cerbarusalert..... not sure what you are referring to in your post above.... I did post copies of a cca in the post about Sainsbury's... could you possible have got mixed up Thanks, charlie*

Here is the first with the agreement. Any comments most welcome, for which many thanks. Sain 1 picture by js30 - Photobucket Sain 2 picture by js30 - Photobucket

mistake, sorry

Sorry, mistake here...

Hi cerbarusalert... crikey, that's a mouthfull - Thankyou very much indeed for the letter above, I shall be sending it off today. I'm also watching your postings under... "Is Tesco cca enforceable" (25th March) 'cos my missus as one just like it except it was thru the mail, not a tear off slip - no prescribed terms, no rererences to anything else.... just trying to pluck up the courage to send that letter - not my debt you see, it's hers indoors and I'd be loathe to drop her in the mire. So, for those comments and help, thank you again charlie

There is sooo much fantastic info in this place now, it's very hard to find the right letters to send..... so, anyone, be grateful for some pointers My son sent £1 for Barclaycard CCA on March 3rd, but having stopped paying he has only received default notices and threats - nothing else and we'd like to 'get them before they get him' - if you see what I mean. Can anyone point us to the follow ups Many thanks... charlie

Hey, creditcardmug, I see you come from a part of the UK where it rains all the time.... don't you really mean it rains all of the time, some of the time? (chuckle). Well, yer gotta larf, or go mad, ain't it? charlie*

Well, Viscount... an actual viscount is a friend of mine - I won't mention his name, naturally. I bow to your superior knowledge.... lawyer or not, I can only write about what I read - oh, and I have read the odd page about the Inns of Court and its purpose... not good for the rest of us, but let us not get into that, except to say.... What is it the elite say? - "there's justice for all" - or do they really mean ... "just-us" - 'er, so long as they (meaning us) keep slaving for them and paying us through their +/- 78% composite tax rate and the interest on their loans that keeps us all in luxury... I remember an article somewhere that the Rockerfella's keep over 2,000 domestic staff to maintain their various houses around the world - wow! - I do the washing up and hoovering in my house (see my halo?) Suffice it to say that all these institutions, the law and finance seem to be centred within the square mile... an area of London - or rather I believe an area of London that is not in London where it has its own laws, where, when the monarch visits she or he has to be preceeded by the Mayor.... I wonder why? - I wonder could this have something to do with it being the financial centre of the world, well, maybe historically now... and we all know in whose best interests that lies, don't we? - I have read they also control the daily price of gold... much of which they and their mates seem to own a great deal - wonder if they bought some of Brown - well, on of the national papers did reveal some time ago, after he assumed the throne that "they" were/are advisers to the prime minister p- and come to think of it, didn't Norman Lamont (banker) take leave from them to become an MP, then after defeat, went back to them and picked up his old job? Just a bit of fun. charlie* ...Was it not Shakespeare who had something to say about lawyers?

I believe myself to be an honest man - by upbringing, education and by example from my parents.... my father never drove over the speed limit - never had a debt. But then, he was a fortunate man because he had one job for all of his working life and a sound defined maximum benefit pension at the end.... indeed, his and my generations were brought up to believe... never a lender nor a borrower be .... if you want it, then save up. I tell a lie, he did have a mortgage in 1930... for £300. Having said that.... since I have spent a great deal of time researching the subject of money and its history, I have come to the conclusion that, at least since 1814... the next serious step forward being the handing over of the USdollar to the Federal Reserve System in 1913, taking money off the banksters is fair game... just as they have used us, the proles (the masses) to enrich themselves to the nth degree by lying, cheating, murdering, even screwing to expand their control over the monetary system. What I do consider to be a debt of honour is this.... if I borrow money from a friend, relative, anyone who lends me money that is their own, then I am honour bound to repay them. Ya gotta get the words right - you borrow credit from a bank, banks cannot , do not lend money, you borrow money from an individual, individuals do not, cannot lend credit for in context, they cannot create credit only banks can do that. Just try to come to terms with this..... when you borrow money, it is in the form of credit, then you turn it into money as it were and spend it. When you repay what you borrowed in the first place, albeit you borrowed credit, BUT , as the banks do nor create enough to repay that debt, you repay the capital from your own money.... money that you have slaved for (remember, we all start in life with nothing), 9 to 5 for years, as with the interest you paid as well... here's the rub... you have given the bank CASH to repay that debt (as well as cash in the form of interest) NOT credit, thus, the bank loves you and made it possible for their big buildings and fat final salary pensions. However, the credit you were loaned in the first place is NOT paid off, it remains in the system - I believe this is so. Then there's leverage... another subject entirely. You see, this is what it's all about with the banksters.... This is my understanding broadly speaking.... 75%+ of the money in circulation is debt money - it's credit (ink in a ledger created by an illegal promissory note, your contract) and needs converting into money, it is interest bearing (the rest by and large is coinage from the treasury), so it's of no use to the banksters whatsoever. What they need is cash money flowing inwards to pay all their overheads. And that, my friends is where we all come in because that cash money is generated from our labour, it comes in our pay packets... okay, there are deviations here such as money left in a will, winnings from gambling (all money collected and paid out from gambling is from earned, personally owned money, money that was worked for - or won... now and then). If we all stopped borrowing NOW, they'd soon go bust. The sad thing is that there are very few who work in the banking industry who have any idea of what it's all about (except those who have enquiring minds and get stuck into google) and so they really believe that we owe them money when we borrow... you can tell that by some of the words and phraseology in the letters they write to us. In truth, we owe them like for like... they loaned us credit, we should repay them with credit.... see what Mary Croft has to say about this! The point I'm coming to is well expressed in Mary Croft's book (I have occasional contact with her by the way - we have friends in common) - when banks lose money, they by and large don't mean they've lost money, they mean they've lost credit - yet credit is actually worthless insofar as their balance sheets go, all they have to do, bearing in mind that their accounting is based on double entry accounting (a method you and I would we slung in prison for using in our business) is to make an entry to show the credit debit as being zeroed - no loss, no gain except for the interest they were collecting before the alleged loss. Phew, hope I've got it right, anyway, that's what I generally understand. So, the original question in this thread was... "Is it morally wrong to default on an agreement" NO - and here's another reason why, just to finish off. The banks will refer you to "our contract with you" - they will also say "we will lend you money", they even advertise (not so much now tho) "we lend money"...... What a bloody lie and it was ever thus for 400 years. The basis of a valid agreement is trust between two people - generally. The banks break that trust, the trust you place in them because they do not reveal to you the true nature of that 'contract'. 1. There is NO disclosure of relevant facts (facts vital to your well being) 2. There is no equal consideration (they do not risk one penny of their own, nor other deposit's). 3. There is no meeting of the minds, a corporation cannot make a contract. A bank agreement is a uni-lateral contract that is for the sole benefit of the bank and to the borrowers detriment..... it's as simple as that. So, if they told the full truth, would anyone ever sign their loan agreements? - I doubt it... and without your signature on that worthless paper, they cannot create the credit to lend you in the first place. There is more, but from the above 3 points, the fact of the matter is that because they are totally dishonest in their dealings with you, albeit unknown to their employees who will not raise questions because they have good secure jobs (by and large) backed up with maximum final salary pensions (40/60ths) of the average of the last five years salary of bank employment and a career structure too, the moment you sign that loan agreement it becomes invalid, void, worthless. Yet, they use that paper to create the credit to lend you... in fact, what is happening here is that they are lending you th credit that you yourself created. Question is, who should be the benificiary of the loan repayment, the originator of the paper or the bank? The bank stole, without your knowledge your asset therefore, the credit - money belongs to you. This is Commercial / Admiralty Law, the basis of everything... and the CCA is only a statute that, in an honest court would yield to the Law of Contract. So, what do y'all think about that???? I hope my take on money is understandable - well, reasonably so. charlie*

Thanks fellers, I'll see what we can do - joint effort required here charlie*

One was taken out September 2004 and the other was (hang on whilst I find the form) taken out November 2004. Can I get some guidance on using the photobucket... I have joined, but never used anything like it before. Sorry to be inconvenient Many thanks charlie*

