Sovrun Paraleguls

[TheNewSaint]

David has entered his certificate numbers (?????) and discovered his true worth:

90.88? Sounds about right. These idiots don't even seem to notice that they're not worth very much.

[JimUk1]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/193082005 ... 7500934433

Showing how stupid they're today

[SteveUK]

Random copy pasta of the day

Best drop that Baptismal middle name in court. Praynomen and Cognomen should only be used. Any middle name separates you from your family. A baptismal middle name places you in a whole new jurisdiction. That anodomi calender wreaks havoc too. Since one using it is also under Vatican authority. 1592 pope gregory.

[MaritalArtist]

Random copy pasta of the day

Best drop that Baptismal middle name in court. Praynomen and Cognomen should only be used. Any middle name separates you from your family. A baptismal middle name places you in a whole new jurisdiction. That anodomi calender wreaks havoc too. Since one using it is also under Vatican authority. 1592 pope gregory.

Are these real words or the names of Pokemon characters?

[The Observer]

Well, I give him a A+ for creating a new way that the Vatican has placed us under their jurisdiction by tricking us into using the Gregorian calendar that the Pope issued.

[Philistine]

Random copy pasta of the day

Best drop that Baptismal middle name in court. Praynomen and Cognomen should only be used. Any middle name separates you from your family. A baptismal middle name places you in a whole new jurisdiction. That anodomi calender wreaks havoc too. Since one using it is also under Vatican authority. 1592 pope gregory.

Are these real words or the names of Pokemon characters?

Yeh, I think they mean praenomen and cognomen (first name, common name). It's Latin, Roman even.
Along with nomen (family name) and agnomen (fourth name).

[notorial dissent]

Ignorance, illiteracy, and just plain stupid at its finest. These people must have full time carers to keep them fed and clothed properly otherwise I don't see how they manage it.

[grixit]

The middle name isn't the baptism name, it's either the first or there is an extra name used just for that purpose. I, myself, was baptized in a roman catholic church, with an extra name that was used only then and never since. In traditional roman name, the middle and last names were just clan and tribe, with the first name being personal. For instance "Julius Caesar" just means "another one of those dudes from the Julian clan"-- during his lifetime, you would have had to used his first name, "Gaius", to distinguish him from his father, brothers if he had any, and cousins. Of course, by the end of his life this had changed. So no, if you want to get the pope off your back what you have to do is revoke whatever name you were baptized under. Unless of course, you aren't a catholic, in which case, by their theology, they get you after you're dead.

And if you revert to the julian calendar, you either put yourself under the jurisdiction of the eastern orthodox church, which still uses it, or else the authority of the roman emperor, the lineage of the afore mentioned Julius, who first promulgated it.

[notorial dissent]

These people truly are ignorant noobs. The middle name, at least in some cultures and families usually refers to the father. A baptismal name is just that, a baptismal name, and is usually only used the once, and it certainly isn't a part of the regular name. Total gullible ignorant tools.

[rumpelstilzchen]

In English law there is no concept of a middle name. You have a first name and a surname. If you are called "Fred John Smith" then strictly speaking your first name is "Fred John". So whoever wrote that gibberish about using your middle name is wrong. It won't make any difference.
Incidentally there is no law in England and Wales that states you must have a name. There is no legal requirement to provide a name for the child when registering a birth. The law, however, will assume that you do have a name. The case law on the subject has ruled that an individual's name is the name that they are generally called and known by.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The case law on the subject has ruled that an individual's name is the name that they are generally called and known by.

But won't that cause confusion amongst all the SovCits when someone calls out "Twat"?

[notorial dissent]

Like that would be a change from their normal state of existence????

[aesmith]

Anyone make head or tail of their ramblings about it being fraudulent for a company to use a PO box, and/or fraudulent to make the letter Private and Confidential? Question, is it illegal for a debt collection company to use a PO BOX?

Although someone seems to have spotted a flaw ..

Martin Wolsten
I called Royal Mail yesterday to clarify. They told me It's not fraud as when a company registers for a PO BOX address, they have to register all there contact details with Royal Mail. How can I report all these companies to the fraud office if Royal Mail are basically saying that they have all the companies details on record?

[longdog]

Anyone make head or tail of their ramblings about it being fraudulent for a company to use a PO box, and/or fraudulent to make the letter Private and Confidential? Question, is it illegal for a debt collection company to use a PO BOX?

Although someone seems to have spotted a flaw ..

Martin Wolsten
I called Royal Mail yesterday to clarify. They told me It's not fraud as when a company registers for a PO BOX address, they have to register all there contact details with Royal Mail. How can I report all these companies to the fraud office if Royal Mail are basically saying that they have all the companies details on record?

