Simply
click on a dateWELCOME TO SODSLAW
Simply
click on a date
Two solicitors from the OSS are on indefinite leave, one resigned, one sacked, over this case. For further details e-mail me with your address and I will send you the information. OSS have finally been caught! For what it is currupt.
25 March 1988 Ledger 23 November 1988 3 March 1988 27 April 1989 18 October 1989
7 January 1994 2 September1988 19 October 1988 Signature 25 March 1997 Court Order
Dont be disalutioned by the Law Society and its other hand The O.S.S. also known as Solicitors Complaints Bureau, their are mearly there to protect their members, you may ask yourself what club this is which closes ranks, and shuts the door on the victims, in simple terms this is known as sodslaw.
If you think the police are here to help you then you are wrong, the police also turn their back on you, by clicking on the link (fraud), you will be seeing for yourself a documents showing a property fraud.
Want to see a list of bad Lawyers clik here
Supplemental of Mr Rat (Solicitor)
Statement of Mrs DeSousa Statement of Mr Duck(Solicitor)
Statement of Mr Rat(Solicitor) Statement of Mr K. Chaggar(Barrister)
Statement of Mr Randle(Solicitor)
A SOLICITOR IN NORFORK HOW BEEN STEALING LAND FOR YEARS
O.S.S
A LAWYER
The Solicitor name has been changed to Mr Duck and Mr Rat
In 1989 Miss DeSousa brought a complaint against Solicitors for a duty care. These solicitors acted for both parties.
The S.C.B previously looked into this matter in 1989/90 and came to the conclusion that there was no ground for pursuing any complaint by Miss DeSousa against Messrs Mr Duck, on 18 October, 1989 the Law Society felt that Mr Duck had acted for both vendor and purchaser in relation to 111 Sandringham Road. Ultimately it seems, the bureau were persuaded by a letter from, Mr Duck of 29 June 1990 that they had not so acted and that accordingly the matter could not be taken any further.
I have to say that this letter conceals far more than it reveals but it is interesting in that in its second paragraph it notes how Hewytt Winslow "requested" that the documents [of title,] be sent to us so that copies could be supplied to them to enable them to prepare the sale contract and otherwise act on Miss DeSousa behalf." Nowhere on, Mr Duck file does any such written request appear nor is there the remotest evidence of Hewytt Winslow submitting the draft Contract. Indeed, the Contract is actually dated 7 th, March 1988, the very same day that Mr Duck wrote to Davis & Co (First National’s Solicitors) requesting the Deeds for the supposed purpose of drafting it!
There is no evidence of the purchaser raising standard preliminary enquiries and it is also noted, interstingly, that the local search that had been carried out was addressed by the Local Authority to Hewytt Winslow rather than to Mr Duck purportedly acting for the purchaser Mr Stone, Miss DeSousa was under the impression, at all times that Mr Duck were acting for her, and she signed the Trenasfer at there office (Mr Duck).
Mr Duck made much in their letter of 29th June,1990 to the Complaints Bureau of the fact that they had dealt with the redemption of Miss DeSousa’s mortgage with First National Bank; they gave as their reason the fact that in order to ensure on the purchaser’s behalf that the vendor’s mortgage was properly redeemed, they had to do it as they could not accept, an undertaking to that effect from Hewytt Winslow as non-Solicitors. They say in the letter that the problem would be resolved by authority being given (by Miss DeSousa) to them to attend to the redemption of her mortgage direct; this document on their file is dated 31st March, 1988 (six days after completion took place) it appears to have Miss DeSousa’s signature on it, it mysteriously shows an address which she had no connection with.
If as Mr Duck would like to maintain, this was a proper arms length transaction where they were acting for the purchaser and unlicensed conveyancers were acting for the vendor, why is there no letter from them to Hewytt Winslow requesting that they obtain such authority from Miss DeSousa? Why also is the letter dated 6 days after Completion by which time they had already redeemed Miss DeSousa mortgage.
