I am being sued by the clients of MCP Law for harassment . .BUT . . . . WHO was harassing WHO?
Who was harassing who?
Monday, 03 November 2003
Lister & Wood re; Shop 243 Portland Rd. Patel
You are to inform your client Patel, 2 WICKHAM AVE, CROYDON, that he too, is not
welcome on MY doorstep. Further, neither he nor his tenant DYER of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND
RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter,
or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves
or any other reputable solicitor. Because of their NASTY THREATENING behaviour.
Letter to MCP . . . Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Also inform your clients I require
and DEMAND no direct contact with them WHATSOEVER unless it is through yourselves
or another reputable solicitor. (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time
being.
Letter to MCP . . . . . Friday, 23 June 2006
Further to my letter earlier today I
have just received a demand (not due till Sept) from WI Properties for the payment
of insurance. Quite apart from my instruction in my letter to you of Wednesday, May
10, 2006,
“Also inform your clients I require and DEMAND no direct contact with them
WHATSOEVER unless it is through yourselves or another reputable solicitor.”
There
is also a matter of the agreements made with the previous owners of the freehold
that I expect your client’s WI Properties to abide by.
Letter to MCP . . . . Tuesday, 29 August 2006
Further I understand that my tenants
were contacted by the builders recently. Remind your clients again . . . “neither
he nor his tenant of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my
tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over
any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves or any other reputable solicitor.
“
Letter to MCP . . . . 04 September 2006
I have just received a disconcerting letter
from your clients WI Properties.
Which words of (and I’ll make the writing bigger in case they are blind or something.).
“neither he (WI Properties) nor their tenants of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves or any other reputable solicitor.”
. . . . . are they having TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING????
Letter to MCP . . . Tuesday, 26 September 2006
Have I got to make these letters any bigger?
“neither he (WI Properties) nor their tenants of the SHOP 243 PORTLAND RD is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER except through yourselves or any other reputable solicitor.”
Which bit . . . . are they having TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING????
Letter to MCP . . Wednesday,
13 September 2006
Ask Hussein why he thought it would be clever to DELIBERATELY disconnect
our electricity from our meter plunging the flat into darkness this evening?
I say
deliberately since he freely admitted it to me (and the lady from EDF who contacted
him on my behalf.)
Before he slammed the phone down on me telling me “to fuck off”
Letter Lisa Richardson
to plaintiff 1. 04 May 2006
You advised that the insurance bill for the whole building
was quite high, due to the risk associated with the use of the shop unit. You need
to load the payment due from the shop tenant, rather than just apportion it as you
would normally between the two. The increased premium is a result of the way in which
the ground floor is being used and they therefore need to pay a higher proportion
of the cost.
So what did he do?? . . Send a demand for 2/3rds of the insurance (which was not
due till end of Sept) on 25 August 2005.
Completely ignoring LR’s advice, and stating
a ridiculous sum of £2,335.10
AND COMPLETELY IGNORING THE PREVIOUS ARRANGEMENT
On 16th
September 2006. The first claimant raised with MCP what was ‘the maximum pressure’
that could be applied to the defendant in the context of alleged rent arrears. Of
which there were none.
Letter to MCP . . . . . Sunday, 26 November 2006
I have received two communications
from your client xxxx of WI Properties.
He seems judging from the contents “we do not fully understand the bottom line requirement” to be either, incredibly naïve in his ‘understanding’ of the situation. Total arrogant in his blindness to it. Or completely deceitful in his dismissing of it. No mention of the real problems are contained within.
I am going to be generous and assume it is the former since he clearly does not ‘understand’ the terms . . . . NOT to contact us on ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER except through yourselves. . . (And while he is at it he could tell his tenant to do the same since he has been bothering our own tenant yet again this very Sat evening)
One direct letter from me . . . . and they go to Court for harassment???? . . . .
.
JUST WHO . . . was harassing WHO?
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’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.
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.