Correct The Unlawful Legal System - they're just a bunch of CTULS

[The Observer]

Please correct me if I am wrong, ...

I've always assumed the American lien on a property is similar to what's called a charge in the UK. This is a device employed by lenders to ensure that any loan secured on a property has to be repaid before the property can be sold or any new loan secured on it. A note is placed on the Land Registry entry for the property, which in this digital age is as close to a deed as you can have, to advise any potential purchaser or lender that a third party has a claim on it and prevents a transfer of ownership until that obligation is dishcharged. I could be wrong here but I'm absolutely certain that these unilateral leins issued by the sovcit nutjob brigade are as illusory and insubstantial as everything else they believe gives them rights over those they disagree with.

Yes, they seem to function similarly, despite the names being different. The whole purpose of the lien or charge is to protect the secured party who is owed money by the owner of the property being encumbered. By recording the lien/charge in a public setting (in the States this is usually done at the county recorder's office or a state court, depending on the law of the state where the property is located) the creditor can go back into court and and request enforcement of the lien should the debtor fail to satisfy their debt - even if the property had been transferred or sold to another 3rd party.

In any of those cases, there must be a valid, legally enforceable debt in order to legally file a lien.

I haven't kept up with recent changes to local law, but at one point there was no legal requirement that the debt had to be valid and recognized as legal. This is why tax protesters here in the US started filing phony liens against anyone who had ruined their day. Judges, IRS employees, law enforcement officers, and anyone else who was not in agreement with the idiot filer's interpretation of the law could find their credit report and reputation immediately hammered. The recorder's offices didn't have any requirement to validate what was submitted for recordation as being legal or valid. If the document held itself out to be a lien or judgment and the filer paid over the required filing fee, it got recorded. It was up to the person being targeted to try to sort out the problem by getting a court to order the document removed. The whole point of these fraudulent filings was to harass and complicate the financial lives of the protester's target. I think most protesters understood that this was the intended purpose; I can't recall hearing of any who actually tried to go into court and enforce collection (though there was probably a couple of cases here and there where the tax denier's IQ permitted them to attempt that route).

[mufc1959]

One of the oldest pieces of legislation still on the statute book in England is the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. Rarely used today, if a Writ of Habeas Corpus is issued, a judge will decide whether someone held in custody is being detained unlawfully. It's largely been superseded by more modern legislation, but still remains 'live'.

As we know, the devotees of Baron von Trampbeard do not believe that statutes or legislation apply to them, because the 'Baron David Ward Affidavit' - 64 pages of mis-spelled word salad garbage - negated every single law ever passed.

Notwithstanding, one of our intrepid CTULS is conveniently ignoring this and has issued a 'writ' (in fact not a writ at all) of Habeas Corpus (using an Act of Parliament new to me, called the WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ACT) against the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police. It's for the unlawful detention of ... (checks notes) ... a car.

[The Observer]

It's for the unlawful detention of ... (checks notes) ... a car.

Then I am guessing that the CTULer should have issued a writ of habeas currum.

[John Uskglass]

I like the fact that the missive concludes with an end note that says 'No Errors or omissions excepted'.

Though it would be better if it said 'Errors and omissions expected'.

[mufc1959]

High five to Dave Thomas at Torbay Borough Council.

[SpearGrass]

the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. Rarely used today

It's not common but it is regular. There are two uses:
1. Pseudo-legals with their usual magpie approach to the law. Brian Pead, one of the criminals supported by Sabine MacNeill of Hoaxtead fame, tried it when remanded in custody after breaching his bail conditions: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /1569.html (he was using the peadonym Freeman at the time).
2. But it is sometimes used where normal routes of appeal against detention in custody don't work. A good example is the recent case of Niagui https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /2911.html, where the defendant was released by the court (so there were no grounds of appeal) but the escort and prison services didn't let him go as they had no confirmation that he wasn't liable to detention or arrest under some other power. Such a check is standard practice, but the check is meant to take about half an hour, not more than 3 days, as it did here.

[mufc1959]

Actions have consequences - who knew?



In the comments, it turns out she probably can get insurance, but will have to pay the full amount upfront - she just won't be able to pay it in instalments. But there is a solution - once she's served her 'perfected lien' on Cabot, the CCJ will evaporate! In the meantime, the sound advice she's getting is to not declare the CCJ anyway (thus, of course, providing false information and, once discovered, immediately invalidating her insurance - which will mean that she definitely won't be able to get insured after that as she'll be flagged on the insurers' database).

[Burnaby49]

What's a CCJ?

[Albert Haddock]

What's a CCJ?

County Court Judgment.

https://www.gov.uk/county-court-judgments-ccj-for-debt

Records of judgments are kept for 6 years unless you pay the full amount within a month - this can make it hard to get credit.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks. That clears it up for me. She stiffed her insurer who then got a judgment against her. Now she's aghast, SHOCKED, that this means other insurers won't let her cheat them too. it's a hard cruel world.

[hucknallred]

Thanks. That clears it up for me. She stiffed her insurer who then got a judgment against her. Now she's aghast, SHOCKED, that this means other insurers won't let her cheat them too. it's a hard cruel world.

I don't think she'll have stiffed her previous insurer. I had a skim of this tread on FB, she's followed the usual crackpot advice, probably for energy & got the CCJ which she's been told not to worry about.
Insurers don't ask if you have a CCJ when you apply, but they do check your credit file through the various agencies in order to quote for instalments.
Simon Goldberg has a video where a viewer 'writes in' to ask if her insurance is still valid if she stops paying the instalments, he says it's fine when it really isn't. With Police cars fitted with modern ANPR, no insurance will soon have your car towed.

There is another staggering FB group called Debt-Ninjas, the admin has even written a book which is on Amazon, it advises getting as many credit cards as possible, maxing them out & then stop repayments. May have to start a thread on that one.

[Burnaby49]

There is another staggering FB group called Debt-Ninjas, the admin has even written a book which is on Amazon, it advises getting as many credit cards as possible, maxing them out & then stop repayments. May have to start a thread on that one.

I've got one credit card, Visa, which I've had for about about 50 years. I never spend anywhere near my maximum and always pay out my monthly balance. This actually worked against me when my wife, for no reason I understood, wanted us to both get Master Cards. Something to do with our Costco account. Master Card refused to issue us cards and wouldn't explain why except to say that it was because of our credit reports. I said fuck them, I didn't care why I was refused since I didn't want their card but my wife got very worked up about it. She thought her credit report must be riddled with negative comments so she went to the effort of getting a copy. As I expected, it was spotless, no negatives at all. I told her that was why she was refused. Master Card makes their money from the obscene interest they charge on the unpaid monthly balance carried forward and she'd never had one. On that basis Debt-Ninjas, going to the maximum allowed limit and never paying off, would be perfect Master Card customers.

[Philistine]

There is another staggering FB group called Debt-Ninjas, the admin has even written a book which is on Amazon, it advises getting as many credit cards as possible, maxing them out & then stop repayments. May have to start a thread on that one.

I've got one credit card, Visa, which I've had for about about 50 years. I never spend anywhere near my maximum and always pay out my monthly balance. This actually worked against me when my wife, for no reason I understood, wanted us to both get Master Cards. Something to do with our Costco account. Master Card refused to issue us cards and wouldn't explain why except to say that it was because of our credit reports. I said fuck them, I didn't care why I was refused since I didn't want their card but my wife got very worked up about it. She thought her credit report must be riddled with negative comments so she went to the effort of getting a copy. As I expected, it was spotless, no negatives at all. I told her that was why she was refused. Master Card makes their money from the obscene interest they charge on the unpaid monthly balance carried forward and she'd never had one. On that basis Debt-Ninjas, going to the maximum allowed limit and never paying off, would be perfect Master Card customers.

This is probably because you don't owe any money.
I pretty sure you've paid off your mortgage and, as you stated, you only have the one credit card.
If you took out a line of credit against the equity on the house in Burnaby (HELOC), the credit card companies would
be lined up to lend you money.

