TABLE OF EXHIBITS Part one.        Essential reading is shown with. +++

­­­­­­­­­­­­___________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXHIBIT 1       MicroDirect orders, delivery prices, plus Amtrak's promises, assurances of reliability and standard prices.

EXHIBIT 2       Confirmation of the order.

EXHIBIT 3         PROOF claimant was in residence at relevant times to take in delivery.  +++

EXHIBIT 4         EVIDENCE Driver had not returned to re-deliver that day.

EXHIBIT 5         Claimant advises a variation of time window for re-delivery until Midnight Monday.

EXHIBIT 6         Claimant could see no attempt and gives notice to issue a formal claim.  Suddenly goods arrive next day???

EXHIBIT 7         Negotiations between claimant and 1st defendant on second part of settlement (£15.28 carriage refunded by 1st defendant already)

EXHIBIT 8         1st defendant case dismissed, case  proceeds for 2nd defendant in the sum of £30 court costs for the taxpayer.

EXHIBIT 9          Details of telephone call, 1st defendant & claimant, advising claimant the £30 cannot be settled, claimant states it can.  +++

EXHIBIT 10   The determination of AMTRAK on refund of carriage, and or court costs, ADAMANT they were reasonable???  +++

EXHIBIT 11    Amtrak advises they will rely on “privity rule” and the refund cannot be settled.  +++

EXHIBIT 12    After 1st hearing, claimant VERY sceptical of defendant’s behaviour. Demeanour of defendant, shows contempt for court.  +++

EXHIBIT 13    Claimant commences serious interrogatories, proves that from E12 defendant is inventing stories to cover tracks.

EXHIBIT 14     Should be after E 17, Critique of  exchange between three parties on 15th June 2005.

EXHIBIT 15       Following E 12, defendant calls claimant with STORY, that explains mens rea of actions, Confirms contempt of court (E23)  +++

EXHIBIT 16     Follow up of email concerning what was advised to court in anticipation of willful design in filing the N150 (AQ)

EXHIBIT 17     Follow up of unsatisfactory resolution of exchange where Bachu And her MD call claimant.

EXHIBIT 18     Preparation for second hearing showing a list of all emails of  importance.

EXHIBIT 19     Defendant, under pressure,  provides very late evidence of driver’s scan history proving claimants chronology was true. +++

EXHIBIT 20     Claimant already had E19 and E20 showing demeanor of driver previously, combined with sworn affidavit.  +++

EXHIBIT  21          Affidavits and miscellaneous, the first affidavit is important, confirming re-delivery normally should occur same day +++

EXHIBIT 21a         The N150. (Allocation questionnaire) PART A (SETTLEMENT)  is the undertaking to the court, please read. +++

EXHIBIT 21b         The N150. Showing the amount in dispute (backdated from Dec 29th 2004) despite calls exchanging otherwise. +++

EXHIBIT 21c          The N150. Showing a time window of exclusion between 8th June 2005 to 11th July 2005. +++

EXHIBIT 21d          The N150. Showing date of signing same date as third party call to establish true amount of claim at £255 + £30. +++

EXHIBIT 22             Email concerning standard disclosure documents. Attempting to convince that EX 19, was sent. +++

______________________________________________________________________________________

EXHIBIT 1

 

 

__________________________^^^^^^^__________________________

Please note the link FROM Micro-Direct, to Amtrak's web site, indicating this Web Seller acts as AGENT for the carrier.

Click on this link above and the

buyer is referred to the following pages by Amtrak.

 

 

 

Text reproduced from above -------

"The Reputation- As a high-calibre player in the nation's overnight delivery industry, Amtrak Express Parcels is a company whose name is synonymous with quality and reliability. Established in 1987 and built up by a comprehensive, franchised nationwide network, Amtrak's unique strength lies in being able to offer customers a local and individual level of service unequalled in the industry."

 

Text reproduced from above ------- next day delivery, the least expensive of daily carrier's costs,

"0 Service Code…..The next working day

This is Amtrak's standard service to a nominated address. You can rely on it to get your parcel to the right place at the right time - Monday to Friday."

 

 

EXHIBIT2

From: WebSales                              
Sent: 2004-09-23 12:19 PM
To: general                                                         
Subject: Information on Micro Direct Order (MICR054450)

Dear Mr. Winter
Thank you for your order with Micro Direct Ltd.

