liabilities upon receipt of the following items:
1. A legally enforceable bilateral contract signed by both parties and containing all of its terms and conditions.
2. A bill or invoice signed by the CEO of the company validating the debt.
3. The actual accounting of the alleged lender’s losses pertaining to the contract.
In the most simplistic terms, under the statutory law of England & Wales, mortgages are governed by the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, which prescribes that, if a mortgage provider cannot produce a document signed by the alleged lender and the borrower, containing all of the prescribed terms and conditions of the loan, a purported mortgage of property cannot take any legal effect and can be overridden in equity by the party who has possession, on the basis that the mortgage will be void for failing to comply with section 2 of the 1989 Act, which clearly states:
A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.
The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.
The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract.
Incomplete consumer credit agreements that have not been signed by alleged debtors are also unenforceable, as per the House of Lords ruling on Wilson v First County Trust. Not surprisingly, from my own experiences successfully discharging three alleged debts using this piece of case law, credit card companies now seem reluctant to issue legal proceedings against customers who question the validity of an incomplete consumer credit agreement.
However, I have not yet heard that anybody has ever received a signed bill or invoice from the chief executive officer of an alleged creditor, whilst the banksters continue to successfully rely upon photocopied statements of account and unsigned offer letters in substantiation of their purported losses to the largely myopic, inept, corrupt or compliant judges who preside in Courts of Rothschild.
The automatic legal presumption of the veracity of the banksters’ claims is quite simply anathema to any genuine justice system, which also stands as yet more compelling evidence that the internationalists have bought, blackmailed and bullied the vast majority of the judiciary into overlooking the changes to the law which were made more than twenty three years ago.
Whilst victories against credit card and mortgage companies, both in and out of court, are the talk of internet forums right across the planet, the vast majority of UK courts continue to protect the banksters from accusations of fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
It is perfectly understandable that many of the victims of these crimes, especially those who have been through the turbulent processes of civil litigation, consider it nigh on impossible to obtain justice from within the established system. However, it has been demonstrated to me that most of the time, the real adversary of justice is cognitive dissonance, rather than endemic corruption.
In other words, the lawyers, barristers and judges cannot even conceive of the idea that the laws of mortgages has been very rarely applied correctly since the enactment of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. That being the case, even when the law is applied correctly by unrepresented Litigants in Person, the judges almost always dismiss such a claim as “totally without merit in English law”, which is, ironically enough, totally without merit in English law.
Over the course of the last four years I have gathered together a treasure trove of statutory provisions and eminent legal authorities, which prove beyond reasonable doubt that a Promissory Note made payable to bearer on demand is considered, in law and equity, to be as good as cash or cleared funds in the hands of a banker. This was also held to be the case before the abolition of the Gold Standard in 1931, even when a promise to pay was a pledge to pay in bank notes that could be redeemed in gold.
Yet, every day, good-hearted, honest and honourable people are being thrown out of the homes for failing to maintain compound interest payments under the terms of void mortgage contracts. Since the most efficient way to expedite the process of setting aside these nullities initially appeared to be making mass claims against every UK mortgage provider, representative complaints were made for and on behalf of an estimated 3.2 million mortgagors to the Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS], by a special purpose vehicle known as the Voluntary Community Trust of Mortgagors [VCT], against the Lloyds Banking Group, and Bradford & Bingley, each of which the FOS refused to administer on the ludicrously inept ground that they can only deal with complaints made by individual consumers.
Since making 3.2 million individual complaints was neither practical or viable, the VCT was left with no realistic alternative other than to declare that both the FOS and its former overlords at the Financial Services Authority [FSA] are not fit for purpose, since both organisations have emphatically failed to regulate the UK mortgage industry in accordance with the statutory law of mortgages.
In the event that the District Registries are flooded with hundreds or even thousands of claimants, who, for all intents and purposes, are putting forward the same allegations against the banksters, substantially supported by valid administrative processes, clearly prescribed statutory provisions, utterly compelling case law and diligent adherence to the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions, the result would almost certainly be a “Test Case” in the High Court.
In the event that the verdict of such a proceeding was handed down in favour of the mortgagors, the entire banking industry would be shackled by the unforgiving exposure of an industrial scale fraud that would bring an end to the financial tyranny of the House of Rothschild and their illegitimate limited liability monarchies. Therein lies the reason why the courts continue to protect the interests of moneyed aristocracy at the expense of the people who rely upon the so-called Justice System to grant the remedies and protections prescribed by law to defend such criminal exploits.
Sooner or later, an honourable member or former member of the judiciary will surely comprehend that the legal professions practicing on these islands have been so preoccupied with servicing their own purported debts that they have failed to recognise the herd of elephants in the corner of the room; solicitors, barristers and judges are getting shafted just like virtually everybody else on the planet.
Nevertheless, in the esteemed words of William Blackstone:
“Should a judge in the most subordinate jurisdiction be deficient in the knowledge of the law, it would reflect infinite contempt upon himself, and disgrace upon those who employ him…But how much more serious and affecting is the case of a superior judge, if without any skill in the law he will boldly venture to decide a question upon which the welfare and subsistence of whole families may depend, where the chance of him judging right, or wrong, is barely equal; and where if he chances to judge wrong, he does an injury of the most alarming nature, an injury without possibility of redress.”
William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69).
Out of which, a chilling question naturally arises: is it possible to obtain a just verdict in Her Majesty’s Courts when the interests of Her Majesty’s Government are at stake?
[bitmate-author-donate]
You must be logged in to post a comment.