Page 54 - The Big Begg_1

-54-
“HOW DID YOU THINK MHML WERE FUNDING THE NEW LIGHTING?”
I am still awaiting hard copy proof of Leigh Pemberton’s alleged rebuttal of requests since May 2015. As well as Basement Bureau photos?
Yet the raison d’etre for her Solicitor’s initial 23 March 2016 letter was the accusation that MHML had refused to oblige multiple requests from multiple lessees, which was denied with full supporting evidence, and this accusation was also made to various authoritative third parties, requiring further denials.
Indeed a tight deadline for sight of various invoices was demanded by Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor in his initial 23 March 2016 letter and by return MHML offered to courier over the requested items but the offer remained unacknowledged due allegedly to Mrs Hillgarth being in the Sa- hara and her Solicitor incapacitated with pneumonia. When MHML’s offer was eventually ac- knowledged some weeks after the demanded deadline, we insisted upon an apology for the various accusations and innuendos, by which time we had also replied with our denials and full supporting evidence to substantiate the denials, and on receipt we would supply the requested documentation, which we were not legally obliged to as the statutory six months had well passed for the period in question, again as well evidenced in Mrs Hillgarth’s own Witness State- ment (para 73).
No apology nor withdrawal of proved incorrect accusations has been received to date.
Other miscellaneous petty accusations such as not identifying Surveyor’s fees, or other fees and costs more identifiably on Accounts summary (they were mostly posted in the notes accom- panying the Accounts in question), vote-rigging, discharging a long overdue debt due from Mrs Hillgarth to MHML by way of discounting an amount due to her along with all other direc- tors, minimal (and endemic) plagiarism as briefly used on our website and apologised for to the full satisfaction of the abused client [not Seaborne Freight], and multiple pathetic innuendos such as one director utilising the contractor for their own personal benefit, basement of- fice etc
As regards her £67.26 instead of the full whack, stopped cheques, bad credit rating, she got what she deserved for being so disloyal and dishonest towards her fellow Directors (RTM etc) and proved not once but twice to refuse payment of previous debts due. She still came out of MHML with more money than it had cost her and had she had the common de- cency, professionalism and intelligence expected of her, none of these queries, accusations, de- mands etc etc would ever have occurred, let alone £30k odd in costs, unless it was actually the Caribbean Dawn and Waiting Room Green that finally sent her over the edge or as she so suc- cinctly put it, cheap, vulgar and inappropriate. I would proffer that her behaviour as a Director was cheap, vulgar and inappropriate based on all the details listed in this tome (apologies but I did warn you). And yes, she was required to resign and I can’t see what possible reason either you or she have to say it was not done legally nor humanely?
She was usually the last to pay her Quarterly Demands, was incapable of doing so electroni- cally insisting on stapling a cheque [on occasion totally illegible which you were supplied with despite her predictable denial], and on record as refusing to pay agreed contributions and can- vassing other lessees to do same, ad nauseam!
As I said in my reply to your 23 March 2016 diatribe (approaching anniversary) if she had acted in this despicable manner during the war, she’d have been shot as a traitor. Yes I know, more obfuscation and chaff - but true obfuscation and chaff like “Nuts”.
The exact same accusations as are being replied to in this letter have been made in nu- merous correspondence with the exact same identical denials made with the exact same identi- cal full supporting evidence, to thoroughly dispute all and any accusation and innuendos made since and including Mrs Hillgarth’s Solicitor’s initial letter received, dated 23 March 2016.
It does not make sense to NOT agree to making sensible savings from items you do not need to spend on items you do need? Unless you’re Mrs Hillgarth.
PLEaSE rEFEr to attaCHED “ADDENDA/FURTHER REFERENCES” in SuPPort oF arguMEnt