We have two Sainsbury's cards, my wife and my son and when we asked for copies of both original agreements with signatures on them, they sent them to us - after a bit of see-sawing. On my son's signature page (application - the agreement is on the reverse) it shows at the top right... "Your initial credit limit will be £2000.00" There no other prescribed terms.... but, In a separate box.... NOTICE TO CUSTOMER By signing this agreement you acknowledge that: a) ......in accordance with the Conditions of Use overleaf etc etc...... It is a 2 sided form... but the writing is very small, must be 4 point - it's quite hard to read and is something I would bet my life on that very few except the most fastidious would even try to read. In fact, they wouldn't even bother to turn over. especially as there is no other reference to 'overleaf ' . They really have crammed it all in , the Credit Card Agreement and Conditions of Use. Thing is this likely to be enforceable or not? The other is my wife's.... Also 2 sided, it does not show ANY of the prescribed terms between the 4 corners of the signature page, except this ... Credit Agreement Regulated by..... "I/we agree to be bound by the Conditions of Use as set out overleaf etc etc......" Now this print on the front page (and the back) is tiny, must be 2 point... I have good eyes but I cannot read the small print on the front page or the back even with my reading glasses on. Have to use a magnifying glass. Can anyone please tell me whether or not these two are enforceable? Thanks very much.. charlie*

One of the Rockerfella family - who made their money out of oil, from the time of the Civil War, perhaps the second wealthiest family in the world, SECOND to the Rothschilds who own and control Brown and his mates and are a part of the Cabal - Illuminati, that small group of banksters who own the central banks, once quipped on US tv when the question of over-population ... "well, we'll just get rid of a few million". What the world needs is the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act (1913) and revert the creation, control and issuance of money to the US Treasury. One US Senataor has stuck his neck out, risking his life as you can see in the fillowing 1 minute video..... ----------------------------------------------------------------- It all happened at once: * The US was railroaded into taking the side of Britain in WW I * The draft was instituted * Federal taxation of work people's incomes began (to pay the Fed) * US citizens began to be conditioned to invest their money in Wall Street creations instead of local enterprises... and * The so-called Federal Reserve, a consortium of PRIVATELY owned banks that was given complete control over the country's money supply, was created. For the first time in many decades, a US Congressman is calling for the Fed to be taken back by the US government. Details: Kucinich: Nationalize the Fed People won't talk about it but....., Abe Lincoln was assasinated shortly after announcing that the US Treasury was going to issue 'greenbacks', silver backed paper currency that was debt free. John Kennedy too was assasinated after announcing his version of debt free money and his proposal to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. President Garfield was also assasinated for what he had to say in public about the monetary system. So if, what our (lying) government sez is true, that the Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 - which means the old owners, the private banksters, the Rothschilds and their mates were removed in favour of The UK Treasury, ie; the goverment, the people - us, you and I, then WHY in god's name are we in so much debt to the Bank of England (debt that can never be paid off) and as, from time to time, the interest rates are such that houses are repossessed, jobs are lost, etcetera et al, WE, the ordinary people who own the frickin bank are being shat on from a great height as these banksters engineer every recession and periods of growth. Dennis Healey got it right when he said that "nothing happens by accident in politics or commerce". As it is our income tax that pays the interest to the Bank of England, WHO GETS THAT INTEREST???? - D'you know, does anyone? We know about the Fed, it's owned by the private banksters (same crowd) and it is them who collect the dough (which is why it was set up in the first place)... but in the UK... WHO GETS IT? - that's what I want to know... Such monumental lies these people, the banksters and the politicians tell... how they can look ordinary people, their own kids and friends in the eye without batting an eyelid, knowing they are ruining their future world, I really don't know - they're just plain evil if you ask me and I'd bet that Blair (who draws £2million a year from J P Morgans of Wall Street, one of those banks that owns the central banks and , it is reported, is the US representive of the Rothschilds (I wonder why?) To end this, which is a long one for me, I was listening to early morning radio yesterday and they were talking about how when Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was totally against the EU, but of recent times he's become an ardent supporter - could he have been bought too with promises of riches after he's taken us into the euro? - £2miilion a year seems a cheap price for selling your country to the totalitarian states of europe. It all makes me feel really bad about the future .... anyway, I'm on a winner now, a new global money making biz that'll get me out of the hole I got myself into. charlie*

