Embedded Files
From: Mira Makar <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
Subject: Fw: REQUEST THAT A RESPONSE IS GIVEN FOR DEMAND FOR PERSONAL DATA
Date: 10 August 2016 at 17:32:44 BST
To: "David.eagle@bdo.co.uk" <David.eagle@bdo.co.uk>,
Anna Draper <anna.draper@bdo.co.uk>,
"simon.bevan@uk.gt.com" <simon.bevan@uk.gt.com>,
"nick.carter-pegg@bdo.co.uk" <nick.carter-pegg@bdo.co.uk>
Cc: "tony.perkins@bdo.co.uk" <tony.perkins@bdo.co.uk>,
Nick Buxton <nick.buxton@bdo.co.uk>,
Mira Makar <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
PKF trading as BDO (witnesses)
Chilterns trading as BDO (estate and tax)
BDO auditor, ex Stoy Hayward
David Eagle
AGM this morning
I left you a message two days ago to ensure that you were attending this morning's AGM to explain why you thought it appropriate that we should re-appoint you as auditor. There would be an adverse inference made if you did not show. I am disappointed that from May 2009 you have refused to communicate or co-operate in securing records you should have obtained before considering whether you should communicate with Nick Burrows in 2005/6.
I have voted against your lack of transparency in not setting out your offer to be re-appointed in full including your reasons for the attempt to achieve re-appointment without any offer, that would otherwise commit you to informing members of the true position including your protracted lack of independence. I do not, in any event, accept your two-tier structure regarding "BDO LLP Ltd" and "provision of services" from one entity to another which you have chosen not to explain.
Your explanation to members should in particular have covered the wedge you have driven between principal shareholders from 2005/6 when unbeknown to those concerned, you used and colluded with Nick Burrows (ex BDO Stoy) to get an inside track into this main market listed company whilst there were live Companies Court proceedings to deal with his obstruction of access to the cash and bank records from at least October 2004.
PwC had decided to resign in early June 2005. You did not communicate with PwC, E&Y, PKF or Egan Roberts, let alone me or the rest of my team.
PwC informed, when your presence was finally revealed, that you did not write to them before you started attending my company and arming yourselves with insider information including third party financial dependence that was not known or authorised by the directors severally or the Board. You were compelled to tell me about this by mid February 2006 (my appeal) but did not.
The Company was being protected by its advisers including:
1) E&Y, who attended sham accounts inspections blocked by Burrows in September 2005, advised and are witnesses to the AGM on 31 October 2005, as well as my mother's proxy when PwC, having made an adverse report under the Companies Act and committed on 27 May 2005 to not reporting unless and until I had provided a nominal, draft accounts and letter of representation.
In the AGM on 31 October 2005 they informed they did not ask for one, as they knew I "would" not give it: a deliberate slight of tongue, the correct term being "could" not give it. You should have the records;
2) PKF, who attended the DTI and are witnesses against you and PwC, with the results of these inspections, forecasts and reports as commissioned by CIB, including replies to questions in a file called "SUSPICIONS".
This file was stolen, with others and trafficked in the market. Despite the warnings you have had since July 2009, you have knowingly employed the thief, and promoted her, under her married name Catherine Kewish. I attach admission of the theft of the DTI file "SUSPICIONS".
KINGSTON SMITH LLP 2012 Folio 336
Default judgment was entered v Kingston Smith LLP in July 2012, as nominal "auditor" of the Baker Tilly/ Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP financially unstable construct or ABS, propped up by RBS and Deloitte from 1 April 2007 (2012 Folio 336).
Kewish was served on 4 July 2012 at the Baker Street address and did not defend. She relies on BDO to continue the cover up. She was exposed in court in November 2012 as having lied to my legal team in 2009to make up a trial telling Simmons & Simmons and my leading counsel, a part time judge, that there was a "claim" a "defence" and a "counterclaim".
There was nothing, confirmed by QBD.
RPC "came on the record" in May 2008.
In October 2008 there was a notice of change. This record has "disappeared".
