|
An open letter to Coyle White Devine.
Dear Mr Peter Coyle, Mr David Sheahan and Mr Stephen Taylor,
You have stated that the first and second versions of this website (the blue section) were, and still are, highly defamatory of CWD and especially of Mr Coyle. This is despite the fact that you are unable to point to any fact on my website that is untrue.
Not only did you threaten me with legal proceedings if I dared publish this website but you then threatened my webhost with similar proceedings if they did not remove my site from their servers.
When your initial threats were ignored, you then followed up by stating that the 'requisite court papers were being drafted'.
When those further threats (yawn) were ignored, you then stated that counsel was 'currently drafting Particulars of Claim
which would be issued in the High Court in London'.
Sadly, many months have now passed and I haven't even received a pre-action letter let alone the High Court Claim you stated was already being drafted. As you can see, not only is my website still online but I am now updating it with facts relating to your letter to Bluehost.
Despite your many threats of legal action, I would like, once again, to give you the opportunity to respond to the facts I have published about CWD on this website. As I have stated on numerous previous occasions I do not wish to publish anything that is defamatory.
My offer for Mr Coyle to participate in a lie detector test still stands and I am still prepared to publish a letter from your clients stating that they ignored (or did not bother to seek) Mr Coyle's and/or Ms Sian Nath's advice when they made their false allegations of harassment to the police against me.
Alternatively, and in order to avoid the extremely high costs associated with High Court procedures, we could employ the services of an impartial reputable lawyer (I'm sure there's one out there somewhere) to examine your claims that my website is defamatory. If that lawyer agrees with you then I would remove my website immediately, publish an apology and pay that lawyer 's fees. If that lawyer agrees with me then my website would stay online and you would pay that lawyer's fees. Obviously, details of any finding in my favour would also be published on my website. Whilst reserving my rights, if you accept this offer I would not even seek an apology from CWD for the defamatory statements made in Mr Sheahan's letter.
Of course, if you prefer not to respond you could always just issue the High Court claim and we could let the court decide on the validity of your claim...assuming that counsel has actually managed to finish it yet. Alternatively, you could do exactly what you have done on several other occasions when you have threatened legal action that has no chance of succeeding....absolutely nothing.
In the absence of your acceptance of one (or more) of the proposals listed above, I shall begin contacting local and national law firms until I find one that is willing to represent me in a claim for defamation against CWD on a no win no fee basis.
I look forward to hearing from you.
|
|
|