Dollar's status under attack from China (Independant Newspaper) World leaders gear up for reform of global system By Sean O'Grady, Economics Editor Tuesday, 24 March 2009 Share Digg It del.icio.us Facebook Reddit [*] Print Article [*] Email Article [*]Text Size Normal Large Extra Large Another skirmish in the war of words in the most important economic relationship in the world – that between the US and China – broke out yesterday, as the Governor of the People's Bank of China called for reform of the IMF and the promotion of the fund's own longstanding but underused "world currency"– special drawing rights (SDR). Related articles Blanchflower warns of 'horrible' things to come Mary Dejevsky: Britain, not Europe, will be the outsider at the G20 summit His remarks come as the managing director of the International Monetary Fund said that any plans, such as those being pursued by the G20, to stimulate the world economy would fail unless the banking system is repaired. Dominique Strauss-Kahn said: "You can put in as much stimulus as you want. It will just melt in the sun as snow if, at the same time, you are not able to have a generally smaller financial sector than before but a healthy financial sector at work." Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the Chinese central bank, implicitly criticised the status of the dollar as the world's sole reserve currency. "The price is becoming increasingly high, not only for the users, but also for the issuers of the reserve currencies," Mr Zhou said. He added: "The role of the SDR has not been put into full play due to limitations on its allocation and the scope of its uses. However, it serves as the light in the tunnel for the reform of the international monetary system. "The goal of reforming the international monetary system, therefore, is to create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies." SDRs were developed by the IMF in the 1970s as a method of increasing funding for international trade, at a time of rapid growth and a shortage of public and private liquidity. In recent years, however, the SDR has been neglected, in part because of the Chinese "wall of money" lubricating the world economy. The central bank governor's intervention can be viewed as a counter-attack to the attacks on China – most recently by the US Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner – for her refusal to revalue the yuan upwards. The gaping US-China trade deficit – running to $266bn last year – is widely regarded as the most important of the "global imbalances" that underlie the current crisis. Currently the SDR is backed by a "basket" of the world's leading currencies, of which the American dollar is the most important, accounting for 44 per cent of its weight. The euro (34 per cent), the pound and the yen (11 per cent each) make up the rest. A downweighting of the dollar in the SDR and the "creation" of more SDRs by the IMF – in the same way that a commercial bank multiplies customer deposits through lending – would signal a further rebalancing of world economic power in favour of China. It would, presumably, be accompanied by an increase in the voting power of China within the IMF, which is roughly the same as Italy's, despite China being perhaps the third largest economy in the world, and Italy the seventh. Reform of the IMF's governance, long promoted by Gordon Brown, has been a running sore for many years. Over the weekend the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, backed China's claim for a bigger role at the IMF. Australia is co-chair of the G20's group on reform of international institutions. However, at the G20 Summit in London on 2 April, a large increase in the funds available to the IMF, from $250bn to $500bn, seems set to be one of the few concrete achievements – without reapportioning voting rights. The European Union agreed in principle to the move last week. The calls from China for IMF reform are echoed by George Soros, who said that the IMF should use new SDRs to "protect the periphery countries from a storm created in the developed world". ___________________________________________________________ For the past 200 years we have had wars and revolutions.... and each time the banksters have grown more powerful taking over control of the issuance and control of more and more nations' money through deals, bribery and interference of one sort or another with politicians.... "Allow me to issue and contral a nation's currency and I care not who makes it law" (Either Amschel or Nathan Rothschild, I forget). And this is exactly what has happened in their long term plans to take over total and absolute world control with not means of escape, ever. It means worldwide totalitarianism, ruled by the top private banks, one world government, one world bank, one world currency, but, it is necessary, I believe for the UK to fully integrate with the EC. Are the Chinese in on it too? Am I crazy?.... I dunno, you tell me.... all I know is that 97% of ALL money is created in debt.... with respect, I think Dave might read the history of the Rothschild family and start googling from there. Charlie*

