Shake the Tree

To assist a commercial property tenant, with decision making. The wrong decision could burden them with a £150,000 legal bill, and the same in dilapidation fees. Taking in the detail could avoid such risks.

Drafted by Kevin Lamin.

This application is no other, than a spurious attempt to defraud me. And should be thrown out in its entirety, with the applicant paying their cost.

On continuation, the following 5,700 words, that detail fraud, and likely money laundering, will be passed to Action Fraud London.

Para 53, details the cost, incurred by just 1 of the 4 people, who’ve supported me, in my defence, absorbing 300 earth hours.

Are solicitors, destroying UK society... ??

You tell me...

And what is a MeKenzie Friend, able to do for you..?

And how helpful is that likely to be..?

Feel free to enquiy...

42. ( Para 21 ) A paragraph, simply beyond belief, inferring the bar on the legal process is in the gutter. In that one can accuse a female, who’s life’s focus has been to raise the applicants children, & their, children. Who’s also had to gift, a 400,000 euro property legacy, to her bodge-it, this will do, I’m a builder ex husband. The respondent has on top of, no pun intended, additionally providing the applicant with an exit from financial oblivion, via the endearment of the respondents sister.

43. The applicant’s done substantial works to the family home, but hasn’t attained the required papers to sell the property, which will be repossessed in 2025, as the capital will be outstanding. Being the situation the applicant has imposed on the respondent. Yet the concern of their advocate Layla Babadi, conveyed in para 18, is the respondent has not provided proof, of her unemployment & her Tax Credit. But Layla Babadi accepts, she knows her status. Can you imagine Layla’s frustration.

44. Layla Babadi, in the applicants statement, makes the same inference, on the respondent’s effort to sell the property, as done about her Tax Credit, thus Layla is complicit in fraud, via deception.

45. Fact; the family home has had, circa 14 viewings, & it’s on its 5th estate agent, (as demanded by the applicant), despite how bazaar that, and his other demands are. (To include sacking a friendly, helpful, low cost, estate agent with historic data. Replacing with, an expensive, with no historic data). Regardless, the respondent’s done her very best, to comply with the applicant’s demands.

46. The Portugal property, managed by the applicant, is not even up for sale, some 10 months after the consent order. Yet the applicant, has absolute control, of the sales direction. Yet here we are, on the demand of the applicant, via his advocate, to discuss in court, the respondent’s adherence, to a court consent order. Such being both audacious & arrogant.

47. This is a clear example, of court misuse. Ironically the evidence indicates, such is being funded by laundered money, (save the applicant producing their last 3 years accounts). Or indeed, any year in the last decade, or even the name of his accountant. I’ll repeat, this legal action, is being funded by laundered money, paid to a solicitor, a barrister and the court.

You, really couldn’t make it up, and I haven't..

Grasp; Karen the respondent, is 63.. and; (1) whilst married, was kept away from finance & bills, (2) has no skills or qualifications. ( 3 ) was pregnant at 17, married the applicant at 20, had 4 children, & now has 9 grandchildren. ( 4 ) Correction, her energy, skills & concern, for 40 years have been as a devoted mother, to her, and the applicant’s children, and their, 9 grandchildren. ( 5 ) She is now without work, living on state aid, being £378.08 a month, (I’ve seen the Giro). She get’s by, via the help of her family & friends. ( 6 ) The respondent, has told the applicant, she may have to leave the family home, as there’s only dregs of the central heating oil left. She also has to accommodate, the 2 family pets. On doing so, the state utility caps will cease, & the property will be uninsurable, as unoccupied & insecure. The garage door, doesn’t lock, so provides access, to the home. Currently the respondent has little option, than reside as is, & adhere to every demand, of the applicant’s.

Other than destroy, the respondent financially, her self esteem & spirit. What do the applicant, solicitor & barrister, with the aid of the UK court, aim too achieve. Via evidence of an applicant, who with Macular Degeneration, C, takes lead from his solicitor, to navigate the court. Then he’ll drive home & start working. Of course he’ll deny all that, as he’s falsified his residential address, as he’ll deny moving in with the respondent’s sister, & defrauding the Inland Revenue, & falsifying data, put in front of the Financial Remedy Judge, via the assistance, of Layla his Roythones Ltd. solicitor. The applicant’s credibility, & motive will be further questioned when considered relevant. E. The evidence of applicant; David John Cragg, 22 Coniston Close, NG2 6ND. There’s no evidence it’s self composed. So the overwhelming influence of his advocate, is assumed. Save being presented with, the applicants draft, when I’d of course apologise, for a sound assumption.

Ask yourself; other than destroy the respondent financially, her self esteem, & spirit. What are the applicant, their solicitor & barrister, & the UK courts aiming to achieve. Via the evidence of a male applicant, who holds the arm of his solicitor to guide himself safely into court, then drives home. The applicants, and their advocates credibility, and motives are further questioned as considered relevant.

1). So, the detail; Two of Mansfield’s finest, arrested Bob, at the 2024 Walesby, Big Fake Festival. Being on the last of 5 nights, being Sunday, 1st September, at circa 19:00. Bob’s detention being unlawful, as an instinct to protect another human from harm, is commendable, not unlawful.

2). Bob was held at, Mansfield Police Station, Great Central Rd, Mansfield NG18 2HQ. From circa; 8pm Sunday, to circa; 3pm on Monday 2nd, being 18 hours. With no food or water, for 12 hours, & Bob had to stay in Mansfield, Monday night, to comply with the bail terms, which remain until further notice.

3). All, to include the Big Fake Festival’s security; treated Bob like, a deposit in the tread of their shoe. As not one, listened to Bob, as to what had actually occurred. Do ask, why would that be.? On attending court, they maybe, able to justify their behaviour. Where as Bob will simply state, what occurred.

4). The Big Fake Festival’s security, advised Bob he’d aught to exit the festival grounds, as the parents of Bev the accuser, & their friends, would likely attack him. The Big Fake Festival team stated, they simply couldn’t guarantee Bob’s safety. As there were too many of them, & they had been drinking. Is that not a HATE crime, along with Drunken & Disorderly, over to Mansfield’s finest! Yet Bob, was ultimately arrested, for talking to a group of children, about noise, that had prevented them sleeping. Bob suggested ear plugs, maybe a solution. You simply couldn’t make this stuff up...

5). If you go to such festivals, you really do need to grasp this detail... as the action of the Big Fake Festival management, and the Mansfield Police, could destroy, life as you know it... Compo' by: Shake the Tree...

4. Justification: They did so to appease, 2 Howes Percival solicitors, a London barrister, Evie Barden, & the deceptive John Bateman, of Franklin Silencers Ltd. An Act of judicial perjury, leading to the deplorable fraud of a landlord. Who Howes Percival deemed, should fund a 2 year claim, fund 100% of the dilapidations, fund the mandatory surveyor’s defect list, & pay the defendant’s, £85k, legal bill. Of course being nice, but putting the landlord, at a loss, when even a risk of a loss, is fraud. Wishing to pass a landlord a total loss of £120k. Being 10 times, the £12k settlement offer. A pointer to the non compos mentis. In the UK, imposing a loss, on another, is Fraud (period). With such being blatantly obvious, pre-trial.!

The Defence of Barclays Possession Order – Para’s 53-65.

07 Would you prefer to be Screwed, or Shafted, no sex involved, as this occurs, court side. (BBPO Para’s 53-65).

This final paragraph also includes a refresher of the parties actions. Call me biased, but Barclays Bank have shown zero concern for a customer, who is also a substantial shareholder, well they were.

Barclays only concern is to regain their capital sum. I’m hoping the Judge takes a pragmatic view, that as a landlord and home owner, I have many responsibilities and commitments and neither a Judge, nor Barclays are best placed to dictate how I best deal with the same. The document leavers no doubt, Judges are not qualified to rule over financial issues, or judge those who do.

I have often said the obvious to Barclays operatives. As I’m paying 6.65% interest on the capital, that debt will be paid off when timely to do so. Barclays cannot expect me to go through hardship, at my time of life, just to gain a head pat, and so Barclays can lend the same money, to another younger person, at a lower rate.

Kevin Lamin.

The Defence of Barclays Possession Order - Para's 28-52.

This section includes para’s 5 to 9 of the original UK’s Defence of a Possession Order. Everybody is going to have different views on its terms, but one has to assume Barclays simply desiring the loans immediate repayment, may not be enough. As they have used deception to infer there are arrears and conflict with the borrower. When the borrow has in fact now provided over 30,000 words of detail on their situation.

And all the interest, as agreed in the loan is paid. Barclays have decided to designate the principal capital sum as arrears, when of course it is the principal capital sum, as it has been for 26 years.

And Barclays has a process in place that to an outsider may appear they mean to assist, when they don’t. They fabricate what they think others will fall for. When Barclays own letters show that to be the case. I liken such a situation to the Post Office scandal, where it appears that UK Judges accept whatever a solicitor puts in front of them... I’ve news for the many, that is precisely what does occur, well lets see what occurs in the instance.

This section also covers detail on the:

Equality Act 2010 (para 45).

The Perjury Act of 1911 (para 49).

The Fraud Act of 2006 (para 50).

All of which Barclays have breached, and the detail of how, and why is clear. The question is, will such be clear to a Judge.. ?? Who give the public the perception they are the holders of knowledge and wisdom, well lets see.

Kevin Lamin.