What follows is an accurate account, written just two days after a possession hearing at Nottingham County Court in which RM defended a fraudulent claim against his home by the bank known as the ‘Bradford and Bingley’ and its CEO, Richard Pym.

Observant readers will take note that today is the 7th anniversary of that hearing, a hearing in which #TGBMS was laid bare. The soon-to-be-released film, #TheGreatBritishMortgageSwindle chronicles the travails of the ensuing years.

As I look back and read once more what was written at the time, the question that naturally arises is this: had any individual in a British Court ever previously used the reasonable defence that the bank had loaned him nothing, on the basis that the funds were created by way of the hypothecation of his future earnings?

(In other words, he had created the credit with which to buy the house – an accounting fact that was switched to leave him as a fake debtor to a fictitious loan.)

Of course, the Judge, in complete abandonment of reason, ignored the facts and ruled against him, but not without difficulty because what was presented on that day, seven years ago in August 2009 was a compelling defence which no reasonable man should have so lightly dismissed. Further to that, what would the result have been if the matter had been heard before a jury of his peers? (Prior to World War Two, when it was suspended and never reinstated, all county court hearings had a jury of 12).

it is also worth noting that RM had a fully notorised Affidavit of Obligation (Commercial Lien) in support of his counter claim. Another fact which the judge ignored when he had no power to do so.

It may well be that the only previous case of a man presenting these facts was in America, back in 1968, known as the Credit River case.

The entire account is included here in order to illustrate the levels of understanding that formed the basis of the appearance in court. The subsequent lengths Nottingham County Court and its senior judge, the man known a Richard Inglis, went to in order to steal the house still, to this day, astonish me. All they had, ultimately, was violence and deception, backed up by the criminal actions of Notts Police Force. In fact, it is fair to state that without the involvement of any police force, no eviction would ever take place anywhere across these lands if the people, knowing their true power, objected to it.

7 years on and the truth still stands, much to the chagrin of those who continue to labour under the false pretence that a loan takes place whenever a mortgage is entered into.

7 years on and this account along with the forthcoming release of #TheGreatBritishMortgageSwindle, in stark and shocking detail, stands as testimony to what happened when a man took on the bank over the fact they had loaned him nothing. It is a savage but always justifiable indictment of how a coterie of self-interested judges, barristers, solicitors and bankers all serve the interests of the Crown (House of Rothschild) to the obvious detriment of the people.

The thread, from which these excerpts are taken, can be read in its entirety here.



“What follows here is an account of my appearance yesterday in Nottingham County Court over a repossession hearing brought by the Bradford and Bingley PLC on my home for an invalid claim of £30,000 of nothing, including £1300 in imaginary mortgage arrears. I offer no apology for its length as my intuition tells me this may be of interest and use to others in similar positions.


Background: a total of 19 Notices, going back to January 2009 , has been served on Richard Pym (sic), the CEO of said professional extortionists. As we are all aware by now, the bureaucratic bunglers tend to ignore the notices – a response in early March stated that as far as they were concerned, the matter was closed and that they would stand by the comments of a letter dated 25th February 2009 – a foolish stance as it means they are choosing to remain in ignorance whilst this brain soaks up more knowledge and I happily engage in a process that with each step screws down the coffin lid on their skullduggery a little more securely.

Now, here are the documents that have been served on the CEO – mistakes/omissions have been made but for me this has been a tennis match and, like many, I welcome every aspect of the game, as all experiences are to be learned from – setbacks, breakthroughs, confusions – whatever comes up.

1. Notice of receipt of statements for the above accounts (22/01/09).
2. Notice of Non-Response to Notice1 (12/02/09)
3. Notice of Third Request for Clarification (26/02/09)
4. Notice of Extension for replying to claims of 1., 2. and 3 above (10/03/09)
5. Notice of Letter from Bradford and Bingley and request for further information (24/03/09)
6. Notice of Understanding, Claim of Rights and final request for clarification (28/04/09)
7. Notice of Default Judgment and Irrevocable Estoppel by Acquiescence (14/05/09)
8. Notice of Copyright and User Agreement and request for title deeds to property (29/05/09)
9. Notice of dishonour and denial of consent to agent’s visit (8/06/09)
10. Notice of Invoice and Charges for Contractual Fraud Committed by the Bradford and Bingley plc on Claimant (22/06/09)
11. Notice of Conditional Acceptance of offer to attend Nottingham County Court Hearing (27th July)
12. Notice of Conditional Acceptance (5th August)
13. Notice Requesting Adequate Assurance of Due Performance (5th August)
14. Notice of Dishonour and Opportunity to Cure (13th August)
15. Notice of Dishonour and Opportunity to Cure (13th August)
16. Notice of Dishonour (20th August)
17. Notice of Dishonour (20th August)
18. Notice of Lien Interest (20th August)
19. Affidavit of Obligation – the Notarised Commercial Lien served on CEO 26th August)

