CBR

• 2: Case Studies
• 3: Class Action
• 4: News/Audio
• 5: Public Inquiry
• 6: Links
• 8: Contact

Details in our PUBLIC INQUIRY tab....soon.....

Definition: GFEG = GLOBAL FINANCIAL ENGINEERING GOLIATH: http://www.cbr.me/

BoS/N&C/Ernst & Young affidavit. Are you one of ''Dozen''?

Please note, this page is under construction and will be until ALL the exhibits/documents have been secured from the other "dozen" casualties. Please therefore view this page regularly for the latest version. This 'live-redrafting' being preferable to taking the page down. There's also supporting evidence available on:

1. the AABA website; on Auditing/related topics emphasising that the USA authorities are more willing to go after GFEGs than the UK authorities are!! Why is that? A striking example is that group of casualties, "The Baker's Dozen". Again, are you one of ''Dozen''? mentioned in this one page extract from the Bank of Scotland Management Team [BoSMT] affidavit, sworn in the Royal Courts of Justice, London [21st June, 1991].

Viewing it from the AABA Auditing perspective.....

Also on the aabaglobal.org site, from the Insolvency perspective.....

Also see our Individual Cases and Corporate Scandals pages, and....

LIST OF THE EXHIBITS/EVIDENCE that, amongst other, demonstrate that BANK OF SCOTLAND managers told UNTRUTHS to deceive the:

(i) Royal Courts of Justice, London

(ii) Isle of Man High Court/Tynwald Parliament:

1. [to be inserted ASAP]

2. [to be inserted ASAP]

.....Events since the Sub-Prime crisis which was caused by the banks, indicate that 'The Baker's Dozen' should be encouraged to go on as never before! What's changed since the 1990s? ANSWER - everyone now knows that bankers will say, &/or do, anything to get their hands on the assets of others e.g. that bankers [aided and abetted by their auditors/lawyers] will commit  Perjury/Conspiracy is now utterly believable, sadly! There's a PATTERN too in the finance sectors on Isle of Man, London and elsewhere, as is evidenced by this letter, written upon the advice of a member of the Isle of Man Parliament!

QUESTION: WHY did Mr D Cannan MHK (MP) not raise it in Parliament himself rather than merely ADVISING his constituent to get together with the Edwards in the European Court of Human Rights as the two cases were so similar. Is that an admission that Mr Cannan knew he'd get nowhere when up against what is locally referred to as 'The Manx Mafia'??   - not realising that, as had been pointed out to the Edwards by ECHR, that first they'd have to 'exhaust all local remedies' before ECHR could consider what is being placed , in stages, on this website. This as all other attempts have hit 'the wall' of CONFLICTED REGULATION, to date anyway!! With the new impetus triggered by the debate of James Paice MP. Vince Cable MP's request for the FSA to investigate etc....perhaps this signals a new dawn in securing the Public Inquiry into why the Ministry of JUSTICE has decided to close their files on all that was submitted to the Jack Straw Review into the Crown Dependencies on June 18th, 1998? Into all that stemmed from the High Courts' refusal to investigate the part they played in:

PERJURY/CONSPIRACY to pervert the course of justice/FRAUDulent-Conversion/Institutional THEFT....bluntly, that's telling LIES in order to steal....

....through the High Court

....in the High Court

....USING the High Court

....as the device to secure control of the wealth of bank customers.

....once E&Y and their associates have that control the uninitiated customer will, in our experience, be at their mercy! - and GFEGs don't 'do' mercy! Unless your experience is different that is....

This conduct, common to the 14, or more, cases that were constructed by ERNST & YOUNG, and others - firstly in the J S Bass case - then similarly in ''The Baker's Dozen'' cases - these in The Royal Courts of Justice:

1988: The J S Bass/Ernst & Young/Barclays case - again, had the injustice been dealt with, the punishment that taught the lessons then all that has followed would have been avoided....which now includes the HBoS/Quayside Consultants cases [some articles courtesy of Ian Fraser: http://www.ianfraser.org/?s=hbos+scourfield], some 20 years after the J S Bass case began!

