Page 475 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19 SOUND

2_ Draft/PFCB/12 July 2016 (Fraud Squad) sent 12 July 2016 by return
3_10 August 2016 Preliminary Notice LVT / SA sent to you on 31 October 2016
I am also requesting hard copies of all email and correspondence references made in all correspondence between both ourselves and all mine with Mrs Hillgarth, as indeed I initially requested in my letter to you dated 29 March 2016 (copy attached), which you may recall, you declined to oblige.
I make this request for two reasons:
i) Many of your email references in your lengthy correspondences to date are incorrectly dated and therefore impossible to source to comprehensively respond to.
ii) Many of your written references in your lengthy correspondence refers to correspondence between myself and other lessees which I have previously requested you supply evidence of (ie email or correspondence or phone/text etc) but to date none has ever been forthcoming.
As no doubt you will appreciate, as indeed will your client once explained to her by you, if we can establish hard facts as opposed to gossip and innuendo, both you and I will save time and come to one of two final conclusions, and Mrs Hillgarth will be satisfied with the final outcome at a far cheaper cost than presently envisaged.
Of course, I fully appreciate she may wish her three days in court, then so be it. All as proposed will simply transfer to expensive Barristers to argue the case based on the exact same evidence as I’m presently suggesting we peruse face to face - but plus the audio recording ?
In truth to re-quote a previous expletive-deletive, I couldn’t give a rat’s arse whether you agree to meet or not - you and your client have both been proved disreputable and dishonest with or without yet further evidence to that already supplied ad nauseam.
Consequently, with the Agenda for discussion now considerable, I would suggest at least three afternoon sessions to be scheduled, commencing no earlier than 2.00pm until one presumes say 6.00pm. I think you’ll agree that your threatened court case would be at least three full days in court as opposed to three short afternoons, so well worth considering to save your client considerable expenses.
Mine as usual will be the cost of a bus fare to your preferred venue.
Even the insane would come to the same conclusion given your new queries - you’re desperate to justify your fees to Mrs H and even once this latest lot were answered, and believe me they can be in court, as you’re again barking up the wrong tree on all points - and notably ignoring your client’s and your libels for some bizarre reason. Denied?
You’re getting paid to write your drivel - I’m not! I just enjoy it.
I’ll revisit your lengthy 4pp response this week, which simply repeats yet again the same accusations taking no notice whatsoever of previous responses and adding a multitude of other nonsense...which I will again peruse and answer in due course.
I’ll let you know when that’ll be but for the moment you can forget your 5 Feb 2.00pm but appreciate it is in my preferred timings... but we’ll reschedule once you address your client’s libel... OK - all as well documented in my 7 Jan 2019 letter.... remember?
Again, relevance being libel and not yet further innuendos....and Messrs Raja & Karupiah have little interest in your libels and slanders against myself which my letter to you with proposal was to address - but of course you totally ignored it!!! Like the audio..... can’t be all doctored and Mr Karupiah is a witness it was NOT...!!!
Yours in a rush, and name me just ONE query/accusations/innuendo you’ve raised since 23 March 2016 which hasn’t been addressed? Save obviously for your latest scattergun pleadings. Yet you appear incapable of comprehending any or acknowledging any. Most of it’s common sense...and fact.
Anyway read on to refresh certain truths....and I’ll continue picking off each query/accusations/innuendo as before which you again seem incapable of acknowledging - see my last letter for all details and email references -
Paul Brown-Constable
see attached (7) - I presume we’re back on email? Please advise....at least receipt of this one....not that I care in reality. Libel is serious - innuendos, are innuendos!