As is clear, this has been a long game – I explained to them in February that I wouldn’t be paying them until they furnished me with the required information as only an imbecile would pay out when there were so many doubts about the validity of the loan contracts etc – but with the latest information from the redoubtable Michael (of Bernicia), it should be clear that there is now more streamlined approach for those who wish to do the research, achieve the understanding and want to play. You’ll see that numbers 12 through to 19 form the process that Michael has shown on this forum.

Now, the fact is that all along, I have stressed that any moneys I lawfully owe the BnB will be paid upon them answering the contractual and accounting questions we should by now be familiar with. The hearing is further evidence of their ignorance and dishonour and I made this clear in Notice 11 –

Notice of Conditional Acceptance of offer to attend Nottingham County Court Hearing.

Claim Ref: XXXX

(In care of)XXXX
Near [NgX 6XX]
27th July, 2009.

cc.Nottingham County Court; Richard Pym, the man acting as CEO, BRADFORD AND BINGLEY PLC; DRYDENS LAWERS of Bradford; Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General.
To all concerned parties, I, Xxx: of the Xxxx family hereby notify all concerned parties that as there is now a perfected Notice of Understanding, Intent and Claim of Right* in place with Mary Alexandra Elizabeth Windsor, the woman acting as the Queen of the United Kingdom, all levels of the Government and the Law Society and that said Notice makes clear that it is my understanding that all courts are de facto and I claim the right to call a court de jure should I need to be heard under Common Law, it occurs to me that this matter between the Claimant and the Defendant may well be beyond the jurisdiction of Nottinghamshire County Courts. For I, Natural Man, as the Divine is my Witness, am operating under Common Law, the Law of the Land. May I take this opportunity to remind you of the Maxim, “All are equal under the Law”

(God’s Law—Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.”

As I am an honourable, living, breathing blessed soul and man and it is my understanding that were I to attend the Nottingham County Court, then said Court would attempt to overrule my Common Law Rights and act on me as a fictional person, this has to be a conditional acceptance of the offer to attend the hearing. Furthermore, I am concerned that I cause neither dishonour nor offence, as it is my understanding that it is dishonourable for a man to step into a Court unless he is bonded. Whereas the Judge and Attorney would be bonded, I would not and so, without causing any dishonour, would have to decline unless written proof were provided that this is not so. Therefore, I conditionally accept the offer to attend the hearing on August 26th 2009 but only if the following terms and conditions can be guaranteed, in writing, under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

1. The Court guarantees that the Judge will be acting on his oath and said oath will be duly noted by the Court. YES/NO
2. That no agent of the Court , from the top, down, will attempt to address me as ‘Mr’ as I have made clear that it is my understanding that this is the title of a fictional corporation and I am a living, breathing, blessed living soul. YES/NO
3. That I will enter the Court with all my unalienable Natural rights intact.YES/NO
4. That the Court will deal only with the facts of the matter.YES/NO
5. That the Court agrees that the bond is there to indemnify the public against any harm and to attend without one would be dishonourable. YES/NO
6. That the Claimant, DRYDEN LAWYERS, provides the Court with an affidavit, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury, that proves their claim that a controversy actually exists here, and that the CEO, Richard PYM of the BRADFORD AND BINGLEY PLC has not now received ten (10) notices on this matter since January 2009 and that in each one I have not reiterated my willingness to pay upon the Bradford and Bingley’s proof of claim. YES/NO
7. That I may use any legitimate form of money (as according to the 1882 Bill of Exchange Act) to close and settle the account. YES/NO

Kindly note: 1) A non-response will mean the answers will be determined by proxy, using my full understanding of the Judicial and monetary systems as they currently appear to me. 2) Non response will be taken as tacit agreement that there is no need to attend and that no further action will be taken against me, Natural Man .