....had the J S Bass case been dealt with PROPERLY. That is had the IMPROPRIETY received the punishment to fit the CRIME, then it would have shaken up the regulatory system, and the Global Financial Engineering Goliaths, GFEGs. Then ERNST & YOUNG, BARCLAYS BANK and the other GFEGs, including the remaining Banks and therefore BANK OF SCOTLAND, would have been taught a lesson!....

....and had that lesson included the FEAR of the consequences of committing PERJURY/CONSPIRACY to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE [see "Ministry of JUSTICE", below] then the J S Bass case would have been the last - and on or about 1990 the J S Bass/Chapman family would have been properly compensated for the FRAUD perpetrated upon them....and "The Baker's Dozen" would not have happened....

....and had Parliament, The Bank of England/regulators, on or about January 15th, 1991 listened to Austin Mitchell MP, amongst others, [scroll down to ''Column 466'', ''Audit'' questions], and incorporated FEAR of loss into the regulation of the Global Financial Engineering Goliaths, GFEGs, especially the then 'big 8', now 'big 4' ACCOUNTANCY GFEG businesses. That is the advice as to the way forward for regulation of the banks, much discussed around that time, and later confirmed in our "FEAR AS REGULATOR" audio extract from the "Money Box" programme, December 1st, 1993. Yes, the FEAR of just how EXPENSIVE such conduct would become in monetary, custodial sentence and reputational terms.....then the J S Bass/Chapman family would have been restored to their former position on or about 1990. Ernst & Young and Barclays would have been punished and many many other CBRs would not have been created in 1990/91 by the Bank of Scotland Management Team, BoSMT, as defined in their affidavit. Again we need you to contact us with details of your experiences if you....

Are you one of the ''Dozen''? mentioned in this one page extract from the Bank of Scotland Management Team [BoSMT] affidavit, sworn in the Royal Courts of Justice, London, 21st June, 1991 [see "Ministry of JUSTICE", below]. As is evidenced in this document, "...It [BoS] has put together a management team....''. This affidavit was Perjurous,  as was much else supporting the Court's Order of the appoinment of BoSMT [N&C being an insolvent 'one man band' being propped up by BoS/E&Y at the time the Court Order was granted - this KNOWN to BoS/N&C AUDITORS, ERNST & YOUNG!]. In layman's terms, as we understand it, this means the appointment was gained by the use of IMPROPRIETY which makes it VOID. Thus the casualties must be put back into the position they would now have been in! This evidenced by the following exhibits which are to have explanation added beside them as time permits:

e.g. an example of the lack of diligence from when the first of 'the Baker's Dozen' cases went before the Chancery Division of the ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE [RCJ] is the apparent lack of due diligence carried out on NURSING & CARE ASSOCIATES [N&C]. The Court failed in its duty to check before Ordering the Court Appointed Receiverships, some 13 in all. Instead RCJ Ordered that the assets/funds of the BoS customers be in effect put on a plate for the insolvent company, N&C, AND its auditors [also BoS auditors] ERNST & YOUNG, to 'FEED' off! Hence the term for the BoS customers, PROFESSIONAL FEE FODDER [PFF]!

UNDATED letter from the Ministry of JUSTICE [FULL OF APOLOGIES but another one is now due re the omission of the date....if we hadn't kept the envelope postmarked August 30th, 2007 how would we know the date for the PUBLIC INQUIRY?]. This evidences the fact that the DILIGENCE/efficiency within Jack Straw's department is lacking. If they can get a letter wrong, what confidence can we have in anything he/his department, and therefore the GOVERNMENT he's a part of.... does or says?

VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS about the BoSMT management, October 24th, 1991.

Now, returning to "...It [BoS] has put together a management team....''. This comprised:

1. Bank of Scotland, BoS.

2. Ernst & Young, E&Y, BoS auditors [/joint auditors KPMG. BoS also advised that KPMG be Mrs Edwards' tax advisers. Which immediately created a CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, in breach of the BoS banking licence!]