Kewish has been caught out
lying to Master Eyre in September 2009,
lying about CONSENTS that I never gave, including to trafficking stolen goods and waiver of privilege;
lying to Rupert Jackson LJ in the C of A, saying I had no representation when I did;
stealing my appeal by secretly paying £200 on 5 March 2010 in the C of A and putting in a bundle that she said was my appeal bundle volume 2;
proceeding to forge a whole new bundle in December 2010, that Hughes LJ was persuaded to use to prepare an embargo'ed "judgment" revelation of which is an offence and to organise its trafficking on BAILII, as well as my institute and my MP, whilst the bundles of the Chancellor of the High Court "disappeared", the presiding judge, and those of Leveson P were shredded and his Lordship double booked so he would not know what was happening.
In 2009 she got together with Boodle Hatfield, Sophie Hoffman, Simon Rylatt and others, who had infiltrated the Mayors & City County Court in the same way Elford had.
Elford with Sally Baker and other "lawyers" operating under a false non existent name and logo "Baker Tilly", had identified that I had unfettered ownership of valuable Barbican properties. These were offered up to underwriters and insurers in a bundled product incorporating RPC, to realise value by using the courts perversely to pre-emptively eliminate come-back from me, including for that which had been stolen, forged or taken and hidden in the Iron Mountain warehouse, shredding centre and warehouse for disused business papers, where they went in the fire on 12 July 2006.
Kewish has refused to reveal the identity of the underwriter and insurer: you have employed her with this deception and must bear full responsibility for finding out the answer and providing it.
In reliance on your cover-up of this operator, RPC has gone on to buy a Willis wrappered instrument laundered through money laundering operations, FRP Advisory LLP; DMH Stallard LLP; Insolvency Practitioners Association (that does not survive these events w.e.f. December 2013); facilitate communications with the Royal Bank of Canada, with Boodle Hatfield, steal (Mark Lindley BH) the PROTECTIVE CHARGE on my properties, representing the benefit of an unlimited indemnity I have from March 1996 from selling shareholders for agreeing to take personal risk and go public, that I had formalized on the Land Register in July 2008, on the advice of my lawyers A&O, who said predators (thieves) were in operation.
This secret instrument was hidden from me by the IPA from January 2014 until 2 September 2015, when Willis confirmed it was good.
It was relied on for the breaking and entry into my home, the theft of the contents and the pulling down of the insides, laundered through Savills, EDF, Deutsche Poste (DHL/Williams Lea) operators of the advertising website that they control by offering a concessionary contract to the state, with the co-operation of those operatives inside the toxic "Insolvency Practitioners Unit" and "Business Services to IPs", planting forgeries in the courts and outside, as well as using the "Insolvency Services Account" for their own ends.
As Chartered Accountants you will understand that counsel has settled that "acting as an insolvency practitioner in relation to an estate" is a nonsense and remains a nonsense whether it is put in law or not. You do not "act as a gardener in relation to a garden" or "act as a dentist in relation to a set of teeth". The state has kept secret the complete numbered list of operators it permits to function without VAT registration or accountability to anyone including HMRC, on cross border activity including in the Crown Dependencies, supervision of which is MoJ responsibility.
21 April 2011
David Ereira and Rachel Sandby-Thomas will have to explain the position to the Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees including the events in this case when BIS lawyers blocked CIB attending QBD on 21 April 2011.
This was the second hearing when the recorder from the first on 18 March 2011 was found switched off and Elford was caught lying and hiding a Herbert Smith action open from 22 June 2006, when HS sued me on the back of your audit clearance earlier that month.
In June 2005 they informed their David Gold had arrangements with Guy Beringer QC (A&O) and a golf course deal with Tim Pope PwC, that HS would not go against them, and that it would use positions it got into to their advantage. They explained that this facilitated recurring revenues which were more valuable than the £100k per month they were billing me for over a year. The D&CC was in the Appeal Bundle as it was used to support a (permanent) STAY of hostility against me granted by Goldring LJ, 7 August 2009.
