(UK) Elizabeth Watson

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

(UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 11:56 am

Image

As she is pushing herself to be a self processed legal expert, especially relating to Tom, after seeing her mental breakdown on facebook, I thought I would post it here without taking over any other related threads

https://www.facebook.com/groups/5311314 ... 6/?fref=ts

Here you can see the VOID "DEED" obtained BY DECEPTION against our property - behind our back - tellingly, only a PHOTOCOPY can be produced by the criminals conspiring to steal our family home since 2007 -

https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_downl ... cNA43kvRSW

Elizabeth Watson
The shyster Tim Pyle posing as a "solicitor" has now RUN AWAY !!! yep, he may have been arrested - Eversheds won't tell!
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
It all became too hot for Pyle to handle....the Land Registrar John Powall is a 100% crook, engaging in illegal TIPPING OFF to the SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE Tim Pyle administrator - now replaced by other shysters who won't back down - these amoeba brains are fighting to the death in the hope they won't be jailed under the new legislation to jail cheating "professionals" abusing their position
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
they literally FORGED our signatures onto a separate sheet which was then attached to a FORGED "deed" obtained by deception and executed behind our back when we were abroad, without any consideration as required under the Bill of Exchange Act 1882
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
EVERSHEDS ARE A CRIMINAL FRATERNITY, in bed with Lord Neuberger, student of Rothschild!
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson E
versheds are being ILLEGALLY PROTECTED BY HMCTS - FACT!
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
They get away with financial murder - a rigged game in HMCTS infiltrated 90% by criminals posing as "officers of the court" - other SPV's just like Eversheds are WALKER MORRIS LLC (trading deceitfully as WALKER MORRIS without the Limited Liability stat...See More
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
get ze' picture?
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
These SHADOW "SOLICITORS" are 100% bogus - a sham - and are operating IN FRAUD, uninsurable, hence they hide behind illicit mere TRADING NAMES
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
see?
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
Check out OPTIMA LEGAL's letterhead - and look for their SRA registered Licence to practice as solicitors - NADA ! Ditto "Walker Morris" - scammers all of them!
20 hrs · Like

Sonia Roberts
Wow, not registered to practise.... Isn't that a crime in itself?
19 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
yes, indeed. Notice that on the SRA website, Optima Legal Services Ltd only have ONE Accreditation! for a whole bunch of them. It is like putting 1 lemon into a 100 gallon container of baby shampoo and calling it "lemon shampoo"
18 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
All solicitors that I know are VERMIN. They work for the corrupted Crown corporation. They swear allegiance to the Crown No.1 and you No.2.... most of them cheat, lie, extort, forge, trick, perjure and manipulate Justice and are referees in the own g...See More
18 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
Also do due diligence on everyone especially those who purport to be "officers of the court" - they are officers of satan, more like
18 hrs · Like
Last edited by Bones on Sat May 30, 2015 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 11:57 am

Elizabeth Watson uploaded a file.
20 hrs

Notice of void orders on Elizabeth watson's case - caused by NO VALID ISSUANCE "void ab initio"......everything thereafter FALLS AWAY - same on Tom's case!

https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_downl ... wBGeLkbvYa

Elizabeth Watson
invalid issuance creates INVALID PROCEEDINGS, never "time barred", but "void ab initio" - they cannot flog a dead horse but will try their damndest
20 hrs · Like

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1655
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby longdog » Sat May 30, 2015 12:00 pm

The woman is clearly as mad as cheese even by footler standards.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 12:01 pm

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC 2376 (Fam) (01 September 2011)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/2376.html

1. This is an application by Elizabeth Watson to purge the contempt in which I found her on 15 August 2011. On 22 August 2011 I committed her to prison for a period of nine months.

2. Before I deal with her application I would like to take a few moments to dispel a number of myths. The first myth I wish to explode is that a person can be sent to prison "in secret". Nobody in this country is sent to prison for contempt of court "in secret". I propose to read the rule which deals with these matters: it is taken from the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 52, rule 6. which now appears in Schedule 1 to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)

9. Another aspect which makes Ms. Watson's contempt particularly grave is that she breached the order not only by communicating through e-mails with a large number of third parties, but also gave material to an internet provider, one Sabine McNeill who runs a website called Inquiring Minds. Ms. McNeill (who at one point acted as Ms. Watson's McKenzie Friend in these proceedings) lives, I am told, in Germany although she has a flat in London. The mischief of the publication, as Ms. Watson now appreciates, is that the publication of allegations which I and two other judges held to be without foundation not only puts the identity of the child into the public domain and renders it accessible to anybody who cares to look for it or to read it; but equally, Ms Watson has put herself in the hands and the power of the internet provider. The omens do not altogether look good.

12. Ms. Watson, fortunately, however, has had the good sense, at long last, to take legal advice and has been ably represented before me by counsel, Mr. Littlewood. She should be extremely grateful to her counsel and to the solicitors whom she has chosen.

13. However, the factors I have outlined and the contents of my previous judgment explain why a prison sentence for Ms. Watson was inevitable. She has today, herself, expressed (both through counsel and personally) contrition. In plain language she has told me she is very sorry for what she has done. I have thought about this very carefully and I am satisfied that she has done what she can to remove from the internet the offending material which she caused to be placed there.

14. What I propose to do in these circumstances is to suspend Ms. Watson's sentence. I would be entitled, if I wished, to keep her in prison until such time as the blog to which I have been referred and which is the one outstanding matter has been investigated and those responsible for it have been given the opportunity to remove the e-mail. I have considered that option very carefully. I have decided, however, in the end not to do it. I am satisfied that Ms. Watson has had a very unpleasant experience in prison. I am willing to accept her undertaking – which has the force of a court order – to use her best endeavours to remove the offending e-mail from the blog and I am satisfied that to keep her imprisoned would serve no real purpose as far as she is concerned.

15. I therefore propose to direct that the sentence which I passed of nine months is suspended for a period of two years. This will enable Ms. Watson to be released immediately and I so direct.

16. However, the sentence remains. Provided there is no repetition and provided Ms. Watson complies with her undertaking and provided she is not in breach of the order within the next two years, that will be the end of the matter. If she is in breach or if there is any repetition for which she is responsible or partly responsible, she will go back to prison and serve the remainder of her term.