[hucknallred]

I don't owe anyone a bean, had a mortgage until 2010.
I always use credit cards to my advantage, either with cashback or other offers.
I've now started doing the forgotten art of Stoozing as interest rates have soared.
Take a card with a long 0% introductory offer, do all your spending on it, pay the minimum monthly payment and keep the money in savings earning interest.
Clear the card when the offer ends and repeat.

[Burnaby49]

If you took out a line of credit against the equity on the house in Burnaby (HELOC), the credit card companies would be lined up to lend you money.

We actually did that once, again the wife's idea. She thought we should have immediate access to credit 'just in case'. However the idea bothered me and after a few years of it sitting unused I cancelled it. I suppose that was our golden moment to load up on credit cards.

We paid off our mortgage in 1984. Not as difficult as it might seem. Back then, by current standards, houses were almost free.

[The Observer]

This actually worked against me when my wife, for no reason I understood, wanted us to both get Master Cards. Something to do with our Costco account.

Costco requires couples who have a joint membership to each get the credit card that is provided by Mastercard. I think your wife was looking at the incentive of getting the cashback award for purchases charged to the cards. Of course, the fact that you, like me, don't have a huge number of credit cards makes you persona non grata with the CCCs. I understand and agree with the reasons you have for not applying for cards with excessive APRs, high annual fees, and selling your name and info to every other lender in the world.

I have 2 or 3 cards at this time and none of them cost me a penny. None of them are from Discover who apparently got very upset with me. I only realized this happened when I needed to rent a car in an emergency situation and the rental agent advised me that the card was not being accepted. When I called Discover, they advised that they had cancelled the card because I had not used it. I told them that was fine, since I would not ever apply for a card with them in the future. I guess they didn't believe me, since I get a mailing from them almost every week inviting me to apply for a card. I just smile at the realization that they are spending wasting money trying to get me to take a card. Of course I pay a cost as well; my wife, who has a number of cards in her name, always has a higher credit rating than I do and she is granted a higher credit limit as well. But the bottom line is that I have always been approved for any loan that I have applied for through a bank.

[Burnaby49]

Of course I pay a cost as well; my wife, who has a number of cards in her name, always has a higher credit rating than I do and she is granted a higher credit limit as well. But the bottom line is that I have always been approved for any loan that I have applied for through a bank.

I can't agree it's a cost if it doesn't affect your ability to borrow from a bank if necessary. I don't doubt that if I needed a bank loan I'd easily get one notwithstanding Mastercard's rejection.

I told them that was fine, since I would not ever apply for a card with them in the future. I guess they didn't believe me, since I get a mailing from them almost every week inviting me to apply for a card.

Although Mastercard rejected me I'm besieged with offers in the mail to apply for one.

You're probably right about the reason wife wanted a Mastercard, I vaguely remember something about Costco cashbacks.

[guiltybystander]

Stumbled upon these guys yesterday and had to join here because no one in my life understands the rabbit hole I've gone down here. This sequence was peak cult-mindset for me:





When I first saw all these people regurgitate this stuff from this Ward fellow, I wondered where the great man himself was in all this, but I guess he died ignobly some time after losing his house, and now his loyal disciples spread the word.

I wondered why anyone would believe this stuff. It's patently absurd, right? But looking at the main proponents, they share all the typical conspiracy-theories: chemtrail plandemic fluoride etc etc. I don't want to make sweeping assumptions but something has caused their critical thinking skills to atrophy...

[longdog]

I wondered why anyone would believe this stuff. It's patently absurd, right? But looking at the main proponents, they share all the typical conspiracy-theories: chemtrail plandemic fluoride etc etc. I don't want to make sweeping assumptions but something has caused their critical thinking skills to atrophy...

If you are thinking, as I assume you are, it's due to an inability to say "That's enough cannabis for today thank you" then you're probably right. There's definitely a correlation between excessive cannabis consumption and crackpot beliefs.

[guiltybystander]

That was precisely what I was insinuating. Perfect storm of opening your mind so much that any passing narrative can tumble in, longterm weed-induced paranoia, and consuming a media diet from an alternative reality of conspiracy videos and memes. I see it all the time, but I've yet to find any good research on it.