Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
Mark Schofield of Nicholas O’Donohue & Co approached me commencing on 3 February 2021 to tell me that he was representing Barrister ABC (a short-term pseudonym required by court action) and that action would be taken against me immediately if I did not withdraw the webpage regarding Barrister ABC the next day. He also revealed that Barrister ABC was alleging that I had defamed him – this was in spite of the fact that Barrister ABC admitted that he was fully aware of the contents of the webpage back in 2018 and had done nothing about it (he was clearly not concerned about what I had written for all this time). Schofield threatened me with an application for an injunction on Barrister ABC’s behalf, together with damages and costs.
Schofield, like Barrister ABC, is a legal person well versed in defamation (according to their respective websites). Therefore, both of them knew full well that because Barrister ABC was admittedly aware of my allegations 3 years earlier, it was impossible for him to take action for defamation (and he would have been fighting my defences of truth and justification, regardless).
Schofield claimed that Barrister ABC said that he had only acted under instructions during his earlier representation of man X, man Y and CASACIR – if that was so, he didn’t make enquiries as to the truth of what he was told to do and failed to make forensic decisions, leading to the results of my webpage about his actions.
In good faith, and taking Barrister ABC at his word that he only operated under man X, man Y and CASACIR, and/or Smith’s instructions (in spite of it making very little sense to me given the circumstances noted in my original posting), I made minor alterations to the webpage to incorporate his claim (giving him the benefit of doubt).
Schofield then proceeded to use the fact that I had made changes on the webpages against me and, because my website updates its copyright each year, he then went on to claim that the altered webpage was entirely new (i.e. that it was first posted in 2021 instead of 2017 when it was actually posted) and therefore would be used against me. He also provided me with Barrister ABC’s unsigned affidavit (containing a number of false claims), an undated, unsigned and unfiled statement of claim (containing many false claims and no cause of action and, because he was just claiming that they were only going for an injunction, there was no need for a statement of claim given that there was supposedly no claim going to be made), and an undated and an unfiled summons – at which time I was told that, unless I removed the webpage by midday the next day, Schofield would be filing a claim against me within the week (that was weeks ago and he has not taken action and has repeatedly refused to reply to my correspondence regarding it).
Barrister ABC and Schofield both claim that for me to reveal the facts (e.g. the truth), I was acting maliciously, and they made that claim without any factual reason or any proof. They also claimed that I had made my claims in the webpage “knowing its contents were false or recklessly not caring whether they were false or not” when, in fact, I either had personal knowledge and/or had personally observed each and every claim I had put in the webpage and knew my claims to be true (Barrister ABC did what he did and made the claims and/or denials he did, whether or not under the instruction of man X, man Y and/or CASACIR and/or their solicitor, Smith).
From my observations and feelings, Schofield’s contact was merely for the purposes of threatening, intimidating, and bullying me (I certainly felt threatened, intimidated, and bullied) because the documentation supplied by him showed that there was no actual cause of action and there was no actual defamation. Additionally, Schofield tried to use selected parts of private communications between him and me relating to Barrister ABC’s case, but twisting it say what I had not said at all, and to use this twisted version as if it was out in the public domain, and so on. The fact is that the correspondence and documents provided to me by Schofield made claims that were unsustainable, particularly given that Barrister ABC had actually participated in at least one of the activities of which he claimed he had no knowledge of (e.g. man X, man Y and CASACIR’s continued failure to obey orders and directions of the tribunal when he was acting on behalf of those clients in a tribunal hearing for their non-compliance with tribunal’s directions and orders!!). I also posted a webpage relating to a letter that Barrister ABC admitted authoring where I exposed the truth of the inaccurate claims made in the letter (a letter that he admitted he had written, but which he claimed he had written under Smith’s instructions (while Smith says that he only sent a webpage I had written to Barrister ABC and asked for his advice on it).
Needless to say, the threats, intimidation and bullying have not resulted in anything other than the fact that I have even less respect for Barrister ABC, and very little for Schofield – but that’s just my honest opinion – you make your own determination.