WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED WHEN THE CASE WAS SISTED?
That question came recently from Kenny R. in London – a ‘long distance Morton supporter and one-time Trust member’.
Kenny was puzzled because the Trust Chairman repeatedly claimed that Jim Gallacher had been obliged to disclose his Trust Deed, and that the court case could not proceed on account of insolvency law.
‘Why did they not just drop the case with costs against Gallacher – then they could have added them to a claim on his Trust Deed surely, and it would all have been over?’
The answer? It was part and parcel of Piniccio the lying accountant’s Trust Deed scam to avoid a hearing of his own evidence in court.
Robinson knew full well that the Trustee had ‘no interest’ in the case, leaving Jim legally free to defend himself. He also knew that he and Chris McCorkindale had previously agreed that certain items had been held ‘on trust’ and that the Trustee had ratified that position. HE WAS NOW CLAIMING THAT THEY HAD CONSTITUTED A DEBT!
PATHOLOGICAL LIAR ROBINSON KNEW THAT NO DEBT EVER EXISTED. HE COLDLY AND CALCULATEDLY DECEIVED THE COURT – AND NOT FOR THE LAST TIME EITHER.
PROVIDING FALSE EVIDENCE TO A COURT OF LAW IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
Andrew Upton of Harper Macleod LL.P. had made the situation crystal clear to Peter Harvey – his counterpart at Blair & Bryden, and concluded a submission to the Trustee thus:
‘Furthermore, it is my client’s belief that GMST’s decision to pursue a claim under the Trust Deed and refuse to progress the court action further is an attempt to obviate the necessity of a hearing on evidence due to GMST’s inherent lack of evidence in support of its claim.’
The Trustee’s position was perfectly clear too. He had been provided with no vouching for any debt – merely the same unsubstantiated claim submitted to the court. He did not wish to become involved in the court action, and was prepared to await a sheriff’s verdict.
Nobody better understood those circumstances than ‘vastly experienced’ liar Nicholas Robinson C.A. If he’d applied for dismissal on the basis of insolvency law when no debt existed, Jim’s solicitor would have ‘had him’!
That was a non- starter, but at all costs they had to prevent the sist being recalled and evidence heard. Instead they argued that by allowing the Trustee to adjudicate, the court would be spared further time and public expenditure.
Their gamble paid off when Sheriff Herald bought into local boy Peter Harvey’s argument.
Mortonjag posted on 12/3/2012
‘In Greenock Sheriff Court today, Sheriff Herald rejected an incidental application by the defender’s solicitors to have the G.M.S.T.’s sisted action against Jim Gallacher recalled. The proof will not now be heard until Mr. Gallacher’s Trustee has adjudicated – some three years hence.
It is believed that the Trust’s claim will be rejected by the Trustee, who has stated that the cost of investigating the claim is likely to nullify any award to Mr. Gallacher’s true creditors.
Today’s decision by Sheriff Herald changes nothing. The Trust will in due course be obliged either to proceed with its action, or to drop it.
Those who have followed the ‘Stars of ’79’ fiasco with interest will appreciate that this is a stalling measure by the Chairman of the G.M.S.T. They will draw their own conclusions as to why the Trust is afraid to have it’s own action decided in court.
The Trust MUST ultimately win the case to avoid the risk of substantial costs being awarded against it.’
The following day, this appeared on the official Trust website.
Today at Greenock Sheriff Court, Sheriff Herald rejected an application by lawyers acting for Jim Gallacher to have the sist recalled.
The fact that Mr Gallacher has signed a trust deed means that his entire estate, including the debt due to us was transferred to his trustee.
Sheriff Herald therefore supported the trust’s action in lodging their claim with the trustee and seeking now to deal with the matter solely through the trustee.
We are pleased that, not for the first time, our view of the law relating to this matter has been supported by the court.
ROBINSON JUST COULDN’T CONTAIN HIMSELF!
THERE WAS NO ‘DEBT DUE TO THEM’, AND THEIR DISPUTED CLAIM WAS ULTIMATELY INVALIDATED BY THE TRUSTEE – THE SAME TRUSTEE WHO HAD TOLD THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR THAT HE WISHED NO INVOLVEMENT IN THE COURT ACTION AND DISCOUNTED THEIR ‘DEBT’ FROM THE OUTSET.
Solicitor Andrew Upton was more polite than Mortonjag!
So Nicholas had his stay of execution. The court had given explicit permission for the Trust to ‘deal with the matter solely through the trustee’.
When that went ‘tits up’ Nicholas moved the goalposts for the umpteenth time, and cost Jim Gallacher an extra £3k, but that’s for next time folks!