MCP join Colin’s list of WANKER Solicitors Friday Sept 29th 2006. . . Click here
A WALL OF SILENCE. . . you can’t penetrate that wall because the corrupt Law Society won’t intervene. . . . You’re on you’re own pal. . . and they know it. . . . . and normally that wall of silence is very effective indeed. . . . HOWEVER . . . when you own 10 page 1 Google web-
MCP Law client’s W I Properties Ltd. . . Click here.
Cowboy Builder takes the PISS . . Click here.
See my letter to AXA Insurance . . Finally sent to every one of their directors at home . . . So let’s see if that gets a reply shall we? . . . . Click here.
nscglobal MD CROOK Mohammed Yaseen or MD Yaseen Khan?
More Dirty Tricks from MCP Law (well extortion . . actually.)
You always expect them to charge extortionate fees . . But you don’t expect them to actually commit to extortion do you?
Live the high life see what it’s like to be a Solicitor at MCP. Read the Metcalfe Copeman Pettefar granny robber story . . Click logo
SEE “INFIDELITY OR DISHONESTY”
SKIM THROUGH THIS . . It gets clearer later.
This site has been off the air for more than a year following a High Court Injunction.
04/11/06. . . . . However that injunction was obtained through the perjury of MCP
client(s). and by impropriety of MCP themselves, acting as advocates in absolute
defiance of the Solicitors rule 11. Whereby a Solicitor (Sarah Adlam) may not act
as advocate http://www.sra.org.uk/code-
In this case TWO material
witnesses . . Jonathan Burton with his dishonest testimony sworn on OATH but admitting
his conspiracy with the lovely Lisa Richardson mentioned so many times on this site.
(he calls it consulted of course) both of whom would have been called to testify
as to why she had lied to me on so many occasions. Which JB calls “On reflection
that was not entirely accurate . .. “
The beauty of being sued is that; in order to
do so the pursuers must produce evidence of what happened. And guess what ?. . .
Every claim on this web-
What we do know is that NONE of the documents produced
relating to the supposed AUCTION supposedly held by Barnett Ross were correct in
any way shape or form. In fact some of them were IMPOSSIBLE.
This injunction was
obtained by deceiving and misleading the court. . . For instance copies of this
website took pride of place. It was copied in it’s entirety . . But any pages that
MCP didn’t want the Judge to see were removed. . . Ie . . . page 14 . . page 7
. . . . page 12 . . . . page 16 . . . .. again strictly against CPR and the rules
of advocacy http://www.sra.org.uk/code-
It goes on and on and on. One impropriety after another. . . . But
most bizarrely this injunction was NOT brought for Defamation or even Libel . . .
. . . And there is plenty of both on this site. . . . . Or there would be if the
content herein were not true.
They knew this of course so they got the injunction
for harassment. Protection from Harassment Act 1997. A law quite properly conceived
to protect vulnerable women (especially) from stalkers but has been misused (but
will not any longer since . . . Conn v Sunderland City Council and Hammond v International
Network Services UK Ltd http://www.hilldickinson.com/downloadfile.aspx?ID=409 )
A
law which has been abused by charlatan solicitors to protect Company Directors and
the like from honest criticism or protest exactly as they did to me. See also Smash
EDO v EDO typically on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/02/334463.html
But this
injunction has backfired on them all IN SPECTACULAR FASHION. The problem for them
was that nothing that remotely could be described as harassment actually took place.
Apart from ONE nasty letter from me telling these clients xxxxxxx and yyyyyy to tell
their crooked solicitors MCP to stop lying to me. (I couldn’t prove they were lies
at the time but they have now admitted it under oath . . . The sort of thing you
have to do to get an injunction.) as I said J Burton calls it “was not entirely accurate
. . .
“ .No Mr Burton . . . . Not entirely accurate is hitting double 5 when you
were aiming at double top. . . . Not hitting double 3 by admitted that your clients
did NOT buy this property at Auction at all. . . . Or that they did not know about
the dispute when they AGREED to buy the property . . . When in fact your own sworn
evidence says . . . They AGREED to buy the property BECAUSE of the dispute.
Spectacularly
because NO Harassment ever took place. Harassment by definition is a plural word.
And because they only had this ONE letter. The ringleader xxxxxx swore on oath to
the High Court that I had been FAXING “extracts of his site to me and to MCP” .
. . Presumably to his home since he also claimed his elderly granny was very upset
by all this. . . (and any other FAX I did send to his work was clearly identified
as such) . . . The problem is of course . . . Not only did I not do anything of the
kind . . . . . As any BT record would show . I have absolutely no idea what his
FAX No could possibly be. Which is why NO EXHIBITS of the FAXES I was supposed to
have sent were presented in the file . . . . . Again contrary to Court rules.
Telling
lies to the Court is CALLED PERJURY . . Of the worst kind . . . since it is PERJURY
for the sole purpose of getting an injunction in the High Court of Justice Queens
Bench Division . . . But it’s even worse than that . . Because whoever prepared this
statement for the plaintiff to sign (probably either MCP or their barrister Matthew
Hutchings Old Buildings Chambers? . . would have known or should have known there
were NO EXHIBITS to present in evidence so he knew or should have known their affidavits
were lies too . . . . . .which is called CONSPIRACY to PERJURE.
Either way it was Hutchings’ responsibility to make sure the evidence was COMPLETE
(including the missing pages from this website) even if he did not know it was it
was all a pack of lies.
It goes on and on . . . But I have issued this website predominantly
as it was published at the end of 2006. When MCP a few days after issuing these
malicious and false proceedings on behalf of their lying clients. Threatened to
take separate proceedings against me entirely on their own behalf in view of the
defamatory content of this website. . . . Another reason MCP should NOT have been
ALLOWED IN THE COURT let alone prosecute this malicious case. . . . It’s called vested
interest.
Faced with my reply of something like “go on then the more the merrier”
they dropped the issue. Which is a shame for them because apart from the content
turning out to be true . . . (in actual fact is A LOT WORSE) Lisa Richardson for
example not only Conspired to Defraud (as I claimed) with her boss and with her clients
but she also would have committed FRAUD under Fraud 2006 (if it had been in law
at the time) but was instead covered by The THEFT Act . . . . Evasion of Liability
by Deception. . . . . And THREE letters telling blatant purposeful LIES is DECEPTION
in any ones eyes.
BUT there’s a limitation on when MCP can sue . .It’s called statute
of limitation .
Defamation Act 1996 4A Time limit for actions for defamation or
malicious falsehood . . . . no such action shall be brought after the expiration
of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”
So a lot of the pages
herein which are CLEARLY la bled 2006 remain essentially the same as they were when
first published.
It would be an interesting legal argument if a claim outside that
time would be allowed; for statements made that were temporarily withdrawn by injunction.
Enabled by the impropriety of the very complainants who caused them to be withdrawn.
. . . . That’s called hoist by your OWN petard.
There are a number of blank squares
on the pages temporarily because I’m not allowed by the Court to even insinuate that
xxxxxxx and yyyyyyy the plaintiffs are a bunch of crooks. . . . YET
There are a few links to sites that no longer exist . . . because of the shutdown
. . . But they will be back in another form as soon as this pernicious case is thrown
out of Court. If not sooner given what’s gone on. . . . . They will be spending more
time right now wondering how they are all going to keep out of prison instead of
suing me again.
As I said . . . . COLIN IS BACK
The main reason my Police sites were reinstated is not to have a go at dear old Sir Ian . . . He’s got enough criticism out there without mine. It was because it became impossible to re-
BUT a clever and only reasonably determined detective, (or reporter) who actually wants to clear up such crimes as PERJURY with WRITTEN EVIDENCE, . . .none of this hearsay stuff . . . . TO cover up FRAUD, CONSPIRACY to DEFRAUD, THEFT . . . and very likely, MONEY LAUNDERING as well . . . . . . needing only a day or so to spare . Can follow the clues on my sites . . . . then answer the question at the end.
Why have I had to re-
. . . . . . . and is still being ignored . . . That’s called . . . OPPRESSION by ABUSE of PROCESS.
“Additionally we would need some form of undertaking from your client in relation to him not re-
Within 4 days of re-
& others, Colin has claimed 6 entries on page 1 of a Google search mcp law . . within a month I will drive them off the web until they settle my claims.
(as I will do AGAIN to IWG & Denniss Matthews until they settle what THEY owe me.)
Google Search 11th March 08
mcp law solicitors
Colin gets 17 out of 20
Chambers Dictionary ;
Wanker . . worthless, contemptible person.
NOTICE TO ALL search engine, ISP’s, Nominet, Hosting Co’s, domain name providers and the like.
ANY adverse legal content on my sites . . . . Is AT LEAST ONE YEAR OLD . . . but
more likely 2 years old. . . . and therefore is EXEMPT from prosecution in ANY form
under UK Law by virtue of being OUT of STATUTE.
Please ignore any threats of legal
action. . . They will just be ‘trying it on’. . . besides it’s ALL true otherwise
they would have sued me.
as per justice.gov.uk
Google search defamation limitation.Pre-
Merelie v Newcastle Primary Care Trust . . . .
23. Moreover, the Court will no doubt
generally be wary of any attempt to present as harassment, conduct which would more
aptly fit within the scheme of some other tort such as defamation, but which is not
available in itself as a cause of action for some reason (e.g. the statutory limitation
period). . . or because it’s TRUE
55. The early indications seem to be that the courts
are likely to seriously restrict the circumstances in which a claimant will be able
to use the 1997 Act to bring a claim which would otherwise fail.
The IMPROPRIETY of Sarah Adlam prosecuting Solicitor (and her pet barrister Matthew Hutchings)
LET’S SEE YOU IGNORE THIS LAW SOCIETY . .Or whatever you call your selves these days.
Don’t forget to take a visit to Colin’s Rogues Gallery . .
‘Partners in Crime’ the
CROOKS at Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar Solicitors based in King’s Lynn, Peterborough,
Thetford and Wisbech. On NOT Scotland Yard’s site www.sir-
For the removal of doubt, I have never called Daniel J Ginsbury “a lying, conniving, scheming piece of pig shit, low life life gutter scum”.
I merely ask the question? If all of the above is true would that make him one? Daniel Ginsbury declines to ans either the former or the latter. It is true that I accuse IWG of being a bunch of total Wankers for allowing these sites to be here and are not able to fathom a way out of this dilemma. Not worthy to call themselves Solicitors in fact.
DISCLAIMER . . Click here
My claims made on this and other web sites are based on the fact that Metcalfe Copeman
& Pettefar ( MCP Law ) refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. They should
have no reason, unless to do so would embarrass them or their clients in disclosure
of lies, connivance, and conspiracy. In exactly the same fashion as the IWG, Denniss
Matthews conspiracy. I have asked them over and over again to tell the truth but
they have declined. It is reasonable and correct therefore to make the assumptions
that I have and that are printed through out these sites. MCP Law still have the
opportunity to refute these claims if they wish . . . Provided they can prove it
that is.
In fact the reason they didn’t refute them . . . is they were true. Lisa Richardson
DID Conspire to Defraud.
Their clients DID NOT buy the property at AUCTION and they
DID know about the dispute when they AGREED to buy the property. In fact they bought
the property BECAUSE of the dispute. . . . All this has been sworn to under OATH
by Jonathan Burton Solicitor at MCP. . . . But he calls it . . . . “Was not meant
to deceive.”
2006
2008
Colin Cole to MCP Law
30 November 2006 if they didn’t drop this malicious prosecution..
“I
WILL HUMILIATE YOU BEYOND BELIEF “
Took a bit longer than expected but a prediction
is a prediction.
Ridaco Developments Northern Ireland (who?) will buy your property UNSEEN . . . “NO Agent will call to INSPECT” . . We pay 10% over Guide price even if the property is falling down. Fantastic Generosity. Only through Barnett Ross the no signature required Auctioneers. Contact A ndrew Mahon NI for details.
It’s THE UNCREDIBLES.
Watch Aunty and Unc-
Visit
Barnett Ross the no deposit no identification Auctioneers. We will cross out any
contract and put a TOTALLY FICTITIOUS name in it’s place. NO SIGNATURES? NO PROBLEM.
Telephone bid but no form? Don’t despair we’ll fill it in for you. Can’t set a price?
We will bid NO MAX for you. Never mind our rules. Barnett Ross’s Steven Grossman
makes sure YOU get the property you want. Barnett Ross @ Radisson SAS Portman Hotel
is recommended by Wanker Solicitors IWG ‘s Daniel
Granny Robber Nathan Teitelbaum uses Barnett Ross Auctioneers at The Radisson SAS Portman Hotel. Wankers Ingram Winter Green Conveyancing in association with The CROOKS at Metcalfe Copeman Pettefar Peterborough.
Colin’s NEW sites
Barnett Ross the no forms required to bid Auctioneers.
Contact Andrew
Mahon NI plaintiff 1’s chief fixer for details.
He knows Steven Grossman so doesn’t
have to fill out all those nasty Money Laundering forms.
Or ANY forms come to that.
www.barnett-
(Andrew Mahon
3 Pettigo Rd, Kesh,
Co
Fermanagh, NI.
02868 632102
0775 665878)
Have a word with Stevie here. He will let you
bid £112,000 without having to fill in a form or sign anything at all. You won’t
even need to go to the Auction you can do it over the phone.
v
v
Steven Grossman MRICS
sgrossman@barnettross.co.uk
Have a word with Steve about how to avoid filling in all
those nasty PROXY forms.
He’ll do them for you.
“NO MAX” bids accepted.
And he’ll
invent a name
for you too.
Usage Statistics for mcp-
Generated 28-
mcp-
Google Please take note . . . . Click here
Poor put upon Solicitors Ingram Winter
Green . Who couldn’t use our perfectly adequate laws in UK to get my sites shut down
have put in a complaint to Google. Amazingly it is a statement made “under penalty
of PERJURY”. . . . AND here it is . . . What a pack of LIES. I’ve printed the COMPLAINT
as it appears on Chilling Effects web-
REMEMBER THEY HAVE SWORN TO THIS ON OATH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.