Ge Money Gets Heavy Handed With Victims Of Fraud – Video and Court Transcripts
No one likes to see victims of any scam but it pulls at anyone’s heartstrings when those victims are elderly. We like to think that our justice system would provide protection when required sadly in the case of the Bartle Family and probably hundreds more people to come this would seem not to be the case.
Try as I might I find it difficult to take an objective view in this case you may or may not of heard about the Blue Chip Scam. Following are the videos and links to the Supreme Court transcripts of the appeal against the Judgment of The High Court.
Summary and points I find concerning are.
If what the Bartle’s say are accurate then when you sign a contract and have alterations made without your knowledge or you agreeing to them or even providing proof you’ve been shown them that the court will upheld these alterations as legal.
That Finance companies have a way out of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act by using an intermediary as is clearly the case in The Bartle vs Ge money (Ge Custodians) case. The onus for the Credit provider is to ensure that the borrower will not be put into an oppressive loan situation which is what formed the basis for the legal arguments in Bartle vs Ge money.
I am however curious that they didn’t seek clarification under the disclosure requirements in the CCCF act and why this wasn’t argued in court after all the CCCF act has strong emphasis on the lender providing total disclosure, what the total amount of the loan is, what the total Interest payments will be, what are the default charges. The total term of the loan.
In the following videos the Bartle’s state they didn’t agree to the total amount of the loan that they were told and given documents showing otherwise and that these were then changed. If this is indeed the case they were not provided disclosure and the courts can re open the contracts.
One of the most disturbing things I found reading through the transcript of the appeal was the acceptance of the fact that the lawyer who provided advice to the Barlte’s and was acting for the Blue Chip company and despite this being the case Ge Money (Ge Custodians) lawyer was able to successfully argue that the Barlte’s in their opinion at the time of the application must of received sound legal advice. Incredibly the supreme court judges agreed with this stance…
In my opinion this is a serious miscarriage of justice surely this lawyer must of had a conflict of interest he was after all acting as an agent for the Blue Chip company.
There was no denial from Ge that they were not aware of this in fact they admitted to not only knowing it in the Barlte’s case but in a large number of similar loan applications. The glossing over of the changes to their contracts and disclosure documents is also highly disturbing.
I have posted the videos of the Barlte’s and also the email contact details below the videos if you wish to help. If enough people get behind the Barlte’s and the cost of recovering the loans is less than the loss of business and bad press then perhaps there may be a happy out come for the Barlte’s family after all.
Perhaps there is something as New Zealanders we can do start boycotts on companies that use GE Money as their Finance companies. Let the public be fully aware of the circumstances and what Ge Money is now doing to elderly victims of Fraud!
Petition the Governor General for an inquiry or the Prime Minister for a Royal Commission Inquiry. I have had some misgivings about Ge Role in the New Zealand finance industry for a long time now and why they seem to get an unfair advantage over other finance companies which to appears to be anti competition. I’d like there to be some transparency why is Ge Money a Finance company providing loans to Kiwibank customers. When Kiwibank is a New Zealand owned bank
Stop using Kiwibank until Ge money sees these people right. Anyway watch these videos go to youtube and comment, send support to the Bartle’s, ring companies using Ge Money and tell them about the Bartle’s situation.
8 Responses to “Ge Money Gets Heavy Handed With Victims Of Fraud – Video and Court Transcripts”
Leave a Reply
I just got hold of Bruce Bartle on the phone and these people really need our help if you can bookmark this page or their youtube pages http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdyexaA38uE&feature=related, Tweet to twitter, post on facebook they would greatly appreciate it.
Ge money via Tasman mortgages is threatening to take away their home in ten days.
The more people we get to watch the videos the higher they will rank on you tube and get the word out.
We are going to set up an ad free private forum so those affected have a place to get support.
After talking to Bruce and hearing the stories of suicide, marriage breakups and people sinking into severe depression I cant in good conscience do nothing.
A large number of the victims of this scam are elderly and wont be able to get information as freely on the web so if you know someone affected Bruce doesn’t mind them contacting him via his email or phone. juce |at| xnet.co.nz
To anyone concerned with justice. We have been humiliated by this scam over the past nearly three years. The video says it all and we welcome all the support you can offer.
We have felt the anguish, the suffering, heard of broken families and the list goes on.
Your help or any help will be appreciated. To continue the agony G E want us to sign a hardship form and the application is out to ensure that we are still self amployed. Anything to get us to do that is continuing the lie that we are self employed.As a result of this they have violated our privacy which we have filed a complaint with the Privact ACT 1993. Bruce & Judy Bartle
Spare a thought for the people who have had their spouses die prematurely. Others have suffered cancer, strokes and depression.
[...] Ge Money Gets Heavy Handed With Victims Of Fraud – Video and Court Transcripts January 21st, 2011 | Author: admin [...]
Thank you very much for your help and encouraging remarks.
Here is a link to the Blue Chip investors Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/home.php?sk=group_178276022201134&ap=1
An inquiry needs to be held
This whole case is absolutely appalling,we need to voice our opinion very strongly to all the Members of Parliament that we will not give in to these financial crooks,& we will settle for nothing less than a public inquiry.
I am one brother of Bruce Bartle and submit the following.
Judgement in this case leaves me speechless. Leaving aside the respective court hearings and such matters as whether the loans were oppressive, it seems the real issue has not been tried at all!
The question in my view is simple.
Are the loan documents valid or invalid?
If invalid, they can have no effect whatsoever surely?
What might make them invalid?
That’s an easy one! Any document altered after its initial signing, and where the alteration is not signed (initialled at least) by both signature parties is invalid. My understanding is that such invalidity does not merely affect the particular alteration, rather the whole document is rendered invalid, even by the lack of one (initialled) signature.
Moreover it matters not whether alterations are made to correct errors, or alter values, neither how insignificant the alteration might be, any and all alterations must be signed. The issue is that the document now contains information not previously agreed. My long experience with building contracts verifies this procedural legality.
The question is; Is the Original document signed by Buce and Judy Bartle being used to uphold the Loan sum, or is it a substitute document not bearing their signatures, or initials, for alterations to the original document or the re-writing of it in another persons handwriting? Whether faxed copies or otherwise, the issue remains … Did Bruce and Judy Bartle agree to the terms and values on the document being used to uphold the Loan Sum as witnessed by their respective signatures, or not? The original document should make this clear.
If it can be shown that the Bartle – Blue chip loan documents were altered, in any form whatsoever, after the Bartles initial signature, then until those documents are initialled by the Bartles they are legally invalid and not enforceable.
It seems, from information given to me, that the Supreme Court of NZ has, whether directly or by implication, ruled that legally invalid loan documents are indeed enforceable.
The ramifications of this outcome defy explanation.
How could anyone of sane mind apply for a loan ever? How could they sign a telephone contract, a hire contract, an insurance document, or even trade shares on the stock market.
How could any person of right mind sign any document of any kind, made legal and binding by their signature, if it is now ruled by The Supreme Court that post alterations not agreed by both parties, and not signed as proof of that agreement, are legal and binding notwithstanding?
Unless this matter is tried, and rectified, the whole basis of document legality and enforceability has been struck dead! Justice has been ruled invalid and that is oppressive on everyone, beyond measure!
With such precedent now in place, I, for one, will never sign another legal instrument. The risk is far too great!
Ken Bartle
Perth Western Australia.
I just wanted to show my support for the Bartles. My father will be turning 80 this year and I’m worried about him being caught up in legal/financial strife as he is as trusting as they come; unfortunately, too many are not to be trusted.
What can us everyday NZ’ers do to help? Who do we voice our opinions to in the hopes of making a difference?
Unfortunately, I’m not in a financial position to help (although, I wish I could!), but am open to ideas to help.
Cheers,
Eva.