aesmith wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:46 am
Re-reading his post I don't think it's even got that far. He wants something in exchange ..
In simple terms, I have offered to share all the evidence we have of endemic signature forgery with the on-going SFO and NCA investigations, as well as present hundreds of files of evidence proving institutionalised mortgage fraud to the committee in person.
In return, I have asked that they support our forthcoming application for a moratorium to be declared on all mortgage possession claims, pending the outcome of the class actions.
So by setting out an unrealistic request as the condition to turning over something that he feels would blow the whole mortgage fraud up, he ensures his evidence will never be seen.
If you have such exculpatory evidence why would you not just send it to them, and if nothing happens, prehaps then send it to the press. If it is so damning someone reputable would be able to independently verify and publish a well researched article. Could it be he either doesn't have anything so sets himself up for failure by making it conditional on an unreasonable ask, or prehaps what he has is a bunch of mad insane ramblings he has penned himself based on irrelevant or invalid legal theories that are just not applicable or are as irrelevant as his arguments. I know he likes to wave his victory around but his win doesn't show a systemic signature fraud is going on. There was no fraud in his case, and his defect was ordered cured, which wouldn't have happened if there was fraud. Sure there are mistakes made in documents, but if you took the money, you don't to keep it. You can either pay it back, or fix the mistake. There is no option 3, winning the lottery and getting to keep your loan.
Has he ever explained why he should get to have free money, besides believing any mistake entitles you to void the agreement but keep the money?