These events followed June 2009 when Elford was acting as mouthpiece for Laurence Peter Longe, requiring blackmail monies to be paid into partners' Coutts Bank Account ref LPL. They sought 25% of the gross upside of the HS D&CC; first rights over my properties (for transaction expenses, RPC called themselves “transaction managers”);
The secret Willis wrappered instrument is by definition not legal due to its secrecy, as evidenced by the fact that it is not publicly available, with product spec and no authorised re-sellers/brokers. It is not known to the FSA, and no operator is accredited in its manufacture, wholesale or retail sale. It is not known to police, or Citizens Advice Bureaux. It pays out on the fraud or dishonesty of a named individual with those with whom he colludes or others with his connivance when caught out.
The victims are the beneficiaries.
The instrument does not exist without the wrappering. The wrappering is relied on to launder through the organs of state such as the Land Registry so that damages are picked up by the state such as the Indemnity Fund and MoJ. It is used to facilitate payment in a series of middlemen.
A blackened image of the victim is spread on public websites.
The reasons for the wrappering were provided in 2013 by John Tribe, KPMG sponsored researcher at Kingston University, formerly poly. Without the wrappering the instrument allows a thief to value the estate he is targetting, notify that value, make off with it, and the instrument pays the victims. He identified that there was no research done over the years on how this was being used. He did not research on the ownership of the Farringdon Insurance Company, Guernsey captive, or who has rights over the records.
The records are kept off the accounting records of the middlemen and in places such as the IPA, where people like Nick Carter-Pegg, in the case of FRP with DMH Stallard, money laundering front for Barclays, appear to choose not to look for reasons which are not clear beyond his anecdotal public interest in creating ABSs that only "work" until found out, when the whole scam unravels.
These reasons debar BDO from reporting on either construct, or both of them, since they do not exist separately with the result underwritten by PwC via Barclays and BDO.
BDO is a self-declared leading exponent of this secret instrument. BDO says it does not reply directly to public consultations on these operations but relies on my institute, and yours, being prepared to allow "lawyers" to give "evidence" who are not members, do not have to identify themselves and cannot be disbarred by ICAEW for not telling the truth on law and independence, as we all can be, including on their own unsuitability to evidence to anyone about Chartered Accountants or auditors. These have had a pivotal role relied on by society for law enforcement in priority to lining one's own pocket in skimming and eliminating risk of come-back by perverse operations.
BDO came off the CPS/SFO supplier list in September 2013, after the Brandon Barnes escapade, when Deloitte also came off following the illegal pulling down of RSM Tenon, over which I have had first rights since 23 August 2013, having objected before midnight on 22 August 2013, thereby neutralizing any attempt to create Lloyds debt in subsidiaries, and made a subject to contract offer on the morning of 23 August.
Formal notice of joining Deloitte was served on 21 August 2014 before the one year dead line for liquidation, 2012 Folio 336 in accordance with court rules including duty to mitigate.
RPC engineered the latest events by interception from August 2013 and referral to FRP for purchase of the Willis instrument. Willis is regulated and cannot accept referrals UNLESS from a regulated entity in the ordinary course of business eg a sponsor to a broker or vv, OR subject to full AML compliance.
These operations are set up to circumvent the AML regs: in 2007 operators hoped that by inventing the likes of the IPA as a "regulated professional body" or RPB they could nominally give them the AML responsibility.
This was designed not to work since no private sector body can sign off on each transaction before it starts, disinterring who is benefitting, what instrument is in use and who is targetted. RPBs do not look at any transaction including before it starts.
The IPA say their "regulatory" function is to collect planted data and pass it to the IS to publish publicly. There is no authenticity check and data is aggregated and anonymised.
The IS operates an illegal web site advertising the fraudsters and matching their names with the target, refusing to pull the entries down and insultingly referring to the forgerers as "TRUSTEES" or "ADMINISTRATORS" or "LIQUIDATORS" and their targets as "BANKRUPTS", using false court numbers.
Their "system" such as it is, is operated by contractors and others under the control of third party outsiders,and imposes restrictions on properties and bank accounts until OCGs operating the wrappered instruments can take them.
I attach the example in my case, FRP, who Nick Carter Pegg is sheltering and has been since 2014 when the man, unbeknown to me, started advertising himself on Williams Lea advertising board branded "London Gazette", with terms of business that THEY decide what goes up and what does not.