Finally, let it be known to all parties that the Bradford and Bingley Plc has also acquiesced to my claims that, amongst others, said corporation was loaned money by me in the specie of a promissory note, fraudulently used said note, failed to provide full disclosure on the terms and conditions of the contract, failed to provide any consideration and acted unlawfully by charging interest on my consideration. From where I stand, they currently owe me in excess of £270,000 and this would be the basis for any counter claim that may or may not ensue.

Despite repeated opportunities to rebut my claims and issue his own counter claims, Richard Pym, the man acting as CEO of Claimant has remained silent.

Directions for response: Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within SEVEN (7) DAYS of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered at the address herein provided no later than SEVEN working days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.
Kindly note too that the law of agent and principal applies to this notice and that service upon one is equal to service upon both.

NB: no ‘Mr’. I politely decline any title the Court may wish to offer me. Should any officer of the court insist on calling me Mr I’ll take this as dishonour.

Sincerely, without ill-will, vexation or frivolity,
Autograph, Natural Man

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved. Non-assumpsit.

.*Should any interested party wish to view a copy of said document then copies are available from the above address for £25 (inc p & p). Please make cheques payable to Xxxx: Xxxxx.

This was obviously sent before Michael’s postings but nevertheless it seemed like a reasonable way to establish my standing. Surprise, surprise, there was no response from any of the parties – and no one offered to buy a copy of the NOUICOR (Notice of Understanding, Intent and Claim of Right). The documents 11-19 have all been filed under at the County Court under the case number. On 13th August I entered a PF 11 form requesting an adjournment in order to ‘exhaust my administrative remedies’.

When I filed the latest Notices on 21st August, I asked about the request and was informed by the woman on the counter that Judge Oliver had ‘struck it out’ on the grounds that it was ‘incoherent’ and ‘discloses no reason for adjournment sought’. Ummm. I have still to receive any written confirmation of this and I take this to be further proof of how dishonourable, bureaucratic and incompetent the court systems clearly are. But, hey, what else should we expect?
On the other hand, it occurs to me that some notice was taken of it because it was very easy for me to establish myself as the authorised representative and the other points laid out below..

Now, this news made it all a wee bit more intense – I’d been confident of getting the adjournment and was expecting to have more time to complete the Commercial Lien process. Anyway, it simply meant that I cut down the CEO’s response time for the Notice of Lien Interest from 7 to 3 days and the Affidavit of Obligation went out to be served on the CEO yesterday (26th August). Copies of these were placed in the case file on 25th August along with the counter claim forms. Remember too, that I had no desire to go to the de facto court , knowing full well that there they are all simply operating as collectors for the banks.

So, we arrive at the county court to be told that the hearing will actually be held at the magistrates’ court, a 5 minute walk away. With the BnB’s solicitors writing to inform me that the hearing was on the 28th, not the 26th , the court accepting my counter claim without payment (a claim for £391k in total) and this switch of venue, one could take this as a series of clumsy attempts to trip me up or simply further proof of their shambolic workings. Like many aspects of life right now, I simply don’t know …and neither do I care.

We arrive with a few minutes to spare. I go in under the name Michael, having declined the offer of title given by the usher.. When the judge comes in I reiterate that I am not to be referred to as Mr as this is a fictional title and, as is clear by my presence, I am a blessed living Man. He accepts this and then I get him to confirm that all my god-given inalienable rights remain intact. Next, I ask him about his oath of office. He wriggles about a bit but, after I press him further, confirms that he is on his oath. All this is now on the court record. The lawyers representing the BnB have appointed a barrister to represent them (according to a lawyer friend of mine, this is unusual for a foreclosure) and after his preamble, off we go. When I get to speak, I make the point about the incompetence and deception that is surrounding the matter, how I doubt whether those in court have the levels of understanding and expertise to deal with it and how an adjournment would be in the interests of both parties. The judge is enjoying this – though he does get a little hot round the throat when he admonishes me for interrupting him…

All parties to reconvene at 2pm in court 5.”


“So, the two actors and me are are back in court number 5. It begins with the allegations from the claimant, the Bradford and Bingley, as represented by the barrister, “I have looked at the documents and there is no basis in English law.” She waffles on some more, going through the statements which show only that the payments made between August 94 and January 09 have been regularly met.

She claims “the lien has no basis in English law.” The more this goes on, the more she digs herself into a hole whose sides are caked in slimy repetitions, empty piffle and all manner of parroted law-school secretions, “There is actually no basis for the client’s claim.”

She drones on like a tepid hand-dryer, failing to point to anything that can be taken as a rebuttal of any claims made in the 18 notices. The BnB solicitors have instructed her to press on (earlier, during the wait for some photocopies, I’d suggested that she give them a ring and get them to agree to an adjournment. She did but they declined and told her to crack on with the repossession application – which she was clearly uneasy about as I’d had a word and impressed on her the significance of the Affidavit of Obligation and how it’s a prejudicial document (no judge can shift it – as will be shown later in this account). She agreed that an adjournment may be for the best, commenting “It’s clear you won’t be shifting.” (Note to the interested – it’s my understanding that, when it matures, a commercial lien is a valuable security which one can use as a basis for writing bonds, place in a bank or lodge as an asset of value)

Like a bluebottle that’s exhausted itself trying to buzz its way through a closed window, she finishes and so it’s my turn. It’s already occurred to me by now just farcical it all is – neither the judge nor the barrister have first hand knowledge of the claim – no one in the room can rebut the allegations of the Affidavit. They are literally acting out their roles. I am the only one there of any real substance and, armed with the 18 notices and the Commercial Lien that show clearly just how honourable a Man I am, it is time to play.

I begin by making it clear that it is the paper trail that establishes the facts and this is what we will be dealing with. I stress my willingness to pay is evident throughout the notices and ask, “who has a claim on me?”

“Well, the Bradford and Bingley…” the judge predictably responds.

But who in the room has first hand knowledge of the matter? Only me. Only me. Once more I reiterate, “I have to question the levels of expertise in the court today.” I explain how an adjournment would be in the best interests of all parties but he’s having none of it, “I have no intention of adjourning.”

Okay, if that’s the way it’s going, I think, let’s deal with the facts of the matter.And so off I go through all 18 notices, picking out the salient points, dealing with his questions, asserting my own standpoint and constantly drawing the court’s attention to the simple truths, “there was no consideration, no full disclosure, corporations are legal fictions who cannot sign… We, the people, are the creditors .. . this is how credit is created and if my claims are so outrageous and ridiculous, then why haven’t they been rebutted in an affidavit , why haven’t the BnB issued their own counterclaims?”

The judge, who has been chirping like a canary, begins to settle down and appears to be interested. The barrister is flushed and giving off a nervousness that is almost palpable.
I read out the maxims as they come up in the notices, and the judge – who had earlier claimed that “the maxims have no basis in English Law” – offers no rebuttal. Well, how could he anyway? His earlier comments cannot be taken seriously.

As the points in the Notices come up, I go into the banking system and – yet again! – question the competence, the understanding and the confidence of all those in court to deal with the matter.

Screen Shot 2016-08-26 at 08.40.00

I point out the UK GAAP requirements and stress how curious it is that a bank, yes a bank, is seemingly unable or unwilling to provide the documents and the proofs that have been requested all along. As they have failed to deliver, I argue, only a fool would continue to pay when such serious doubts exist as to the validity of the loan. I claim the statement of the account is simply a record of the extortion payments and he asks me how they are so –

it’s extortion because they threaten to take your home if you don’t pay. With all due respect to everyone here, I’m not sure we can actually resolve the matter adequately. I genuinely don’t think we can. This is a matter of principle and it certainly doesn’t just affect me, it’s my duty to pursue this as far as I can and that’s why in all honesty, I have to ask – before we go onto the Lien – is anyone expert enough to proceed here?”

Judge Inglis looks pointedly at the barrister.

I direct them back to the facts – as established in the NOUICOR and the estoppel (remember, this is a de facto court and the facts are what it dealing with.
“Look, I’m an honourable man, I’m only asking questions here – is it a crime to ask questions? Am I wrong to expect answers from a corporation?”
“They are under no obligation,” pipes up the Judge.
“What? Even though they are claiming against me? The point being of course that they failed to rebut any of my points…The fact is they haven’t responded. Can we deal with the facts here, that’s what I’m trying to establish here – the paper trail is clear. You see, this case would probably take weeks if I was able to produce all the evidence that shows the nature of what the banks are doing and how it works, how the banking system works and how it’s riddled with corruption. This would take weeks if not months and possibly involve the assassination of myself.” *
“Let’s move on to notice 11.” The judge makes some comment about my references to promissory notes not being valid. I say, “Let’s deal with facts – they have acquiesced to my claims. On what basis would you make such an assertion? Is it a feeling, a thought or is it direct experience?” He falls silent.

