SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?

[enoughisenough]

Well.

 

They are full of crap aren't they. They just believed their own propaganda that this was a rollover for them. Don't forget they were dealing with the great unwashed, plebs who couldn't read and write, people who wouldn't have the first clue how to defend themselves against rapacious ****.

 

Well, that's been given the lie. But old habits die hard. THey slip back into it on the phone and think they are dealing with idiots.

 

Even if they were of course I am sure their TCF "champion" will be working hard on their phone manner to ensure it is neither aggressive , misleading or, dare I say it, wilfully full of sh*t.

 

If you speak on the phone try to record it. I want as many transcripts of these aholes burying themselves under their own steaming pile of cr*p as possible. Call them 20 different times and get twenty different stories...Lies, lies, lies...

[enoughisenough]

Don't know anything about car repos I'm afraid

 

Here's a pretty comprehensive SAR template though:

 

YOUR ADDRESS

 

 

THE DATE

 

 

THE DATA CONTROLLER(S)

 

CAPSTONE MORTGAGE SERVICES

 

ST. JOHNS PLACE

 

EASTON STREET

 

HIGH WYCOMBE

 

HP11 1NL

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

 

RE: MORTGAGE ACCOUNT NO: XXXXXX- DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

 

Dear Sirs,

 

You currently hold details of my personal and financial information within your internal record systems with regard to my personal loan account/ mortgage as numbered above.

 

Please supply me with a complete list of transactions and charges relating to my history with your organization and do so by reasonable return as you are required to. Please provide the following for this account or associated accounts I have held with your organisation, or those that have been transferred to other organisations:

 

1. The opening balance of the mortgage, the current balance, the total amount paid in the lifetime of the account, the status of the mortgage as interest only or repayment plus interest and the level of interest rate applied month by month in the lifetime of the account. Please also confirm my current interest rate.

 

2. Please furnish me with all prior copies of correspondence I have received from SPPL/SPML/PREFERRED (Delete/insert as appropriate) and yourselves as collecting agents and administrator Capstone Mortgage Services, or any other collecting organisation, including all correspondence which have notified myself/us of interest rate cuts, interest rate increases and any variation of our payments during the lifetime of the account. Please also provide verifiable proof that Capstone Mortgage Services provide good receipt for the monies demanded of me by Capstone, in respect of my loan/mortgage agreed with SPPL/SPML/Preferred etc (AMEND AS APPROPRIATE) and are authorised to demand and process payment in respect of my mortgage with (NAME OF MORTGAGE ORIGINATOR).

 

3. I require details of the date my mortgage with (NAME OF ORIGINATOR) was securitized, the special purposes vehicle used securitise my mortgage,details of the required and relevant entry to the land registry title as a result of said securitization, date of any repurchase of the mortgage and all information regarding the subsequent further amendment or updates of the entry to the land registry title XXXXXXX

 

4. Full copies of all contracts, including the original terms and conditions, pertaining at the time of the agreement, which you believe exist or have existed between myself and your organization, including true copies of any documents you hold in support of the same.

 

5. A complete list of all transactions or statements relating to my mortgage administered by your organisation, including a full schedule of: unpaid direct debit fees, returned or declined cheque fees, arrears interest charges, arrears management fees, Litigation management fees and all other ’service’ fees that may be unrecoverable at law.

 

6. Copies of all documents which include any of my personal information including copies of any contacts or invoices, emails or computer records containing my personal information, or any records, for example telephone calls, which pertain to this information.

 

7. Full copies or transcripts of any correspondence in postal, email or any other format which you have entered into with any individual, organization or third party which contains my/our personal or financial information, or which pertains to me/us.

 

8. Where any previous information or records held have been deleted or disposed of, the methods used to do so, including dates, certificates or references confirming details of destruction. Where you are unable to provide such certificates, please provide a declaration, signed by an authorised officer of your company, confirming the dates and methods of destruction of this data.

 

9. Full hard copy print outs of my personal or financial information, held in a digital, magnetic or any other format which is held in any archives, backups or other storage devices or locations.

