IKN

More matter with less art

Regarding the matter of Serafino Iacono (we think) versus IKN (we think)

We think it’s time that readers of these pages are let in on a few of the legal beagle dealings that have been happening here and abouts recently.
Back in August your humble scribe received messages from lawyers representing Serafino Iacono, head honcho of Pacific Rubiales (PRE.to) and Gran Colombia Gold (GCM.to) amongst other entities. It seems that Señor Iacono took exception to some of the things written about him in this blog and threatened legal action. Of course, your humble scribe took exception to his and his lawyers exception (following so far?) and…amazingly enough…didn’t back down at the first sight of legal bullying, upon which lawyers representing Señor Iacono asked whether your author would accept service of papers via e-mail. In another amazing turn of events, your author decided that making a lawyer’s working life easy, particularly one planning to litigate your humble scribe’s hairy ass, wasn’t going to happen therefore his specific request was refused. In other words, if Serafino’s happy gang wanted to serve me they could do it in the the correct and proper manner.
Nothing was heard from them after that and of course your author thought that it was just another empty legal threat (we get more than one round here, surprise surprise) until this very morning, when all of a sudden an e-mail appeared in your humble scribe’s inbox from the secretary of Peter Jacobsen, who happens to be the lawyer representing Serafino Iacono. As your humble scribe immediately recognized the name of the sender and also noted (thanks to the marvels of Google’s GMail) that there was an attachment with said secretary’s mail, the decision was pretty simple….We ain’t opening that one! Instead, your author decided to circumvent the secretary involved and sent the following mail to Peter Jacobsen, the lawyer who back in August represented Serafino Iacono. Here’s what your author’s mail to Mr Jacobsen’s mailbox (not his secretary’s, mind you) said:
I note in my inbox today a mail with an attachment from your secretary, Susan Gonsalves. As I’m feeling a tad suspicious today and think that you might be trying to serve me with a legally unenforceable document (recall that i specifically stated that you could not serve any document to me via mail), I’m going to make 100% sure that your pathetic and  backhanded attempt at legal bullyboy tactics (unless I’m totally mistaken of course) is totally laughed out of court and will leave Ms Gonsalves’ mail unopened.

Once again, and as clearly indicated in our last mail exchange, if you have papers to serve you are cordially invited to serve them in the time-honoured fashion, i.e. face to face and in the flesh.

You have a nice day now, y’hear?

Surprisingly, it seems that your humble scribe’s suspicions were well-founded, as it didn’t take long until this reply, directly from Mr Jacobsen and his mail address, appeared:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email. Please provide your address so that we can serve you with the Statement of Claim and the Notice of Motion both of which are contained in the attachment to the email you refer to in your email of today ( November 23, 2011).

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely,

Peter Jacobsen

To which your author quickly replied:
Oh Peter, I can’t possibly believe that I’ve pissed you off as much as this! I apologize for ruining your week.
In other words,your humble scribe was glad that Mr Jacobsen realized (as if he’d be so dumb) that his move to try and serve papers of some sort or other (I still haven’t read them, by the way) were in vain and he’d have to do things right. But Mr Jacobsen still tried another sneaky trick (he’s a lawyer, we forgive him these things, it’s part of the DNA) when he decided that he didn’t want to reply directly to that last mail, which was slightly naughty of him. Instead, a little while later he sent a mail, totally separate from the previous string, entitled “Gran Colombia”. You humble scribe preferred not to open that one as well (as those nice people at Google mail will surely testify if the occasion arises) and instead replied via the previous mail’s string in the following manner:
Hi Peter,

You should have replied to this string, as I’m on the learning curve nowadays and understand how you as…OOPS…people.. work. I did not open your unsolicited mail dated 23rd November 4:15 EST. Feel free to reply to this mail, but this office is not going to open any reply to it or, in fact, anything from you or your office ever again. That, sir, is for the record.

Once again (and for the final time, as i think three’s a charm), you are cordially invited to serve me with whatever dickwad asshole fuckbastard cuntfaced paper you prefer in the time-honoured and legally required manner. Until then, go fuck yourself, dickweed.

Yours, transparently,

O

PS: you have that good weekend, yeah?

And I apologize to anyone with a sensitivity to written cuss words, but there’s a time and place for everything. Since then we’ve heard nothing else from the lawyers representing Serafino Iacono, but if we do you can rest assured that we’ll keep readers informed. Please be having a nice day, yes?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Hello, you are not in a chatroom, you are in my living room. Opposing views and criticisms welcome, insults or urinating on furniture unwelcome. Please refrain from swearing if possible, it is not needed.