Rate this post


 

 The investdrinks post cited by ‘Jack Williams’ 

as getting defamatory to his mysterious client

Beginning on 30th Might 2016 and ending the exact same day I had an unproductive correspondence with Jack Williams, who described himself as ‘legal adviser’.

The initial message from Jack Williams, legal adviser: 

‘Dear Admin/Editor,

This is to bring your sort interest towards a pretty severe matter. A defamatory content 

My
client has been unnecessarily dragged into it just due to its name and
fame. The look of such sort of content material on the web is defaming my
client on common basis personally as effectively as professionally. And, as
per the law my client has total appropriate to get it erased permanently
from your internet site and google search outcome as effectively. 

Therefore, its a request to get it erased/delete/take down asap

Defamatory hyperlink have to have to be deleted are: 

Your fast action and response will be extremely appreciated.

Thank you

Jack Williams

legal adviser’

Williams never ever revealed who he was ‘representing’ nor what was deemed defamatory in my post of 26th February 2010. He wanted to know the supply of the facts that Boington &amp Fredericks had been closed in the public interest and that each Grant and Achom had spent time in prison for an EU fraud. When Williams deemed that Firms Residence and London’s Southwark Crown Court as sources did not satisfy him, I decided that Williams was an online troll and that it would be foolish to invest any longer time on him.  

Williams sent two additional messages, which I ignored:  

Final messages from Jack Williams – 15th and 16th June 2016:

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:04 PM, jack williams &[email protected]&gt wrote:

‘As
I stated in my earlier e-mail once more I reinstate that my client had no
relation with this challenge specially the way it has been written in your
post and therefore I asked you about the supply you have made use of in this create
up so that I can also see its details. But you did not offer me the exact same.

Yes,
the information in investdrinks post are in the public domain and therefore its
a severe matter for my client. I assume you are unable to offer me
sufficient details/proofs/supply behind this post and therefore I think that the
matter must be taken to court. You will be notified about this case’s
hearing.

Thanks’

‘Hello Jim

Hope
you are carrying out superior as per our  last conversation against weblog post
devoid of reference hyperlink or devoid of proof we have file legal cyber
bulling case against your and for legal notice we have to have your postal
address so please share your total address so that i can share legal
notice with your quickly.

Regards’

 It appears clear that the aim of Williams or whoever developed his persona wanted information about the history of Frederick (Freddy) Achom and/or Boington Anthony Grant removed from the net. 

It is doable that this try to have my February 26th 2010 post removed as component of a much more extensive work to cleanse the net of Achom and Grant’s history. Was ‘Jack Williams’ linked in some way to this story of fake DMCA notices?
https://webactivism.com/apw-asset-management-investigation-for-fraud-impersonation-and-perjury-fake-dmca-12185604/

Just a coincidence that Frederick Achom was facing an look at Southwark Crown Court in late July 2016 for breaching his director disqualification by operating now bust APW Asset Management Ltd? 

Frederick Achom was offered a six month suspended jail sentence and ordered to spend almost £1 million inside 3 months for his admitted breach of his disqualification. If Achom fails to spend the fine he faces up to 5 years in jail. Facts right here and right here.