PT... Trouble with UK courts is that the judges know nothing about the subject and can't be bothered to learn - far too busy with things outside their court rooms. charlie

One for Stornaway..... I hope you are not suggesting that the explanation of the creation of money (credit) is rubbish, because I can assure you it is not. I have friends who have attacked the banks on the basis of contract law - NOT the CCA statutes and have won - the debt has been struck off the books, irreversibly so..... I also have on my desk photocopies of the actual paperwork from an American court showing how and why a couple who asked the Chase Mortgage Bank to prove that a valid contract existed. On the day of the hearing, the bank/lawyers turned up and and as soon as the judge heard that they had not brought the evidence of a valid contract, ie the contract with them awarded the victory to the young couple ... with prejudice. Of course, to use this method requires knowledge, it is not as simple as looking for mistakes in a CCA.... In contract law every single loan agreement written is invalid because they do not follow the principles of contract. It would not surprise me if this was not why the CCA 1974 was written. charlie*

What you have to for is THE THROAT.... What I mean is this.... they do not have the original loan agreement with your ink signature on it. THEY SOLD IT, effectively to raise the money to lend you. They did this to increase their money supply and to have the money (credit) to lend you because banks are not permitted to lend their own or their other depositor's money. If you think very hard and deep about this, bearing in mind that there is no money until it is borrowed, the bank needed your signature to get the money to lend you... thus, the money is rightfully yours as you sold your asset (your labour) to get it... and though the bank will never tell you, you lent it to yourself, albeit through their system. This is only known and understood in the highest echelons of banking, so don't tell the local counter girl she's a crook - LOL So, ideally, what is required... a) for £1 they supply you with a first copy of the original signed by you agreement witnessed authentic and genuine by an independent third party such as a Notary Public (offer to pay the fee) to whom you can, if needs be, question under oath that they have seen, touched, handled the actual, genuine, real McCoy agreement. b) If it goes to court, then you want the bank to produce the real thing... you see we now know that they can forge / manipulate documents to suit themselves so we want the real genuine, dyed in the wool article produced in court. (I believe there is media evidence of this - needs locating). charlie* Oh, I forgot, when you sign that agreement for £10,000 it is leveraged by the bank to £100,000 in a separate deposit account. They credit £10,000 to your account and use the other £90,000 to lend out and follow exactly the same principles. This is the bones of the fractional reserve banking system in place worldwide... it is how they enlarge the money supply. Of course, none of it is real, but, it can be converted to cash and/or assets which do have real value.

We have two Sainsbury's cards and when we asked for copies of both agreements with our signatures on them, they sent them to us. They messed us about at first, just sending typed details but, we tried a bit more formality and got copies of the actual forms with our signatures... funnily enough, they are as different as chalk and cheese. There is no reference on either to prescribed terms, except on one, "Credit Limit (Condition 1.1) Initial credit being £2000.00" then separately, in tiny print barely readable it does say ... "agreeing to be bound by the Conditions of Use (as set out overleaf and as amended from time to time)" No mention on the front or terms on the back, NONE. No mention of interest rate or payment periods etc on the front signature page. Just written back about one because we cannot decipher ALL of the small print even with a powerful glass. charlie*

Hi Roko, et al.... We have a CCA paper identical to your Tesco cca, the only difference being ours is dated July 2000 - they are just a few months apart So, my missus was all for handing it over to a solicitor to tackle it, but, I just saw your response to them. This is fantastic, absobloodylutely fantasic, it's taken me weeks to get my head round these prescribed terms, now I have them printed and pinned on the wall.. It's coming to me slowly, but gaining speed... just another 9 to go for my family.. wow - as they say, slowly slowly catchee monkey. Thanks ever so much, at my extreme age there's no chance that I could ever do the research to come up with letters like this. Good luck to us all... charlie*

