Return to opening page	Views on Terrorism
Edenside Kelso TD5 7BS 2004-03-19 Cintec v Parkes & Frost Frost & Parkes v Cintec Dear Mrs Ross, Please find enclosed my note of argument for Lord Bonomy for this morning’s motion. Along with same you will find a draft of my proposed assignation revised from that approved by the First Division in Frost & McNamara v Alexander Stone, February 2004. On the 11th March 2004 Mr Justice Laddie stated to the Court that he would take a very severe stance against Cintec if Cintec appeared to him to be unreasonable in the practicalities of releasing funds to facilitate the trading activities of Parkes and Frost and/or was difficult to confirm the release of assets for payment of the interim costs order which may or may not have been frozen via his purported world wide freezing order. To the quick, yes or no, are you, on behalf of Cintec, prepared to allow Mr John H Parkes to re-mortgage his home to pay the £90,000; in similar vein are you prepared for me to mortgage my assets to pay the £90,000? I would be grateful if you would answer this question this morning as I am obliged to report back later today to Mr Justice Laddie’s clerk upon Cintec’s perceived or actual stance. Yours sincerely Martin Frost
Views on Terrorism	Return to opening page