Frustrated by Legal Procedure

[huntingross]

OK....my HP Finance debacle with Northridge Finance.

i) I've written my letter telling them what bad boys they are
ii) They wrote back pronto and no we haven't
iii) I wrote back prontoer saying yes you have and here is the demonstrable proof
iv) Their first time limit ran out, I sent them a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure
v) Their time limit ran out, I sent them a Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure
vi) Their time limit has run out

Now....as it stands I need to get a final nail in the coffin....it either has to be a Certificate of Dishonour OR a Notice of Non Response

Whichever one it is, I then (seemingly) need to go back into THEIR legal system to get a judgement against them....BUT....I don't want to go back into THEIR system to do this....BUT.....I need something that has teeth and delivers the money to my hand from their bank account.

My thoughts

A Court de Jure should issue a Judgement or Warrant which I would get a DCA to pursue.

Anyone elses thought below.....

[ArturoDekko]

Quite agree huntingross. I feel like I am doing a lot of work, running around in circles just to please/appease "them". ... WHY???

[Farmer]

A Court de Jure should issue a Judgement or Warrant which I would get a DCA to pursue.

Thinking out aloud, does a Court de Jure have jurisdiction over a legal fiction?

Thinking it through, those in power are opportunists that would have high jacked the reason for having magistrates courts. If you are trying to collect from a fiction, then the magistrate court should be fine without you becoming a legal fiction. As the fee comes from the non legal fiction, I cannot see how it could be seen as coming from the legal fiction.

Also, why would you need a court to issue a warrant if you are sovereign?

[huntingross]

Also, why would you need a court to issue a warrant if you are sovereign?

There is nothing left for me to issue (save one certificate)....nothing so far has delivered the result....money in my hand from their bank account.

If common law does not have jurisdictional superiority over 'persons' then then we're screwed, so that can not be the case:

In the judicial system, a superior court has general or extensive jurisdiction, as opposed to an inferior court

But not withstanding that, I still need something, a document, an army or something to separate money from them and give it to me.

And I should be able to do it without having to travel to Edinburgh to lodge documents, which need to be correctly filed.....the recommendation is to get a solicitor, which effectively is me starting at the beginning again.

At some point we're all going to arrive at this point and we need the structure to span the gap.....the gap being their arrogance to sit there in one sedentary position knowing there is nothing we can do....YET....it could be a ladder, it would be better if it was scaffolding, I'll even settle for a tele-handler....but I need to get something above them that they need to obey.

[ArturoDekko]

Farmer - I agree, it is difficult to get my head round too.

Have been checking the etymology of sovereign. Originally superanus in vulgate latin, meaning above rule, similar to foreign (foranus) meaning outside rule.

It is one thing claiming to be sovereign, it is another thing being recognised as such in a world that maintains its power by not recognising sovereignty. Theoretically, a sovereign is above ALL servants, including notaries, and our word is our bond and our undeniable command. This is why I still feel some resentment (which must be transformed if I am to progress) at having to go to such immense efforts to appease the fictional system. Isn't that like trying to argue with a book because you do not agree with what it says; you would have to argue with the author (flesh and blood) to get anywhere.

So ... a Court de Jure would, for me, be a mechanism for finding remedy from a flesh and blood for the injury they have caused me. It is the flesh and blood who attempts to use the fiction to control another flesh and blood. For me, no amount of fiction can protect them, they alone are responsible for their actions. If they do not know the truth, it is because they have been lazy and negligent, as I have also been most of my life, and ignorance is no excuse.

AD

[ArturoDekko]

huntingross - maybe we need a collective action to take this to the highest court in the land to prove the actuality, factuality of sovereignty under common law.

Also ultimately, I feel we would need some sort of treaty between their society and ours as to how we resolve contentious issues between the two societies.

AD

[Farmer]

Well, I'm having problems with 'tacit' agreements. For example. A notice is sent to someone just as they go on a 4 month expedition to mount Everest. While away, they receive a notice, then a second notice and then a final one to basically tell them how silly they were and now they have agreed to tacit agreement. Well you don't have one, and no one would agree that you have. I also have a problem with someone working in common law jurisdiction trying to force a fiction to comply. This is why the Romans set up what they did, because you can't do that unless you are going to do this within the fictional jurisdiction. It may be an idea to see how this was done in the US prior to 1868 for some clues as they would have followed how it was done in the UK if it is not possible to get the information from the UK.

This is a problem I also wish to see resolved before I am going to do anything. There is no point in effectively being a paper tiger. So far I have not seen anyone being able to collect. All I have seen is liens being placed on property for huge amounts, and that mostly by people working from treaties with the Moors or Indians.

My feeling is that so far people have been having success not because of the notices, but because the fictions have not been able to produce what has been requested after a conditional acceptance. By the same token, why would you have a stronger position against them?

[Farmer]

Also ultimately, I feel we would need some sort of treaty between their society and ours as to how we resolve contentious issues between the two societies.

It does seem that treaties carry a lot of weight. I also think there is a clue in how countries react to each other and the enormous effort by Europe and the US to remove sovereignty from countries.

[huntingross]

Well guys, you're not filling me with confidence. If we can't agree that common law is a higher jurisdiction, then fold it up now and save the bandwidth....there can be no point to pursuing something if we are only deluding ourselves.

I'm looking at a Notarial judgement, and then I'll phone a DCA to see if they will pursue the debt for me. If this works, then I have the teeth I require in their world to do my business.

[Farmer]

Well guys, you're not filling me with confidence. If we can't agree that common law is a higher jurisdiction, then fold it up now and save the bandwidth....there can be no point to pursuing something if we are only deluding ourselves.

That is not what I am suggesting. If we go back in time and look at early banking, it was the gold smiths that looked after your gold for you. At that time you were dealing with another flesh and blood person. But today you are dealing with a fiction. What are you going to do, hang the bank. I see it as someone sitting on a beach trying to deal with a great white shark in the ocean; the rules change and you must enter the ocean because doing it from the beech will only bring laughter.

I'm looking at a Notarial judgement, and then I'll phone a DCA to see if they will pursue the debt for me. If this works, then I have the teeth I require in their world to do my business.

I'm obviously hoping this works for you because if it does the nut has been cracked.