Saturday 14 April 2007

Chapter 4: My Home Was Bugged!


Don't forget to read my previous Blog posts to learn more about A Hannon (Official Reciever, Cambridge) his superiors and bad solicitors!

The Bugging of my Home!

In July 2006 my home was bugged with four bugging devices, two in my office and two attached to the external phone lines.

I make no allegations about who bugged my home. BUT someone wanted to know what I said and did! Maybe someone doesn’t want the public to hear what I have to say!

The police visited my home and in direct responce to their questions I informed them that I was, was intending to, or had taken legal action against:

  • Anthony Hannon, Official Reciever, Cambridge
  • Citreon Wells (Joint Liquidators - M Mehta & M Phillips)
  • The Insolvency Service
  • The Department of Trade and Industry
  • The Specter Partnership (solicitors)
  • Buckles Solicitors
  • Belmont Hansford Solicitors

The police subsequently informed me that that no crime had been committed.

The placing of the bugging devices
The bugs were placed by a couple pretending to be viewing my home as potential purchasers.

While the women attempted to distract me by talking about the cooker (!!), the man went back to look at the bathroom; instead I saw him sneaking into the office. Suspecting that they were up to no good, and when my e mail no longer worked, I searched the office and found two bugging devices: a microphone and a computer reader. Subsequent to this I found the two telephone taps.

The microphone
Hidden under the phone socket behind a curtain I found the small penny sized microphone (picture on right above). It was fixed to the wall by three thin wires, one of which had doubled back on itself. It is when I cut myself on this wire while searching that I saw this bug.

I discovered that the microphone is known as a ‘cat’ as when opened (picture above) this is what it looks like. I believe these are imported from the US and easily purchased in UK.

The computer reader
Attached to one of the hard drive ports on the back on my computer was what I believe is a key board reader, designed to read what you write and what web sites etc you access on your computer.

The phone bugs
Within the external phone box on the wall outside my flat (3rd floor), I found two phone taps attached to the phone wires. Made of a clear rubber materials they were about a quarter of the size of a stamp.


The 'buggers' were entertained by an evening of video pornography!
After finding the bugs at about 7.30pm (within an hour of them being placed!), I left them in place and ran a pornographic video on replay all night. That would have given them something to listen to!


Let me say it again, I make no allegation as to who bugged my home. But someone out there wants to know what I say and who I write to. Maybe someone doesn’t want me to tell my story, but whatever their reasons the fact remains: my home and privacy have been violated. Someone must be held to account!

Read more about my story below, follow my blog and you can reach your own conclusions.

Solicitor Slayer

Thursday 12 April 2007

Chapter 3: A HANNON'S Support for a Freezing Order

Hannon provides false and misleading information in support of an application to freeze a former Company Director's assets!

Hannon lied to me and the Treasury Solicitors by denying ever being consulted!

A one and a half page e mail is evidence that he lied and this and the correspondence from the Treasury solicitors confirming Hannon's lies will be posted on Monday!


Background

In July 2006, one of the Joint Liquidators from Citroen Wells applied for a Freezing Order to freeze all of the assets of one of the former Directors of the Company.

Freezing orders are right at the edge of a Judge’s jurisdiction and their purpose is surely to freeze the assets of money launderers and drug barons, not the innocent!

You would think that such an Order, obtained in closed court were there is no opportunity to defend yourself, would only be granted on the basis of factual and correct information. Not so.

In support of the freezing order, Hannon provided false and misleading financial information following a direct request from the Joint Liquidators for evidence in support of their application for the freezing order being sought against a former Company Director.

Hannon lies about being consulted
Yet, when I asked Hannon’s boss, N Latif, if he and Hannon knew anything about the freezing order I was informed that neither he or Hannon knew anything about it prior to my call, and that neither of them had supplied any information to the Joint Liquidators.

Further to this, and on asking the Treasury Solicitors if Hannon had supplied any information in support of the Freezing Order, they stated that they would consult with their client (Hannon). There then followed a letter stating that after consulting with their client, Hannon had confirmed that he had not been consulted.

However, upon receipt of this letter and after forwarding it to the solicitors acting for the Joint Liquidator, they wrote back attaching two e mails. One from the Joint Liquidator to Hannon (dated 27 July 2006) requesting information on the company finances in support of their application for the Freezing Order, and a one and a half page e mail from Hannon (dated 27 July 2006) in response to this request.

