chipper wrote:
Freedom of speech is great but the stuff getting posted was getting personal and a wee bit out of line. I have no problems with your views I may not agree with them at times but thats freedom of speech for you but come on tell the truth you were spoiling for a fight
Yes, I was spoiling for a fight. The strategy was always to engage on my terms. And it has worked out perfectly.
Wednesday was about dealing with costs applied against me. I would never have paid these, but I wanted all the costs to be awarded to the pursuer. Indeed, had it not been for the costs aspect, I would likely not have bothered even turning up. However, I'm glad that I did, because what I learned about the process was extremely interesting, immensely useful and reassuring to me that I can enter the arena and defend myself satisfactorily, even accounting for the complexity of the Law - the legal minefield.
My objective was to do what I could to prevent the burden of costs. Imagine my surprise when this was delivered up so readily and easily.
And, while I have voluntarily agreed to the specific terms of the "gagging order", I understand that others in the campaign group may be moving to host a new site in the US, where separate and doubly expensive action would need to be taken to close it down - remembering of course how Americans will stoically defend the right to free speech - their
Fifth Amendment. We should remember that these kinds of actions need to be taken in both the location of domicile and where the alleged defamation takes place - in this case where the information is hosted - a
double action, and the legal minefield that no one really yet understands. So, this exercise was effectively futile. Costs have been incurred, and the desired effect not achieved, a fact I will come to rely on in my defence during the proof.
Now, as we move to the proof stage, all the costs are paid by the pursuer. Their only recourse is to win the case and have the court award costs and damages against me.
Aware of the potential for this, my finances are arranged that I am personally in a negative net worth situation. My spouse has nothing to do with this matter, she is not responsible for my actions, she can't be attacked financially as a result of the action. So the pursuers, even if they did win the case, would not get any financial recompense. They would also have to bear the costs of the case. As was commented by legal experts after the McDonalds case, "Is it a victory worth having?"
I understand that these cases are usually held before a jury, involve QC's and expensive court time, all exacerbated by a laborious process and delays.
Such cases are also immensely complex, it is entirely likely that the whole taxi trade and the council's handling of it can be brought under the spotlight, and we would be going through the process line by line. Even the Justiciary are uncertain of the Laws pertaining to freedom of speech and Human Rights. I suspect that there is a burden on the courts to ensure that Human Rights are not breached. This being the case there is every chance that I can petition the Court to have counsel supplied to me to cover this aspect of the case. These costs would apply to the trial and be picked up by the pursuer who could then seek them against me, negative net worth et al.
Given the complexity of these cases, they can be long drawn out affairs. The McDonalds case lasted 10 years, 314 court days and 10 million pounds. Now, I'm not saying this case is as complex as that, may not last as long, may not cost as much, but it is certain that it will last a considerable time. And while it does, it will open every aspect of the pursuer's business before a watching public, the fullest examination, with the potential for commercial destruction as those who know them, use their services, make their own judgement on what has been going on, how the service is delivered to them.
The two forums are essentially small incestuous arenas watched by relatively few trade interests. Whether customers are even aware of them is doubtful. Whether regulatory authorities scan them, or pay any heed to what's said on them is dubious also - would they ever admit to it? This is a perfect opportunity to bring them into the witness box and ask them.
Bringing this matter into the public spotlight will damage the pursuer infinitely more than I could ever have done. A kind of public self-flagellation. A kind of corporate madness.
As for other aspects of your post, I understand what you are saying. However, I can't comment further because it may divulge tactics I can rely on in part of the proof. Perhaps you can work it out for yourself. The secret is in the Law itself. A Law that is based on logic. Something which I have no difficulty understanding and being able to make use of.
And remember, precedent is no longer the preserve of lawyers, accessing the dusty books of Case Law they've secreted away on their own library shelves, inaccessible to mere mortals like us - he who possesses knowledge possesses power - the justification for the ridiculous fees they charge.
No, the internet can deliver equality to all, Case Law and precedent can be readily found on the internet, it's now the preserve of, and easily accessible by, the public at large. And, when word gets round that a "big man" is using the Law as a stick to beat a wee man, the internet can garner widespread support to help protect the wee man. Wee men, knowledgeable men, will rally to the cause, because next time - it could be them.
I believe that there are already instances where a taxi company has taken recourse to legal action and the membership was levied to meet the cost of the action. Can anyone provide any instances of this, what the action was, how much was levied and what the membership are known to have thought about it? The information would be very useful.
Although I have a substantial part of the proof covered, I have already in large part developed my strategy, I would be grateful if anyone on TDO would care to offer me any support, moral or technical, and/or background information that may be useful, no matter what it may be, preferably through private message or directly to my mail box at
jasbar@btinternet.com.
Many thanks.
Incidentally, just think of the pursuers and their legal team poring over the voluminous postings I'll be making over the piece to ascertain whether I have breached their Interdict? More expense, all of which will have to be borne by the pursuer and its membership.
All the while they will not be able to understand how they could possibly have failed to use the strong arm of their normal legal process to subjugate me, us, render me, us, impotent and frightened of what they would do to me, us. These are not the normal circumstances they are used to working in. They have been engaged in a bloody battle and, while the legal eagles can make huge amounts of money from it, they'll not understand it, ultimately can't win it. Nor will they be bothered by this. Fees, not victories, are the driving force of the legal fraternity. If this were not so, then they would be happy to conduct the case
pro bono, taking a huge cut of any damages awarded.
There may be a temptation for some to band together in the face of this action, to defend one's perception of one's interests against the defenders of the pursuer's actions. That would be their right. It is also the logic of fools.
Personally, I believe that they should defend their corner to the last man. That way, my victory will be complete.
Just like Custer's petulant, stoic show of determination at the Little Big Horn.
Login
Register
FAQ
)
