When lawyers deny any all claims, what are they saying? As DWM says, the definition of “ALL” is doing a handstand, holding the whole world in your hands.

“Susan Forrest”, claims to be a partner of “Gadens” law firm in Brisbane, Australia. She signs a letter stating “For completeness, (the Bank) and Gadens deny any and all claims made by you in your letter”

For “completeness”?

For “completeness”, (whatever that means) she is denying scriptures in the King James Bible. She’s also denying Maxims of Law, and (legal) Acts upon which her profession is founded.

Many people make errors and fall into big piles of poo-poo by skimming through documents.

They also make presumptions and assumptions.

A presumption is something that is presumed to be true; and as a presumption then there is only a need for a formal challenge to that presumption to dismiss that presumption until the physical and material evidence can be presented to support that presumption.

An opinion is not fact

An opinion is not fact. A belief is not fact. A proven fact, with evidence, is a fact.

By denying any and all claims, “Susan Forrest”, is denying these maxims of law:

  • “Fictio juris non est ubi veritas” Fiction yields to truths; there is no legal fiction where there is truth.”
  • “Actori incumbit onus probandi”. The burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.
  • “Fraus est celare fraudem“. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

When Lawyers Deny Any And All Claims

In her letter, “Susan Forrest” is denying that someone is making a formal challenge to the twelve presumptions of law. However, since the formal challenge is in writing, here’s hard evidence of “Susan Forrest” showing her professional incompetence.

“Susan Forrest” claims to be a partner of a law firm in her letter, representing a bank.

She denies that the bank has “no authorised and verified accounts”. Therefore, in her opinion, the bank DOES have authorised and verified accounts.

Yet the bank has failed to supply evidence of that claim.

So now we have proof of evidence tampering, or withholding evidence.

In a previous attempt to unlawfully extort monies through the mail, “Susan Forrest” makes a demand for a specific amount of monies to be paid by a certain date, using fear and intimidation.

Meanwhile “Susan Forrest” is denying that Extortion Is A Criminal Offence (max 14 years in prison). When lawyers deny, that seems logical for someone who is using threats of extortion in demanding payments of unauthorised and unverified amounts.

Does it not make sense that if someone owes you money, and they ask for proof, that you would be quick to supply the evidence? And if it was a large amount of money, why wouldn’t you have authorised and verified accounts in support of your claim?

Well, it seems this bank that “Susan Forrest” is claiming to represent, doesn’t not want the truthful balance of the alleged outstanding loan to be revealed.

Lawyers Deny Intention, Knowledge & Recklessness

To say that one means to do a thing or meant to do something is, simply, to say that it is intended or was intended.

A person has knowledge of a circumstance or a result if he or she is aware that it exists or will exist in the ordinary course of events. Since lawyers are occasionally inclined to doubt the proposition, the Criminal Code makes it very clear that this fault element includes knowledge of what will exist in a future and hypothetical state of events.

The Code defines dishonesty by reference to the standards of ordinary people. A person is taken to be dishonest if they know their conduct to be dishonest according to those standards: CC s130.3 Dishonesty. The fault element in dishonesty is, accordingly, knowledge.

Like intention, recklessness is a state of mind, which can extend to results which may or may not come to pass. Prior to the event, the individual is reckless with respect to the risk that some harmful result may follow. Some offences of recklessness impose liability for creating a risk of harm, though the harm may never eventuate. In these offences the risk is itself the incriminating result of the offender’s conduct.

Unlike recklessness, which has no application to conduct, negligence extends to acts, omissions and states of affairs. Liability can be imposed, that is to say, for conduct that is negligent in its manner of performance.

The statutory offences of obtaining property by false pretences are designed to meet perceived deficiencies in the law of larceny.

The essential difference between “larceny” and “obtaining by false pretences” is that the former is an offence against possession.  Whilst the latter, at least in its original statutory form, includes activities designed to unlawfully induce another to part with his or her property.

Lawyers Deny Crimes Act 1900?

Section 178BA (rep) Crimes Act 1900 penalises the obtaining by deception of any money, valuable thing or “any financial advantage of any kind whatsoever”. The section defines “deception” to include both deliberate or reckless words or conduct.

And (unlike the offence of false pretences) if by words includes representations of law as well as fact.

“Money” is defined in s 4 Crimes Act 1900, but there is no definition of “valuable thing” or “financial advantage”. “Money” may include a cheque: R v Hunt (1996) 88 A Crim R 307.

A “financial advantage” may be “of any kind whatsoever”. The requirement of “obtaining” in respect of the financial advantage may, however, serve to narrow the ambit of the phrase. But it has been held that the words should be given their plain meaning and should not be narrowly construed.

The deception must have induced in the owner of money or valuable thing an intention to part with his/her property. Rather than merely the custody or control of the money etc in question.

“SUSAN FORREST”, is misrepresenting “the bank”, and committing crimes by using false claims and intimidation to unlawfully extort monies; and

a)  Obtaining a financial advantage with deception and dishonesty, Maximum 10-yrs prison under s134.2 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth); and
b) Schedule 2 of Competition and Consumer Act contains Australian Consumer Law (“ACL”). Section 18 of the ACL states:

“A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive”.

That’s what happens when lawyers deny any and all claims.