Andrea Lattimore, director, has admitted they are operators of the Willis wrappered instrument, and regard themselves as serving that industry, using an ABSs and dummy company names, as The Stationary Office and Williams Lea with registered office addresses, with no name plate and no one inside who knows who the directors are or how to get them. let alone any sign of statutory books.
You can see from this that the only presence in court that these operators have is in the commercial court as 2012 Folio 336 and that these operators are not defending. Kewish as stated is also not defending, served in Baker St on 4 July 2012. You have your direct connection between her, you and FRP/DMH Stallard/Williams Lea.
Below you will see links to public records being final notices to FRP, February 2014; updated November 2014; and DMH Stallard, my lawyers on these events, involving Boodle Hatfield and RJW/Slater & Gordon UK LLP, with "Baker Tilly UK Audit LLP", engineers of a secret agreement in December 2008/January 2009 in which it was effectively agreed that the lives of my aunt and mother were dispensable by signing agreements in their name and that consents could be signed in their name to give up my ownership, rights and judicial standing. The agreement was effective so long as it was kept secret, apart from me, and where required by court. It was required by court from 2006 well before being concluded.
It was partly revealed by the Mayors & City County court in April 2012, when they were expecting police to collect the evidence; more in August 2012; and the final tranche in mid 2013 by those with whom Elford/ Kewish had been colluding.
You have seen the false records from July 2009 and were already alerted by me from May 2009 that you needed to make contact so that my investee company could be protected.
You made no further contact after my request at that time with the consequences from that time to now.
It was not until this year that you even told me that the partner who had operated with Burrows from (late 2005)/early 2006 had passed with no RNS recording the heightened risk and the fact that without a full account of these activities I could neither defend myself or the company for which I was responsible.
How did you think I was going to deal with the appeal in mid February 2006?
Did you think that others like Grant Thornton and Mark Harwood and Paul Newman of Baker Tilly partnership were going to volunteer that they had gone behind my back, like you did, and trafficked personal and company confidential data so that I would be defeated in the appeal, in the ET, where the sole question was production of that which is rightfully mine, part of my estate and the possession of which entitles me to run my affairs and those entrusted to me by the market from March 1996?
Your decision to operate in this clandestine manner with my staff behind my back must be unprecedented. It was the subject of XX in June 2009, a trial that would never have happened had you met me in May 2009, as I requested, as I attempted to move fast enough to defeat those who said they would wipe me and my family out using the courts and the stolen documents unless I gave in to their blackmail.
What they wanted was not mine to give.
I had no knowledge of the agreements made at that stage, as I did not know of the "consents" in 2005 in respect of the Companies Court proceedings that A&O took, did not reach the Company or its board, which they filed were being defended by the Company, (when obstruction is an offence) and a consent that was not given to a STAY until after the February 2006 "appeal" that could not be heard until you provided the full records of what happened to mid February 2006.
I am attaching relevant extract from my public XX and humiliation on 30 June 2009 on how it was that you had excluded me, leaving me vulnerable to attack for a decade and seven months without a day's respite.
You can see that we considered it extraordinary that you could exclude those responsible yet consider you could report.
A second extract explains that the discharge of legal obligation, responsibility I took on by signing the prospectus in March 1996, is uncapped and expenditure in such discharge, including overcoming obstruction, qualifies, not only under the indemnity in the articles, but also for PAYE, as "wholly exclusively and necessarily incurred".
Regarding PwC, the 31 October 2006 letter with Nigel Tristem's input was clear, "there can be few precedents for removing an adverse report on books and records" as was done by PwC internal lawyers for which they are liable to me and my investee company.
Elford, emboldened by the position you had taken, wrote to Jack Naylor, internal lawyer, leading the blocking in 2006, to invite them to join the attacks from April 2011, "as though" she had won, and they could join in. I attach her letter dated 5 April 2011 and 18 April 2011, in which she told Naylor that she understood from me that PwC may be a creditor of mine.
I have never discussed my estate with Elford.
She has no information on it and no right to write to third parties enclosing CD ROMS of personal information.
