Concerning TGBMS, the following is a verbatim account of a hearing on Wednesday 14 July 2010 over a bogus possession claim for the RM’s house by a collective of Racketeers known as the Bradford & Bingley PLC. The hearing is of an application by the barrister for the crooked banksters for the original possession order to be amended and a penal notice retrospectively attached to it. It is heard before Richard Inglis [‘J’], a man acting as a county court judge and a High Court circuit judge.  For the purposes of contextualisation, the Mad Hatter is played by Richard, the White Rabbit by Benjamin and Alice by the Rogue Male (RM).

The man acting as a Barrister for the Bank is Benjamin Wood [‘BW’], of 4Square Chambers London.

RM is acting on behalf of himself, the man.

Background: the RM is defending an action to amend the void possession order of 28 August 2009, as granted to the Bank by the same judge who struck out the RM’s counter claim against the bank over the fraud they had committed against him.

Thus far, the Court, at the behest of BW, has issued, against RM’s legal person, a Civil Restraining Order [CRO] (in December 2009) and an Extended Civil Restraining Order [ECRO] ( in April 2013, issued by a man called Wyn Williams, acting as a High Court judge at the Administrative Court in Birmingham).

Having failed to get access to the house through the man known as David Caress who acts as a court bailiff, BW is seeking to have a penal notice [ an order that the RM be sent to prison if he doesn’t consent to the robber barons stealing his home under the guise of a void court order] attached to the original order for possession. Said original order turns out to be fatally flawed in that it did not specify an address or a date by which the  warrant for possession had to be executed.  Both BW and J are engaged in a struggle to find a way to amend it.

RM was given only a short time to prepare for this hearing ~ thus he asks for an adjournment in order for more time.

It is is highly significant to note that a privately issued promissory note was issued to settle the dispute and refused by BW at the Administrative Court on the same day the ‘ECRO’ was granted[RM applied for an oral hearing of his application for a Judicial Review of the failings of Nottingham County Court to provide a competent venue able to determine the facts of the matter].

Neither BW nor J wish to go into the issue of whether the matter has been lawfully settled.


Subject matter jurisdiction – if the foreclosure claimant cannot produce the NOTE or a valid chain of custody in the form of valid assignments back to the holder of the NOTE, the case is over for lack of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Given the fact there is no valid contract between RM & the B&B and that the Deed of Mortgage is a false document, the B&B did not in actuality have the necessary standing to bring the claim in the first place. The whole possession claim was fraudulent.

Subject matter can be challenged at any time:

Due process provides an interested party with the elementary and fundamental right to notice of the pendency of an action and the opportunity to present its objections in any proceeding that is to be accorded finality.”


The hearing begins with RM’s opening address to the court: “Mr Rogue Male is not in court today. I am here as Rogue Male; I am here as the authorised representative to help the court settle and close this matter.”

“I wish to apply for a stay in the proceedings on the following grounds:

There’s an appeal pending at the High Court in London;

Payment in full has been tendered;

This hearing today is in my estimation a breach of the 1368 Observance of Due Process of the Law Act.

I have had less than 24 hours in which to prepare for this hearing. The barrister over here – who has yet to prove to me he actually has a client – has so far tried to present me with his draft order less than half an hour before this hearing is due to begin. No copy of that draft order has been received at the mailing location and secondly this is clearly a breach of the 1368 Act as I’ve not been given enough time to prepare.”

RM reads out the act, 1368 Observance of Due Process of Law Act: ‘None shall be put to answer without due Process of Law.’

ITEM, “At the Request of the Commons by their Petitions put forth in this Parliament, to eschew the Mischiefs and Damages done to divers of his Commons by false Accusers, which oftentimes have made their Accusations more for Revenge and singular Benefit, than for the Profit of the King, or of his People, which accused Persons, some have been taken, and [X1sometime] caused to come before the King’s Council by Writ, and otherwise upon grievous Pain against the Law: It is assented and accorded, for the good Governance of the Commons, that no Man be put to answer without Presentment before Justices, or Matter of Record, or by due Process and Writ original, according to the old Law of the Land: And if any Thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in the Law, and holden for Error”

RM: “So, on these grounds, sir, I’d like the proceedings to be stayed for at least 14 days.”

“Has a lawful tender of payment been made? This is the issue, sir. How can the eviction go ahead when I’m claiming payment has been tendered?”