I move onto the fractional reserve lending system and ask, “whose money do the Bradford and Bingley claim they lent me anyway? By UK GAAP , they are not allowed to lend other depositors money so where is the proof they lent me their money?This is not a straightforward repossession order.”
“That’s how it appears to me,” he chips in.
“What? Even at this point?” I say and we move onto notice 12.I ask, “where is the original promissory note? It’s not in court today and how can I believe in its existence if I’m not able to see it? All the while I’m still seeking answers. Am I supposed to take everything they say as gospel truth? If serious doubts exist about something’s lawfulness or legality, are we not obliged to question it if we have a brain between our ears? I think we do. That’s why, irrespective of the outcome today, I will pursue this as far as I can and that’s why – in all honesty – and with total respect to everyone here I’m not sure whether we can actually resolve the matter here this afternoon. I genuinely don’t think we can.”

“They claim I owe them money so I have a right to ask questions. I’m finding out more and more information, I have more questions to ask, why shouldn’t I be able to do so? And, of course, if there are such doubts as to the verification of the loan, only a fool would continue to pay out under such circumstance. It’s dishonour after dishonour here.”

“Now, you may claim and the lady barrister may claim that you can’t get your heads round it and what is it? but that isn’t the point here: we need somebody who can understand it and who can rebut my claims. What I’m doing here is trying to condense all the information and knowledge that’s come to me over the last 7 or 8 months and that’s why I requested from the court the time to continue with this because I have to get to the heart of the matter. It’s my duty. Let’s be honest here, I’m the only one in this room with anything to lose. The Bradford and Bingley have treated me with discourtesy, dishonour and disrespect throughout.”

And so it goes, so it goes as we move onto Notice 16. “This notice of dishonour establishes the facts.”

Facts facts facts facts facts – all the way through until I reach for Excalibur: the Affidavit of Obligation. Oh how I enjoy this – we the people know the truth when we hear it for it resonates inside us, our being recognises it, we feel it vibrating through us and so I relish the opportunity to go, one by one, through the 33 allegations and 33 proofs of allegations as detailed in the affidavit.

To conclude, and by now I’ve been at it for over an hour, I refer to the maxim, “he who creates the liability must provide the remedy”, how money has no value, the bills of exchange act, chapter 11 bankruptcy, the removal of the silver standard etc etc and (yet again!) how we need to adjourn because we need expert financial witnesses here (as if they would ever turn up to rebut my claims).

*Quite how that slipped in was unclear at the time but now, I remember the night before, I’d been listening to an interview about Roberto Calvi, the banker found hanging under Blackfriars bridge in what appeared to be a freemasonic killing…”


“Attentive readers will be able to see how this has to be played – we stick to the facts, as established through the unrebutted claims of each notice and the two affidavits (the NOU&COR and the Commercial Lien) and all interjections from the judge are to be disregarded because he is simply unable to touch the affidavits (they have to be rebutted, point by point, under oath/attestation, threat of perjury and under full commercial liability). Please note also that this approach is not easy – I would not be in court if I had continued to pay and I am only there out of necessity: without my presence, the foreclosure would simply be rubber-stamped and the house in the hands of the Bradford and Bingley. The barrister is seeking just this, acting out a role that she is apparently uneasy with right now and when she takes to the floor to offer her response, she is only able, like a parrot feeding its fledglings with the worms of repetition and regurgitated empty statements like “I refer to your honour’s point that the maxims have no basis in English law” and “therefore, we seek possession.”

My response is to point out the maxims about the affidavit, I claim her responses are like the actions of someone trying to carry water in a net and remind the court how the facts have been established with not a single rebuttal.

The judge goes off to mull over his verdict. Although he has shown an interest in my claims and evidently enjoyed the performance, I do not expect it to be in my favour – imagine the repercussions and shockwave that such a judgment would generate! – but it doesn’t matter because, a) my truth has been aired, b) the facts stand unrebutted and c) the remedy, which is the Lien has been served.

