MOST CURRENT AT THE TOP – HISTORY BELOW FROM BOTTOM
The claim is simple – negotiations of a settlement of my AFS.
To date it has only been legal wrangling as solicitors do not make any money if disputes are settled!
This is highlighted in D5’s defence 82. “…will respond to any evidence when ordered by the court in the usual course of proceedings” CPR 32…. witness…. which I have done as my evidence is in my Statement of truth….. so at a guess another con to make money by not questioning it until it is in court where they charge stupid money!!! But in equity they have been given the evidence and have the opportunity before trial to tell me where they require further proof.
16. Yesterday, 26 September, just before I got on the plane USL sent a second witness statement for their application for having D10, D11 and D12 struck out of my claim.
….. USL having admitted they dont have my authority still want to proceed to the hearing which means as admitted by them already they will have engaged council and the significant costs are raking up…. so I will be filing a strike out application to their application so that gets heard before theirs and go through trusts at law (1987 Recognition of Trust Act), and the 1925 Trustee act defines what a trustee is and that “director”the title given to the trustees in companies Act 2006 , which is the chosen law of the trust known by its unique identity is the “Company by its #” and the the grantors and beneficiaries are called “shareholders”. The senior Courts Act 1981, 49 1 confirms in any conflict equity prevails and that a company is just a “particular type” of trust is confirmed by the three certainties established in Knight v Knight 1840 – this is why directors have a fiduciary duty towards the company – they are its trustees!!! And just like any trustee if they exceed their authority (which I have proven in my particulars as for an action to be deemed to be by the company it must be with a seal or attorney of director with witness signatures (none of which are there in relation to my Unit) and hence they are in common law “trustee de son” – a trustee by their own wrong doing, and hence liable in person!!! The detail will be in my reply to have their claim struck out!
Give their solicitor some due – finally they have shown a grain of honour (but only in regards their acceptance they owe somebody some money they just cant work out who themselves!!!). That is progress 🙂
Anyway here is their 2nd witness statement;
16. So yesterday (24 September 2018) I submitted my amended particulars of claim to the best of my ability applying what I have learned to my considerable expense in what I think is finally the standard many years of wasted money to become a solicitor would require. I have updated the point by point claim from the paper version (which was submitted to the court) and electronic versions submitted to the defendants (now include direct links from the point to the evidence, and found the following errors which have been corrected in red next to the original as follows (please leave any others anyone finds in the comments box below – I don’t have anyone else to check my work!);
- page 7; D13, second line “omitted” replaced with “admitted”,
- page 36; 220.127.116.11.1.2 last line [SDDE corrected to SDD],
- page 39; 18.104.22.168.1.5 [E 22.214.171.124.1.5 corrected to E 126.96.36.199.5],
- page 41; 188.8.131.52 [E 10.1.4 corrected to E 56.1.4],
- and the evidence links Section J have been unbolded to make it easier to read.
If any of the evidence files do not work please leave a comment below. Thanks
15. I started with USL’s defence as it was the easiest to sort and essentially it goes like this;
They admitted they have the money but could not adjudicate to whom it should go – so all any other buyers need to do is establish equitable title and they were happy to pay the minimum figure they had calculated, which in my case was just over £2.5k!!!
So I asked them what they considered my equitable title and disputed the figure giving what I believed was a closer figure around £3.4k plus equitable costs.
And promptly got an offer to settle out of court for a mere £3.5k with a hush order… all detailed as far as I am allowed in the amended particulars above.
Not only was their offer dishonourable (I had beaten them) it was disrespectful (they at best considered my time worth £1k whilst they had racked up bills admitted of over £12k plus there must be the costs of replying to my amended particulars…. which in EQUITY is UNCONSCIONABLE! So the worst thing to do to me is to insult me like that so I went through their defence on detail and sure enough it looks like the figure should be closer to 4k plus costs, and I sent them an email rejecting their offer and within an hour of their office opening got a phone call asking what I wanted – Equitable costs which I had to explain to them… plus £0.01 as legal relief as a litigant in person is a tuppence compared to what they charge!!!
I never got a counter offer and hence they still form part of my claim, but as the directors do not have my authority to let out my unit they exceeded my authority with that knowledge and hence are liable in person so they now have to counter offer before we go to court as they have no leg to stand on, and their clients should not have trouble suing their legal representatives as they failed in fulfilling their obligation of the best interest of their clients; IN MY CLAIM to spend over £12k to settle a dispute which was known to be a maximum of £4,770! Yes it had consequences of all the other units but that has nothing to do with my claim!!!
14. So I resubmitted my Particulars of claim….. not very professional with my current knowledge…. however good enough that 2 solicitors submitted defences…. and a further 2 witness statements…. and obviously 2 with legal wrangling to get my claim struck out…..
My Amended Particulars… Order dated 18 June 2018 Particulars of Claim E30LV132 Resubmission FINAL
But as I received defences my particulars clearly stand in equity so no more worries about strike out because of the particulars as now they solicitors would have to argue it out between themselves and the judge as to why some managed to reply and others did not….. and my simple answer is those who claimed they could not were obviously not as competent as those that did…..
Two defence were received;
D5 – David Roberts for unknown reasons changed his legal representative at the last minute giving the new team just 4 days to respond to my amended particulars of claim and did an admirable job of palming the sections out to different people who only responded to the individual part as they were not aware of the whole picture so I was blessed with knowing all the legal technicalities for all defendants! Thanks, that would have taken me who knows how long!!!
D10, D11, D12 – USL: Defence – Appendices [this includes the MSA with the exception of Appendix 3 (which at a guess would prove they knew they were illegally renting out my unit. I have requested they supply this and if they don’t within a reasonable time will compel them to do so in accordance with CPR 31.12 will apply for Specific Disclosure now that I am getting familiar with the rule of the legal game!
Their application is listed to be heard first on the 10 October 2018….
D1 and D4; failed to respond BUT did submit an application that my revised particulars be struck out as they are incomprehensible CPR 3.4(b) [funny how the above 2 did manage not only to comprehend them but also submitted a defence] and disclose no reasonable grounds to bring my claim CPR 3.4(2)(a) against D1 and D4…..
and is listed to be heard after USL’s Application on the 10 October 2018….
D2, D3 and D9; And it looks like Tony and Allan Freeman, and Michael Patterson have decided things are a bit more serious than they can just brush aside and have got legal representation. Now as this was the last thing I dealt with I had already reached the same conclusion with D2 (he only owns the company which has any money (last account £4.5 million) and without the paper trail I agree I do not have due cause beyond the cross directorship links between the “Freeman” group, and D9 who subcontracted out the management and maintenance to USL who had admitted they have the money also agree I have not due cause to continue my claim against him.
D3, Tony Freeman however is another issue – he is what is commonly known as the shadow director, and believes by calling himself a “consultant” thinks he cannot be held liable for anything, however doing my legal homework the Companies Act 2006, 1261 defines a director as anyone upon which a director act, hence the difference between “my advice is…”, and “authorised”, “approved” etc which is directing!
So in the usual threatening and intimidation style of solicitors I was given until 4pm of the 13 September to issue notices of discontinuance against all three!
13. As I did not submit to their demands they gave me a last chance…. threatening me with £8367 just for the hearing (which they lost so I am not liable for that – I must invoice them for that!!!) plus £3816 for preparation.
So at the hearing the judge mentioned my extensive pre-action protocol (my notices to try sort this in private) and when I pointed out that they had also lied about Nick Tellwright not being a director and direct them and the judge to their evidence which proved he was an active director I scored a little victory much to their embarrassment, and then when I pointed out the lies within the witness statement point 6 and 8 the judge ruled that a full hearing was needed as clearly I had cause as they had admitted they had the money from renting my unit! SO FOR THAT HEARING THEY OWE ME £8367 and I have just emailed them my bank details!
The judge also required me to resubmit my particulars in accordance with CPR rules (at the time I had only just learned of their existence! [it is 2 books totalling over 7000 pages (no wonder law degrees take so long) of procedures (aka legal technicalities where solicitors make their money by ignoring that claims are about disputes) so they don’t look for how to settle disputes as that would mean they don’t make as much money (a bit like pharma treating symptoms and not causes as you cannot profit from healthy people!), and the reason they “advice” you to get legal representation is the SRA has a monopoly on licensing solicitors… ] So that leaves £3816 risk
So on the 17 July they came to their senses after conferring and they threatened me with yet another “offer to remove the directors” where they “implied” to let me off costs to date…. and threatened if I did not submit “additional costs are “likely to be significant”…. so that means a lot more does it not??
Further that email was not without prejudice……. and in their last sentence threatened they will use it against me……
So I have a case and need to present it and they know it (after all they had admitted they have my money and all I needed to do was prove my Equitable Title as I have no lease (legal title) and equity prevails at law)… but how to express that!
12. And I did not submit as they had lied yet again in their Application to strike out their directors… Now lied may be a harsh word, but I pointed out their first mistake (we are all human and part of being human is we can make mistakes) which they corrected hence the second witness statement was with the full knowledge of this.
