October 11, 2006
Sender Information:
Ingram Winter Green
Sent by: [Private]
[Private]
London, UK
Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc.
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA
Sent via: Re: Request to remove information
Dear Sir/Madam,
Request to remove information Introduction
1 This is a request to Google to remove information from its website service Google.co.uk
(Google Section 1) because that information violates the applicable laws of England
& Wales (Google Section 2) concerning defamation, trademark registration, harassment
and race hatred.
Clearly if my actions “violate the applicable laws of England & Wales”
. . . . Why don’t they USE THOSE LAW THEN? . . . They are a FIRM of Solicitors ,so
it should be a simple matter. Surely they aren’t worried about how much they are
going to charge themselves. It’s only ORDINARY people who have to worry about such
COSTS. But I don’t pick on ORDINARY people who cannot afford to defend themselves.
BUT ON THE RICH AND POWERFUL who could do so if they had a case.
So Item 1 then .
. . WHAT A PACK OF LIES . . . and IWG being solicitors CLAIMING to be aware of “applicable
laws of England and Wales” were quite prepared to PERJURE themselves to Google.
“applicable laws of England & Wales concerning defamation,”
THAT IS A LIE . . . .
When this complaint was made in Oct 2006 the web-
LET’s NOT FORGET that what Daniel Ginsbury of IWG,
did IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE under The Fraud Act. And the fact that Nigel Matthews
and Nathan Teitelbaum conspired to carry it out (WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER DENIED) makes
them CRIMINALS under the Conspiracy to Defraud part of The theft Act.
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-
The
new Fraud Act -
Ingram Winter Green
2 Ingram Winter Green ("IWG") is a partnership law firm based in London and its name
is a registered trademark. The firm is involved in the provision of legal services.
Its founding members are [private], all of whom remain amongst its partners. Its
other individual partners are [private]. The firm is supervised by the Law Society
and works in full compliance with the relevant professional regulatory requirements.
“Works in full compliance”? None sense. LIES . . RUBBISH. “The relevant professional
regulatory requirements” include the following.
Right at the beginning of the Manual
we find . . .
1.02 Integrity . . . You must act with integrity.
6. Personal integrity
is central to your role as the client's trusted adviser and must characterise all
your professional dealings – with clients, the court, other lawyers and the public.
10.
Members of the public must be able to place their trust in you. Any behaviour within
or outside your professional practice which undermines this trust damages not only
you but the ability of the profession as a whole to serve society.
The very first
thing IWG did as far as I was concerned was to send me a letter packed FULL OF LIES.
(EXACTLY AS DID MCP Law did a year later, at first denying the LIE but then ADMITTING
it to The High Court of Justice) IWG have had 3 years now to deny these LIES to ME
in writing. IN FACT I demanded it otherwise I would do EXACTLY what I did do . .
. DRIVE THEM OFF THE INTERNET.
3 Amongst IWG's clients relevant to this request are
NSC Global Limited, Fineland Properties Limited and its directors [Nathan & Ruth
Teitelbaum ]. Another law firm, Denniss Matthews is also involved.
INVOLVED? . .
. I’ll say they are involved. NOW go and read The IWG Granny robbing story, published
under “the applicable laws of England & Wales” that they also have had years to
deny. . . . . Brought about by the GREED and CROOKED behaviour of Daniel Ginsbury
IWG and his pals Nigel Matthews and Nathan Teitelbaum Fineland Properties. . . .
. . . . Throwing old ladies out on to the streets AND stealing their money, that
they have NEVER DENIED isn’t my idea of 1.02 Integrity .
[Private] .,. . ie ME
4.
