Cabot Financial Ltd, Wright Hassall LLP & Sainsbury’s Finance v W... Defence WON

[MedusaT]

Cabot Financial Ltd, Wright Hassall LLP & Sainsbury’s Finance

v Winter

False & Misleading Representations, Fraud, Perjury, Harassment.
EXPOSURE.

Court ruling: Case dismissed/thrown out, Defence Valid.

Website: Google search two words logic law, usually 4/5^th entry page 1 in 300 million,.

Direct site URL: http://logiclaw.co.uk Top right corner. OR

http://lolala.uk top left listing.

These are initial exposures, the worst exhibits were only seen by His Honour The judge, and will be posted later this year.

[Amethyst]

"Court ruling: Case dismissed/thrown out, Defence Valid."

Do you have the judgment order ?

The actual reason for dismissal was the claimants failure to evidence assignment from Sainsbury's to Cabot ?

[MedusaT]

screen copy

[MedusaT]

I presented the 2nd Contradiction of a cluster of about 20 more, each getting far worse.
The Claimant never had a Deed of Assignment, they hoped to rush it through, taking their perjured word for it.
That was just the 2nd item, THEN I PROVED it FALSE in
CPR 16.7 (2), But the entire procedure was fraudulent, to be disclosed in parts soon.

[Amethyst]

Their claim was struck out pursuant to 3.4(2)a which is disclosing no reasonable cause of action ( in this case not evidencing assignment) - they'd obtained judgment by striking out your defence back in 2016 but you managed to get that order set aside, your defence reinstated and their claim struck out instead... well done

Please don't spam the forum with that website link though. Once is plenty.

[MedusaT]

Ref: -- The actual reason for dismissal was the claimants failure to evidence assignment from Sainsbury's to Cabot ? --


failure to: examines the result as an understatement.

The CAUSE lies in the oath sworn for truth, namely: “We 1-are the assignee….2-debt”

1 Presupposes a fact controverted by the evidence,

2 Presupposes a debt, think about it, we NEVER had with them, ONLY IF sworn for truth WAS TRUE instead of FALSE.

The distinction is simple: ^{“You are what you do,not what you say you'll do.”C.G.Jung.}

[R0b]

Might I suggest not speaking in riddles but plain English, I really can't understand anything you are saying.

If the reason for striking out the claim is because there was no evidence of the assignment then just say that.

[MedusaT]

<sup>If the reason for striking out the claim is because there was no evidence of the assignment then just say that.

I showed the precise text of the order: if you care to re-read the item: 30th May 2019, 18:20:PM screen copy.

It does not state the failure was; “because there was no evidence”.

I stated, “The Claimant never had a Deed of Assignment”.

Failing to show was merely part of the reason, commented just before: “THEN I PROVED it FALSE” followed by:
“But the entire procedure was fraudulent, to be disclosed in parts soon.”

I trust that clarifies.</sup>