So as an application becomes a “sub claim” that must first be sorted it must get heard first – this is common sense as the purpose of the court is to judge the last standing truths which are in dispute. The rest is settled!
11. So just before the hearing, on the 4 June, their solicitors “politely” threatened” me as they felt I had no legal case they would apply to have my claim struck out… and using time to intimidate me gave me until the 8th to submit… and corrected their “lie” in the witness statement as to where the money is – now I am sorry but that is highlights that the directors are incompetent as it is a few million! Sure enough once checking the details on public record USL has 75 missing shares…. and I wonder in whose name they legally are, and by “subsidiaries and holding” companies moved the money for USL, and worse then sold that company so legally the title to the money is no longer with USL so if anyone has a successful claim against USL they have no assets so just go into bankruptcy – a simple transfer of wealth from the public to the few who can intimidate those not rich enough to get decent lawyers (ones that operate in equity as opposed to solicitors who do not understand equity)!!!!
10. Now not understanding the technical difference between Equity and at law the “legal” battle had started with the “representatives [solicitors]” of USL on the 10 May sending me a “consent order” to remove their directors from my claim and they will not go after me for costs! Hang on at best my flat was rented out for 1 year and at most I was due £4770.00.
Obviously as companies are made by man made law, and directors [title of actors – depending on which part in the play you have you are given a title at law] are merely Actors who hold liability AS HUMANS for their every action whilst acting. So long as you act the part in the script you are covered by the ACT’s of Parliament, and if you exceed the authority of your actor you hold personal liability in equity!
9. Not really knowing what I was doing but at this point I knew I could apply for court orders and thinking this was an open and shut case based on the replies to my claim, I submitted an application for a court order to compel the trustees to finish the building and USL to pay me the rent they had collected (which is no different from what I still want) which is only fair and just – essentially why should they be able to run away with my money and leave unpaid suppliers and tradesman and myself footing the bill whilst they drive their fancy cars and live in their big houses at the expense of the “slaves”!
8. On the 3rd May 2018 the court set a hearing date for the 18 June 2018 to;
“proceed with the case or dispose of the claim”
8. I replied to the defence not really knowing how this all works!
Now I know if you don’t respond to the court that is dishonourable!!!! And this is important in Equity as
“if you seek equity you must do equity…… one who seeks equity must come with clean hands….”
So those who have not responded are already on the back foot!
7. to which I got some responses!!! SO IF YOU WANT TO GET ANSWERS IT APPEARS YOU MUST SUBMIT A CLAIM WHEN PEOPLE ACT DISHONOURABLY BY NOT HELPING SETTLE YOUR DISPUTE!
You have now moved into the legal world, BUT following the mergers of the Courts Acts 1873 to 1875 Equity runs concurrently in all jurisdictions as is confirmed in the Senior Courts Act 1981, 49 (1) where in the event of conflict EQUITY PREVAILS OVER AT LAW!
If you don’t make the court aware of your EQUITABLE RIGHTS they will not be aware of them –
they only consider what the claimant and defendant say!
If you don’t claim your rights and do not state them as fact the court MUST remain impartial as it is obliged to judge the facts presented!!!
6. Claim submitted and served on the 19 March 2018
PRE-COURT ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE – The doctrine of notices, 3 notice procedure!
Respondents: YOUR REMEDY TO MY CLAIM IS WE ESTABLISH THE FACTS – Methods of Response.
email attachments to firstname.lastname@example.org if attachment option does not appear in reply box
Joining the Claim as an additional Claimant: This is a private matter. The following may join the claim by notifying me, after which you will receive the password for the outline of the private claim. To evaluate the validity of your claim you must provide evidence of either of the following. in your submission via this link which details the terms and conditions) in the comments where you must attach the evidence.
- If you are an uncompleted investors (if you have not received your Lease, interest or assured rent)
- If you are an unpaid supplier or contractor.
THE CLAIM HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE HIGH COURT LIVERPOOL AND HENCE IS NOW A PUBLIC MATTER AND INCLUDES THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL I FOLLOWED AND HENCE THAT IS NOW ALSO PUBLIC RECORD AND PASSWORDS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
4. NOTICE OF PRE-COURT ACTION – OPPORTUNITY TO CURE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION AND NOTICE OF LIEN 23rd February 2018 – NPCA
1. Offer to settle privately with MG 6 February 2018 (this is private between the two of us – I have no objection if he shares this amongst the rest of the Respondents)
No response from MG.