THE HOUSE OF LORDS
and UTILITARIANISM
Part 6
In relation to current legal actions that have now been taken out of the legal process, hence our legal ability to name specific cases on this site, we now move on from our presentation of the House of Lords case shown in Part 1 to see how the House of Lords ruling seems to have been cancelled out by a Court Hearing conducted by the Honourable Mr Justice Flaux. We believe we can show Utilitarianism as a philosophy being used in relation to British Law as well as unconstitutional references
to European Law and the European Court of Justice.
Presented by Rev. Dr. David P Griffiths PhD DD
Clergyman of the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law
1689 Act that Established the Coronation Oath
was sworn by Her Majesty the Queen at her Coronation in June 1953.
Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and
will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?"
King and Queen, "All this I promise to do."
After this, the King and Queen laying his and her hand
upon the holy Gospels, shall say, King and Queen,
"The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep: So help me God."
Then the King and Queen shall kiss the book. IV. And be it enacted, That the said oath shall be in like manner administered to every King and Queen, who shall succeed to the imperial crown of this Realm, at their respective coronations, by one of the archbishops or bishops of this Realm of England, for the time being, to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queen respectively, and in the presence of all persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such their respective coronations; any law, statute, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
Rev. Dr. David P Griffiths PhD DD hereby uses his right as an Ordained Clergy man of the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law" to ensure the laws of God are maintained in the nation, to truly profess the true Gospel and the "Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law."
In relation to the Protestant Elizabethan Settlement I will expose all foreign infiltration into our legal processes and look to honour and respect British Law in line with H.M. Queen Elizabeth II oath to maintain the laws of God.
Where We are At Now: the Legal Position
We stopped paying banks in 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 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 the case – thus how can MBNA therefore 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 and 1700 as well as The Elizabethan Settlement is 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.
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.
2) Introduction
There are a number of technical requirements listed relating back to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and we employed MSB 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 defaults 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.
3) 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 (with the exception of Barclaycard) – thus giving them apparent legal rights to take enforcement actions against claimants. Immediately on Page 1 – 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 cases by banks. 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.
To help the Banks here & at the same time prove from 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. Point 17 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 18 brings 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, the similarity 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 2002 Case 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. I
n 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 of the 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 view of 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.
UtilitarianismFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 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 of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
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 way to 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 McGufficks 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 both this court and Barclaycard 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 defendent banks during times of Dispute leading up to Court Hearings: Under Points 26 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.