J says he rejected the claim – but this is rebutted on the grounds that he has not paid due diligence to it.

RM: “On what basis are you rejecting it?”
J: “I’m not prepared to go into it further.”
J: “Your arguments about Promissory Notes and tendering payment are wholly and completely without foundation in the Law of England.”
RM: “That is to do it a disservice because when you claim it has nothing to do with the ‘Law of England’, I’ve got case law in support of all of this.

“Is it not true that a PN is a security within the meaning of Radford vs Wylde?” (Ref needed). Are you suggesting the PN is not a negotiable security within the terms of that case?”
J: “I’m not listening.”
RM: “On what grounds will you not listen to it? Sir, is it not true that in court last week you said, ‘Whilst it is true I have difficulty following the financial argument…’ is it not true that you said that?”
J: “I’m not answering any questions.”
RM: “Well, for and on the record, sir, your silence is noted.”
J: “Please sit down.”
RM: “Am I entitled to a fair hearing today sir?”
J: “Please sit down.”
RM: “Before I sit down I’d like an answer to that question.”
J: “I’m not answering any questions. Please sit down’
RM: “How can we proceed until you answer that question ? – sir, am I entitled to a fair hearing? For and on the record, I’m not entitled to the court answering my questions?”


RM: “I will sit down sir, on your request, however my objection is clear – due process of the law has not been followed.”

RM:“For and on the record, are you saying I’m not entitled to a fair hearing?”


RM sits down at request of judge. Barrister and judge begin discussion of the enforceability of the original order which apparently is missing an address, a date for eviction and, now, the barrister wants it to be accompanied by a penal notice for not carrying out the court order – even though RM has clearly made a tender of payment.

There is some discussion about the bailiffs’ failure to take possession. The barrister makes some reference to the “defendant being at the property”

RM: “Objection sir, the defendant was not at the property, the defendant is a legal fiction.”

Barrister says he doesn’t know what happened to the other documents, one sent by special delivery, claims he attempted to serve his draft order by post and previously by hand.

BW: “ However, he (RM) returned it 5 minutes later, saying it was refused for cause.”
BW: “ I would invite the court to encourage the defendant to follow it even if he doesn’t accept it’s been served.”
RM: “Objection sir, how could I possibly give it the merit it deserves or doesn’t deserve in such a short space of time?”
J: “Well, erm, this is not a conversation. You must not address counsel.”
J says he must not interrupt. RM apologises.
RM: “I object to the whole proceedings, sir.”

J asks RM if he needs more time.

RM: “14 days would be adequate. Remember sir, the appeal application will be received at the High Court today.”


RM: “I don’t understand why the court cannot just stay this matter, pending the Appeal and pending the deep investigation into what is going on because this is no longer about the eviction, it’s about whether the payment has been tendered . That is the heart of the matter – why are we not focusing on it?”

BW talks about whether the original order of aug 26th 2009 should be amended,and whether to attach a penal notice.

RM interjects: “Sir, this is not the issue, how can this be the issue?”

Judge says he already ruled over the tender of payment issue in the ex-parte hearing of one week ago (7 July).

RM: “Sir, are you able to demonstrate with written support to substantiate your claim (that) the Bills of Exchange of 1882 and all the other quoted English Law has no relevance here?”

J: “Not today. And if you interrupt this court you’ll be asked to leave.”
RM: “But they are essential to the hearing.”
J: “They’re nothing to do with it. Please be quiet.”
RM:“How can that be?”

J mutters something about how could it ever be and “please be quiet. If you’ve got other objections, fine but .. (stop) interrupting.”
RM: “How do I make my objections clear?”
J:“Not here and not to me.”
RM:“But I thought I was entitled to a fair hearing. And I am objecting.”
RM: “I’m not able to question what is going on? Is that what you’re saying?”

J says he ruled on it at a previous hearing and is not prepared to … (fades away).

RM: “But is it not true that article 8 of the Universal declaration of human rights states quite clearly, ‘everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violations and rights granted to them by the constitution or by law’ and is it not true also that Nottingham County Court has failed on a number of counts now to provide a competent jurisdiction? The Claimant is entitled to a Part 37 Order as his lawful remedy. So far this order has been requested of Nottingham County Court,  the Administrative court in Birmingham and now the court of Appeal. It also been bought to the attention of the Accountant General at the Court Funds Office, and the Attorney General. I have here a letter from the CFO confirming that, with a relevant court order, they would accept a promissory note as a negotiable security in defence of tender of payment.”

Judge says court has already looked at it.

RM: “Objection , sir we’ve not really looked into it at all.”
J: “You must not raise an objection on … “ mutters something about not hearing it.
RM: “But it’s relevant …”
J: “It’s not relevant at all…” mutters something about arguing…
RM: “I’m asking questions not arguing, is that not the case?”

J mutters some more about it having been covered.

RM: “But, sir with all due respect, are you an expert in these matters? By your own admission last week you said you had difficulty following the strength of the argument.  What I don’t understand is why. Are you trying to rush to judgement here today, sir, is that what is going on?”

J: “If you don’t give up and I’ll have to ask you to leave.”
RM: “I apologise for any offence I may have caused but I am clearly not an expert in the law, so if I’m asking questions I think that is just part of the game, isn’t it?”
J: “This isn’t a game… and I’m not going to answer questions.”
RM: “I hear what you’re saying, sir , it’s just that we’re talking about something which happened last August and the situation, the circumstances have changed significantly since then. What happened last August, is for and on the record, not relevant here. Because I’m claiming that I’ve paid.”


Barrister says  it’s his submission that there was never any doubt in any body’s mind that the order had been made and that if defendent had not made a payment, bailiffs could move in.

BW: “My instructions are that no payments have been made since before proceedings began in July 2009.” [The man known as Richard Pym, CEO of the B&B has lied: payment was tendered to him by way of Royal Mail Registered post and, of course, said barrister had refused payment on 22 April 2010 in the High Court, thereby discharging the alleged debt.

BW admits he rejected the documents for as he Claims his client instructed him, says they are “IOUs which are not payment.”
“Well, I’ve ruled on it…” says J.
RM: “Sir, can he provide documentary evidence that proves payment has not been made?”

More waffle ensues from J about RM not interrupting.

RM: “When do I get to address the barrister?”
J: “You don’t talk to him at all”
RM: “Don’t I ?”
J: “It’s not a conversation.”
RM: “Can I just clarify one thing, I’ll be brief on this? My understanding is that you are here to see that there is a fair hearing and that both sides of the case get heard and in that sense you’re here as the referee. An umpire if you like, is that not the case sir? And an impartial one too?”
J says he won’t answer any questions.

RM: “Sir, is it not true that silence equates with acquiescence?”


BW jumps in:  “May I take the court to CPR 40 12…” says this give ample jurisdiction for court to amend its order of aug 26th 2009 – called the slip rule.” Says its his submission the defendant isn’t here and then concedes that in these circumstances, it is right.

Claims court could correct at any time order from last year.
RM interjects with, “Sir, are you seeking to cause me loss or harm?”
J tells him “Be quiet”.
BW claims  the question is whether or not there was an “accidental slip or omission”
“In my submission, there were two accidental omissions [what but not slips?!] in this order. The first was in identifying the property in respect of which for possession it has to be given. But it was so obvious to everybody because everybody knew what the claim was about.

“The second is whether the court has accidentally omitted the date for possession. Look at it a different way: what the court did on 26th august 2009 was to make a standard possession order but not on the standard form.”

Suggests Court should consider what is a standard possession order.

Says those instructing him have found a standard order – provides it as an eg. Of what he says the court. Should have issued originally.

BW: “Materially this order in Edmonton…” – he reads out how court gives permission which is 28 days after the hearing itself. In his submission that is and always has been the rule but he has not found any rule to support that but there is academic support and in his submission what the court did was to make a 28 days suspension order but suspend it on terms.

J appears confused and concerned.

BW says he has case law to back it up – Pre 93 standard possession order said judgment should not be enforced until after 28 days.

J mutters something BW says it refers to payment of money [but what is money, dear BW?]
BW claims Judges up and down the land employ 28 days every day in thousands of possession cases.

There follows some discussion about the judge being reluctant to alter the terms of the order.

[NOTE OF FACT: This is a lie: how can he claim this when he himself, on the behalf of the Bradford and Bingley PLC refused a good faith tender of lawful payment made at the Court of Administration in Birmingham on April 22 2010 and there are two affidavits that testify to that fact? Is this not perjury? It would appear so.]

BW argues the slip rule cannot be used to let the court have second thoughts or to add to the original order a J does have power to recall it before, but not after. He claims the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to amend its orders.

(He’s reading from the court handbook, Archibolds aka ‘White book’)

BW: “If I am wrong on that submission, then I accept  the court could in certain circumstances fix a date for possession but could only do so… ”

He continues with his sophistry and obfuscation. “It was the intention of the court that the copy would be enforceable not within the 28 days but if the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the suspension, in terms of the payment, if that is right then the last possible date by which possession would have become enforceable was 1st september 2009 because that was the date by which payment had to start being made towards the arrears.

“(The) only thing the court can do is say I will correct it back the standard 28 day order in terms of the draft or say that actually the date should be the 30th September of the 30th October 2009.”


Bw’s submission is that the court should amend the order according to his draft.

“If the court does not do so , then it may present difficulties when it comes to enforcing the order in terms of any other occupiers who may be in the property, the reason is that the practical consequence of the date passing for possession is that the defendant becomes a trespasser for legal purposes and he cannot grant licences for anyone to occupy after the date given for possession is passed. “

BW continues with his ‘submissions’ , which, by and large, consists of hearsay, misrepresentation and fallacy upon fallacy. And for this, dear reader, he is claiming some £1200 per court appearance, plus his hourly rate.

BW: “There has been many people at the property when the bailiff sought to execute the warrant.”

He wants the Court’s Notice of Eviction to be “addressed to the defendant and all other occupiers…however they are not trespassers for the purpose of trespassing proceedings if occupier takes permission from someone else who has permission to occupy; they are not trespassers for the purposes of trespassing proceedings more importantly for interim possession proceedings. Ie if R (RM’s friend and tenant) gives permission to occupy they are not trespassers.

“If the possession warrant became valid till end of September then anyone who claims possession since then they will be treated as trespassers…

“Although it is a criminal offence to obstruct a bailiff during the the course of his duties, there is a power of arrest or detention which may have a persuasive effect on the occupiers who do not wish to imperil themselves in respect of the order.”

BW says an interim order means anyone served with it cannot return to the property with in 1 year.

“If someone is in the property, one must go through the ordinary possession course in order to remove them whereas if they’d been served with an interim possession order, as trespassers, then they cannot return within 12 months without permission.”

“Those instructing me are content to leave it for a further 7 days providing the defendant with a final opportunity to leave the property without the need for police and bailiffs.  If a further bailiff’s appointment is required, and the defendant does not comply with it and the police are not able to assist the bailiffs then the claimant will reluctantly be left with no choice but to apply for a warrant for committal [of RM to prison] not a course we wish to maintain, but we will be left with no option.”

BW:”So far as the other occupant is concerned it’s their intention to issue interim possession  then at same time as the defendant is arrested, the power of arrest will be used against any other occupants who are there when bailiffs seek to execute the warrant.”

BW claims it is important that court’s orders are enforced.


BW asks under which power court may make an order for possession today?

J: “On the basis that no date has been expressly fixed.”
BW says it’s his contention a date was fixed.
J: “If you want more time to think about it, you can have it.”

BW asks for a moment to take instruction. If he was to fix it in the future, then he’d object on the basis that he already fixed the date and that he did that in August 09. “The court cannot go behind its very order that is a matter for the appellant court. I’m not presently aware of a procedure that would allow you to do so.”
J: “If you don’t ask me to do so, I wont.”
BW: “May I take instruction?”
J: “If you like.”

And BW says he’ll take instruction before he finally commits himself. Judge says ok.

BW: “Let me make it clear on behalf of the claimant. In terms of the problems with obtaining possession to date, those will not be dealt with by of an application for a warrant for committal. The claimant says we will give the claimant a further 7 days to vacate the property if by that time he does not, then yes , we will point to the penal notice as a further reason why the defendant should be committed to prison.”

J: “It looks wrong, with a penal notice attached.”
BW: “ its already a contempt of court not to comply with an order.” Cites rule from the white book.
RM: “How is a contempt of court if payment has been tendered in a full and final settlement and closure of the matter? How is that a contempt of court?”

BW: “Copy has to be served for the expiration of the time he was required to do that act.”

J and Barrister are sweating over the detail in the white book.

BW: “Court has discretion not to commit for contempt.”

BW: “If the beneficiary of the judgement requests it, then the court will issue a copy of the judgment or order , indorse it or incorporating notice of the consequences of disobedience which must be served by the claimant. The question of the court’s discretion only arises in terms of the effect of that penal notice and indeed whether to commit the defendant for contempt of court and if so what punishment or penalty to impose. And my submission would be it does not have the discretion to refuse.”

RM: Sir, can I be of assistance, I do have a degree in English Literature?”

J is ruffled by the question: “Im sorry this is really unacceptable”
RM: “Oh, I do apologise, sir, I was trying to help. I apologise, I’m just offering my assistance.”
J: “Be quiet.”


BW admits, “Clearly, someone can’t be in contempt of court if they are not aware of the order.”

[or if they claim to have tendered payment!]

BW admits he’s not presently in contempt of court but they will claim the Defendant is in contempt “if he’s not out within 7 days.”

BW offers J (who is clearly unsure how to proceed) an olive branch”if I were to give the assurance of the claimant that it will not prosecute those people…”
J (interrupting) “I don’t want private assurances.”
BW: “Your honour, I’m very happy to have that recorded on the face of today’s order .”





BW: “The first question is whether a date was set and that is a question of fact. I can’t make judgements as to whether a matter of law that was wrong but did everybody know (about the order) … that’s a binary question yes or no. The only other question is should the court exercise its discretion? To confirm the date on the written page. If the court can’t exercise its discretion… then …”
J: “And if I don’t fix a date?”
BW: “And then I respectfully ask, seek leave to appeal out of time the order of the 26th August 2009 on the basis that your honour erred in law.”

BW: “The defendant is in contempt for failing to comply with the bailiffs.”
J: “It’s not quite as straightforward as you feel.” J says he has “difficulty with ‘retrospective service’. ”

BW agrees. Judge mutters something about whether defendant really is in contempt of court.

BW: “A party is in contempt of court whenever he fails to comply with a court order. The question is ‘what is the practical consequence of that?’ The practical consequence is you cannot apply for a warrant of committal against that person unless you can prove that they’ve not only had the order but that it’s been personally served on them and that’s the requirement of the personal service. But also that they’ve been served with a copy of that order which has a penal notice attached. Now your honour, if I were to be making application for committal and by application set this under the particulars of the contempt, 15 mins after service of the order pertaining appeal notice (sic) and the defendant continued to be in the property, I would expect that to fall on fairly dusty ground. But that is a question to be answered in the application for a warrant for committal not in determing whether an appeal notice should be attached to the order. The court should consider the contempt looking back from the hearing for that as against the alleged contempt of court.”

BW says he would expect the court to rule he was in contempt if the defendant remained in in the property 7 days after the penal notice was served.

BW: “The alternative I suppose is that the court grants an injunction but its not a course..”
J refutes the idea of an injunction, “It’s not coming within my radar.”
“Well, I …”

BW quotes a Judge Neuberger case which he claims supports his claim that he can have it reissued with penal notice attached.

Several minutes of slow perusal and ‘interpretations’ follow.



RM: “First of all all, I’d like to refute everything the barrister has just said on the grounds that it is hearsay – he talks about the attempts to gain possession of the home, he wasn’t there, he has no understanding of what went on. So it’s all hearsay and therefore I submit inadmissible.

“Once again we are drawn back inevitably to the real issue of the  case here – the fact that a lawful tender of payment has been made: this matter has been settled and closed according to  the statutory requirements of English law, Law merchant, and the provisions of international and private law on this matter. I’ve got evidence that backs this up and of course at the start I did ask for a stay on the grounds that the whole matter has now been taken and filed at the court of appeal – I want this whole issue stayed until the court of appeal determines – with a competent jurisdiction just exactly what’s going on. Because I’m afraid sir, once again we are back here – we wouldn’t be here today if this matter had been dealt with by a competent jurisdiction originally.

“I’ve got a few questions I’d like to ask, sir, before we continue.

“If I’ve attempted to settle and close the matter and I’ve frequently informed the court of my attempts to do so, then how is that a contempt of court?

“I refute his suggestion that I’m in contempt of court on the grounds that I have clearly done the honourable thing throughout this.

“On the twentieth of November I wrote to the CEO of the Bradford and Bingley offering a full and final settlement of his claim – admittedly under protest and duress – as a Part 36 offer. That offer was rejected.
“So I then went to make a Part 37 offer in defence of tender which Recorder Scott chucked out on December 8th 2009. This is why the contempt of court suggestion is completely spurious. I’ve done the honourable thing all along and I know you have some understanding of the steps I’ve taken.

“And I did state to you last August that I wasn’t the sort of man who was going to be shaken off this issue easily. I told you it was in my heart and conscience to get to the bottom of the matter to find out what the banks are doing. I put this to you, sir – this is not about whether there was a technical hitch with the warrant for possession for eviction, it’s not about that at all.

“The only issue is why hasn’t the payment been used to credit the account and settle and close the matter? I’m beginning to think – and because I’ve got nothing to hide, I’ll say it quite clearly in open court: I’ve got a substantial body of evidence now that – including all those associated with them, including Drydens Lawyers, sir, are in fact guilty of fraud and, at the very least, unjust enrichment.

“This has got to stop. I am getting sick and tired of this pussy-footing around over the issue of whether or not the warrant was technically correct. All this morning we’ve been wasting the court’s time discussing that issue when really the heart of the matter is have I or have I not tendered a financial instrument that can be used to settle and close the account?Because, if I haven’t, if there’s a flaw in my procedure, then surely its time for the police to investigate. Maybe you should get the Serious Fraud Office involved, sir and investigate just what I’ve been doing: I’ve got nothing to hide.

“I’m clear about what I’ve done and also, sir, I’d just like to point out: to suggest I’m in contempt is refuted as in English law, and I do have a Claim of Right and this has been acquiesced to by the Queen, in the case of Chamberlain versus Lindon (1998), Lindon had a claim of right. He was justified in his actions – I’m claiming lawful excuse here… because clearly I have first hand knowledge of what been going on. And I know what the Bradford and Bingley are doing and I know the levels of manipulation going on behind the scenes here, sir.

RM: “Moving on, I’d also like to ask this question: if I revoke my consent, what authority does the court have to act?”


RM: “How can I consent to something, sir, when I know in my heart and in my head that to consent to it would be dishonourable because i’d be consenting to fraud. This again is the heart of the matter you know I’d also like, with due respect, sir, I’d like you to explain to me factually when, where, when, why and how your so called jurisdiction over me was acquired?

RM: “Is your jurisdiction based on my consent, sir?


RM: “For and on the record, the silence is noted.

RM: “And also I’d like to ask, and this again gets to the point of the matter, is do you equate violence and coercion with fairness and good faith?


RM: “You know, all this talk about getting the police involved and whether of not or not a bailiff might be assaulted and whether the people in the property are trespassers or whether perhaps maybe even one of them has got a life time tenancy agreement? Which would certainly make things rather more complex than they already are.

RM: “The judge said this was an exceptional case and I made that point last August when I submitted the counter claim that this was just so. That was refused on the grounds that his honour said that what I was claiming had no basis in English Law.

“Well, speaking of English Law… is it not the case that Ben Wood here, when he refused the presentment of the promissory note in the court in Birmingham on 22 April 2010, that he dishonoured that presentment and is it not the case also that the Bradford and Bingley dishonoured the re-presentment of the promissory note on 27th April 2010 by failing to lodge a protest or to get back to me within the 72 hours which is required under good faith and lending, and of course under the Bills of Exchange Act?

“I would also like to assert that the promissory note as tendered to the Bradford and Bingley is a negotiable security within the meaning of Vice Chancellor Kindersley’s summary of the term security in the case of Wilde vs Radford 38 LJ Chancery 51.

“You claimed last week, sir, that “at the centre of Mr Rogue Male’s case is the documents produced by him – well it’s a negotiable security – but the documents by him before Wyn Williams in April to the Bradford and Bingley specifically had the effect of satisfying the claim and settling it.”

“I’m not making this up, sir, this is case law, this is statute law – and all this of course has been submitted to the Court of Appeal.

“So, I refute all this on the grounds that the debt has been satisfied and I can substantiate that claim: the negotiable instrument in the form of the promissory note, the good faith presentment to Mr Ben Wood here and the private administrative procedure is most certainly in accord with the various statutory requirements of the Bills of Exchange Act and other English law dating back to the statute of Anne from the early 1700s. I’d also like to go further back in time, sir, cos I know you appreciate the English Law and the tradition that backs it up.

“All the way back to the Magna Carta – with regard to this claim about getting a penal notice. How can you get a penal notice when I’m saying the facts of the matter have not been given due diligence?

“Secondly, sir, there appears to be or there is a mystery surrounding the promissory note – I know you asked to see it last week – its getting to the point now where what I’d like to know is what has happened to that valuable security? Because, if I don’t get an answer from the Bradford and Bingley shortly, then this may well have to go to the Serious Fraud Office – the implications of this are huge.

RM: “In accord with section 53 of the Act of 1882, the Bradford and Bingley were assigned the  funds to settle the liability in the above referenced accounts when they took delivery of the promissory note … thereby automatically becoming the acceptor of the instrument. This interpretation of the act is amply supported by Mr John Bailey’s  summary of the laws of Bills of Exchange, cash , bills and promissory notes in which he wrote of a promissory note, “when transferred by delivery, it is exactly similar to a bill of exchange.” In this case, the note was transferred by delivery.

“Is it not the case, sir, that Richard Pym, for and on behalf of the Bradford and Bingley, had a fiduciary responsibility under equity to settle and close the matter when he’s presented with a financial instrument such as a promissory note, in good faith? Is that not the case?

“My next question and it may seem a little bit contentious but I think its one I need to ask – is, there was some confusion earlier when I asked if I was entitled to a fair hearing? You didn’t actually answer the question sir – from what I’ve seen today it just makes me wonder who is running the court? Is it you, sir? Are you refereeing this or is it the barrister who keeps providing all the references and the hearsay?

“I maintain authority can be obtained only with my consent. I have every right not to consent to an order which I believe, in my heart, and which I’ve got evidence to substantiate, is unlawful.

“The Bradford and Bingley were given the instructions on how and what to do with the promissory note, how to pay it into a special trust deposit account and from thence to issue a line of credit with which to settle and close the matter.

“It seems to me perhaps that the Bradford and Bingley are attempting to coerce the Court into their wishes as a way of gagging this. And let’s look at the gagging order which only serves the interests of the Bradford and Bingley. Sir, you know that I’ve come in before and said I’m happy to help the court settle and close this matter. But the gagging order , the attempt to issue a penal notice and all these other spurious attempts to railroad me are clearly hampering the court and preventing the truth from coming through.

“I’d also like to draw the court’s attention – for and on the record – to the Lord Esher Case of Glasscock vs Balls 24 Q Bd 13 – the presentment of a negotiable security in the form of a promissory note (as sent on 27th April 2010) suspends the remedy for the debt. To wit: no order for possession may now be lawfully served by the respondent or enforced by the court.

“I don’t know if you’ll find that in the Civil Procedure Rules – probably not, but you know that is the case here. Why should I go along with an order that I believe is unlawful? Why would I? Unless I was lilly-livered, you know, and scared and I take this as a malicious threat anyway made in court – to have me sent to prison for asking questions for standing my ground, is it not the right of anybody in this country to go into open court, expect a fair hearing, ask questions, and get to the root of the matter?

“A final point I’d like to make is using so called evidence not subject to challenge is not a trial in any sense of the word. It is my wish that the court suspends this immediately pending the appeal on the grounds that I’m claiming payment has been made and of course, if the court should not issue the order, it will be in breach of a number of human rights issues… specifically,

“Article 7 “all are equal before the law and entitled without discrimination to equal protection of the law. If the police turn up at my house and the bailiffs ask them to assist them in what I regard as an unlawful breaking and entry into my property, then I’m entitled to protection as we all are.

“Article 8. “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law”,  do you really think that a penal notice and all this stuff we’ve heard about is going to railroad me from taking this truth to where it needs to be heard because, believe me, this is not simply a matter of a house in inner city Forest Fields, a terraced house – its far bigger than that for this goes to the heart of the machinations of modern banking and the mechanics of money.

“And, as I said at the start, I do believe there has been a serious breach of the 1368 Act as I’ve not been given due process: I haven’t had chance to prepare, the barrister tried to provide me with a draft of his attempt to get the court to issue a penal notice some 30 minutes before we’re due in court, is completely unreasonable and that’s why I refused it for cause.

“So, with that, as I stated at the outset, I’d like to file a motion for the court to suspend the eviction on the grounds that payment has been made and that the issuance of a penal notice would be a rush to judgement when the facts of the matter require a competent jurisdiction and I’m hoping the competent jurisdiction will be provided by the court of appeal.”

