She quotes from the web page she objects to.
“Well it’s now gone 22nd Nov and no word from KKKK or his sidekick. If I asked you
if you were a crook you’d be able to tell me wouldn’t you?
“How Famous do you want
to be wwwww kkkkkkk . . .?”
She says
9 . . . In their natural meaning the said words meant that the Claimants had not answered the question referred to because the Claimants were guilty of dishonest conduct, which meaning was untrue.
NO IT DOESN’T and she and Hutchings knew that too
Since when was an honestly put question. Asked ONLY after EIGHT months of lies and deceit from their Solicitors on THEIR behalf. And presumably PAYING THEM TO SO .. . . an unreasonable one to ask?
Famous people and politicians in particular are asked that all the time. And it’s usually the ones that are CROOKS. . . that sue. . . . as in Aitken.
“WANTED FOR QUESTIONING? “ . . . . . . ? A slur? Means they “were guilty of dishonest
conduct” . . . ??????
11. . In their natural meaning the said words meant that the
Claimants had not answered the question referred to because the Claimants were guilty
of dishonest conduct, which meaning was untrue.
Why wouldn’t I want to question this man, given the way we’d been treated. 1st question
. . . Did you know your solicitors had been LYING to me for eight months.
ANYONE
would want to. And it crossed my mind that it was a distinct possibility that He
had no knowledge that his Solicitors had been LYING to me. . . . IN FACT J Burton
SWORE on OATH to that . . .
“We did not contact our clients about this since we felt we could handle it.”
Which
I have NEVER BELIEVED for a moment . . . And I doubt any one else would either it’s
so incredible. And if my belief is correct that means Jonathan Burton PERJURED HIMSELF
TOO
Perhaps if MCP had of done HE (plaintiff 1) wouldn’t have been so shocked. . . So what did this PARAGON of VIRTUE (plaintiff 1) do when he found out his Solicitors had been LYING through their back teeth and ignoring me for EIGHT MONTHS.
That’s right . . . He SUED ME . . . Instead of sacking them for doing so. Which indicates to ME . . . HE knew all along they were LYING. . . Ie Conspiracy to Defraud.
He sued me for daring to suggest . . . and clearly it was no more than that . . .
. what most people would presume to be “THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS” . . . . See right
hand margin.
But not just any old solicitors to SUE ME. . . . . hut the very ones
HE found out eventually, so J Burton implies . . . . Metcalfe Copeman & Pettifar
. . the VERY ones he’s just found out have been committing a CRIMINAL OFFENCE on
HIS’ and HIS sidekick’s behalf.
If Sarah Adlam was going to quote from this page properly she should have included
THE 1st WORDS on the page . . .
“Maybe I’m doing him an injustice and he doesn’t
know about all this.”
She very carefully left THAT bit out of her quotes TOO.
Further the page she objects to is produced in an edited form in the evidence file.
It leaves out the disclaimer printed at the bottom of every page page on my web-
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.
And when you consider that we now know
that those assumptions were TRUE. Then to simply ASK if the plaintiffs were involved
is reasonable in the extreme.
I didn’t just dream up this question out of the blue. . . It was asked after EIGHT
MONTHS of LIES that I knew to be LIES from the start.
Eight months in which MCP had
every opportunity to refute them . . . But couldn’t because they were true. . .
and
TWO months of opportunity to refute the fact that they were indeed A BUNCH of CROOKS.
I didn’t just call them A BUNCH of CROOKS out of the blue, I wrotr this letter first
. . . every suspicion and insinuation therein turned out TO BE TRUE. . . from.
Mr Colin Cole . . . . LETTER TO DAVID RUTTER
Thursday, 28 September 2006
David Rutter
Senior Ptnr
MetcalfeCopeman &Pettefar
Dear David
I refer you to the contents of http://www.mcp-
In these letters PUBLISHED as long ago as three months previous.
I asked some very
simple and reasonable questions. Further I told you what would happen if I did not
receive some HONEST replies.
