It is more than feasible that certain members of the House of Lords have colluded in a failed attempt to shut down a claim I have been orchestrating, which just so happens to have been filed against one of the oldest banks currently practicing institutionalised fraud on these islands. It seems reasonable to assume that this is probably because of the publicity that would be generated and the legal precedent that would be set, in the absurdly unusual event that the law of mortgages is actually applied correctly in the Crown Courts of the United Kingdom.
That being said, a panel of at least three Supreme Court Lord Justices will soon take 30 minutes out of their day to determine whether or not a verdict in favour of the Appellant would cause so much financial panic in the moneyed metropolis, and such utter chaos in Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service, that it would be in the so-called “public interest” to have the claim struck out as “totally without merit” for a third time. A Limited Civil Restraint Order would then almost certainly be issued, preventing my person from bringing any other actions against the banksters in question.
Nevertheless, despite the entirely unjustified, totally unsustainable and utterly unreasonable threat of civil restraint that was issued by the Court of Appeal following a permission application last Autumn [which stands as prima facie evidence of an overtly aggressive attempt to prevent this case from proceeding any further, no doubt conceived to avoid the possibility of having to issue a court order in favour of a seven figure statutory lien, filed into evidence and duly served upon the Knight of this Ill-Gotten Realm who heads the company being sued], all things considered, the legal arguments put before the court are now more compelling than they were at the time of the original filing, whilst the foundation of the claim remains the same:
There is no valid mortgage contract in existence, therefore, the legal effect of the charges which arose out of that unenforceable agreement is nullified.
It is my considered opinion that all litigants-in-person must follow the procedures, protocols and practice directions to the letter and in the spirit of the law, if we are really serious about playing and winning an ostensibly rigged game, of which the vast majority of players have absolutely no cognisance, let alone control. In this instance, we have appealed the original judgment of the High Court, an order which indirectly resulted in all routes of appeal being blocked without a fair hearing, despite numerous, sustainable and easily arguable points of law being put before the courts, thus comprising denials of access to justice and the right to a fair trial and giving rise to statutory grounds for appeal under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, as well as Article XXIX of the Magna Carta 1297.
On the face of it, the Supreme Court rules and the statutes governing the administration of justice would seem to have provided unscrupulous members of the legal professions the capability of dispensing with an unwanted claim or application, without a hearing, in the county and high courts, followed by the Court of Appeal, by simply applying to each court to dismiss the claim as “totally without merit”, under Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The all-too-common practice of this type of Summary Judgment application by the banksters, when engaged in defending the indefensible, is evidence that they are being protected by the courts, whether knowingly or unknowingly, at the expense of virtually everybody and everything else, including reason, honour, truth and justice. It is way past time that the situation was rectified.
We have already amassed enough supporting evidence, prescription by statute and compelling authorities for the highest court in the land to do its duty and rule to prevent any further miscarriages of justice against the Mortgagors in the lower courts, as well as to demonstrate that there is no conflict of interests between the administration of justice and the investments of the Crown, whether public or private.
In the event that such a judgment is handed down in our favour, there will be a clear and definitive legal precedent, in addition to the critically important cases of United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib and Lloyds v Bryant, upon which the representaive actions of the Mortgagors will be able to rely.
