Sep 03, 2013 11:40 AM

Is their Notice signed?

now thats ironic lol go read the master of the high court rulings (AIB V's Collins) take what he says apply it to your circumstance. The solicitor has to make "certain assurances" to the court in order to gain jurisdiction.

I have a similar situation but they haven't threatened me with any legal action. My question is, once a summary judgement has been made in the private...after all the deadlines they seem to respond, if we don't respond to their new contract offer, does that create the assumption that we have accepted it? If that is the case, these letters could go back and forth for a while, until we take them to court to have the public court enforce the judgement

Rubber stamp Chris, reading that now Mick...

"once a summary judgement has been made in the private" if that goes against your facts & the procedures of the court ... someone must be liable ;)

This thread amuses me greatly :D

Thought it might Carl! :D

"Letter of comfort" from solicitor to the court... That's all it takes to establish grounds for a case apparently... Great stuff :p

I have a few ideas on how to respond...Thought I may as well ask other people's opinions. As Carl mentioned elsewhere they just "go away" but I'd rather keep everything right...

they wont just go away, not if you leave the door open. ...... case in hand. Its about restoring liability NOT just "getting off "

A toll road company sent a notice to my person a while back... :D

Do you and/or the person you have in your pocket, work for that toll road company ? :D

I had the SAME situation...but it was not a toll road company, it was a Police Officer that seems to work for a Corporation of some sort....

He gave "ME" a ticket, addressed to the person I have in my pocket.

After some verifications, I've found out that "ME" and/or the person I have in my pocket, have NO contract with that corporation named The city of Montreal.

So I sent back this Bill of Exchange to them saying NO CONTRACT on it :/

4 months after, I received ANOTHER bill of exchange, saying that the person I have in my pocket has been found GUILTY, and has been JUDGE :/

So, I sent them a registered mail asking for the NAME, address and inscription number of WHO entered a guilty plea on the person I have in my pocket, and the NAME address and inscription number of WHO entered a judgement on it.

They've sent me a letter back to tell me I have to CALL them to discuss this :D

So I called, with my intelligent cell phone, who record EVERYTHING that is saying on it :D

That lady, named LISE, to whom I talked to, tried to bring me EVERYWHERE else but, on those 2 simple questions I've asked.... :D

And "ME", I stood like a bastard on my 2 QUESTIONS....who and who, that's ALL I want to know.....she finally admitted that a COMPUTER SYSTEM entered a guilty plea and judge the person I have in my pocket :D ...I have this on tape :D

So I sent them back a letter saying that the ONLY way a computer system can do that, is if that computer system think I am one of your employee :/ , otherwise, it's completely ILLEGAL.....

I am waiting for their answer.. :D

Maybe I am a too simple minded guy, but this shit is NOT complicated, There are some corporations out there, that has some guys with guns that work for them, and they ALL think that I work for the same corporation they work for, and if they catch me doing something they decide I am not suppose to do, in regards to THEIR rules and regulations, well they can ask "ME" and/or the person I have in my pocket, to give them some MONEY :D

They won't just "go away" Eamonn you have to make them . And this was what I was talking about YOU just chose to take it personally. You should probably post the first letter you sent them and what they sent back to add clarity to the thread dude.

fair play Carl (Y)

One thing I am sure of, when it's simple, I UNDERSTAND everything.......when it's complicated, I don't get fuckall :D

DECISION of THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT 16th November, 2011 Language is important. A defendant in a case of the types listed in Order 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts is, apparently, not ipso facto entitled to defend the claim unless the plaintiff says he may. Instead, he must first obtain from the Court “leave to defend” (O. 37, r.10). The phrase is unfortunate and, historically, originated in the procedures of another era. It is peculiarly inappropriate in the present age in which citizens enjoy the full panoply of human rights, including, of course, the right to a fair hearing before the Courts. The Rules of Court do not specify what the defendant needs to show if he is to succeed in resisting the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. Note that any defendant refused “leave to defend” has only one further avenue of redress: an appeal to the Supreme Court. For a litigant in person, a self-representing or “lay” litigant, this is a mountain to climb. To passers by, this does not look like even handed justice. This is AIB Vs Collins, this has value werever you are.... >>> http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/0/9EB6A8A0BF49CE3D8025743B004C6AB6

Ask the question:

Who is the 'You' you are referring to?

Notice of Mistake, then return their offer VOID, No Contract.

If you want to be a bit feisty, attach your fee schedule informing that any further work required to again address their mistake will attract the following fees & may be construed as intimidation, coercion, harassment (or whichever of these terms is listed in your local legislation as an offence).

You're in FIRE Stuart !! :D

I have fun with with the attorney's by writing "respondent does not recognize 'You,' 'you,' 'Your,' 'your,' or any variation thereof as a party to this matter."