|
Dear Sir I am confused. Are you intending to sue me seven thousand and seventy one years in advance? After all, you have quoted the Defamation Act 9092 in your correspondence. Sadly, I fear I may be dead by then. You never know though, some people say Jesus came back to life 4000 odd years ago so that pedophile Catholic priests could be forgiven for their sins, so why can’t a victim like me kick again for 7071 years so you can sue too? Even at the age of 7152 I intend to defend any action that your client may wish to bring, because he is full of shit and you are a lawyer who specializes in defending blue magic merchants and lifelong cheats like Nigel McGrath, and latterly makes a living by throwing up craven defences for wife beaters like Matthew Anderson, and drug cheats from Woodend Beach. I would not piss on you or your clients if you were on fire, and I certainly won’t be making any apology to any dog who gives up their mates like your client did. In summary, naff off. But before you do, let me just say that I have no clue what you are on about anyway, because you have failed to particularize these spurious claims of so-called defamation and malicious falsehood that you have made against me, for reasons unknown. Why don’t you go and spend a few minutes reading the Defamation Act 1992 so that you understand the law before you start throwing it in scrambled egg form at people who do. It might save your client a whole lot of time and money, if of course he has any of the latter with which to pay your fees. Nice to hear from you. See you in court. Archibald J. Butterfly, sportsman and author PS – I think you might have a jurisdictional problem too. Dow Jones v Joe Gutnick might help you there. It might not either. Remember that time I kicked your arse in an employment law case about 15 years ago when I was working for the PSA? I’ve improved since then. Have you? |
|
Response to the Woodend Beach Liars, Lags and Drug Cheats Lawyer
