US politics

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

US politics

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 557 of 706 < 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 24 4.54pm
Originally posted by Houston Eagle Those damn liberal judges siding with the criminal element again I would suspect! Careful what you wish for! If you knew his family name and their background you would realise that his family has a far from liberal history. That doesn't mean he isn't of course. I don't think he sided with him. I think he decided there was no other explanation for his injuries, whereas there were many possibilities. Just not ones with any evidence. What there was evidence for was lying and cheating, which he chose to ignore. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 24 4.54pm

Originally posted by Houston Eagle

Those damn liberal judges siding with the criminal element again I would suspect!

Careful what you wish for!

If you knew his family name and their background you would realise that his family has a far from liberal history. That doesn't mean he isn't of course.

I don't think he sided with him. I think he decided there was no other explanation for his injuries, whereas there were many possibilities. Just not ones with any evidence. What there was evidence for was lying and cheating, which he chose to ignore.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 14 Feb 24 5.24pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It doesn't relate at all. It just got diverted. I cannot appeal the decision. When you accept car insurance you delegate that decision to your insurer. My barrister was very angry. He had a McEnroe moment. He is a specialist who knows the law in this area like the back of his hand. The judge isn't. He is a divorce lawyer and when pieces of law were quoted had to pause and refer to books. He didn't like having to do that. He should never have been expected to handle this type of case so the real fault lies with whoever allocated it to him. I am forced to wonder if there was a power motive at least partially behind the judgement. The financial reward was much lower than would have been expected for an injury of the type claimed which seems like trying to compensate for not accepting our argument. The judge was kind to me personally and said he believed I was telling the truth as I knew it but in the light of no other explanation for the injuries must have unknowingly and accidently touched him. Which isn't true at all, or what I was accused of. I was accused of deliberately driving into him 3 times. He also had an accident at work several weeks later which explains the injury, but the judge overlooked. That's a silly conspiracy theory...... A judges role is to hear evidence and make a ruling based on that. To be a judge one has to be a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive and have worked as a legal professional for between 5 and 7 years, It is also required to have intellectual ability and the ability to be fair and even-handed. It is no sense to assume a judge would be anything other than fair when making his or her judgement. Was the person wearing a Trump Maga cap when you drove over him 3 times?
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

14 Feb 24 5.24pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It doesn't relate at all. It just got diverted.

I cannot appeal the decision. When you accept car insurance you delegate that decision to your insurer.

My barrister was very angry. He had a McEnroe moment. He is a specialist who knows the law in this area like the back of his hand. The judge isn't. He is a divorce lawyer and when pieces of law were quoted had to pause and refer to books. He didn't like having to do that. He should never have been expected to handle this type of case so the real fault lies with whoever allocated it to him.

I am forced to wonder if there was a power motive at least partially behind the judgement. The financial reward was much lower than would have been expected for an injury of the type claimed which seems like trying to compensate for not accepting our argument.

The judge was kind to me personally and said he believed I was telling the truth as I knew it but in the light of no other explanation for the injuries must have unknowingly and accidently touched him. Which isn't true at all, or what I was accused of. I was accused of deliberately driving into him 3 times. He also had an accident at work several weeks later which explains the injury, but the judge overlooked.

That's a silly conspiracy theory...... A judges role is to hear evidence and make a ruling based on that.

To be a judge one has to be a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive and have worked as a legal professional for between 5 and 7 years,

It is also required to have intellectual ability and the ability to be fair and even-handed.

It is no sense to assume a judge would be anything other than fair when making his or her judgement.

Was the person wearing a Trump Maga cap when you drove over him 3 times?

