About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 26, 2013 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 26 May 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment229

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (229)

Login to comment or vote

Nostalgia-NZ

Run along Denny, you’ve had your play time. There’s no problem being a double yoker and eating one as well, after that into the old sanitary nappies, a cup of cocoa, a little story about Cinderella and off to nod land you go.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:11pm
Johnboy

Is it just the marbles N-NZ or have you misplaced the bag as well? 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:13pm
Kea

You may need a lawyer to play in the field of law, that does not make the law right. In fact, it makes it wrong.

Dennis, I agree for all its worth (Which is nothing)

Some attempts have been made to make the law more accessable. Part of the problem may be the adversarial system. The Judge is not there to sort things out, but to listen to both sides and apply the law.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:13pm
F E Smith

He must have known what was at stake: That if the property was sold then Chuck lost his money.

Surely the debt would still remain? What would be lost would be the opportunity to realise the property via mortgage, or to register a caveat against the title.

Kea, please don’t bring up the adversarial thing. We have had too many people criticise the adversarial system vs the inquisitorial system when they actually haven’t understood what that entails. Or which version of the inquisitorial system they are actually referring to.

Whichever system you use, it still always comes down to the judge making a decision on what the facts actually are and then applying the law.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:25pm
Nostalgia-NZ

Judges for the most part will listen, and their decisions can be appealed. Chuck simply decided to give up and has said as much many times, mindful of the costs and what he might have been unable to recover. That’s his choice and good on him, but no use bitching about it and blaming the Courts. No superior Court would freely abide an injustice, looking first at the merits of the case, why it wasn’t communicated properly, what the likely outcome would have been and so forth. Chuck simply didn’t go that far, he was down to the hour and could have communicated his situation to the Registrar but decided against doing so. It’s not even too late for him now (though his explanation why he sat on his hands would be carefully scrutinised), but he prefers moaning about others whose fault he claims it to be and does nothing to remedy his situation.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:27pm
Johnboy

If we ever get to vote for Judges I’ll vote for you FE. 🙂
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:27pm
Chuck Bird

@kea

Chuck, you were offered a head set and declined.

You sound like a lawyer or judge to me. You are quoting me out of context to misrepresent the facts.

I was not offered a headset at my hearing in the High Court.

The judge in the telephone conference offered to arrange a headset for the settlement conference. I declined because it was not necessary as it was not necessary in the High Court if I had been given a fair go by the judge as there are no rules how judges are required to treat unrepresented litigants. The judge probably as a lawyer had a similar attitude to some of the lawyer on this blog towards unrepresented litigants and carried that attitude to the bar.

What you wanted was a pamphlet that gave you the same advantages as years of legal study and experience. Such a thing does not exist.

Rubbish. You are as about as bright as Cheater Borrows. I said what I expected. All is as wanted was how to respectfully request a fair go. I do not think that is too much to ask. I never had a problem with my marginal hearing loss in the District Court when I sat at the bar.

It is an outrage that ALL hearing are not recorded.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:29pm
Chuck Bird

It’s not even too late for him now (though his explanation why he sat on his hands would be carefully scrutinised), but he prefers moaning about others whose fault he claims it to be and does nothing to remedy his situation.

Nos, you are talking utter nonsense. I did not realise the settlement have been brought forward and the property had been sold when I went to the High Court for the main hearing. There was different judge and she was very good and fair. However, she could not allow a caveat on the property as there was a new owner. She knew I was shafted and when the lawyer asked for cost she quickly declined and gave her reason h=in her written judgement.

Would you kindly tell me how I can get my security back?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:38pm
Kea

Kea, please don’t bring up the adversarial thing. We have had too many people criticise the adversarial system vs the inquisitorial system when they actually haven’t understood what that entails.

F E Smith, I was not being critical of the adversarial system. I just wonder if the inquisitorial system “may” be better suited to those unfamiliar with the law.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:44pm
Nostalgia-NZ

‘It is an outrage that ALL hearing are not recorded.’

Chuck your ‘skirting about the outskirts.’ The Judge who you decided not to name gave you a very clear (and it could be said sympathetic) indication of what legal avenues were open to you, instead of pursuing them you have instead chosen to attack the system as being at fault. Taken to it’s natural conclusion, had you followed a fairly basic course to recover your money all the other ‘handicaps’ that you feel were placed in front of you would now be of no consequence – you I think (most likely) would have won, had the opportunity for the Court to inquire into where money had been moved, and when, and if it had been deliberately ‘hidden’ to deny you being paid it would have been clawed back and other serious consequences would have followed for the other party. You made it easy for him.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:47pm
Chuck Bird

@FES

Surely the debt would still remain? What would be lost would be the opportunity to realise the property via mortgage, or to register a caveat against the title.

Exactly, when I win my case as I should I will then look at my options. First I will make a complaint to the Law Society although not perfect against the barrister. The Law Society may not be perfect but better than the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. If I win there I will consider paying a lawyer to sue him. But before I do so I would do a cost benefit analysis as to my chance of winning and what I will get as I have done on my present case.

I have two sensible options. Firstly, walk away from the debt or do what I am doing. Paying a lawyer is not a sensible option. I mentioned this to my barrister who I employed for research and advice and she immediately mention cost benefit.

Many people have suggested the South Auckland solution which I have rejected. The piece of scum I have been told by someone I trust threated him and his wife with death if he did not comply with his demands. The guy did not go to the police as it would be his word against this crocked lawyer. He has had the good sense not to threaten me and certainly not my family. He has that much survival instinct.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 7:57pm
Nostalgia-NZ

‘Nos, you are talking utter nonsense. I did not realise the settlement have been brought forward and the property had been sold when I went to the High Court for the main hearing. There was different judge and she was very good and fair. However, she could not allow a caveat on the property as there was a new owner. She knew I was shafted and when the lawyer asked for cost she quickly declined and gave her reason h=in her written judgement.