Some of the questions about the original signed agreements can be answered by this cartoon video. The Crisis of Credit Visualized 10 minutes, that's all. This video illustrates how the sub-prime agreements were used to generate billions - the same basic principals equally apply to bank loan agreements and many other kinds of "paper trading" - which is how the extreme rich become even richer... and those introduced to it for services rendered, such as Blair, the Bush family, all the big private banks who own all the world central banks (very involved), Brown in due course... when he's finished the task they gave him and others used by the banksters. Just work on the basis that there is no money until it is borrowed. This is why the world is in a mess.... the banksters (ie: the Bank of England, Fed Reserve, etc., will "lend" money in exchange for promissory notes (bills of exchange... your cheque is one) which is precisely what our loan agreements and mortgage agreements are. From the moment the bank receives that application/agreement signed by a borrower and stamped, as it were, "Pay to the Order Of" ..... and because the banksters have NEVER in their history issued enough money to either pay the interest on a "loan" nor to repay the amount borrowed, the system cannot account for this, so the debt keeps increasing.... there is NO end to it other than chaos when the whole fractional reserve monetary system collapses under its own debt. This is why it is called "debt money"... because there is no money other than that which has been borrowed out of thin air.... I think 1814 paved the way (Rothschilds) and certainly the signing of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 following the Jekyll Island meeting of 1910 and the following US presidential election when Woodrow Wilson won because the banksters financed him on the clear understanding that he gave them absolute authority over the issuance and control of the United States Dollar. HOWEVER, there is hope... a very brave US Senator has just called for the Federal Reserve System (bank) to either be closed down or nationalised. The last man who tried this was assasinated... his name was John F Kennedy. This is a 90 seconds video - the time allotted by the Senate for individual members to speak on a given subject, this day was 60 seconds. Kucinich: Nationalize the Fed Remember, the banks do NOT have the original agreements with your signature. They were sold, because YOU, are the guarantee - your labour is the guarantee. It's a fascinating subject, but how the hell do we get the judges and the lesser mortals who are employed by the banks to play letter tennis to believe... that they are employed solely as slaves to the private banks pushing a system that is the most despicable [problem] ever and destined to destroy this planet.. we have seen the sort of greed of the banksters in the sub-prime mortgage [problem]... all part of it for nothing happens in politics or commerce unless it is planned that way. charlie

This really could be important......... can it be corroborated please? I have been told today by a firm in the debt cancellation business that there is a Reserved Judgement in the 2007 CCAct that can, AT ANY TIME be 'activated' and this would stop challenges to the loan agreements - including pre-April 2007. I was told that this means, as of now, more or less, it will be difficult if not impossible to have debts cancelled out. This means that anyone wishing to challenge would have to wait for court claim and defend the claim or - or wait for the CCJ and then challenge that, through this firm who are set up for it. From the information I have from other sources, the judges are not too keen to uphold any defence other than those where they have no choice. There is no justice, except for just-us.... just-us being 'them'. I may be talking through my hat, but that's what I was told and this particular firm will only accept clients who have CCJ's. When they have then CCJ's, that's when this firm looks for loan agreements that were unenforceable in the first place. Where do we stand, doing our own thing? Thanks, charlie

I am sticking my nose in here because..... I have an idea.... To increase the chances of any promissory note (loan agreement) being rendered unenforceable before it gets to court, why not consider this.... really play poker, knowing what's in their hand... A loan agreement is in fact a promissory note... a bill of exchange if you will and it is worth money - more than you can imagine and forms the very basis of the 'manufacturing of fiat, worthless money'. You can see an explanation here in cartoon form The Crisis of Credit Visualized - it will explain a lot to you and open your eyes wide as to the true nature of bankers - ALL bankers... and might once and for all dispel the speculation that these agreements may or may not be available for photocopying. It was reading one of the posts herein that gave me the thought... how can we get the bankers to send us a copy of our paper duly certified by a notary public upon their surety....... and offer to pay any reasonable cost... a notary should charge about £10 for a service like this. If we can come up with the words to insist the banks follow this route, then they are screwed for they do not have the original paper for a notary public to copy. THE VIDEO WILL TELL YOU WHY. Worth exploring??? charlie

