The Administration Order for KSFUK - including the order sealing the court file

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 05/11/2008 - 00:27

The Administration Order for KSFUK - including the order sealing the court file

PDF file

0
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

PDF file - The Administration Order for KSFUK

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 30/11/2008 - 13:47

Edited to fix download link. Various links to "attached" files are still broken due to the web-site split. Gradually I'm trying to get these things sorted. However, many items have been re-created on the public (www) site, so check there too.


On-line Petition to have Court File accessible to VICTIMS

  • jayed
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 03:35

I believe it would be beneficial to request Justice Floyd to make accessible the Court File (ie grounds for Administration Order) for VICTIMS (ie Depositors) to view.
I promote this as:
- It is easy to get on-line petition via this site
- It could kindle massive media interest
- We would be portrayed as VICTIMS of bureaucratic secrecy
- It could reveal UK Government's information, which may assist us
- It is difficult for a fair Judge to resist (as it place us (000's ?) of petitioners at a disadvantage (when we are the victims)
- We could do it as almost an inexpensive home-made petition to Justice Floyd in Chambers
- If refused it could be appealed as prejudicial to our claim for open, fair & just treatmennt
What do you all think ???????


On-line Petition to have Court File accessible to VICTIMS

  • manksman
  • 01/11/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 16:23

My ideas on possible reasons for the court file being sealed:

Safety of banking system (If any one bank had a large exposure to KSF UK)
National Security (if secret information disclosed to justify order)
National Security (problems with new enemy Iceland)
Confidentiality (if disclosure of information would be unduly prejudicial to others not directly involved in the case)

I am not sure that KSF IOM depositors have any status in the KSF UK court case. Does any one know of any KSF UK direct creditor (apart from the Provisional Liquidator of KSF IOM), maybe a personal depositor (not Edge) or a company? There must be quite a few of these who have not been bought out by UK Treasury scheme and who have as much interest in getting at the facts as KSFIOMDAG members.


Sealed order

  • lorraine
  • 14/10/08 14/07/10
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 22:34

I agree, happy to sign a petition. Could we do a delivery and maybe get publicity for that?


Sealed Papers

  • Codpeace
  • 23/10/08 30/11/12
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 21:42

I agree. The use of such secrecy smells and we must be able to use this as publicity. I am not so sure that we will discover much but this cloak and dagger stuff is surely not good for Brown and Darling.


Sealed Papers

  • BobWashington
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 20:47

Agree we should try it.


Lets at least try!!

  • cottesmore
  • 21/10/08 16/07/12
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 20:28

Lets at least try!!


Yes, petition to unseal the Document and involve the media

  • steveejeb
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 18:07

I am in total agreement for that action and can see no downsides, can anyone else here?

This is something that the media should made aware of when the petition is lodged. Make it a news story revealing unprecedented government action taken against innocent depositors savings, what are they trying to hide headlines....

Note:
elgee asks below that the team need a day or two more for this as they are currently working on this so let's give more time please.


sealed papers

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 04:10

I fully agree. Anything to get this particular question of the sealed papers into the public domain.


sealed papers

  • KA
  • 14/10/08 29/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 07:32

I agree too. A petition is a good step forward. Inevitably ,I suspect , we will need the weight of formal legal action to eventually get the papers unsealed , but as so many of you all on this sight have said, keeping our case in the public forum is very important !
We WILL get all our money back, but not without consistent action- and faith.


Sealed papers

  • Daughter
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 04:25

It is worth our best effect. No stone left unturned!


unsealing court file

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 17:42

Several of us are considering this. Give us a couple of days please.


For elgee; please make sure correct names are on the petition !!

  • Brian FISHER
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 16:49

elgee! please ensure everyone puts their correct name on the petition! - is crucial. I do not believe that a petition with names on it like: 'Tricky Dicky': 'Gazfuk' or 'Jamjar' etc will carry any weight in the High Court!

History is full of petitions going back to the middle ages with names like this on petitions and they do not get past the front door of credibility.

How can we expect the High Court judge to order sealed files to be opened, if we cannot at the very least be open with him?

Surely, never will it be done ?


correct names

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 17:06

Heh Brian,
How do you know thats not my real name I could take a fence at that if I hadn't been putting fences up earlier today. Anyway, how do I know that "Brian Fisher" is not a pseudonym.

No offence taken or given


sealed administration order

  • banna
  • 15/10/08 01/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 15:13

elgee,
anything to report on moves to get this unsealed?
I believe that probably the only effective way might be to get Mike Simpson to push this officially as we are being treated unreasonably by EY ,as I suggested in a comment I made yesterday on the LP Forum. But, a petition might be very effective in the press/media even if it didn't remove legal barriers. What does Diver think?


sealed papers..press

  • mikeinfrance
  • 12/10/08 28/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 07/11/2008 - 16:12

I think that a press release on this one subject would be a good starting point to at least get the matter out into the public domainn.
I was disappointed that this question was not asked in the treasury committee seesion or during the adjournement debate.


These are all good points.

  • SgKZ
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 04:07

These are all good points. The papers are sealed and I think the only way that they can be 'un-sealed' is if someone makes an application to the court.

Would viewing the Court File give us a flavour of what might be going on? Surely PWC are the prime body for making this application? The order makes it clear that it can be available for 'public inspection' with the court's leave. With a cogent arguement, they might just do that. Especially as there is so much more information available now that the court were probably not made aware of at the time.....


You won't stand a chance. Do

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 03:41

You won't stand a chance. Do you think they made the unprecedented decision to have the petition sealed to hide it's dirty little secrets away, for us to get it open with a petition? We would need an awful lot of good law to get that thing opened.


Petition

  • jayed
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 03:55

Captain Mannering Sir (deliberate mis-spelling)

Please demonstrate the fighting spirit appropriate to your rank sir

ALSO consider the MEDIA potential for being seen as VICTIMS even if refused

There is nothing like being denied an obvious and basic human right to stir the Press's interest


I am doing just that, the

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 04:17

I am doing just that, the only way you will get that petition open is legally. They didn't seal it up for you to get it open by saying "please".
What I am doing in a roundabout way, is looking at the Insolvency Act and seeing what cause there would be to seal, and what equally good reason there would be to get it open.

Feel free to go ahead with the petition, it will get the matter in someone's face, but it won't achieve anything in the sense of bringing the Court papers into the public domain.


There must have been a good reason

  • sandman
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 20:07

to seal the petition or else they wouldn't have done it and thought they would get away with it because it will eventually come out. Have any of us really given any thought as to why it was sealed? It just doesn't make sense unless there's something major that we're missing.
I've seen mentions of money laundering but can't see that it adds up, especially as it happened in line with everything else in the Icelandic saga so what are they hiding? I think PWC should ask the court to release the relevant paperwork as we're fighting with one hand tied behind out backs as things stand at the moment.

Expat - you're well connected in the IOM. What do you think?


Nothing possibly associated

  • go mann
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 20:13

Nothing possibly associated with that recent Icelandic house purchase in London?
Just a tangential thought.


Could be

  • sandman
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 20:21

but I reckon it would have to be more substantive and something that would stand up to scrutiny once it eventually gets made public. I really don't have any idea and can only wonder if it is something so serious, why wasn't it picked up earlier by the IOM FSC or the UK FSA rather than conveniently at the same time as this whole mess unfolded.

Maybe a good question for the London team to push with their contacts?