Hannon’s e mail in response, contained entirely false and misleading financial information that was used in the High Court:

- Hannon alleged that there were £350,000 of unexplained cash withdrawals with full knowledge of the fact that much of this was staff wages and other sums that were clearly accounted.

- Even after being informed at a meeting at the offices of the Insolvency Service in front of N Letif and two other staff members that he had double accounted a payment going out of the Company account of £50,000. Hannon with the knowledge of his boss and D Flynn at 21 Bloomsbury Street did not remove this sum from his figures.

- Hannon alleged that the Company owed their Bankers £600,000. He stated in his email that he had a letter confirming this and that he would forward that letter to the Joint Liquidators. The letter was never forwarded, nor has the letter been found in the files that were Hannon's possession. There is nothing to substantiate the extent of the sum he alleges was owed to the Company bankers.


Hannon lied about not being consulted. Hannon lied to the Treasury Solicitors saying that he had not been consulted. Hannon’s lies were used in the High Court.

D Flynn, the Treasury Solicitors and Hannon’s boss, N Latiff were all shown the evidence that Hannon had lied, yet no one has done anything about it.

A week after the freezing order was granted it was removed at the return hearing on the basis of the information provided being unsubstantiated.


Yet again Hannon has got away with lying to the detriment of the innocent, yet there is nothing anyone can do about it and his bosses, in their failure to act, do nothing but protect their own.
Solicitor Slayer

Update: Consipracy by the Civil Service or Just Arrogance?

Conspiracy by the Civil Service or just arrogance?

.....update on my continuing battle against the system .....
Background
At the recent hearing at the Peterborough Magistrates Court (considered in detail in Blog post dated 2 March), while under oath and under cross examination in the witness box, I have a suspicion that A Hannon, Official Receiver for the Cambrideshire region of the Insolvency Service, may have committed perjury when he claimed that his boss had instructed him to report the alleged incident committed by my son to the police.
Perjury?
Perjury is obviously a very serious allegation against an officer of the Court. With this in mind I contacted A Hannon’s superiors to ascertain the truth before formally reporting to the police that A Hannon may have been committed perjury.

Are Hannon's Superiors Protecting Him?
All I ever want, and all I expect is the truth.Yet, A Hannon’s superiors – N Latif, Regional Director, Cambridgeshire Region and D Flynn, Inspector General and Agency Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service - as well as the Treasury Solicitors, refuse to answer a very simple question ‘did they instruct A Hannon to report the alleged incident to the police as A Hannon claimed while under oath?’

In a written reply to my first letter, and no doubt in response to this question, N Latif wrote:

'Because of the serious nature of your assertions I will be writing to the court for a copy of the transcript of the hearing. Once I receive this I will be in a position to consider your comments in detail'.

Following Latif’s initial response I sent him, D Flynn and the Treasury Solicitors a letter from my son’s solicitor’s confirming the statement made by A Hannon in court.

Since sending this copy letter, on five occasions I have requested of N Latif, D Flynn and the Treasury Solicitors a simple yes or no as to whether A Hannon was telling the truth in the witness box. While the only response from the Treasury Solicitors has been an acknowledgement of one of my letters, I have recived a single reply from N Latif in which he stated that:

'He saw no reason why A Hannon should not have reported the incident to the police'.

A carefully written response written in such a way to avoid denying or accepting what was stated as truth by A Hannon in court? This response seems to me to be the type of wording advised by a solicitor. You can make your own mind up.

Most recently on 11 April, I wrote to all three parties stating that unless I receive a clear yes or no to my question by 5pm today, I would report the matter to the police. There has been no response from the Treasury Solicitors or N Latif. However, D Flynn replied stating:

'You have had a response from N Latif on this question and you must take whatever steps you consider appropriate'.

As an informed reader, in considering the above facts I am sure you can form your own opinion regarding the truth in this matter.
Reach your own conclusion
Whatever your conclusion, ask yourself two questions:

1. Why is it that a solicitor who acts on behalf of her Majesties Government, a Regional Director of the Insolvency Service and the Inspector General and Agency Chief Executive of the Insolvency Service refuse to answer a very simple question ‘was A Hannon instructed to report the alleged incident to the police as A Hannon claimed while under oath?’

2. Are the individuals concerned conspiring to pervert the course of justice?


Someone must hold these public servants to account and I am now left with no option but to formally report this matter to the police.

Watch this space!
Solicitor Slayer