When someone refuses to answer elementary questions there
is always a reason. Usually because to do so, will reveal a LIE, a DECEPTION, a CONSPIRACY
of some sort. . BECAUSE of your failure to explain, it IS REASONABLE for me to now
assume that the above is the case.
AND IT WAS
You have had three months to reply, but declined to do so. And therefore, I do
not believe your fairy story, that your client bought the 243 property unwittingly
at an auction, since you will not give the date or whereabouts of that event. You
believed that by telling me, on behalf of your clients, a cock and bull story about
an auction. That I would think your clients had bought the property in all innocence.
BUT
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH COULD IT?
AND NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN.
Even
if that part about the auction does, in the unlikely event turn out to be true. Your
answer, was clearly designed as a devious response in an attempt to protect your
client’s position. WORSE it was a pathetic, patronising and clumsy attempt in the
extreme. Any Solicitor would know, that the fact that someone purchased a property
at auction does NOT absolve them from liability.
AND IT WAS
Which is what this endeavor was clearly designed to avoid.
And therefore had no place
as an honest response to an honest question.
I believe that W I Properties knew exactly what they were buying
AND THEY DID and
thought, because they are resident in Northern Ireland, they would be difficult to
sue, could get away with it, and be able to AVOID their responsibilities and LIABILITIES.
And that you, CONSPIRED with them to facilitate that goal.
AND THEY DID
I intend to label your firm . . . . . LIARS, CHEATS, CONSPIRATORS, and WANKERS along
with W I Properties, IWG and Denniss Matthews from now on.
AND THEY ARE
And you have
only yourselves to blame for that disdain.
AND THEY DIDN’T
ANYONE WHO CONSPIRES AGAINST
ANOTHER IS BENEATH CONTEMPT. To do so for paltry gain is worse. As I have previously
said . . . your silence on the subject will no longer be tolerated.
AND IT WASN’T
Nevertheless
you still have this opportunity to refute all of the above.
AND THEY DIDN’T
Future
silence will of course over time go increasingly against you. . . . . the Internet
will take care of that. It is just a fact of life.
What will also become apparent
to others if you fail to counter the disdain I will heap on you. Is that you are
not capable of defending your position in a Court of Law.
AND THEY AREN’T
In other
words, not worthy to call yourselves Solicitors, especially charging other clients
for that very service. . . . .
AND THEY AREN’T
http://www.iwg-
AND I DID
As I have done for others. . . . who were equally deserving and forewarned
but failed to heed. My sites are powerful enough to blast all but the very biggest
Companies from the web.
AND THEY WERE
To do so to your sites will be a walk in the
park.
AND IT WAS . . . and still is.
Colin (ignoring me is NOT an option) Cole
AND IT ISN’T
WHICH MIGHT BE WHY I CAN’T FIND THIS LETTER or a copy of the web page it was on
in the affidavit file either . . . But there are plenty that promote THEIR point
of view. . Presumably in case a Judge saw it . . . . .
MY Barrister had no trouble
finding it however.
More Impropriety of Sarah Adlam Solicitor MCP Law This page follows and and supports the ‘argument’ on The Impropriety of Sarah Adlam
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
Sarah Adlam and Matthew Hutchings KNEW all of the above . . yet still presented a simple honest question to the High Court of Justice
“If I asked you if you were a crook you’d be able to tell me wouldn’t you?”
As if it were a total shock. Totally out of the blue and as if, there were no grounds for asking it. . . .
Sarah Adlam and Matthew Hutchings are a DISGRACE to the profession, though typical of it these days it seems if MCP and IWG are anything to go by . . . . . . . . and I hope they get disbarred, if not charged. . . . . NOT ONLY DID THEY FAIL IN THEIR SWORN DUTY TO THE COURT . . . . NEITHER OF THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE 1ST PLACE.
AND if the FRAUD ACT . . explained right margin . . . . . . hadn’t taken so long
but was in the process at the time . . . then MCP could have been charged with that
as well . . . . and still might be. . . . see right hand margin . Wanted! (for conspiracy)
a company can commit conspiracy to defraud against other companies as well as individuals.
They only missed it by a few months.
