Dear law firm Candey
- I refer to our previous correspondence on the issue that you, being the lawyers representing the claimants in the case CL-2016-000831 (that is, me) in August of last year, colluded with the defendants (were bribed by them). In particular, I refer to your letter dated 24 October and my reply letter dated 25 October (to which you have not responded).
- I have to contact you again because there will be two court hearings in the CL-2016-000831 case in the near future and the question of why the claimants are not represented by lawyers is always raised.
- I explicitly state in court documents and during hearings that the defendants have colluded with my last solicitors (that is, you), which resulted in your acting not in the best interests of your clients, but in the interests of the opposite party. Namely, on the eve of the deadline, you began aggressively insisting that the claimants’ response to the defendants’ applications of more than 2,600 pages should be formulated on 3-5 pages and consist exclusively of headlines and hints (more about this is inthe transcript of our last two conversations, which I reattach for convenience).
- At the same time, it was intended that the following information should be provided on these 3-5 pages:
(a) Forging by the defendants of the main evidence used by them in these proceedings.
(b) The knowingly false nature of five expert opinions that the defendants submitted.
(c) The threats of the defendants to kill me, including the threats, accompanied by the demands to drop the lawsuit.
(d) The fact that the defendants have fabricated the criminal case against me.
(e) That the purpose of the defendants’ applications for security for costs is to conceal the crimes and other facts of wrongdoing committed by them when challenging the jurisdiction.
(f) The other numerous facts of wrongdoing on the part of the defendants.
- For any adequate person (not only for a lawyer), it is obvious that if such information is presented on 3-5 pages (and only in the form of headlines and hints) and does not include evidence confirming this information, it will be simply ridiculous, stupid and strange, and any everyman will raise questions about the adequacy of lawyers who give such advice. You have refused to answer my questions and comments on this matter, both during the time when our contract was still in effect and in subsequent correspondence.
- At the same time, whenI directly accused you of colluding with the defendants during the termination of our agreement on my initiative, you threatened me with criminal prosecution for spreading such information. At the same time, in the hope that I would not double-check your threats, you have deceived me by claiming that there is criminal liability for libel in the UK.
- In addition to (1) not answering my legitimate questions about the adequacy of your advice and (2) aggressively threatening me with various legal consequences if I spread information about your bribing by the defendants, you also began to demand payment of 165 thousand pounds from me, without even answering the most primitive questions about how this amount was calculated. In particular, I refer to your letter of 14 October 2021.
- That information, for the distribution of which you diligently frightened me, has already become public in the UK, and the article about this was published in an authoritative legal publication more than a month ago:
- Earlier (in August) this information has become public in Latvia (I re-attachthe article).
- I know for certain that neither the defendants nor you tried to take any measures to refute the information that has become public.
- At the same time, in Latvia, unlike the UK, there is criminal liability for defamation. It was in Latvia that such information was first published.
- I take your behavior as confirmation of the fact that it is already obvious to any sane person that you have colluded with the defendants (were bribed by them), which is a serious crime.
- I demand to explain by the end of the day on 1 December why you did not implement your numerous threats and do not take any measures at all to refute the information about the defendants’ bribery of you. I once again insist on my accusations and give you one last opportunity to present a reasonable alternative explanation for your extremely strange (for any layman) behavior (1) both in August 2021, when you aggressively were giving me extremely strange advice, (2) and now, when information about the bribery has become public, but you, despite all your previous threats, do not take any measures that you threatened if this information is distributed.
- Until a reasonable explanation appears, I consider the fact that the defendants have bribed you proved (if we talk about the civil law standard of proof, then there is not the slightest doubt about this). The details of how the conspiracy and receipt of the bribe took place can and should be established by the investigating authorities.
- This letter is open (public).
About Verlox International Limited
The company owned by Igor Sychev. He and Verlox International Limited are the claimants in the English court case CL-2016-000831.
Igor Sychev [email protected] +37128122381
Note: Our website takes no responsibility of this article, if you have any question please contact us.