RE: Web Site pertaining to Moss & Coleman and related issues
I write with reference to your response to my letter dated 26th February which I note, with surprise, was posted on your web-site. I take it that the reason for that was a desire on your part to cause embarrassment to my firm.
No, please remember that since you agreed to represent me, over three years ago, you have ‘never’ replied to any of my letters, faxes or telephone calls (as proven by the Law Society). This is the only reason why I posted it there…and it clearly worked! Oh, and if you feel that your firm has been embarrassed, I suggest that you take your paying clients more seriously - they also have livelihoods and families to answer to.
I have taken the opportunity to consider your letter with my partners and with my firm’s professional indemnity insurers and I have also taken advice from counsel. I am now able to revert to you substantively.
My partners and I are extremely concerned that your websites relating to this firm contain false and misleading information. For instance it is stated that this firm will act contrary to the interests of clients if it pays to do so. That is an by you.
So what ‘was’ the incentive to leave one of your clients ‘out to dry’? Considering the thousands of pounds I had spent with Moss and Coleman previously, surely money couldn’t have been an issue in this particular case. Or did someone or some organization offer you ‘more’ money ‘not’ to act for me? Or did someone spur you on to deliberately and ‘financially’ cripple me? Perhaps you felt that my case and original claim was simply not worth bothering about or more conceivably my claim simply got lost in your firms administration system and was neglected as a result? The (human participated) search engines that list my website(s) with this description seem to like it. At the moment I do not feel that it is an ‘utterly false and mischief-making statement’. You have an opportunity to prove me and them wrong. Then I am sure they will update the description accordingly.
An example of the misleading content of your website is that you have quoted from the Law Society caseworker’s report in such a manner as to make it appear that your allegation of loss (said by you to have been caused by this firm) has been endorsed by the caseworker. You will be aware that the opposite is the case and, specifically, that it was stated by that caseworker in her report to the effect that the conduct of this firm had not caused you to sustain any loss. That was not merely the view of the caseworker but was the decision of the Adjudicator and, on review of his decision, of the Adjudication Panel. I believe that you have made such a misleading statement out of malice against my firm.
It clearly states that the contents of the website are comments/extracts. There may be the odd grammatical change in order for it to make sense to a new browser/reader. However I think you will find that the caseworker and Adjudicator did recommend I should be compensated for the distress caused by your firm. They further went on to state (offline) that liability for financial losses sustained is not an issue governed by the Law Society and it can only make opinions (you should know this point of Law). Your allegation of a ‘misleading statement out of malice against your firm’ is in fact your opinion. However, taking into account other disappointed clients’ comments, who have contacted me with similar problems; I think in all fairness that future clients should know how your firm has treated me, so that they can come to their own opinion whether to use your services or not.
A further example is that you have misquoted from the report, by omitting words, which makes it appear that your allegation that this firm refused to represent you in Court was a finding by the caseworker. As you are well aware, there was no such finding. You have admitted in writing that you are aware that you had no defence to the claim to possession and it is the case that, after a reasoned discussion with you, it was decided that your interests would be just as well, if not better, served by you representing yourself in an effort to gain time under the prospective and inevitable possession order. You must be aware that your portrayal of this issue is completely false and, again, I can only conclude that it is done out of malice.
If you look at the report and compare this to my website, this is in fact a ‘Complainant’s view’ All ‘Caseworker’s conclusions’ are surrounded with double inverted comas.
Again It might have been altered slightly, but it essentially means the same as the full printed version (website browsers get bored easy). The actual Caseworker’s comments in this matter are as follows:
Again It might have been altered slightly, but it essentially means the same as the full printed version (website browsers get bored easy). The actual Caseworker’s comments in this matter are as follows:
“In considering this issue I have read all the documentation provided by both the firm and Mr Kordowski and I can find no reference to a request for representation in Court on 8 October 2001. There is also no attendance note relating to a meeting which took place in October 2001, although it is noted that the firm agree that a meeting did take place”
Why did you think I insisted we have a meeting just before we were due in Court. To play cards? To chaise you round your desk? The fact that I asked you verbally instead of in writing (remember, you never answered any of my letters or faxes) should not give you the right to simply deny this fact. Further to this, you gave me the impression that I would not loose my home if I went alone – to which you left me to my doom. A point of clarification: Later I did realise that I had no case anyway – because it was made clear that you had no intension of representing me. You had no paperwork (as noted by The Law Society) to back you/me up if you accompanied me to Court. For example, you had not followed through my original claim as requested and the thought of facing a Judge with an empty briefcase would prove to be embarrassing to you and Moss and Coleman as well as effecting your career. What’s more, the fact that there was ‘no reply’ to the one letter you say you wrote representing my original claim (that I did not see a copy of) leads me to believe that this letter was a total fabrication on your part
Your note in response to my letter dated 26th February continues what I believe is wrongful and scurrilous behaviour on your part. You have (most regrettably) repeated and reinforced an attempt on your part to extort money from my firm. You have chosen to “package” this attempt as an offer to my firm (and our insurers) to purchase the three websites in question, however, your real intent is abundantly clear.
After living in rented accommodation in an industrial estate for many months now - I just want my life back. I do not know what sort of agreement/policy you have with your professional indemnity insurers. All I want is access to compensation that I am entitled to – compensation that you are clearly stopping just to save your own back side. Your comments brought home the fact that indeed these high level domains should not be for sale, especially to your firm. They should be used to expose the truth about your practice and possibly solicitors in general. Please don’t try to tell me that all solicitors are squeaky clean. No Court appointed Jury would believe that in a million years.
The example that you give of my firm’s windows being smashed and supposedly pondering whether my firm would choose to blame you in such circumstances, is entirely uncalled for and is itself a matter of concern.
I can now sympathize on your comments on this point. Even using the well known ‘balance of probability’ rule, I now know for a fact you would not know which disgruntled client to suspect in this eventuality.
I note that whilst you state that you are not a “spammer”, and you go on to say that such activity is illegal in circumstances which you cite, you fail to explain why you have seen fit in the your web-sites expressly to incite spammers to publicise your web-sites relating to my firm.
For the sake of clarity, a “spammer” is someone who solicits emails for their own personal financial gain. If what you say is true, it has nothing to do with me or any “spammer” in the true sense of the term. You have omitted to explain why you have accused me of breaking the law without producing any evidence - is this standard practice in your firm? If you want to find the culprit(s), try looking in your client daybook.
I must make it plain that my firm has no intention to impede your right of free speech, however, we have to protect our legitimate interests which you are seeking to damage. I believe that your web-site and your note make it plain that you are intent on conducting a malicious and unfounded campaign against my firm in order to cause it damage and to obtain a monetary settlement to which you are not entitled. Your conduct is calculated to interfere wrongfully with the normal conduct of professional practice by my firm.
A single website (3 pointing to 1) is hardly a campaign. You know the truth behind this matter. It’s a shame that you were not as dynamic and vigorous when you were supposed to be representing me. (Or perhaps you had counsel write this letter) Again I feel that the world should know that your firm’s priority is your firm. I am simply informing others of my situation so that they can come to there own conclusion.
I am extremely concerned that you are continuing your malicious campaign against this firm as evidenced by the fact that a large number of slips of paper were found distributed outside our office and elsewhere on the High Street yesterday inviting members of the public to visit one of the malicious and damaging web-sites that you have created for these purposes.
I did hear about this from colleagues. There is nothing on my site that will incite people to do this in any way. However, after talking to some of your former, frustrated clients, perhaps they took it upon themselves to do such a thing. It certainly was nothing to do with me. But I must admit its encouraging to know that others should feel that my website should be seen. Who knows what/if they are going to do next.
