Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[Desperate Daniella]

This is just amazing.

 

I've just been given the link to this thread having pm'd Shadow about not touching the supposed "agreement" and wearing gloves when visiting it at the Amex offices. Hadn't posted the idea on any threads because I didn't want to tip them off. Another CAGger is also going for an expert witness and I don't know if they are here either, so will send them the link too.

 

I think you have got them, Shakespeare62.

 

They have sent me a so-called back of my agreement about three times, as have their DCAs, and it doesn't fit the front but they photocopy it as though it is a genuine back. If they reduce the size any more it won't be legible. I know that, and they know that, so at the moment they are leaving me alone.

 

I've read your post 428 and you have been amazing. I'll read the whole thread over the next day or so.

 

DDxxxxx

[Desperate Daniella]

And I may be pm'ing you too, Rev.Ian, if I get that far.

 

What an admittance.

 

DDx

[Desperate Daniella]

Mishcons are one of the top London firms and will not be using some rubbishy set of chambers so the barrister in this case is probably not senior but on her way up. Criminal barristers cannot continue to represent a client saying he is innocent if they have an admittance of guilt from that client. I expect the same applies in the civil courts as far as honest barristers are concerned- they won't represent a lying client.

 

There are dodgy barristers of course but I expect Mishcons go for the best chambers, and if this particular barrister has integrity and an eye on her future she won't want to be continuing with this, so it will be very interesting to see what they do next.

 

I agree with the other DD above - if you can take it all the way Shakespeare, it would be a tremendous victory over all these lying, totally dishonest banks.

 

I believe BRW has said we need a total collapse of the banking system (sorry if I'm slightly misquoting BRW) and this is the kind of thing that could start that.

 

DDxx

[Desperate Daniella]

Absolutely, BRW. I was thinking (maybe not entirely accurately) about something you had posted about the Icelandic banks situation, but couldn't remember which thread so couldn't look it up.

 

DDxx

[Desperate Daniella]

At the moment I simply can't, but if things change I'd be more than happy to.

[Desperate Daniella]

You have arrived at the exciting bit.

 

I was alerted by Shadow yesterday, and since then I've posted on other Amex threads too, so Shakespeare's fans are growing every hour.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

means2anend,

 

Not unless there's something my mum hasn't told me.

 

Sunflower, that's a very good idea and you are right. If everyone on CAG who might be affected by this gave just £1 it would all mount up. Even I could find £1.

 

DDx

[Desperate Daniella]

Clearly Shakey could instruct a barrister through direct access - and there's no need to use a solicitor. Cut out the middle man to save money if you can. My barrister (on a totally different civil case and paid for me by a very good friend) is £200 per hour plus VAT. You pay depending on the experience of the barrister.

 

What do we know about the barrister who won the Bank of Scotland case in the Summer? Sorry, can't think of the case name. Does anyone else have one they want to recommend?

 

My barrister's chambers would probably have someone (obviously of course provided none of their members of chambers is instructed by Amex because despite the fact that any chambers will say it doesn't matter I personally wouldn't use any chambers where you've got two members up against each other).

 

Choice of barrister through direct access is limited though, because only those barristers who have done the direct access course are allowed to do direct access.

 

Apparently it's also good for anyone wanting to take silk nowadays to do pro bono work. This would be a fantastic win for any barrister.

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Shakey and all Amexers,

 

Yeats needs help on his thread - it's a new thread so you won't be getting any email alerts.

 

AMEX - MISCON - COURT

 

Can't remember the title of the first thread.

 

Obviously the judgment against him could be affected by the judgment in your case, Shakey.

 

He's been screwed by this horrible lot and their "original" document so I'm sure you'll have some ideas. He needs advice this weekend as there is a costs hearing on Monday. I don't know how to do whatever application he needs to do.

 

DD

Edited February 13, 2010 by citizenB
ORIGINAL LINK NOT WORKING

[Desperate Daniella]

Thank you, Shakey.

