02078314545

From my colleague Mullard; Re the strap-line on Hatton&Berkely website (http://www.hattonandberkeley.com/). "We help the brave to build companies of legend".  Given that "legend" means an unverifiable story, I suppose that the use of that expression in the context of their patrons is rather apt.

http://london.cylex-uk.co.uk/company/tcyk-llc-23753832.html

"TCYK LLC, C/O Hatton and Berkeley, W1J 5AP London, Greater London England"

"TCYK LLC is taking down alleged infringers of the film "The Company You Keep". We obtain court orders before sending copyright settlement letters to those who have illegally copied and shared the Robert Redford film. These recipients are suspected to have used torrent sites to download and distribute our film."

Mr Robert Croucher, please explain if you can.

"TCYK LLC, C/O Hatton and Berkeley"?  What's that? Do you personally accept everything that Patrick Achache as TCYK llc does?  Does that include payments to Ranger Bay?  If so then Marcus Auton being a Director of Ranger Bay is your association with Julian Becker of GEIL, whether you like it or not.

"TCYK LLC is taking down alleged infringers of the film "The Company You Keep""?  You are taking down "alleged" infringers?  What?  That is an oxymoron if ever I heard one.  I can only guess that you are attempting to lessen such a bold statement, and you have succeeded.  You have lessened your argument.  If you believe the actions TCYK llc C/O H&B is against "alleged" infringers, such an argument you accept that not everyone you target is guilty.  Or to put it another way, you accept innocent ISP subscribers will be targeted.

"We obtain court orders before sending copyright settlement letters to those who have illegally copied and shared the Robert Redford film.  These recipients are suspected to have used torrent sites to download and distribute our film"?  No, you obtain Court Orders through the NPO process and send a Court approved letter of claim without a settlement demand.  Follow up letters you send demand a settlement, and those letters have not been approved by ANY Court.

And the oxymoron effect is confirmed by the statements "those who have illegally copied and shared" and "These recipients are suspected to have used torrent sites to download and distribute our film".  "who have illegally" and "recipients are suspected to have".  Please explain whether you believe they did or they didn't infringe Mr Robert Croucher!

Do you know that saying "illegally copied and shared" is wrong Mr Robert Croucher?  By the TCYK llc evidence to the Court, the monitoring only captures a small part of the "Works".

Do you know that the only evidence you have Mr Robert Croucher is a download from the alleged infringer to the monitor?  You do know that you have no actual evidence of an alleged infringer uploading to anyone else?  Do you know Mr Robert Croucher the difference between evidence and theory?  Do you think Mr Robert Croucher that a Judge in the Courts of England & Wales decides by balance of probabilities on someone's guilt by a theory?

I think Mr Robert Croucher that you are self harming your own reputation with your association with TCYK llc and Patrick Achache.

If anyone does have any actual enquiries they'd like to make in person they are more than welcome to visit the head office in Mayfair, Berkeley Square where a member of staff will be happy to advise further.

Should you wish to schedule an appointment, you can via the usual method of emailing info@hattonandberkeley.com and requesting a meeting with the relevant department head.

As for the conjectured posts above, I would refer readers to review my previous posts (now of which shall remain pretty much the same as this).

Regarding on-going services for Rights Holders, action against Copyright Infringement and Litigation Activity in the UK, I would advise that readers refer to the website http://www.hb-administration.co.uk/ for further news and updates.

PS - As for the above statements regarding websites relating to my work in the film industry, as a fund raiser (executive producers raise capital for projects) I would assume anyone intelligent enough would be able to join the dots as to why I support copyright protection in the UK. As for the ownership of 'Hatton & Berkeley', yes - I own it. Fact.

Anyone else think that watching Joe Hickster and Robert Croucher have a punch up would be good fun???

So just who is 'Mr Robert Croucher'?

Who knows! I think that he certainly needs to answer the questions raised on here, I for one would like to know what all the fuss is about why people should be persecuted for downloading - the internet is free to all right?

@joehickster What say you me old mucker?