I am naturally concerned that you have chosen not to accept the findings of the Adjudicator, as were expressly upheld by the Adjudication Panel on review, which were to the effect that your proper entitlement to compensation for distress and anxiety sustained was £500. Instead, you are choosing to use improper means in an effort to obtain payment of a sum vastly in excess of that amount.
For the sake of repeating myself: I think you will find that the caseworker and Adjudicator did recommend I should be compensated for the distress caused by your firm. They further went on to state (offline) that liability for financial losses sustained is not an issue governed by the Law Society and it can only make opinions (you should know this point of Law). Let me put it to you in layman’s terms. The Law Society is there to insure professional conduct by solicitors towards its clients and not, for example, professional negligence. This is a matter for the Law - outside the jurisdiction of The Law Society.
I am also concerned that you have unfortunately become obsessed with your dispute with my firm and that this is adversely affecting your exercise of judgment in this matter, accordingly, I suggest that in the circumstances it would be in your own interests to take independent legal advice in relation to this letter and your future conduct.
I have tried seeking legal advice on this matter. But as you probably know, none of the breveren in your industry (which seems to be a Nationwide Lodge) seem to have the heart or courage to represent me (you will be glad to hear). The stress, pain and suffering your lack of representation may very well effect my judgment eventually, but for the moment it is clear and concise.
I am mindful that you may currently be unrepresented. My firm has no desire to cause you to incur costs which would necessarily be incurred should it be necessary for us to commence legal proceedings against you. Accordingly, my firm is prepared to give you one final opportunity to close down your web-sites in their present form referring to this firm and to agree and undertake expressly and in writing to desist for the future from making false or misleading statements about this firm. If, however, you fail to close down those web-sites by 12 noon on Monday 24th April 2004 and provide my firm, by that date and time, with the express written agreement and undertaking that I have requested, my firm intends to commence legal proceedings against you without further notice and to seek an injunction to restrain your wrongful conduct. Your recent conduct in distributing a large quantity of paper invitations in the High Street yesterday leaves us with no option but to proceed in this way and to do so urgently.
How dare you suggest I distributed a large quantity of paper invitations! How can it be when, again, without any evidence, you can get away with accusing innocent people? What school of law teaches this sort of thing. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the perpetrator(s) were to be caught - and it was one of your partners or even you!
I have no liquid or hard assets for you to seize. Your money might buy temporary relive. But I am sure that counsel (or any Internet expert) has advised you that it will be ‘impossible’ for you to stop me telling the world the truth about my experience with your firm on a high level domain.
I await your response. I would ask that it is a response made directly to me at my firm rather than posted on a web-site.
I will give ‘you’ one final opportunity to admit to your professional indemnity insurers that you ‘have’ lost me an opportunity of a claim which in itself has caused consequential financial losses including my family home of nearly 10 years.
I will expect written confirmation no later than Friday 30th April 2004. (Hand delivered to my wife’s business if you prefer)
Yours sincerely
UNSIGNED
G D Harrington
Moss & Coleman
Moss & Coleman
Yours sincerely
Rick Kordowski
Signed
Go to Colin’s LINKS page . .for Bent Solicitors. Corrupt Law Society. Crap Policing. "if a Solicitor has been negligent it does not mean he has given poor service" . . Click here
Go to Law Society’s Dirty Tricks Page.
In association with Richard Hegarty of Hegarty & Co Peterborough Solicitors
Instructing Matt Jacob of
Willoughby & Ptnrs London EC14
In association with Richard Hegarty of Hegarty & Co Peterborough Solicitors
Instructing Matt Jacob of
Willoughby & Ptnrs London EC14
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
URGENT AND IMPORTANT
URGENT AND IMPORTANT
Dear Mr Kordowski
On this page. Rick Kordowski’s exchange with Moss & Coleman Solicitors Essex. The circumstances of this exchange and my own RANT about the Law Society are on the previous page and you can Click Here to go there.
Have I Got News For Croydon
Visit THE Croydon Council information site www.croydoncouncil.info
The Impropriety of
Sarah Adlam.
Click Here.
Let’s see you ignore this Law Society like you usually do.
SARAH (LIAR) ADLAM here . . . Deserves to be locked up (and might be yet) for what she did. Not only was she NOT ALLOWED to ACT in this matter. EVERYTHING she did was on behalf of herself and MCP LAW. . . . See the IMPROPRIETY of SARAH ADLAM and her pet barrister Matthew Hutchings. . . .Unlike Lisa Richardson below who was probably only doing what she was told . . . ADLAM must have sat down for hours planning skullduggery and PERJURY with her clients and Matthew Hutchings. . . and she wanted to charge ME £15,000 for it .
Ridaco Developments Northern Ireland will buy your property UNSEEN . . . “NO Agent
will call to INSPECT” . . We pay 10% over Guide price even if the property is falling
down.
Fantastic Generosity.
“ I am going to presume that Nigel Matthews @ Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley along with Daniel Ginsbury @ Ingram Winter Green Solicitors Bedford House and their clients Suryakant J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley and Fineland Properties Ltd, 43 Vincent Court (also known as Fine Land Properties Ltd. 2 Hillcrest Av. NW11 or Fineland Properties Ltd C/O Messrs Elliot Woolfe & Ros, Equity Hse, Edgeware ) . . . Reg owners Ruth Teitelbaum, 28 Overlea Road London, E5 9BG and Nathan Teitlebaum, Crest House, 34 Hillcrest Avenue, London NW11 0EN, CONSPIRED to lie, deceive and defraud me of my considerable claims in the matter of this dispute. . . See why ? . . . Click here
Granny Robber
Nathan Teitelbaum uses Barnett Ross Auctioneers at The Radisson SAS Portman Hotel. Wankers Ingram Winter Green Conveyancing.
Granny Robber
Nathan Teitelbaum uses Barnett Ross Auctioneers at The Radisson SAS Portman Hotel. Wankers Ingram Winter Green Conveyancing.
It’s THE UNCREDIBLES.
Watch Aunty and
Unc-
Visit
Barnett Ross the no deposit no identification Auctioneers. We will cross out the
contract and put another in it’s place.
NO SIGNATURES?????.
NO PROBLEM.
Telephone
bid but no form? Don’t despair we’ll fill it in for you.
Can’t set a price? We will
bid NO MAX for you. Barnett Ross will break any rule to make sure YOU get the property
you want. Barnett Ross are just round the corner from Wankers IWG Solicitors. Daniel
Ginsbury IWG’s “lying piece of pigshit” Solicitor recommends Barnett Ross at The
Radisson SAS Portman Hotel.
Colin’ newest site. The Great british gas home care con. See if you can guess what that’s all about?
http://www.british-gas.org
http://www.british-
Colin’s NEW sites
Barnett Ross the no forms required to bid Auctioneers.
Contact Andrew
Mahon NI plaintiff 1’s chief fixer for details.
He knows Steven Grossman so doesn’t
have to fill out all those nasty Money Laundering forms.
Or ANY forms come to that.
www.barnett-
(Andrew Mahon
3 Pettigo Rd, Kesh,
Co
Fermanagh, NI.
02868 632102
0775 665878)
Steven Grossman MRICS
sgrossman@barnettross.co.uk
Have a word with Steve about how to avoid filling in all
those nasty IDENTITY forms.
He’ll do them for you.
And make a name up for you too.
This chap is doing the same to Moss & Coleman Solicitors Hornchurch Essex.
He calls them tossers.
Law Society Protecting Crooked Solicitors . . . But not from me.. . . Colin Blasts IWG (Ingram Winter Green off the WEB in 2006) Their own site was bottom of page three the last time felt like going that far down the list to look for them. . In 2008 they are on their way out again . . Say bye bye to the Web IWG
Rant about Law Society Disgraceful Intervention ie Dirty Tricks