Dear Mr Hill,

 

I refer to your email of 29 June 2017.

 

As always we are open to engage in settlement discussions, as we agree it is important to save costs and stop your firm and your clients defacing the legal profession. However any form of negotiation will have to be on realistic terms. As mentioned on a vast number of occasions the assets that your clients have placed charges on are not ours in equity. In addition any negotiation would have to take into account:

 

1.      The fact that we fully intend on appealing the Court of Appeals decision and have in turn sought advice in relation to challenging other decisions which include that of Registrar Clive Jones. I am not sure whether you are aware of this or not but at the last hearing evidence was produced that Mr Gill had brought a fraudulent claim against us (something which he has admitted and was produced to the court and your clients) where he stated in the clearest of terms that he had brought a bogus and fraudulent claim to deceive his receiver and avoid bankruptcy himself;

 

2.      That there are no creditors in our bogus bankruptcies (we would be willing to provide your clients with an indemnity on this point);

 

3.      That we are granted an annulment under section 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which has already been granted by Mr Robert Ham QC in 2012, not under section 282(1)(b) as your clients had previously suggested;

 

4.      Contrary to Mr Briggs’ recent submissions there are outstanding investigations by the ICAEW and Insolvency Service which are still pending; and

 

5.      Finally that there are outstanding applications challenging the remuneration of your clients.

 

My family and I have lost a great deal and in addition our health has suffered as a result of these invalid proceedings which I remind you stem from an invalid bankruptcy petition which has been established by the High Court to have been obtained by fraud and was set aside over 5 years ago.

 

The only reason why Justice has yet to prevail is because your firm and Kingston Smith LLP are equipped with endless funds from an insurance company, which I have no doubt will pull the carpet from under your feet once they are informed of the sham proceedings that have been wrongly prolonged by your side for over a decade through a web of deceit. I have for several years requested the details of the insurance and both your firm and your clients has adamantly refused, as I am sure you are all fully aware that no insurance would cover fraud.

 

We have not won our case yet but the truth will come out one day and everyone will be exposed as was the case with Dean & Dean. Had your firm not instructed a part-time Registrar in the same Court, John Briggs, at our expense then this matter would have ended by now. 

 

For years I warned your client’s and the Court that Dean & Dean’s claim was bogus yet they turned a blind eye. For years I told them that the pam.com claim was both set aside and bogus though your firm, clients, Mr Briggs, and his colleague Registrar Clive Jones turned a blind eye, even ignoring the recent tape recording of Mr Gill himself admitting it was a bogus claim to protect himself when under receivership.

 

When I requested the cause of the action from your client in 2007 to set aside the other bogus default judgement claim brought by Bathurst Brown Downie & Airey they unwarrantedly refused. Then almost 10 years later again Mr Briggs’ colleague, Registrar Clive Jones, without jurisdiction admitted that claim partially even without them attending the hearing. 

 

We are currently seeking advice from a CPS prosecuting Barrister on the matter and considering the possibility of the merits of instigating a private criminal prosecution for the conduct of the your clients in our invalid bankruptcies. 

 

As I already reminded, all these proceedings stem from a invalid bankruptcy petition which was obtained through fraud and deception on the Court by a convicted criminal posing as a Solicitor, Shahrokh Mireskandari, and your client’s knowingly turned a blind eye and have done their utmost to ensure the truth remains silenced.

 

Your clients took all our family’s assets and forced us to defend ourselves, for the majority of the time as a litigants in person, over a decade whilst they hired and fired four of the biggest law firms, senior barristers and a part-time Registrar to represent them, despite them being Officer’s of the Court and fully capable of speaking for themselves, and these costs were wrongfully put in my family’s estate. We have yet to have been provided with a fair hearing nor have your clients actions in any way been ethical. One way or another (as was the case with Dean & Dean) justice will prevail. If necessary I will go all the way to the ECHR and will seek to publicly expose your clients wrongdoings and will have no hesitation in doing so. For years now we have been in contact with a number of journalists and it will only be a matter of time till a story is published in the press about your clients. It took several years for them to publish a story on Dean & Dean following my efforts on the same basis it wont be long now till your clients are publicly exposed.  Especially when we now live in a world where through social media within minutes people from all over the world can see and hear everything. It amazes me how none of you have any respect for yourselves or the legal profession you represent. 

 

We have repeated ourselves for years now and repeated our offer numerous times. We are not looking to make any money from these proceedings, however it is clear that both your firm and your client are looking to use the fraudulent invalid orders as weapons to steal. 

 

I would therefore repeat the same offer we made your clients last time:

 

For all parties to swallow their own costs (myself, Mr Hines and Kingston Smith), to put a permanent stay on all proceedings (both in Chancery and Bankruptcy) and to bring the bankruptcies to an end immediately with no payment to the bogus creditors (which has been clearly established).

 

In respect of the upcoming hearings, the hearing of 4th July should not proceed for several reasons. When the Statutory Demand was invalidly served I looked to take steps to set it aside, however you informed Mr Hines not to as you assured him that you would not take any actions to enforce it. Your firm then went without informing either myself or Mr Hines and proceeded with a petition before Registrar Baister, who should not have had any action in our case; as I have said for years now there is an Order stating that Registrar Baister should have no action in our case. 

 

Finally the hearing of 10th July should be stayed because the Court of Appeal has yet to hand down an Order; and in any case if we are not satisfied with that Order we will be appealing it. As outlined on a number of occasions the hearing was listed without my consent and we were only notified of it recently despite the application having been made in January this year. This was again contrary to the undertaking given before Lady Justice Gloster where Mr Briggs’ undertook not to make any application until the Court of Appeal had reached a decision as is noted from the Official Transcript.

 

Regards,

 

Dr Oraki

Sent from my iPhone