Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[dp77]

some of these judges rely on debtors not taking it any further but more and more are now emboldened to do just that

 

Exactly what has happened here. The OP got royally shafted in the original hearing, I think the DJ even asked the claimant's solicitor for his business card!

 

However the Judge hearing the appeal appears a little more learned.

[diddydicky]

Exactly what has happened here. The OP got royally shafted in the original hearing, I think the DJ even asked the claimant's solicitor for his business card!

 

However the Judge hearing the appeal appears a little more learned.

 

yes i followed that case- absolutely attrocious behavior

[means2anend]

yes

 

it is a prescribed requirement...they cannot circumvent that!!!

[JonCris]

But unfortunately if they said it is an original and she, not being a forensic expert, actually believed that it is the original, then she can't knowingly be deceiving the court. As we know, many caggers have been presented with an "original" in court and the judge sides with the bank and accepts it as such, so if judges look at reconstructed "originals" and believe that they are genuine, this barrister can have the same argument - she believed when she first went to court it was genuine. If she had doubts and raised them with Amex who insisted the document was the genuine original document she has "been instructed" as ODC says, and that is any barrister's "Get Out of Jail Free" card, for want of a better expression. It matters not one jot what AMEX may of may not have insisted it's what she believes or suspects that's important. With a little help;)the court could ask her to substantiate her original statement

& if she relies on her client she may be put to proof

 

The very fact that she has gone back saying that she has now been instructed that "it might be a reconstruction" again lets her off the hook. No it doesn't it merely compounds the theory that she must have known at & as her client must have they could be guilty of perjury

 

We might not like it but she is protected. As I have stated not necessarily

 

DD

 

See above in red

[Yeats]

This seems to be splitting caggers, as it would be difficult to prove that they knew it was a forgery. Personally I can see both sides, but think it would be difficult to prove they knew they were dealing with reconstructions. We all know that they know, but proving it would be a different matter, especially if it takes an expert witness to prove so.

 

But what about the lies these "top" and very expensive Solicitors are happy spinning regarding the DN? They obviously KNOW that the DN's are invalidating the claim, but argue (and often succeed in persuading the DJ) that they are not needed in running credit agreements and that the "14 days from date of this letter" is notice enough, KNOWING full-well that this is BS.

Surely they should be brought to book over their deception?

[means2anend]

This seems to be splitting caggers, as it would be difficult to prove that they knew it was a forgery. Personally I can see both sides, but think it would be difficult to prove they knew they were dealing with reconstructions. We all know that they know, but proving it would be a different matter, especially if it takes an expert witness to prove so.

 

But what about the lies these "top" and very expensive Solicitors are happy spinning regarding the DN? They obviously KNOW that the DN's are invalidating the claim, but argue (and often succeed in persuading the DJ) that they are not needed in running credit agreements and that the "14 days from date of this letter" is notice enough, KNOWING full-well that this is BS.

Surely they should be brought to book over their deception?

 

 

Yes.

 

They (Barristers) are more the sinners!!!

 

Knowledge is the refinement of age and experience..and we are constantly refreshing and growing in that knowledge by our daily lives and in the light of newer technology and wisdoms and of course by our experiences BE IT RIGHT OR WRONG...they have been 'at it so long now' that they DO KNOW!!!

[JonCris]

This seems to be splitting caggers, as it would be difficult to prove that they knew it was a forgery. Personally I can see both sides, but think it would be difficult to prove they knew they were dealing with reconstructions. We all know that they know, but proving it would be a different matter, especially if it takes an expert witness to prove so.

 

But what about the lies these "top" and very expensive Solicitors are happy spinning regarding the DN? They obviously KNOW that the DN's are invalidating the claim, but argue (and often succeed in persuading the DJ) that they are not needed in running credit agreements and that the "14 days from date of this letter" is notice enough, KNOWING full-well that this is BS.

Surely they should be brought to book over their deception?

 

I agree but it's just another thing which if 'used' sensibly can, if not to put the rest of their evidence in question at least used to harass them in court:lol:

[Desperate Daniella]

Joncris, I think we are actually agreeing - it's what she "believed". Most barristers get the brief the night before if they are being instructed by solicitors. I'm assuming that this is not the barrister who was present at the first hearing - only for the appeal. Forgive me, S62 for not reading the whole thread.

 

So, she turns up for the Appeal hearing having read the brief which says she has the original document in the bundle. It's very unlikely that she actually studied the whole thing in great detail, as we do - measuring, checking that paragraphs line up, and so on, She obviously breezed into Court assuming that it would be a walkover on the basis of what Amex told her, and instead she is faced with S62, forgery, and an expert witness.