[Desperate Daniella]

Obviously it would be great to get a good CFA barrister. Have you worked with Mr Moffat, pt? It would be a good connection if shakey decides to instruct him.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

I can't open the pdf of their witness statement. Saying it's damaged. I don't know if anyone else is having problems?

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

I think that is amazing.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

Para 13 should have an apostrophe in "Respondent's".

 

In para 12, personally I'd leave their typo of "it's" and put [sic] after it to show that you are using their exact quote.

 

What do you think, BRW?

 

 

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

I couldn't open it , so was going from S62's quote.

[Desperate Daniella]

Just removed my post in view of what you have said above.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

Re your post 609, BRW:

 

I think if any one of quite a number of us are taken to court by MSDW it will be us who will be turning up with a large folder of their agreements - all differently re-created. (Sorry to digress, S62.)

 

I wonder if they actually would produce a witness saying they had grabbed it from the archives, because we don't actually believe it has ever been in the archives, do we? So for someone to come forward and say that if they hadn't actually done it would mean getting someone to lie under oath. I expect the corporate lot might lie under oath but to actually get someone from, say, the typing pool to go along and totally make something up knowing they would be cross-examined would be dangerous I think.

 

DDx

[Desperate Daniella]

Well, if they continue with this, as you say, the agreement is only one point in the appeal, but you are getting some other good ammunition and I particularly like the 'paper trail' idea. I'd be astonished if they did actually send someone from management to 'plant' it but if they did they'd be on the register as Middenmess says, and what a funny place for them to be going. On balance though I think it's unlikely they thought they would be challenged about all this so they probably just created it and brought it to Court.

[Desperate Daniella]

I do think you need to get his requirements before you do the Draft Directions though. Better a day later than he tells you you need something you haven't asked for (but that's just my opinion).

[Desperate Daniella]

He sounds fab, S62. In a fight he's on my side.

 

With that CV I think you would have even more grounds for an appeal if the judge refuses permission, but I really don't think they will.

 

I know we are all rooting for you, so please try and do something nice this weekend and relax.

 

DDxxxxx

[Desperate Daniella]

So, BRW, if that scenario is correct, what do you think happens to S62, and to those of us who are (or will be) challenging our agreements because they are reconstructions?

 

And if they say it's never going to happen again, how can they ever do it again (at least not to caggers!!!).

DDxx

[Desperate Daniella]

If the forensic expert is appointed and proves this document is a new one which they have created, will there be any chance of anyone being charged with perjury/perverting the course of justice, or is this just wishful thinking?

[Desperate Daniella]

They did that with Monty in Scotland, I think, and his thread was discontinued.

 

Personally, I would like to think that I would refuse any such offer on a point of principle, but I wouldn't. My life is absolute hell financially, and if they offered me a generous settlement I would take it.

 

Sorry, everyone, I'm just being honest. Would I lose my house on a point of principle? No. I think anyone who would do that would be an absolute saint and I would have nothing but total respect for them, but I couldn't do it.

 

However, I'm a bit confused about why it would necessarily stop others from challenging them in the same way if they tried it again. They are so arrogant I believe that even if they did apologize they wouldn't be able to resist trying it again. Not everyone is on CAG. They'd just probably stop proceedings immediately as soon as this forensic expert issue is raised, and say a mistake had been made.

 

The problem is that the very best thing would be publicity for what they have done and public shame. It would be nice if a judge could see that.

 

DD

[Desperate Daniella]

Will be thinking of you tomorrow.

 

Good luck.

 

DDxx

[Desperate Daniella]

OMG, you just popped up!

 

Well done.

 

There is an authority about the postal service, and when things are deemed served. I'll find it for you later.

 

Brilliant. I'm now going off to deliver my standard disclosure documents (or most of them). It's taken all weekend and I am in a foul mood. Your news is the first thing to make me smile today.

 

DDxx