Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Lowell threatening me Again !!
by barnwebb Today at 6:43 pm

» Latest from CrimeBodge
by daveiron Today at 5:19 pm

» Real Begging
by LionsShare Today at 5:05 pm

» List of the lord lieutenants of the United Kingdom
by El E Mentary Today at 4:24 pm

» Litter fines set to QUADRUPLE: Rubbish louts now face £150 on the spot penalty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olkdZeBWOhc
by daveiron Today at 3:10 pm

» Cookies Show and Related Topics.
by Society of the Spectacle Today at 2:44 pm

» More Recycling
by assassin Today at 3:39 am

» Stop The Debt Threat Letters
by Mrblue2017 Yesterday at 11:44 pm

» Brown all CAPS window letter with "Defendant" visible!
by waylander62 Yesterday at 10:21 pm

» Intrum Finance letter advice please.
by Ithesoul Yesterday at 9:32 pm

» sol excalibre with cookiemonster
by Society of the Spectacle Yesterday at 8:02 pm

» Robinson Way
by Killuminati Yesterday at 1:10 pm

» stupid thing
by Ausk Yesterday at 12:08 pm

» Dam funny
by assassin Yesterday at 2:17 am

» Funny Old World
by Phillpots Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:03 pm

» List of shrievalties
by Phillpots Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:01 pm

» Transcash - the death of
by LionsShare Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:45 pm

» 3 letter process
by Mrblue2017 Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:43 pm

» Warning To Site Members On Benefits
by assassin Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:13 am

» R.N.
by eargoggles Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:48 pm

» ceo of banks
by Mrblue2017 Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:25 pm

» Hiv talk ( lots of immune supporting info in this ) slides and 200 references, with quoted research and links
by Theatchet Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:25 pm

» Bladder cancer talk, slides with references, with quoted research and links
by Theatchet Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:23 pm

» Lung cancer talk, slides and references, with quoted research and links
by Theatchet Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:21 pm

» Reality chat , every wednesday at 8pm (ish)
by Society of the Spectacle Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:18 pm

» Prostate/ Prostate cancer talk, slides and references ( must watch ) with quoted research and links
by Theatchet Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:16 pm

» Breast cancer talk, slides and references for the talk, with quoted research and links
by Theatchet Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:13 pm

» Alzheimers and Dementia Talk, with all the slides and references, with quoted research and links
by Theatchet Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:10 pm

» Durham Police Get Back What They Dish Out
by assassin Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:10 pm

» France Yellow Vests Gilet Juanes,
by Society of the Spectacle Wed Dec 05, 2018 3:59 pm

» Difficulty paying default loan
by Mrblue2017 Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:45 am

» An appeal from 'The armchair detective'
by assassin Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:51 am

» HMRC INCOME TAX
by LionsShare Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:24 pm

» remedy for P.C.N/COUNCIL TAX
by Keithatlm Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:03 pm

» Wildfires
by mitch Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:15 pm

» Dire Consequences Of Debt
by Ausk Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:47 am

» A New Turn
by assassin Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:25 am

» Drydens Fairfax
by Keithatlm Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:46 pm

» WARNING Don't Get Gas Lit By The Democracy's Of The World
by Lopsum Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:11 pm

» One less piece of detritus
by daveiron Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:50 pm

» Universal Maxims of Law
by Society of the Spectacle Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:31 pm

» E on Lowells advice
by ohthejoys Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:49 pm

» The full judgement of Lord Denning et al
by Kestrel Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:42 pm

» Getting copies of default notices
by Mrblue2017 Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:12 pm

» Justinian Deception Channel ( Romley Stewart)
by Ausk Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:29 am

» buying gold
by Ausk Sat Dec 01, 2018 7:14 am

» Debt collector immediately ceases collection attempts after one call
by barnwebb Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:32 pm

Moon phases


Counter Claims

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Tiggy on Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:49 pm

Appeals are for points of law in the Judgement handed down. If you believe the Court is working outside it's jurisdiction (ie in breach of the County Courts Act) then you either apply for a Judicial Review or you apply to set aside the order as being void, you wouldn't appeal it, that's completely the wrong procedure.

Can someone please point out to me where in the County Courts Act (or any of the Courts Acts) that a Judge needs to have a bond etc.

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by sirus0 on Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:11 pm

@Jinxer wrote:I would stick my neck out and say anyone who has asked for them things gets a very rude reply. I'm not saying it wouldn't work cause I wouldn't have a clue, but would be very interested in hearing from anyone who done this.