Your order contents are as follows:

1 x 17" LG L1715S 16ms Silver-Grey TFT slim bezel monitor (3yrs Onsite) @ £179.99(211.49) each.
1 x 160 GB Maxtor DiamondMax Plus9 8MB Cache 7200rpm ATA133 @ £48.99(57.56) each.
1 x DELIVERY @ £13.00(15.28) each.


OrderTotalEXVATis241.98
OrderVATis…………………….£42.35.
Order Total INC VAT is £284.33.

EXHIBIT3

 

Comment on itemised bills below,

Carriers telephone and fax numbers.

..................is the fax number confirming the faxed letters, and

................. is the telephone number.

 

 

The two bills above are from BT, originals, as the claimant's calls to London area codes are free, they are not itemised on his bills and a special request to BT has to be made for them.

Under construction please revisit fortnightly

Some masking of Tel, Email,Fax and address details has taken place.

EXHIBIT4

From: Anthony Winter [general"" "]

Sent: 2004-09-24 4:45 PM

To: chris"" ".readnotify.com

Subject: Here is a copy of the letter to Amtrak,

DEAR CHRIS,

At 4.40 I guess they will not deliver today, (this will confirm that their behaviour is 'WILLFUL') and I will not know when they will attempt again, so this can possibly cause another failure due to my not expecting them. If they wish to be professional, they need to advise me by telephone of an impending ETA. I guess they will not!

All will be up in the air now, and I suggest I leave the matter with you to arrange either another time, or another courier.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Tony Winter

EXHIBIT5

Micro Direct Ltd

Sales Fax: " " AMTRAK" "

Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:56:18 Re: Micro 54450 … Amtrak 550693429/1

I am prepared to give this between 9 and 12 pm Monday, where I would expect a call to give a precise time window of two hours, or a delivery between these times. Without this I suggest you recall the goods, cancel the order, refund the credit card and we part company as quietly as possible, Allowing me to purchase the goods locally.

Yours Faithfully,

A.H. Winter.

EXHIBIT6

From: Anthony Winter <general"" ">

To: chris"" ".readnotify.com

Subject: Notice of intention to issue proceedings if buyer's (my) instructions are not carried out. Within 7 days

Date: 09/27/2004 4:29:30 PM

Notice of intention to issue proceedings if buyer’s (myself) instructions are not carried out.

Micro Direct Ltd

Also - Sales Fax: " " AMTRAK" "

Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:27:43 Re: Micro 54450 … Amtrak 550693429/1

Dear Chris,

Further to the two emails sent and read on Sunday, also to several to Amtrak read also, without replies.

I now instruct as follows:

I formally cancel and reject the goods on the above order reference numbers, on grounds of breach of contract the relevant section in the sale of goods act as aforementioned in performance and delivery. No deliver having been received today, having given a variance of the arrangement and no reply thereof.

I ask you to refund the amount to the credit card immediately, and if this is not actioned within 24 hours, I shall report the breach to the credit card issuer, and request they block the transaction.

Yours Faithfully, A. H. Winter.

EXHIBIT 7

From: romeen [romeen"" "]

Sent: 2004-11-08 11:57 AM

To: Anthony Winter [general"" "]

Subject: Re: MICR054450

Dear Sir,

I can confirm that the offer made is from Micro Direct rather than both parties. Do you accept the offer made on do you wish to discuss this further. If so, I can give you a call?

Regards

Romeen " "

Customer Services Manager

Micro Direct Ltd, UK

 

EXHIBIT 8

From: Anthony Winter <general"" ">

To: romeen <romeen"" >"

Subject: Re: MICR054450 case number 4CL07994

Date: 11/16/2004 12:45:05 PM

Dear Romeen,

I confirm that the payment of £70 has been received at the visa card centre, and the case is withdrawn between ourselves. The court were advised yesterday in writing.

Thankyou

Tony Winter

 

EXHIBIT 9

From: Anthony Winter [general"" "]

Sent: 2004-11-23 10:36 AM

To: Nicky Bachu [nicky."" ]"

Subject: re last friday

COPY FOR THE COURT 4Cl07994

FAO. Legal Department Ms. N. Bachu.

