Gmail only allows one to have 10 emails on a list and to which updates of the blog are sent directly. Today I had to removed the email address of CIPRO/DTI from the blog's list as I am now convinced they no longer exist. I have tried to phone them, write to them and send telepathic messages to them - nothing; everything disappears into the ether - they are now part of a totally different reality.
Instead I added a new address to the list: that of Geyser, Du Toit, Louw & Kitching Inc. I sense that there is an event in the making here. Let me thank all those who responded to my request by sending me a copy of the letter dispatched by the above mentioned attorneys.
Let us start at the beginning.
This blog has mentioned, with some disgust, the disdainful manner in which Patrick Stapleton reacted towards Griffen's lawsuite against Edwafin. Keep in mind that the contemptious attitude he displays against her, he shows to us all. Some of us have personal experience of this.
Nevertheless, we were all waiting with abated breath for 17 April, when the matter would be before court again. Then around the beginning of April a letter from Edwafin containing the minutes of a public meeting stated, Don (in an arrogant tone of voice) pooh-poohed the legal action taken by a certain Mrs:
Hang on one minute, though! Now we have a letter circulating from a company called GDLK Attorneys, (dated 3/4/2009) and they are asking people to nominate them to take care of the liquidation of Edwafin. I never received the letter personally (secretly I feel affronted), but various readers forwarded me a copy last week. The letter basically sets out what we know already, and thought was no longer going to happen: Mrs Griffen's court case, and then states as point 4:
So, on Thursday I phoned GDLK Attorneys to try and find out what was happening, but the writer, of the letter AJL Geyser was away for the weekend already. Instead I spoke to a lady, who's name I can't remember and who was as eager to speak to me as a melted, hot, chocolate Easter egg. I naively informed her who I was, and that I might also be interested in any action they were going to undertake against Edwafin. I also informed her that I had learnt of various travel plans, and I'm afraid that that killed the last little flame of affection between me and the nice lady. Nevertheless, I kept my friendly disposition, and asked her to clarify how it was possible for them to offer the liquidation of a company, when Mrs Griffen had been convinced to withdraw her case.
(Now, readers will know that I am already easily baffled by the mysteries that life presents while we silently orbit our sun, which in turn orbits the Milkyway of our galaxy.) And here, this sweet little lady complicates it all by telling me that the two have nothing to do with each other - point No 1, 2 and 3 on the letter from GDLK attorneys, dated 3/4/2009, have nothing to do with point No 4. Obviously, it makes sense in a way. There are probably other Mrs Griffins (me included) who would pursue a legal case against Edwafin, and when it comes to selecting liquidators, we have already been nominated. Neat!
Oops, that rat I though I noticed, was an Easter bunny, after all.
Instead I added a new address to the list: that of Geyser, Du Toit, Louw & Kitching Inc. I sense that there is an event in the making here. Let me thank all those who responded to my request by sending me a copy of the letter dispatched by the above mentioned attorneys.
Let us start at the beginning.
This blog has mentioned, with some disgust, the disdainful manner in which Patrick Stapleton reacted towards Griffen's lawsuite against Edwafin. Keep in mind that the contemptious attitude he displays against her, he shows to us all. Some of us have personal experience of this.
Nevertheless, we were all waiting with abated breath for 17 April, when the matter would be before court again. Then around the beginning of April a letter from Edwafin containing the minutes of a public meeting stated, Don (in an arrogant tone of voice) pooh-poohed the legal action taken by a certain Mrs:
"... He confirmed that this action is being successfully defended and already put to bed."The lawyer who asked the originally asked the question was not satisfied and contradicted Don's arrogant, presumptuousness with:
"...An application has been made for provisional liquidation and has been set down for arguments on April 17th. It does not mean that it has been successfully defended."Realizing that Don's magic was shortcoming, Patrick, with his own brand of flashiness, intervened:
"Patrick clarified that the previous evening the company's attorney had met with the creditor in order to negotiate a withdrawal of the application and the attorney is amenable to us doing it."Don, Don, Don, - how embarrassing! You have still so much to learn from the master!
"Don apologized for using the wrong legal terminology."
Hang on one minute, though! Now we have a letter circulating from a company called GDLK Attorneys, (dated 3/4/2009) and they are asking people to nominate them to take care of the liquidation of Edwafin. I never received the letter personally (secretly I feel affronted), but various readers forwarded me a copy last week. The letter basically sets out what we know already, and thought was no longer going to happen: Mrs Griffen's court case, and then states as point 4:
"The purpose of this letter is, in the first instance, to inform you that the writer will be prepared to accept an appointment [as one of the liquidators]. Further, that if the order is granted, the writer will be prepared to undertake an enquiry into the reasons for the company's demise and in particular to determine whether any person is responsible to compensate the company for any potential losses which either it or its creditors mey have suffered."Confused? Yes, me too. Don and Patrick are convinced that Mrs Griffen has been won over, yet here we have an attorney who wants to do the liquidation, and if you want them to do it, you may respond kindly in a variety of ways.
So, on Thursday I phoned GDLK Attorneys to try and find out what was happening, but the writer, of the letter AJL Geyser was away for the weekend already. Instead I spoke to a lady, who's name I can't remember and who was as eager to speak to me as a melted, hot, chocolate Easter egg. I naively informed her who I was, and that I might also be interested in any action they were going to undertake against Edwafin. I also informed her that I had learnt of various travel plans, and I'm afraid that that killed the last little flame of affection between me and the nice lady. Nevertheless, I kept my friendly disposition, and asked her to clarify how it was possible for them to offer the liquidation of a company, when Mrs Griffen had been convinced to withdraw her case.
(Now, readers will know that I am already easily baffled by the mysteries that life presents while we silently orbit our sun, which in turn orbits the Milkyway of our galaxy.) And here, this sweet little lady complicates it all by telling me that the two have nothing to do with each other - point No 1, 2 and 3 on the letter from GDLK attorneys, dated 3/4/2009, have nothing to do with point No 4. Obviously, it makes sense in a way. There are probably other Mrs Griffins (me included) who would pursue a legal case against Edwafin, and when it comes to selecting liquidators, we have already been nominated. Neat!
Oops, that rat I though I noticed, was an Easter bunny, after all.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment