FROM . “Solicitors From Hell” . http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/grass2.htm . . the admirable site of Brian Gray . . In association with “Nightmare Solicitors”
“Richard Hegarty & Co. instructed Willoughby & Partners of London E14 9SG to close down "Solicitors From Hell" in May 2004. If what Ms Aman Virk at the CCS (Consumers Complaints Services) said is true then 'Dickie the Chair' (Richard Hegarty) was acting on "Law Society business". . . . “
LETTER FROM Willoughby & Ptnrs to 1&1 Internet Ltd
Our ref: dxp. Mpj.H4762.00001 . . . . I
By post & fax
By post & fax
21 May 2004
Legal Department
UK Headquarters
1&1 Internet Limited
Pegasus Court
25-
SL1 2PA
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Richard Hegarty and Hegarty & Co Solicitors
(Peterborough Office 48 Broadway, Peterborough, PE1 1YWTel: 01733 346333 Fax: 01733 562338 E-mail: email@hegarty.co.uk
Stamford Office 10 Ironmonger Street, Stamford, Lincs PE9 1PL el: 01780 752066 Fax: 01780 762774 E-mail: email@hegarty.co.uk )
Stamford Office 10 Ironmonger Street, Stamford, Lincs PE9 1PL el: 01780 752066 Fax: 01780 762774 E-
We act on behalf of Mr Richard Hegarty and his law firm Hegarty & Co in relation to the enforcement of their rights in the United Kingdom.
Since 1 August 2003 Mr Hegarty has been The Chair of the Law Society’s Compliance Board. He is also senior partner in the firm Hegarty & Co, a well respected law firm based in Peterborough.
It has come to our client’s attention that websites hosted by you (the ‘Offending Websites’) at the following urls. Contain a number of statements about our clients (the Offending Material’):
http://solicitorsfromhell.com/rthomas1.htm#dickie
(actually its http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/rthomas1.htm#dickie . . . . ccc)
(actually its http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/rthomas1.htm#dickie . . . . ccc)
http://www.nightmaresolicitors.com/dickie.htm
The Offending Websites are defamatory in that they contain various references to our client which give the impression that amongst other things our clients are untrustworthy. This includes but not limited to the following statements:
“Can you afford to trust Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
Accordingly, this letter is to put you on notice as to the defamatory statements contained on the Offending Websites hosted by yourselves and to request that you take down the Offending Material expeditiously so as to come within the safe harbour provisions of the E Commerce Regulations. As you are aware, if the Offending Material is not taken down expeditiously you will be liable for publication of the Offending Material Directly. We also note that the offending Material is also in breach of you terms and conditions in particular Clause 6.2.2.
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact our Matt Jacob on 0207 7345 9046 or by email mjacob@iprights.com
Yours Faithfully Willoughby & Partners.
(Joke bit) Regulated by The Law Society.
(which perhaps should read employed by The Law Society to uselessly threaten and bully)
In addition to my own RANT about The Law Society’s despicable behaviour in trying to get at Web Hosts for allowing detrimental content about themselves or those they are supposed to regulate the Solicitors on the sites they host . . See My RANT
We find that the arrogance of The Law Society is matched only by those that run it. From the following letter we can see that plain as day. . . . “Mr Richard Hegarty is The Chair of the Law Society’s Compliance Board.” . . .who doesn’t like the statements . . . .
We find that the arrogance of The Law Society is matched only by those that run it. From the following letter we can see that plain as day. . . . “Mr Richard Hegarty is The Chair of the Law Society’s Compliance Board.” . . .who doesn’t like the statements . . . .
“Can you afford to trust Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
published by Brian Gray in
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/rthomas1.htm#dickie
http://www.nightmaresolicitors.com/dickie.htm
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/rthomas1.htm#dickie
http://www.nightmaresolicitors.com/dickie.htm
But instead of using plain simple LAW . . . presumable because he knows he can’t . . . . to sue Brian Gray . . . for the authorship of those statements. Richard “The Chair” Hegarty employs yet another firm of Solicitors . . . Willoughby & Partners. (presumably because he doesn’t trust his own firm Hegarty & Co Solicitors to be capable enough to do it themselves.) . . . . to try to intimidate 1&1 Internet Ltd to close down the Websites.
I know a bit of simple Law but I obviously don’t know about the “provisions of the E Commerce Regulations.” . . . but then nor do Hegarty & Co otherwise they could have used it themselves one presumes.
The problem seems to be compacted by the fact that neither do Willoughby & Partners SOLICITORS The Isis Building Thames Quay 193 Marsh Wall, because the Website is still up and running ONE AND A HALF YEARS LATER. So one has to presume that 1&1 Internet knew more about the Law than Matt Jacob Solicitor at Willoughby and Partners, otherwise what was the point of the letter.? . . . . Well I’ll tell you what the point of it was . . . Matt Jacob of Willoughby & Partners thought he could bamboozle 1&1 by simply quoting a few of his professed opinions at them. But I would suggest he knew perfectly well there was no such provision in the Law.
For instance I don’t know about “E Com Regs” but I do know that nothing in
“Can you afford to trust Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“Can you afford to trust Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
“They are probably all guilty of ‘professional misconduct’”
“It’s food for thought’ can you afford to take a chance with Richard Hegarty & Co Solicitors?”
. . . is the least bit defamatory. . . (you want defamatory? go to my site IWG.org) Brian Gray asks perfectly reasonable questions given the ARGUMENT that he presents on the rest of his sites. (see below) Which is why Willoughby & Ptnrs did not act on the following letter one presumes. The questions are not asked out of context. . . . the point is if I know that . . . . . then so should Matt Jacob have known it when he wrote it. And if he did know it . . . . then Matt Jacob Willoughby & Ptnrs was plainly lying. This is exactly the same sort of lies, bluster and bully I complained about by those Tosser Solicitors Lister & Wood Croydon to The Law Society, when they repeatedly threatened me with bogus Law.
No wonder The Law Society condoned Lister & Wood’s lies, bluster and bullying, when I complained, at that time. This is the 1st thing The Law Society and their Officers turn to themselves. Fortunately the days of phoning their buddies to keep the likes of us quiet are over. And should eventually sound the death knell for these pseudo regulatory bodies like The Law Society.
. . . . . Colin Clifford Cole
. . . . . Colin Clifford Cole
PS . . . . how to deal with BULLIES . . . . see my own page ARE YOU BEING SERVED
The meaning of Legal terms can be a little confusing . . . here are some explanations.
“give the impression that” . . . . . means . . . appears to be defamatory to the totally gullible with no knowledge of simple Law. If it were defamatory we would sue the nuts off you. (which is why your website is still up a year and a half later.)
“It has come to our client’s attention” . . . . means . . . . . he is really pissed off about this . . especially the fact that he knows there is nothing he can do about it.
“includes but not limited to the following” . . . . means . . . . we haven’t found anything else yet but if we do you’re for the high jump laddie.
“you will be liable for publication” . . . means. . . . since we cannot do anything about the person actually responsible in Law we are going to try and blame you if you are stupid enough to take any notice. . . (obviously they weren’t)
“We act on behalf of Mr Richard Hegarty.” . . . means . . . . his two firms of Solicitors are not clever enough to threaten you themselves so they are paying us to do so for them . (equally unsuccessfully.)
“rights in the United Kingdom” . . . . means . . . the rights of Solicitors to threaten, intervene, act in anyway they feel like, as they have always done, without let or hindrance (especially if you work for them) by The Law Society or more particularly you . . . you nasty little turd.
“give the impression that” . . . . . means . . . appears to be defamatory to the totally gullible with no knowledge of simple Law. If it were defamatory we would sue the nuts off you. (which is why your website is still up a year and a half later.)
“It has come to our client’s attention” . . . . means . . . . . he is really pissed off about this . . especially the fact that he knows there is nothing he can do about it.
“includes but not limited to the following” . . . . means . . . . we haven’t found anything else yet but if we do you’re for the high jump laddie.
“you will be liable for publication” . . . means. . . . since we cannot do anything about the person actually responsible in Law we are going to try and blame you if you are stupid enough to take any notice. . . (obviously they weren’t)
“We act on behalf of Mr Richard Hegarty.” . . . means . . . . his two firms of Solicitors are not clever enough to threaten you themselves so they are paying us to do so for them . (equally unsuccessfully.)