17. I also hope that the sentence will be a lesson not just to Ms. Watson but for anyone else who may be tempted to breach an order of the High Court.

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 12:06 pm

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC B15 (Fam) (22 August 2011)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.html

3. Ms. Watson describes herself in the documentation as the chief executive officer of an organisation called "Discoveries International Limited" and as "a private case investigator since 2010". She is plainly not a lawyer. As I will shortly make clear, she was told that it would be sensible for her to get legal advice. She was also warned that she was at risk of being sent to prison. She was ordered to attend the hearing before me on 15 August and did not do so. Despite what she said to me this morning, and no doubt she will repeat it in mitigation, I can see no good reason why she did not do so. There was an order of a High Court Judge that she should attend and she did not do so. As a result, the case proceeded in her absence.

4. Ms. Watson has plainly had abundant opportunity to take legal advice, as the history of the matter, which I shall outline in a moment, will make clear. This judgment, therefore, should be read as a cautionary lesson by all those who claim in an interest in family justice.

5. There is a famous adage which I quoted both in my previous judgment and during the course of argument, "Be you never so great, the law is still above you". If anything I say in this judgment is wrong or unfair, the Court of Appeal will tell me so. If the Court of Appeal gets something wrong, the Supreme Court tells it. If the Supreme Court gets things wrong, parliament can pass an Act democratically to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court. Everyone has to obey the law.

18. I regret to say that, in my judgment, both points are simply wrong. The local authority is fully entitled to bring these proceedings and they have not acted maliciously in doing so. Furthermore, the court does not bring proceedings for contempt of court; it adjudicates on them. A judge who initiated proceedings and then heard them was severely criticised, and rightly so, by the Court of Appeal in Re M (Contact Order: Committal) [1999] 1 FLR 810.

20. Once again, with great respect to Ms. Watson, she is simply wrong, as a moment's thought would demonstrate. If a party had to consent to contempt proceedings being issued against them, such proceedings would rarely be issued or be effective, and a contemnor does not have to consent to be joined into proceedings for there to be an effective committal summons. Ms. Watson is, in any event, a defendant to the committal summons. There is, furthermore, no evidence at all the local authority has acted with intent to cause harm and stress. As I have already indicated, the proceedings are, in my judgment, properly constituted.

21. Ms. Watson's other objections are equally wrong, in my view. She says that the local authority have falsified court papers produced by themselves, not by the court. They have been using false seals. The director of the Principal Registry has confirmed that they did not apply the seals. He, the same person, confirmed there is no such case number as is on the papers, and the same was confirmed by the Royal Courts of Justice, apart from three persons, including the Clerk of the Rules, who apparently are in a conspiracy to intercept Ms. Watson's calls and to ensure that she does not get through to anyone in the building apart from themselves. She describes all this as deception and mendacity and collusion with the local authority and its staff. She said it is the "worst form of terrorism" because of the abuse of position, feigning authority and the criminal concealment that it intends.

22. With respect to Ms. Watson, that is all absolute nonsense. The local authority is entitled to bring these proceedings for an alleged breach of the court order. It has done so. She has been ordered to attend. The proceedings are properly constituted and, in my judgment, they must proceed.

23.0I also notice that in the course of her documents Ms. Watson appears to be of the view that the case cannot proceed because the person who allegedly instituted them on behalf of the local authority has been pretending to be a solicitor when she is, in fact, not a solicitor. Once again, that seems to me, although there is no evidence for it, completely irrelevant to the present situation.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1655
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby longdog » Sat May 30, 2015 12:08 pm

Bones wrote:Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC 2376 (Fam) (01 September 2011)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/2376.html

1. This is an application by Elizabeth Watson...

<snip>

the sentence will be a lesson not just to Ms. Watson but for anyone else who may be tempted to breach an order of the High Court.


The story she is, or was, telling over on YouTube was that the judge had revoked the sentence as he knew he had committed high-treason or some such crap and he was afraid of LotfW and her legal team (Roger 'lost every case he's been involved in' Hayes) coming after him. The true story where she spent 9 days in Holloway before coming to her senses, employing a real lawyer and grovelling to the court is fatal to her attempts to establish herself as a guru... So it just never happened.

LotfW doesn't seem to grasp the fact that people can actually look the judgements up for themselves and see she is telling blatant lies.

But then I would say that because I'm a 'bent masonic arsehole', a 'disinformation agent' and a 'paid shill'.

Oh... and I'm a paedophile too apparently but everybody who challenges her rampant bullshit is a paedophile so I'm in good company.
Last edited by longdog on Sat May 30, 2015 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 12:09 pm

longdog wrote:The woman is clearly as mad as cheese even by footler standards.


The more you read about her, the better it gets :haha:

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 12:12 pm

longdog wrote:The story she is, or was, telling over on YouTube was that the judge had revoked the sentence as he knew he had committed high-treason or some such crap and he was afraid of LotfW and her legal team (Roger 'lost every case he's been involved in' Hayes) coming after him.


Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson [2011] EWHC 2498 (Fam) (01 September 2011)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/2498.html



Sir Nicholas Wall P:

1. On 15 August 2011, I found Elizabeth Watson (Ms Watson) in contempt of court, and on 22 August 2011 I committed her to prison for a period of 9 months. On 1 September 2011. Ms Watson applied to purge her contempt. I granted her application, ordered her immediate release and suspended the term of imprisonment which I had imposed on 22 August for a period of two years.

2. My attention has since been drawn to the decision of t he Court of Appeal (Thorpe. Waller and Mantell LJJ) on 8 November 2001, in Harris v. Harris [2001] EWCA Civ 1645. [2002] 1 FLR 248.

3. Mr. Harris was found by Munby J to be in contempt of court and was sentenced to a term of 10 months imprisonment. He then applied to purge his contempt, and, after argument from counsel instructed by the Attorney-General as amicus curiae, Munby J ordered Mr. Harris' immediate release and suspended the balance of his sentence. Mr. Harris appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis, inter alia, that the judge had no jurisdiction to do what he had done which was, in effect, to impose a fresh sentence of imprisonment, albeit suspended.

4. The Court of Appeal agreed, and allowed Mr. Harris' appeal. Giving the leading judgment, Thorpe LJ said that, on an application to purge contempt a judge could do only one of three things: (1) grant the application and order an immediate release; (2) defer the release to a stated future date; or (3) refuse the application. As Thorpe LJ put it in paragraph 21 of his judgment the judge could only say "yes, no, or not yet".