[Colin Cole] is a self proclaimed IT expert (I’m a pensioner who didn’t learn how
to use a PC until I was in MY 50’s.) and has used his knowledge to set up and run
at least 12 separate websites hosted offshore (they only went offshore to escape
the Dirty tricks of IWG and their crooked pals at NSC Global Ltd who are IT experts)
and each with up to 40 or more separate URL pages. Colin Cole] owns the leasehold
on a property in Croydon, South London ("the property") and has been involved in
a long-
5 Mr [Colin Cole] asserts that his dispute with the previous freeholder, Mr [Suryakant
J Patel] has brought him into conflict with the local council, (WHO WERE FINED by
the Ombudsman for MALADMINISTRATION) the London police (see TWAT team Croydon. Shows
I’m not selective in my criticism ) and various local firms of estate agents (NOT
TRUE . . Who? There are NO Estate Agents “mentioned” (deliberately) on my sites)
and lawyers.(a plenty) He further asserts that IWG and the property company (Fineland
Properties) that purchased the freehold are now to be deemed as involved in a dispute
in which they had no participation and of which they had no knowledge. A TOTAL LIE.
We attach at Appendix One copies of correspondence between IWG, Fineland Properties
Limited, Mr [Colin Cole]'s solicitors (private) and Mr [private] which show the genesis
of Mr [private]'s involvement with IWG. . . MORE LIES
I wonder if they included
the OTHER Letter 25th May 2005 (referred to in the one above 2nd June) that they
had already prepared, showing premeditation, ALSO LYING about the fact they knew
nothing about the dispute, (but did not send to my Solicitor), I found in the injunction
file. . . an amazing MISSING letter about . . . of all things . . . another MISSING
LETTER that did contained knowledge of the dispute and STILL MISSING. . . That went
astray between the two solicitors IWG and Denniss Matthews . . . two solicitors
that are part of a Granny Robbing gang who communicate on a daily basis . . .
HOW CONVENIENT . . . . . what a bizarre load of nonsense.
6 Mr [Colin Cole]'s websites are directed at furthering his vindictive (vindictive?
. . There is nothing “vindictive” about showing people up for WHAT THEY ARE. . .
Watchdog & Rogue Traders do it all the time)campaigns against those individuals,
organisations and bodies who he sees as responsible for matters connected to his
leasehold interest in the property. He prides himself on being able to force his
websites to the top of various search engine listings.
(I certainly do “No one else
in the world can do this.”) In 2005 he added IWG and its individual partners to his
'hit' list of targets. (and why not? . . Given their behaviour but at the time my
websites wre only a few weeks old and I had to learn how to do it) Mr [Colin Cole]
also runs a fringe ratepayers association in Croydon, South London of which he is
leader, nominating officer and treasurer. (FRINGE? . . RUBBISH . . I started a MAJOR
POLITICAL PARTY Croydon Ratepayers Against Croydon Council CRACC with all the the
same Rights AND OBLIGATIONS as The Labour Party .)
The Unlawful Material
7 On 11 internet websites with multiple associated pages generated and run by Mr
[Colin Cole], he has published material which is both unlawful (UNTRUE otherwise
IWG or anyone else could HAVE APPLIED THAT LAW) and seriously offensive ("the material").
(YES IT IS and for a reason . . Calling these Solicitors LIARS and CHEATS is meaningless
. . . You might just as well say the sky is blue. . . I AM DELIBERATELY OFFENSIVE
about them to prove to the public just how useless they are otherwise they would
APPLY THE LAW to do something about it.)
We have provided to you, in confidence,
(WHY? I don’t have any secrets.) a separate document, which is not for publication,
and which contains the material. The reason why the material is not included in this
document is because you have informed us that a copy of this request is sent for
publication to the Chilling Effects website.(as you can see) If the material were
to repeated on the Chilling Effects website, it would defeat the purpose of this
request.
(I bet it would . . In fact it probably says I call them a load of WANKERS.
. . . . Chambers Dictionary . . WANKER . . . worthless despicable person)
8 Each
of the search result URLs identified in paragraph 11 below contains material that
breaches the applicable laws of defamation and/or harassment and/or race hatred and/or
trademark registration (Google Section 3). Each of these violations is dealt with
in turn at paragraphs 12 to 26 below. NO THEY DON’T otherwise IWG would have APPLIED
THOSE LAWS.