I would prefer very rude reply than having my house stolen by the pirates that are on board of the vessel in dry dock (court-room).
Did anyone tried to withdraw their implied consent to be judged in that court? Can we ask for a trial by jury in common law court?
When they quote Acts and Statutes of parliament, should we ask for a valid material evidence of a consent of the governed???!!!!
Acts and statutes are not law without our consent!!!!!
Most of these courts are just private corporations - that's why they don't like difficult questions!!! Smile

Good luck with it! You have to be asking questions all the time - then you are as-King - a sovereign man. Smile

sirus0
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 51
Join date : 2017-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Ausk on Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:05 am

One thing Ive learned about the law so far is that each and every law must contain a remedy. One needs to look trough the law to find the remedy, find other related laws that apply to the subject matter and look for ways of using their system back against them.

When in their court one might be better off learning how to play them at their own game. On one radio show a truck driver who was interviewed by the radio show said a good place to start is the definitions in a statute. as this is essential, easy to do and very educational.



Ausk
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 443
Join date : 2017-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by sirus0 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:58 pm

["Statute: A legislative rule given force of Law by the consent of the governed.

We note the material evidence that the office of the Police is in the Executive Office of the State Company -it is published by the office of the police in the form of the 5000 deaths in police custody with no fault found. Clearly this is also valid material evidence to the fact that there is no such thing as Law. Who can create Law and impose that law upon another by an act of force? Clearly this would be a belligerent act of terrorism. This also denotes the fact that before there can be law then the law HAS to be formally agreed upon as to what the law is and that there is formal and presentable material evidence formally on record as to who has agreed to what law is. Where there is no formal evidence as to who has agreed as to what the law is then formally there can be NO SUCH THING AS LAW. Law is a Belief. A Belief is a concept in the abstract which is of no material substance or merit by definition. Where is the validated material evidence that the circa 64.2 million people have formally agreed as to what the law is and there is valid and formally agreed and signed material evidence of that fact?
A Statute [or Act of parliament] is not a Law. Clearly the two words are not the same. It is not possible to make apple pie out of bananas. That would be banana pie. What is a Statute [or Act]?
We points out the fact that there is a clear conflict of interest where there is a claim being made under an Act or Statute by an officer of government State office that an officer of the Judiciary or Judge carries an obligation to the State office to find in favor of the State office as a Court official is an officer of the State Company’s Judiciary office and as there is a conflict of interest then any findings of a State Company Court officer or Judge IS VOID BY DEFAULT. [!!!!]

Any act of force used as a result of the judiciary findings is also therefore a recognised and willful act of terrorism by default.

It is also definitively clear and the definitive factual material evidence has been presented that a Judge or officer of the State Company Court in a sub office of the State Company carries no greater authority than the Janitor at McDonalds company outside of his/her jurisdiction.

Don't give them jurisdiction in their cartoon Muppet/puppet court (full of actors only!!). That's why bonds and oath of office is so important!!!!!

We note that BEFORE John Smith, can receive dental treatment at the Dentist, THEN John Smith will have formally signed in wet ink a consent form. Formally giving the Dentist formal legal consent by way of a signed document and that signed document is the mandatory requirement before any dental treatment can be performed and that that formal signing of a formally signed consent in full knowledge and understanding is the valid material evidence that the consent has been given to the dentist.

Where there is no valid material evidence that the governed have given their consent THEN the legislative rule CANNOT be given force or acted upon. To do so would be a willful and belligerent act of terrorism.

64.2 million People of this land have no formal obligations under the Act’s and Statutes. Any such claim is fraudulent in nature which is fraud by misrepresentation and a known criminal offence that is chargeable. Any act of force given is also a recognised willful and belligerent act of terrorism by default.

Who is going to sort this mess out?
There are thousands of court hearing across this land on a daily bases, in all of which there is a conflict of interest and a vexatious and fraudulent claim being made under an Act or Statute of Parliament by an officer of the State/Company. If there is an act of force implemented then there is a wilful and belligerent act of terrorism by default.

This is not rocket science or complicated.
What is outside of the State Company Jurisdiction?

All of the Act’s and Statutes and all of the circa 64.2 million people of this land.
Any claim made by an officer of the State is therefore fraudulent by default and a recognised wilful fraud by misrepresentation and a known criminal offence that is chargeable.
Any act of force is therefore a wilful and belligerent act of terrorism by default.

