In the District Court

 

WELLINGTON / TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA Registry

 

No: CIV NO. 2022-

 

 

 

Between: WILLEM DU PREEZ; and GETTA SNIJDERS

(plaintiffs)

 

And: PETER CRELLAN KELLY; DONALD JAMES RIDEN; and AMY LOUISE STOKS

(defendants)

 

 

 

 

Plaintiffs’ Propounding Statement

 

 

 

 

 

Dated this ____ day of April, 2023.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

______________________________

Willem du Preez,

191 Cecil Road, Wadestown

Wellington 6012

willemgetta@gmail.com

0273208739

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 Mr. Kelly. On 3rd January 2020, 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 19 May 2020 for the sum of $200,000.00 odd, a few days before First Case management in May 2021. Mr. Kelly 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 Kelly’s Affidavit and list of documents it is clear that Mr. Kelly has premeditated this web of deceit, dismissed Willem and Getta, 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, Mr. Kelly filed a protection order, which was eventually dismissed.

 

Cogent Evidence

  1. There are two different “Wills”, 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. Mr Kelly and his friends, the defendants Mr. Riden and Stoks, have conflicting statements on their affidavits and the PCK.01550 and PCK.01551 shown that this is a copy and paste 2020-Will and that the defendants never witness the signing of Mr Kelly on this 2020-Will furthermore another tell-tale is that none of the pages is initialed.
  3. On or about June 29, 2021 Ms Morell, New Zealand Court recognised Forensic Document Examination & Handwriting Expert inspected the filed copy of the “2020- Will” 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 D Riden or Amy Stoks, except for what is present on the company documents”.
  6. At page 5: “The signature for the witness D Riden has no similarity to the two references D Riden 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 D Riden 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, (2020)[2020] 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 Mr Kelly did follow correct procedure Wills Act 2007 Sections 1; 2; 3(a)(b); 4(a)(1).
  2. Riden and Stoks as friendly witnesses of Mr Kelly as stated in their Affidavits on 7 March 2023 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 Baird v. Shaffer, ioi Kan. 585, 587, 168 Pac. 836 (1917), 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 April, 2023.

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

______________________________

Willem du Preez,

191 Cecil Road, Wadestown

Wellington 6012

willemgetta@gmail.com

0273208739

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

 

______________________________

Getta Snijders,

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

 

This document is filed by Willem du Preez in person. The address for service of the Plaintiff is 191 Cecil Road, Wadestown, Wellington 6012.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Affidavit in Support 7 March 2023 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 )

 

 

Verified by MonsterInsights