“Nottingham County Court has failed – on a number of counts – to provide a competent jurisdiction. The Claimant is entitled to the Part 37 Order as his lawful remedy. So far, this order has been requested of Nottingham County Court, the Administrative Court in Birmingham and, now, the  Court of Appeal. It has also been brought to the attention of the Accountant General at the Court Funds Office and the Attorney General. The following question must be addressed before this matter can be settled: why is this remedy being denied?”


This testimony was delivered to the court and those in the public gallery and all BW and the J had was silence. Richard Inglis ignored the testimony of RM and proceeded to railroad him. The Order of 26 August 2009 was forged to fit the Bankster’s will and a penal notice was attached ~ if the RM didn’t quit his home, the fraudulent claimant would apply to have him sent to prison for contempt of court.

In summation, the above hearing established these facts:

1. The Order of August 26th 2009 was fatally defective as it has no date for eviction and has no address for the property it claims to be enforcing a claim over.

2. There was conflict of interests – the Judge should have granted RM a stay in the proceedings as reasonably requested. This was yet another instance of him striking out an application without due cause.

3. Ben Wood, Barrister lied when he stated:  “My instructions are that no payments have been made since July 2009.”

Not only is this claim unsubstantiated, but how can he claim this when he himself, on the behalf of the Bradford and Bingley PLC refused a good faith tender of payment made at the Court of Administration in Birmingham on April 22 2010 and there are two affidavits that testify to that fact? Is this not perjury?

RM left the hearing at around 2pm telling the Judge he did not have the time to sit around waiting for them to write an order. The following is from some 12 days later.

JOURNAL EXTRACT: “Thursday, 22 July 2010”

“The way things are? Well, without sounding too confident, it would seem we decided to sit back and let the servants take over. Government as administration ok but govt. to protect us from other govt.s who, if we are going to believe the hype, are out out do us harm.  And so it goes.

“The saga of Sovereign Place [RM’s home] continues unabated?

“Two days ago, agents of the BnB visited the home to attempt to serve a penal notice. The anonymous visitors cellotaped it to the door and thrust a copy in the mail box. This penal notice has been “Refused for Cause” and returned – post haste – with a “Notice to Cease and Desist” from their unlawful and aggressive tactics. It has to stop and it has to stop now.

“After all, is this not Sovereign Place? Does that mean nothing to the dullards and the poor bureaucrats who sweat and toil, in layers of ever-tightening nylon and acrylic next to their bulging flesh and wrapped in to their crevices and cracks and folds of dead weight. Dead cells, dead weight.

“It is now over a year since the invitation was received to visit the County Court over the mortgage matter. Man o man how it seeps out, how the malfeasance and the skullduggery reveal themselves and, as spotted early on, just how incompetent the staff appear to be – all the while covering up their mistakes and ignorance with aggressive and arrogant filibuster.

“It permeates into all angles – the judges and the recorders, the barristers and lying lawyers, the counter staff and the other gatekeepers aka security guards who stand in their corporate uniforms, as glorified prefects and out-and-out bully boys who do not know their arses from their elbows and spend the days searching bags, chasing around bits of paper, making phone calls over nothing.  All the while, pretending they know something or that what the pretend to know means something – which invariably it doesn’t and the ignorance we have to wade through is ours too for we have allowed it to rise through our apathy and neglect of our business or law and a lack of concentration and focus that has arisen through this lack of attention – a lack of attention which is exacerbated by the lies of the media, the symbolism of the esoteric schools, of freemasonic sorcery and lies and deceit and manipulation of free energy machines, subtle dumb dumb downing of schools, which teach the irrelevant rather than the classical and the eternal so here we are.

“Breathe, my friend, breathe – even though the air you drink is full of barium and aluminum and the water from the water corporation is contaminated with fluoride and oestrogen. Even though the seas are bloody with oil slicks, a deluge of death, a wave of pollution that takes us precariously away. In a world of fear – of manipulated fear – we cry out for love when really we should simply be that love which we crave- become the change we wish for. Ain’t that the way out of this and onward to a better life, a more meaningful existence?

“When I asked the judge why he wasn’t refereeing the game like I expect him to, he denied it was a game.

“He says it isn’t; I say it is. How can it be anything less than a game?  He even has the rule books. The battle ebbs and flows, here to there, inlet to ocean to craggy rock to tempestuous storm. The macro the micro.” [END EXTRACT]


As of January, 2016 comments are open... cheers!