Would you kindly tell me how I can get my security back?’

The ‘lapsed’ caveat didn’t extinguish the debt, it extinguished the security – but even that was in question, in particular if it had been ‘extinguished’ in such a manner to deliberately deny your right to be paid, or unfairly to benefit the creditor to your detriment. From memory the Court didn’t make any ruling on whether the debt was owed, only on the extent and life of the security. The un-named Judge couldn’t rule on peripheral matters not contained in the papers, but he or she gave a good explanation to you about that which was very fair, and to me at least, an indication of what course you should take.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 8:04pm
Dennis Horne

@Chuck. I don’t want to make light of your predicament, but have you considered giving Tame Iti a bell? Or you could try Fair Go. In the meantime, count yourself lucky you didn’t get shafted like Peter Ellis.

@FESmith. I have read your comments, Chuck must be very grateful you are taking the trouble to help him, in the absence of an examining magistrate being available at the time … 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 8:07pm
Chuck Bird

Nos, I believe the majority of judges are good honest people but there is a minority that is not insignificant who are arrogant low lifes like the first judge in the High Court who is likely a serial sexual predator and totally lacking in ethics.

I am dealing with a sociopath who would rather pay this scumbag lawyer $70k than pay me what he owes me. This guy inherited around a million dollar and it will soon be gone. What is left – a few thousand can easily be hidden.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 8:10pm
Chuck Bird

@Dennis

“Or you could try Fair Go.”

That is certainly an option I have and am considering at the appropriate time.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 8:12pm
Chuck Bird

F E Smith, I was not being critical of the adversarial system. I just wonder if the inquisitorial system “may” be better suited to those unfamiliar with the law.

It may be reasonable to keep the adversarial system in criminal law but have the inquisitorial system for civil law particularly matrimonial law. I believe the adversarial system can cause lifelong harm to children in family courts.

I also agree with F E Smith that there is no silver bullet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 8:23pm
Johnboy

I’ve just whacked a bit more popcorn in the microwave. 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 8:25pm
Nostalgia-NZ

I put that ‘skirting about the outskirts’ in just for you JB, knowing that you’d ‘flicked’ your skirts in a very ‘cheeky’ way in the past.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 8:50pm
Johnboy

Sorry old chap I never noticed it. What time did you say it? 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 8:52pm
Kea

I’ve just whacked a bit more popcorn in the microwave.

Nothing to see here Johnboy. The following things are settled and leave no room for debate.

1. AGW theory is totally discredited.

2. Griff is self medicating heavily.

3. Fags are happily married.

4. God still has not turned up to smote the doubters.

5. Mad Butcher Bain is free as a bird.

6. White people suck.

7. Men suck.

8. Capitalism sucks.

Not much else to talk about really.
2 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 9:03pm
Johnboy

I’ll have another drink instead then Kea! 🙂
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 9:05pm
Rowan

Binnie Dunce may know something of the law but he knows little about sifting through information and making sense of it.”

LMAO Dennis you truly are a clown! will value the judges findings over the ex dentists ‘sifting through information and making sense of it’ or the ramblings of the JFRB cult.
Looks like you and Chuck would make a good pair for the ‘ninny’ or ‘dunce’ award
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 9:08pm
Dennis Horne

Ah, Rowan, I see the troops have brought out the big gun. Pop!
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 9:15pm
Rowan

Will be interesting to watch your cult leaders defamation case later this year Denny, looking forward to it.
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 9:21pm
Dennis Horne

@Rowan. Bully shit.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 9:31pm
Rowan

Funny for such an ‘expert’ Denny your explanations of any of the evidence are simplistic, naive and laughable. Unsubstantiated bullshit would more accurately describe most of it, hey but what would more we expect from CS!
‘ignoring compelling evidence, like the broken glasses.’
So compelling that the detective had to lie about them and perjure himself back in 1995. Such the ‘strength’ of the crown case
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 9:36pm
Nostalgia-NZ

Kea, at least have enough guts to defame people on your own site instead of prevailing upon a site not owned by you to continue your hate speech. Why try to make DPF responsible for your defamation, give up being a gutless wonder. Then check out recent proceedings of published defamatory comments made on a host site, it might help you crap inside your own bell bottoms instead of those belonging to others.
1 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2013 10:01pm
Nostalgia-NZ

Just realised I repeatedly referred to Chuck’s erstwhile ‘friend’ as the creditor rather than the debtor last night.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2013 9:01am
Dennis Horne

@Rowan. One thing about your not saying anything original, little man, is that there’s nothing to think about or answer. If you stumbled on the truth people would only think you were pissed. 🙂 🙂 🙂

@Nostalgia. Never mind old bean, you must sometimes eventually realise that you are in error. Keep it up. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2013 5:34pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« More hobbit hating

Nat members want waka jumping law »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

D-day for the government
No Right Turn
Mike's Minute: Is this MMP working properly?
Breaking Views
15 YEARS AGO: Now a more bigoted state
Not PC
I Hikoi’d across Bridge in 2004 and 2024 – here’s why it was different and why National should be worried
The Daily Blog
Greenpeace And The Green Party Would Never Tell You This About Penguins.
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
This Government’s day of shame
The Standard
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
LANGUAGE MIS-USE
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Next time you buy Mainland Cheese, don’t think the “Mainland” is the South Island – it will be Mainland China
Point of Order
Trump’s victory: Golden age or fiscal reckoning?
Utopia
“Trans & Pregnant” – Biology trumps gender ideology
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d