3. Nursing & Care Associates, also audited by Ernst & Young! Thus creating yet further MULTIFACED-CONFLICTS-of-INTERESTS! Had BoS/E&Y learned the lessons from what went on in the J S Bass case then surely:

i) E&Y would not have gone into mutually beneficial business relationships with, not one, but TWO, audit clients, BoS and Nursing & Care Associates, and by so doing creating  further CONFLICTS of INTERESTS, with BoS, and the management company that BoS advised Mrs Edwards to use, namely:

a) Nursing & Care Associates, N&C. That on or about 1990, made a LOSS in its first, and only, filed accounts of £61,756.

The perhaps most damning pages in the Edwards case - for:

• ERNST & YOUNG
• BANK OF SCOTLAND and, not least,
• THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE and therefore Jack Straw/Ministry of JUSTICE, are:

1. Again, the ONLY set of accounts that Nursing & Care Associates, N&C, ever filed at Companies House show that in its first trading year, ending March 1990, N&C made a LOSS of £61,756.
2. the page that ERNST & YOUNG signed, as auditors, on December 20th, 1990, when they were in the CONFLICTING business relationship with N&C/BoS [see SEC v E&Y precedent below]! That is, when ERNST & YOUNG were conspiring with it's audit client, N&C, to 'CONSTRUCT' Court Appointed Receiverships from the customers of BoS 'specialist lending division', CENTRAL BANKING SERVICES - again, whose auditor was ERNST & YOUNG!! How's that for CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS?? Had this been jumped on by Alistair Darling in 1994, or as soon as Labour came into power in 1997 then much of the following would not have happened.

Or had Jack Straw jumped on it, on or soon after, June 18th, 1998, when A Edwards gave evidence to Home Secretary J Staw's "Review of Crown Dependencies" then the "2004 - ERNST & YOUNG/Peoplesoft precedent" case, below would not have happened - but it did happen the following year! It continued for some 5 years before the SEC put a stop to the CONFLICT OF INTERESTS at E&Y/Peoplesoft.

2004 - ERNST & YOUNG and audit client Peoplesoft precedent - This showing the PATTERN OF CONFLICT of INTEREST abuse, Worldwide, stemming from repeatedly refusing to learn lessons. Had their been meaningful FEAR & PUNISHMENT, then maybe they would have acted properly? Again, why have the American authorities taken action whilst the UK authorities have merely talked endlessly about it? ANSWER - FLAWED GOVERNMENT/REGULATION due to not wanting to upset the gravy train in the City of London - that has brought in so much for the 2 Chancellor of the Exchequers - Brown/Darling!!....and the claim that London is the centre of World finance by those 2 - N.B. - this hasn't been bragged about since 'London' was therefore, by definition, the centre of the Sub-Prime FRUAD. To quote from the SEC v ERNST & YOUNG [E&Y/Peoplesoft Court documents]:

LIKEWISE, E&Y should have qualified the accounts of N&C to March 1990 [signed 20th December, 1990] [CURRENTLY REDRAFTING THIS SECTION]....Ernst & Young..... on 3rd June, 1991, Bank of Scotland would not have advised Mrs Edwards to use Nursing & Care Associates as her new management company instead of her choice, International Care Services to follow the earlier 'dozen' certainly, the case of Mrs Edwards, and possibly the other 'dozen', would not have taken place. We cannot say about the 'dozen' mentioned in the BoSMT affidavit, for sure, until we have the facts in their cases!! However, our Freedom of Informaiton Act request for these details, and a full breakdown of where Mrs Edwards' wealth went was blocked by the justice system on the basis that Court documents are not covered by the FOI! Can that really be true when PERJURY/CRIMINAL conduct is involved?....for example, we know that some of the wealth in the Edwards case was, shall we at this stage say, 'diverted' through higher-than-is-credible-wages! Wages were the largest overhead and were consistently higher than the 'norm'. In one period they were up to 3 times [some 139%] what they should have been. That's right, 139% of income as part of the apparent plan by BoSMT to run the businesses down so they could not be refinanced out of the grip of BoS via another lender. Other than bad management, what other reason could there be?.....and all this within the protection of a Court Order....yes, supposedly under the protection of the Royal Courts of Justice!! Again, the Royal Courts of Justice issued a Court Order and placed the care of the Edwards wealth into the hands of those THE COURT APPOINTED. The Court had a 'dozen' earlier experiences of BoSMT and if they had done due diligence on Nursing & Care Associates they would have found that it was only ever a loss making company. This from the only set of accounts it ever filed, showing a loss of in excess of £61,000. These accounts audited and signed off by E&Y on 20th December 1990. Why didn't E&Y qualify those accounts? - probable answer, that E&Y had CONFLICT OF INTERESTS as auditors of both N&C and BoS. How could E&Y have spoiled the gravy train that E&Y/BoSMT was on - it would have meant E&Y, and its audit clients, losing large sums + telling the High Court that their audit client N&C was unfit and would have to be removed from its role as Court expert witness/manager! In the Edwards case, that would have allowed International Care Services, the Edwards choice since 29th May, 1991, to have replaced N&C and the Edwards could then have rescued the wealth producing assets from the grip of BoSMT!

The obtaining of information is just one issue that remains. Maybe the outcome of the current phone 'hacking' case - where documents have to be ''unsealed'' by the Court - will reveal how best to go about securing documents from the Royal Courts of Justice on behalf of the 'BAKER'S DOZEN'.

How would BoS managers/E&Y partners have faired with 7 years custodial sentences for PERJURY/CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE? Hence saying, the 'BAKER'S DOZEN' [cases] would have been prevented had FEAR been an integral part of the regulatory system, as per the conversation ''6. 1993 ''FEAR as regulator''

Are you one of the ''Dozen''? mentioned in the Bank of Scotland Management Team [BoSMT] affidavit sworn in the Royal Courts of Justice, London on 21st June, 1991....some 3 years after the J S Bass case began in September 1988, and which is still ongoing!

If you are then we are hoping that YOU will contact us and supply first hand accounts of your  experiences at the hands of BoSMT. When that evidence is available it will be posted below ,if you so wish, as the next step in securing JUSTICE/COMPENSATION.

As a means to this, would you like to join a CLASS ACTION against BoSMT who ripped you off? If you haven't already contacted us PLEASE email: justin@CBR.me or alanedwards4@Hotmail.com. The case of Mrs Edwards, below, may well hold evidence not previously available to you and which may urge you to join the Class Action.

.

.

.

.

3rd August, 2009 - Currently being redrafted.....

....the 13th of the 'Baker's dozen'....

....The case of Mrs Edwards....

Again, the text, evolving daily, will be placed around each of the  exhibits/evidence, to be inserted below:

Details of the submission to the FSA/SFO/CPS to be inserted here, including:

The LIES told to The Royal Courts of Justice in affidavits/correspondence/verbally:

1993-04-16 - BoS/Central Banking Services. Letter from D M Dunlop contains LIES as will be evidenced from the following exhibits:

1. 1991-07-10.ICS to NDR re JPNH (£508K pretax).pdf - as will be shown BoS knew International Care Services but advised the Edwards to use Nursing & Care Associates - an insolvent company/one man band! Why?
2. SEVERAL EXHIBITS TO BE ADDED HERE

The 'Dunlop letter' was allegedly worded to deceive/misrepresent matters to The Royal Courts of Justice - and thus made the FRAUD drag on much longer - apparently well after the last asset was sold [but still they didn't make their joint BoS auditors, KPMG, cough up the balance of the 'letter of undertaking' monies, some £144,000 + interest since December 1990!

- but why would they when E&Y and KPMG had a joint duty to get the other to do a better job in the Edwards case!! - it appears that they made a pact not to chase the other?? KPMG for the £144K and BoS/E&Y for introducing N&C and the negligent management  by BoSMT of the assets in Edwards]. Thus, this 'Dunlop' letter, is of paramount importance as it adequately demonstrates the extent to which BoSMT people would go to ensure that there was nothing left of the  original equity/cash. Prior to BoSMT getting their hands on this wealth the total borrowings were some £3m on the security of some £10m. - i.e. equity of some £7m! In 2003 when BoSMT could justify that their fees/bank charges etc had swallowed up the equity they applied to The Royal Courts of Justice too end it. However, although the Court would be negligent not have insisted in having a full analysis of where the Edwards wealth had gone - the Court has failed, despite Edwards' requests, to  supply this document showing where the wealth went. Again, the Court had a duty, and still has to supply documentary evidence, 'to the penny'! As head of the Ministry of JUSTICE Mr Straw - where is the document and supporting evidence? Thus the Court, and Jack Straw, since 18^th June, 1998, have aided and abetted this FRAUDULENT CONVERSION. This is the crux of the request for the PUBLIC INQUIRY!

As in the MG Rover case, they hope never to have to make the report public! In summary, Jack Straw [yes he pops up again] has managed to dodge doing his DUTY, as:

• 1. Home Secretary
• 2. commissioner of the "Review of Regulation in the Crown Dependencies"
• 3. Privy Counselor for Isle of Man.
• 4. Minister for Justice! [ see Ministry of JUSTICE, below].

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

which contained LIES and was allegedly worded to deceive/misrepresent the facts to The Royal Courts of Justice and the Edwards - and thus made the FRAUD run longer. In so doing this letter is of paramount importance as it adequately demonstrates the extent to which BoSMT people would go to ensure that there was nothing left of the  original equity/cash. Prior to BoSMT getting their hands on this wealth the tital borrowings were some £3m on values of some £10m. - i.e. equity of some £7m! In 2003 when BoSMT could justify that there was nothing left they ended it but The Royal Courts of Justice could supply no document showing where every penny had gone! Thus that Court aided and abetted this FRAUDULENT CONVERSION! Since then even Jack Straw [yes he pops up again] has managed to dodge getting involved [ see Ministry of JUSTICE, below].

.

FURTHER EXHIBITS/TEXT TO BE INSERTED HERE

.

The other ''dozen'' as mentioned in the BoSMT affidavit i.e the case of Mrs Edwards, apparently the 13th time BANK OF SCOTLAND MANAGEMENT TEAM [BoSMT] CREATED, FRAUDULENT, receiverships - to fill their boots with the assets and cash of BoS customers...unless the SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE, SFO &/or Financial Services Authority, FSA/other, find otherwise.

Just one of many letters to be inserted here:

2009-05-28 - email to James Paice MP, prior to his Debate in Westminster Hall, 2nd June, 2009.

More about the judges.......the way judges......

BoS Lawyer J Corrin, founding director of Bank of Wales [1974], which became Bank of Scotland (Isle of Man) Ltd, BANK OF SCOTLAND (ISLE OF MAN). J Corrin later became the judge who presided over Edwards hearings. Judge Corrin therefore had CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS, and therefor the whole Court, and should not have presided over claims/counterclaims involving BoS, HIS FORMER EMPLOYER! To judge the Counterclaims of Mrs Edwards 'forum non conveniens' guaranteed the loss of the family home - and J Corrin knew that there'd be no time for the counterclaims to be heard in London before the repossession hearings - when he knew that Legal Aid had been denied!! Is that Justice?

2009-07-02. ERNST & YOUNG'S ERROR - SUED for FRAUD and ACCOUNTING MALPRACTICE. What use is an E&Y/KPMG audit of a bank when those GFEGs JOINTLY failed to qualify BoS Annual Report & Accounts for years - due to CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS - when PERJURY/CONSPIRACY/FRAUD/CONCERNS ABOUT MANAGEMENT were reported to E&Y/KPMG?/The Royal Courts of Justice? The evidence of this is in the Edwards case.

Confirmation of rent paid to Mrs Edwards

Confirmation of rent paid to Mrs Edwards

1990-12-20. NURSING & CARE ASSOCIATES' LOSS, £61,756. [the first, and only, annual accounts N&C ever filed] N&C NEVER MADE A PROFIT and yet the Royal Courts of Justice appointed it to manage the assets of others on behalf of the Court/as an agent/expert witness of the Court!!  N&C was such ''a specialist company'' and Mr STANNILAND such a COURT-EXPERT-WITNESS as to be unable to run his own business properly never mind running businesses for the ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE - which failed in its duty to provide JUSTICE!! 
IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE ''dozen'' then you may not know what we have found out i.e. the track record of Nursing & Care Associates [N&C] - that the High Court appointed to manage your assets. THIS KNOWLEDGE MAY ENCOURAGE YOU TO ENJOIN IN A CLASS/GROUP ACTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OTHERS NAMED IN THE EXHIBITS BELOW, and elsewhere on this 'site!! This exhibit and ones following show that  N&C traded from 31st March 1989 and ceased trading in October 1992. In that time it only filed its first years accounts. These showing a loss of £61,756. Why no accounts for the other 2 years, the figures would have been damning! The Official Receiver failed in his duty to investigate this FRAUD perpetrated on the Royal Courts of Justice and 'The Baker's Dozen'. This, aided and abetted by BoS and Ernst & Young. ERNST & YOUNG formed the company + were N&C's REGISTERED OFFICE + AUDITORS - and apparently used N&C as the Trojan Horse to get inside companies in order to CONSTRUCT receiverships and thus generate millions in fees + in this case 11 years 8 months of fees/BoS bank charges and huge lawyers' fees! The Court would not listen to these FACTS! Ernst & Young's fees for the first 6 months alone were some £200,000! N&C had fewer assets than its CASUALTIES and was apparently being 'propped up' by ERNST & YOUNG! WHY? Worst of all - all this went on under the Court's Order and the cover up means that BoSMT deceived the Court by the use of PERJURY/CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. Again, the Court wouldn't listen - or chose at some point to turn a blind eye knowing that the CBRs would lose EVERYTHING and wouldn't have the means to fight on? As you'll see below, complaints to the Court/Ministry of Justice were useless!

[TO BE INSERTED] OFFICIAL RECEIVER'S REPORT on, NURSING & CARE ASSOCIATES, the management company BoS ADVISED Mrs Edwards to use - KNOWING that they'd perpetrated this FRAUDULENT CONDUCT as part of the plan to enrich themselves and their auditors E&Y/KPMG.

[TO BE INSERTED]1992-10-01. P STANNILAND's DECLARATION TO OFFICIAL RECEIVER - In summary N&C was effectively a one man band!

It is thought that at least one of the 'dozen' was paid out via a non-disclosure agreement - are you that CBR? Will you please contact us to assist the other dozen IN CONFIDENCE? PLEASE! All this was placed before, amongst others, Alistair Darling in 1994 and Jack Straw in 1998, and since via a FOI Act request - to no avail! The official file given to us is 'incomplete' shall we say? Did the Royal Courts of Justice check the credentials of N&C before appointing it as manager. We can't find out, Court papers are exempt from the FOI Act!!  ERNST & YOUNG failed as auditors of N&C + auditors of BoS + Officers of the High Court to do their duty - and in the PUBLIC INTEREST. This due to CONFLICTS OF INTEREST and GREED!

2002-07-24.COURT SERVICE/LCD, 5 letters. This shows that Government has just created paper rather than addressing the PERJURY/CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE by BoSMT - in the hope that it would all go away - but this will discredit the people mentioned herein on the run up to the next election unless they choose to settle of course. Mrs Edwards would have had an income of well in excess of £500,000 each year, conservatively....and RISING....from the early 1990s. What's that worth today and with a sum for the lost income over the last 17 years or so?

BoS letter [1993-04-16] deceived the Court into thinking that N&C was still trading when it ceased trading 6 months before. Why would BoS tell untruths to the Court? There's more than one UNTRUTH in it as will be revealed later - e.g. BoS says that the Edwards requested receivers - that is simply UNTRUE i.e. further PERJURY, as correspondence will show - watch this space!

2007-08-30.Department of Justice/FOI Act. UNDATED LETTER probably written around 2007-08-30 - containing 2 apologies! But those won't pay the bills! Only adequate compensation and PUNITIVE DAMAGES will achieve the closing of this matter!

KPMG, BoS auditors, very much part, with BoS, of the TAX PLANNING/STRUCTURE/ADVICE despite BoS denial. Includes the definition of ''CENTRAL MANAGEMENT & CONTROL'' for tax purposes which BoS themselves fell foul of, evidenced in this case - although authorities wouldn't listen/act.[1988-10-28]

KPMG letter to BoS their audit client. KPMG acted as Isle of Man Registered Office etc for 2 Edwards' companies - and VAT Consultants for one which developed a site in England. [CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS??] [ letter dated 1988-11-18 ]

KPMG giving management instructions [undated] to transfer £145,700. This showing that KPMG WERE involved in the day to day management of Edwards' Isle of Man companies, in this instance, NINIAN Ltd.    [UNDATED LETTER].

ALISTAIR DARLING, 1994, 'Opposition Spokesman on the City and Financial Services'. Letter [1994-03-05] to BAG, copied into BAG newsletter. To quote from his letter "We are in fact finalising a consultation document on the reform of the regulation of banks and other financial institutions." FIFTEEN YEARS ON AND THE BANKING CRISIS, the seed of which was planted by London's financial engineering community, IS THE RESULT OF YOUR EFFORTS MR DARLING? - for years you and the PM have boasted  London to be the centre of World Financial Services...and then blame that 'seed planting' on the USA!

Also see our Public Inquiry page where the draft to the Treasury Select Committee/SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE/Financial Services Agency/other bodies - is evolving in DRAFT form. Suggested content welcomed to those email addresses above PLEASE.

Dear Mr. Paice

'File on Four', 26^th May, 2009 - the £250m loss + BoS PERJURY/CONSPIRACY using the Royal Courts of Justice as the means.....and matters incidental thereto [ however unlikely that may seem, the evidence we can supply supports those very serious allegations!] :

I have spoken to a member of your staff, Rachel, who kindly returned my call this morning. I very briefly outlined the firm documentary evidence we can supply, to support allegations, WHICH WILL assist your constituents in the debate in The House next Tuesday, 12.30 e.g. EVIDENCING that what they have gone through is sadly a PATTERN OF CONDUCT by BoS/HBoS going back to 1990, if not earlier.

Jack Straw and Alistair Darling, to name but two, have in earlier years had the opportunity to act on the PERJURY/CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE committed by BoS in the Royal Courts of Justice - and apparently, decided it was too hot an issue - and hoped it would all go away. An FOI Act request uncovered some evidence but the FOI excludes the release of court documents of the other dozen cases that preceded our case. All 13 or more businesses were introduced to Nursing & Care Associates, N&C, [by BoS]. N&C turned out to be a Trojan Horse for their auditors, Ernst & Young [also BoS joint auditors, with KPMG] and within days this unholy alliance went to the Royal Courts of Justice, RCJ, to secure a Court Appointed Receivership - YES, 13 or more times - hence the term 'the baker's dozen'!

We hope you may be able to use Parliamentary procedure to secure the contact details of the other dozen - mentioned in the extract from the affidavit - so that they can take part in the vital INDEPENDENT PUBLIC INQUIRY to save anyone else losing their homes and businesses/way of life  AND the 13 of us + Barrie Chapman, can then further support your constituents' claims for compensation [and I hope, PUNITIVE DAMAGES for all of us due to appallingly lax regulation, and worse [!] - but then you are aware of that!]. Please see below for how to access the 1 page extract from the full affidavit confirming the other dozen, together with other evidence.

Unfortunately I don't think I will be able to attend on Tuesday but hope that we can all get together to give evidence to the fully independent PUBLIC INQUIRY into the CRIMINALLY-FLAWED-CULTURE AT BOS/HBOS that has led to yet more casualties being created. My wife's business was well on the way to producing £750K pa pretax profit, and rising, but that was before BoS did what they did [which also resulted in the repossession of our family home - the judge presiding in the case, prior to being a judge, was a director of BoS!! - but no one wanted to hear of the CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS!! Unbelievable, sadly no!]. All of these CBRs can say that if only they'd not been with BoS/HBoS then how different their lives would have been.

We found out, too late, that N&C, the manag