You will also see reference to "charging orders" which did not exist, and to "Baker Tilly" which from 1 April 2007 did not exist. You will also see that when compelled to correct the omitted evidence, she wrote on 18 April 2011 saying it was "privileged".
PwC was due to make an interim payment on 14 Jan 11, and provide my records on that day, having acted contemptuously from 16 October 2006 further to production orders dated 9 October 2006, full copies of which you should properly have, as the March 2006 and interims September 2006 are affected.
21 April 2011 proceeded without the evidence.
In May 2011 Vernon Soare finally wrote saying Baker Tilly partners has lost their licence from ICAEW to report as auditors by 7 January 2005.
This had been covered up: indeed the July 2006 FRC first inspection report asserted that one of its first six inspections was ICAS registered. ICAS have evidenced that the terms on which they could provide a licence required a fresh start up.
This could not be achieved. Once the whistle was blown, HQ12XO3512 available on inspection from 27 February 2013, there appeared pressure to steal another "auditor" the Tenon company and attempt to go around a third time branded RSM.
You will also see the harassment of my beloved Mum who has been hounded non stop by these people and targetted more viciously after she survived in December 2009 when we lost my aunt.
I was provided with 2,500+ line entries of a false "bill" that had to be analysed and a refusal to provide an excel version. The attempts to save life were doomed to failure.
On 10 June 2011 Equiniti removed the false entries on the share register Burrows had made to help Elford and Hoffman in 2009, blocking the company being sold and telling the world that a 30% stake was in play, essentially I was a loser. The court in November 2012 called this MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, i.e, using the courts with malicious intent. She was on your payroll by then. You did not provide anyone to defend her, yet you carried on reporting "as though" nothing had happened.
Elford should have provided these communications and transcripts to BDO before her job interview explaining that I had to pay 50% of the daily transcript, she got them and did not give them to the judge until the last day, so he could not use them over night, during the trial or the week end mid trial.
The "judgment" on 17 July 09 (without identified "claimant"), which related to liability only and did not consider money, was bad for her as the judge agreed there was a contract, nothing was delivered and the contract was my entitlement to delivery up of what was mine and an independent assurance report including under FSMA 2000 (third party financial dependence).
I have made the position perfectly clear to you:
UNLESS you write to PwC and get the letter asserting that there is an indemnity under the articles of association but that my expenditure does not qualify (which they relied on to bury the fact of the Companies Court action to gain access) and require the reconstruction of the records that went in the Iron Mountain fireyou are not and were not in any position to attend any AGM offering to report from summer 2006 until to-day.
UNLESS you have sight of the November 2006 short form agreement and understand the meaning of the word CONFIDENTIAL, meaning confidential from Burrows and everyone else apart from Andy Dixon FCA then Co Sec, JR signatory, A&O my lawyers and Burges Salmon who were collecting those of my estate records they could despite the A&O blockade and fire, that should have been declared to the court but was not, you will not understand the significance of the Company having broken that agreement by not producing my belongings including giving me and my lawyers access so that they were not seen or touched by Burrows and ''his mates", as PwC described those concerned.
UNLESS you require the records that went in the fire to be reconstructed, they won't be. Your reports are automatically meaningless.
UNLESS you take steps to undo the damage you created by driving a wedge between shareholders as you did at the start of 2006, with me, PwC, A&O (advising me throughout), Evolution and the protection of my investee company and estate on one side and you on the other, refusing to communicate, you will be as responsible for Elford's conduct as she is herself, dragged into 2012 Folio 336, bringing Triad down in your wake for no good reason.
UNLESS you report properly on FRP giving the true reasons for your exit and on DMH Stallard, due to make a £10m interim payment in December 2014 but defaulting, BDO and Nick Carter-Pegg will automatically be seen to be complicit, with the Willis instrument, the carnage from January 2014, and the break and entry on 22 June 2015.
UNLESS you remember that your PKF and Chilterns client base exist you can expect your activity in the tax, trust, fiduciary and investigations markets to evaporate.
You cannot expect to hold intimate details of the lives of people and their estates, prepare and advise on their affairs and at the same time mount an attack until they are dead or permanently disabled and promote those who have carried out the protracted terror and harassment campaign.
