Consumer Credit Solicitors
An Actual Letter to real Solicitors presented here by
Rev Dr David P Griffiths PhD DD
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,
LIVERPOOL
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 phcc4219@aol.com 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.
