FCMR Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 In reply to a posting regarding our ongoing court case against the Neds, I would confirm the following. We are to appear in Court at 2pm 28 Feb 2005 for the Judge to set a date for the hearing. The posting stated that the case was to be put back for two months, we are not aware of this but have been made aware by CuPlas Ltd that their Advocates have been informed that the Advocates for the Neds are requesting a delay in the proceedings unti April 11 2005. CuPlas Ltd case was to be heard at the same court as ours on the 28 Feb 2005, this may cause a delay to the whole case, but we will not know untill the day of the court. I hope this clears matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ... we are not aware of this but have been made aware by CuPlas Ltd that their Advocates have been informed that the Advocates for the Neds are requesting a delay in the proceedings unti April 11 2005... Do you not have an advocate? Why are you only learning of possible delays through CuPlas' advocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 ... we are not aware of this but have been made aware by CuPlas Ltd that their Advocates have been informed that the Advocates for the Neds are requesting a delay in the proceedings unti April 11 2005... Do you not have an advocate? Why are you only learning of possible delays through CuPlas' advocate? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes we do have a very good Advocate, but others Advocates can keep you out of courts for years or untill you can no longer afford the legal bills, thats how the big boys win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Fatty Toad Boy Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Who are Ned's advocates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 That's his own private business isn't it? Not any of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I think everything to do with our chief minister being arrested, prosecuted, taken to court or all of the above is our business. though the rumour is she will be needing more defending than him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Rumours = Bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Sure, he's a public figure. But his choice of defence is his private business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Facts, ah-oh, saviour of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gidderwook Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I think everything to do with our chief minister being arrested, prosecuted, taken to court or all of the above is our business. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ex Chief Minister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 oh really? thanks for the heads up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Fatty Toad Boy Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Sure, he's a public figure. But his choice of defence is his private business. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's public knowledge isn't it... just not my knowledge. Didn't his advocate speak out on his arrest? I'll wait until the 28th then, when his advocate will stand up in court to defend him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gidderwook Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 oh really? thanks for the heads up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No worries, anytime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Tis very sad that once again a person in high public profile has married a person of lesser intelligence, or at least that is the way things will be delivered. Remember the trees Mrs Ned had felled? imagine not consulting your husband over such matters and no doubt she went off on her own again telling the builders, this telling the builders that - and the stupid builders took her word for it and didnt get anyones signature. Its all so much Bull xxxx - from the Neds, the builders, the whole 'kiboodle' is just dirty and smelly - like rotting seaweed. Jobs for the boys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Sure, he's a public figure. But his choice of defence is his private business. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He has registered Dickinson, Cruickshank & Co (Geof Karran) as his Advocates with the Courts, who are also the Governments Advocates. TheBees Signatures ? In Hansards for the Select committee into Grants the DTL stated that the invoices presented by the Neds had been signed as paid but could not make out the signatures as they were not the same as on the other invoices. They said they looked more like squiggles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.