 

9. All documents you have held or do hold pertaining to Land registry title XXXXXXXX

 

I enclose a cheque in the sum of £10 to cover your fee. Note that this is not payment towards arrears on this account and is solely for the purposes of expediting the Subject Access Request.

 

AS YOU KNOW YOU ARE REQUIRED IN LAW BY VARIOUS STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND REGULATORY AND LICENSING AUTHORITIES TO PRESERVE AND SECURE ALL SUCH DATA.

 

In the event that you commence litigation, whilst this subject access request remains outstanding, I remind you of the following provision under the Data Protection Act (1998)

 

DPA, Pt IV, 35:

 

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc

 

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

 

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

 

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

 

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

 

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

You are reminded of your obligations under the above section of the relevant legislation. I will naturally inform the INFORMATION COMMISIONER/COURT (ADD or Delete as appropriate) of any failings of yours in regards to your full compliance to this subject access request.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

YOUR NAME AND ANY-BODY ELSE ON THE MORTGAGE

 

Good luck.

 

Other useful resources for fighting the **** are available on the link posted yesterday by ryde.

[enoughisenough]

This information is an exact illustration of a total waste of useful press space,coverage and time.It absolutely feckin infuriates me.

What bearing or use can it have to anyone here in the uk unless its the city and their investments in this shower of sh.t.

Its like the Enron fiasco just showing how corperate America can bend every rule in the book in the worship of the mighty feckin dollar,we all know this already.

You write to these people and everyone under the sun,its splashed a thousand times all over this site and the net that this **** have and are doing the same thing here and getting away with it day after endless day,repo after repo like some unstoppable manic bulldozer and not one of them takes a blind bit of notice cos theyre sh.t scared of getting some lawsuit wrapped round their neck and can't be bothered to leave the air con comfort of their feckin offices.

The spineless yuppified ladidaerati would rather risk running a story about ashley and feckin cheryl,rather than risk a story and conduct an investigation that affects and has affected thousands in their own backyard and take on the spineless jellyfish like establishment who have turned a complete blind eye to the whole putrescent process,the b.stards.

 

 

Goodness me Ryde! Can you do vitriol as well?

[enoughisenough]

Hi MWSPML

 

Tell DAN to have a look at the link posted by Ryde. Page 285 I think...Good luck with SAR. The press have known about this for months but the editors are being leaned on... This isn't a few grubby MPs raiding the public purse of a few thousand here and there for cat food, moats and duck ponds, or flipping houses. This is hundreds of billions at stake...hence it will take one intrepid journo and a really fearless editor. It's the scoop of the decade...question is who wants to touch it. It's only getting an airing here because of what went on in the US...that's how bad it is. However no better time to strike whilst the Lehman's iron is hot...

 

Get into character Ryde...it's gonna be a long haul. Cag calling LC come in LC...

[enoughisenough]

Blue Eyed Girl

 

Send the letter above. With £10 cheque or postal order. Give them forty days. They may retaliate by trying a repo, but if you are a month behind I doubt it...meanwhile watch them like a hawk. They will be piling on the charges as we speak. No wonder they only send out quarterly statements...

 

Good luck. Keep asking the questions. All the answers are here.

[enoughisenough]

HI BLUE EYED GIRL

 

The sad truth is that none of these are in the mortgage business. They are in the repossession business and the useless regulators and courts are allowing them to get on with it.

 

So you need a cold steel stomach to fight these barstewards and you have to fight them every inch of the way. One way of sending a shot across their bows is to issue the Subject Access Request. They have forty days to comply in full. That then gives you all the info you need for the longer term battle ahead. Who has the suspended order SPML or Welcome?

 

If you already have full statements you could skip the SAR and just write a letter asking for a refund of all the charges (include a schedule). Again forty days. Once that expires you can go to the FOS. Once in with the FOS they can't touch you unless you stopped paying altogether. Then they will leave you alone. Sorry if this is not making much sense and 286 pages of posts is a lot to catch up. See what you can do though.

