Archive

Posts Tagged ‘terence tsang’

ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley suspended for TWO Years :UPDATE 2

January 16, 2012 6 comments

Andrew Crossley leaving the SDT Hearing

ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley has been suspended for Two years and  fined had costs awarded against him of over £70,000.

The lead ringmaster of a Copyright Trolls/Speculative Invoicing campaign he admitted to Six Charges levelled at him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. (Here is a Brief History of Speculative Invoicing)

Crossley ADMITTED the following charges: (1 ,2 ,3, 4, 5, and 6, no#7 was dropped)

1) Allowed his independence to be compromised

2) Acted contrary to the best interests of his clients

3) Acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or in the legal profession

4) Entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the Courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law

5) Acted where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted, in particular because there was a conflict with those of his clients

6) Used his position as a Solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit or for the benefit of his clients.

7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.

Crossley gave the  Court Testimonials, like Character references from people who knew him… these included

Andrew Hopper QC (And by Crossleys own admission, the man who wrote the SRA Rules)

Alistair Logan OBE – His ex partners father!

Raymond Murphy – senior solicitor at Merriman White (Himself subject of a SDT Tribunal)

Mark West – a barrister and recorder

Edward Parladorio – (Terence Tsangs new employer)

David Fisher – Birchwood – ( Part of the GCB  debacle)

Mark Beresford

Nicolas Underwood – “Ray Santilli – Orbital Media

Clive Windsor

Oh and Lee Bowden of Piri Ltd…

Also Crossley stated the he had been offered FIVE different positions recently but he could not take FOUR them as the firms could not get insurance, the other firm withdrew when the circumstances surrounding these issue were known.

One other snippet is that Crossley has NOT paid his £800 fine from the ICO. The Fine was £1000, but was reduced by 20% for a prompt payment, this it seems did not happen, and so he would still owe a £1000 (Maybe part of the bankruptcy)

This was Andrew Crossleys THIRD appearance before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, (First one here) (Second one here) one wonders what it would take to protect the public from a bag legal situation.  The Law Society put “Solicitors from Hell” website offline, saying they would deal with bad legal situations, I have to say personally, for the now nearly THREE years I and many others have been involved fighting this corner this punishment does NOT fit the bill…..

UPDATE 1: According to “The Lawyer” Crossley claimed that his internet service provider (ISP) had been negligent, adding that he intended to sue the provider when he had more money.  Good luck with that one!

UPDATE 2: Mike Wallace (Darker Enterprises) in writing at the hearing. “ACS Law has helped us significantly in the last few months, we have also seen a small increase in DVD sales. In looking through various internet forums, we’ve seen them having an effect on filesharers.”  Hmmmm, treated with contempt it deserves I think is the word here!

More updates as they appear.

See the Excellent TorrentFreak for more as well as the SLYCK FORUMS, my home from home! (Big thanks to Steve!)

Terence Tsang resurfaces with different name.

October 21, 2011 7 comments

"Terence Jintin" AKA "Terence Tsang"

Terence Tsang is working for PSB LAW.  The former Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW Paralegal, had gone off the radar as far as those interested and greatly affected by the dealings of Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW were concerned.

After a brief stint at Cramer Pelmont that ended at the same time as leaked emails from ACS:LAW showed that he had continued working for them whilst at Cramer Pelmont, he seemed to have dissapeared.

The fact he has been so hard to find is that Terence Tsang has stopped using his real name and has adopted the new name of Terence Jintin (This may actually be his middle name) What is of interest is that PBS LAW it would seem have gone to great pains to conceal his identity.

On their website the actual text describing their team members is HTML text, however on Tsangs it is an actual image.  This has the effect of being invisible to both Googles and other search engines “Search Robots”.  In addition to this, in the HTML of the page “About us” there is in the header a HTML intruction <meta name=”robots” content=”noindex,nofollow” /> this instruction will stop a search engine actually indexing that page and any links from it.  In effect this makes the page invisible to normal searches and would only be seen by someone who was on the actual PSB LAW website. there is NO link to Tsang/Jintins presence on this page.  All rather strange.

