Producing forged documents to a court is an offence in and of itself, so a few prosecutions of this (former) officer based on that might yield some satisfactory results. And jail time.
so it can be instantly disregarded as a news source. Fox News excuse was that it was a source of entertainment rather than news. The Daily Mail can't even rise to that pitiful excuse...
I am a retired lawyer. If anyone approached me with the claim to determine people were lying by such means I hope I would not only reject such claims but actively take action to prevent anyone else from acting upon them.... Happily I do not live in the USA. Any judge where I live would, from my experience, not only reject such claims but would (metaphorically) disembowel anyone daring to promoting such fantastical claims
This is a piece of pure cheek by the SKYY people. Beer is in Class 32 and other alcoholic beverages are in Class 33. They are entirely separate and distinct groupings.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-classify-trade-marks#choosing-the-right-classes-for-your-application
https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr
/?explanatory_notes=show&lang=en&menulang=en¬ion=class_headings&version=20190101
Liz Truss is a notorious idiot, famed for her many blunders and gaffes. This is just one of ever so many from her. The sad thing is that she is currently on course to be elected by the Conservative Party as Prime Minister (not the UK electorate. Please don't blame us for her.) Today, at the time of writing she is under fire for her all-new policy of "levelling down" the regions (she didn't realise that was what she was doing. Really.) AND publicly insulting the First Minister of Scotland (she knew what she was doing there and went ahead with it anyway). Tomorrow? Who knows...
Not only does he get to keep on being paid until he actually resigns, he retains his pension rights when he does? (I am presuming he receives enhanced pension rights as a former LEO. but am open to correction on this)
The problem here is that people are confusing the civil cases with the criminal (appeal) cases. The initial civil case ended up going so badly that the Post Office, realising just how badly their defense was going (it was being heard in several stages), tried to have the judge removed. The Court of Appeal took one look at that application to remove the judge and tore the Post Office apart. When the eventual judgment in the civil case did come out it was about the most damning judgment there could have been. For those who think I'm exaggerating I suggest they read it. Once that came out it was blatantly apparent that the criminal cases simply didn't stand up to scrutiny, and worse that the Post Office had failed to disclose the defects in the system when they knew they had to when prosecuting. There are serious questions being raised about the conduct of the Post Office's lawyers who conducted the prosecutions (the Post Office gets to carry out its own prosecutions), let alone senior management of whom some are still in management positions today, if not in the Post Office then elsewhere. However, one or two are beginning to understand that companies don't want to be associated with them anymore and resignations are beginning to appear. (Not necessarily entirely voluntary)
Oh, and apologetic? Yeah right... want to see what they offer by way of compensation? Like the civil case it'll likely be minimal at best
Seems to me that the fastest way of stopping that particular nonsense is to invite the courts to operate on the principle of "contra proferentem" i.e. if the police can't / won't show what the messages were then invite the court to draw an adverse inference from that (that the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Yes, I know it really applies to contract law, but why not here as well?)
This pretty much sums up the current UK government, all talk about how cutting edge and forward looking they are. So much so that words like "groovy" and "man" are thought to be "with it"...
In reality, a great deal of lazy rhetoric and grandstanding, with little to no real substance. The word "pitiful" has been applied to them, only after careful consideration to have been replaced by the word "abysmal".
‘the name Tay, as I’m sure you must know, is closely associated with our client.’
Huh? Try that claim in Scotland and the laughter would be riniging in your ears....
Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv’ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember’d for a very long time.
There seems to be rather more to this story than is being presented at first sight. If you read these accounts then, from some of the details given, there's a suggestion that he is rather less the "Jack The Lad" he makes himself out to be...
The thing that intrigues me is that *someone* is making conscious decisions not to release reports, reports that were obtained at substantial (pubic) expense. Perhaps he/she/they should be named and asked to provide a (detailed) explanation why they decided to effectively throw those monies away.... and under what authority they did so?
I actually looked up the trademark and the description of the class of trademark applies to paper materials, specifically "Class (016) - Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers' type; printing blocks."
Does anyone know if that therefore applies to this case, an electronic communication?
An interesting point that seems to have been missed (or rather, the applicants are keeping quiet about because they know full well what could well be coming) is that overreach on an Anton Piller Order is a serious, and I do mean *serious*, breach of professional ethics/conduct on the part of the lawyers(s) who were overseeing the execution of the Order. Anton Piller Orders normally contain such a provision that the lawyers attend to prevent such overreach occurring and if that's the case here.... Such professional misconduct can form part of a wholly separate complaint to their professional body, irrespective of the court proceedings. I've seen lawyers face being struck off for such behaviour (I'm based in the UK). If Lackman feels so minded he can raise that with the lawyers professional body as a separate issue.
A question that no-one seems to have asked (I may have missed the answer). Just where did the drugs actually come from? I mean by that - where did the police officers *originally* acquire the drugs?
Interesting little throwaway comment in one of the articles that "nobody charged him criminally until the Feds came along..." ( http://www.lisa-legalinfo.com/ ). Certainly there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason for the FBI to become involved, unless perhaps someone locally wasn't doing their duty in prosecuting?
You definitely have my sympathy. I was sued in the past, by a person who made utterly outrageous and very serious allegations about me professionally. The intention was not just to try and silence me but to destroy my professional reputation. They were wholly unfounded and, happily, I was able to prove they were exactly that. I was fortunate, I *am* a lawyer in civil litigation so the costs weren't a worry to me and I knew exactly what steps to take, but it made me appreciate just how stressful it must be for someone who feels they've had control of their lives taken away from them.
He has no idea why he’s been singled out
Because he's doing a good job and making Air Canada look bad?
Hmmm
Producing forged documents to a court is an offence in and of itself, so a few prosecutions of this (former) officer based on that might yield some satisfactory results. And jail time.
It's the Daily Mail....
so it can be instantly disregarded as a news source. Fox News excuse was that it was a source of entertainment rather than news. The Daily Mail can't even rise to that pitiful excuse...
This is truly disgusting
I am a retired lawyer. If anyone approached me with the claim to determine people were lying by such means I hope I would not only reject such claims but actively take action to prevent anyone else from acting upon them.... Happily I do not live in the USA. Any judge where I live would, from my experience, not only reject such claims but would (metaphorically) disembowel anyone daring to promoting such fantastical claims
In a class of it's own....
This is a piece of pure cheek by the SKYY people. Beer is in Class 32 and other alcoholic beverages are in Class 33. They are entirely separate and distinct groupings. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-classify-trade-marks#choosing-the-right-classes-for-your-application https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr /?explanatory_notes=show&lang=en&menulang=en¬ion=class_headings&version=20190101
And the surprise is.....?
Liz Truss is a notorious idiot, famed for her many blunders and gaffes. This is just one of ever so many from her. The sad thing is that she is currently on course to be elected by the Conservative Party as Prime Minister (not the UK electorate. Please don't blame us for her.) Today, at the time of writing she is under fire for her all-new policy of "levelling down" the regions (she didn't realise that was what she was doing. Really.) AND publicly insulting the First Minister of Scotland (she knew what she was doing there and went ahead with it anyway). Tomorrow? Who knows...
Hmmm
Not only does he get to keep on being paid until he actually resigns, he retains his pension rights when he does? (I am presuming he receives enhanced pension rights as a former LEO. but am open to correction on this)
The problem here is that people are confusing the civil cases with the criminal (appeal) cases. The initial civil case ended up going so badly that the Post Office, realising just how badly their defense was going (it was being heard in several stages), tried to have the judge removed. The Court of Appeal took one look at that application to remove the judge and tore the Post Office apart. When the eventual judgment in the civil case did come out it was about the most damning judgment there could have been. For those who think I'm exaggerating I suggest they read it. Once that came out it was blatantly apparent that the criminal cases simply didn't stand up to scrutiny, and worse that the Post Office had failed to disclose the defects in the system when they knew they had to when prosecuting. There are serious questions being raised about the conduct of the Post Office's lawyers who conducted the prosecutions (the Post Office gets to carry out its own prosecutions), let alone senior management of whom some are still in management positions today, if not in the Post Office then elsewhere. However, one or two are beginning to understand that companies don't want to be associated with them anymore and resignations are beginning to appear. (Not necessarily entirely voluntary)
Oh, and apologetic? Yeah right... want to see what they offer by way of compensation? Like the civil case it'll likely be minimal at best
Seems to me that the fastest way of stopping that particular nonsense is to invite the courts to operate on the principle of "contra proferentem" i.e. if the police can't / won't show what the messages were then invite the court to draw an adverse inference from that (that the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Yes, I know it really applies to contract law, but why not here as well?)
And we are all surprised?
This pretty much sums up the current UK government, all talk about how cutting edge and forward looking they are. So much so that words like "groovy" and "man" are thought to be "with it"...
In reality, a great deal of lazy rhetoric and grandstanding, with little to no real substance. The word "pitiful" has been applied to them, only after careful consideration to have been replaced by the word "abysmal".
With apologies to William McGonagall...
‘the name Tay, as I’m sure you must know, is closely associated with our client.’
Huh? Try that claim in Scotland and the laughter would be riniging in your ears....
Beautiful Railway Bridge of the Silv’ry Tay!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That ninety lives have been taken away
On the last Sabbath day of 1879,
Which will be remember’d for a very long time.
Re: Is it communicable?
Avariciousness? Covetousness? Or just plain old hubris?
There seems to be rather more to this story than is being presented at first sight. If you read these accounts then, from some of the details given, there's a suggestion that he is rather less the "Jack The Lad" he makes himself out to be...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pug-nazi-salute-youtube-video-owner-guilty-hate-crime-mark-meechan-lanarkshire-a8265301.html
The thing that intrigues me is that *someone* is making conscious decisions not to release reports, reports that were obtained at substantial (pubic) expense. Perhaps he/she/they should be named and asked to provide a (detailed) explanation why they decided to effectively throw those monies away.... and under what authority they did so?
I actually looked up the trademark and the description of the class of trademark applies to paper materials, specifically
"Class (016) - Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers' type; printing blocks."
Does anyone know if that therefore applies to this case, an electronic communication?
An interesting point that seems to have been missed (or rather, the applicants are keeping quiet about because they know full well what could well be coming) is that overreach on an Anton Piller Order is a serious, and I do mean *serious*, breach of professional ethics/conduct on the part of the lawyers(s) who were overseeing the execution of the Order. Anton Piller Orders normally contain such a provision that the lawyers attend to prevent such overreach occurring and if that's the case here.... Such professional misconduct can form part of a wholly separate complaint to their professional body, irrespective of the court proceedings. I've seen lawyers face being struck off for such behaviour (I'm based in the UK). If Lackman feels so minded he can raise that with the lawyers professional body as a separate issue.
A question that no-one seems to have asked (I may have missed the answer). Just where did the drugs actually come from? I mean by that - where did the police officers *originally* acquire the drugs?
Interesting little throwaway comment in one of the articles that "nobody charged him criminally until the Feds came along..." ( http://www.lisa-legalinfo.com/ ). Certainly there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason for the FBI to become involved, unless perhaps someone locally wasn't doing their duty in prosecuting?
You definitely have my sympathy. I was sued in the past, by a person who made utterly outrageous and very serious allegations about me professionally. The intention was not just to try and silence me but to destroy my professional reputation. They were wholly unfounded and, happily, I was able to prove they were exactly that. I was fortunate, I *am* a lawyer in civil litigation so the costs weren't a worry to me and I knew exactly what steps to take, but it made me appreciate just how stressful it must be for someone who feels they've had control of their lives taken away from them.
I fear this sounds to me like someone saying "please stop beating me while I take some time out to get a bigger stick"