Finally after how many months I am getting some interesting responses from KEVIN PRINGLE of GADENS LAWYERS who represent the National Australia Bank.
After threats that I am taking CRIMINAL ACTION against Cameraon CLYNE the CEO of National Australia Bank for Contempt of court, perjury and Fraud I finally got an interesting response from Mr Pringle who seems to finally understand the position he’s put his clients in. For all of you fellow law students now following the progress as I start my law degree (hi all), and for those keeping score, let’s take a look at the email I received today from Mr Pringle. I should say that this email has not been edited in any way and say this knowing that I would be committing purjury if attempting to EDIT evidence.
From Kevin Pringle
Subject: NAB/ National Australia Bank
Date: 22 February 2012 5:47:47 PM AEDT
We assumed our earlier letters and emails made our position clear, especially regarding your suggestion that Ms Murlidhar is not a real person.
Adopting the numbering of your questions in the letter of 21 February 2012 to Mr Dalzell I respond as follows;
1. Ms Murlidhar is a real person, and I have met her in person.
2. This is going to be of no more benefit than the responses that have previously been provided to you.
3. The loan and associated security granted by you and Mrs Norman was not securitised.
4. As required by the Civil Procedure Act, the overarching obligations certificate is provided on behalf the named party to the proceeding, not by the legal representative.
We do not propose to engage in further debate regarding Ms Murlidhar’s existence, or any other matters raised in your previous correspondence.
Mr Dalzell is authorised and instructed to accept service of any process issued against the people named in the attached letter.
All other aspects and communication regarding your matter should be directed to me.
Your settlement proposal is not acceptable to our client.
Kevin Pringle | partner | gadens lawyers
firstname.lastname@example.org | T +61 2 9931 4973 | F +61 2 9931 4888
77 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, NSW, Australia 2000
sydney melbourne brisbane perth adelaide port moresby
It comes as no surprise that Mr Pringle would deny that the Bank Securitised my matrimonial home because if he had said that his client DID securitise it then he knows how much trouble he would be in. Remember, any mortgage that is securitised is FRAUD. What the Bank do is make it very difficult for anyone to prove that they have been fraudulent because they ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS deny securitisation. (Don’t forget that shortly I will be revealing confidential documentation from the National Australia Bank – that is coming I promise).
So for all the sports fans, this was my reply…. oh yes, He still claims Ms Murlidhar is real but can’t find any evidence to present to me showing she is real. Also note that Mr Pringle has now dropped this poor (not real) person into the shit by making the statement that Ms Ashwathi Murlidhar is now fully responsible for the Overarching Obligations certificate. OUCH… in other words he has now made this person responsible for Pringles Firm (Gadens Lawyer), Pringles Client (National Australia Bank) and her personally (if she exsists) open to contempt of court for his own stupidity. Must be great knowing that Mr Pringle somehow believes that doing this is somehow MANLY. When this shit hits the fan, Ms Murlidhar will be held accoutable for the many lies, deceptions and misleading and fraudulent behavior of the bank and Mr Pringle and Mr Segal (Barrister). Good one. If she’s real, I bet she hasn’t thought of the repercussions of Mr Pringle being responsible for her going to Jail. YAY PRINGLE, GO PRINGLE.
Anyway, my response:
Date Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Gadens lawyers 77 Castlereagh Street,
Sydney, NSW, Australia 2000
Via Email only
Dear Mr Pringle and Ms Ashwathi Murlidhar,
SUBJECT: SECURITISATION – ASHWATHI MURLIDHAR – OVERARCHING OBLIGATION
I am writing to you in reply to your email dated 22 February 2012 sent at 5.47pm. I wanted to point out for your convenience that any reply by you has never made your position clear as questions have not been answered appropriately as requested on dozens of occasions. Due mostly to the fact that you have to show any proof of her being real again as requested, I can only assume that you are being deceptive, misleading and a liar. You’ve had all the opportunity in the World to prove certain facts without playing your childish games.
With regard to the suggestion that Ms Murlidhar is not real, I will have the court order certain identifying documents as well as an opportunity to cross examine this person you bring to court representing Ms Murlidhar. You have yet to show me any evidence of her existence and you continue to be deceptive when I ask. If Ms Murlidhar is a real person then she has breached the Overarching Obligations Certificate you say she rightly signed. More of that below.
I am very pleased that you choose to answer the securitisation question Mr Pringle. In your email you have now stated in section 3 of your email that:
“The loan and associated security granted by you and Mrs Norman was not securitised”
I am impressed with your clients FINAL decision to make this point public as now that this is part of your clients official response maybe now we can get on with following this path to it’s final climax. That is Mr Pringle, that your client is in contempt of court. You have just made a direct statement that National Australia Bank DID NOT securitise a loan or “associated security GRANTED by” me and my wife. This unfortunately needs to be fully tested to prove that the claimed “LOAN” and “ASSOCIATED SECURITY GRANTED” was not securitised.
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANKS DUTIES UNDER ADMISSION:
As the National Australia Bank is accountable under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, I wanted to make your client aware of certain sections in that Act.
Section 227 – Concealing etc. of credit books
Prohibition on concealing credit books etc.