To be clear Google and other search engines will search and index the total PSB LAW website EXCEPT Tsangs own page.

One has to wonder WHY Tsang has changed his name.  If what he had done at Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW was so right and above board, then why try to hide? Of course the Courts have not found what Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW did was right, and neither has the Solicitors Regulation Authority that has sent both Davenports Brian Miller and Dave Gore and ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley to their Disciplinary Tribunal.

Many websites have speculated over the involvement of Terence Tsang in the “Speculative Invoicing” over the last few years.

There are many ways to hide online, doing what PSB LAW has attempted to do, may have worked, however the best way to remain anonymous online and protect your name and reputation seems to me to not upset people in the first place by exercising dubious legal methods.

The pain and anguish caused to those by what Terence Tsang was an integral part of is well documented.

Davenport Whinings: Dont appeal, just apologise

August 7, 2011 Leave a comment

As has been already reported this week, Davenport Lyons duo, Dave Gore and Brian Miller have been punished by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.  One would have thought that this would be an end to the saga, many thinking that they got off quite lightly with just a £20,000 fine and a suspension of a mere three Months.

 Not good enough for Davenport Lyons though, they plan to appeal…. After wreaking havoc for two years on the General public before introducing us to ACS:LAW and Andrew Crossley.  During their two year regime of Speculative Invoicing, they were featured on the BBC Watchdog Program incurred the wrath of Which Consumer Group and also Internet Forum Slyck and influential Blog TorrentFreak.

 Why did they garner such attention? Well apart from the accusations of Old Age Pensioners sharing games and others some quite vile Pornography films :2:, the people of Britain realised that this was NOT the “Piracy Crusade”, it was made out to be.

 The Solicitors Regulation Authority investigated, (some say to slowly), and they found there was a case to answer, the Davenport Duo were hauled before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in a hearing that lasted a whole week and were found guilty on SIX counts of violating the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

 They have issued a response to the sanctions levelled at the two Solicitors involved: 

 ‘We consider the decision of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal and sanctions imposed against David Gore and former partner, Brian Miller, are totally unjustified.

Well see how foolish the opening line is?  Unjustified? Davenport Lyons  are a Firm of Solicitors regulated by the Soliciors Regulation Authority(SRA), they were investigated by the SRA and found wanting, FULLY JUSTIFIED.

Davenport Lyons is a leading law firm with highly specialist intellectual property lawyers. We were instructed by the owners of intellectual property rights in music, film and games to help them curtail the significant losses they were suffering as a result of the unlawful file-sharing of their products.

As a “Leading law firm”, they should have known better.  Instructed by Owners of Intellectual property? Hmmm like maybe John Stagliano or maybe Digiprotect? .  Hmmm Confusing   I think as the SRA has stated,  ‘used their position as solicitors to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons, being recipients of letters of claim, either for their own or for the benefit of their clients’ speaks for itself.

The steps we took on behalf of our clients were for the protection of their legitimate legal rights. We consider that we acted in our clients’ best interests at all times.

Well Digiprotect was one of your clients, and here goes: DigiProtect is acting on behalf of one of the biggest adult studios in the United States, Evil Angel, run by American porn mogul John Stagliano. When contacted, Mister Stagliano appeared to be unaware of the £500 DigiProtect is demanding from alleged file-sharers to settle out of court.

 “It’s not my understanding that they ask for anything near that. I think the amount was $50 (£34) or €50 (£43),” he said. “I would be very surprised and I wouldn’t be happy because it would mean it was completely misrepresented to me.” 

Now what is Digiprotects Corporate Motto again…? Ahh yes “turn piracy into profit”

‘We wholeheartedly support David and Brian’s intention to appeal both the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s original decision and the resulting suspension and fine.’