9 Further, Mr [Colin Cole] has ensured that by a series of multiple and repeated
links, all pages on all sites are inter-
10 The 11 websites are as follows:
10.1 www.ingramwintergreen.co.uk (now www.ingramwintergreen.me.uk
)
10.2 www.ingramwintergreen.org (now www.iwg-
10.3 www.dennissmatthews.co.uk
10.4 www.lawyerbaiting.co.uk
10.5 www.solicitorsfromhell.com . . . (NOTHING WHATSOEVER
TO DO WITH ME )
10.6 www.metpolicecroydon.co.uk
10.7 www.croydoncouncil.info
10.8 www.sir-
10.9
www.metpolicelondon.co.uk
10.10 www.dennissmatthews.org
10.11 www.mcp-
There
are a lot more now.
The Search Queries
11 A series of keyword searches (below) generated links to the
websites and their associated URLs set out in paragraph 11 below and in each case
a search was undertaken of the whole web and of the UK pages:
Well it does seem
that Google (bless them) didn’t take too much notice of this complaint if these searches
are anything to go by. (click the links and you will see)
11.1 Ingram Winter Green
. .
11.2 IWG
11.3 Daniel Ginsbury
11.4 David Ingram
11.5 David Ingram Solicitor
11.6
NSCGIobal
11.7 NSC Global
11.8 Nathan Teitelbaum
11.9 Ruth Teitelbaum
11.10 Fineland
Properties
11.11 Dennis Matthews
11.12 Denniss Matthews
The URLs 12 The sites and
their related individual URLs are as follows: [redacted]
From Chilling Effect site
http://www.chillingeffects.org/international/notice.cgi?NoticeID=5399
UK Defamation and Race Hatred Complaint
Google take note please.
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-
In this complaint all the persons
mentioned are masked by the word [private]
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PRIVACY IN SUCH IMPORTANT
MATTERS. I have NO PROBLEM giving my name COLIN CLIFFORD COLE and anyone can see
my address on the web-
REMEMBER THEY HAVE SWORN TO THIS ON OATH UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.
WELL THEY CAN JOIN THE LIST AT MCP Law THEN . . . www.mcp-
Further Websites
13 Set out in Appendix Two are a series of new websites which appear to have been registered as domain names but have yet to be activated with content but utilise the name of IWG and/or its clients in a pejorative manner. (pejorative? Thats a big word . . I wonder what it means?)
Breaches of the Applicable Laws
(IF THERE WERE ANY BREACHES . IWG WOULD HAVE APPLIED
THE LAW)
14 The reasons for believing that the rights of IWG and its individual partners have been unlawfully violated (Google Section 4) are set out below. (VIOLATED??? Boo Hoo.)
Defamation
(Oh it’s defamation all right . . . But you can’t do anything about DEFAMATION
if either it is TRUE or so close to it that it makes no odds. Which is why IWG and
their pals did not APPLY the LAW.)
15 The material published by Mr [Colin Cole] is
defamatory of IWG and its individual partners and verbatim extracts have been cut
and pasted from the 11 websites and supplied to you in confidence in a separate document
and is not for publication.
Ingram Winter Green, Denniss Matthews and now MCP Law
have all had months if not years to reply to perfectly reasonable letters asking
them to explain their behaviour.
This complaint to Google is not their first expedition into what I call DIRTY TRICKS . . ie if you can’t sue the Author . . . Threaten the publisher . . In this case Google. They believed (oh so wrongly) that if they applied their usually tactics of IGNORING any letters they did not want OR COULD NOT reply to they could get away with it.
BUT NOT WITH ME YOU DON’T. . . “Ignoring Me is NOT an Option.” . . You will either reply sensibly and honestly to me OR YOU WILL SUFFER.
16 For the avoidance of doubt, IWG has checked the content across all the sites listed at paragraph 12 above and for ease of reference has set out the defamatory material just once in the separate confidential document, since it is repeated and/or accessible across all the webpages. . . . IT MOST CERTAINLY IS
17 The natural and ordinary meanings of the publications are set out in a separate
document which has been supplied to you in confidence and which is not for publication.