5. I am plainly bound by this decision, which I am unable to distinguish. It follows that I did not have the power to suspend Ms Watson's sentence and should have ordered her immediate and unconditional release. I therefore substitute that order for the suspended sentence which I passed on 1 September.

6. For the avoidance of doubt, I add two riders. The first is that I am entirely satisfied that the sentence of nine months imprisonment which I passed on 22 August was the correct sentence given the gravity to the contempt. Secondly, I remind Ms Watson and anyone in her position of what Waller LJ said at paragraph 25 of Harris v Harris, whilst expressing his agreement with Thorpe LJ's judgment: -

"In my view it actually adds very little to the armoury of the court to allow someone to 'conditionally purge' with the remainder of a sentence placed in suspense. Even on an unconditional release, it must be clear to Mr Harris that if he commits a further breach of the orders, the court will in assessing sentence take account of the fact that by his previous promises of good behaviour he was released part way through his ten month sentence. The court is likely to start from the position that he should at least serve that unserved part plus some further period for the contempts committed in breach of those promises, all subject to the overall limit of two years."

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 12:28 pm

Elizabeth Watson shared her post.
25 May at 00:13

IMPORTANT READING !!!

How to stop repossessions of your home which are ALL fraudulent, without exception -read on to learn how to escape these "death grips"....

Elizabeth Watson‎
The Common Law Court Of Wales

This is something I prepared to help a victim of mortgage fraud (NB:- EVERY mortgage is fraudulent without exception because it literally "gifts" DEBT to you by issuing credit against yr legal fiction name)....

I'm obviously unsure what stage you are at but have you had Disclosure yet? Or a Directions hearing? Or an opportunity to deal with preliminary issues?

Regardless, if you haven't already done this, then you must demand "an unless order" in the event that the "lender" hasn't complied with a Subject Access Request Notice - so , first serve a SARN notice to the Solicitors (they have 45 days to comply) and also send a SARN to the Bank, demanding to see the complete files & specifically ask for access to:

1. The original CONTRACT which must be a bi-lateral agreement (signed by 'offeror' and 'acceptor', containing the Terms & Conditions WITHIN it ( if not compliant with Law of Property Act misc provisions 1989 means its unenforceable!)

2. The original DEED (must have 2 independent witness signatures & have been executed in front of you, otherwise void)

3. The audited forensic proof of debt IE proof of the loan being delivered to an accessible account in your name - if they can't show this their claim must fall down

4. The original application form for the loan - has to be signed by YOU!

5. The HMLR AP-1 form duly signed by the Land Registrar, to put the charge on the Property - if not signed and if not original, then its invalid

6. A copy of the banks internal Credit Risk form, approving the loan with official bank officers' signature (the signature is often missing, indicating it was never approved!)

7. The final completion statement - which must have supporting documentation and should have been served with the Claim.

8. Under the Bankers Book Evidence Act 1879, you can demand to inspect the Bank or lender's ORIGINAL BOOKS and examine their audit ledger to check that the said 'loan' is verifiable on it, and to check it hasn't been paid off by being sold on to a third party, and that any 'servicing account' that they opened that's connected with the loan, has a valid signed Mandate of Authority from you.

If not, then the servicing account is null and void and may not be relied upon, and everything that was paid in to that servicing account has to be returned to you.

9. Often a claim is brought through a 'back door route' by alleging that a servicing account or associated bank account is "in arrears" and a 'Default notice' is issued, and this is used to bring the Claim by linking it to the "loan". BUT, the loan still has to be proved as per the documents above, AND any associated servicing accounts or bank accounts have to have:-

* a valid original signed Mandate of Authority from you to have authorised them or it being opened in your name.
* In addition, it has to have the Consumer Credit Act Agreement 1974 which must have been served with the Terms & conditions to you BEFORE the bank account was opened.
* It also has to have had a means of withdrawing or accessing funds, e.g. a cheque book and debit card.
If any of the above are missing or were skipped in the transactional stage, then they have no means or basis of enforcement as there is no case to answer to.

All mortgages should have a valid roll number. Ring up the Bank and record the call, and ask them to look up the roll number then record what they say - they might have no record!
IF this is the case, it means it has been conducted "off balance sheet" which is illegal. This is often done through a TRADING NAME of the Bank but not the Bank itself (it is a corrupt conspiracy to defraud by using a Trading name but making you believe you transacted with a major Bank when you didn't).

You have to then check if the TRADING NAME is separately registered at Companies House. If not, you have the right to demand to see their AUDITED BOOKS and check if your transactions are recorded on any Banking ledger -- if not, it is illegal!

Check any statements you've received, to see if the figures on the last bank statement match with the figures on the Claim form. If they do not, challenge this.

If the above request is correctly served and the £10 data protection fee paid, then they HAVE to comply. If the above info is missing, you need to request an interlocutory hearing to get the judge to strike out the claim because its an unsubstantiated claim "with no case to answer to". Or this can all be done by way of an N244.

Other things to look for:

a) If the Claim form bears no Court seal, this means it has never been validly issued and so has never been able to proceed, i.e. no proceedings! It is a violation of Civil Procedure Rule 2.6, and a claim expires after 12 months!

b) If the Claim has no signed Statement of Truth, and accompanying Witness statement, it is also invalid. This makes the one bringing the claim 100% accountable. It means the claim is invalid and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) a&b

c) If the Claim is not accompanied by supporting documentation which is compliant with the FSMA 2000 and also the Law of Property (Misc Provisions) Act 1989 especially sections 1 & 2 (execution of the deed and the requirements of a valid enforceable contract), together with a proof of debt (audited delivery of the said loan) then it is also invalid.

d) If you never received any Terms & conditions within a bi-lateral contract, it is invalid and totally unenforceable. Civil Courts rely on enforcement under The Law of Contract - hence, you need some form of valid contract! If it is absent, then it iso AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS and most probably, A FRAUD ON THE COURT and on YOU.

e) Sometimes the dishonest banks fraudulently convert an alleged "mortgage" or "loan" into an "overdraft" (to keep the alleged 'debt' alive) and they do this because they HAVE NO VALID ORIGINATING PAPERWORK!

This is why its so important to insist the original paperwork is produced. If you never received an of the vital documents, then you have no mortgage and no loan and you must stand your ground.

