Plaintiffs Propounding Statement

by | Mar 4, 2024 | Preliminary Statement

In the District Court

XXX Registry

XXX

Between: XXXX

(plaintiffs)

And: XXXX

(defendants)

Plaintiffs’ Propounding Statement

Dated this ____ day of XXXX

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________________

XXX

Plaintiff in pro per

______________________________

Getta Snijders,

Plaintiff in pro per

The plaintiff claims:

  1. The Plaintiffs are not angry, grumpy old pensioners. They were placed into this position by XXX, after years of hard work and eight years after reaching pensioners status, Plaintiffs became freehold. They were looking forward to spending the little time left to live an ordinary life.
  2. Kelly filed a Statement of Claim on XXXX for the sum of $200,000.00 odd, a few days before First Case management in XXXX filed an Amended Statement of Claim for $39,000.00, and cited that it was a slight miscalculation, by then these “angry, grumpy pensioners.”
  3. WDP and GS retainer fees escalated to over $90,000.00. This has ballooned to $197,000.00 accruing $370.00 per week in interest equivalent to one of the Superannuation payments.
  4. After receiving the 2366 PDF files relating to XXX Affidavit and list of documents it is clear that XXXX has premeditated this web of deceit, dismissed XXXX and filed a trespass notice, in the quite obtain a PPPR to obtain a testamentary will on his and his sister’s behalf. When WDP and GS raised questions, XXX filed a protection order, which was eventually dismissed.

Cogent Evidence

  1. There are two different “XXX”, Buchanan Gray original with nine (9) paragraphs and a homemade Will produced with five (5) paragraphs. Falsifying the front page from Buchanan Gray Will thus infringed a trademark.
  2. XXX  and his friends, the defendants XXXX, have conflicting statements on their affidavits and the PCK.01550 and PCK.01551 shown that this is a copy and paste XXXX-Will and that the defendants never witness the signing of XXXX on this XXXX-Will furthermore another tell-tale is that none of the pages is initialed.
  3. On or about XXX  Forensic Document Examination & Handwriting Expert inspected the filed copy of the XXXX in Probate Wellington.
  4. The Plaintiffs notes her findings at page 3 and 5 of the report as follows:
  5. At page 3: “My overall examination has been restricted as I have no known writings by either XXXX, except for what is present on the company documents”.
  6. At page 5: “The signature for the witness XXX has no similarity to the two references XXX signatures supplied (Feature Creep LTD – different documentation) and no attempt has been made to copy his genuine signature. The pen path of these signatures is extremely simplistic and similar to that of the AMY Stoks signatures. I also find that the pen direction at the commencement of the signature differs to that of XXX reference signatures. b. I am unable to offer any opinion regarding possible authorship of this signature.
  7. The Court reminded itself of the comments of His Honour Judge Hodge QC in Face v Cunningham, XXXX ] EWHC 3119 (Ch) as follows:

“I do not accept that the burden is on a person alleging forgery to establish that fact (albeit to the civil, rather than the criminal, standard of proof). It is a formal requirement of the validity of a will that (amongst other things) it is in writing, it is signed by the testator (or by some other person in his presence and by his direction) and it is duly witnessed.

“It therefore seems to me that the burden must rest on the party propounding a will to establish that it has been validly executed and witnessed. That is one of the formal requirements for proof of a will.”

  1. The Plaintiffs state that XXX did follow correct procedure XXX Act 2007 Sections 1; 2; 3(a)(b); 4(a)(1).
  2. Riden and Stoks as friendly witnesses of XXX as stated in their Affidavits on XXXX that they refused to submit their signatures and the hand writing of each confirming on affidavit that that they have filled the addressed field in front of each other. Therefore, the hand writing is relevant to establish authenticity.
  3. See XXXX, where the court said: “The testimony of attesting witnesses to a will may be overcome by any competent evidence . . . expert and opinion evidence is just as competent as any other evidence. Indeed, where the signature to a will is a forgery, and where the attesting witnesses have the hardihood to commit perjury, it is difficult to see how the bogus will can be overthrown except by expert and competent opinion evidence. . . The rule contended for by appellants would frequently baffle justice and give judicial countenance to many a high-handed fraud.”
  4. This judge followed the ancient rules and precedents in a case in which the fact of forgery was so evident that it could almost be shown to a child.[1]

Dated this ____ day of XXX.

Respectfully Submitted,

______________________________

XXXX,

XXX

XXX

XXX

Plaintiff in pro per

______________________________

XXXX,

Plaintiff in pro per

This document is filed by XXX in person. The address for service of the Plaintiff is XXX

[1] Affidavit in Support XXXX  Paragraph [12](a) page 7

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )