pirelli wrote: » You must have done a background on Judge Judy, while she is in your words a low level judicial appointment and not a supreme court judge, you might have underestimated her judgement in this matter. Refer to post below. That is exactly the finding Judge Judy made. May i write that again....Judge Judy identical finding. She jumps like a tiger and stings like a bee, you and your supreme court merely meet the basic level of of her appointment. How did Flavin and DCC possibly reach the supreme court, sounds like a legal rip off. Judge Judy any day much more cost effective... Just as in Judge Judy an offer was made and was accepted end of case. No wonder you guys end up in the supreme court when you cannot even understand Judge Judy. Tsk Tsk 'Jump in a lake' You wouldn't last five minutes with her with that attitude sir. Come back when your a judge. All hail Judge Judy
blueythebear wrote: » While I know the above post is tongue in cheek.... I'm pretty sure that Judge Judy and the like, while appearing as courtrooms, they are actually arbitrations with Judge Judy being more accurately described as an arbitrator (although no arbitrator would actually talk to the parties as she does). Anyway, there is no application of law so that Judge Judy's relevance to any legal question is zero.
pirelli wrote: » Arbitration Agreement: "The Arbitrator's Decision (That's Judge Judy's Decision) and her interpretation and application of laws and principles she uses in arriving at the Decision, shall be final and binding upon the parties. Judge Judy uses her interpretation and application of laws in making a decision. So her decision will likely be an application of the law. Tongue in cheek perhaps and I am not any where near as qualified as you guy's so I turn to Judge Judy to arbitrate for me. So be shrewd in your criticism's. Hence forth i shall post Judge Judy videos to better explain a solution to a legal problem as i see it.
ResearchWill wrote: » Your statement that a person who loses someone's money is not exactly a good guy astounds me
drunkmonkey wrote: » Will in the OP's opening statement it sounded like he made an assumption that the investors accepted he lost all his investment. It in no way sounded like everything was wound up properly and if there was some money to be made from the sale of assets did the investor see any of it. He also changed his phone number which suggests he was trying to dodge someone. I'm not saying OP is a bad guy, he has said he'll get in contact and see is everything ok and has also said he will try and make some kind of payback to the investor if required. He sounds like he wants to make a mends. There all traits of a good guy who might have just got things a little wrong in the past but is willing to make things good again.
blueythebear wrote: » That's one idea...Or you could use a valid source of knowledge. A single source with the answer to every potential problem. The Simpsons.There is no situation or problem that cannot be explained through the medium of quoting the Simpsons.
ResearchWill wrote: » From my understanding of The Judge Judy case it was an attack on a lawyer. She in my opinion said that there was a contract to sell a fake rug, no court should stand over any contract written or otherwise that is a fraud. It was and is bad law. She shows her self to be a bully and if that is her interpretation of law a bad judge. I would also guess Judge Judy earns more than any suprem court judge in Ireland. While she is entertaining, it is not law. Now I have show I could last 5 mins with Judge Judy, her decision is flawed in any court it was an unveiled attack on a lawyer to sink to the lowest level. I have not insulted you to date I have attacked the post not the poster. Well gloves off I have seen you post the most stupid rubbish on this forum, you have given advice which is against forum charter and are as thick as bat crap. You have posted a judge Judy clip to back up what argument I don't know in fact the Judge Judy clip goes against the advice you gave the OP according to Judge Judy if the OP defrauded the investor/lender is does not matter there was a contract. Please in future if you are giving advice please please make sure you have all the facts and that the advice is good. Now start your rant about lawyers of you wish at least I have the balls to ID my profession. So as you said, you would not last 5 mins in front of me at least I have run cases in the HC and SC which courts have you ran a case in just asking.
ResearchWill wrote: » The reason I was astounded which was clear from my full post, was the poster in my opinion was stating any person who set up in business and lost money was a bad guy. As I keep saying there in no where near enough information from the OP to know what happened. I will say again I don't know what happened and I think for anyone to make statements like pay back the money, give the guy 2500 and you must be a bad guy on such little info is plain wrong, yes it might be the persons opinion it might even be correct, but I can not see how it can be made with so little info. You as others have stated we don't know was it wound up correctly. We don't even know was it a limited company we don't know was it a sole trader, that is my point we don't know so how can anyone advise anyone in such a situation. I am not nor have I made a value judgment on the OP why you ask, because I don't have enough info to do so. I have seen people on these boards post not only incorrect info but down right dangerous info. Giving people advice that is just plain wrong. And to advice anyone in the OPs situation to contact the other person and admit the debt and then to contact a solicitor is just crazy. I am not advising the OP not to pay I am saying take yourself off to solicitor, FLAC or MABS and give them all info and get sound advice.
pirelli wrote: » I think Drunk monkey already explained why ResearchWill. There is an impression that things went down like the titanic without the brass band. Your just tossing hay with this post. I certainly did not come even close to giving advice. Hey if some idiot gave some other idiot 5000 euro and then comes on an Internet forum and after been given a good telling off hands back 2500 euro. to the first idiot seems like a good days work to me. I think your little agreement with Devore has your head spinning! Your like a little Napoleon. Ready to eliminate and take over.
pirelli wrote: » I am entitled to my opinion and OP should return some of this person's money if he and it sounds like he might have mislead the investor and i am not assuming the person who stupidly gave him 5000 euro may be the person making this i inappropriate contact but could be one of many people including the litigant or creditors that the OP owes money too.
ResearchWill wrote: » To be clear if I stated verbal I mean non written communication. In the Pernod case an agreement was orally entered into between Flavin and Desmond, that Flavin would sell shares in Irish Distilers for £4.50 I think. This was agreed face to face no written record of the agreement existed or was made the only communication was verbal. Then Grand Met I think offered over £5 a share and DCC tried to pull out of the deal. The SC stated that the original oral non written deal stuck. If the SC say that it's good enough for Dermot Desmond to enter into a contract by oral means only then I personally think Judge Judy can take a jump. That oral contract was one of the most important contracts in Irish merger history as it gave the control of Irish Distilers to Pernod Ricard.
ResearchWill wrote: » Again you did not read correctly my discussion with Devore, as I always clearly stated I neither agreed not disagreed, in fact at the end of the discussion I stated I agreed and signed the petition all I asked was that a valid argument be put together otherwise there was no hope of stoping the SI, again you misquote me. Also I did not get into a tizzy about Judge Judy I love the show it's great fun. I got into a tizzy because in my opinion you insulted me. If you want to debate the pros and cons of the legal system fine. You will be surprised by my views I agree some lawyers do a terrible job, some real people get totally screwed over by the system. But that system also has helped people, many people in this country have rights because people engaged with the legal system and good lawyers. If you have a personal issue with the law don't take it out on me by all means engage in a debate but do not insult me by telling me to go take a jump in a lake. The reason I said to you that posting judge Judy to back up an argument, is that it would be like me posting a clip fro star trek to back up an argument about nano technology, something I know nothing about but would happily listen to someone who does. Also the opinion of most of the people on boards does not bother me. But I do agree that some very interesting legal points are raised here by lawyers and non lawyers alike. But if people just want to vent against the legal system then unless they are willing to engage in discussion there is no point.
pirelli wrote: » You personally insulted yourself. I was referring to your remark that Judge Judy could go take a jump....You stated this not I. You have insulted yourself. Also while we are on the subject you have admitted taking off the gloves and your attacking the poster and not the post and start throwing insults around and then refer to the charter as if i have breached it. You a prime example of a poor judgment. Also in your previous you berate Judge Judy say how bad her judgment is and what a bad use of the law and what a bully she is being and then your next post your saying you love Judge Judy. You are like that lawyer in the Judge Judy clip "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".Your being foolish..
Amazotheamazing wrote: » You are, but that opinion should be based on actual legal knowledge, not just what you think seems right. I know that's a dangerous precedent to take on the internet but one worth considering I think.
Marketing and investorshttp://www.dilloneustace.ie/download/1/A%20Guide%20to%20Selling%20Irish%20Regulated%20Investment%20Funds%20in%20Asia.pdf Discovery of fraud in a subsidiary led to a complete risk management overhaul Greencore reported that it had discovered “cost concealment” at its Scottish Water business. According to Greencore, this issue “led the Group to conduct a thorough review of its control environment and material Group risks. Securities frauds from the USAhttp://ie.vlex.com/vid/misselling-misleading-acting-promoters-217268695http://www.sec.state.ma.us/sct/sctreg/regidx.htmhttp://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21515.pdf
pirelli wrote: » Many posters here have assumed the person who gave the 5000 euros to the business was an investor who assumed the risk and was due nothing in return. While this might sound great to the OP... it just may not be the case. We do not know if the 5000 was an investment or a loan or if they were known to each other or how the loan came about. I will say from what the OP said and if we assume it was not a loan then it was based on promises that might have been inherently untrue and the money might not even qualify as an investment. All it might take is for one financial or other concealment for the question of inherent value and inherent fraud to possibly be raised. I am not giving any advice whilst many are dismissing the money as an investment i am questioning if it could even be considered an investment. There so many laws surrounding this area. The laws have changed and you cannot just dismiss money by using the word investment. I am quoting the citizens information ireland so please don't all the while try to sound like a reasonable advisor then lecture me about so called danger's of giving opinions over the internet. Citizens information: The requirements of the Consumer Protection Act and the EC Product Prices Regulations 2002 apply to online advertising. There is also some protection for Irish consumers from misleading advertisements received by email. The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumer_advertising.html
ResearchWill wrote: » You stated "Tsk Tsk 'Jump in a lake' You wouldn't last five minutes with her with that attitude sir. Come back when your a judge." That whole sentence in my opinion was to direct an insult to me, maybe you don't think so, but as you said I am entitled to my opinion. If it was not directed as an insult, then I unreservedly withdraw any insulting remark I made about you. I stated in my statement about judge Judy " While she is entertaining, it is not law." I love the show, part of the reason I like it is that she in my opinion is a twat. You stated in your first post "You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back." I would consider that to be giving advise, maybe you don't but I do, again my opinion. I am not representing my self I did not know this was a criminal or civil case I thought it was a forum, two people engage in debate, unless you want me to do so through a third party. BTW I do not understand the following "You a prime example of a poor judgment." are you saying I exercised poor judgment in some matter, or I am a poor judgement.
pirelli wrote: » You initially claimed that you were insulted by being to to go take a jump in a lake and then when I pointed out it was in fact yourself that said ' so and so should go take a jump' you have immediately gone and found something else to be insulted by. I am not going to massage the ego of an anonymous person online who by his own admission insults himself but then calls judge judy 'a real person' a twat and heavily criticises her.. i am entitled to challenge that Judge Judy would outperform you with her wit and style in five minutes. How is that insulting. What you should not be offended by researchwill is trivial remarks made in this forum and if you think any of these comments are a reflection of your abilities as a professional. They are not. I was not offended by your Anthropomorphic rant about bats and in fact you remind me of the great eccentric William Buckland , Victorian geologist and zoophagist ....a story of a visit that he and some colleagues took to St Paul’s Cathedral where they found a strange stain on the stone floor. The visitors speculated on what this strange mark could be – there was a claim that the mark was a saint’s blood, while WB got straight to the nub of the problem. Getting onto his hands and knees like a dog, he licked the substance and announced to the amazed host ‘bat urine!’.
ResearchWill wrote: » The final paragraph, now that's witty. BTW I think rant is too strong a word, more a passing remark. If I ever get the chance to go up against Judge Judy, I promise to inform you before hand so you can see, if your opinion holds water. I am sad you won't massage my ego, it is all I ever wanted. In relation to the insult comment I do believe I unreservedly withdrew.
pirelli wrote: » Here u go so! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui7EB1Yx9SM
bigneacy wrote: » Hi, I am having an issue at the moment with a pseudo debt collector. A few years back I opened a business, the business was part funded by a private investor who was to remain a silent partner. It was for a small sum - €5000. It was all very informally done - deal done on a handshake so to speak - no paperwork or the likes - I gave him a photocopy of my passport and statement of my home address to give him the reassurance. We had great hopes for the business and the future - wanted to make our fortunes - there was informal mentions of 25% ownership, hoped to double his money in a few months - the usual. The business went south after a short while and was wound up amid some possible legal proceedings with a third party. The investor was informed of this and as far as i was concerned - cut his losses. In the meantime I signed up to a new phone contract and have changed my number. I got an email two days ago from a amateurish email address along the lines of debtcollector1234 @ gmail.com. Saying in relation to the debt i owe of 10,000 to call a mobile number to make arrangements, "If you ignore this request our agents will pay you a visit. You have 48 hours to make contact on the number above, We have your home address and the your parents home address. If contact is not made in this time an agent will be called to these addresses. Thank You" Now, the address I was living at at the time of the deal is a different one to where I now live. My parents address is also different. This evening my brother gets a phonecall where a man, who would only give his first name, told him his number was very easy to find and advising that he could do this the easy way or the hard way. My brother asked was that a threat - he said he has never threatened anyone in his life. My brother asked him several times where he got his number - he wouldn't answer, asked for his name- wouldn't give it. Asked for the company he worked for - wouldn't give it. He openly discussed the details (details which he should never have had in the first place) of my 'debt' to my brother over the phone. So I have a few questions 1. Do I owe a debt? 2. Do debt collectors have a legal standing in Ireland? If so, are they licensed in any way? 3. I haven't made contact back as of yet - should I do so, or just ignore? 4. What should be my next move? Solictor? 5. What should I do if phonecalls to my brother or other relatives persist? 6. What should I do if the 'debt collector' shows up on my doorstep?
pirelli wrote: » I am quoting the citizens information ireland so please don't all the while try to sound like a reasonable advisor then lecture me about so called danger's of giving opinions over the internet. Citizens information: The requirements of the Consumer Protection Act and the EC Product Prices Regulations 2002 apply to online advertising. There is also some protection for Irish consumers from misleading advertisements received by email. The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumer_advertising.html
Amazotheamazing wrote: » What's the relevance of the citizen's advice you're referencing? The OP hasn't given us enough info to know eitherway what happened between himself and the person who loaned/invested/gave the money.