And here is a Gentleman who agrees with my interpretation of the law.
From http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-
The new Fraud Act -
By Will Heard
The
Fraud Bill 2006 is a wake up call for all those intermediaries (including solicitors)
who don’t mind engaging in time travel to make documents look like they have been
signed yesterday or last year when they are actually hot off the press and all those
who do a Nelson when it comes to ignoring the bleedin' obvious (Monty Python's words
not mine). . . . . .
I have spent many years in tax investigation work. I have seen lawyers and accountants who think nothing of creating written statements purporting to show that something was agreed five minutes before a new act came into force, minutes of directors' meetings that never happened and accounts designed to hoodwink banks, the Revenue and building societies. They have done it to accommodate clients who don't mind seeing black and grey magiked into white for their own purposes but who would be happy to see some poor DSS scrounger locked up for life for making a false claim to a few pounds of benefit.
That is why I have taken some interest in the 2006 Fraud Act
This Act is designed to consolidate many of the nooks and crannys relating to fraud
in a number of other Acts like the Theft Act (sometimes used by HMRC to prosecute
tax evaders). It appears to clarify the law in many different ways such that it should
be so much easier to understand the boundaries between a negligence (say) and a fraud.
This is very important for accountants and others who sometimes put their reputation
and their professional ethics on the line in order to help their clients in so many
different ways.
It also introduces new definitions of fraud designed to meet the growing threat from internet shysters, information technology double dealers and other 21st century desperadoes.
However, the parts the Act that may be most pertinent to intermediaries and their clients concern fraud by false representation (section 2), fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3) and fraud by abuse of position (section 4).
Under section 2 a person is in breach if he makes a false representation and intends by that falsehood to make a gain for himself or another or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. Interestingly a representation may be regarded as being made if it is submitted "in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention)."
So firing off an email knowing full well that what is being said is wrong can be as fraudulent as sending a false document by post..
The phrase "to expose another to a risk of loss" crops up in all three of the sections mentioned in this article. As far as I am aware (not being a lawyer) this has introduced a new type of fraud which looks like it requires a lesser degree of proof than hitherto. In other words it may be easier to convict someone because the prosecution will not need to prove that a loss occurred beyond reasonable doubt but only that there was a risk of loss.
The new Act promises to be a positive contribution to the drive against fraudulent
actions that seem to be far more prevalent these days than before, fuelled perhaps
by the massive opportunities afforded by digitisation and the internet. None of us
are really safe these days either from more subtle and not so subtle ways to hoodwink
us or from the ways in which we can unwittingly get caught up in a situation not
of our own making. About the author Will Heard is a member of Shaw & Co's Financial
Investigation Group.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29390-
Sir Stephen Lander told the Law Society Gazette that a "bent solicitor" was a "heaven-
SEE THE INCREDIBLES . . . HERE
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1004066.aspx
Wanted! (for conspiracy)
by Catriona Munro, Chris Cooper Recent extradition cases against UK business figures (including Ian Norris) have thrown up an important question on the scope of the common law crime of conspiracy to defraud
Criminal behaviour?
Since the beginning of the case, the US Government, supported by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO), has maintained that if the circumstances of the alleged cartel agreement could have been regarded as dishonest and prejudicial to another, it would be capable of constituting conspiracy to defraud. The SFO has a wider interest in the case because it is seeking to prosecute a number of individuals for conspiracy to defraud by price fixing against the NHS, allegedly also before the Enterprise Act entered into force.
English conspiracy to defraud is, in its widest sense, an agreement to do something
dishonestly prejudicial to another. The court upheld the two stage test for dishonesty
pronounced in the long established case of R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 as conduct that
is: (1) dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people; and (2) known by
the accused to be dishonest to those standards.
Norris’s defence team argued that
Ghosh dishonesty was far more than the “secretive” characteristics of a cartel agreement.
The court took the view that any difference between the concepts of dishonesty and
secrecy is difficult to discern, not least for jurors. Instead, dishonesty will be
inferred from the defendant’s efforts to keep the cartel secret and whether he had
an “actual and dishonest appreciation” of the loss third parties might suffer (Wai
Yu-
Aside from the issue of whether case law supports the proposition that price-
The Fraud Act 2006 entered into force in January 2007 and introduced a new statutory
offence of fraud, which can be committed by making a false representation, failing
to disclose information or abuse of position.
The Act, however, makes no provision
about the common law offence, leaving it alongside the possibility of statutory conspiracy
to commit fraud.
Ian Norris is set to appeal to the House of Lords. If he fails, the possibility of
a conspiracy to defraud charge will also sit alongside the Enterprise Act.
Conspiracy
to defraud is, in some respects, much wider than the Enterprise Act’s cartel offence,
which only criminalises the hardcore infringements of competition law (price fixing,
limiting supply, limiting production, market allocation and bid rigging), and in
Scots common law carries a maximum penalty, on indictment, of life imprisonment (10
years in England under the Criminal Justice Act 1987), as opposed to five years under
the Enterprise Act. Furthermore, unlike the cartel offence, a company can commit
conspiracy to defraud against other companies as well as individuals.
and if NORRIS can be prosecuted retrospectively
. . . . SO CAN MCP.
I suppose
I should be grateful I wasn’t carted off in chains and charged like this
poor lady was.
See
MORE FLAGRANT MIS-
Ie 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,
NOW GO AND MEET THE uncredibles . . “An everyday story of Country (NI) Folk” . . .
or return to the story where you left off
“The Impropriety of Sarah Adlam.”
And if that weren’t enough
Date: 21 December 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
(Xfered from Queens Bench) PHILIP SMALL v ANDREW MARTIN
And Between: ANDREW MARTIN v JAMES FENTON
81. It is important to bear in mind the cautionary note which Morison J expressed
in Baron. He emphasised that the right to free speech requires a broad degree of
tolerance in relation to communications.
He said: "It is a legitimate exercise of that right to say things that are unpleasant
or possibly hurtful to the recipient." The 1997 Act does not detract from this right
of free speech even if such speech causes the recipient distress. . . . . (or his
Granny presumably)
For such speech to amount to harassment it must cross the boundary
between what would be regarded as exercising the legitimate right to free speech
even if it exhibits anger and frustration, and speech which could properly be regarded
as illegitimate, e.g. if it amounted to bullying.
Bullying !!!. . . Oh dear . . Pensioner Bullies Rich Greedy Director . . . what a headline . . . . . . . . I can see it now.
The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT letter on my web-
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 signature required to bid Auctioneers.
Steven
Grossman will invent a name for you.
www.barnett-
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.
“More Impropriety of Sarah Adlam @ MCP Law CROOKED Solicitors”
WHERE ARE THOSE DISCLOSURES MCP LAW? After a year and a half of this prosecution by MCP Law . . . . We have not had a single disclosure from them or their clients. . . . . Not one.
Statement Lisa Richardson regarding why she chose to lie to me so often and what
instructions she received from her boss J Burton to do so.
Statement David Rutter
regarding why he ignored my letters to HIM (above) and why they were subsequently
deliberately left out of the injunction file.
Statement Sarah Adlam regarding why
she left vital pages out of the injunction file.
Statement Matthew Hutchings regarding
same.
Statement Andrew Mahon regarding how it was he was able to purchase the property
over the phone without a form or a signature. . . . plus who’s cheque was used for
the deposit, whether it was in his name or in name of R****** Developments or in
the fictitious name of Ridaco Developments.
Statements (plural) 2nd plaintiff’s Aunt
and Uncle regarding same.
Statement 1st plaintiff’s “elderly relative” regarding how
it was . . . . she was so upset by . . . . well what exactly? . . . (does he even
have an “elderly relative living at home”? . . . . voting register might be revealing.)
PROOF
of purchase. . . . . . NOT manufactured by MCP Law. . . ie BANK statements, cheque
stubs and the like.
ALL correspondence between WI Properties and shop tenant Ethyor
Hussain prior to this prosecution.
WHERE ARE THOSE DISCLOSURES MCP LAW? . . . Click here.
