Thank you for your email, it is though disappointing that you have not explained your previous doggedness regarding communicating with me via telephone, as I clearly requested of you.
I am in full agreement and it is only logical that Ms Free be given an opportunity to provide an explanation, as anyone would. Thank you for providing me with Ms Frees’ explanation.
Thank you also for providing the Standards Committee ‘view’ regarding Ms Frees’ doctored or fraudulent unsigned version of the letter, upon their ‘review’.
You should though be more than aware that the version which I received from the NZLS, and presumably the version the NZLS received from Ms Free is actually the ‘doctored’ or ‘fraudulent’ unsigned version of the letter, and not the other way round.
As such, I certainly am not and never have been in possession of any private communication between Ms Free and her client, unless you consider that it was provided to me later by the NZLS itself, as above.
This is how and only how, that version of the letter came to be in my possession, and obviously hence, it prompted this complaint against Ms Free to the NZLS.
As it is not clear, please explain from where does the NZLS ‘believe’ the doctored, fraudulent unsigned version came? As above, you certainly did not get it from me.
I have long been in possession of the original ‘signed’ version of the letter sent to me from Ms Free. It is clearly signed by Ms Free in blue pen ink and I ‘again’ attach a copy for your convenience. This is the ‘only’ version of the letter I have ever sent to the NZLS.
Obviously, I also now possess the doctored or fraudulent unsigned ‘version’ of that letter, later provided to me by the NZLS itself. Thank you.
It seems quite peculiar; as it would appear that the NZLS is at least unaware of which version of the letter it received from whom. If it is indeed the case, one would I believe, reasonably expect that the NZLS should be far more proficient, professional and fully aware of every matter in which it is involved. Thank you.
As of all the above, Ms Frees’ brief explanation below has no merit at all, and your “hope” that I am satisfied with it is misplaced.
As I am, the NZLS ‘should’ be more than dissatisfied with the nonsensical and illogical explanation given to it by Ms Free.
I put it to you that by doctoring the original letter sent to me, and then by supplying that doctored or fraudulent version to the NZLS as part of her evidence against me and my original complaint against her to the NZLS, Ms Free has falsely implied that her doctored or fraudulent unsigned version was relevant to my original complaint against her and that I had earlier received that same letter, when I had not. As such, I believe that she has behaved dishonestly and that she has committed a blatant ‘Fraud’ against me. I also find it preposterous that Ms Free continues to behave appallingly now by claiming to not know how her doctored and fraudulent unsigned version of the letter (apparently a private communication between her and her client) came to be in my possession, when clearly it was later provided to me by the NZLS itself, and hence this new complaint. Also as such, I am respectfully requesting a full review of the original NZLS decision and my original complaint against Ms Free. I am sadly, very aware of much more of Ms Freez dishonest behaviour.