After a few minutes, he’s back.”



“So,the judge is back in his highchair. At this point I don’t have any hope of him finding in favour of me, the Lien Claimant/Defendant, and, being aware of how this is all an act, with both himself and the barrister running through the bog-standard denials which one would expect, what follows here from his summary is to be taken with a hefty pinch of fly agaric snuff.

Be aware that what follows here is legalese – if it appears incoherent and lacking in vigour, then that’s because it is! I’ve not included it all – simply the more pertinent parts. Remember too, there is always a remedy…

Judge Inglis outlines the particulars of their claim,

Bradford and Bingley have to demonstrate the defence gives rise to no reasonably argued defence claim… counter claim disputes no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim. Defendant refers to documents… 18 pages long but separate from the bundle, the legal consequences are set out in an Affidavit of Obligation and that contains a declaration by the defendant… He’s made a number of arguments … asked for an adjournment on basis there’s not sufficient expertise … refers to need for expertise and expert (sic) who could explain how the banking system works – an application which I reject – I’m satisfied that the court is able to deal with the issues raised without an adjournment and expert witnesses of any kind.”

He runs through the notices – the NOUCOR is, to him,

a lengthy document asserting a number of facts including legal analysis of the transaction … turning mortgagor into creditor… then there is the estoppel…”

He reads out the maxims, even picking out whether they are Old or New Testament ( having dismissed them earlier!) continuing, he explains how the notices are drawn into the

formulation of a commercial injury claim, the documents drawn together into the Affidavit of Obligation… the underlying process described as an administrative process is based on these propositions that someone may assert facts which unrebutted are established. I have to say that the notion that there is a process known to the law of England is completely without foundation… no shadow of claim to enforce. In this case the evidence of the claimant’s witness statement is not materially refuted .. the basis of his defence and counter claim is wholly fallacious as a matter of law … a process of documents completely without any legal effect.”

Now, dear reader, let’s not be discouraged for it’s important to remind ourselves here that this is all he can say – he doesn’t have the jurisdiction to make a ruling in my favour – imagine the shockwaves such an event would generate! Don’t be downhearted my fellow sovereigns – all of this was to be expected. Besides which, I’m not so why should you be?

He moves on to the issue of repossession –

the enforced possession after 28 days is suspended.”

Some discussion follows about me making payments on the account, with the first payment for September and £300 to pay off the arrears per month. I’m thinking, ‘yeah but nothing has happened to effect the validity of the Commercial Lien’. Remember, no one but a jury or me can remove it.

And, that was that. A sham? Yes. Why? Well, the lack of expertise, the fact that the de facto court ignored the facts and that the judge pressed on regardless of the very reasonably presented case.

And now? Well, there is the small matter of the application to have the judgment set aside as the hearing did not examine the facts, the other party did not rebut the affidavit(s) and there was not a competent jurisdiction.

Furthermore, and of some significance, I now have some 28 days in which to complete the Lien process with the CEO of the BnB extortionists… and a visit to the Nottingham Land Registry with the relevant documents. Will they be receiving any moneys from me? What do you think?

I sincerely hope this has been not only of interest but also that it may offer some insights into the mortgage game for those who are playing it – as expressed earlier, it’s not for the faint hearted and if one can avoid it, don’t go into arrears like i did and that way you should be able to skip the court appearance bit.


“Here is the latest instalment. I received an order from the court last week. In response, the Court has received an application for judgment to be set aside – the details are included in this notice –


Claim Ref: XXXX (In care of)XXXXXNottingham
Near [NXXXX]

3rd September, 2009.

cc.Nottingham County Court; Richard Pym, the man acting as CEO, BRADFORD AND BINGLEY PLC; DRYDENS LAWERS of Bradford; Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General


Dear Richard Pym and All Concerned and Interested Parties,

Re: Account numbers: XXXXXXX and XXXXXX
For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consent to the judgment of the court on the basis that:
1) The jurisdiction was not competent to deal with the facts as clearly presented in the 18 notices plus the Affidavit of Obligation. After all, some seven (7) months of research and investigation had gone into the Notices.
2) The serious nature of these facts – some of which have only recently come to light – was not addressed by the Judge, who in spite of their seriousness refused to allow the counter claim to stand.
3) Consequently, I do not believe due consideration was given to the facts presented and this suggests a dereliction of oath of office and duty of care to a member of the public.
3) The Affidavit of Obligation must be rebutted – no rebuttal has been offered, either at the hearing or in the form of a response from Richard Pym and the Bradford and Bingley PLC.

