First Stop Lawyer Protection Firm
25 January 2006
Dear Ms Crawley
Re; Richard Hegarty & Co.
You say "So far as the complaint of intimidation is concerned, we understood your complaint to be that this lay in the fact of a telephone call after office hours, as opposed to the content of the call itself", you "understood" wrong. On the "content of the call itself" let me quote what the Ombudsman said "you stated your belief that the purpose of the telephone call was to intimidate you" and " instead of addressing your specific complaint of intimidation as a result of his telephone call on 6 November". It has been stated by Aman Virk, Manager, Quality & Service Standards, yourself and repeated by the Ombudsman that Richard Hegarty was carrying out Law Society business when he telephoned me and he wished to "discuss" with me an "issue" which I had "raised". The Ombudsman states "Mr Hegarty needs to be asked why he telephoned you and should then be requested to provide a recollection of what was said" she also states "I was disappointed to note that the Law Society provided no evidence to indicate any direct contact with Mr Hegarty". You state "Mr Hegarty was acting on Law Society business, we contacted him about the matter", you then say "He indicated , why he contacted you and what the nature of the contact had been", just how did he 'indicate', was it over the telephone or in correspondence and what was his "recollection of what was said" concerning the 'issue' which I 'raised' and where is the 'evidence'? You continued by saying "this information did not raise any issues for us to be concerned with", "us" might not be "concerned" but I am very concerned.
Further to the " content of the call itself" if you access a web page which I wrote at the time of the 'phone call (6 Nov '03): - "solicitorsfromhell.com/news.htm#56" you will see Richard Hegarty rang me in connection with my website which you and Aman Virk have stated he was acting on Law Society business, of course (the paragraph above) the Ombudsman expects you to provide evidence as to what Richard Hegarty's version (over two years later) of what the content of that conversation was. Further proof of my version of the content of that conversation is if you now look at the enclosures you will see Richard Hegarty went on to get my website closed down which means the Law Society are guilty of stopping 'Freedom of Speech'. You will recall Ken Livingstone, Lord Mayor of London, invited a foreign national over to this country to preach his radical beliefs but in my case whose roots are English based I have got the Law Society trying to put a gag on me. Maybe you would like to explain the Law Society's actions and reasons for stopping me from telling the world the truth of how the British Law Society are operating their complaint procedures. If you read the third document which is an e-mail from Google you will see the Law Society have been trying every way they can to 'gag' me by having Google remove me from their search engines.
Regarding the timing of the 'phone call you state "it seems to be what was invited" I find that offensive, I have not at anytime submitted my telephone number to Richard Hegarty or the Law Society in correspondence or by any other fashion, so please tell me just where do you get the impression I "invited" Richard Hegarty, acting on behalf of the Law Society, to telephone me during the evening or in fact at any other time?? Furthermore the Ombudsman goes on to say, concerning my business name and 'phone number, " , they should then turn their attention to the issue of whether or not he had a legitimate reason to possess it" which you have not done.
Concerning how Richard Hegarty got my details you state " Mr Hegarty was acting on Law Society business He indicated how he had obtained your details". Aman Virk, Manager, Quality & Service Standards, stated and was repeated by the Ombudsman that my personal details were collected from the internet by the Law Society (Richard Hegarty) which included details of my website to be used for personal reasons of the Law Society (to get me shut down) and you say "this information did not raise any issues for us to be concerned with". Where else in the future will the Law Society gain personal details, Private Investigators, Police Records, Income Tax Records, Bank Accounts, Doctors and hospital records there does not appear to be any limit to how the Law Society solicits information to use against any complainant who dares to complain about the way the CCS has treated them.
Concerning 'Data Protection' within the Law Society the Ombudsman said " it was a matter which properly fell within their remit to investigate in view of Mr Hegarty's position as a member of the Law Society, it should have been investigated". You say the "the Ombudsman's report misconstrues where responsibility for Data Protection Act issues lie". Firstly it appears you are saying the Law Society have no 'duty of care' for data in their possession. Let me quote the 'Set of Enforceable Rules' known as the 'eight principles': -
you are saying the Ombudsman is giving wrong and misleading information.
If you read the guidelines on 'maladministration' you are probably saying
the Ombudsman is guilty of maladministration. Could you tell me what
'Regulation Compliance' means in your job title?
Further to Richard Hegarty being a member of the Law Society Board there are 'special' conditions and an independent solicitor would/should be instructed to carry out the investigation into my complaint but for some reason, after I had been told this, it was changed.
Finally under the Freedom of Information Acts I would like copies of all correspondence from and to Richard Hegarty that concerns me, if any exists, which I believe should have been sent to me in the course of the investigation.
CCS's response to my above letter
today I received a letter from the CCS refusing
to give me any information concerning what Dickie
the Chair gave to the CCS in relation to my complaint. It
appears the Law Society are exempt from the 'Freedom
of Information Act' and don't have to tell a complainant