Who is going to sort this mess out and carries the obligation and authority to do so in the office of the State Company?
That would be the office of the Police FORCE.
The Police force carries the obligation of service within the State Company to prevent crime or fraud and also carries an obligation to suppress a wilful and belligerent act of terrorism under the office of the Police FORCE Jurisdiction. This would be inclusive of the office of the judiciary which is clearly a sub office of the same State/Company office and that fact has been attested to by the Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA at the Nottingham and Trent Law University in 2008.

What is it that falls under that office of the Police FORCE Jurisdiction?
That would be any ministerial office of government. eg: DWP, DVLA, and Needless to say that the list is extensive. This would extend to any company which is regulated or licensed directly or indirectly from the office of HM Parliaments and Governments. This would be inclusive of but not limited to:- Water authorities, OFCOM, OFGEN, FCA, Solicitors offices, Civil Enforcement Officers, Bailiff companies, Debt collection third party companies, Banks. This is another extensive list of jurisdiction that falls under the jurisdiction of the office of the police FORCE and where the office of the police FORCE carries an obligation to prevent crime and fraud and to suppress any applied force or wilful and belligerent act of terrorism from within the office of the State Company HM Parliaments and Governments.

There is a secretary of State and it has been confirmed by the esteemed Chandran Kukathas PHD of the London School of Economics that a State is a corporation or company and by default as a corporation or company then the State Company carries no greater authority than the Janitor at McDonalds outside of the McDonalds Company Jurisdiction or company policy. "]


" Please use this information wisely if you agree and comprehend what is being said here. Please read it few times before making any daft comments! Open your eyes - let this info sink in to you, digest it and use it against your oppressors!!!!"

They give us clues all the time in many places - we just need to see them! Very Happy



Money creation in the modern economy - Bank of England.

Ask them who was creditor on the first place??!!! - your signature created the money/credit !!

Good luck boys and girls!!!

["That should be enough ammo for your guns!! Wink Very Happy"]

sirus0
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 51
Join date : 2017-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:48 pm

Hi sirus0

Another good post. Thanks.

Cheers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Jinxer on Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:13 pm

It's a good read and maybe good advice if you ain't got a pot to pee in, but if you have any sort of assets at all then they have you by the short and curlies. Maggie knew exactly what she was doing in the 80's when she made it so easy to buy an house, once you own anything the hard part then is keeping hold of what you own.

Jinxer
Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 436
Join date : 2017-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:43 pm

Hi Jinxer

Quite right, the milk-snatcher knew exactly what she was doing. It was a land grab from the start. She did it at behest of the banksters so they could get property for nothing - quick rise of interest rates later and hey-presto the banks have land that they would not be allowed to buy before the right-to-buy legislation.

i see what you mean about it being easier if you have nothing material to lose, and i concur. However we are talking about 'fear' here, and one needs to lose it even more if one is a 'have' rather than a 'have-not', wouldn't you agree?

Cheers!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by kingkotton on Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:41 am

Hi People,

So just a quick one coming back to the title of this thread and what was briefly mentioned at the top. According to this document on Training Legal Persons in Defence & Counterclaiming available to read Here, in part 4 (1b) it describes;

"(1) In his defence, the defendant must state (b) which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove;"

This would seem to me the most appropriate response to all the particulars of claim made should you be seeking to counter the entire claim, and specifically in the event that the claim is not valid because material evidence required to prove it was not forthcoming, and that by this failure an agreement is therefore made that the claimant has no right of claim.

So now to filing counterclaim. I have read conflicting advice. Those who favour doing as the process wants you to would follow the guidance to enter your counterclaim with the defence as part of N9B form return.

Others who treat these shenanigans as commerce suggest filing a completely separate claim that doesn't mention the particulars of the case they have begun, but for which the failure of the claimant to provide evidence, including that of which Crown they represent, the proven right of claim, and that they have done so under right jurisdiction, forms the basis for a separate claim citing fraud, harassment and seeking punitive damages.

Opinions?

Cheers
avatar
kingkotton
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 13
Join date : 2017-10-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by assassin on Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:25 am

Can someone please point out to me where in the County Courts Act (or any of the Courts Acts) that a Judge needs to have a bond etc.

Magistrates have to be bonded and they work for free and have to pay their own bond.

Judges do have a bond, but unlike magistrates they dont pay it as it comes as a part of their job and the employer pays it, this is why you cannot sue a judge, you have to sue the company.
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1663
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Guest on Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:49 pm

Hi guys

kingkotton - thanks for the link.

i'm not sure that making ANY claims is a good idea, due to things i have read and seen here and elsewhere. Always the chance it can be deemed (spuriously) to be without merit and dismissed leaving you to pay costs.