I am sure you do, but as Michael Coyle of Lawdit said of you in the beginning…

 “The cynical lawyer in me would say this is a money-making exercise.  “If you send out 10,000 letters and ask for £500 each time, you only have to get half to pay up and you’ve made a significant amount of money. “Because it is porn, the person who’s being accused won’t want to go to court and is more likely to pay up to make the matter go away even if they are completely innocent.”

 And more interestingly this is what Judge Birss said of those who followed you in this “Speculative Invoicing” ACS:LAW

 “Whether it was intended to or not, I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in court,” said the Judge. “Why take cases to court and test the assertions when one can just write more letters and collect payments from a proportion of the recipients?”

Why don’t you just hold your hands up and say “We are sorry, we are sorry for the pain we have caused by our false accusations and the linking of innocent peoples name to such horrid vile pornography.”

I will leave the last word to Andrew Crossley the Solicitor who you (According to the SRA) helped to set up and carry on the “work” you started.

“Davenport Lyons were a little bit rubbish at doing this work” and adds “….to arrogant”

Davenport Lyons Two Suspended for “Intimidation” :UPDATE 1

August 2, 2011 4 comments

Dave Gore and Brian Miller have been suspended by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for sending intimidating letters of claim to members of the general public that they accused of filesharing. *

Although Gore and Miller accused the people they sent letters to , they never gave them a chance to prove their innocence in Court, they relied on people not responding to their letters to get dubious “Default payments”

They had both been found in violation of SIX rules of the Solicitors Regualtion Authority

The Suspension willl be for three months and they will be fined £20,000.

The SDT said:

Their judgment became distorted and they pursued the scheme regardless of the impact on the people receiving the letters and even of their own clients.

In addition to the £20,000 fine, Miller and Gore were ordered to pay interim costs to the SRA of £150,000.

The SDT went on to say:

“Some of those affected were vulnerable members of the public. There was significant distress. We are pleased that this matter has been brought to a conclusion and hope that it serves as a warning to others.

“Solicitors have a duty to act with integrity, independence and in the best interests of their clients. Solicitors who breach those duties can expect to face action by the SRA.”

The order has been suspended for 21 days to allow for appeals.

ACS:BORE opinion

Although this is a welcome development, it no way goes to be an adequate punishment for the pain caused.  £20,000 fine would be easily miniscule to the profit that was made from people scared of legal letters and paying up to make the situation “Go away”, Davenport like their successor ACS:LAW aimed the letter of claim at a cynical price of £500 – £750, the same cost to employ a lawer to fight the claim.

A Three month supension will allow them to be back in work for the New Year.

We look forward to seeing what the SDT does with the ACS:LAW/Andrew Crossley hearing later in the year, but after this rather dissapointing ruling we dont expect much.

*(For more on the background of Davenport Lyons “Letter of Claim” see the excellent Torrentfreak that broke the news way back in 2007)

**Davenport Lyons has issued a response to the SDT Findings.

 “We were instructed by the owners of intellectual property rights in music, film and games to help them curtail the significant losses they were suffering as a result of the unlawful file-sharing of their products. 

“The steps we took on behalf of our clients were for the protection of their legitimate legal rights. We consider that we acted in our clients’ best interests at all times.

“We wholeheartedly support David and Brian’s intention to appeal both the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s original decision and the resulting suspension and fine.”

Just a thought Davenport Lyons, when you are in a hole, STOP digging, you have been found guilty in the Court of Public Opinion a long time ago, and that could be easy to dismiss, however NOW you have been found guilty by you own regulatory body and their disciplinary body. 

Accept you have done wrong and APOLOGISE for the pain you have caused.

You are going down the same road as Andrew Crossley and ACS:LAW by denying that you have done anything wrong.  Last time we looked that path was not good…

ACS:LAW: The charge sheet from the SDT

July 13, 2011 6 comments

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has issued its “Charge Sheet” on ACS:LAW and it’s Supremo Andrew Crossley.

The hearing will take place on August 18th 2011  (The date of the hearing is yet to be set thanks to those eagle eyed readers who spotted the mistake.)