Every claim must be proved, and must show a proof of debt: if it can't be proved, it can't be claimed, its that simple. Bent lawyers, judges etc try to skirt round this fundamental issue, but its up to us to insist that the claim is proved and keep saying "SHOW ME!"
until they do

Refuse to proceed in Court until the basic claim is proved. If it isn't proved with non-compliance with ANY of the above (and the awful thing is, no solicitor will generally tell you this!) then you must raise the PRELIMINARY ISSUE with the Court and raise the points about what is missing and demand the UNLESS ORDER if the Claimant does not produce the necessary evidence in support of their claim: this quickly settles any arrogance and presumptions being made.

What constitutes a valid judgment?

Incidentally, a "judgment" based on presumptions is not valid, as it is hearsay. To have a valid judgment, the case must have been first TRIED - ie.

* the Claim must be carefully scrutinised for hallmarks of fraud/non-compliance

* any missing evidence of what is being claimed (like the loan contract itself!) must be called for under SARN;

* All of the issues of contention / irregularity and/or non-compliance must have been raised as PRELIMINARY ISSUES at a live hearing, then DIRECTIONS can be given...,

* then Disclosure must take place of relevant evidence / documents as above (both adverse and favourable) under CPR Part 31,

* Don't accept any excuses re non-disclosure from the other side, e.g. the Bank was taken over or merged etc - you can refuse to allow it to continue and demand a strike out if they can'tt produce the paperwork;

* Then provided things re all in order, (which they never are) it can go to Trial and the issues must be TRIED...

if they are not tried at a FAIR HEARING (and generally the criminal banksters expect us to defend FALSE CLAIMS with both hands tied behind our back!), then it is a case for SETTING IT ASIDE or STRIKE OUT of the unsubstantiated 'claim'.

You can give your grounds for the Strike Out, using what's missing from the format above of the vital documents they must produce.

Keep going until you get compliance from them, and give them deadlines to prove the vital evidence - don't ever let them off the hook!

They will try to distract you and will use all manner of excuses, but stay FOCUSED, very focused.

All possession claims are in fact fraudulent because they are unconstitutional and illegal and none of the banksters keep the paperwork because they take the traceable financial instrument (the Promissory Note) and sell it on 1-2 dozen times, making billions off the original sum!

They do this dishonestly and behind the scenes, pulling the wool over your eyes and hoping you won't cotton on.

This is called "leveraging" in a 'Fractional Reserve System' and is a scam.
It is the direct cause of 'the BUBBLE' the Banksters have created, which has created huge job losses, homelessness etc because it is reckless lending and the fact they ignore the Law AND due process required for compliance, indicates how arrogant these financial criminals have become.

But you must demand to see the initial paperwork, and if it isn't 100% compliant then you are entitled to demand a FULL REFUND of all moneys paid and for the claim to be withdrawn and for the charge/s on your property to be removed using an DS-1 form from HMLR.
It is worth studying the PRE ACTION PROTOCOL as well, regarding Mortgages - because nowadays, the Law keeps changing and believe it or not, no one can issue a Claim through the local County Court any more! i.e. it has to be done via one CENTRAL COUNTY COURT which is in Salford, Manchester - how many people actually KNOW this though? This was introduced around April 2014, because of corruption at the level of County Courts.

Many unscrupulous criminals who are parading as 'officials' resort to "bankrupting" their subject, but this is illegal as Bankruptcy is not meant to feed you to the alleged creditors, but to PROTECT you FROM the creditors!

They do the opposite, trading and banking on your ignorance, by using alleged "Bankruptcy" as a means of alleged 'debt collection' and are acting in FRAUD.

So being fore-warned is critically important. Do not engage with such criminals. Serve them an Anti-MLRA Notice (I can provide example wording for this if needed) to the solicitors and the (alleged) Trustees etc and demand to see proof of WHO, precisely, has instructed them, and for what?

NB: You would be well advised to telephone the Bank or Lender and say you need to record it as your memory can't be relied upon, then read the account numbers to check what they have on their records. You may well discover they have not even got a record of a loan or of the account numbers! Put it to the test.

If they have no record of the loan, ask them for a Letter confirming this or a LETTER OF RELEASE so the void charge can be removed at Land Registry. Demand every detail of what they are claiming, proof of everything they glibly write on paper. 99.99% of claims fall down if tackled correctly. This is a sobering thought indeed.

Also, take careful note, NO County Court can issue a claim nor a Bankruptcy order etc and it is a certain hallmark of fraud if this occurs and should be immediately reported to the Police, the SFO, the Ministry of Justice, the High Court Enforcement Office and the Minister for Insolvency - as it is an ABUSE OF THE INSOLVENCY PROCESS as well.

The only methods open to recover an alleged debt or default on a mortgage is:
1. A PCOL - Possession claim on line (only for very straightforward cases, not complex ones) and is intended for evicting tenants in a RENTED property.

For a mortgage property, it requires the original compliant Contract to be made available etc - governed under CPR Part 55 Rules.

Generally the online method can not be used to take your family home, because all supporting documentation has to be provided, along with PRE ACTION PROTOCOL - and to establish there is an actual valid BASIS for bringing the claim in the first place!.

Its my understanding that a PCOL can not generally be used if it is your main home, as you have to inspect the original Deed and original Contract (i.e. the Promissory Note) etc. which can not be done on line, as documents can so easily be forged.

Another reason it generally cannot be used to repossess a home you have purchased, is because all the interest payments have to be made available along with the Terms & conditions and to check it was validly set up!

2. A MCOL - Money Claim on line (generally linked to a Consumer Credit Agreement for a Bank account that is overdrawn, which is capped at a sum of £25,000 and has to have been validly signed and served before contracting etc);

* if for a higher amount (up to £100k) then it needs to have a valid loan contract IF it is a secured loan it must comply with all of the Law of Property Act etc
* if unsecured, then they will have to write it off if they do not have your original signature on a valid signed Mandate of agreement for the loan!

NB: Photocopies are inadmissible because the signatures can be forged (and dishonest banksters are known to use an AF100 machine to achieve this!)

* If the alleged "lender" has tried to deceitfully or fraudulently CONVERT an ALLEGED 'loan' which was invalidly set up, into an "overdraft" then this is also invalid - they can not change one financial instrument into another one! This is like turning an apple into an orange and still calling it an apple.

Unless fresh paperwork and a Mandate was set up for an Overdraft etc, it has no contractual or enforceable basis.

It can not be turned into an MCOL thereafter because of being 'void, ab initio' and invalidly procured. So it is important to KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

3. The third method is to bring a Claim by post via the Salford CENTRAL COUNTY COURT, which has to bear a red original Court seal and comply with all of the necessary paperwork and supporting documentation (you are entitled to see ANYTHING that is referred to within the Claim that is brought. Be sure to scrutinise and check every detail).

If you receive something after April 2014 from a local County Court, it is likely to be invalid and/or fraudulently issued, as the local Courts are no longer allowed to issue Claims because of compliance and corruption issues!
I hope this gives a helpful start

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 12:31 pm

Elizabeth Watson
uploaded a file.
21 hrs

HBOS PRIVATE BANKING FRAUD DEBUNKED !! If you email me and identify who you are and the reason for your interest, then I will send you an incendiary MP3 recording - then you can Listen to the MP3 conversation attached of me talking to a "Relationship Manager" within the fraudulent PRIVATE BANKING UNIT (PBU) of Bank of Scotland / Lloyds PLC on 20 September 2013 !!

The woman, Nina Macarthur of PBU burst out crying at the end of the tape (I thought to myself "hey it should be ME that's crying here, not her!"....I confided the astonishing revelations to HMLR and guess what?

...she later backtracked and did a u-turn because the corrupt Land Registrar John Pownall TIPPED OFF FRAUDSTER "SOLICITOR" TIMOTHY PYLE AT EVERSHITES, who lied and pretended there were "live proceedings" - only to subsequently admit on 15 September 2014 that there were NO proceedings because NO COURT SEAL (violation of CPR 2.5) on the alleged "claim" form!!!!

no court seal = nothing can proceed because no valid issuance! i.e. NO PROCEEDINGS
Thus, everything following the date of the bogus "possession claim" FALLS AWAY !!!!!!! yippee

8 people like this.

Brett Castell
Issues arise from what constitutes a valid seal Liz, any clarity on that?

Like does it have to have location of the issuing court rather than just 'County Court'..
20 hrs · Like

Nita Benfield
their house is coming tumbling down! yippee
20 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
a valid court seal is red, not pre-printed on the paper, and the original 'claim' must bear the red court seal with a date on it. Without this, it hasn't been validly issued nor validly served and is a nullity
19 hrs · Like · 4

Nita Benfield
Elizabeth NONE of their forms are valid - legality is NOT a reality. ONLY a man can make a claim.
19 hrs · Like

Elizabeth Watson
No claims can be issued in individual County Courts any more - this was changed around April 2014! All claims have to go through one Central County Court in Salford, Manchester. If any "claim" originates from a local county court after April 2014, it is 100% fraudulent and forged
19 hrs · Like · 2

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 12:36 pm

Bones wrote:Elizabeth Watson
a valid court seal is red, not pre-printed on the paper, and the original 'claim' must bear the red court seal with a date on it. Without this, it hasn't been validly issued nor validly served and is a nullity
19 hrs · Like · 4


https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... 9#IDADJ2OC

Stamping or sealing court documents
29.7

(1) A court officer must, when issuing the following documents, seal(GL), or otherwise authenticate them with the stamp of the court –

(a) the application form;

(b) an order; and

(c) any other document which a rule or practice direction requires the court officer to seal(GL) or stamp.

(2) The court officer may place the seal(GL) or the stamp on the document –

(a) by hand; or

(b) by printing a facsimile of the seal(GL) on the document whether electronically or otherwise.

(3) A document purporting to bear the court's seal(GL) or stamp will be admissible in evidence without further proof.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1655
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby longdog » Sat May 30, 2015 12:45 pm

To be honest a couple of paragraphs of LotfW's inane ramblings are as much as I can stomach. Partly because of her inability to express anything like a logical train of thought and partly because she tells so many lies you can't believe a word she says anyway.

It's all just blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah to me.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 12:48 pm

Bones wrote:Elizabeth Watson
Check out OPTIMA LEGAL's letterhead - and look for their SRA registered Licence to practice as solicitors - NADA ! Ditto "Walker Morris" - scammers all of them!
20 hrs · Like



Optima Legal Services Limited
Show trading names▴

Optima Legal

Tel:
0844 571 3600
Email:
enquire@optimalegal.co.uk
SRA ID:
441547
SRA Regulated
Type:
Licensed body law practice (ABS)


Head office
Address:
Hepworth House,
Claypit Lane,
Leeds,
West Yorkshire,
LS2 8AE,
England


Walker Morris LLP
Show trading names▾

Distinctly Legal

Tel:
0113 283 2500
Email:
hello@walkermorris.co.uk
Web:
www.walkermorris.co.uk
SRA ID:
508263
SRA Regulated
Type:
Recognised body law practice


Head office
Address:
Kings Court,
12 King Street,
Leeds,
West Yorkshire,
LS1 2HL,
England

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 1:04 pm

Elizabeth Watson wrote:2. The original DEED (must have 2 independent witness signatures & have been executed in front of you, otherwise void)


As you are the person that executes a mortgage deed, I presume she means that it must be witnessed in front of you.

Shah v Shah & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 527 (10 April 2001)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/527.html

30. I have however come to the conclusion that there was no statutory intention to exclude the operation of an estoppel in all circumstances or in circumstances such as the present. The perceived need for formality in the case of a deed requires a signature and a document cannot be a deed in the absence of a signature. I can detect no social policy which requires the person attesting the signature to be present when the document is signed. The attestation is at one stage removed from the imperative out of which the need for formality arises. It is not fundamental to the public interest, which is in the requirement for a signature. Failure to comply with the additional formality of attestation should not in itself prevent a party into whose possession an apparently valid deed has come from alleging that the signatory should not be permitted to rely on the absence of attestation in his presence. It should not permit a person to escape the consequences of an apparently valid deed he has signed, representing that he has done so in the presence of an attesting witness, merely by claiming that in fact the attesting witness was not present at the time of signature. The fact that the requirements are partly for the protection of the signatory makes it less likely that Parliament intended that the need for them could in all circumstances be used to defeat the claim of another party.

