LordJimson
New Member
An Atlanta business supplied unlicensed investigator services to a UK Claimant to support a fabricated civil court case which was tactically manufactured as a retaliatory measure against the Defendant. Despite the discovery that:
1) The investigation services were unlicensed.
2) The named "witness" who conducted the investigation and provided a witness statement and supplied fabricated evidence is fictitious.
3) A voice recording of the "witness" impersonating a representative from a social website, matches that of the business owner.
4) The business owner has multiple criminal convictions including fraud.
The UK court is prepared to accept the evidence supplied by this non existent "witness" by stating that credibility is not the issue and that they do not have jurisdiction to summon the witness (from USA) to a UK court in order to confirm and prove his identity.
From a US point of view, what action can be taken against the Atlanta business owner?
1) The investigation services were unlicensed.
2) The named "witness" who conducted the investigation and provided a witness statement and supplied fabricated evidence is fictitious.
3) A voice recording of the "witness" impersonating a representative from a social website, matches that of the business owner.
4) The business owner has multiple criminal convictions including fraud.
The UK court is prepared to accept the evidence supplied by this non existent "witness" by stating that credibility is not the issue and that they do not have jurisdiction to summon the witness (from USA) to a UK court in order to confirm and prove his identity.
From a US point of view, what action can be taken against the Atlanta business owner?