A person must not:
conceal, detroy, mutilate or alter a credit book; or
send a credit book out of this jurisdiction
Section 227 (4) – Meaning of a Credit book:
Meaning of credit book:
a book (by whatever name it is known) that this Act requires to be kept; or
a document that is:
lodged with or submitted to ASIC; or
given to a person;
under, or for the purposes of, this Act; or
a book relating to the credit activities engaged in by a licensee or a credit representative; or
a financial record.
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 – Section 202
Standard of proof in civil proceedings
If, in proceedings (other than proceedings for an offence), it is necessary to establish, or for the court to be satisfied, for any purpose relating to a matter arising under this Act, that:
(a) a person has contravened a provision of this Act; or
(b) default has been made in complying with a provision of this Act; or
(c) an act or omission was unlawful because of a provision of this Act; or
(d) a person has been in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly,
knowingly concerned in or party to a contravention, or a default in complying with, a provision of this Act;
it is sufficient if the matter referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) is established, or the court is so satisfied on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Pringle, it seems that your client has a few issues now doesn’t it. It also seems that your mate Segal has to explain to the court the procedure of what one party considers the other party to be a fraud. As like what I have always accused your client of being.
While we are quoting ACTS like your email attempts to do under false and misleading direction of that ACT (Civil Procedure Act) let me again point out the relevant position I have in this question you have not answered truthfully.
Civil Procedure Act 2010 – PART 2.3 – The Overarching Obligations
SECTION 41. Overarching obligations certification by parties on commencement of civil proceeding
(1) Each party must personally certify that the party has read and understood
the overarching obligations and the paramount duty.
(2) The overarching obligations certification must be-
(a) filed with the first substantive document in the civil proceeding
filed by the party; and
(b) otherwise in accordance with the rules of court.
(3) Despite subsection (1), if a party is represented by a litigation guardian
or similar representative, the litigation guardian or similar representative
may make the overarching obligations certification.
It seems Mr Pringle that if you are relying on Ms Ashwathi Murlidhar to be the party representing your client that she must be party to the proceeding. At this stage she is nothing more than a signature.
Civil Procedure Act 2010 – SECT 13
Overarching obligations and legal practitioners
Overarching obligations and legal practitioners
(1) The overarching obligations do not override any duty or obligation of a
legal practitioner to a client, whether arising under the common law or by or
under any statute or otherwise, to the extent that those duties and
obligations and the overarching obligations can operate consistently.
(2) Despite subsection (1), a legal practitioner or a law practice engaged by,
or on behalf of, a client in connection with a civil proceeding must comply
with the overarching obligations despite any obligation the legal practitioner
or the law practice has to act in accordance with the instructions or wishes
of the client.
(3) In the case of any inconsistency between any overarching obligation and a
duty or obligation referred to in subsection (1) or an instruction or a wish
referred to in subsection (2)-
(a) the overarching obligation prevails to the extent of that
(b) in the case of the instruction or wish of a client, the legal
practitioner is not required to comply with any instruction or wish of
the client which is inconsistent with the overarching obligation.
Civil Procedure Act 2010 – SECT 19
Overarching obligation to only take steps to resolve or determine dispute
19. Overarching obligation to only take steps to resolve or determine dispute
For the purpose of avoiding undue delay and expense, a person to whom the
overarching obligations apply must not take any step in connection with any
claim or response to any claim in a civil proceeding unless the person
reasonably believes that the step is necessary to facilitate the resolution or
determination of the proceeding.
Civil Procedure Act 2010 – SECT 20
Overarching obligation to cooperate in the conduct of civil proceeding
Overarching obligation to cooperate in the conduct of civil proceeding
A person to whom the overarching obligations apply must cooperate with the
parties to a civil proceeding and the court in connection with the conduct of
Mr Pringle again it looks like we must now direct all our attention to Ms Murlidhar who you say is the person who represents the Overarching Obligation. This means that I have the authority to direct my attention to her and not you. The issue is that Ms Murlidhar who has not identified herself after repeated opportunities MUST CO-OPERATE in the conduct of civil proceedings. This person has not!
Civil Procedure Act 2010 – SECT 26
Overarching obligation to disclose existence of documents
26. Overarching obligation to disclose existence of documents
(1) Subject to subsection (3), a person to whom the overarching obligations
apply must disclose to each party the existence of all documents that are, or
have been, in that person’s possession, custody or control-
(a) of which the person is aware; and
(b) which the person considers, or ought reasonably consider, are critical
to the resolution of the dispute.
(2) Disclosure under subsection (1) must occur at-
(a) the earliest reasonable time after the person becomes aware of the
existence of the document; or
(b) such other time as a court may direct.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any document which is protected from
(a) on the grounds of privilege which has not been expressly or impliedly
(b) under any Act (including any Commonwealth Act) or other law.
(4) The overarching obligation imposed by this section-
(a) is an ongoing obligation for the duration of the civil proceeding; and
(b) does not limit or affect a party’s obligations in relation to
Finally Mr Pringle Ms Murlidhar has the obligation to disclose the existence of documents.
I would now like to demand all documentation that proves that your client DID NOT securitise my property and I would like to demand evidence in Ms Murlidhars possession that identifies her as a real person.
Please have this documentation sent to me for inspection. If it is not then Ms Murlidhar is AGAIN in breach of her OVERARCHING OBLIGATIONS!
CEO – Wingman Pictures Pty Ltd