Dear Ministry of Justice,
Mr Bibby TO15 4984.doc
1) You say the difference between and Affidavit and Statement of truth was purely financial as the court is becoming more efficient you do not longer required Affidavit in filling for example a claim. is this correct?
2) The Black law discretionary of Law version 4 contradict your statement. Would you like to change it? Would you agree that the reason for the change and for the court to treat affidavit as statement of claim is simply due to encouraging Lawyers to come and make statement of truth regarding matters who has nothing to do with them and represent their corporate fiction by telling liars and with no consequences?
3) Please provide the MOJ definition for the two
3)(a) Please provide the court definition of Affidavit or do you above the one in the named dictionnairy
3)(a) Please provide the definition of a Statement of Truth.
4) In the light of your response to Mr Bibby TO15 4984.doc and your response to i: a man would you then correct MOJ position by clarifying your its position about the 2 elements in dispute?
5)I both are the same then they are both permitted into court of law with the same way?
6) Therefore MOJ is saying that one could respond to an Affidavit by making unsworn statement of truth?
7)Would you agree that the implication of your answers is also that the truth for judicial purpose can be obtained through unsworn evidence or/and statement.
7) (a) What happen to the maxim that says that fact can only be presented to the court through sworn statements of truth or affidavit or affirmation or degree of a Sovereign.