31. Having regard to the purposes for which deeds are used and indeed in some cases required, and the long term obligations which deeds will often create, there are policy reasons for not permitting a party to escape his obligations under the deed by reason of a defect, however minor, in the way his signature was attested. The possible adverse consequences if a signatory could, months or years later, disclaim liability upon a purported deed, which he had signed and delivered, on the mere ground that his signature had not been attested in his presence, are obvious. The lack of proper attestation will be peculiarly within the knowledge of the signatory and, as Sir Christopher Slade observed in the course of argument, will often not be within the knowledge of the other parties.

32. In this case the document was described as a deed and was signed. A witness, to whom the third and fourth defendants were well known, provided a form of attestation shortly afterwards and the only failure was that he did so without being in the presence of the third and fourth defendants when they signed.

33. Having considered the wording of section 1 in the context of its purpose and the policy consideration which apply to deeds, I am unable to detect a statutory intention totally to exclude the operation of an estoppel in relation to the application of the section or to exclude it in present circumstances. The section does not exclude an approach such as that followed by Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson in TSB. For the reasons I have given, the delivery of the document in my judgment involved a clear representation that it had been signed by the third and fourth defendants in the presence of the witness and had accordingly been validly executed by them as a deed. The defendant signatories well knew that it had not been signed by them in the presence of the witness, but they must be taken also to have known that the claimant would assume that it had been so signed and that the statutory requirements had accordingly been complied with so as to render it a valid deed. They intended it to be relied on as such and it was relied on. In laying down a requirement by way of attestation in section 1 of the 1989 Act, Parliament was not in my judgment excluding the possibility that an estoppel could be raised to prevent the signatory relying upon the need for the formalities required by the section. In my judgment, the judge was correct in permitting the estoppel to be raised in this case and in his conclusion that the claimant could bring an action upon the document as a deed.

34. I would dismiss this appeal.

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 1:18 pm

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... WmqZUYvb6Z

THE COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST FACTS BEHIND THE UNLAWFUL COURT SESSIONS ON TOM CRAWFORD'S CASE

PRESS RELEASE - in the Public Interest


Tom Crawford's case is a great teaching tool, because it is a Classic example of how mis-reporting is being relied upon by criminals operating in a gang to conspire to steal the Crawford's family home by abusing the Court process and pulling the wool over everyone's eyes - without a shred of evidence to rely upon! This reduces the entire debacle in HMCTS and beyond, to a brazen act of Public deception, specifically, "a fraud on the Court and on the Crawfords" who are NOT deceived. So what are some of the actual RELEVANT FACTS on the Crawford case which the Media haven't yet examined?

In the 4th paragraph below, are 10 critical facts which preclude the Crawford's from being divested of their home lawfully, and which demonstrate that "Judge" godsmark was, alas, sitting in fraud without lawful jurisdiction or right of audience, having evidently abandoned his Oath of Office, engaging instead in perjury and an unashamed Abuse of the Court Process - along with the solicitors on the case (Walker Morris) and, of course, the originators of the scam - being Bradford & Bingley a 100% Government owned firm, who nominated themselves a 2nd lifeline by the inappropriate creation of UKAR (United Kingdom Asset Recovery) when banks like Bradford & Bingley collapsed by their own dead weight, snatching people's financial holdings with them which forced those robbed of their money to 'write this theft off', and yet prolonging the false "debtors" by creating the UKAR money-laundering vehicle intended to try to legitimise the unprovable and non-existent "debts".

But first, here is my truth review of UKAR (UK Asset Recovery) which I will share with you:
United Kingdom Asset Recovery are a despicable organisation with no morals, set up as a HOLDING COMPANY by a bankrupt "government" (bankrupt morally, financially, intellectually, spiritually) to scoop up illegal revenue for themselves, by abuse of position: all UK banks, supposedly "too big to fail" have failed miserably leaving a nuclear trail in their wake, saddling the People of Britain with their toxic legacy of uncontrolled DEBT through a fatally flawed Monetary system controlled by Rothschild, the infamous satanist behind the global economic collapse - which is entirely orchestrated.

UKAR have forced all those who invested their liquid assets in Bradford & Bingley and other failed "banks" to abandon their holdings and FLEE, but have dishonestly co-opted with the Government to given themselves an illegal 2nd lifeline with a conspiracy to force the alleged "debtors" or alleged "Borrowers" to stay on their hook, under their death-grip (mort-gage) with this money laundering vehicle called UKAR to implement this! Disgusting Corporatization which violates our human rights - be gone with you, for you are nothing more than scoundrels and financial opportunists who are parasites on the People of England. Financial hyenas like UKAR are NOT welcome here.

From the information I have gleaned on this case, here are 10 critical facts in the Crawfords favour (not yet truthfully reported by the mainstream Media, who've failed to investigate the material facts) - if anything needs correction then I invite Tom Crawford to intervene, so this email is being copied to him accordingly....

1. The Crawfords believed they had a "mortgage" some 25 years ago from Bradford & Bingley, of some £41,000 or so. They repaid this no less than THREE TIMES over the ensuing 25 years, without realising until 18 months ago that they had apparently been duped into an "unconscionable bargain" - because it turns out they have never been given any Terms & Conditions and do not have any enforceable Mortgage Contract!

2. This means that the 100% government-owned Bradford & Bingley was engaging in practices which are now condemned and prevented through the introduction of much later regulation like The Financial Services Markets Act 2000 and other rules which go beyond the (rather ambiguous and limp-wristed) mere 'Mortgage Code' which was in force in 1986. Due to the lack of checks & balances back then, the Crawfords fell prey to predatory lending practices, so common amongst the Banks, particularly those which were 100% Government owned.

3. With there being no valid paperwork in place for the alleged "loan" which resulted in an INVALID charge being placed on the Crawford's property, using illegal means, due to non-compliance with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and the Power of Attorney Act 1971 and non-disclosure of the "lenders" Terms & Conditions, meant that the Crawfords never had any 'right of redemption' of the said "loan"! Yet a 'mortgage' is defined by its 'right of redemption' (as with the game 'Monopoly', remember?), and so with this 'right' being in absentia, the Crawfords legally never had any mortgage!