Reference CASE Nr: 4Cl07994. Central London County Court.

Dear Ms. Bachu,

Following the recent letter and hour-long exchange we had last Friday. I confirm as follows: You probed a number of issues. The resolution of the matter out of court, was discussed cordially. There was a suggestion I (as plaintiff) would be happy if your company merely settled the court fees, and that they resolved the issue between themselves and the first defendant on the settlement already made.

You made it clear that your position disables you legally from being able to meet that requirement, but it was left that you may make a positive attempt. I felt there were many ways in which this might be achieved with a will.

I consider that the weekend plus one day, has now expired, and your absence of

any indication that the matter would be resolved in the sum of £30 for the court fees (to be paid to the court direct) places clause 3) of letter Ref:AW / 16112122 back in vigour.

While I respect your continued argument, that you made all reasonable attempts to deliver, I note a similitude between the approach referred to by Micro-Direct concerning your being adamant in respect of reasonable delivery, and that of a reasonable settlement for £30 court fees now, out of court, and lack of resolve in that direction. I find the pairing of any text or demeanour concerning “adamant” on being “reasonable” unusual; I am permitted to make such comment. £30 is in my view reasonable, and I should have personally shown eagerness and promptitude in resolving that small amount were I in Amtrak’s position, but I am not! It is just my opinion!

As a duty of honour, I advised you of the financial circumstances relating to the need for exemption of the court fees.

You stated that you intend to have the case set aside, on the grounds that the first defendant’s settlement clears you. I shall clarify to the court the basis on which the settlement had been reached with particular note that it was settled between the first defendant and the plaintiff, on unequivocal grounds that treated the claim in two parts, leaving a small amount for Amtrak, to be continued. I shall await the court ’s notice if your application is to be successful.

You stated that the rules for affidavits are considerably relaxed from former times, and I take the view that any party in a claim, prepared to make testimony under oath, is less likely to have their propositions tested in truth-value. You should consider all my testimony as plaintiff, under oath, and not of the weaker form, concerning “truth the whole truth”, but including “and nothing but truth.”

The proposition that your company and its contracted parties made all reasonable attempt to deliver the goods on time, remains to be considered by the court for its quality of reasonableness, where the Plaintiff paid in advance, for a next day delivery, and did not receive the goods until six days later, with no re-delivery attempts recorded.

I shall make an exhibit for the court, in respect to the exchanges resulting in the settlement reached with the first defendant.

Yours most respectfully, and a particular thank you for your call.

A .H. Winter (For the plaintiff.)

CC Central County Court. E & OI.

 

EXHIBIT 10

FAO. Legal Department

Amtrak Express Parcels Lt

Date: 16-11-2004 Time: 21-22

Ref:   AW / 16112122

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

Reference CASE Nr:  4Cl07994. Central London County Court.

 

I enclose by way of copy, an update on the status of the claim above, part settlement completed.

I also detail several extracts from the exchanges between the first defendant (Microdirect Ltd) and the Plaintiff. Their settlement is in the sum of £70, plus a previous credit of  £13+vat for the delivery costs.

I understand they approached you to split the costs, and your response was in the nature of:

 

”As per your recent County Court claim form, Micro Direct have looked in to
this matter with Amtrak and they are adamant that there delivery driver made
a reasonable amount of effort to deliver the consignment on time.”

 

And you did not wish to share any costs, which one can respect.

 

A few extracts of the plaintiff’s reply follows at the end of this letter as footnotes 1 & 2.

 

If your defence concerning “reasonable effort” is to rely on statements from either your driver, or the depot manager, or both, I respectfully request that you ensure that the testimony provided shall be in the form of affidavits, upon which a test of the veracity may be conducted, unless you intend to have the parties aforementioned be present at the hearing and be sworn in for questioning. Footnote 1)

 

CC Central County Court.         E & OI.

 

The costs being sought for the plaintiff at today’s date, are:

The court fees of £30 to be paid to the court.

The plaintiff would wish, if the court finds against Amtrak, that they be ordered to pay at least 50-60 percent towards Microdirect’s out of court settlement, to the first defendant.

A sum of £32, Plaintiff’s costs shall be written off, if the matter ends by this weekend.