"As for the ownership of 'Hatton & Berkeley', yes - I own it. Fact."

Robert Croucher must be seriously deluded or he's been caught stealing. If you read all the website postings like I have you can only come to one conclusion, that Robert Croucher is a pathological liar. And it's highly likely that he doesn't really own 'Hatton & Berkeley' at all. Far too many lies being thrown about by Croucher that do not add up. If Mr Croucher really owned 'Hatton & Berkeley' why the sudden need to register all those other 'Hatton & Berkeley' companies and change from CMI Business Group? Is it to try and cover your tracks Croucher?

If anyone does have any enquiries they'd like to make in person they are more than welcome to visit the head office in Mayfair, Berkeley Square where a member of staff will be happy to advise further.

Should you wish to schedule an appointment, you can via the usual method of emailing info@hattonandberkeley.com and requesting a meeting with the relevant department head.

As for the conjectured posts above, I would refer readers to review my previous posts (now of which shall remain pretty much the same as this).

Regarding on-going services for Rights Holders, action against Copyright Infringement and Litigation Activity in the UK, I would advise that readers refer to the website http://www.hb-administration.co.uk/ for further news and updates.

PS - To: "Lanyard" (assuming that is a real name) yes, I am the owner of 'Hatton & Berkeley'. You are of course invited to visit the offices where I can give you a guided tour personally of the company and introduce you to it's staff. I will assume that as you are familiar with the companies house records of companies I own you will not need me to refresh your memory as to the location.

I am not an aggressive person.

The Internet has NEVER been free, there has always been a charge to connect for instance, the idea of the free exchange of ideas for humanity was a great utopian ideal, that was always going to take second place to commercial interests.  I dont have an issue with people defending their property, their intellectual or physical property, but there are ways and means to do so.

The Speculative Invoicing model that Mr Croucher and Mr Becker of Goldeneye International employ, has been shown time and again, to end up targeting to many innocent people to make the system credible.  You only have to look at the way it is done to see that their is to high an element of fear involved for it to be taken as true or even appropriate justice.

One only needs to ask a simple question, if one truly believes that someone has infringed your copyright, (this analogy take the idea that they might actually have identified an actual infringer), or "stolen" your property, why would you send them what amounts to a "Speeding Ticket"? You would either call in the authorities, and have the case heard in a Court of Law, or you would issue proceedings in a Small claims Court.  That is what I would demand, it IS what I demanded of ACS:LAW. and it is what I encourage others who have received these ridiculous invoiced to do as well,  and for this alone, I am seen as some "dangerous" person.

I am not permitted to address Mr Croucher personally, so I will just say this, there are multiple investigation strands happening around his business practices, and those of his colleagues.  Caution is what I would advise, in any money or business transactions, regardless of a companies reputation, or lack of it.

That is probably very good advice, Mr Roache.  I notice his last post was this;

"As for the above statements regarding websites relating to my work in the film industry, as a fund raiser (executive producers raise capital for projects) I would assume anyone intelligent enough would be able to join the dots as to why I support copyright protection in the UK. As for the ownership of 'Hatton & Berkeley', yes - I own it. Fact."

He has avoided answering your questions, and has shown how shady he is.... again.  Your find of that article clearly shows he was active, yet the company was already "dead in the water".  Doesn't really show a successful "fundraiser" does it? and I guess that is why the poor chap has had to resort to these desperate tactics and throwing his lot in with discredited people.  Most people who engage in "Speculative Invoicing" tend to go belly up with a couple of years.

@Joe Hickster Can we meet to discuss? I've received a letter saying that I will be taken to court if I don't comply!

Please advise!!!

You can email us at acs.bore@gmail.com .  They will probably NEVER go to Court, as it would end their shameless shenanigans.  Their is always a chance of course, but I doubt it, and if, IF, it ever did, I am sure not only would you have a plethora of Lawyers offering to represent you pro bono, but also that the company issuing the summons, will end up winding up, as has happened pretty much throughout.

The biggest problem with this, is as you will see, both Mr Croucher and Mr Becker, love limited companies, and LLPs, that is because it is the COMPANIES that are responsible, not the person running it, all they have to do, is wind up that company, and then startup again.

The other thing to bear in mind, is that Goldeneye, had to have their first letter neutered by the High Court, BEFORE it was sent, the following letters are not monitored, BUT CMI Business Group* T/A Hatton&Berkeley have NOT had their letter reviewed by the Court.

*Just as a point of proof, this has now changed, from CMI Business Group t/a Hatton&Berkeley. to Hatton&Berekely Global Ltd t/a Hatton&Berekely.

Also, one final point, the small print on their website has had a forced change, it seems some regulators were not happy about a claim they were making, so it now reads. "Hatton & Berkeley' is a trading name of Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited" it USED to be "'Hatton & Berkeley' is a trading name owned by Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited,"

So @lanyard, when he said THIS, "As for the ownership of 'Hatton & Berkeley', yes - I own it. Fact.", what he really meant to say was this....

"As for the ownership of 'Hatton & Berkeley', yes - I own it. well actually, I own a similar sounding company that I have just registered called Hatton&Berkeley Global Ltd, and NOT "Hatton & Berkeley', that is kind of owned by Mr Paul Carter. Fact."

Confused? Well that is the point of all this really.

Just spoken with the "Solicitors Regulation Authority" and they have confirmed they have spoken to Mark Henry Wagner, the Solicitor retained by both TCYK/CMI Business Group t/a Hatton and Berkeley, and Goldeneye International.  After warning him of this practice Mr Wagner has confirmed he has and only will engage in the obtaining of NPO and the ISPs, beyond that he will not be involved in any Court action.

Interesting, but not entirely surprised

@Joe Hickster - read their website it doesn't say that it reads '2016 © Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited. 'Hatton & Berkeley' is a trading name owned by Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited' ???  So they own it??? No???

Needless to say I don't like the look of them. bunch of smug [***].

Sorry it was a paraphrase, you are quite right though, the precise lettering is...
"2016 © Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited. 'Hatton & Berkeley' is a trading name owned by Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited"

It used to be

"© CMI Business Group 2015. 'Hatton & Berkeley' is a trading name owned by CMI Business Group Ltd"

A very strange coincidence that occurred around the time I started posting on here, and my Blog about these people.

Just received this email;

"We have changed our lettering again;

"Trading name of Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar  number: 10145165 Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP. The Company is limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients"

into:

"Trading name owned by Hatton & Berkeley Global Limited, Registered in the United Kingdom, Companies House Registrar number: 10145165.  Registered Office: 43 Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AP. The Company is limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients"

Looks like they won a dispute! Shame, I hate to see bullies win. (Not the most most stable company in the world)

Just imagine, receiving a letter stating, We know you have downloaded/uploaded this "file", and we want you to pay £350- £600, OR we are sure the Court will find in all probability that you are responsible and will award the judgment in our favour, this will entail you having to pay a lot more money.  You need to explain, why you didn't download/upload this "file"

Problem is of course, you cannot prove a negative.  It is like saying "Prove you didn't watch this TV Program last night.  You can provide all the evidence you want, even the fact you have no TV, and I will simply say, "You haven't provided a suitable explanation, please send me the £600, you have 14 days, or we will commence proceedings against you"

For a lot of people, that is a scary prospect, not being able to provide evidence that they didn't do something.

Lord Lucas, called these people "[***]", I kind of agree.

Pleased to say they DON'T own "Hatton & Berkeley" name, they are merely claiming to do so!  There was me thinking they had gone through the proper channels and played by the rules, they didn't, and they haven't.

It is obvious that Mr Croucher and Ms Kudor, have been told to be silent, not sure if Patrick Achache or their lawyer has told them this, but it  is VERY good advice.  If anyone would like to contact me in future, please use my email.  I will now leave all this to the authorities, who I am informed are building a case against the Speculative scammers.  Keep an eye on the News, and good day.