pirelli wrote: » Ask the OP what happened between himself and the person, I am not the OP how am i meant to know. I was responding to researchwill so pointless looking for relevance when you haven't or don't seem to want to have a clue as to what i am posting about.The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors. That line 'emphasizing investors' sounds helpful; more helpful than your post any day. What do you suggest the OP does..how would you address his questions in the OP?
blueythebear wrote: » In fairness, the question you're trying to answer is whether the money given to the OP was a loan or was considered an investment to be paid back only if the business venture was successful. The links you have given in relation to SI68/2003, and in relation to fraud have absolutely nothing to do with this. The only way the first question above should be answered is by going to a solicitor, outlining all of the facts and getting proper advice. Not trying to be hurtful, but this thread is a prime example of why a person should not get legal advice over the internet. This thread is an incoherent mess of bickering coupled with wild speculation and outlandish theories as to the back story. It would be great if people could try and stick to the facts given and attempt to formulate a coherent response from there.
pirelli wrote: » Hurtful to whom? Your not meant to seek legal advice! It is against the charter.. that's why the legal forum is such a madhouse; it's designed not to work in the first place. A place where you are neither allowed to seek or give advice. Just to get this clear i am not here to show off my my brilliant legal mind i am interested in miscarriages of justice and there are very few brilliant minds on this forum in that area. In fact zero...and it is an area you should understand. I am qualified in other areas and law is not my profession although i have done certificates and I might finish off the FE1 but only as a hobby. I am not an enthusiastic law graduate and if they are the only people you think should post here then you might look to open a sub forum where you can talk shop all day. Also that link is titled us securities etc..was just an example of how investors can sue you.I wasn't going to spend hours trawling google just to prove a point i know little about in any case. Being an investor does not necessarily mean you lose all your money if the business goes bust particularly if one party is unable to say if it was an investment. In regards to your comments about the thread, you would be just another poster adding to that confusion. I suppose if you can make a small difference in the world you will be content, even if it is whining about a thread in a forum somewhere that you might get closed. The greater majority would like see reform of the legal profession and the industry if that is the right word as a whole. That will never happen because and i do not wish to be hurtful, but all that ever happens with lawyers is they bicker, make wild speculations and outlandish theories and never achieve anything and rip everybody off so they can make some money.
ResearchWill wrote: » It is posts about judge Judy and citizens advice on topics that have nothing to do with the OP, that I have given up on this thread. While there is a reference to investors in the information you posted, the information is for consumers, it is to protect the likes of you and me if we see a web site advertising say an investment in company shares. There must be certain safe guards for the consumer. You stated earlier you are an engineer if I remember correctly. Imagine now a situation where a person has asked a question or posed a problem about something you know a lot about. You mentioned nano tech, so say the question was about how to provide power to nano technology. Say I said its power why not use AA batteries, well to me it fits the question but it shows a total lack of understanding of the issues not much use having a nanobot that requires a microscope to see if it is attached to a bloody great big battery. That is the problem with your post, yes you are trying to help the OP but how is a TV show judge who rules in favour of a fraudster in any way given the OP relevant info. While your post from citizens advice does relate to investment it has no relevance to the OP. the posting of SEC info the same. The simple facts of life are, people enter into contracts everyday without writing them. The example I gave about Irish distillers shows how huge deals are some times done on no more than a hand shake, that hand shake cost DCC a fortune. People enter into small loans and investment every day with out writing it down, is that a good idea no but people will do it. Then sadly when lawyers get involved its their fault, even though all they are trying to do is fix the mess. I have clearly stated the OP should seek proper advice, if he can not afford it then FLAC or MABS maybe able to help.
pirelli wrote: » Hurtful to whom? Your not meant to seek legal advice! It is against the charter.. that's why the legal forum is such a madhouse; it's designed not to work in the first place. A place where you are neither allowed to seek or give advice.
pirelli wrote: » Just to get this clear i am not here to show off my my brilliant legal mind i am interested in miscarriages of justice and there are very few brilliant minds on this forum in that area. In fact zero...and it is an area you should understand. I am qualified in other areas and law is not my profession although i have done certificates and I might finish off the FE1 but only as a hobby.
pirelli wrote: » I am not an enthusiastic law graduate and if they are the only people you think should post here then you might look to open a sub forum where you can talk shop all day.
pirelli wrote: » Also that link is titled us securities etc..was just an example of how investors can sue you.I wasn't going to spend hours trawling google just to prove a point i know little about in any case. Being an investor does not necessarily mean you lose all your money if the business goes bust particularly if one party is unable to say if it was an investment.
pirelli wrote: » The greater majority would like see reform of the legal profession and the industry if that is the right word as a whole. That will never happen because and i do not wish to be hurtful, but all that ever happens with lawyers is they bicker, make wild speculations and outlandish theories and never achieve anything and rip everybody off so they can make some money.