At the moment i would say commercial conditional acceptance is the way to go, you aren't making any claims doing that - you (as you mention) are merely performing due diligence in ascertaining they have a right to bring claim against you. (And it works!) Using private administrative process should ensure never having to enter a court building.

The 4 (1) (b) extract is referring to (imo) your right to question T.H.E.I.R. authority - the only allegations one is unable to claim or deny are the ones that aren't made openly, they are talking about the 12 presumptions of court.

Again though - just my opinion.

assassin - are you sure mags don't get paid? Also they are now (since 2008 according to Steve Mccrae, when the mags courts apparently ceased trading), judges and mags alike, SELF-bonded. As in they write a promissory note type bond - they don't 'pay' any premiums....

Of course i may be wrong about that.....

Cheers!


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Ausk on Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:30 am

With Tiggys advice in mind, about counter claims, perhaps it may be better to simply make application to the court for costs if we win or they file a Notice of Discontinuance in court. Once either happens we are good to go without risk.

This is happening a lot now in auz regarding speeding and parking fines where the prosecution or plaintiff folds mid trial or loses.

Some have been awarded costs which include stationary, writing implements, fares and eats and drinks, in addition to other 'standard' costs.


Ausk
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 443
Join date : 2017-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Tiggy on Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:30 pm

@assassin wrote:
Can someone please point out to me where in the County Courts Act (or any of the Courts Acts) that a Judge needs to have a bond etc.

Judges do have a bond, but unlike magistrates they dont pay it as it comes as a part of their job and the employer pays it, this is why you cannot sue a judge, you have to sue the company.

But where does this come from? To be able to use something successfully in Court you need to reference either a case law or an actual statute / statutory instrument and I can see nothing in any of the various Court Acts that says that a Judge has to have a bond.

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by assassin on Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:29 am

They never advertise it but it is a requirement of the position and is simply insurance with premiums.
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1663
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by assassin on Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:14 am

When you take up a position of magistrate, court clerk, or other position where you are in a position to make judgements you have to have some form of insurance, in the case of a magistrate or clerk they are the ones who make decisions and have to have some form of insurance.

Surety or security bonds are this insurance and if a magistrate or clerk makes an incorrect decision and causes a loss the claimant/defendant has the right to appeal, if this goes to the High Court and they overturn the magistrates decision you/they automatically claim against the magistrates bond which is either the surety or security bond. Without them they cannot take on the role or position of magistrate or clerk to the justices.

Other people also have to carry a bond or security/surety insurance and one is the bailiff or enforcement officer who has to prove he has assets or deposits to the value of £10,000 to cover him/her against claims against them.

Many people in public service such as many council employees at a senior level, politicians, and many public servants in the civil service also have to carry them.

We can liken it to a public company having to have public liability insurance.

Where a court is concerned it has to be both public and private insurance as magistrates act under both public and private law and their bond reflects this, as does the value of a bond.
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1663
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Tiggy on Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:06 am

@assassin wrote:They never advertise it but it is a requirement of the position and is simply insurance with premiums.

So if they don't advertise it where did you get your understanding from? Where does it come from that there is a requirement to take out insurance? Without written evidence this is just hearsay.

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by handle on Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:15 pm

I would have thought they would need some sort of PI/public liability insurance

handle
dedicated
dedicated

Posts : 557
Join date : 2017-04-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Tiggy on Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:31 pm

@handle wrote:I would have thought they would need some sort of PI/public liability insurance
All public buildings have public liability insurance, what I'm trying to get to is this bond business and for the specific statutory requirement for a Judge to have it.

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by assassin on Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:57 pm

So if they don't advertise it where did you get your understanding from? Where does it come from that there is a requirement to take out insurance? Without written evidence this is just hearsay.
No it isn't, try asking a magistrate or a judge and they will tell you, try looking at the major insurers such as ICB group or Chubb and you will see they provide insurance for magistrates and court clerks, or you could be really radical and show interest in becoming a magistrate and simply ask the question directly as they will answer them.
You could look at the divisions within the system and see that the Office of the Public Guardian advertise their own scheme using a preferred bond provider at a discounted rate.

You could look at the High Court suppliers list and note which insurer provides their insurance for them and it tells you that High Court judges bonds come as a part of their employment package, and unlike magistrates and magistrates clerks they dont pay for theirs.

You could be really radical and submit a FOI request and they give you this information.