The good Mr Wolsten is clearly wrong is clearly a case where US law applies in the UK in much the same way as the Universal Criminal Code (UCC).

Steven Colley

P.O BOX is not a physical address. You can NOT form a contract using this. They may have their office address on main letter but the key is to not open the letter and return to sender (mail fraud. Title 18 1341 frauds and swindles. Also fraud act 2006 sec 11 I believe and few others just have a look. ( remember that the universal postal service falls under federal law and it doesn't matter if it's in the uk. Just look at embassies as that example. good luck

[aesmith]

Also on that inexpert in any legal matter web site there's a story about alleged mortgage fraud. He's posted up documents and some sort of blurb, as far as I can make out his issues are (1) that the mortgage contract contained a power of attorney, which is fraudulent because ... well he doesn't really say, and (2) because although the property name is clearly stated on the deed there is a typo in the street address following.

http://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/mortgage-fraud

OK this is taking shape now, his client apparently bought Glenview Farmhouse, which is also referred to as 17A Pentewan Road, ST. AUSTELL. There's a typo in the mortgage deed, giving the address as 17 Pentewan Road. The title as registered with the Land Registry is correct. However they've decided that they must also own No.17, and are trying to evict their neighbour. Court date set for 4th July .. http://expertinalllegalmatters.com/possession-order

[longdog]

This will end badly. If they think the court is going to give them possession of a property due to a clerical error they are several stops past deluded.

[Siegfried Shrink]

My untrained mind says they have no hope of success and an order for costs coming their way.

For the claimant, a minor clerical error in the paperwork.

For the defendant, they will have evidence of purchase and conveyance of the property, evidence of taxes and bills paid, and presumably a land registry entry. The claimant will be unable to show any evidence of actually paying for no 17 as they did not do so.

Anyone, even an untrained mind like mine, who thought this was anything but a way of throwing away money and gaining the profound disapproval of the folks next door must be deluded or have some ulterior motive.

I suspect there may have been a party wall application (see the claim "we removed the stuff touching our wall" (paraphrased) that was probably ignored by 17a and not mentioned.

If this lasts ten minutes and results in anything but dismissal with an order to pay costs I will be astonished. The only thing that could drag it out is some timewasting gibberish of a quasi-legal nature from the applicant.

[AndyPandy]

My untrained mind says they have no hope of success and an order for costs coming their way.

For the claimant, a minor clerical error in the paperwork.

For the defendant, they will have evidence of purchase and conveyance of the property, evidence of taxes and bills paid, and presumably a land registry entry. The claimant will be unable to show any evidence of actually paying for no 17 as they did not do so.

Anyone, even an untrained mind like mine, who thought this was anything but a way of throwing away money and gaining the profound disapproval of the folks next door must be deluded or have some ulterior motive.

I suspect there may have been a party wall application (see the claim "we removed the stuff touching our wall" (paraphrased) that was probably ignored by 17a and not mentioned.

If this lasts ten minutes and results in anything but dismissal with an order to pay costs I will be astonished. The only thing that could drag it out is some timewasting gibberish of a quasi-legal nature from the applicant.

I've literally got my head in my hands, stupid, stupid woman, this is going to cost her a fortune in costs, it's got to be struck out as an abuse of the Court Process and being totally without merit.

I CANNOT believe this idiot has set her along this track !!

[notorial dissent]

True, as far as I can see this is just a particularly expensive way to throw money away with both hands. They will be lucky if the people who actually own 17 don't file a counter suit for damages and slander of title and this idiot could well end up losing not only the suit but the property as well. This woman is an idiot and this is going to end VERY badly for her. I have a feeling she's going to end up in the same position that Rekha Patel did when she lost her house because of her stupid legal antics. This will have cost the neighbors a good deal of money and they should be entitled to recover all of it. Stupid woman doesn't seem to get that it is the title deed not the mortgage deed that determines what property she owns.

In the US we have what is called an "errors and omissions" clause that allows for corrections of just such typos. Basically no harm no foul and it isn't an option on either side if such occurs.

[Hercule Parrot]

OK this is taking shape now, his client apparently bought Glenview Farmhouse, which is also referred to as 17A Pentewan Road, ST. AUSTELL. There's a typo in the mortgage deed, giving the address as 17 Pentewan Road. The title as registered with the Land Registry is correct. However they've decided that they must also own No.17, and are trying to evict their neighbour. Court date set for 4th July .. http://expertinalllegalmatters.com/possession-order

Wow - trying to take advantage of a clerical error to steal another family's home. So honourable...