“rights in the United Kingdom” . . . . means . . . the rights of Solicitors to threaten, intervene, act in anyway they feel like, as they have always done, without let or hindrance (especially if you work for them) by The Law Society or more particularly you . . . you nasty little turd.
From . . . . http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Hegarty.htm
On Thursday 6 November '03 at 6.15pm Hegarty & Co Solicitors with offices in Peterborough and Stamford rang me (their offices close at 5.15pm) . The first thing I noted was Hegarty & Co knew the name of my business and they found out my home 'phone number that is not listed. I believe this shows, as I have said in the past also in a letter I wrote to the Legal Ombudsman's office, that there is a lot of 'blather mouthing' goes on by members of the Law Society (see Hegarty & Co own 'Client's Charter' rule 15 "We shall keep what you tell us confidential"), if Richard Hegarty used other members of the Law Society to get information on me can he be trusted not to pass clients information on to at least other solicitors, which could end up in the hands of other third parties. Can you afford to trust 'Hegarty & Co Solicitors'?
On Thursday 6 November '03 at 6.15pm Hegarty & Co Solicitors with offices in Peterborough and Stamford rang me (their offices close at 5.15pm) . The first thing I noted was Hegarty & Co knew the name of my business and they found out my home 'phone number that is not listed. I believe this shows, as I have said in the past also in a letter I wrote to the Legal Ombudsman's office, that there is a lot of 'blather mouthing' goes on by members of the Law Society (see Hegarty & Co own 'Client's Charter' rule 15 "We shall keep what you tell us confidential"), if Richard Hegarty used other members of the Law Society to get information on me can he be trusted not to pass clients information on to at least other solicitors, which could end up in the hands of other third parties. Can you afford to trust 'Hegarty & Co Solicitors'?
YOU WANT FURNITURE MOVED IN CROYDON? . . DIAL 999 AND THE CROYDON MET POLICE WILL SEND A SQUAD CAR AND DO IT FOR YOU. . .
( if you are black that is . . don’t bother if you are white)
( if you are black that is . . don’t bother if you are white)
CROYDON MET POLICE TWAT TEAM . . WATCH 5 OFFICERS in two squad cars RACE TO SEE A HOLE IN THE GROUND.
Remarkable scenes.
(bottom of this CLICK HERE page)
Remarkable scenes.
(bottom of this CLICK HERE page)
Read what the Law Society of England and Wales say about SPOOF SITES such as these. More DIRTY TRICKS
Click here.
Click here.
What do you call a Solicitor that lets someone take the piss out of them in public and does nothing about it? . . . . . . .Guilty
What do you call a Solicitor that lets someone take the piss out of them in public and does nothing about it for three months? . . . . . . Guilty AND Stupid.
What do you call a Solicitor that lets someone take the piss out of them in public and does nothing about it for eighteen months? . . . . . . Lister & Wood, Croydon.
What do you call a Solicitor that lets someone take the piss out of them in public and does nothing about it for three months? . . . . . . Guilty AND Stupid.
What do you call a Solicitor that lets someone take the piss out of them in public and does nothing about it for eighteen months? . . . . . . Lister & Wood, Croydon.
SEE WHAT SIR IAN BLAIR SAYS ABOUT HIS MET POLICE CROYDON TWAT TEAM? OR POLICE ASSISTED TRESPASSING IF YOU ARE BLACK IN CROYDON? NO PROOF REQUIRED.
“This is not a matter for the Police” . . . Mark Stockford Crime Manager
READ THE RESULT OF THE PROMISED INVESTIGATION THAT MARK STOCKFORD, MADE INTO THE DISGRACEFUL “MATTER” OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF HIS OFFICERS IN CROYDON
CLICK HERE
“This is not a matter for the Police” . . . Mark Stockford Crime Manager
READ THE RESULT OF THE PROMISED INVESTIGATION THAT MARK STOCKFORD, MADE INTO THE DISGRACEFUL “MATTER” OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF HIS OFFICERS IN CROYDON
CLICK HERE
London Met Police give whole new meaning to . . . “Getting a Brazilian”
Croydon Council’s Dirty Tricks Page.