Mr Duck ledger card for this transaction and noted immediately that the purchaser Mr Stone paid no deposit on Exchange of Contracts. The Contract made no reference to any deposit payment but did show the sale price of £ 85.000 as indeed did the Transfer and the fact that the sale purportedly went through at this price was confirmed by a subsequent payment by Mr Duck of £ 850.00 Stamp Duty. It also showed receipt of Mr Stone’s net mortgage advance of £ 57.835 but showed no evidence whatsoever of any receipt from him of any balance of purchase monies plus costs, disbursements etc. which would have been required where he was purportedly buying for £ 85.000 with the aid of a mortgage of only £ 57.835. There was also a very perculiar entry being a balancing figure of £ 845.95 apparently paid after completion to Hewytt Winslow as balance of purchase monies". Interestingly, when this sum is added to the figure of £ 42.834 which Mr Duck claim they paid to Miss DeSousa on 25th March, 1988 this results in a figure of £ 43,680.95 exactly the figure that Hewytt Winslow claim to have received from Mr Duck by way of "net advance" in a letter dated 23rd November 1988 that thay wrote to other former Solicitors of Miss DeSousa.
Indeed if you look at the figures in that letter they are deliberately confusing in that although thay purport to give "details relating to our clients’s, purchase of the property" all they in fact do is show the gross amount of the mortgage that Mr Stone received and then there are listed various deductions resulting in a net figure; nowhere (conveniently) is there mentioned the fact that the property was supposed to be purchased for £ 85,000 and that in essence a sum of £ 29,112.65 has gone "missing". This sum is the difference between what should have been the net proceeds of sale £ 85,000 minus £ 12,206.40 = £ 72,793.60) and the sum of £ 43,680.95 that Hewytt Winslow say they received from Mr Duck by way of "net advance" when Mr Duck ledger purportedly shows £ 42 835 being sent to Miss DeSousa with £ 845.95 being paid to Hewytt Winslow as " balance of purchase monies"
Miss DeSousa has never received the cheque for £ 42,835. Quite apart from the fact that this sum fell massively short of what she should have received after redemption of her mortgage with First National Bank there is a serious question to be asked as to where this cheque actually went. On the evidence of the letter from Hewytt Winslow if would appear to have gone to them.
In December 1988 Lawyers for Miss DeSousa, had a Telephone conversation with Mr Duck , which they claim the missing money was paid to Hewytt Winslow as hewytt Winslow were acting for Ms De Sousa in a joint purchase they would not give any amore details of this property at that time. This is also mentioned in Mr Duck letter 27 April 1989. In this letter they are denigh any involvement with Ms De Sousa
Some two months ago ( January 1999) we dicovered this property, which is known as 2b Grove End House. It appears Mr Duck did act for name of Susan De Sousa and Peter Atkins, Ms De Sousa never purchased a property in joint names and the signature on the transfer is not hers nor her home address. It is the address of Mr Stone. I feel the reason why Mr Duck denighed any involvement with Ms De Sousa regarding 2b Grove End House, as it may have lead to bank accounts, where Ms De Sousa’s cheque may have gone and would have lead the Solicitors Complaints Breau, to view the conveayings files, in 1989 when a copy of the cheque would still be available.
The fact that the Bureau failed or did not see fit to carry out such investigation in 1989/90 has lead to her lost.
Again in 1993 Miss De Sousa complained about Mr Duck paying unlicenced conveyancers during this complaint, Mr Duck changed their story and, claim not to have paid Hewytt Winslow. They claim to have sent her a cheque. Why wait 7 years to say this when she been complaining, about them paying unlicenced conveyancers her money. They should have told her this before when a copy of the cheque was available. Banks only keep records for 6 years. It was this letter of 7 January 1994, which prompt the Police to get court orders, and they took two conveyancing files which shows Mr Duck acting for both parties, and have been lying for 7 years.