Otherwise in the event of a hearing, The plaintiff shall be asking for 3) plus costs in the week prior, which shall be advised.

All may regard the matter at this stage, as having been settled financially in favour of the Plaintiff. Costs on Items 1) and 2) are for third parties. The Plaintiff would only become financially interested again, seven days prior to a hearing.

 

End of partial extracts, too long otherwise.

 

EXHIBIT 11

From: Nicky Bachu [nicky."" ]"
Sent: 2004-11-23 2:00 PM
To: Anthony Winter [general"" "]
Subject: Case Number 4C107994

Dear Mr A. Winter,

Thank you for email dated 23rd November 2004.

I on behalf of Amtrak have endeavoured to explain the legal status to you. You have confirmed that you fully understand that your contract is between

Micro direct and not with Amtrak. (inaccurate) You have explained to me that you have settled your personal loss with Micro direct Limited

and are now perusing Amtrak for the taxpayers loss on their behalf . (inaccurate)

I can only re-iterate we have no contract with you but we do with Micro direct Limited.

We believe this matter cannot be settled and do not believe that any further correspondence or

dialogue can at this stage resolve matters any further.

Yours sincerely

Nicky.Bachu

EXHIBIT 12

Extracts (too long). Full pages Batch 1 exhibits all correspondence P129, P130

FAO Mr. " ", Customer Services Manager, Ext 5000.

 

Copy please to Her Honour, Judge F, to attach to my letter after the hearing, and original allocation questionnaire.

 

Case 4CL 07994 A.H.Winter V Amtrak Ltd. Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:08:11

Dear Mr. "T ",

This appears to be an opportune moment to examine and compare reasonable demeanour. I shall keep a meticulous record of any approach made by the defendant to settle this case as expressed in their choice of settlement on the form.

The primary point is that I shall wish to make a direct and corroborative comparison between the defendant's making a delivery under a contract of 18 hours, reluctantly 7 days later, and their express wish to reach a settlement within 30 days from 21st Inst.

 

Without wishing to appear misanthropic, their sense of timing may indicate an intention to cause a further delay for a hearing until probably August or September, to be borne out by their demeanour.

 

To: Ms N. Bachu,

Amtrak Ltd, Direct Dial:"" " Fax: "" "

Per Email and or fax: nicky.bachu"" "

Dear Madam,

An application for the case to be re-listed, has been confirmed by the court.

For you information I enclose several relevant copies of extracted texts sent to the Court, on receipt of your N150 with comment.

1) As anticipated from your filing the allocation questionnaire on 21st April 2005, you have corroborated the contents of the claimant's letter to the court over a month ago, below. A)***

2) It is noted that you make a clear distinction between your respect for the court, and your clients.

The defence and N150 forms have all been returned to the court precisely within time for the last day permitted. Elsewhere under contract for performance and time you and your agents are content with breaches, and denial. With the expression of a velleity in response that you require an extension of time; 30 days in order to resolve the issue 'out of court', you have shown the court and those in witness, that you pursue quite another policy; apart from being well out of the extension time, you equivocate, subtract, and prolong. In anticipating this in the letter A)*** to the court, you also have shown a disesteem to the court and its function in respect for truth, and civil procedure, by requesting such extension of time, merely to take the case forward into a short window and holiday that would achieve this anticipated end of further delay. The first question the claimant shall request permission of the trial judge is that you explain coherently, the purpose of signing such a request where there was no volition to carry out the expressed wish. And it should be stated that on your side you have wilfully failed throughout to conduct: 'genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling the claim economically and without court proceedings.' Precisely analogous to your agents' conduct on delivery.

3) The claimant is of the view that it is not unreasonable to expect you may respond to this question, that you did make every effort to deliver a recorded letter, telephone or fax in support of that declared wish; just as your agent did in the delivery of the goods under contract. To which, of course you will be likewise expected to corroborate it by showing records of the aforesaid attempts, even with perhaps a back-dated recorded letter to show you tried, and the claimant was 'out.' As you have done in the past and placed on record in your defence.

EXHIBIT 13

Too extensive for this part, see full texts BATCH 1 p153,154,155. Extract hereunder.

e) Identify which claims the claimant has made, that you specifically admit in your

"Save as specifically admitted below the defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the claim form (and particulars) as though the same were set out herein and traversed seriatim."