And if you read http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/omblet8.htm . . . and also http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/Virk.htm . . . you will see that Brian makes a very good case.
I do not know if The Law Society have replied in full . . .but if my experiences are anything to go by it is doubtful . . It seems that the golden rule these days for Solicitors and their supposed Guardians is . . If you’ve got something you don’t want someone else to know about . . CLAM UP.
From the former I see in a letter from Brian to Zahida Manzoor CBE Legal Services Ombudsman
I'm aware you say that concerning my complaint against Thos Boyd Whyte you "do not intend to revisit these particular complaints". In your letter (page 3 4th paragraph) concerning the "possible contravention of the data Protection Acts was a matter which fell within the remit to investigate". If you look at the enclosed attendance note and a letter which I sent to you dated 21st May 2003 you clearly must have been aware at that time there had been a "possible contravention of the data Protection Acts" that you now say comes "within" the CCS's "remit to investigate" which at the time I bitterly complained that the OSS and then yourself refused to investigate.
And from the latter, I would have thought this snippet indicates that The Law Society acted outside The LAW. And the implications of it should be investigated by the Police.
Let us look at the last part of that sentence; "the question of information passing outside of the Law Society would not in any event arise". Are you saying that any data/information that is collected from Complainants' files over the 'telephone' ('unsecured means') by whom it is assumed are members of the Law Society, even when they are 'closed files', is legally correct?
NO WONDER BRIAN’S SITES ARE STILL ON THE NET.
I do not know if The Law Society have replied in full . . .but if my experiences are anything to go by it is doubtful . . It seems that the golden rule these days for Solicitors and their supposed Guardians is . . If you’ve got something you don’t want someone else to know about . . CLAM UP.
From the former I see in a letter from Brian to Zahida Manzoor CBE Legal Services Ombudsman
I'm aware you say that concerning my complaint against Thos Boyd Whyte you "do not intend to revisit these particular complaints". In your letter (page 3 4th paragraph) concerning the "possible contravention of the data Protection Acts was a matter which fell within the remit to investigate". If you look at the enclosed attendance note and a letter which I sent to you dated 21st May 2003 you clearly must have been aware at that time there had been a "possible contravention of the data Protection Acts" that you now say comes "within" the CCS's "remit to investigate" which at the time I bitterly complained that the OSS and then yourself refused to investigate.
And from the latter, I would have thought this snippet indicates that The Law Society acted outside The LAW. And the implications of it should be investigated by the Police.
Let us look at the last part of that sentence; "the question of information passing outside of the Law Society would not in any event arise". Are you saying that any data/information that is collected from Complainants' files over the 'telephone' ('unsecured means') by whom it is assumed are members of the Law Society, even when they are 'closed files', is legally correct?
NO WONDER BRIAN’S SITES ARE STILL ON THE NET.
Have I Got News For Croydon
Visit THE Croydon Council information site www.croydoncouncil.info
Local Government Ombudsman. Jerry White washes report of Croydon Council maladministration.
Visit Daniel’s Wanking Page on iwg-solicitors.co.uk
More Dirty Tricks from This Disgraceful Society
For the first time ever, a solicitor has persuaded a court to revoke an intervention in a practice. The victory is of course quite hollow, since the Law Society has killed her practice, and very probably bankrupted her. The Court recognised that any order it made was empty, and since the Socity was acting in purported fulfilment of a statutory duty she gets no remedy.
What was extraordinary were the lengths the Law Society was ready to go to in order to make sure that they won. They gave misleading statements to pretend that there was a shortfall on client account. They looked for dishonesty. When they could not find it, they looked again. When they could not find it again, they amassed huge volumes of absolutely trivial complaints in the hope that nobody would look further.
They spent your resources justifying what they knew was unjustifiable. The system means that an intervention is normally unchallengable.The Law Society has come to see themselves as above criticism; beyond the reach of ordinary mortals. They didn't even need to bother recording the reasons for their intervention decision. Who would be so presumptious as to ask them to explain why they were going to destroy an professional career?
There had been no dishonesty. The Society found no more than lesser breaches of conduct rules. The Judge said that in effect, the Law Society wanted to expect of any practice the standards which might be available to largest practice in the City. This was quite unrealistic. He pointed out that a large practice can store files forever at an out of town facility. A small practice, and in this context that means every firm still putting the names of all the partners on the letterhead, can destroy a file perfectly properly, but the Law Society will feel free to take this as evidence of at best slack practice and at worst of dishonesty.
The judgment (below) is a long one but is well worth reading. The Law Society was not necessarily dishonest. What began as as organisational laziness and prejudice against smaller practices was transformed into an attempt by the Society to do whatever was necessary to feed this particular solicitor to the dogs, rather than to admit their own shameful error. It is an organisation which has lost any sense of humanity or compassion. It is sick.
This can happen to any practice. The standards which the Law Society looked for were simply unrealistic. There may be one or two people in any firm whose every file is a model of absolute corporate cleanliness - no thought, no life, no commitment, just all the boxes neatly ticked.
Here it is Sheikh v The Law Society. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/1409.html
The dear old Gazette carries a short article (7 July 2005) which acknowledges that the Society was criticised. You would never guess from the Gazette that not one of the panel who took the decision to ruin this solicitor's professional life remembered enough of why they thought she was dishonest to support that decision by giving evidence. They didn't even serve a statement. They were unwilling to risk facing the solicitor they were happy to destroy. In a situation where the Law Society was clearly fighting for its reputation, it is difficult to imagine that these absolutely central witnesses would not have been called if it was thought they might have been of even the remotest help.
The Law Society was reduced to a miserable and cringing 'We are considering an appeal.' No apology. No grovelling admission of a terrible disgrace. No humble pie. Nothing. Just a continuation of the brass-necked view that 'if we can still get out of this by digging this solicitor's grave a few feet deeper, we will happily do so.'
What was extraordinary were the lengths the Law Society was ready to go to in order to make sure that they won. They gave misleading statements to pretend that there was a shortfall on client account. They looked for dishonesty. When they could not find it, they looked again. When they could not find it again, they amassed huge volumes of absolutely trivial complaints in the hope that nobody would look further.
They spent your resources justifying what they knew was unjustifiable. The system means that an intervention is normally unchallengable.The Law Society has come to see themselves as above criticism; beyond the reach of ordinary mortals. They didn't even need to bother recording the reasons for their intervention decision. Who would be so presumptious as to ask them to explain why they were going to destroy an professional career?
There had been no dishonesty. The Society found no more than lesser breaches of conduct rules. The Judge said that in effect, the Law Society wanted to expect of any practice the standards which might be available to largest practice in the City. This was quite unrealistic. He pointed out that a large practice can store files forever at an out of town facility. A small practice, and in this context that means every firm still putting the names of all the partners on the letterhead, can destroy a file perfectly properly, but the Law Society will feel free to take this as evidence of at best slack practice and at worst of dishonesty.
The judgment (below) is a long one but is well worth reading. The Law Society was not necessarily dishonest. What began as as organisational laziness and prejudice against smaller practices was transformed into an attempt by the Society to do whatever was necessary to feed this particular solicitor to the dogs, rather than to admit their own shameful error. It is an organisation which has lost any sense of humanity or compassion. It is sick.
This can happen to any practice. The standards which the Law Society looked for were simply unrealistic. There may be one or two people in any firm whose every file is a model of absolute corporate cleanliness -
Here it is Sheikh v The Law Society.
The dear old Gazette carries a short article (7 July 2005) which acknowledges that the Society was criticised. You would never guess from the Gazette that not one of the panel who took the decision to ruin this solicitor's professional life remembered enough of why they thought she was dishonest to support that decision by giving evidence. They didn't even serve a statement. They were unwilling to risk facing the solicitor they were happy to destroy. In a situation where the Law Society was clearly fighting for its reputation, it is difficult to imagine that these absolutely central witnesses would not have been called if it was thought they might have been of even the remotest help.
The Law Society was reduced to a miserable and cringing 'We are considering an appeal.' No apology. No grovelling admission of a terrible disgrace. No humble pie. Nothing. Just a continuation of the brass-
Hopefully sites like mine, and there will be many, will dig the grave of this corruptly biased body. Along with their stooges at The Legal Services Ombudsman Office
Colin Blasts IWG (Ingram Winter Green off the WEB click here) Their own site was bottom of page three the last time felt like going that far down the list to look for them.