I am enclosing various documents on this page which shows Miss de Sousa has a very strong case, these documents show beyond doupt that Mr Duck has been lying and concealing the truth for 11 years,
Letter dated 23 November 1988, from Hewytt Winslow these were Ms de Sousa estate agents and finicancial advisors. At the bottom of this letter Hewytt Winslow clearly say ‘Net advanced received from Mr Duck being £ 43,680.95 Mr Duck confermed this in 1988 to Miss DeSousa Lawyers.
A copy of the ledger regarding Sandringham Road, which was found in the conveyancing file. The police took this by court orders in 1994, form Mr Duck office. This document confirms Ms de Sousa was selling her house for £ 85,000 this was confirmed by the amount of stamp duty paid, £ 850, the ledger shows some £ 27,000 missing no explanation giving in the Leger as to where this missing money is.
A copy of the transfer (Sandringham Road) confirming the sale for £ 85,000. To Mr P Stone, of 57 Lynden Ave.
Going back to Hewytt Winslow letter of 23 November 1988, Lawyers making enquires on behalf of Ms De Sousa in 1988 asked Mr Duck , why they are only sending £43,680.95, Mr Duck claimed that the balance money was used to purchase a property in joint names, Mr Duck admits that they acted for the other party, but did not act for, Ms De Sousa, they could not discuss this transaction any further. These lawyers have made statements confirming this.
Letter dated 27 April 1989, from Mr Duck to Ms de Sousa’s former soliciitors, paragrahp 2. they are clearly saying they did not act for her. Some two months ago, Ms De Sousa’s Lawyers dicovered this property.
This property is known as 2b Grove End House, I have enclosed a copy of the transfer, which we have obtained. The names Susan de Sousa, and Peter Atkins of 57 Lynden Ave, are shown as the owners of this property.
This is not Ms de Sousa’s signature and the address given on the transfer is also not Ms de Sousa’s home address. Mr Duck new this as Mr Duck acted for Ms Desousa, in purchase of 682 Sidcup Road, This conveyancing file confirms that Mr Duck were acting for both parties.
The decovery of 2b Grove End House, shows Mr Duck new Atkins and Stone or one of the same, which is something Mr Duck have been denid in the parst.
Letter of 27 April 1989, paragraph 1 shows, Mr Duck are denying they ever acted for Ms de Sousa, also it mentions that they did not act for her regarding 77 Bedford Road, I have enclosed Barclays Bank letter 2 September 1988, Paragraph 3 ‘ We understand your solicitors are Mr Duck ’ (missing documents) please see attached letter dated 19 October 1988 where they are refering to the missing documents, and writing to her at 682 Sidcup Road, Why would they be writing to her, if they were not acting for her, and why would she tell Barclays Bank that they were her solicitors, if they are not. Also why wright to 682 sidcup rd, on 19 October 1988, if she suppose to be living at 2b Grove End House from 1 July 1988?
At this point I would like to express Ms de Sousa was selling two houses which she inherrated, and was buying 682 Sidcup Road.
Letter dated 18 October 1989, This letter opened the door, for Ms disuse’s compensation claim.
Mr Duck letter dated 29 June 1990 to the solicitor’s complaints bureau this letter is a total fabrecation , and lies by Mr Duck In an effort to stop her complaint for compensation against them.
Paragraph 1, Mr Duck claim to have acted of Mr Stone, Then why dose Miss DeSousa name appear on the convenyance file, as client.
Paragraph 2 (Requested) why is there no request in the conveyance file.
Paragraph 4, (non – solicitors states e.g. unlicenced conveyances) why are Mr Duck saying to other solicitors that Hewytt Winslow are licenced conveyancers if they knew them not to be and why send them money if they are unlicenced conveyances.
(Specific authorisation)? This is meaningless because it is six days after they paid first National her mortgagees. and it is not Miss DeSousa address but a nether address of Atkins / Stone all of this information is confirmed on the conveyancing file which the police have and which the O.S.S have seen.
On 7 January 1994, Mr Duck sent her a letter. Paragraph 2, they claim they sent her a cheque for the sum of £42,835.00 please see Mr Duck letter dated, 25 March 1988 regarding this cheque.
Why send her a cheque through the post when she is in their office signing the transfers.
