edtheball69 wrote:IN THE MOLD COUNTY COURT CLAIM NUMBER FUCKIT
NEXT RETAIL LIMITED t/a NEXT DIRECTORY
MS LISA sovereign
REPLY TO CLAIM
1. With reference to number (1) of defence counter claim therein no agreement save as pleaded is accepted or authorized by MS LISA sovereign neither by tacit agreement or acquiesce also no jurisdiction is accepted and neither joined.
2. With reference to number (2) of reply to defence it is refuted that MS LISA sovereign has any written or expressed agreement with the claimant, and there is no justly or truly liable amount owed.
3. With reference to number (3) of the reply to defence there is no acceptance that MS LISA sovereign as having entered into any agreement with NEXT DIRECTORY or having any account number fuckit.
4. With reference to number (4) of reply to defence, ballbag & Co Solicitors have failed to provide proof of any instructions or a request for help from the claimant.
5. With reference to number (5) of reply to defence, Part 5.4C (2). ballbag Solicitors are a third party interloper and as such needed permission within the rule which has not been granted there has been a failing to make full disclosure under civil procedure rule 31.3 clearly a third party interloper would not have the documents it purports to rely upon as these documents have not been disclosed under the said rule 31.3.
6. With reference to number (6) of the reply to defence no default notice has been disclosed as none exist as no agreement is in existence between MS LISA sovereign and NEXT RETAIL LIMITED, furthermore I would add If it is deemed unfair at common law and under the Unfair Contract Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083), that a penalty clause is unlawful as the application of a penalty clause would amount to unjust enrichment then, I suggest, the same principle can be applied to the failure of a Creditor to supply information under ss.77 and 78 of the CCA 1974, which is to opine, that a Creditor in default of providing the required information, and in addition has committed an offence under the provisions, should not be permitted to benefit by the application of interest and charges over and above the principle sum, furthermore no agreement has been executed.
7. With reference to number (7) of the reply to defence, as agent for MS LISA sovereign with full power of attorney my Locus Standi is in good standing in these matters and also as amicus curiae.
8. With reference to number (8) of the reply to defence, ballbag Solicitors Co are fully aware of the dispute as accepted by them, their acknowledgement of our communications also within the reply to defence their alleged enquiries are unfounded and without merit also hearsay.
9. With reference to number (9) of the reply to defence, the claimant has no coherent grounds to issue a claim and it is spurious and vexatious also the third party interloper ballbag solicitors Co has no knowledge of the matter in hand and the account or debt is disputed.
10. With reference to number (10) of the reply to defence, As full power of attorney is granted to me in these matters I refute ballbags claim of Locus Standi in this matter and contend that it is in fact ballbag solicitors who does not have Locus Standi in these matters as they are a third party interloper with no knowledge of any alleged agreement or account with Next Directory, furthermore ballbag solicitors Co has failed to attach any supporting documentation to clarify or quantify their allegations, and they are now put to strict proof of their allegations with the understanding that they accept my fee schedule for and on behalf of MS LISA sovereign under their full commercial liability.
11. With reference to number (10) of the reply to defence, It is indeed ballbag Solicitors whom are speculative in regards its interloping as a third party and as such their oath of office is put into question and indeed they should qualify that oath of office within 14 days from 4/9/10.
12. With reference to number (12) of the reply to defence, it is indeed a scant claim lacking substance documentary evidence or indeed signed agreements all falling outside the scope of any claim as no agreement exists, and it is the claimant that needs to produce strict proof of claim not for MS LISA sovereign to produce evidence of none agreement.
13. With reference to number (13) of the reply to defence, the claimant and ballbag solicitor are both equally culpable for a counter claim against them for a vexatious and spurious claim the counterclaim is ongoing and punitive damages along with damages under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 will be filed this list is non exhaustive.
14. With reference to number (14) of the reply to defence, the claimant accepts with tacit agreement upon continuing with a vexatious claim it is accepted that all costs and damages will be met by the claimant furthermore it is accepted by the claimant that they will honor there liability under my fee schedule witnessed and sealed being the fee schedule headed (FEE SCHEDULE of Edward of the family Hughes version control 1.2 see also terms of service, subject to variations.
15. With reference to number (15) of the reply to defence, there is no defence offered by the claimant or the third party known as ballbag Solicitors the counterclaim is valid and non exhaustive with ongoing costs for damages, indeed the claim itself on the merit of lack of any disclosure or proof of claim apart from mere hearsay with no proof exhibited, MS LISA sovereign asks for permission to award full costs damages and injury to feelings also counterclaim and that the claimants claim itself is struck out as spurious and vexatious and the court awards MS LISA sovereign and to enter judgment accordingly.
REPLY TO CLAIMANTS DEFENCE
MS LISA sovereign repeats the disagreement with the claim and also the facts stated by JOHN PAUL MURPHY.
By reason of the matters set out in this reply to claimants defence counterclaim, MS LISA sovereign denies that the claimant is entitled to claim any monies, therefore MS LISA sovereign is entitled to a set off and counterclaim in the final combinative fees with interest claimed upon completion of this matter the court takes note that by tacit agreement and by acquiesce with ballbag Solicitors Co allegedly acting for NEXT DIRECTORY has full authority under their full commercial liability the funds to settle the counterclaim and cumulative non exhaustive fees or expressed consent to accept the counterclaim by NEXT DIRECTORY.
As a gesture of good will MS LISA sovereign will accept an out of court settlement of £6.666.00 (six thousand six hundred and sixty six pounds) to cover the full costs of representations and fees as per the fee schedule accepted, this amount will increase should the claimant reject the offer which is made without prejudice and is provisional for 14 days.
Dated 4th day of September 2010
Statement of Truth
MS LISA sovereign believes that the facts stated by this reply are true.
I am duly authorized by MS LISA sovereign to sign this document and act for her with full power of attorney under the POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT 1990.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests