Re: Sovrun Paraleguls
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:33 pm
I can see the documents too.SteveUK wrote:How odd - I still see all the original content on his site. Doesn't look like anything has been removed ?
Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
I can see the documents too.SteveUK wrote:How odd - I still see all the original content on his site. Doesn't look like anything has been removed ?
Apologies, two separate pages, one headed possession orders with the Court docs, the other mortgage fraud without !longdog wrote:The court documents were never on the 'mortgage fraud' page. The page in question is here... http://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/possession-order and has neither been deleted nor updated since the huge victory.
Either way, it all adds up to one amazing loss for our heroes!AndyPandy wrote:Apologies, two separate pages, one headed possession orders with the Court docs, the other mortgage fraud without !longdog wrote:The court documents were never on the 'mortgage fraud' page. The page in question is here... http://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/possession-order and has neither been deleted nor updated since the huge victory.
What amuses me most is that the 'expert' has left the 'mortgage fraud' page up even though it's a public admission that the 'possession order' case was at best vexatious and at worst criminally actionable. Given the documents and 'legal advice' on the 'fraud' page there's no way Ms Gardiner or the 'expert' could possibly have a good faith belief that they were entitled to possession of No 17.SteveUK wrote:Either way, it all adds up to one amazing loss for our heroes!AndyPandy wrote:Apologies, two separate pages, one headed possession orders with the Court docs, the other mortgage fraud without !longdog wrote:The court documents were never on the 'mortgage fraud' page. The page in question is here... http://www.expertinalllegalmatters.com/possession-order and has neither been deleted nor updated since the huge victory.
He thought he was being clever and she doesn't look or sound like the sharpest tool in the box, so would be easily convinced.longdog wrote:What amuses me most is that the 'expert' has left the 'mortgage fraud' page up even though it's a public admission that the 'possession order' case was at best vexatious and at worst criminally actionable. Given the documents and 'legal advice' on the 'fraud' page there's no way Ms Gardiner or the 'expert' could possibly have a good faith belief that they were entitled to possession of No 17.
Yep, another victory for the ExpertInFuckAll. What's remarkable is the conspiracy of silence - all the usual FB pages are completely silent. All the people who cheered him on, none of them are asking what happened.AndyPandy wrote:I suspect the Judge threw them out of Court with a hefty costs order, hence the silence. He had his arse kicked and has slunk away to lick his wounds and wait for his next vulnerable victim to fall into his clutches.
Same here. The EIFA is talking nonsense. A contract which contains provision for assignation or sale does not have to be replaced when assignation or sale occurs. And E&W residential mortgages always contain provision for assignation or sale. So there is no need for a new contract, as the current contract remains valid.Pottapaug1938 wrote:"Since 2012, Helen has been fighting to get her original contract from the company she took out her mortgage with. Since then, another mortgage company has taken over her account i.e. brought the account from the previous company, so, she has been trying for the last four years to get her original agreement. This is a clear breach of contract law, as one contract cannot roll over when a new lender has taken over. A new contract must be issued by the new provider and must set out new terms and conditions under contract law, and most importantly, must be signed by the debtor and creditor and witnessed."
I don't know how things work in the UK; but every mortgage I've ever seen, in the past 30 years, on this side of the pond, contains a provision permitting the assignment of the mortgage elsewhere...
Copyright is unlawful you see!Siegfried Shrink wrote:Does claiming your page is copywrite invalidate your copyright?
They shouldn't be allowed to trade on the basis of still using CorelDraw v1 to produce their graphics!John Uskglass wrote:Strangely, YA I NO was dissolved on 17 June this year.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=08886594
IANAL, but isn't trading once dissolved a bit iffy?
(A serious note....perhaps). It doesn't explicitly disclaim or release copyright, so no. However, they do not recognize the validity of the courts where they would have to file an infringement claim....Siegfried Shrink wrote:Does claiming your page is copywrite invalidate your copyright?
This.
Reminds me of the apocryphal story of the man on his deathbed asked by the priest to renounce Satan.Siegfried Shrink wrote:
Surely Satan must have prompted me to mock!!!!
Off for some more scourging.