4. Despite this, due to the lack of protective legislation to the Public and those labelled "borrowers" at the time, the Crawford's acted IN GOOD FAITH and repaid 'loan interest' without realising they had no obligation to pay anything, in effect, because of the invalid and unconscionable way the whole transaction had been badly and dishonestly set up, creating a total liability for the Crawfords and an unconscionable bargain. This is how Bradford & Bingley amassed an unwarranted sum approaching £150,000 in "interest only payments" which were tantamount to financial fraudon an alleged "borrowing" which involved an invalid paper trail that was procured from the Crawfords' own asset in the first place..namely, the Bradford & Bingley did not 'lend' the Crawfords ANYTHING but instead, created a book entry and issued CREDIT, misnamed "money" on their signature being misused!

5. Unfortunately, when the unethical 'interest' had been paid to the value of some three times the original alleged "loan", Bradford & Bingley, amidst the new and tightening legislation with financial fraud becoming a huge Public issue, acted in dishonour, by fraudulently CONVERTING the alleged "loan" into an "overdraft" - namely, they took the CREDIT that had been issued on paper illegally some 25 years earlier, and dishonestly changed its status into a false financial instrument that could NEVER be repaid - because no contract has ever been in existence. So what ought to have occurred is the 'loan should have been expunged there and then, and all of the 'interest' ought to have been repaid.

But instead, the ailing Bradford & Bingley co-opted with the Government, to create a money-laundering vehicle of "UKAR" (UK Asset resolution) parading as a means of 'helping customers with their loan and mortgage issues" so as to keep the illegal asset-stripping alive: in other words, a complete scam!

In this way, UKAR became the new "owner" of the (valuable, in their eyes) 'debt', and without checking in to the background nor putting right any of the foregoing errors and fraudulent irregularities, they conspired to issue a Money Claim on line during 2014 or thereabouts!
This "MCOL" false claim resulted from the false 'overdraft' the 'lender' had created through the illegal conversion of a 'debt' which was never validated or compliant with Law in the first place. It was around this time that the guilty parties became very apologetic to the Crawfords and bought them champagne and flowers, instead of explaining that the remedy they were entitled to receive was a full refund of all interest wrongly paid, and eradication of the original alleged 'debt' due to non-compliant paperwork and no enforceable contract.

6. However, with there being no Consumer Credit Agreement validly procured nor in place for the "overdraft" which was foisted upon the Crawford's, the MCOL could never stand up in Court, as any Civil claim in HMCTS requires the Law of Contract to 'prove' the case and win it, but this is impossible with there being no contract in existence for either the original 'loan' nor, indeed, for the subsequent fraudulent loan conversion into an Overdraft! Therefore, the MCOL was invalidly brought by Walker Morris solicitors - who have never complied with Part 31 Rules of Disclosure of the Court, despite being asked to do so: they, too, are in dishonour and abusing the Court process.

7. A further hallmark of fraud exists in the INVALID ISSUANCE of the MCOL, brought against the Crawfords in 2014: that of no proof of debt - the Government, under the facade of 'Bradford & Bingley' trading name back in 1990 or thereabouts, had done a mere book entry of issuing 'credit' against the Crawford's name and secured it invalidly against their asset (family home) - which denotes that the Promissory Note was not valid nor could be validated - because a charge can not be put on a property without a valid DEED, and in addition:

* the Deed has to be accompanied by a valid bi-lateral CONTRACT which must contain the Terms & Conditions of the loan within its wording in one document and executed in front of them at the 'exchange of contracts stage'.
* the Deed must also bear two independent witness signatures, and the original of this along with the original Contract, forms the original Promissory Note. Without these things all in place, no valid transaction has taken place.
* The above is the Law and is mandatory under the Law of Property (Misc Provisions) 1989 Act, Sections 1 & 2.

8. Astonishingly, District Judge Godsmark failed to detect ANY of the foregoing. Instead, he focused on the repayment vehicle (an endowment) which in no way can exonerate the missing vital steps referred to above. It is also questionable whether there has been any compliance at all with the Bill of Exchange Act 1882, which requires that any charge placed on a property via a valid Deed, must have received 'consideration' and a fair exchange (something of value for something of value). This, too, is thrown into serious question. In this way, it can be reliably deduced that DJ Godsmark was sitting in fraud and dishonour in HMCTS, by turning a blind eye to the compound fraud and multiple irregularities which he made no apparent attempt to correct.

9. Tom Crawford rightly drew to the Judge's attention the fact that the "claim" had never been validly issued, because it had never been PAID for! this means there are NO PROCEEDINGS - because with no valid issuance, the claim can not proceed and so there are no proceedings.
Moreover, the false 'claim bore NO COURT SEAL (a mandatory requirement under the Ministry of Justice Civil Procedure Rule 2.6), and NO SIGNATURE ON THE 'STATEMENT OF TRUTH' - which the judge weakly tried to get around by asserting it was "a money claim on line" !
The dishonest solicitors, complicit in this abuse of the Court process, showed a barrister present in the Court room the White book that stated that a home could be repossessed via an MCOL without any pre-action protocol - but quickly departed when it was pointed out to them by the erudite barrister that it was "subject only to STRICT CONDITIONS, none of which had been met!" This sums up the mindless manner in which this INVALID claim has been peddled through HMCTS. The fact that the Judge then took the unprecedented RISK of compounding the hot water he is already clearly steeped in, by REFUSING the Crawford's RIGHT OF APPEAL against the fraudulent and invalidly brought, unsubstantiated "claim" speaks volumes about the state of play and sheer CORRUPTION which has infiltrated HM Courts and even the police forces and Professions. Integrity has been thrown out of the window.

10. To add insult to injury, DJ Godsmark abused his position, by violating Tom Crawford's Article 6 right to a "fair hearing". He did this by refusing Mr Crawford's perfectly reasonable request to be represented by the party of his choice and nomination, but the Judge (illegally) refused this - evidently because he was not acting in accord with his sworn Oath of Office and instead was there in a PRIVATE capacity (a rescue operation for the avalanche of financial deficit created by the profligacy and reckless lending of the 1990's and earlier). Mr Crawford has been suffering symptoms of inevitable stress with 'blanking out' and many of us even witnessed him explaining this, but DJ Godsmark coldly ignored his plight and refused his request: this created an inequality of arms.