 

Ryde

 

The press are waiting for SFA not FSA...It will only come when the press start pressing the buttons.

 

Lehmans Repossession Scandal Sweeps Britain

 

Bankrupt Lehmans Evicts Thousands of UK families

 

Bankrupt Lehmans Targets Homeowner's Equity

 

Lehmans smash and grab raid on YOUR home

Edited March 17, 2010 by enoughisenough
Wrongly attributed post...Ryde not MWSPML

[enoughisenough]

Whistle Blowers - Home

 

IF IATWB IS STILL OUT THERE THIS COULD BE THE PERFECT SITE,YOU GET PAID AS WELL SO MAY BE OF USE TO OTHERS HERE.

Found it on the guardian thread ,evidently a lehmans whistleblower was sacked a month after reporting his suspicions to the "independent auditors" ernst and young

 

 

Maybe Attia could do the decent thing. She's not drawing a salary so she might be able to do with the cash...Got to be better than extradition to Camp X-ray.

 

:D:D

[enoughisenough]

Who's that lurking in the corner...?

 

I want yer back...

[enoughisenough]

Capitalisation Fees are yet another unlawful [problem]. A fee charged for discharging "your arrears" (i.e their charges and interest) and adding to the balance so they can add further interest. It's a shocker...no wonder people are going under.

 

The whole invasion of the UK mortgage market and this easy credit was designed in the first place to suck the equity out of people's homes through repossession. It's a national scandal.

[enoughisenough]

That's encouraging Midge...thanks for posting that up...

 

Nice one Ryde...it needs to feed through. I mean these people are just locked inside their roles, shuffling papers and executing orders, discussing their skiing trips and buying pads in Chiswick. They need something to prick their bubbles and their consciences and shake them from their slumber. Oh but you can bet it'll be well if you paid your mortgage... when they're all on preferential rates and city salaries and bonuses...

[enoughisenough]

Ryde

 

Couldn't find it and have to stop looking now. Incidentally a MartDJ post from 12th March has appeared in the 12th March posts It certainly wasn't there when I originally posted?

[enoughisenough]

Yup...great isn't it. It's known as filing for protection...? Imagine that in the criminal system. Yet another reason why corporate crime pays...and why there'll be more and more of this.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Blue Eyed Girl

 

Anyone looking at that site which can be found here will find dozens of dissatisfied customers of the appalling Capstone.

 

Capstone Mortgages - Disgraceful - Ripoff

 

Shaun is to be commended for his raising of this issue and successfully getting google's search engine to boost his ranking. More people need to be aware of what is going on here. Specifically that this is not an individual failing but is systemic and integral to the way Capstone operate on behalf of the SPiVs.

 

I might be mistaken but I think there are links to one or two other sites as well in Shaun's blog.

 

Keep digging...

[enoughisenough]

In the light of recent developments in the securitisation debate...namely that Capstone have no authorisation from the originator (seems to me a pretty powerful argument. Capstone demand money and issue claim but have no authorisation to do so.)

 

I thought I would resurrect one of supersleuth's finest posts from about a year ago. I think that since a line of argument is developing here that Capstone are a bunch of fraudsters with no proof of claim the following post should be re-examined in the light of this. Give 'em hell!

 

(Hope super has no objections...)

 

Hi Guys,

 

Last of the Mohican - you are totally correct! The Claimant named in the court action is not the person who owns the charge and the judges don't ask for proof - the court process is a rubberstamp affair - and from the borrower perspective - the best it will get as so called "justice" is a deferral of the inevitable i.e. a suspended possession order - they'll let you live in your home for a little while longer.

 

Here's the law: The LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2002 s. 27(1) says that the Charge (ie. the mortgage charge) does not OPERATE AT LAW until the registration is complete.

 

Section 27(3) and (4) says in effect that it is MANDATORY that where there has been a transfer and assignment of a mortgage charge, that transfer/assignment MUST be registered.

 

So, on the one hand when the false claimant sells to the SPV both s.27(3) and (4) requires that the transfer MUST BE REGISTERED. BUT, s.27(1) says that the transfer will not operate AT LAW until it is registered.