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 14 Feb 24 6.00pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle The Judge wasn't there. I was. Only two people know the truth. One is lying. I am not. You can choose not to believe me, that's your right. I though know the truth. The Judge does indeed have to reach a decision based on his perception of the evidence. No one questions that. However, he was wrong and there was enough evidence for him to have not made his mistake. My barrister said that 99 out of 100 Judges would have found for me. I have a written transcript of that opinion, not just hearsay. My insurers, their solicitors and the barrister all believe me. This was the email I got from the solicitors the next day, edited to remove personal details:- "Good morning Mr. ? did call me yesterday to give me a brief summary of the days events. As you correctly state he is going to send me a full note including his thoughts on an appeal. From ?'s comments, we got the 1 judge out of a 100, that would have found for the claimant. I am more than happy to discuss matters further when I receive ?'s full note. He made it clear to me (not that I thought any different) that you could not have been any better as a witness and there is nothing more you could have done. To say I am disappointed for you is an understatement. Kind Regards" I am awaiting the decision on an appeal but am not hopeful. Not because we wouldn't succeed but because the cost would outweigh the benefit as the scumbag has no resources and the costs could not be recovered. That's not my decision. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Feb 2024 12.03pm) So all of a sudden someone down on their luck who needed protection and got it is a scumbag. Now that isn’t right wissie. Normally you protect the needy but somehow money has swayed your judgement. Welcome to the liebour party
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 14 Feb 24 6.00pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The Judge wasn't there. I was. Only two people know the truth. One is lying. I am not. You can choose not to believe me, that's your right. I though know the truth.

The Judge does indeed have to reach a decision based on his perception of the evidence. No one questions that. However, he was wrong and there was enough evidence for him to have not made his mistake. My barrister said that 99 out of 100 Judges would have found for me. I have a written transcript of that opinion, not just hearsay.

My insurers, their solicitors and the barrister all believe me. This was the email I got from the solicitors the next day, edited to remove personal details:-

"Good morning Mr.

? did call me yesterday to give me a brief summary of the days events. As you correctly state he is going to send me a full note including his thoughts on an appeal.

From ?'s comments, we got the 1 judge out of a 100, that would have found for the claimant.

I am more than happy to discuss matters further when I receive ?'s full note. He made it clear to me (not that I thought any different) that you could not have been any better as a witness and there is nothing more you could have done.

To say I am disappointed for you is an understatement.

Kind Regards"

I am awaiting the decision on an appeal but am not hopeful. Not because we wouldn't succeed but because the cost would outweigh the benefit as the scumbag has no resources and the costs could not be recovered. That's not my decision.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Feb 2024 12.03pm)

So all of a sudden someone down on their luck who needed protection and got it is a scumbag. Now that isn’t right wissie. Normally you protect the needy but somehow money has swayed your judgement. Welcome to the liebour party

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 14 Feb 24 6.03pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You can imagine just how hard I'm biting my lip here. Keep biting stirls. It ain’t worth it for someone proved to have lied in court, by a judge of all people. Oh well even the saintly can sin
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 14 Feb 24 6.03pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You can imagine just how hard I'm biting my lip here.

Keep biting stirls. It ain’t worth it for someone proved to have lied in court, by a judge of all people. Oh well even the saintly can sin

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 24 7.40pm
Originally posted by cryrst So all of a sudden someone down on their luck who needed protection and got it is a scumbag. Now that isn’t right wissie. Normally you protect the needy but somehow money has swayed your judgement. Welcome to the liebour party He isn’t down on his luck at all. He is a fraudster whose activities, along with others like him, are loading our insurance premiums. I have lost nothing at all personally. Everything was covered by my insurance. We though, all of us law abiding citizens, have lost. No one should have the slightest sympathy for those who behave like this, or the opportunistic solicitors who assist them. I was there. I know the truth as certainly as knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow. If you were there you would know it too. If you were in Court you would also realise the judge was wrong. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 24 7.40pm

Originally posted by cryrst

He isn’t down on his luck at all. He is a fraudster whose activities, along with others like him, are loading our insurance premiums. I have lost nothing at all personally. Everything was covered by my insurance. We though, all of us law abiding citizens, have lost.

No one should have the slightest sympathy for those who behave like this, or the opportunistic solicitors who assist them.