The allegations are or contain the following

1) Allowed his independence to be compromised

2) Acted contrary to the best interests of his clients

3) Acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or in the legal profession

4) Entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the Courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law

5) Acted where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted, in particular because there was a conflict with those of his clients

6) Used his position as a Solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit or for the benefit of his clients.

7) Acted without integrity in that he provided false information in statements made to the Court.

We at ACS:BORE are pleased with these charges and think they largely cover what we and many others have been saying for the last two years.  We look forward to seeing the hearing in practice and feel sure that these allegation whilst unproven at the moment, will be thoroughly pursued with the full weight of the law.

This is not the first time that Andrew Crossley has appeared, this will be his THIRD time.  One has to ask how many times can a Solicitor be pulled in before the Disciplinary Tribunal and be allowed to continue.  We look forward to August and hope it will be a FULL vindication for all those innocent people affected by the actions of ACS:LAW and their cohorts.

Many of those who engaged with ACS:LAW in bringing this misery to the general public will NOT be tried, but for those who follow this Blog, we at least know who they are.

Back in March 2010 I wrote an open letter to Mr Crossley after he accused me of posting messages attacking him, he is yet to respond.  

Thanks to Enigmax!

ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley Internet Villain of the YEAR 2011

July 7, 2011 3 comments

Andrew Crossley - ACS LAW

ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley scooped the ISPA award for Internet Villain after being beaten to LAST years by Peter Mandleson.  He was nominated this year for

“For demanding payments from members of the public on behalf of certain rights holders with poor evidence which brought the “legal profession into disrepute”, and for failing to secure the data of those accused”

Crossley will face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in August this year.  It follows a year of misery for Crossley who was declared Banrupt and fined £1000 by the ICO for the leaking of over 8000 Plusnet and SKY Internet subscribers details including their credit details and linking them to vile pornographic material. 

He has been laughed out of Court and roundly ridiculed Mps and the media alike.

More to follow

ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley declared BANKRUPT – Davenport Lyons SDT hearing – Update 1

June 8, 2011 3 comments

Andrew Crossley the Sole Trader of ACS:LAW has been declared bankrupt.  After a near two year campaign falsely accusing members of the general public and having been lambasted by the House of Lords, the Main Stream Media and the Courts, and after he as a last gasp to claw more money attempted to launch a satellite company GCB LTD, he has now faced his financial ruin…. Or has he?

Although he has been declared officially bankrupt it seems he has lost none of his trappings of status.  Of course as a bankrupt he can no longer practice as a Solicitor save with exception from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), that seems unlikely as he is also facing his THIRD appearance before the SRAs Disciplinary Tribunal

As can be seen from the official notice however,  the bankruptcy was petitioned for on the 22nd December 2010 by the HM Revenue & Customs.  The letter sent from ACS:LAW regarding the handover of cases to GCB LTD (Which turned out to be run by ACS:LAW Employees) was dated 13th December 2010, draw from the timing what you will….

As  write this I am awaiting the end of the Discliplinary Tribunal Hearing into Davenport  Lyons the forerunner of ACS:LAWs business model… I will update later

UPDATE 1: The rather excellent Dina Greek who attended the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) Hearing today has said that the SDT has upheld ALL allegations against the Davenport Two, Dave Gore and Brian Miller.  Their should be a write up in Computeractive Tomorrow.

The SRA had accused the two of “Knowingly targetted innocent web users without evidence” It remains to be seen however why the SRA took so long to take action against ACS:LAW who they knew were running an identical operation.

But for many of us, we have finally seen some sort of Justice done.

