Crosswords2 mins ago
Any Ideas On This Anyone ?
What am I looking for in terms of reason (grounds ? ) to appeal a decision in CLCC,you know the case from my serial postings I'd think,where despite the fact that I'm 'the first defendant' and regardless of much protest by me,counsel (mine) tells me I can't give evidence in the case (just before I run off to RCJ to put this new development to them) Do I ask for a retrial,an appeal or what ? This surely cannot be lawful even.Help pleaseeee ! I'm asked on my return to CLCC by counsel,where was I ? Point out the denial for me to be allowed to take the stand,but now,because he's 'asked the judge' permission that I can give evidence it's OK but oh no,because I've been at RCJ to sort the first denial for me to give evidence,it's too late,sorry.Can anyone else smell what I'm smelling ? (would this not be on the court audio recordings if the request for me to give evidence (not) ever happened?) I think so,not that I need a dodgy judges permission to defend myself, since the clue to me is that I'm a defendant what !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by notnutnut. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
NNN, how does it cost $150 a day in cab fares, just going from the CLCC to the RCJ? That's a hundred quid, or is $ a typo for £ and it's £150 ? If not, are you American? You say 'take the stand' and give costs in dollars. Not that any of that is of great relevance, if any, but that's been the nature of the beast so far.
yeah eve that is what I thought had occurred
but then Fred Pooley commented -
// I thought that NNN had gone to the RCJ to complain that he hadn't been allowed to give evidence. That when he got back he wasn't allowed to was thus immaterial and superfluous because the fact that he had not been allowed to was the reason he went.//
and his [Fredz] comment was incompatible with what you had said (and also incompatible with what I had thought had happened). Also I cdnt understand it - but there is quite a lot about this case I cant understand.
so I couldnt work out what had happened
but I think 3N has lost his case and is therefore screwed
Three or four days at the High court I hate to think of what the lawyers' fees are.
but then Fred Pooley commented -
// I thought that NNN had gone to the RCJ to complain that he hadn't been allowed to give evidence. That when he got back he wasn't allowed to was thus immaterial and superfluous because the fact that he had not been allowed to was the reason he went.//
and his [Fredz] comment was incompatible with what you had said (and also incompatible with what I had thought had happened). Also I cdnt understand it - but there is quite a lot about this case I cant understand.
so I couldnt work out what had happened
but I think 3N has lost his case and is therefore screwed
Three or four days at the High court I hate to think of what the lawyers' fees are.
EVE, THANK YOU BUT NO,barrister/solicitor had been very keen to not let me get access to the trial judge,once to 'amend particulars of claim' and last to give my evidence,since I'm a defendant because I'd stated that I would,without doubt be asking how an obviously faked piece of evidence that claimant was to rely on could possibly be explained (without the ability to travel in time) The damage to the claimants case,and to those involved in its application and construction would have been very good (if only I can get to the judge) Also another item to reveal several of their witnesses as liars with zero chance of proving differently ! Solution : don't let me get the chance in the witness box.The RCJ visit was to ask that I am allowed to give my evidence that I've waited three and a half years for with some relish to expose their fake case as a scam !How do I need counsel to ask judges permission to give evidence,I'm the defendant who has the right to defend himself in law I fancy????????? Check here tomorrow I'm judge hunting tomorrow,tallyho !!!
Anyway, sorry I'm not really helping. Despite reading many of your threads I find the whole story very difficult to follow. As I've said before , there are three possibilities:
(a) there is a major conspiracy here, in which your legal team are complicit, or (b) your legal team is inept and you left it too late to dispense with them or (c) you have misunderstood the legal process, the role of your legal team and the key legal issues, and have ploughed your own furrow against the advice of your legal team
(a) there is a major conspiracy here, in which your legal team are complicit, or (b) your legal team is inept and you left it too late to dispense with them or (c) you have misunderstood the legal process, the role of your legal team and the key legal issues, and have ploughed your own furrow against the advice of your legal team
Factor- fiction, sorry,I'm tired too,it seems I've left a bit out but in the meantime seen your last post and it's (a) all day long,as I'm sure I'll prove VERY soon,I just did not want to distort any answers to my posting until someone spotted it as well as me !Thanks and at last I'm going to grab a judge and explain !
PETER PEDANT,the physical content of the photos did not exist until 12/12 and slipped into trial evidence as with truth statement dated 31/3 including other things that would mess their case up and more!! Get out of that, HA.I was going to enjoy my spell in the witness box 'till my barrister spoilt it,wonder why ???
PETER PEDANT,the legal fees come to a bit more than the cab fares at the moment.I toy with the idea of posting the judgement on here,'tis an eye opener for sure. I've just got to book the 'sequel' in in which I return in my role of 'Witch-finder General' for a bit of justice !If I'm ever allowed to talk that is. Thanks.
If the point about the 'faked' evidence was such a winner a) your counsel would have relied on it and b) it had nothing to do with amending anything, with leave or without, or seeking leave for anything. At the very least, it could be put in cross-examination.
It seems clear that the interpretation you put on the dating of the document did not bear scrutiny.
It seems clear that the interpretation you put on the dating of the document did not bear scrutiny.
do you mean a link?
http://
http://
FRED,let me put like this,if the claimant erects a new fence in December 2012 (to create the option for himself to discover 'the historical fence',he wishes to rely on at trial) the 'evidence' with supporting statements is then backdated to 31/3/12 and introduced into the 'final' bundle of evidence delivered to my home (with the comment dimly enough,'nothing new,you've seen it all before' by my solicitor) I mention this several times to our 'legal team' in regards to the its damage potential with not much response.I smell a rat,well several rats and think I'll acquaint the judge with this issue when at court.The solution used was to not let me speak in court obviously.But I will,just a different one.Hope this clarify 's ! Some old fence posts were put behind the new fence,photos taken and the 'historical' hedge duly discovered !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers Fred.
Fred,I forgot this,the amendment to particulars was to include several ariel photographs that I discovered that prove the claimant a liar.He had previously told me when I suggested they must exist there were none 'trust me I've looked'I also asked him to amend particulars in time and again not done hence my attempting to. Hmm.