The serious nature of those facts should supersede the usual time constraints for the service of the counterclaim, as expressed in the AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION dated August 20th 2009, which was served on you client by Royal Mail Special Delivery ###############, served on your company by my own hand at the court hearing on August 26th 2009, and filed into the court on August 25th, 2009.
In sincerity and honour, without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity, By: Upper-Case: Lower (Authorised Representative)

I’ve just sent off this Notice of Fault and Opportunity to cure to the BnB Bandits:


(In care of) (In care of)XXXXX
Near [NXXXX]

Richard Pym (CEO)
BD16 2UA
Claim Ref: Claim Ref: XXXX
7th September, 2009.


Dear Richard Pym,

Your company has failed to respond to to the AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION dated 20th August 2009, and served by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery BRXXXXXGB on 26th August 2009. Therefore, I hereby serve NOTICE OF FAULT & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. The Bradford and Bingley has five (5) days in which to deliver an appropriate response to the Notary’s office.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

By: Real Man
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN™

All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

In the meantime, I will be sending in a number of forms to the Land Registry which will register the property in my name and alert them to the fact there is a fraudulent claim on said home. I’ll probably post the references to these just as soon as it’s done and I’m clearer about the procedure.

As readers will gather, there is always remedy and this is something we need to bear in my mind when the spiral begins to tighten and the claim worms its way through the system(s). It seems to be that the higher up we rise through the Judicial systems, the more honourable it should become.

I decided that rather than appeal, I will issue a new claim just as soon as I’ve had the Notary witness the Certificate of Non-Response and thereby completed the Lien process. My understanding as it currently stands, is that because the Affidavit of Obligation (the Lien) is part of a pre-judicial technology, the BnB bandits will be inclined to settle out of court. No judge can touch it and, of equal significance, the BnB will not be issuing their own counter claims/rebuttal/affidavit – after all, which of their agents is going to be willing to rebut the claims by signing such a document under oath/attestation and full commercial liability?

You may be inclined to ask, ‘But what if the application to have the judgment set aside is struck out?’ Ah, now there’s a question! Well, if that is the case, then it may be that an appeal to a higher court has to be issued and/or I make an extortion payment to the BnB Bandits to stave off the repossession and simply add it to the value of the Lien Claim.

As ever, I’m indebted to Michael for the information, encouragement and insight offered as well as the kind thoughts and positivity of all those who have contributed to this very interesting thread.” [CONCLUDES].

So, dear reader please raise a glass of cheer on this the seventh anniversary of when #TGBMS was laid bare for the first time in a British ‘Court’ and keep your eyes open for the release of the film which sensationally, but always accurately, reveals the nature of the world-wide swindle.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Michael of Bernicia, Mike Albert, Veronica Chapman, FOMTL.COM, Tom Crawford, Remi, Ste Allen and Jonathan ‘Zero’, the Mr Snip of barbering, in Nottingham.

APPRECIATION: all donations, of whatever size are most welcome from any one who wishes to show their estimation for the work of RogueMale.

Email this to someoneShare on Facebook37Share on Google+0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn0


    1. Hi, Branko – that’s an excellent find. The failure of the ‘conveyancing solicitor’ to bring these matters to the attention of the ‘mortgagor’ is out-and-out negligence. After all, if all the facts of the ‘agreement’ for a mortgage were disclosed, would anyone in their right mind sign the deed of mortgage? The more one delves into the opaque waters of modern day banking, the clearer one sees the swindle, operating as it does on multiple levels of fraud. There are 11.2 million mortgages across these lands – is there a single one which is genuine? How many people are slaving to pay a fake debt? Thank-you for the contribution, it’s much appreciated. 🙂

    1. Hi, Sally and thanks for the question. #TheGreatBritishMortgageSwindle has been extensively re-edited to include previously unseen footage. Barring one or two minor technical issues, it will be released very shortly. The producers are delighted with the finished film and are excited at the prospect of its upcoming autumnal release. Please watch out for the forthcoming announcements regarding its launch.

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