18
These allegations are false and highly damaging to the business and trading reputation
of IWG and its individual partners who have been seriously defamed and suffered considerable
hurt and embarrassment. . . . HOW GRATIFYING THAT IS . . . . WHEN YOU SET OUT TO
DEFRAUD SOMEONE AND THEY FIGHT YOU BACK . . . YOU SHOULDN’T COMPLAIN IF IT COSTS
YOU.
19 The following matters exacerbate the damage being done: GOOD
19.1 Mr [Colin Cole] has acted with malice in conducting his campaigns such that
his actions would defeat any of the defences available under the applicable law.
OH
NO IT IS ISN’T . . . The LAWS on MALICE are quite clear too. . . and they can be
applied if IWG dared to do so. AND BEING SOLICITORS they KNOW they are LYING about
that too.http://www.hmcourts-
KEARNS & OTHERS v THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR
23 Toogood -
the law considers
such publication as malicious, unless it is fairly made by a person in the discharge
of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his
own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned. In such cases, the occasion
prevents the inference of malice,
AND MY INTERESTS are CERTAINLY concerned in this matter.
Mr [Colin Cole] boasts on
his webpages that his intention is to:
19.1.1 blast IWG off the web; (I’ve certainly
done that and proudly proclaimed on nearly every page. . . Besides that . . at the
top of the page in question it CLEARLY STATES From MY LETTER OF 23rd June 2005 “It
is my declared intention to replace your web-
19.1.2 ensure that IWG is publicly pilloried on his websites; (goes without
saying)
19.1.3 create a problem for IWG who will have to be very creative to rid themselves
of it; (NOT CREATIVE ENOUGH . . . Which was my point of saying it . . .
They claim
to “pride ourselves on being creative problem-
19.1.4 ensure that he Mr
[Colin Cole] is IWG's problem; . . . . Problem NOT solved then.
19.1.5 ensure that
IWG will have more problems than it can ever imagine; . . They do have little imagination
it seems on that score . . I’m just expanding their horizons.
19.1.6 discredit IWG
with as much vigour as he applies to any project on which he sets out; . . . Guilty
as charged . . . E x y E x y E x Nobody Does it Better y E x y E x y
19.1.7 make
it impossible for IWG to deal with his deliberate attempts to obstruct access to
the firm's legitimate website; OBSTRUCT ACCESS?? . . ANYONE CAN access their website
(if they can find it). . . It’s IWG and their pals at NSCGlobal who attacked my hosting
Co and burned the hard drives out. (another allegation made 2 years ago and NOT DENIED)
Which in the USA might well be considered an act of Terrorism. And why they are left
well alone now.
19.1.8 threaten yet more damage in that his campaign has not even
started yet; . .
They got THAT right . . and it will continue until they decide to
settle the matter properly and honestly. . . They could start by replying to some
letters sent nearly three years ago. . . IWG and the like earn their LIVING THREATENING
people to pay up or else. . . . yet they squeal like pigs when someone does it to
them.
19.1.9 replace IWG's legitimate website at the top of the search engine front
pages with his own webpages; . . . I did it in 2006 and will do so again in 2008
if they don’t SETTLE.
19.1.10 use his knowledge to harm IWG who he assures he knows
just how to achieve his ends; (very brave words from someone who didn’t know one
end of a web site from another at the time. . . . but I worked out how to do it.
. . . it’s called being a “creative-
19.1.11 discredit IWG severely
and when he says discredit he doesn't mean it will be uncomfortable for the firm
and anyone who works there but excruciating; . . . Well if you don’t take any notice
of a prediction . . . despite having months of notice that’s your fault.
19.1.12 ensure
that IWG loses a few big contracts; . . . (I do hope so . . . It’s what PROTEST and
Name and Shame is all about.)
19.1.13 post correspondence with IWG on his websites
if they block his faxes; . . It went on there anyway.
19.1.14 pull no punches whatsoever;
NO NO I told them EXACTLY what I would do.
19.1.15 email every company in the
country ('you wouldn't believe how many email addresses I've got now'); . . . . Well
it got attention to my sites . . . It’s called advertising . . . or in their case
de-
19.1.17 blight IWG's business. . . . Well
THAT is EXACTLY what my complaint is . . . . THIS is is what I call blight to property.
Which they and their clients would do NOTHING ABOUT. and worse by their LIES to
me . . . . showed that they never intended to. . . BUT EVEN WORSE they told me that
if I involved their clients in resolving the dispute they would CHARGE ME FOR DOING
SO . . . UP FRONT.
19.2 The allegations are cross promoted across all the offending
websites; . . . SO?
19.3 The material is published in sensational terms intended to
attract the greatest number of surfers/readers; . . . YUP . A million hits a year
in 2006 . . and going that way in 2008.
MARCH 2008 1st full month since re-
Complaining to Google about how successful a site
is ??? . . How bizarre.
19.4 Google is acknowledged as an authoritative source of
information, news and opinion; . . .
AND for the 1st time in the HISTORY of MANKIND
gives the ordinary HONEST GUY a fair say . . . . We have NEVER had this privilege
before. IWG and their ilk love the idea of free advertising on the web for their
purposes . . . It’s just that from NOW ON people like them will have to mend their
ways.
19.5 Google is a global branded 'online' operation with an influential presence;
. . I’m sure Google know their position in the World. . . and Thank God for them.
19.6
The material is published on the internet and thereby to the widest possible audience;
. . . 1,000,000 hits a year 2006 . . Going for 2,000,000 2008 if IWG and the rest
don’t settle.
19.7 The material; is plainly likely to damage the Claimants' reputation;
. . . WHAT reputation? . . Granny Robbers have a reputation?
19.8 Further, and despite
the fact that IWG have made it clear that the allegations are false, (NOT TO ME THEY
HAVEN’T which is the point of my web-
Harassment
20 Under the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997, a person must not pursue a 'course of conduct' that amounts
to harassment of another and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment.
Harassment includes 'alarming the person or causing the person distress'.
21 Mr [Colin
Cole] has conducted a course of conduct that is harassing IWG, its individual partners
and in particular [Daniel Ginsbury] in a way that is both alarming and distressing.
THAT IS NOT TRUE EITHER . . . a Company CANNOT claim harassment under the law . .
. and nor can the Directors or Partners of that Company. . . . Only employees who
have NO CHOICE in the conduct of their employment may be protected. Daniel Ginsbury
not only had a choice not to LIE and CHEAT but he had a DUTY NOT TO. And being Solicitors
IWG knew they were LYING YET AGAIN when they made this claim part of their complaint.
. . . And if they need a lesson on the LAW they can refer to my site www.mcp-
.http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-
Can the Act
be used to protect companies from harassment? Strictly speaking no, but the Act can
be used to protect company employees under civil injunctions (for protection against
Animal Rights Groups) The courts have ruled that the Act can be used in criminal
prosecutions to protect individuals who constitute a sufficiently close-
22 The published material concerning Mr [Colin Cole] has been supplied
to you, in confidence in a separate document and which is not for publication. .
. . WHY NOT? . . . Let’s see it . . I’M not afraid of THE TRUTH . . NOTHING is
secret in my Perfect World.
23 The published material concerning the individual partners, consultants and employed solicitors has been supplied to you, in confidence in a separate document and which is not for publication. Those named are; . . . . Here they all are.
23.1 [redacted] ????????
24 As to IWG the firm, the extent of the published material (supplied in a separate
document and which is not for publication) testifies to the harassment running as
it does to more than 400 webpages which have been forced to the top of Google's search
engine listings. The material is false, abusive and vindictive and intended by Mr
[Colin Cole]'s own admission to cause alarm and distress to IWG and its individual
partners. NONE OF THAT IS TRUE either in FACT (there are much more than 400) . .
or in LAW. . . . and if you read www.mcp-
Race Hatred
25
It is an offence for any person to display, publish or distribute written material
that is threatening, abusive or insulting if he intends thereby to stir up racial
hatred or if, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to
be stirred up: Public Order Act 1986. For the offence to be committed, the tone of
the language must be objectionable.