Davenport Lyons and ACS:LAW together at last (almost) at the Disciplinary Tribunal

June 4, 2011 3 comments

In a strange quirk of irony, the two biggest exponents of the “Speculative Invoicing” litigation, were in the same building, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Davenport Lyons were their in the middle of their SEVEN days of hearings, and ACS:LAWs Andrew Crossley was there for a “Directions hearing”

It transpires that Andrew Crossley had requested a number of big asks of the Tribunal.  A post from Will Gilmour who spent the day there states

It transpires that the application for directions was actually brought by him (rather than the SRA – the porsecution). He had a number of requests which he wanted the court to order. They were:
  1. He wanted SRA to fund his costs (as he’s lacking finance and was afraid he’d suffer an ‘inequality of arms’ against the SRA’s budget for his prosecution apparently set at £85k)
  2. He wanted to exclude all expert evidence, again on the grounds of expense
  3. He wanted an order to prevent the SRA making any further requests for disclosure of documents from him
  4. He wanted copies of all of the files concerned with the current Davenport Lyons (Gore / Miller) tribunal and…
  5. …a delay on proceedings on his case at least until the DL tribunal is concluded.

Wills post continues

As to the outcomes of Crossley’s five applications for directions: every single one was refused. No SRA funding, no exclusion of expert testimony, the SRA are free to request disclosure of further documents from him, he can’t have the Gore/Miller documents and there can be no unwarranted delay just because the Gore/Miller case is ongoing.

I would urge all my readers to go and view his EXCELLENT post on this whole subject.  It covers concerns over the “Expert” Testimony of the defence and prosecution teams and casts a dim view over the ability of the SDT to actually regulate Solicitors.  I am sure those of you who read the post will be quite astonished at the naivity of these people.

Will Gilmours Twitter feed is @will_gilmour go join his feed, I am sure he will be there again Monday!

Fobbed off by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – Incompetence abounds

May 29, 2011 4 comments

I sent the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) an email regarding their investigation into the ACS:LAW Data Leak.

The email contained a few simple questions.

1: Why is ACS:LAW/Andrew Crossley  still registered at 20 Hanover Sq London as a Data Controller.

2: Do you think it is appropriate to offer Mr Crossley a 20% for early payment of his fine?

3: Do you think that Mr Crossley may have been in a better position to pay his fine had the ICO not taken so long to conclude it’s investigation?

The reply I got from the ICO after 14 days was this.

 

An obvious template response, I even got the ICO’s ACS:LAW FACT SHEET. And (wait for it) How to get compensation from ACS:LAW!!! (See Below)

Well of course my thinking was that if the ICO thought that it was only worth under 20p for everyone who has had their details leaked then imagine the Compo I would get from ACS:LAW I mean I might even get a penny a WHOLE Penny.  Wow well it truly has got me thinking until of course I realised that even the cheapest postal stamp (36p) would be many times my compensation, and incidentally more than the ICO fined ACS:LAW per individual. 

There has been talk by Christopher Graham the head of the ICO that he would have liked to have fined ACS:LAW £200,000 but of course that was proven to be merely a dose of hot air. (See question 2)

Mr Graham in fact has been in the news a few times since regarding other “Data protection issues” and again appears to be a mighty knight roaring about the rights and wrongs of the issue and how people should protect data, but he wields a foam sword.1 2

Maybe it is not his fault, maybe the ICO is handcuffed by legislation as Mr Graham seems to believe.  One thing is sure, I and many others have been through too much disruption in our lives to leave this alone now, we have invested the most precious of commodities know to humans, that of TIME, we did not ask Mr Crossley and his ACS:LAW “clown asses” to invade our lives with their preposterous allegations. 

A investigation into ACS:LAW by PCPRO this week was revealing and showed how Andrew Crossley had shown the ICO to be mugs.  An ICO spokesperson had told ZDNET “The £1,000 reflects his financial condition. He did drive a Bentley at one point, but he doesn’t now.” Well guess what PCPRO saw when they turned up at Crossley house? The Bentley still on his drive.

We are now over two years into this now and those accused by Davenport Lyons into their third year.  This whole situation has been a travesty of Justice, where the bad guys have been allowed to accuse thousands, leak their details and remain in a good position when they should be skulking back to the rock they crawled from.

There is still light though, on Tuesday this week (31st May) Dave Gore and Brian Miller the two Solicitors accused by the Solicitors Regulation Authority(SRA) will stand before their Disciplinary board (SDT) to answer for their actions in pursuing people they KNEW to be innocent.  Andrew Crossleys date is also coming soon.  There is real hope that partial justice may be done to these people.