 

It may well be that after that hearing she asked Amex directly if it was the original document, and they then procrastinated a bit and said "it might be a reconstruction", and she has now stated this to the Court. I wouldn't want to be in her situation at all, but I really doubt the Court will take any action against her, because no-one can prove what she actually thought when she went into court for this appeal acting on the instructions of her client who told her she had an original document, and she made the admittance about a possible reconstruction as soon as she went back the second time.

 

The main thing, I think, is that someone at Amex is brought to court and asked to explain themselves. It's their CEO, Company Secretary, whoever, who is complicit in this attempt at forgery and misleading the court. Far more important that they get charged with these offences I think. They are very serious offences, and I don't see that it matters one jot that this is Amex. They are not above the law.

 

Hi Guests!

 

DD

[Yeats]

Agree with DD.

There is no reason why the people who decided to defraud the courts and bankrupt people with huge costs should not be hauled in front of a Judge.

Serious crimes.

[diddydicky]

peeps are getting too bogged down in trying to re write not the cca but the entire legal system .

 

get over it- the same counsel that put their clients cases forward with such veracity then do exactly the same for some defendants

 

get off your moral high horses and have a walk around in the real world

[foolishgirl]

peeps are getting too bogged down in trying to re write not the cca but the entire legal system .

 

get over it- the same counsel that put their clients cases forward with such veracity then do exactly the same for some defendants

 

get off your moral high horses and have a walk around in the real world

 

Wise words again DD - are you studying philosophy?

[JonCris]

DD I & many of my friends do live in the real world & none of us would support perjury so it ain't case of changing the legal system it's a question of ethics

[Gallahad]

I was once the defendant in a civil case where the dj actually told the claimant that she had been proved to be lying. After i had won the case I asked my solicitor when the police would charge her with perjury he replied they never prosecute for perjury in civil cases as they expected people to lie.

G

[Guest]

afaik perjury is an offence committed by a sworn witness?

[Gallahad]

afaik perjury is an offence committed by a sworn witness?

 

She had been sworn

[Desperate Daniella]

They don't, which is why people go to court and lie through their teeth knowing they'll never be done for perjury. However, I think that, unlike Jo Bloggs in the street lying, this is very different. It's an organization, a household name bank, deliberately falsifying documents and that should result in a prosecution for someone.

 

I'm involved in a court case at the moment and the other side just continues to lie, even though I have proof and have given it to them!! Crazy, and exhausting, but what can I do? She knows she can lie and won't be done for perjury. She is refusing to disclose documents I'm entitled to so I'll have to go to court to get an order, but I have to accept she's never going to be done for perjury.

[Guest]

She had been sworn

 

was she (the barrister) a witness? (i was posting re previous discussion about counsel, not your post.)

Edited March 12, 2010 by Ford

[diddydicky]

Wise words again DD - are you studying philosophy?

 

can't even spell it- let alone do it:D

 

why the hell is dislexic such a hard word to spell- whose idea was that!!

 

and another thing...

 

why is there only ONE monopolies commission?

[cab1ne]

I HAVE MERGED 26 OFF TOPIC POSTS INTO ONE.

 

CONTRIBUTIONS BY dd, DD, M&V, Cabine, Ford, GALAHAD etc, etc.

 

 

 

diddydick

 

can't even spell it- let alone do it:D

 

why the hell is dislexic such a hard word to spell- whose idea was that!!....that could be regarded as offensive! not v funny.

 

and another thing...

 

why is there only ONE monopolies commission?

 

I'm sure it wasn't meant as offensive. A dyslexic friend of mine would have laughed at that.

 

I'm sure it wasn't meant as offensive. A dyslexic friend of mine would have laughed at that.

 

a dyselexic friend of mine wouldn't have!

 

diddydick

 

it IS funny ford and i have a dislexic son who finds it hilarious (his joke) and for the avoidance of doubt i don't give a flying f*ck for the PC brigade who seek to reduce society to a grey miserable humourless mass.

 

i am intelligent enough to know the difference between a harmless joke or banter and offensive remarks

 

so don't even bother taking the thread there thank you

 

it IS funny ford and i have a dislexic son who finds it hilarious (his joke) and for the avoidance of doubt i don't give a flying f*ck for the PC brigade who seek to reduce society to a grey miserable humourless mass.

 

fair enough. your son finds it funny. my friend doesn't. each to their own. good for you and your flying f's. btw it's not a q of the pc brigade but rather of humanity.

 

And what about the offence caused to the monopolies:D

 

Isnt it bad enough that they get so lonely;)

 

fair enough. your son finds it funny. my friend doesn't. each to their own. good for you and your flying f's. btw it's not a q of the pc brigade but rather of humanity.

 

my wife is dyslexia dysgraphia and she finds you more offensive,

 

cab

 

And what about the offence caused to the monopolies:D

 

 

Isnt it bad enough that they get so lonely

 

yeah but it was only a "one off" joke! so please don't "single" me out

 

OK DD your off the hook

 

OK DD your off the hook

 

ive got a friend with an artificial hand and he doesn't think that is funny!

 

my wife is dyslexia dysgraphia and she finds you more offensive,

 

cab

 

fair enough. as i said, each to their own. is that too difficult to comprehend? anyway, this thread isn't about your clique. so, lets call it a day.

 

Goodnight boys. Sleep well.

 

Goodnight Guest. You probably thought this thread was something to do with Amex, not dyslexia and hooks.

 

DD

 

fair enough. as i said, each to their own. is that too difficult to comprehend? anyway, this thread isn't about your clique. so, lets call it a day.

 

 

There is no Clique-just people unknown to each other bound by a common cause- however this debt business is stressful and now and then (as with other things in life) it needs some light relief and humour is a good way of raising peoples spirits

 

if your sense of humour is not the same as mine or someone else who may make a joke or funny remark it does not automatically follow that the joke or remark is offensive-

 

nor is is reasonable for you to take offence "on behalf of someone else"

 

so, lets put it behind us and do what we are here for- to help each other

 

fair enough. as i said, each to their own. is that too difficult to comprehend? anyway, this thread isn't about your clique. so, lets call it a day.

 

fair enough

 

There is no Clique-just people unknown to each other bound by a common cause- however this debt business is stressful and now and then (as with other things in life) it needs some light relief now and then and humour is a good way of raising peoples spirits

 

if your sense of humour is not the same as mine or someone else who may make a joke or funny remark it does not automatically follow that the joke or remark is offensive-

 

nor is is reasonable for you to take offence "on behalf of someone else"

 

so, lets put it behind us and do what we are here for- to help each other

 

debate is great

 

fair enough:-)

 

 

Thank dog thats over!!!

 

Thank dog thats over!!!

 

OI! don't take the lords name in vain please Go to church & 'make' three male fairies

 

OI! don't take the lords name in vain please Go to church & 'make' three male fairies

 

when he writ that he may have been under the affluence of incohol- but he wasn't, its just that some theople pink he was!

 

qwerty:confused:

 

hello guest

 

Is all of this required for this thread? arent we going off the subject here?

 

Is all of this required for this thread? arent we going off the subject here?

 

Of course not...we r not undermining the thread u will se that from the posts a proiri

 

The point above was that I, assume, that banks do not know when to call it a day!!!

 

m2ae:-|

 

promise not to hijack sorry dudes

Edited March 13, 2010 by citizenB
Off topic posts merged into one.

[JonCris]

I was once the defendant in a civil case where the dj actually told the claimant that she had been proved to be lying. After i had won the case I asked my solicitor when the police would charge her with perjury he replied they never prosecute for perjury in civil cases as they expected people to lie.

G

 

 

They do prosecute & they go to jail remember Archer plus Aitkin & his "sword of truth" both civil libel cases

[Desperate Daniella]

But Aitken and Archer were high profile huge libel cases, and therefore prosecuting them showed that the police were cracking down hard on them, and of course it was all in the press.

 

Does the average liar in a civil case get prosecuted? I doubt it very much, sadly.

[InformedSearcher]

i disaagree

 

the act states that a creditor MUST specify a date

 

the court has no power to re write the legislation or to regard it as de minimus

 

in fact i believe that soon a judge at appeal may well clarify this situation

 

if the creditor wishes to change the terminology to "within XX days " of receipt of the DN- what does he mean by "receipt"- receipt at the address where the debtor lives?, (and from which he may be away on business or on holiday) receipt by someone else signing for the letter from the postman but not giving it to the debtor?

 

the prescribed terminology and the manner in which the DN is set out has ALREADY taken care of all these variables- the creditor is obliged to use the prescribed terminology- not make up his own otherwise the DN is fault as it is not as prescribed

 

 

This could be quite novel because the creditor could 3 months later make comment but you could simply deny ever receiving the letter! In fact it always surprises me that banks do not send DN's signed for'. That then states what they consider important and obviously what should be paramount, to them is probably quite the opposite.

 

I totally agree that a 'date' should/must be mentioned. I guess Amex are doing the testing of the law yet again as do so many, looking for the provebial precident. Amex have an 'aloof' attitude generally (as I long ago experienced). It makes me smile regarding their comment of where people use the card in their latest ads. I really cannot imagine using an Amex card at KFC for a takaway. LOL

 

Michael

[JonCris]

But Aitken and Archer were high profile huge libel cases, and therefore prosecuting them showed that the police were cracking down hard on them, and of course it was all in the press.

 

Does the average liar in a civil case get prosecuted? I doubt it very much, sadly.

 

Watch this space;)

[Desperate Daniella]

I would love to hear of a normal, non-celebrity, person being prosecuted for perjury.

[JonCris]

It'll can be revealed AFTER formal charges are laid