 

This is called the "registration gap". The gap is necessary because, you sign the contracts documents on say 1 jan, but then you have to tell the LR that there has BEEN a transfer which paperwork will take a few weeks to prepare and send (as the law requires). There has to be a registration gap in order to send the Land Registry the information and then time for the Land Registry to update its records.

 

Two points ensue from this registration gap. First the law mandates that YOU DO TELL THE LR, and second, that until you do tell the LR, the transfer will "NOT OPERATE AT LAW" (i.e. s.27(1)

 

There can be no doubt that s.27(3) and (4) are compulsory because s. 123 makes it a criminal offence to suppress and conceal information from the land registry. Thus, whilst the LRA2002 does have a "registration gap", you commit a criminal offence if you deliberately don't tell the LR about the transfer.

 

The SPV's commit a criminal offence because they deliberately don't tell the land registry and they deliberately conceal the transfer from the LR and the Borrowers and the courts and the governement etc. It is deliberate because, the seller/lender and the SPV have made it a term of the contract of sale that THEY WILL CONCEAL THE TRANSFER FROM THE LAND REGISTRY AND IT ALSO SAYS IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEY WILL NOT TELL THE BORROWER!!! Fact: this deliberate concealment is stated in the Prospectuses. Therefore, the SPV and the false claimant have intended to conceal and suppress the information from the LR, they deliberately intended that the borrower and the LR shall remain ignorant - Hence CRIMINAL OFFENCE committed - absolute no doubt about it.

 

Now over to the s.27(1) issue. The false lender who is the false claimant knows that they have sold the charge, and knows that they are not the legal owner - but they rely and unlawfully abuse s.27(1) - if a Charge does not operate at law until registration is completed- then the courts would consider that it operates in EQUITY.

 

Equity is a particular legal jurisidiction of the court. This means that the false claimant is a BARE TRUSTEE during the registration gap until the mandatory registration of the new owner (the SPV) is completed. The false claimant is not the legal owner, he is only "deemed" to be the legal owner because of his false registration due to his criminal agreement to conceal and suppress the information regarding the transfer from the LR. See s.58(1) which states the registered proprietor is "deemed" to be the legal owner.

 

It is s.27(1) that dupes the moron judges. I say duped, because in order to rely on the false claimant's "deemed" legal ownership, the false Claimant must rely on their criminal act of suppression and concealment of the transfer (s.123), and their unlawful act of failure to comply with the mandatory registration requirement of s.27(3) and (4).

 

Therefore, the moron judges allow a criminal act to be purportrated against the borrowers and the Land Registry when they are duped into recognising the false claimant as the legal owner. The courts allow the false claimant to rely on its criminal offences of (i) s.123 suppression and concealment of information from the LR and (ii) failure to comply with the mandatory registration of the transfer pursuant to s.27(3) and (4).

 

Therefore, the court order given to a false claimant for repossession is grounded on criminal offences and a court order that is grounded on criminal offences cannot be a valid and lawful court order. Alternatively, it could be deemed that CRIME DOES PAY!!! The court orders prove that crime pays! In other words, without the criminal act of the false claimant, they would not get a repossession order. The criminal act is an essential element that is neccessary such that the false claimant can dupe the court to give it the repossession order.

 

Now for the next legal (or rather illegal) sleight of hand. When the issue comes up, the false claimant will tell the moron judges "oh, yes but we ONLY SOLD AN EQUITABLE INTEREST". Not true, they sold the legal title, but the legal reality is that the legal title, as per s.27(1) does not operate at law until the registration is complete.

 

Again, the courts never ask to see the contract of sale to see exactly WHAT ALLEGED EQUITABLE INTEREST WAS SOLD because in fact, it was the legal title that was sold. But the courts just take their word for it that it was an equitable assignment. If the courts (and the borrower) demanded that the false claimant PROVE that they only sold an alleged "equitable/beneficial interest" then the concealment and falsity of the ruse would be exposed.

 

The fact is that the false claimant has lied again. At law, the reality is that the legal title for the SPV does not "operate at law" until the SPV registers (as the law demands that they do). But the moron judges, believe the false claimant when it says "they only sold the Beneficial title", which puts the concept of equitable juridiction in the moron judges' mind.

 

So the moron judge ASSUMES that the false claimant is a TRUSTEE under a legitmate trust and assumes that as a TRUSTEE the claimant is a bona fide claimant. The moron judge should not make this false assumption because (i) if the false claimant really was a legitimate trustee the law requires that they disclose on the Claim Form that they are claiming in a "representative capacity as a TRUSTEE. None of the claim forms state the claimant as a trustee and therefore, the court should not recognise them as a trustee.

 

Nonetheless, from this the moron judge believes that there is an assignment of the "equitable interest", and the false claimant is a bona fide trustee, when in truth the position is really, that the SPVs legal title is operating in "equity" merely because of its criminal acts and because s.27(1) says that the SPVs legal title "does not operate at law" until it registers its ownership. The false claimant could be said to be a BARE TRUSTEE - but a bare trustee HAS NO LEGAL RIGHTS OTHER THAN TO DO WHAT THE BENEFICIAL TITLE HOLDER TELLS THEM TO DO. In other words, the exploitation and abuse of s.27(1) allows the false claimant to pull the woll over the moron judges eyes and unlawfully pretend they are the legal owner.

 

So there's a catch 22 which works perfect for the false claimant. The false claimant criminally exploits the "registration gap" to pretend that it is the legal owner when in fact (i) it KNOW that it is NOT the legal owner and (ii) KNOW that it has deliberately concealed the real legal owner from the LR through purportrating the criminal act of suppressing and concealing that information from the LR.

 

Until the moron judges can get their dumb head around the fact that it is a criminal offence to suppress information from the LR (s.123), and until the moron judges demand compliance with the LRA s.27(3) and(4), the court will always make an order for the false claimant which is grounded on the criminal acts of the false claimant and the SPV. The registration gap may lawfull exist, but s.123 does not allow the unlawful abuse and explotation of s.27(1) because s.123 makes it a criminal offence to deliberately suppress and conceal the information (which is precisely what the false claimant does!).

 

Here's the final legal reality. Under the human rights act you have the right to be "HEARD". So as a borrower you have the right to state all this to the court, BUT, the courts don't pay any heed to what you say. The courts may HEAR, but they are not LISTENING!!!...the moron judges do not engage brain, they do not consider your legal point because - the false claimant has a qualified lawyer who will lie and cause the court and cause the moron judges to rubberstamp this criminal offences.

 

Any references to moron judges is essentially all of them. They pay NO attention to the law, and pay no attention to what a litigant-in-person says the law is. They will always defer to the powerful bank. If the judge were to pay any attention to a legal argument from a litigant in person, that would require that they do some WORK!! They would have to THINK and do some real legal work and legal analysis. So it's easier just to ignor the Litigant-in-person and accept the false claimant's lies and accept the false legal argument from the claimant's lawyer.

 

Does this mean we have no chance - no, it means that we have got to keep saying it to the moron judges until ONE OF THEM actually listens. There must be at least ONE judge in a district court somewhere that is NOT A MORON!!! One of us will find the intelligent judge who is capable of engaging brain and so the more of us who put this legal argument forward, the more chance there is that one of us will cause the court to enforce the LAW!!

 

Good luck, you've got nothing to loose by trying, and if you're the lucky one that finds the NON-MORONIC judge you may just get the just and correct result - DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION against you on the grounds that the false claimant cannot rely on his criminal manipulation of deliberately causing the Land REgistry to be inaccurate, and having sold its title to your mortgage contract, the false claimant has no contract with you and cannot claim any remedy under the contract when the false claimant is not in contractual privity with you.

 

Good luck

Supersleuth

[enoughisenough]

Fully getting your drift here Ryde.

 

Now...what got me thinking was Sced's simple question which goes something like this.