6.        On what do you rely for the truth of, "the defendant collected a consignment from the Customer on the 29th August 2004"

7.        On what do you rely for the truth of, "The Delivery was attempted the following date" meaning 30th Sep 2004.

8.        On what do you rely for the truth of, "nobody there to accept the delivery."

On what do you rely for the truth of, "The defendants would assert that they have fulfilled their contractual obligation." Bearing in mind you admit -i) leaving a card on 24th, and not the goods. -ii) your company failed to attempt a re-delivery by 4pm that same day, - iii) your company failed to attempt re-delivery on the next working days Saturday, Monday and Tuesday. The goods being cancelled and your company having read the emails and faxes.

EXHIBIT 14

Too extensive for this part, see full texts BATCH 1 p132,133,134, 135. Extract hereunder.

Letter to Managing Director of Amtrak Ltd.

End 1st para.

Your MD did say of my claim that your call of the 6th Inst; to retro-actively establish that cheque and letter had been sent, and a further repeat will be re-sent, was pure speculation This takes no account of the grounds on which I rely for such an assertion.

Clause 13)

13) For any further exchanges to be realistic, you will need to state unequivocally that "without prejudice" if a settlement were reached, it will include the costs to date of £285 which are not negotiable; as a part of a total where the other part is to cover all other aspects of pursuing this disgraceful case of on an initial just and trivial claim. I require, this prior to any further debate to establish whether further exchanges are at all likely to be meaningful, sincere and genuine enough to be relied on

EXHIBIT 15

Too extensive for this part, see full texts BATCH 1 p135,136,137. Extract hereunder.

Email sent 5th June 2006, opened and discussed between Ms. Bachu and Mr. Winter on 6th at 1.30 pm

2) It is noted that you make a clear distinction between your respect for the court, and your clients.

The defence and N150 forms have all been returned to the court precisely within time for the last day permitted. Elsewhere under contract for performance and time you and your agents are content with breaches, and denial. With the expression of a velleity in response that you require an extension of time; 30 days in order to resolve the issue 'out of court', you have shown the court and those in witness, that you pursue quite another policy; apart from being well out of the extension time, you equivocation, subtraction, and prolongation. In anticipating this in the letter A)*** to the court, you also have shown a disesteem to the court and its function in respect for truth, and civil procedure, by requesting such extension of time, merely to take the case forward into a short window and holiday that would achieve this anticipated end of further delay. The first question the claimant shall request permission of the trial judge is that you explain coherently, the purpose of signing such a request where there was no volition to carry out the expressed wish. And it should be stated that on your side you have wilfully failed throughout to conduct: 'genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling the claim economically and without court proceedings.' Precisely analogous to your agents' conduct on delivery.

EXHIBIT 16

_________________________________________________________

Case 4CL 07994 A.H.Winter V Amtrak Ltd.To: Ms N. Bachu,

Amtrak Ltd, Direct Dial:"" " Fax: "" "

Per Email and or fax: nicky.bachu"" "

Dear Madam,

Further to your call today Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:07:44

Here is a copy of the preliminary to the 6 points sent to the court last month the day the N150 was received. It relates to the details of that conversation, and predates the receipt of the N150 by a day, indicating you were aware the costs had moved on since the n150 was sent out. Now 6 weeks later they have moved on again.

The defendant called "without prejudice" on the 20th Inst, to ascertain what might be their likely costs if a settlement were reached out of court. I stated that I was seeking settlement of all of the court fees to date of £170, plus compensation to the dismissed First Defendant's costs in settling which in my view were not theirs to carry (up to a maximum of £85). I also stated that with regards to my own costs, I had originally no pretensions whatsoever, when the request was merely a refund of £15 in delivery costs, they wilfully delayed as to punish me for a further 6 days, and then after legal action it became £30. In seeking those trivial and perfectly reasonable early costs, the policy of the defence has been a prime cause in their increase to the present day. With this minimal settlement amount of £255 in mind, they filed and served the form meeting the deadline. I comment:

Yours Most respectfully,

A. H. Winter

Copy FAO Customer Services Manager, and Trial Judge.

Central London CC.

12-14 Park Crescent, London.W1B 1HT

 

EXHIBIT 17

Too extensive for this part, see full texts BATCH 1 p141,142,143.144. Extract hereunder matching italics from these pages.

Email sent 19th June 2004,

To Ms Bachu.

Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:01:27

"Without prejudice"

Case 4CL 07994 A.H.Winter V Amtrak Ltd.

To: Ms N. Bachu,

Amtrak Ltd, Direct Dial:"" " Fax: "" "

Per Email and or fax: nicky.bachu"" "

Dear Sir / Madam,

The claimant affirms "That the defendant did NOT; in seeking an extension of time be granted for the purpose of a resolution out of court, make any attempt to fulfill that purpose within the extended period." Therefore the request became an instrument of further delay, continued contempt for the claimant, and a new contempt for the due process of the court.

EXHIBIT 18

Proof of delivery pages.

Relating to a reference set of documents BATCH 3

Emails.

Proof of delivery pages.

12-Oct  nicky.­bachu                                      ***        documents                             Last two pages

12-Oct  nicky.­bachu                                 *** final email                               Last two pages

Relating to a reference set of documents Identical with the batch of emails sent:

29-Jul
nicky.­bachu                        
                     list of served documents to date, 29th Jul 2005

plus a further 7 added since that date.

Post MAIL

26th Sept Post Notice to admit.

Emails.

02-Sep msadminamtrak                               Re: AutoNotify: Re: case 4CL07994 for Sept 7t P183

02-Sep nicky.­bachu                                                        Re: case 4CL07994 for Sept 7th        P183

03-Aug nicky.­bachu                             ***      Nice meeting you.                     P183,[p61]

02-Aug sue.­price                                                          FAO ms Bachu. Full text sent to her E' address P182

02-Aug nicky.­bachu                                                        Re: section b missing items P180,[p60]

02-Aug nicky.­bachu                                                        Re: section b missing itemsP180,[p59]          

01-Aug
nicky.­bachu                                          
revision to one secti of b) on prev email. [p57]

01-Aug
nicky.­bachu                               ***       privileged evidence?                  P132,179,[p65]

31-Jul
nicky.­bachu                        
                     prev' list with B & C parts now incl. P178,[p56]

29-Jul
nicky.­bachu                             list of served documents to date, 29th Jul 2005 (this list),[p66]

All emails and faxes from 24th Sep 2004 to present day, including list below

26-Jul nicky."" " tidying up P177,[p55]

26-Jul nicky."" " Revision of draft1 P176,[p54]

22-Jul nicky."" " You are reminded [2] P175,[p53]

22-Jul nicky."" " You are reminded! P173,[p52]

22-Jul nicky."" " Subject: Re: Further disclosures [1] 2ndrequest for acknowledgement.[p50]

21-Jul nicky."" " Further disclosures [1] P172,[p49]

21-Jul sue.price"" " Re:[1] Cs 4CL 07994 Wint V Amtra P172 ,[p48]

20-Jul nicky."" " Re: emails yesterday P171,[p46]

20-Jul nicky."" "s election of relevant exchanges, part 1, posted version will be batched in groups of exhibits.P67,[p44]

20-Jul nicky."" " notification of documents ??

09-Jul nicky."" " Interrogatories. part 1 P153,169,[p43]

29-Jun nicky."" " Case 4CL 07994 documents (1) P168,[p42]

29-Jun sales"" " Case 4CL 07994 docuents(1) P168,[p40]

22-Jun sales"" " correction to court hearing P167,[p38]

22-Jun nicky."" " hearing date notification P166,[p37]

16-Jun sales"" " *** Please forward to your MD P162,[p33]

16-Jun nicky."" " *** Re:further'case convers' 15th Ju 2005 P160,[p32]

12-Jun nicky."" " *** update on exchanges 12th June P151,[p31]

09-Jun nicky."" " *** Re: further'case convers' to' 6th June P151,[p30]

06-Jun nicky."" " *** further to case conversation today 6th juP152,[p25]

05-Jun nicky."" " *** Case 4CL 07994 P135,[p24]

20-Dec nicky."" " Copy of last before Xmas P108,[p22]

20-Dec nicky."" " Re: Request for proper pre-action protocol procedures copied to the court. P109,[p21]

17-Dec nicky."" " Request for proper pre-action protocol procedures copied to the court. P110,113,39,[p20]

23-Nov nicky."" " Re: Case Number 4C107994 P108,[p19]

23-Nov nicky."" " re last friday P158, [p17]

01-Oct nicky."" " answer '' H.Parsons and Nicky Bachu P34,125,[p15]

01-Oct nicky."" " Re: AW/29091908 P82,126,[p13]

29-Sep melaine." """ " VERY IMPORTANT URGENT P90, [p12]

COMMUNICATION, Please read if you wish me to cease court action intended for Monday.

28-Sep melaine." """ " Re: your quality office is on holiday. and the delivery treatment is appalling. P107,[p9]

24-Sep quality"" " *** Re: your quality office is on holiday. and the delivery treatment is appalling. P87, [p3]

24-Sep sales"" " your quality office is on holiday. and the delivery treatment is appalling. P87,88,107,[p2]

24-Sep quality"" " You are not living up to your represented description on delivery. P90.94,95,99,100,104,105, [p1]

 

 

 

EXHIBIT 19

 

 

 

EXHIBIT 20

 

 

EXHIBIT 21 next page p18,19,20,21.

Copy Ray Jone's affidavit (1) = p18

AFFIDAVIT 1,2,3,exhibit1

Copy M.C. Winter's affidavit (2)

 

 

 

 

Copy Claimant's affidavit

EXHIBIT 21a

 

EXHIBIT 21b

 

 

EXHIBIT 21c

 

 

EXHIBIT 21d

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT 22

 

To: Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd.

Northgate Way,

Aldridge,

West Midlands,

WS9 8ST

 

Winter V Amtrak

Case 4CL07994.

_______________________

 

Mr. Winter                                                     Claimant.

 

Micro-Direct Ltd                                           1st defendant (case dismissed)

 

Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd.                        Defendant (Formerly  2nd  Defendant)

 

Wed, 7 Sep 2005  20:57:21

 

Copied to the court.

 

Dear Ms. Bachu,

 

Thank you for this!

 

May I respectfully point out that your belief, below, would appear to be inconsistent with your actual defence, sworn for truth and belief.

 

As you will know by re-traversal of your clauses 3, 4 and 12, you will find that at that time you only refer to THREE items you intend to rely on. Since I have been asking for a coherent explanation (for nearly a year) of your thesis in clauses 5 and 6, and the 4th item copied here (4. Copy of the scan history for the consignment in question), would appear to be what you relied on for them. I am interested to see this non-disclosed item to unravel the logic contained therein, and I should very much be grateful if you could inform me of the relevant references you may have for the theory of logic and epistemology that enables you to explain empirical facts in such a manner.

 

Whatever it contains, I will enclose an analysis of these clauses shortly before the hearing, for you to examine and attempt a logical rebuttal.

 

I never received from you item 4 on this list.

 

I do not intend to bar emails from you BUT,

Since you have chosen NO email communication, rejecting mine, I would most courteously request that in future you reciprocate by sending me communications via recorded post, as a simple reciprocal protocol.

 

yours respectfully,

A.H. Winter

 

Text below from Ms. Bachu. (italics are by Claimant)

__________________

 

1. Application for account facilities dated 15th Janary 1997

2. Terms and Conditions of Carriage

3. Emails dated 1st October 2004

4. Copy of the scan histroy for the consignment in question. PLEASE FORWARD



Nicky Bachu <nicky.bachu                            > wrote:

Dear Mr Winter,

In accordance with the court order dated 3rd August 2005, I attached a list of documents. I believe all of which have already been disclosed to you as they were attached to the defence.

Yours sincerely

Nicky Bachu
Company Solicitor
Amtrak Express Parcels Limited

(the above statement of belief is false, and confirms the ethic of inventing stories where prior willful omissions have been made, this is particularly offensive since it compounds breaches in pre-action protocol, (despite repetitious requests) and the defence document clearly lists that a total of only 3 attachments were included, whereas suddenly the defendant believes the claimant received four where she knows that has to be false. After all she is the author of the defence document, and no matter how many readings it sustains, it cannot imply a fourth attachment. The third being the one referred to in the penultimate clause. (C12)