Page 412 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

The truth is that Mrs HIllgarth never requested or authorised MHML or yourself to do any work in relation to the refurbishment. She believed (and once the Section 20 notice had been agreed on 22 June 2014 was entitled to believe) that all the work was going to be done by AR Lawrence.(OH YES & THE AUDIO IS FORGED.... YOU’RE INSANE LIKE HER)
If you listen carefully there is some music at the very beginning of your recording . Mrs Hillgarth does not recall any music in your flat; this was after all a board meeting . You were doing all the talking – and very quickly - with someone whose accent Mrs Hillgarth does not recognise. You say at one point: “We can do the work anyway we want and no money will be returned to the leaseholders”. Mrs Hillgarth certainly has no recollection of that conversation and believes it is a fake and/or “doctored” sound clip and/or taken completely out of context. (ALREADY SUPPLIED - MUSIC ON & HER TALKING OVER IT - FORGED... a quick one?
We are all too well aware of your skill as a forger (MERCI BEAUCOUP) as you have boasted (NO NEVER BUT YOU SEEM INTENT ON THIS FACILE ACCUSATION) , for example, of your credentials from the “Dakota Wesleyan University” and/or the “University of Massachussets”. If this audio clip was genuine, why have you taken so long to bring it to our attention? (ALREADY WELL EXPLAINED AND ANSWERED IN THE 13 JUNE CORRESPONDENCE - FOR GOD’S SAKE READ WHAT YOU’RE SENT TO READ) And why would Mrs Hillgarth have insisted on making sure the minute of your 23 May meeting would stipulate that the refurbishment for the inside and outside should be carried out by AR Lawrence only? (ONLY - WHERE’S THAT WORD IN THE MINUTES OR HER ADDITIONS EMAIL ALL AS IN THE JUNE 13 LETTER & ATTACHMENTS - READ IT AGAIN) Please explain.
The normal rules on disclosure apply if you wish to admit this tape in evidence, but before you apply to admit it in evidence you might wish to discuss with your co- directors (to whom I am copying this note) whether this might not expose you to serious criminal charges for unlawful recording, not to mention perjury (if the clip is shown to have been “doctored”) and attempting to pervert the course of justice. IT’S REAL I”M AFRAID
Your “open” (ie disclosable) e-mail of 13 June 2017 contains the following admission: “And yes, even within the MHML invoice of £15,572.85 were some costs including paying any workers such as myself”. I look forward to seeing your invoice to MHML for this work, which thus far you have been rather slow to disclose. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS & DEAL WITH THE AUDIO
With respect I think you would be wise to revert to a serious discussion about the possibility of settlement before you dig yourself into an even deeper hole. IT IS MRS HILLGARTH THAT HAD BETTER REQUEST A SETTLEMENT AS THIS AUDIO IS PROOF PERFECT OF HER DISHONESTY, THE VENDETTA AGAINST MYSELF & MHML AND LIBEL AND SLANDER AND DEFAMATION). AND IF DARE PROGRESS THE TRIBUNAL HEARING I’LL HAVE YOU & MAUNDER TAYLOR UP FOR WASTING COURT TIME.
Kind regards, Peter Begg