I was there. I know the truth as certainly as knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow. If you were there you would know it too. If you were in Court you would also realise the judge was wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 24 8.31pm
Originally posted by cryrst Keep biting stirls. It ain’t worth it for someone proved to have lied in court, by a judge of all people. Oh well even the saintly can sin This wasn’t a criminal trial. It was a civil claim for damages. No “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” as the burden of proof. Just the possibility of it being true was enough to convince the judge to award limited damages, which he reduced because of contributory actions by the claimant, on the basis that no evidence existed to support an alternative reason for the injury. As you cannot prove a negative that’s very weird reasoning. The judge did not suggest I lied. Indeed he said I was an honest and truthful witness. He concluded I was distressed and intimidated by the claimant’s behaviour and made an accidental impact. I know that is untrue. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 14 Feb 24 8.31pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Keep biting stirls. It ain’t worth it for someone proved to have lied in court, by a judge of all people. Oh well even the saintly can sin

This wasn’t a criminal trial. It was a civil claim for damages. No “proved beyond a reasonable doubt” as the burden of proof. Just the possibility of it being true was enough to convince the judge to award limited damages, which he reduced because of contributory actions by the claimant, on the basis that no evidence existed to support an alternative reason for the injury. As you cannot prove a negative that’s very weird reasoning.

The judge did not suggest I lied. Indeed he said I was an honest and truthful witness. He concluded I was distressed and intimidated by the claimant’s behaviour and made an accidental impact. I know that is untrue.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 14 Feb 24 8.55pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Remarkable self discipline. I bitten my lip so hard I've got plasters on it. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

14 Feb 24 8.55pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Remarkable self discipline.

I bitten my lip so hard I've got plasters on it.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 14 Feb 24 8.59pm
Originally posted by cryrst Keep biting stirls. It ain’t worth it for someone proved to have lied in court, by a judge of all people. Oh well even the saintly can sin I wonder what the patron saint of landlords is.....Saint Beelzebub probably. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

14 Feb 24 8.59pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Keep biting stirls. It ain’t worth it for someone proved to have lied in court, by a judge of all people. Oh well even the saintly can sin

I wonder what the patron saint of landlords is.....Saint Beelzebub probably.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 14 Feb 24 11.42pm
A fun read in the morning for me. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 14 Feb 24 11.42pm

A fun read in the morning for me.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 15 Feb 24 3.21am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I'm sorry to hear that. A painful lesson in why we cannot always trust the law to do the right thing. Oh but we can. We have been told that on here on many an occasion. Maybe that argument may change now, we hold our breath
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 15 Feb 24 3.21am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I'm sorry to hear that.

A painful lesson in why we cannot always trust the law to do the right thing.

Oh but we can. We have been told that on here on many an occasion. Maybe that argument may change now, we hold our breath

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 15 Feb 24 4.22pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I wonder what the patron saint of landlords is.....Saint Beelzebub probably. One would think it were the guy who didn't have room at the inn. But I don't think it is. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 15 Feb 24 4.22pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I wonder what the patron saint of landlords is.....Saint Beelzebub probably.

One would think it were the guy who didn't have room at the inn. But I don't think it is.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Feb 24 4.44pm
Originally posted by Spiderman Oh but we can. We have been told that on here on many an occasion. Maybe that argument may change now, we hold our breath If you are suggesting that I believe that the law can always be trusted then you are wrong. I have never suggested anything of the sort because bitter experience has taught me too many times that it cannot be. Not for nothing is it described as an ass. What I believe is that in a representative democracy like ours we have no other choice than to respect the law, whilst working to improve its efficiency. We must trust it because not to would deliver anarchy. That doesn’t mean it can be trusted to deliver justice in all circumstances. In my recent case my insurers will respect the judgement, pay the award and the other side’s costs whilst knowing, as I know, that this isn’t justified in any way at all other than the law being an ass. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 15 Feb 24 4.44pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

Oh but we can. We have been told that on here on many an occasion. Maybe that argument may change now, we hold our breath

If you are suggesting that I believe that the law can always be trusted then you are wrong. I have never suggested anything of the sort because bitter experience has taught me too many times that it cannot be. Not for nothing is it described as an ass.

What I believe is that in a representative democracy like ours we have no other choice than to respect the law, whilst working to improve its efficiency. We must trust it because not to would deliver anarchy. That doesn’t mean it can be trusted to deliver justice in all circumstances.

In my recent case my insurers will respect the judgement, pay the award and the other side’s costs whilst knowing, as I know, that this isn’t justified in any way at all other than the law being an ass.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 557 of 706 < 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

US politics

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors