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 2012
 
09.01.2012
Ref: Your Notice of intention to obtain an injunction linked here;
http://opg.me/NOTIFICATIONLETTER060112.pdf
 
Dear Sirs
  1. I will not be signing your undertaking.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The enforcement of our Commercial Lien “Deed of Debt” value £9 million, will continue as described.
  5. The process of a commercial lien cannot be tampered with or affected by any Judge, Court or government and woe by tide those that try.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
Mike Clarke
Ann Clarke