Hi doc, You might care to take a look.... this is only one of a pretty wide collection of info sites/books etc. Natural-Person Home Page Okay, so it's a US site, there are others I just picked on this one 'cos it was convenient. Most law came out of London, so these things apply here too. Did a bit of checking, I know now I got it wrong about the CC agreement charlie

Hello, Iwonder if anyone can answer this problem..... My son has a Sainsbury credit card which may or may not be enforceable per the CCAct... that is not an issue right now. What is an issue is that the name typed on the agreement is his real live human being name, that is in lower case... Peter John Jones (correctly, :Peter-John: Jones) whereas a corporate can only communicate with a corporate, that is in upper case or CAPITALS so, as we are all corporates, every last man jack of us, he can only be addressed as PETER JOHN JONES.. This is my question... How can he address the bank because he, that is :Peter-John: of the family Jones (commonly Peter John Jones - or :Peter-John: Jones (agent) did not borrow anything from them and does not owe them anything - and they cannot communicate with him because they do not have an account under the name of PETER JOHN JONES. This is all to do with Commercial/Admiralty law which is THE LAW globally. I would appreciate any knowledgeable comment, but hopefully a bit of fun too? Anyone who's puzzled, start by googling 'strawman' - you are not who you think you are. charlie*

If this is in the wrong place, my apologies, but it does seem to fit in with bailiffs and the Human Rights Act (joke). So, if anuy mod wants to delete it, I won't be offended. To get rid of bailiffs the whole monetary system needs changing from the current debt system (money is debt because until it is borrowed there is no money, it does not exist). "Permit me to issue and control the currency of a nation and I care not who makes its laws" So said Amschel Mayer (Bauer) Rothschild and so it came to pass around 1814 that the Rothschilds, Ashkanazi money changers from Frankfurt, took control by lies, bibery and murder to become the richest family on earth - beyond compare and imagination. Since around 1910, together with their partners, other private international bankers, mostly in America, the land of the NOT free, they now (ever since the Federal Reserve Act 1913) issue and control the currency of almost every nation on earth and this was achieved through their ownership of all the central banks (like the Bank of England) - well, there are still a few to go, less than 10 I think. Then they will truly own the world and everything in it, including all of us... we, every last one of us are in fact their slaves (the goy in the fields). Only two men in history actually challenged the debt based monetary system of the Rothschilds with debt free money... the first was Abraham Lincoln... he was assasinated, the second was John Fitgerald Kennedy... he too was assasinated because of his debt free, silver backed money with the intention also of repealing the Federal Reserve Act. Once borrowed, debt can never be repaid because they do not create enough to pay off debt. You borrow £1 from a usurer and you have to pay it back with interest... how will you pay the interest and the debt??? With other money, naturally, your money... but consider... the 'your' money you use to pay the interest and back the debt is already a debt - So HOW can you repay a debt with money that is already a debt???? If it were not for greed, extortion, blackmail and murder (the CEO of RBS, Sir Fred and people in very high places) this system would long ago have vanished for usury is evil - it is the cause of most wars, deprivation and misery and Brown knows it only too well, but he too is now in their control - as is Blair (with his $2million annual fees from J P Morgan, New York bankers , the US branch of the Rothschilds) - and all the others. The ambition and ego of people like these two far outweighs their real care for the masses. What was it Dennis Healey (Labour Secretary of the Treasury) said... "World events do not occur by accident. They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings". THE ONLY WAY TO BE RID OF BAILIFFS AND THE LIKE IS TO BE RID OF THE FRACTIONAL RESERVE MONETARY SYSTEM AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS FOR THE PEOPLE TO RISE UP AS ONE AND SAY... 'ENOUGH'. THERE IS NO NEED FOR INTEREST (USURY) TO BE CHARGED ON MONEY... IF THE TREASURY TOOK CONTROL OF AND ISSUED THE MONEY ACCORDING TO OUR NEEDS, THE ONLY INTEREST WOULD BE A SINGLE POINT TO COVER THE COSTS OF MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION. If everyone, right this minute, said 'NO, I'm not paying any more'... what could they do? - we, acting multilaterally is the bankers worst nightmare. It will happen, but only when the monetary system collapses under its own debt. charlie