The excuse for a 'judge' ran out of the Court room NO LESS THAN THREE TIMES, evidently his conscience was pricking him too hard, and events that occurred exacerbated the reminder to the judge's conscience that he was not acting lawfully in his manner of handling the case. Had he done a deal behind the scenes with UKAR - the 100% Government Owned HOLDING Company and therefore 100% CONFLICTED to have brought the false "claim" in the first place?
I herein rest my case.

Finally, I will just say this: is anyone else noticing that something is terribly wrong here, with literally hundreds of billions of pounds being wiped off Bank balance sheets, yet not a single criminal prosecution for theft or robbery in sight, all aided and abetted by the illegal protectionism of the UK 'Government' ?

This plays out in the financial and Economic Marketplace where by there were apparently over 48,000 illegal repossessions bought last year against victims of the Corporate takeover by the giant behemoth financial institutions of the likes of Bradford & Bingley, or a house taken every 20 minutes, through abuse of position leading to people's loss (a criminal offence under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006) and nothing practical yet being done about this sorry state of affairs?

I speak with a certain authority and from first-hand experience, because I, too, am a victim of Serious Organised Crime by the State, only through a different financial institution - Bank of Scotland (previously known as "HBOS") who also engaged in predatory lending without passing the money for the false charges they took on properties using void deeds and in violation of the Bill of Exchange Act 1882.

In my and my sister's case, I have been literally wrestling against the corruption in HMCTS for the past EIGHT AND A HALF YEARS, and have been denied a fair hearing and denied any disclosure of a debt, amongst other things. These happenings are plainly, an abomination!
The BBC timidly took the lid off my case on 3 March 2014 without explaining that none of us ever received a penny in 'loans' nor any access to the said 'loans', but were helpful at least in exposing how the HBOS Head Auditor, Fraser Mackay, was at the helm of the heist of $233 million of which more than $2million has been stolen from my family members and we've been robbed of our peace of mind for 14 years and stressed out for nearly 9 years with invalid proceedings involving EVERSHEDS solicitors as the s.p.v. to the bank (special purpose vehicle) - latterly, the dishonest rogue solicitor Tim Pyle has rapidly FLED, without a trace! The claim continues to languish in the courts as I continue to patiently await the removal of no less than THREE illegal and invalid 'charges' on our home, by the Property Chamber.

Nick Wallis: Bank of Scotland investigation
becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwallis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/...Cached
Posted by Nick Wallis at 15:09. ... I believe it was designed by HBOS and implemented by broker introducers but, ... Inside Out Bank of Scotland investigation transcript.

IMHO, Britain is no longer a safe place to purchase or own property, nor to have or bring up children, because the corruption issues of the Crown Corporation which governs all of the atrocities which include child-trafficking, land and property grabbing by the State and bogus "bankruptcies" as a means of illicit debt collection, all stem from the abuse of the registration process at HMLR, HMRC, HMCTS etc. I hope this provides some useful insight into the REAL goings-on. You can view my posting from a few days ago on 'Eviction the fraud of the Bank' Facebook Group site, which will doubtless give you even more understanding into the Government's 'war against its people' going on in Britain today.

Yours truly

Elizabeth watson
founder - ONE VOICE ACTION GROUP
'One Voice' action group






'One Voice' action group
"let's become One Voice, and let's make that voice be heard" Founder of 'One Voice Action Group'
View on http://www.one-voice-action-group.com

discoveries
New Recruit
New Recruit

Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:08 am

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 1:25 pm

Elizabeth Watson wrote:3. With there being no valid paperwork in place for the alleged "loan" which resulted in an INVALID charge being placed on the Crawford's property, using illegal means, due to non-compliance with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and the Power of Attorney Act 1971 and non-disclosure of the "lenders" Terms & Conditions, meant that the Crawfords never had any 'right of redemption' of the said "loan"! Yet a 'mortgage' is defined by its 'right of redemption' (as with the game 'Monopoly', remember?), and so with this 'right' being in absentia, the Crawfords legally never had any mortgage!

* the Deed has to be accompanied by a valid bi-lateral CONTRACT which must contain the Terms & Conditions of the loan within its wording in one document and executed in front of them at the 'exchange of contracts stage'.
* the Deed must also bear two independent witness signatures, and the original of this along with the original Contract, forms the original Promissory Note. Without these things all in place, no valid transaction has taken place.
* The above is the Law and is mandatory under the Law of Property (Misc Provisions) 1989 Act, Sections 1 & 2.



Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

64. The 1989 Act did not apply when this mortgage was created in 1988 and Mr Crawford recognises that. His submission is that any subsequent mortgage contract should have complied with the formalities of s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

65. The problem with the submission is that both sides agree that there was no subsequent mortgage contract replacing the original 1988 mortgage agreement. This is the same factual point. Mr Crawford asserts that he never agreed to go onto a repayment mortgage but then Bradford & Bingley do not say that he ever did - the mortgage stayed as it was.

vampireLOREN
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:18 am

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby vampireLOREN » Sat May 30, 2015 3:14 pm

Here's a little treat
PoE spouting Poo....some of quite racist.
LotfW butting in and getting cut by PoE (just before he goes into racist mode)
Lovingly filmed by Little Jim.
https://youtu.be/t_IMaq97aIc
Killing 3 birds with 1 stone? :snicker:
If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Bones » Sat May 30, 2015 4:02 pm

I get the feeling Lizzie and Petie don't get on that well. She is trying to take the lime light away from him, as she did with Tom, during the actual hearing and afterwards with her comical press releases.

Lizzie loves attention and must make everything she is involved in about her. Hold on that reminds me of someone.. oh yes Ceylon ?

Could Lizzie really be Ceylon in drag ? Have they ever been seen together or appeared in the same video (no smutty remarks please)

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Sat May 30, 2015 4:08 pm

Bones wrote:Could Lizzie really be Ceylon in drag ?

Nah. Ms Watson takes quite a nice photo imo. Whereas Ceylon..........
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

vampireLOREN
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:18 am

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby vampireLOREN » Sat May 30, 2015 4:09 pm

Bones wrote:I get the feeling Lizzie and Petie don't get on that well. She is trying to take the lime light away from him, as she did with Tom, during the actual hearing and afterwards with her comical press releases

The only author I can think of.....that could conjurer up this cast of Characters would be Charles Dickens,
I had thought Victor Hugo but no that's too French.
No this whole bunch, this motley crew, this band of brothers are something out
of a 19th century nightmare. :thinking:
If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest