Defendant’s Barrister Relies on Forged Affidavit in Fraud on County Court

What follows is a redacted account of how a False Lender, in this case, the Defendant (D) the Nationwide Building Society, apparently Forged the Claimant’s Affidavit in a hearing at Hull County Court.

Whilst I have written extensively on the various frauds of the banks, with particular regard to the void Deed of Mortgage, which is a fraud on its face, and I have seen many examples of banks committing fraud by using so-called robo-signers to forge people’s signatures, never have I seen a Defendant, in this case a Financial institution, seek to rely on a forged document in an actual Court hearing (other than a mortgage deed, a non-existent loan agreement and false statements of moneys being loaned that is).

At least that was the case until just last week. Regular readers may recall the matter of my friend Dave who turned around a possession claim by making a new application as the Claimant (with the Nationwide [NW] as the Defendant).

He was asking the court to issue a legal declaration that the Mortgage Deed the fake lender relied upon to get a possession order was illegal, along with the purported loan agreement as both demonstrably failed to comply with sections 1 and 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989 [LPMP Act].

After receiving the Claim, the Defendant (D), the NW, went into full defensive mode. Firstly, a para-legal or solicitor going by the name Vandrewalla entered a false witness statement – as a mere employee at a third party company, he is manifestly not legally qualified to declare or claim, under oath, that any amount is owed on the simple basis he is not a duly appointed officer of the lender.

Indeed, this very fact was established in a case from Northern Ireland, Dermody,

In Dermody the High Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff bank (Ulster Bank Ireland Limited (“UBIL”)) in circumstances where the person swearing the affidavit setting out the bank’s evidence was an employee of a third party (which was a related company charged with the collection of debts due to UBIL) and had been authorised by UBIL pursuant to a power of attorney to swear the affidavit.  This decision is in line with the High Court’s decision in Bank of Scotland plc v Stapleton [2012] IEHC 549 regarding Certus, the servicer charged with the management of the loans due to Bank of Scotland plc.

The cumulative effect of these High Court decisions is that:
• The records of the bank are inadmissible save where the provisions of the Act are complied with.
• The evidence must be provided by an employee of the bank and not a representative of some other company to whom the task of collecting the debt has been outsourced.
• It remains open to the person in the bank who created the original document to give direct evidence.

Source: Ulster Bank Ireland Limited v Dermody, [2014] IEHC 140 and ACC Bank plc v Byrne & Others, Unreported, 31 July 2014, which held that the business records of a bank were inadmissible as evidence of the truth of their contents save where the rigorous provisions of the Act were complied with.

Dave rebutted Vandrewalla’s witness statement in a subsequent Affidavit.

In the meantime, the D appointed a barrister, ‘Dodgy’ Roger Laville, from the Inner Temple who bombarded him with a 134 page bundle of documents, just one hour before the scheduled hearing at Hull County Court.

What happened next is astonishing, if not surprising.

An earlier Affidavit (see below) which Dave had entered into the Court in defence of the original possession claim was specifically cited by the presiding judge as being inadmissible on the ground it had not been notarised and witnessed.

When Dave got home, having heard the same judge dismiss his claim, he went through his paperwork and noticed that the Affidavit in question had been forged: some agent of the NW had removed the notary signature and seal from the document in order to make it appear that it had not been witnessed and notarised.

Before taking a look at the offending forgery, let us consider what the definition of forgery is. Bouviers Law Dictionary, on this occasion, provides us with an excellent and suitable definition,

FORGERY, crim. law. Forgery at common law has been held to be

“the fraudulent making and alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man’s right.” 4 Bl. Com. 247.

By a more modern writer, it is defined, as ” a false making; a making malo animo, of any written instrument, for the purpose of fraud and deceit.” 2 East, P. C. 852.

2. This offence at common law is of the degree of a misdemeanour. 2 Russel, 1437. There are many kinds of forgery, especially subjected to punishment by statutes enacted by the national and state legislatures.

3. The subject will be considered, with reference, .1. To the making or alteration requisite to constitute forgery. 2. The written instruments in respect of which forgery may be committed. 3. The fraud and deceit to the prejudice of another man’s right.

UK ‘Gov’ legislation has this to state,

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 section 9, check out s.9(2) false if altered 9

Meaning of “false” and “making”.

(1) An instrument is false for the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made by a person who did not in fact make it in that form; or
(b ) if it purports to have been made in the form in which it is made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its making in that form; or
(c) if it purports to have been made in the terms in which it is made by a person who did not in fact make it in those terms; or
(d) if it purports to have been made in the terms in which it is made on the authority of a person who did not in fact authorise its making in those terms.

(2) A person is to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as making a false instrument if he alters an instrument so as to make it false in any respect (whether or not it is false in some other respect apart from that alteration).

Lord Denning put it thus (at pages 132-4):

“What is the common element in all these cases? It is, I think, best expressed in the definition given by East in his Pleas of the Crown, vol 2, page 822. He treats the subject, I think, better than any writer before or since:

“To forge (a metaphorical expression borrowed from the occupation of the smith) means, properly speaking, no more than to make or form: but in our law it is always taken in an evil sense; and therefore Forgery at common law denotes a false making (which includes every alteration of or addition to a true instrument), a making malo animo, of any written instrument for the purpose of fraud and deceit. This definition results from all the authorities ancient and modern taken together.”

Here are the before and after screenshots of the forged affidavit Mr Laville, the barrister, relied upon in order to falsely allege that Dave’s affidavit had not been notarised when it most demonstrably had.

BEFORE THE FORGERY

AFTER THE FORGERY

For those who understand these matters and for those who don’t, let me express what this means as succinctly as I am able,

On the face of it, and until it may be disproven, the use the manifestly forged affidavit appears to be an act of criminality, committed by the Nationwide BS and/or its agents who have used a forgery, as defined at Law, in order to persuade a District Judge to issue a false judgement in their favour.

Dodgy Roger is not so much in hot water as being gently boiled in a hot tub of mushy peas.

Oh dear, Roger, oh dear.

Please take note that I don’t doubt the influence of the Freemasonic Inner Temple, to which he almost certainly belongs, to be able to cover up for him and pull him out of the hot tub, the truth is that this blatant use of a forged affidavit to gain a pyrrhic victory for the D has to be rather damaging to his, no doubt, highly esteemed ‘reputation’, and, for that reason alone, I would encourage sharing this essay with anyone who may find its contents of interest to them.

Pyrrhic

adjective [attributive] (of a victory) won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor.

In any event, given my unlawful debanking experience with the Co-op Bank, I will continue to expose the fraud of the financiers as and when it comes to my attention.

In the meantime, and should you be able to support me during this time of my debanking, please consider chucking a few quid into the pot via the BuyMeACoffee button and/or taking out a paid subscription at my Substack page.

Thank you to all my supporters – it’s truly appreciated.