All public buildings have public liability insurance, what I'm trying to get to is this bond business and for the specific statutory requirement for a Judge to have it.

Apply a little common sense here, if it is included in their employment package and is paid for by their employer, why would the High Court pay for it if it isn't needed, and why would they state that it is a requirement of the job to have it before they can be appointed?
avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1663
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Dge

Post by Tiggy on Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:51 pm

@assassin wrote:
So if they don't advertise it where did you get your understanding from? Where does it come from that there is a requirement to take out insurance? Without written evidence this is just hearsay.
No it isn't, try asking a magistrate or a judge and they will tell you, try looking at the major insurers such as ICB group or Chubb and you will see they provide insurance for magistrates and court clerks, or you could be really radical and show interest in becoming a magistrate and simply ask the question directly as they will answer them.
You could look at the divisions within the system and see that the Office of the Public Guardian advertise their own scheme using a preferred bond provider at a discounted rate.

You could look at the High Court suppliers list and note which insurer provides their insurance for them and it tells you that High Court judges bonds come as a part of their employment package, and unlike magistrates and magistrates clerks they dont pay for theirs.

You could be really radical and submit a FOI request and they give you this information.

All public buildings have public liability insurance, what I'm trying to get to is this bond business and for the specific statutory requirement for a Judge to have it.

Apply a little common sense here, if it is included in their employment package and is paid for by their employer, why would the High Court pay for it if it isn't needed, and why would they state that it is a requirement of the job to have it before they can be appointed?

So basically, you're saying it's included in a Judge's contract of employment paid for by the employer which is the Ministry of Justice in a form of group cover, not paid for and taken out by individual Judges.  

So why would you ask a Judge if he has a bond if it's part of his contract, how does this possibly help get a Judgement overturned on appeal?

Tiggy
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 640
Join date : 2017-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Jinxer on Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:06 pm

I know Barrister's take out their own individual insurance as at one time most Barrister's were self employed and responsible to insure themselves, not that this has helped the understanding of whether a Judge has a bond or not or who pay's for it and even how asking for his bond would help in a case. I suppose it's a bit like asking a copper if he's under his oath, he will say yes and then still issue you with a speeding ticket or whatever.
I was always led to believe (well was told by a Judge once) that common sense doesn't apply in law as your common sense will be different to mine which will be different to someone else's. If it's not written down and check-able then it don't count.

Jinxer
Very helpful
Very helpful

Posts : 436
Join date : 2017-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by assassin on Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:18 am

So basically, you're saying it's included in a Judge's contract of employment paid for by the employer which is the Ministry of Justice in a form of group cover, not paid for and taken out by individual Judges.

So why would you ask a Judge if he has a bond if it's part of his contract, how does this possibly help get a Judgement overturned on appeal?

No, that is not what I said, what has been consistently said is that a magistrate or magistrates clerk, and others in the magistrates court who have liability have to pay their own bonds.

Judges in the High Court have their bond paid for by their employer which is something different, they still have the individual bond in their individual name, and with their individually numbered bond, but instead of paying out of their own pockets their employer pays for it.

Who mentioned anything about appeals?

To operate as a magistrate or a judge you have to have this form of insurance against liability and for a judge it is paid for as part of their employment package so every judge is fully insured; for a magistrate it is their responsibility to ensure they are insured and pay any premiums due, this is their liability bond.

I know Barrister's take out their own individual insurance as at one time most Barrister's were self employed and responsible to insure themselves, not that this has helped the understanding of whether a Judge has a bond or not or who pay's for it and even how asking for his bond would help in a case. I suppose it's a bit like asking a copper if he's under his oath, he will say yes and then still issue you with a speeding ticket or whatever.

You have to make a decision Jinxer, you know they are all insured through a bond and asking serves two purposes.
Which question you ask appears to be the key here as one often asked is for them to provide details of their bond, which in my opinion serves no purpose as they don't carry them around with them.
You can merely ask if they are bonded which is sufficient to draw conclusions from, if they answer NO then you know they are lying; while if they answer YES you know they are telling the truth, this also tells them that you know what you are talking about and that you know you have something you can claim against which often makes them act differently.

Its an individual thing as far as I am concerned.

There is a pecking order in law and the magistrates are the lowest, a crown court can overturn a magistrates court judgement, similarly, a High Court can overturn both their judgements, similarly, a Supreme Court can overturn all of them and that is as far as you can normally go within the UK; but, the European courts can overturn them all, hence why they all have bonds.

avatar
assassin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1663
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Re: Counter Claims

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum