Ref: Service and non-responded to Commercial Lien Served 5th
Dec 11 + 19th Dec 11 &
DEFAULT NOTICE issued 4th Jan 12 with EXPIRY 12th January
Ref: Your Notice of intention to obtain an injunction linked
- I will not be signing your
- Under common law we believe all partners/directors are
vicariously liable due to the criminal allegations made under oath & left
un rebutted, causing a default judgement & therefore now judged before God
as a “deed of truth”. A Limited Liability Partnership cannot hide from the
criminality being conducted by one partner, thereby being condoned by all
others which are culpable by association and on this
basis our direct contact with all partners does not constitute harassment but
in fact is I believe my duty to inform.
- The words used about me by you “Harassment” “Blackmail”
“Vexatious” and “Intimidation” are all words which can be used in our
potential countersuit where these can most definitely be
attributed to the conduct of HUGH JONES and co. with other descriptive words
but a few, to add.
- The enforcement of our Commercial Lien “Deed of Debt” value
£9 million, will continue as described.
- The process of a commercial lien cannot be tampered with or
affected by any Judge, Court or government and woe by tide those that
- 30 hours notice to respond in detail to your 14 page letter
with 65 bullet points is quite honestly rather ridiculous and though this has
been passed to our common law advocate Roger Hayes – (Chairman of the British
Constitution Group) he states that he is on holiday until the 16th January
2012 where upon after which he can respond in more detail and therefore as
such, we respectfully ask for more time.
- Your companies continued “financial rape” of
my mothers money and assets will be the factor in driving our campaign for
real “common law justice” in this instant matter & not to
be a subject in the legalese world of statute rules in which, under Halsbury’s
Administrative Law 2011 have no real authority in this country to those whom
refuse consent of which from here on in, we do! (my mother and
I) being sovereign human beings.
- Incidentally in section 55 of your letter, your accusation of
a further conducted protest outside your office’s on the 16th December 2011, I
sincerely hope you can provide proof, as this is utterly refuted LIES in which
comes not surprisingly from a company that appears to exude LIES as a matter
of course, in which we have proof of that too. Whilst on the subject of
protest, we conditionally offer to desist from protest until
a more detailed response to this matter has been formulated by Roger Hayes
shortly after the 16th January 2012. Accordingly if you choose to
continue with your proposed injunction without waiting we reserve our rights
on this subject.
Kindest of regards