 

"The court have told me to pay PML. I have asked for PMLs payee details and none are forthcoming. I could pay Capstone But If I do, how do I know that a) Capstone have been authorised by PML and b) that I am getting good receipt.

 

These are perfectly valid questions. Where is the substantive proof that Capstone have a lawful right rather than an assertion to receive payments in respect of an agreement that I have with SPPL/SPML/Preferred or whoever?

 

Now we all know that Capstone's true authorisation and service contract is with the SPV, NOT the originator for a variety of reasons such as tax avoidance. But that cannot be relied upon because the SPV does not want to come forward, indeed possibly cannot come forward.

 

So. The registration gap was used so that the originator could bring a claim in residual equity (prior to fulfilling or rather not fulfilling the lawful requirement to effect the transfer at law). At most they would need this gap to be about five years before every single mortgage or loan was liquidated and all borrowers were repossessed, so the equity cash grab heist could be completed.

 

BUT Lehmans went TU. And now the originators (who always said "ah yes it may have been securitised but we only transferred the beneficial part) are dead in the water. So, following on from that,

 

1. they never did come to a fall back arrangement with Capstone

2. there is no authorisation between the Originator and Capstone

3. Ergo Capstone lack the locus standi and capacity to lawfully bring claim!

 

And who instructs the solicitors? Why, CAPSTONE, of course!

 

Please tell me I'm wrong...Remember that one DJ has already thrown out a claim asking bluntly who the hell are Capstone to be sticking their noses into this!

 

Peace...

 

or pieces...?

[enoughisenough]

Probably but will the SFO bite? Or is there too much pinned on them getting away with this as quietly as possible?

 

Blanket media silence despite it being the`hot' financial story of the moment. This cannot be an accident...surely one journalist would have seen this.

 

Total focus on finding the bad apples, rather than a focus on (extending the metaphor) the stinking barrel.

[enoughisenough]

Hooray it looks like Martdjs posts are getting moderated immediatley!!

 

Well we could call that progress, but if the mods are looking in they might want to consider ITBG'S ONGOING BAN, in the light of JetLi's story.?

 

Oh and after Jet has been effed over and the equity cash grab [problem] is complete can any mod/site team member honestly say to me that that will be the end of the trauma?

 

I refer of course to this...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/252162-repossed-spml-now-being.html

 

http://capstonewatch.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/a-disgusting-post-possession-habit/

 

Now, thinking about this it would be IMPOSSIBLE under any code of conduct even any code of morality wouldn't it?

 

But it's happening. Now I may know **** all about law but I know a great deal about social psychology.

 

And if there is one thing social psychology teaches us it's this.

 

THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE THIN EDGE OF THE WEDGE.

 

If this is allowed to stand what the feckin hell is next? That's why LC needs to come back. His contributions had them collapsing in disarray. Now they're getting confident and cocky and repoing again left right and centre. Is this a Vichy regime?

 

Martin Niemöller Poem

 

They came for the Communists, and I

 

didn't object - For I wasn't

 

a Communist;

 

They came for the Socialists, and I

 

didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;

 

They came for the labor leaders, and I

 

didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;

 

They came for the Jews, and I didn't

 

object - For I wasn't a Jew;

 

Then they came for me -

 

And there was no one left to object.

 

Martin Niemoller, German Protestant Pastor,

 

1892-1984

Edited March 19, 2010 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

MEANING OF UNABLE TO CLIENT MONEY

 

Smaller firms - One minute guides

 

Smaller firms online - Your Firm type

[enoughisenough]

Ryde

 

Binding? No. You are absolutely correct.

 

However it could be citable as persuasive precedent.

 

Although County Court decisions are not binding on other county courts they may be cited as persuasive.

 

Now think of this. Virtually all of our cases involve in the same points of law and could not be distinguished upon the facts. At this stage that doesn't matter. But if enough DJs started to take the same view a trickle would become a flood and they would then have to start to think seriously about a 'test case'. I'm pretty sure that would be the last thing they would want. Win OR Lose.

 

...if every cagger could raise this as part of their defence. Who issues the instructions? Capstone? On behalf of whom? (SPML let's say). Where is the authorisation from SPML? Capstone haven't got it. Locus standi - game on.

[enoughisenough]

Ryde absolutely

 

I understand the very real cautionary points you raise. However it's a bat to nothing. Either it works or does not work but yes you are right mwspml would need to disclose his or her identity and that is a very big ask.

 

So in that sense persuasive precedent is out of the window. But it doesn't stop the argument being raised. We used to argue that SPML etc didn't have the locus standi because they had sold the mortgages to the SPV who then sold them on again. That generally would not get any hearing at all.

 

Actually I find it strange that on the four separate occasions I raised it, it was ignored or dismissed rather than defended from Sue's position? Why? Why not say that is incorrect because it is equitable? But no it was always ignored or wilfuly misunderstood as if I was thick...(maybe I am!)

 

Moving on though I see no good reason why every cagger cannot demand as of right under 31.6 to see the instructions to the solicitors and then ask for disclosure when it doesn't come as part of the defence.

 

And I see no good reason why we also cannot ask for disclosure of documents authorising the INTERLOPER CAPSTONE to act on behalf of SPPL/SPML/Preferred etc.

 

It's only a paragraph to add to what is now a pretty well formulated defence. And if one Judge has shown that he/she is not a moron who's to say there aren't other non-moronic DJs out there who might say "...actually this is interesting, this isn't the usual yackety BS defence...this LIP really has something to say?

 

Trying to keep the faith...

Edited March 19, 2010 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Agreed...I will check when I get home. I repeat. I can't see any harm. If the DJ won't bite then they won't bite. But if they do...

 

As a footnote MWSPML should probably PM on of us with it if MWSPML feels that we are not jackals or shills and can therefore be trusted...

[enoughisenough]

I'm definitely "good" which leaves you...well you know. But perhaps ANW means it in the wider sense of a force to be reckoned with...I'm sure rotarians are very neat people who don't like loose ends and therefore I anticipate this mystery will be cleared up soon.

 

PS Have you seen the guest count?

[enoughisenough]

Ah the case list...

 

Bless em! They are soooo locked into their roles aren't they?

 

Like the train driver to Auschwitz who would take great pride in being meticulous and precise over his work, ensuring it arrived on time with its precious cargo intact.

 

The role is everything...nothing can impede the progress of the task.

 

It is a requirement of the role that the duties are fulfilled meticulously, precisely and without question.

 

Individual morality and conscience must be put to one side.

 

When locked in a role it desensitises an individual to the nature of the task, and the consequences of the work.

 

The hierarchy relieves the individual of his or her personal responsibility for the harm that may arise from the performance of the task.

 

Further he is incentivised to put his natural human concerns to one side. He is after all a good person. He is kind, loves his children and undertakes philanthropic work on behalf of the needy. But he is rewarded most when he becomes most mindless.

He is seduced by a graduated commitment to the task until he inflicts maximum harm with less stirring of the conscience that occurred when he first started out.

 

He was troubled, but was reassured that it was alright.

 

He was anxious about the consequences of the task. Would it make him a bad person?

 

He was concerned but lost that concern when he was told we were trailer trash who could never have afforded these mortgages in the first place.

 

He has forgotten how to be human.

 

So when we call him ****. Or when we refer to them collectively as b.stards Or when we insult their integrity, please remember that he is only fulfilling a role.

 

A role just like the train driver on the way to Auswitchz.

Edited March 19, 2010 by enoughisenough

[enoughisenough]

Nice dotty 2 down 3 to go. Please excuse my rather idealistic notion that conscience be given a better chance. I went all 60s for a moment but I think I'm better now...

[enoughisenough]

Another big question that arises from this is who is Jetli supposed to pay now she has sold her house? only sppl can give a valid receipt and remove the charge but they have no personel to give this instruction or authorise this or any other action in their name.

 

Ryde

 

suggest you look at the watch under disgusting if you haven't already.