It remains to be seen wether the SRA will act in a proper way and not in the way that the ICO has acted like a “Toothless  Tiger”

 

“Millionaire” Andrew Crossley escapes ICO fine as he is “Poor” UPDATE 3

May 10, 2011 5 comments

When the ACS:LAW scandal broke, the lives of thousands of people were turned upside down, up until that point people had been upset with letters threatening to take them to court for fictitious file sharing,

But September last year things turned even more bizarre as ACS:LAW released an archive of their emails online.  This date breach exposed up to 10,000 peoples names addresses and credit card details alongside their names being linked with vile pornographic material.

On the 28th September the ICOs head Christopher Graham was salivating over the issue saying

I can’t put ACS: Law out of business, but a company that is hit by a fine of up to half a million pounds suffers real reputation damage.”

Indeed the ICO had been given powers to fine companies £500,000, they messed up with the BT data breach because they said that It was an individual at fault and NOT BT, Hmmmmm. Things did not bode well for the ACS:LAW investigation.

The ICO decided the case against ACS:LAW stating:

“The security measures ACS Law had in place were barely fit for purpose in a person’s home environment, let alone a business handling such sensitive details.”

Wow powerful stuff right?

The ICO went on 

“As Mr Crossley was a sole trader it falls on the individual to pay the fine. Were it not for the fact that ACS Law has ceased trading so that Mr Crossley now has limited means, a monetary penalty of £200,000 would have been imposed, given the severity of the breach. Penalties are a tool for achieving compliance with the law and, as set out in our criteria, we take people’s circumstances and their ability to pay into account.”

SAY WHAT????

“Were it not for the fact that ACS Law has ceased trading so that Mr Crossley now has limited means, a monetary penalty of £200,000 would have been imposed”

Hmmm so Crossley gets to CLOSE his company the very action which brought derision from Judge Birss along with many man people who had been affected by his nasty letters, and he gets off with a grand to pay becuase of this deception?

The ICO goes on to say:

The ICO’s investigation found serious flaws in ACS Law’s IT security system. Mr Crossley did not seek professional advice when setting up and  developing the IT system which did not include basic elements such as a firewall and access control. In addition ACS Law’s web-hosting package was only intended for domestic use. Mr Crossley had received no assurances from the web-host that information would be kept secure.

While the firm should have been aware of their obligations under the Data Protection Act, they continued to act negligently and failed to ensure that appropriate technical and organisational measures were in place to keep personal information secure.

This is worse than outrageous, as ACS:LAW actually used the fact that people had not secured their home systems and used the fact against them.  They did not care if an elderly person had not secured their router or modem or their computer, it was the persons fault and they were held to account for being negligent by ACS:LAW.

Andrew Crossley must be laughing at this and the rest of us now.  A measly £1000 penalty for a man who bragged of making over £1,500,000 in a year, and who lavished expensive cars on himself and his girlfriend, this is a joke.  A man who lives in a 7 bedroom house worth nearly a million pound yet he pleads poverty? The ICO has let us all down. They are unfit for purpose.

Indeed £1000 is less than the price of just two of his letters that he sent out to the general public.

The interview with Christopher Graham can be seen here, please don’t hold a hot drink whilst watching the sheer disconnect between the interview and the reality might just choke you.

http://youtu.be/B7JdiS0Gw0Y

An excellent post on this subject can be found here

UPDATE: To add insult to injury it is revealed that IF Andrew Crossley pay his “Penalty” by June 6th 2011, he will receive an “Early pay Bonus” of 20% meaning he will only have to pay £800.

UPDATE 2 :See below for the ICO Ruling

UPDATE 3: For those of you who wish to comlain about this ruling

To Complain to the ICO themselves: http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/satisfied_with_our_service/complaints_and_compliments.aspx

To write to your MP: http://www.writetothem.com/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 294 other followers