UNLESS you pull out of the audit of the Mayor & Commonality of the City of London, you are left with reporting on your endorsement of FRP, Stallard, Williams Lea explaining that this group could not do what it does to break and enter, burgle, take court, estate, company records, block enforcement, unless by reporting you gave the green light. Someone has to pick up the bill and if it not Deloitte, it will be you.
The City of London will not pick up the reputational damage, nor will I, although the FRC, neighbours might be expected to explain as might RICS.
You have been fully informed of these events since 2011 when I had to make an ongoing subject access to stop this trafficking in my personal belongings.
It did not work, and Burrows was at it again by 23 March 2011.
Until to-day I have not had a full account of what he did with Wragge & Co, which left Burton J totally gobsmacked, that privacy and confidentiality could be so glibly broken, including on a document covering matters such as my life insurance papers, stolen so could not be renewed, and the details of the stone mason doing my dad's gravestone which I requested so the job could be finished.
Throughout you have behaved as an onlooker not as a statutory office holder and my estate and tax supplier, as well as expert supporting DTI reports on events you exposed in 2005 and covered up on from 2006.
Perhaps when you have had a chance to reflect on what you said or did not say at the AGM and what needs to be done to repair the situation, you should contact me. Contact should be via Nick Buxton from now onwards.
You are prohibited from disseminating this record without my written consent.
Mira Makar MA FCA (Miss)
trustee and executor Siham Sami Raouf Order of the Republic d 4 Dec 09
00 44 (0)7768 610071
Christos Anesti!.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Romans 13
http://tinyurl.com/ParliamentaryCommissionBanking
http://tinyurl.com/MoJ-FundamentalRights13Jan2014
http://tinyurl.com/HoL-MentalCapacityDec13p1051
http://tinyurl.com/CMA-Auditors24Aug2013
http://tinyurl.com/CompCommAuditors18Aug2013
http://tinyurl.com/BIS-ReformofFRC-Jan2012
http://tinyurl.com/FRCDisciplinaryTribunals
http://tinyurl.com/FRCreCapitalAdequacyDec2011
Court-public on inspection 18 July 2012
2012 Folio 336 judgment in default of proper return compliant with the rules
http://tinyurl.com/CityTradingStds12Folio336Jan12
http://tinyurl.com/FRP-NOTICE12Folio336-25-2-14
http://tinyurl.com/FRPAdvisory12Folio336-16-11-14
http://tinyurl.com/DMHStallard26-11-14-12Folio336
Court-public on inspection from 27 February 2013
HQ12XO3512 judgment in default of acknowledgment of service or defence
Malicious prosecution 29 August 2006 to 24 August 2012 (date of issue)
Malicious prosecution and retaliation from exposure 27 February 2013 to February 2016
http://tinyurl.com/27-2-13publicBakerTillyUKGpLLP
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mira Makar <mira.makar@btinternet.com>
To: "david.eagle@bdo.co.uk" <david.eagle@bdo.co.uk>
Cc: AlistairFulton <amfulton@compuserve.com>;
StevenSanderson <steven.m.sanderson@ntlworld.com>;
NickBurrows <Nick.Burrows@triad.co.uk>;
Sent: Monday, 4 July 2011, 17:33
Subject: REQUEST THAT A RESPONSE IS GIVEN FOR DEMAND FOR PERSONAL DATA
Dear David
I have received a bizarre communication from Nick Burrows which he says is from John Rigg, when plainly it is from him. I have no current communications with John, as since January 2005 he has chosen to communicate through David Wootton. Our relationship is personal and family and is not discussed with anyone, let alone the staff in the company.
The below letter is not true on a number of accounts.
1. I have been passed a letter by a Mr Ellis of Wragge & Co enclosing a copy of a letter from Burrows. In it he ADMITS the existence of the document. He further offers it “if a court order is obtained”. HH Judge Burton saw this and concluded the Company has no objection.
2. The admission of the existence of a written document is a breach of the agreement. The fact that Burrows was prepared to give away MY PRIVATE information that the Company had PROMISED would be kept confidential INCLUDING THE EXISTENCE of the agreement and not even tell me, shows that he broke the confidentiality knowing exactly what he was doing.