The amount Hewytt Winslows claimed to have received from Mr Duck is £43,680.85. there is a difference of £ 845.95. This amount has been traced to Hewytt Winslow and is also shown on the ledger, These two amounts added are £42,835.00 and £845..95, which are the amount of money which Hewytt Winslow claims to, have received from Mr Duck . If Mr Duck sent her the money as they claim why are they not sending her this amount also £845.95?
The police gave her a letter dated 3 March 1988, showing Hewytt Winslow sending money to, Charales Moore solicitors, for the sum of £92,019. This letter is interesting because it shows Mr Duck sending £71,235 to Hewytt Winslow knowing, them to be unlicenced conveyancers. The policies feel that this is part of her money going across to Hewytt Winslow.
The police have traced this money going to a property, and it is a fraudulant purachase involving other solicitors and Hewytt Winslow. The other solicitors are trading, form 39 Cavendish Road, Kilburn NW6. Mr Duck have denied ever having any involvment with that address.
Hewytt Winslow letter dated 16 March 1988 revels a different pitcher. In Mr Ducks statements they mention Miss Awuah, this is the Lawyer which trades from 39 Cavendish Rd.
For 10 years Mr Duck claim they did not act for her, and deied her access to the conveyancing files, and have never accounted to her for the missing £27.000, or supplied a copy of the cheque which they have now claim to have sent her.
If Mr Duck told her about 2b Grove End House, this may have lead to a joint bank account, were her cheque may have gone. We only dicovered this property two month ago (January 1999) Mr Duck have destroyed all the evidence on 2b Grove end house and 77 Bedford Road. Mr Duck would have held the oridgenal copy of the transfer on 2b Grove End House, which hand writing specialist would need to compare signatures, but you can see the signature it is not hers.
MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION CLIK HERE MEN FEMALE
JOKES PAGE GOVERNMENT LIST OF BAD LAWYERS
IS THE IRS ABOVE THE LAW WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRIVACY ACT?
A very important appeals case is before the District of Columbia Circuit for oral arguments on October 5, 1998, Thomas Harold Lake v. Robert Rubin and 92 other consolidated cases #9805009.
A group know as Family Advocates of Pasadena, Texas brought these cases. They were attempting to obtain records for individual clients from the IRS under the Privacy Act of 1974, Title 5 USC, Section 552a, not to be confused with the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), which compells the IRS to provide. The Family Advocates gave the IRS 30 days to respond as the law requires and nothing happened. They began filing lawsuits in the US District Court for the District of Columbia as the law provides, since they have waived immunity when it comes to not complying with the Privacy Act. The DOJ attorneys for the IRS admitted in open court that the records don’t exist, even when there are two big sections in 31 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury that describe in detail how the IRS will comply with the Privacy Act requests, record keeping, etc, etc.
In it’s memorandum opinion, the Bryant trial court dismissed Appellant Thomas Harold Lake and Rose C. Lake’s claim under the Privacy Act with a general proclamation that the Internal Revenue Code Section 7852(e) was a bar to determining the existence or possible existence of a tax liability. The court does not provide any findings or conclusions of law. The court that adjudicated these suits raised the issue of Section 7852(e) without any reference to 7852(e) by the Appellee. The court summarily dismissed the Lakes’ suit and the additional 92 suits, as Section 7852(e) was a bar to the suits.
If the appellate court rules in favor of the Lakes and finds that the IRS is bound by the Privacy Act to disclose records that don’t exist the jig is up and the IRS is doomed with millions of law suits that will put them out of business. Let’s pray that the court makes the right decision and puts an end to this lawlessness.
It is the members of the legal profession who swore an oath to uphold the Law. It is to them that the nation looks for protection from the oppression of government. It is they who bear the full responsibility of bringing to the nation's attention that the Constitution prohibits single group "same hands" control and that such control has occurred. They have done neither. Instead they have both acquired unconstitutional control for themselves and concealed the fact from the nation. Yet it is probable that many in the profession are not even aware of what has occurred.
