Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[Yeats]

MDR have taken to sending their documents by Courier on the final date to bump up costs, so it may turn up tomorrow.

Can't wait to see what happens.

[shakespeare62]

The document has been received by the Expert Witness today.

 

As per the order, the Report is to be produced by 9th April and disclosed by the 16th April. The Expert will conduct a thorough forensic examination. I'll post up when I know more.

Edited March 19, 2010 by shakespeare62

[diddydicky]

here we go , here we go, here we go,

 

just when you thought it was safe.............................

 

here comes shaky 62 - the sequel...................

[the_shadow]

The document has been received by the Expert Witness today.

 

As per the order, the Report is to be produced by 9th March and disclosed by the 16th March. The Expert will conduct a thorough forensic examination. I'll post up when I know more.

 

Time Machine?

 

S.

[dp77]

The document has been received by the Expert Witness today.

 

As per the order, the Report is to be produced by 9th March and disclosed by the 16th March. The Expert will conduct a thorough forensic examination. I'll post up when I know more.

 

Wasn't expecting that - this is going to be a very eagerly awaited report!

 

I assume you mean April 9th & 16th, not March?

[shakespeare62]

Wasn't expecting that - this is going to be a very eagerly awaited report!

 

I assume you mean April 9th & 16th, not March?

 

Apologies - just corrected.

[humbleman]

The document has been received by the Expert Witness today.

 

As per the order, the Report is to be produced by 9th April and disclosed by the 16th April. The Expert will conduct a thorough forensic examination. I'll post up when I know more.

 

Hopefully this is the same as what was evidenced at the hearing, and with your finger prints on them

[shakespeare62]

Its very simple. They've either been in possession of this document all along and failed to disclose it for inspection, or it's not authentic.

 

 

If it is not authentic - then it's game over. If it is authentic - then I'll be turning up for round 4 in May as there other matters for the Court to consider, not least of which is the Respondent's notoriously defective Default Notice.

[middenmess]

Hopefully this is the same as what was evidenced at the hearing, and with your finger prints on them

 

Just echoing Humbleman's comment above.

 

Do you know if the 'document' was collected from the Q.C's chambers and delivered to your witness directly?

 

I presume that if a courier was used there will be a signature and time of collection and the same for delivery?

 

Following on from their 'might be a reconstruction' statement then there would be no way in the world that that 'document' would be allowed near your expert witness!

 

The idea of a substitution springs to mind as they have had some time to produce/concoct a more realistic document between the last court date and now.

[patrickq1]

maybe so because of late timing even if it is a concocted if it looks anything different from the copy shake has,i think shake should post his copy to the EX witness and see if they have changed the format...this will show that their is more to this than meets the eye,then they can be called for malicious time wasting etc

[mystery1]

The document has been received by the Expert Witness today.

 

As per the order, the Report is to be produced by 9th April and disclosed by the 16th April. The Expert will conduct a thorough forensic examination. I'll post up when I know more.

 

Did you have to give the expert a fingerprint of your own so that he knows if any fingerprint found is yours ?

 

M1

[diddydicky]

maybe so because of late timing even if it is a concocted if it looks anything different from the copy shake has,i think shake should post his copy to the EX witness and see if they have changed the format...this will show that their is more to this than meets the eye,then they can be called for malicious time wasting etc

 

if they concocted a new document the evidence of the print being only recent will stand out like a sore thumb

 

as they say ooo north

 

i think they have had it any road up chuck

[dp77]

I think the document delivered has to be the one shown in court, so there are three possibilities. i - the document is authentic, ii - the document is not original and can be so proven, iii) the document is not original but cannot be so proven, i.e. the experts opinion is inconclusive.

 

I've never thought i) was a runner, but then I never thought the document would show up for examination - so clearly my opinion can be discounted! Maybe the respondent eggs are in basket iii)?

 

There has been time for the document to be examined elsewhere, which is certainly what I would have done, found out in advance what the expert opinion is likely to be. But then I am a dishonest, devious debtor and not a fine, upstanding financial institution............

[ODC]

If they have handed the document over they are

 

1. Very confident of its authenticity

 

2. so bloody arrogant that they dont care

[Yeats]

I've seen one of these and would be amazed if that is what they have handed over.

I must admit to being extremely surprised that it hasn't been "lost in transit", as they know how competent Shakey is and that he is deadly serious.

What are they playing at?

[middenmess]

I really hope that not being 'lost in transit' means that it wasn't 'transmogrified in transit'

[Yeats]

If they have managed to find the original, then surely they would be in hot water for putting forward the false agreement as the "original". The DJ would be able to tell the difference between a years old document, having already seen one of these comics.

It will be the same DJ won't it?

[humbleman]

OR they could turn around and say that the the original has indeed been destroyed accidentally since the hearing.

 

AND that someone has sent a reconstructed instead-all a big mistake of course

Edited March 19, 2010 by humbleman

[dp77]

Is that a possibility, claiming the original has been lost but this document is a "true copy", or words to that effect? It's all a mistake by the post boy, who spilt tea on the original.

 

If I was the Judge hearing that I'd go ballistic.

[diddydicky]

teh consequences of not handing it over- the judge having ordered it would be just as dire....... they were boxed into a corner

 

they will be busy right now concocting and polishing up their "we didn't know it was a reconstruction guv- honest " arguments

[Series3]

I can't wait to see the report...

[patrickq1]

I think the document delivered has to be the one shown in court, so there are three possibilities. i - the document is authentic, ii - the document is not original and can be so proven, iii) the document is not original but cannot be so proven, i.e. the experts opinion is inconclusive.

 

I've never thought i) was a runner, but then I never thought the document would show up for examination - so clearly my opinion can be discounted! Maybe the respondent eggs are in basket iii)?

 

There has been time for the document to be examined elsewhere, which is certainly what I would have done, found out in advance what the expert opinion is likely to be. But then I am a dishonest, devious debtor and not a fine, upstanding financial institution............

have to put it in the ammended cpr as what logs do they have and when did they employ an expert witness to show a possible cause of action documents are being withheld with regards a certain log to the ex w

[vjohn82]

This is perhaps the most interesting case on the entire forum right now... it keeps getting better and better

[middenmess]

This is perhaps the most interesting case on the entire forum right now... it keeps getting better and better

 

 

Agree with VJ and not only that but it could potentially be the single most financially damaging case result ever experienced by a financial institution considering the knock on effect it will have with many other disputed agreements and for this possibility alone it beggers belief that they have carried on with this case in such a lemming type fashion.

[Desperate Daniella]

Well as Yeats and dp77 have both seen these "agreements" and they look new, and Shakey's is the same, I can't see how they can have risked giving one to the EW. It's very bizarre.

 

DD$