It most certainly is . . . But when I complained
of it ,the Met Police did absolutely NOTHING about it . . . apart from losing the
evidence. . . . . I don’t Despise Daniel Ginsbury because he is a Jew . . . I despise
him because he is a DELIBERATE LIAR who when challenged hid behind the wall . .
. The wall of silence that crooked solicitors head for when they don’t know what
else to do. . . . And don’t want to answer reasonable letters.
26 By s17 of the Act
"racial hatred" was defined as "...hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain
defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic
origins.
27 All but two of IWG's individual partners are Jewish or of Jewish extraction.
[Daniel Ginsbury] in particular is an observant Orthodox Jew whose ethnicity is deliberately
vilified by these websites. For the avoidance of repetition, see the material supplied
to you in a separate document and which is not for publication. And they are LIARS
CROOKS and CHEATS who when asked to deny the fact . . . CHOSE not to do so. Calling
a Jew a liar when he is one doesn’t make you racist. Daniel Ginsbury also had the
opportunity to deny the accusation that he is a WANKER . . . But CHOSE not to do
so.
28 This vociferous and ugly language is calculated not only to cause offence but
to stir up anti-
Trademark
Infrinqement
29 IWG has obtained a statutory right under the Trade Marks Act 1994
to prevent the use of its registered trademark, 'Ingram Winter Green'. The Registration
Certificate is attached at Appendix Three. The present registration period is 10
years from 17 March 2006 and is renewable on payment of a further fee. Mr [Colin
Cole] has infringed IWG's right by making repeated and detrimental use of the trade
mark throughout his websites. . MORE BOLLOCKS
You have to name a Company if you are
going to NAME and SHAME them.
BESIDES . . . MY SITES started a year BEFORE March
2006 . . .
So perhaps they are infringing MY copyright.
Contacts
30 The details for contacting IWG are as follows: [private], Ingram Winter Green Solicitors, [private], London [private]; [private]@iwg.co.uk (Google Section 5)
31 The contacts of the owner/administrator of the webpages complained of are as follows: [Colin Clifford Cole], [Sidcup], London, [private]
We have a good faith belief that the information specified above is not permitted
by applicable law (Google Section 7) . . . WHICH IS A LIE because if it was “not
permitted by applicable law” then IWG would have “applied the LAW”
and swear, under
penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate (Google
Section 8).
Signed
[private]
Appendix.
Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar have applied the Law . . . and ARE suing me in
The High
Court of Justice . . . on behalf of their clients WI Properties.
I BET THEY WISH THEY WEREN’T . . . . . . . Click here. . . . . and here.
THIS IS THE TRUTH and was published here about the same time as this IWG complaint.
My Dispute with Mr xxxxxxx.
“Naturally I told xxxxxxx to stick it in his arse. . . “
We used to own a nice flat above a shoe shop. Till along came S J Patel and unbeknown to me got planning permission by deceit which was connived in by Croydon Council, to turn it into a Take Away. Croydon Council failed to inform us of this trivial development. I believe deliberately since they falsified documents to try to show that they had informed me. (except that they got the wrong date and I must have replied a day before they sent them.) They have now been found guilty by The Local Government Ombudsman of Maladministration and fined a paltry £350. But it did prove I was right to complain. In other words claim to a dispute.
S J Patel is the lying conniving racist extortionist piece of shit who threatened me with physical violence. Manipulated and provoked, with racist lies about me, the previous tenant Pauline Dyer to threaten me with a gun, to write racist hate mail to me, and trespass on our property which Patel had told her was his.
He encouraged her to maliciously call the Police who trespassed on our property
and unlawfully threatened me with arrest and then got the Fire Brigade to destroy
some of our property (for which I got an apology but not one from the police which
is why I have three web sites about them) and much much more . . .
All on the back
of Patel’s deliberate plan to rob us of our property.(he actually phoned me and told
me he was going to do it . . too bad he was reading the wrong lease wasn’t it?)
NONE of this is in doubt since it was admitted in Croydon Crown Court when P Dyer
found out the truth for the 1st time and realised she had been duped by Patel which
she admitted under oath.
She was obviously more worried about committing PERJURY
than whoever complained to Google was.
Desperate to get rid of the property, because all his skullduggery had come to nought. Except wasted money on bent lawyers he had employed to maliciously threaten me. Lister & Wood of Croydon.
Patel managed however to sell this property to a Nathan Teitelbaum. Who promptly
got his bent Lawyers to conspire with the ones they had recommended to Patel (who
he knew wouldn’t ask any questions since they do it all the time I later found out.)
They conspired to hide from me the fact that the new owner had any knowledge of the
dispute and all that had gone on. Despite the fact that there was the threat of Court
action from Croydon Council against the owner of the premises to get an illegal flue
removed at that time. (which has now been removed but at considerable legal cost
to ourselves to have done so, and again an issue of dispute. The freeholder owes
me that money.)
This denial by Daniel Ginsbury (see search below) was a CRIMINAL attempt to defraud us of our considerable claims against the new owner of the freehold.
Conspiracy to Defraud Contrary to Common Law has a max penalty of 10 years in prison. Which is why IWG and Denniss Matthews can do nothing about my sites.
THAT’S the ACTUALITY. They are a bunch of CROOKS. Who if the Law was applied that they are SO FOND of referring to but do not quote from. Should be sent to PRISON FOR FRAUD.
Teitelbaum, once again, desperate to rid himself of this property (especially the liabilities) sold it to a certain xxxxx xxxxxxx Wi Properties and Financial Director of FFFFFFFF Eeeeee Ltd NI.
Lisa Richardson (MCP Law) on xxxxxxx’s behalf claimed that despite this massive presence on the web xxxxx xxxxxxx, not only did not know about all this . . .but claims that Nathan Teitelbaum must have put the property into Auction and expected to sell it without anyone (ie xxxxx xxxxxxx) finding out about it. That he must have lied to the Auctioneer no doubt since there was no mention of it in the Auction Details.
In fact there was but the WI properties FALSELY claimed they did not know.
MCP also informed me that NO enquiries were made whatsoever. . . . well that was lucky wasn’t it? . . Teitelbaum just managed to find the one mug in the Country that doesn’t make enquiries and doesn’t mind if he has been ripped off, and has a Solicitor that doesn’t care, and doesn’t make enquiries either.
So why isn’t xxxxxxx suing Teitelbaum for fraud? Or if it’s Lisa Richardson’s fault
. . . her.? He’s had six months to do so.
Because it’s a pack of lies . . . that’s why.
And indeed it was.
Why is it important that they deny knowledge of the dispute? Why is it his fault? Because if he knew about the dispute he would not have paid a full price for the property and got it cheap. Which means he bought it dispute and all. (same as buying a duff car cheap)
And if xxxxx xxxxxxx and his partner Iiiii Ccccccccc conspired with Lisa Richardson MCP Law to enact EXACTLY the same conspiracy as the previous lot. Then that makes them both as big A BUNCH OF CROOKS AS THEIR SOLICITORS. But they won’t answer that simple question preferring to just clam up, rather than do so.
What do you reckon lads . . . a pair of crooks?
So . . what did xxxxxxx do about these obviously trivial matters (to him) when he
supposedly found out about all this? Absolutely nothing. Unless you count getting
his Solicitors to write “we are sorry to hear about your troubles with the previous
freeholders.” as if it had nothing to do with him.
Well I’ve got news for you pal
. . . YOU are now responsible for ALL of it.
Absolutely nothing that is, apart from getting his tenant Ethyor Hussain to bash
the building about and put it in danger of rot and collapse. CONTRARY TO THE LAW
. . (The Party Wall Act 96) which he deliberately ignored. That bit is going to get
resolved soon in Croydon Crown Court where Hussain will be told to explain. I can’t
wait to see what he knows about this affair.
