Page 2 - 57_PBC to Begg_8-8-16 (3pp)

Imagine this Mr Begg:
2
I [erroneously and mischievously] accuse you of having plagiarised paragraph after paragraph in your book, Corporate Acquisitions and Mergers. You deny it with supporting evidence. I dismiss your denial and then accuse you of having admitted to plagiarising paragraph after paragraph in a letter/email to me. I not only accuse you of having admitted to plagiarism in a letter/email to me but I then further advise your publisher, your colleagues, your solicitor, your accoun- tant and god knows who else. You then require of me to produce the offending email/letter in which I maintain you admitted plagiarism, to which I reply saying, “I am not really interested in bargaining on the various pre-conditions you require for me to withdraw my statement that you did send me an email/letter admitting to plagiarism.” And adding insult to injury, “that I am not prepared to entertain wasting any more time on writing to you.”
As has been established in previous correspondence, this entire affair rests on written evidence in support of denials to accusations and innuendos made by your client and as such we cannot now be expected to conduct conversations over the phone which later cannot be fully validated as can the written word, of which you have received reams....and have written reams. Had all your accusations been replied to by me referencing telephone conversations with your client and/or other lessees, I can imagine your response.
Evidence to date indicates even corresponding has been ineffectual in convincing you of the errors of the ways of your client in her persistent, vitriolic, insinuating and demeaning attitude towards MHML and most notably myself, as is per- fectly illustrated in the documents I requested in my 1 August letter.
Documents you are unable to supply because they do not exist. Whereas your requested documents quite obviously exist, were offered to be perused, and would have been supplied had either a request been made within the statutory period allowed or indeed in a phone call request to do so as opposed to your 13pp diatribe of 23 March 2016 listing every conceivable crime committed by MHML save for blasphemy.
Your apparent reticence to further letter writing does somewhat indicate your client’s concerns over costs given the intricacy, length and inaccuracy of correspondence to date, including Witness Statements. It now seems obvious that the reason you refuse to allow sight of Mrs Hillgarth’s Witness Statement is because, no doubt, it contains your para (23) inaccuracy. One also suspects it also includes many more. We have already decimated Mr White’s undated inac- curacies to satisfaction obviously.
You must excuse my frustrations, but as is well established, previous Agents, other lessees, myself and MHML have experienced Mrs Hillgarth’s obstinacy, deceitfulness and disruptive behaviour for years, if not decades and this latest affair is no different. It has nothing whatsoever to do with fraud, or the works’ costs or indeed the running and mainte- nance of Mitre House, it’s simply her vindictiveness and dislike of me personally.
Thankfully, I had to hand irrefutable references to disprove her insinuations comprehensively and competently.
It seems quite extraordinary that you simply continue to insist on me complying with your requests yet your client simply ignores requests, indeed demands, (as indeed have you in correspondence to date) that she, too, complies with her well documented and proven lease covenants.
You will be receiving my para by para replies to your Draft (Crime) Report dated 12 July on Tuesday 16 August by 6pm without fail, again with substantive supporting paperwork and references. The delay is due to an affliction I have recent- ly suffered which has somewhat delayed my full attention to detail which I hope is acceptable and does somewhat ref- erence your recent incapacity with pneumonia. My somewhat tardy response to your 2 August phonecall was due to my attending to Mitre House business on 2 August all day as the attached (ref A) amply evidences as indeed does the attached reference (ref B) to my affliction which somewhat limits my vision and attention span.
I can safely assure you that the accompanying documentation with my comments, as well as the various quotes and comments to each of your 31 paragraphs, does thoroughly refute your various assertions as indeed did those attached to my letter dated 1st August of which you kindly acknowledged in your two phone calls at 3.26pm on 2 August.
My co-directors and myself still consider previous and further inaccuracies libelous and defamatory most especially those having been advised to third parties in scurrilous pursuit of your client’s mischievous accusations and innuendos.
And might I remind you that when you obtusely refer to monies and expenditures being the ownership of the lessees as opposed to myself, that I am also a lessee, as are my two fellow co-directors, and as such we make up 33% of the lessees and consequently it would seem pretty ridiculous if we were not wanting to reduce costs to a minimum and make economies wherever possible, both of which we did in an exemplary fashion for the external/interior 2014 works despite your client’s bizarre and inexplicable dissatisfaction seeing as works she herself had made clear in correspon- dence she was aware of to be performed, she knew to be performed, expected to be performed and were performed.