Christopher James Parslew
Complaint
R Perrin
Country: United Kingdom
Please anyone contacted by Christopher James Parslew beware. He has been involved with a number of fraudulent companies including Trebuchet Foods, as detailed on this site. He also provided a letter absolving a convicted felon, which enabled that felon to obtain a multi-million government-backed loan. He has absolutely no scruples, and has been fired from a number of law firms. He no doubt ensures he acts (just) within the law, but he is clearly not a person with honest intent. Beware, avoid.
Comments
*****************************************************************************************************************
Christopher Parslew – Solicitor
Practising Certificate No. 164781
The Old Vicarage,
Lynn Road, St.Germans,
King’s Lynn, Norfolk PE34 3EY.
Tel.: 01553 - 617089 Mobile: 07977 008990
Dated 21st June 2013 My ref: CJP/affinity Your ref: CHM/DD affinity_due_diligence
Dear Jeffrey & Mukund,
You instructed me to perform some degree of due diligence upon Mr Charles Henry Mogford who you are contemplating performing works for, which will involve considerable time, effort and potentially large amounts of costs. I have performed research upon Mr Mogford via public sources on the internet and spoken to him briefly.
It would appear that Mr Mogford encountered problems in the USA during the 90’s which involved him serving a number of years in Florida but as part of a 30 year sentence. Mr Mogford told me quite freely about this as he feels a great sense of injustice at the rather unusual circumstances. Matters are complicated by the fact that the law firm which latterly represented Mr Mogford, Sale & Kuehner of Miami (and therefore took over his entire file), split up some years ago, so the simple method of consulting their records is not an option – in any event the statutory period for keeping records has well and truly expired.
Mr Mogford became involved in a boat sale business partnership with an Italian American individual named De Vito who in 1993 had purchased 50% of Mr Mogford's business. It was a tempestuous relationship which resulted in Mr Mogford leaving the business after several years. Regrettably, matters were not formally terminated and rather just tailed off with Mr Mogford commencing in business elsewhere in the Miami area.
After a number of years of carrying on business as usual, Mr Mogford was unexpectedly arrested and charged with a fraud involving the sum of $153,000 in connection with the original business. Mr Mogford did not initially take these proceedings very seriously as it became evident that the Police were expecting his cooperation in convicting the remaining business partner - who appeared to be guilty of both taking deposits fraudulently and the fraudulent sales of part exchanged vessels. The proceedings continued for some years, with Mr Mogford being offered various possible plea bargains by the Florida District Attorney which did not involve imprisonment but did involve giving evidence against the former business partner, an aspect to which Mr Mogford did not object, as he played no part in any criminal offence. At the eventual trial, the presiding Judge was Judge Ana Gardiner, who subsequently was suspended for misconduct arising from a capital murder case where the Defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. The Judge was eventually removed from the bench (with the proviso that she never again apply for a judgeship) and was disbarred by the Florida Bar, such was the serious nature of her misconduct and the gross disregard for the Defendants who came before her Court. This disregard for Defendants is highly relevant as it explains the conduct of the trial suffered by Mr Mogford.
The law firm advising Mr Mogford at this stage was not Sale & Kuehner but a separate firm who he tells me mis-advised him with regard to sentence. I am instructed that the advice given was that in return for a guilty plea with the cooperation that Mr Mogford had given to the Court, he would not receive a custodial sentence. Judge Gardiner sentenced him to 30 years and attributed all $153,000 to him. Not surprisingly, Mr Mogford changed the Law Firm representing him to Sale & Kuehner and began the pursuit of a formal complaint to the Florida Bar Association about the Attorney who had represented him, with such a disastrous result at trial. As you may be aware the wheels of American justice turn very slowly and there are a number of pitfalls but having exhausted the appeals process in the State of Florida he began to pursue a Federal Appeal.
The outcome of that Federal Appeal is attached. The Appeal is under Section 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides a broad spectrum of post-conviction remedies including the rescission of conviction and reduction of sentence. It appears that upon the successful Federal (rather than Florida State) Appeal, Mr Mogford was then transferred to an Immigration Detention Centre as his Visa had expired. He waived the opportunity to contest the deportation procedure and returned to the UK.
I have discussed the possibility of pursuing the State of Florida for statutory negligence with Mr Mogford but he tells me that he was advised contemporaneously that customarily the State in such circumstances, will counterclaim for the costs of keeping and maintaining the prisoner at such a daily rate that the damages recoverable from the State are negated then superseded. I have heard of this problem before. Mr Mogford tells me that his family spent considerable sums on lawyers and private investigators both during and after the above events, in order to locate any of the alleged creditors of his arising from the alleged crime in the Florida area and elsewhere. They have had no success in locating the alleged creditors beyond a claim for $2,000 (which Mr Mogford tells me has been repaid), which is a negligible sum when one compares it with the allegations of a fraud involving in excess of $150,000 which was falsely attributed to Mr Mogford. Evidence of such notices as were placed still exists on the internet.
Besides these extraordinary events, which are verifiable, I can locate no extraordinary circumstances about Mr Mogford. He has a long history in sales orientated business, specialising in motor vehicles and as you are aware there are the usual gripes on the internet about his business but nothing major, that I can find. The general opinion seems to be of a well-run business, with a good quality of vehicle sales, good standard of work and only minor gripes about delay.
In summary, the unfortunate events experienced by Mr Mogford are a sad indictment of the system of Justice in the USA, which seeks to dispense with Defendants as quickly as possible, with little regard to the guilt or otherwise of that Defendant and which is highly reluctant to infer or acknowledge the gross misconduct of a Court officer, such as that of Mr Mogford's trial judge, who comprehensively fell from grace in connection with a death sentence case and was removed from the bench and disbarred for gross misconduct.
If I am able to provide any further information or assistance in connection with Mr Mogford and particularly the vicissitudes he suffered during his time in America then please contact me on 07977 - 008990 and I shall be pleased to assist.
Kind regards,
Chris Parslew
Solicitor
Perhaps he can defend himself by responding.