What else did xxxxxxx do when he found
out (apparently after he had bought the property in all innocence), that he was now
responsible for everything on this page. that he was now in dispute with ME . . and
one glance at this page would tell any sensible person that’s NOT a place you want
to be.
TRUST ME.
Was he upset in the least? Demanding his money back? Offering to sort out the problems? Upset with his Solicitors for not making enquiries?
Not a bit of it. What he did do is send me a bill for an extra £400 more for the
Insurance to pay for the fact that he had turned the shop into an Indian Take Away
solely for the benefit of himself and his tenant.
Naturally I told xxxxxxx to stick it in his arse. Which fortunately I am able to do because the lease says I can. Mr xxxxxxx is going to have a very sore arse by the time I’m finished with him.
How prophetic that statement might turn out to be. . . . There are a lot of sore arses in Prison . . .
where he’s going if I have anything to do with it. (by private prosecution if necessary. click here
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 Google search defamation limitation.Pre-
David Rutter
Jaqueline
Hesketh
Alison Muir
Lisa
Richardson
Richard Carlson
Dawn Coller
Sarah Adlam
Jonathan Burton
Paul Garner
Simon Scott
Andy Littlefield
Andrew Davies
At the End where we find . . . . YET MCP Law say their client’s Aunty and Uncle were able to buy this property, through the patronage of plaintiff 1’s ‘fixer’ . . . . without having to go through ANY of the above. . . . . . . what an INCREDIBLE story . . . . . SWORN ON OATH TO THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. . . . by both plaintiffs and MCP’s J Burton and presented to the Court by Sarah Adlam and her pet Barrister Matthew Hutchings as FACT.
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-
ROGUES GALLERY
PARTNERS IN CRIME
The CROOKS at MCP Law
On Scotland Yards own NOT official web site
www.sir-
You want to catch a few criminal easy peasy Ian?
Here they are.
Conspiracy to Defraud Contrary to Common Law. You won’t even have to do the leg work . . .it’s all here on my sites. Just follw the footsteps. Might be safer to stick to asbos on Kids though. Locking Lawyers up is a bit tricky. You never know what Lodge they’re in.
A gentleman like my self doesn’t like to disparage a lady. And whilst some of them don’t actually deserve this treatment they are collectively responsible. . . Besides I doubt any of them gave a moments thought to the hurt and damage the DELIBERATE criminal behaviour of Rutter, Richardson, Burton and ADLAM . . caused my lovely wife and kids over these past two years.
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.
BARNETTROSS Notice to all bidders (In RED)
14. PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION The purchaser
and/or bidder is to provide original documentation to confirm proof of name and address.
Please refer to page 1 for acceptable documentation.
Page 1 . . . The purchaser and
bidder is to provide one original document from each column together with a copy
for us to attach to the contract.
WHAT CONTRACT???
NO NO NO NO NO . . . . Have a word with Steve Grossman and he’ll make sure you don’t
have to bother with ANY of that stuff. Or have to fill in a telephone / proxy bidding
form. . . He’ll do it for you (badly) Haven’t thought of a name to call yourselves
. . . Don’t worry he’ll think one up for you . . . . . hhmmmm let’s see . . How
about RIDACO Developments? . . . Does that have a nice ring to it?. . . . Ok no
problem . . . Ridaco Developments it is then . . Don’t know Stevie ??? . . . . contact
Andy“well known to the auctioneers” Mahon in Northern Ireland.
02868 632102 / 07775
665878 and he’ll show you how to avoid all those nasty forms.
Here’s Steve
v
v
Steven Grossman MRICS
sgrossman@barnettross.co.uk
Have a word with Stevie about how to avoid filling in
all those nasty IDENTITY/PROXY forms.
He’ll do them for you.
And make a name up
for you too.
The IWG, Denniss Matthews, Nathan Teitelbaum, (Fine Land Properties) Granny Robbing Scheme . . Will they deny it? . .
Click here.
In association with Richard Hegarty of Solicitors Hegarty & Co Peterborough.
Instructing Matt Jacob of Willoughby & Ptnrs London EC14