These sites were created because Solicitors Ingram Winter Green and Denniss Matthews will not respond to my many letters, and because The Law Society will not investigate all this:-
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.
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.
CONSPIRATORS Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley and Islington have been very busy. They managed to close half my sites (for a litle while). . . So they are going to be hosted elsewhere from now on (as you can see). Denniss Matthews wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they took me to Court otherwise they would do so . . . so they threatened my hosting Co . . see Law Society Dirty Tricks page . . . . And of course my Letter to Denniss Matthews
Followers of my sites might have noticed that they have been down more than they have been up these last two weeks (May 2006). . . That is because since they were moved offshore to escape legal dirty tricks the servers have been under constant attack . . . Enough to destroy the hard drives. . . Can’t say who it is of course and it can’t be Ingram Winter Green or Denniss Matthews because they aren’t even clever enough to be Solicitors. . . However I’m told they know a man who is clever enough and he is the crook Mohammed Yaseen who used to be MD (before he went to prison) at nscglobal (a Co that David Ingram of IWG, is also a Dir) . . . . . . BUT is he the same Managing Director now at nscglobal under another but very similar name, Yaseen Khan as I am informed ? . . . . care to confirm or deny that any of you? . . . Not so far they haven’t.
More Dirty Tricks. This time from IWG . . . . . .
They are at it again. This time Tossers Ingram Winter Green are making the threats. One of my sites was closed down this week 18/09/06. . for all of a day. The way it works is. Knowing they can do nothing about these sites through proper and legal means. The ones they charge exorbitant sums, executing for other people. What Firms like IWG and Denniss Matthews (see below) do instead is. They send what are called ‘Cease & Desist’ notices to the site’s Hosting Co. The Hosts only get 10’s of pounds a year for hosting a site so really can’t afford to get involved. So whatever the argument they simple comply. They know the threats are malicious, and unfounded, since the complainant would sue the author if they were not. But the hosts cannot afford to fight them. Fortunately there are other hosts offshore who won’t be bullied by bent Solicitors. The reason IWG can’t do anything about these sites properly is. Even they are not going to go to Court and swear on oath they did not conspire to lie and cheat me. But they thought nothing of deliberately lying in writing to me for the profit of their client originally. But denying it in a witness box is a whole new ball game. As dear ol’ Jeffery Archer, and Jonathan Aitken found out. . . . . Click here
DISCLAIMER . . re MCP Law 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.
Nigel BLAGS a GRANNY
The IWG, Denniss Matthews, Nathan Teitelbaum, (Fine Land Properties) Granny Robbing Scheme . . Will they deny it? . .
Click here.
The IWG, Denniss Matthews, Nathan Teitelbaum, (Fine Land Properties) Granny Robbing Scheme . . Will they deny it? . .
Click here.
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.
“ I am going to presume that Nigel Matthews @ Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley along with Daniel Ginsbury @ Ingram Winter Green Solicitors Bedford House and their clients Suryakant J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley and Fineland Properties Ltd, 43 Vincent Court (also known as Fine Land Properties Ltd. 2 Hillcrest Av. NW11 or Fineland Properties Ltd C/O Messrs Elliot Woolfe & Ros, Equity Hse, Edgeware ) . . . Reg owners Ruth Teitelbaum, 28 Overlea Road London, E5 9BG and Nathan Teitlebaum, Crest House, 34 Hillcrest Avenue, London NW11 0EN, CONSPIRED to lie, deceive and defraud me of my considerable claims in the matter of this dispute. . . See why ? . . . Click here
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.
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.
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. Can’t think of a name to bid under? We’ll make one up
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 Ginsbury
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)
Barnett Ross Auctioneers . . . We laugh at
money laundering regulations.
But will the police investigate?
Law Society Protecting Crooked Solicitors . . . But not from me.. . . Colin Blasts IWG (Ingram Winter Green off the WEB in 2006) Their own site was bottom of page three the last time felt like going that far down the list to look for them. . In 2008 they are on their way out again . . Say bye bye to the Web IWG