3. Any lawyer would say, “have you spoken to her, do you know what this is about? And you have no obligation to respond, you should acknowledge receipt and say that you are not responding”.
4. Burrows did not do that, in fact he neither took advice nor showed the result of the advice to the Board as JR, who is on the board is uninformed about the existence of the letter.
Information in the public domain
5. There was never put into the public domain the fact of the existence of any written document. The public was told there was agreement. Period. It was referred to as a “settlement agreement” which appears to have simply been drafting that someone did not think a great deal about but NEVER that there was a document or indeed that that such a document contained information that should have been disclosed in the financial statements but was not.
6. This letter below says the existence of the document has been public information for 4.5 years. It has never been disclosed as a document that exists.
Allegations re Baker Tilly
7. I have not mounted litigation against Baker Tilly. Neither the Court nor I know who sued me or what for. The Baker Tilly partnership was dissolved by 1 April 07.
Legal advice
8. I am surprised Burrows says he took legal advice.
Please tell me whether the advice came from A&O and whether they told him (a) to admit the existence of a document (b) to not speak to me (c) to offer the document if a court order, secured without me having seen the letter Burrows wrote FROM HIM (d) to reply beyond an acknowledgment and a statement that there was no obligation to respond and all legal disclosure obligations had been met.
9. I consider it both doubtful and remote that A&O told Burrows to write the letter he did and that the matter was put before the Board and a minute passed that you saw.
Necessary and relevant
10. It is not normal protocol to “chat” with third parties about the private agreements of fellow human beings. Whose judgment of “necessary and relevant” are we talking about? How about the Company’s its auditor and the counterparty to the agreement?
11. It is perfectly plain that unless the company has false accounted and the auditor has signed a false report, all the transaction details MUST be in the public domain and it follows that anything left not in the public domain is by definition extremely private and personal to the people concerned, here A&O, BS, my fellow shareholder/former directors and my family.
12. A&O were involved because Peter Watson said that A&O’s fees were going to be paid first before my costs. A&O had failed to tell me that all my records had been transferred to a warehouse instead of a fire proof fault, including those they were working on and that from that point on I was vulnerable to being sued by anyone with something to defend.
13. Indeed the document called itself “SHORT FORM AGREEMENT”, and not anything else.
14. Burrows letter said nothing about necessary and relevant. I fail to see how my private life and private agreements, can be decided on by HIM, when plainly, what is the legal transaction is reported and what is not is mine (any my brother’s) and nobody else’s. This is not only a breach of the confidentiality that is the essence of the agreement, but also a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (confidentiality; privacy; autonomy; right to family life).
15. It comes in the wake of Burrows conspiracy with Elford to steal my shares that the court has called a transaction whose essence was “plain as a pike staff” and that the lack of candour was “to be deprecated”.
Offer to provide the agreement
16. The Court has made the order because it has interpreted Burrows letter as an offer. Had he not said “you get the order and we’ll give it to you” the Order of the Court would not have been given as (a) it was not relevant; anything relevant being in the accounts (b) it is prejudicial to me to disclose (being my private agreement) (c) there was no statement of truth from PwC, no statement of case and nothing at all apart from Burrows’ offer.
17. Generally normal protocols can be circumvented if a party agrees. Burrows made an offer, and the court relied on it.
18. Burrows consulted no-one, neither me nor his Board, and had zero reason to assume anything other than mischief since all possible relevant info was in the accounts, and all that was left was mine and my brother’s including the fact of a written document that was more than was required to be reported publicly.
Court Orders of Judge Burton
19. Burrows says I know there is a court order. Actually there are two. One he appears to have seen and one not. The fact that Burrows believes there is one only, shows that he has correspondence, which he must disclose BOTH INCOMING AND OUT.
20. I require all comms to be disclosed and do not expect to keep asking. I am perfectly entitled to see what letters have been received and what letters have been sent out.
21. This is particularly the case since his clandestine comms with Equiniti to put on the share register on about 22 April or so false records. No doubt the Board as well as the auditor will be keen to know what letters and emails about shareholders are secretly passing between Burrows and the outside world.
22. There would have been no order had Burrows not offered the disclosure because there was no basis for the request and all W&Co told the Court was “Nick has offered”. I landed in court over this NOT Burrows.
Actions of Burrows
23. Without exception not a single action that Burrows has taken has been subject to Board deliberation or an order of the Board that Burrows makes eg an entry on the share register or offers to give away details of my private life. I do not now a single one of the other directors who would remotely condone such wanton and gratuitiously behaviour.
24. The conspiracy to steal the shares is a matter of record and the Board had nothing to do with it, the auditor was kept in the dark and no advice was sought apart from Penningtons who are not the advertised lawyers and who did not do a basic check as advising Burrows to ask me who BH were; RPC; or anyone else and why transactions were taking place in the name of a partnership that had dissolved in April 07.
Assessment of Burrows
25. The assessment of Burrows was made by the company lawyers A&O in December 04 that he was unfit to be an employee.
At the time his job was limited to adding up the time sheets and allocating RED AMBER GREEN so utilization could be monitored, a job that was done by one part time lady in Arthur Andersen where JR was articled in the days when nothing was automated, plus organising logistics of meetings of senior staff and going to ONS to get Nina Neoman on charge.
He not only abandoned his duties, now having failed abysmally, resorting to throwing away the Cranfield conference materials (5-7 Sept 03) that got the Co to profit by Apr 04; but he has sacked Nina, got rid of ONS and dispensed with most if not all the senior staff.
26. On that occasion he told the market the Co was reporting without telling anyone when he had no authority to say anything at all, confirming to me in Feb 06 he had no idea what FSMA 2000 is.
27. Nothing has changed. His appointment to the Board was without consultation with shareholders and in defiance of A&O’s advice.
28. I have made no statement that anyone has shown to be false. It has been admitted below that comms have taken place that have been provided to neither me or the Board, including the comms in March.
FSMA 2000 compliance; Companies Act.
29. Where statements are true it is safe to make them. When they shed light on mischief it is proper they are made. (DW Rule 1)
A failure to make an allegation it is proper to make is a breach under FSMA 2000 and the Companies Act re the auditor.
30. The auditor is at risk if he places reliance on someone not reliable.
the bad mouthing provisions
31. The agreement to stop bad mouthing was initiated by me to stop the disparaging and derogatory statements made about me by David Wootton; Kate Jackson; AMF; JR; and the agents hired incl City Profile.
To be effective such an agreement must be mutual/reciprocal.
breach of the short form agreement
32. Nick Burrows was not party to the agreement. He has nevertheless caused the company to break it and therefore it can no longer rely on it.
33. I have called for his summary removal from the Board on the grounds that he is a loose cannon and has not acted honestly with his Board; the auditor; or the shareholders.
This comes in the wake of what he did on the share register and his ongoing refusal to give me my private data as well as landing me in court on 18 Mar 21 April and 23 June.
offensive and inaccurate
34. I note for the record that Burrows has not identified any inaccuracy and at 5.26 pm has not sent through MY PERSONAL DATA.
I look forward to hearing that the Company is now paying attention, MY DATA, is going to be sent to me, and that progress is made in finding an honest FD and Co Sec, who does not attempt to steal their shares, divide the shareholder base, or hide the records from the statutory auditor and the Board.
Kind regards
Mira
On 25 Mar 2011, at 15:06, Alistair Fulton wrote:
Dear Ms Makar,
I acknowledge receipt yesterday of your email dated 24th March 2011 addressed to me as Chair of the Audit Committee.
I do not intend to communicate further with you on the matters raised in this email.
Regards
Alistair Fulton
[2009] EWHC 1715 (QB) 17 July 2009:
Evidence v BDO and PwC made public by RPC, Wedlake Bell, buyers of instruments 7-9 on "referral" to BDO platform "FRP" Jeremy French and Paul Atkinson, maternal cousins (Dorothy French)
09 02 05 JANE HOWARD DTI file - handling stolen goods PROPERTY OF TRIAD GROUP PLC.pdf
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse