'Debt Collector'

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 04:14PM

pirelli wrote: »

So the Judge Judy example isn't relevant to the OP's problem. It was however based on a verbal contract and i think at the very least that was relevant. At least I got one thank you.

Okay, i counted the thank you's... i assume the majority agree with you. wow have you never been thanked before researchwill. Well congratulations.

Why not hash this out again and again because you got a few thank you's so we can all see what a popular guy you are. This forum is saturated with law graduates with a keen understanding of the law and who seek out intelligent conversations about the aspects of the law they have studied and are not too keen on interpretations of the law that are not correct.

Nor am I a law student/graduate so i can never please these graduates or scholars of the law... I confine my activities here to the subjects i am knowledgeable and interested in. I happen to be a very active investor and i have alot more knowledge in this area than you probably have. As an investor I would feel more strongly for the investor than i would for the business person. That is what i meant by being entitled to my opinion.

I don't understand your analogy about nano technology being powered by duracell battery's.

Nanotechnology means building things from the bottom up, with atomic precision. Bottom up nanotechnology involves molecular self-assembly without guidance or management from an outside sources. You might say Chemistry and biology help assemble growth and not a set of AA duracell battery's.

I have to say as an engineer I find that comment utterly insulting and your crude understanding of the subject typical of your smug profession.

That is exactly my point I don't koen about Nano tech I know nothing about it other than my interest in syfy. As you know what you are saying I will say well now I know a little bit more.

You pointed out to me how my example is bad in science, all I did was point out to you how your examples are bad in law. Not to make you feel small but just to show what the real situation is.

Lots of people come on here with preconceived ideas about different subjects, all I ever do is point out what I know if someone want to learn from that great if the don't that's fine.

If you remember recently there was a thread where a teacher made a comment about reporting a sexual assault, he had a huge issue with AGS, but on teasing out the information it turned out his problem was in reality with the principle.

You mentioned earlier about the thread dealing with the Sherlock SI, my point with that was many people could not even tell me the proposed wording of the SI which was about a page long. Yet those same people where telling me what the SI was going to do without ever reading it.

Imagine how you would feel, knowing my crap understanding to nanotechnology, if I believed all research should be banned because of my understanding, that would be scarry. Yet it's how we deal with the law everyday.

No one wants you to please them on here, all people want to do is exchange ideas and information. You pointed out how little I know about science, do I now get upset no I say well I learned a little today. On the other hand when a lawyer points out why another persons post is wrong he is told you are a smug lawyer.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 04:15PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

There have been outlandish theories and wild speculation on boards but I don't think it is normal for lawyers. In fact the biggest issue with lawyers is in my opinion as one that they are usually very conservative.

The problem people have with the SEC, while it may show investors have rights, that would a be in the USA and 2 in relation to proper regulated investment. Again to post from the SEC in relation to an Irish question is that it does not answer the question. Another example say a person asks about gun control law in Ireland and I post information from Texas where I can but a M16. While that might be an ok answer if the discussion is about how different countries treat guns, if the question is what kinda gun can I buy in Ireland it does not answer the question.

In relation to miscarriages of justice, this is a very small area of law. The biggest issue is that no system including the legal system likes to admit it made a serious mistake. But it does happen, some people get shafted, but in most cases it is not the judge jury solicitors or barristers that do the shafting it's the person who gives false evidence or makes a mess of the samples. The Birmingham 6, Guilford 4 etc. spent years in jail because of bad police work and bad lab work. The legal profession in the UK on that case other than a few exceptions did not cover themselves in glory. I once met Gareth Pearse, and asked her why was she the first solicitor to argue a case in the HOL she said because no barrister would take the case.

BTW in relation to lawyers never achieving something, I would disagree totally, many of the rights you and I take for granted happened because brave citizens with the help of lawyers stood up. Take the Hep C scandal it was lawyers against the odds took those cases yes without the very brave women it would never happened but with out lawyers, like Mary Robinson who was involved in a large number of ground breaking cases in relation to condoms, homosexuality etc. this country would have been a different place.

I was just being humorous in my previous post so please don't take offence. I suppose one would expect that USA laws would be radically different which in the detail they are but they are becoming more and more universal as the Market is an international and worldwide system.

Thank you for your piece on miscarriages of justice. I think your antidote about meeting Gareth Pearse sums up my fustration with Barristers and solictor's because ignoring this would be like an engineer ignoring the toxic waste of his manufacturing process or using carbon producing energies rather than considering alternative energies.

The legal profession to me is like Texaco or Shell oil in drilling for oil in Ecuador
without any regard for the pollution and waste and harm it can cause the ecosystem. The excuse it that it is just another drop in the ocean what harm can a little damage do.

It would be great if the legal profession acted responsibly and viewed miscarriages of justice like an oil spill and everyone pitched in to get the disaster cleaned up .

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 04:31PM

pirelli wrote: »

I was just being humorous in my previous post so please don't take offence. I suppose one would expect that USA laws would be radically different which in the detail they are but they are becoming more and more universal as the Market is an international and worldwide system.

Thank you for your piece on miscarriages of justice. I think your antidote about meeting Gareth Pearse sums up my fustration with Barristers and solictor's because ignoring this would be like an engineer ignoring the toxic waste of his manufacturing process or using carbon producing energies rather than considering alternative energies.

The legal profession to me is like Texaco or Shell oil in drilling for oil in Ecuador
without any regard for the pollution and waste and harm it can cause the ecosystem. The excuse it that it is just another drop in the ocean what harm can a little damage do.

It would be great if the legal profession acted responsibly and viewed miscarriages of justice like an oil spill and everyone pitched in to get the disaster cleaned up .

Good point about international law, yes because of banking and commerce being world wide trades those areas have what are by and large universal laws so to speak but really only in the international sphere.

I agree about miscarriages of justice but there are loads of lawyers would give their eyeteeth for a good constitutional law miscarriage of justice case. I receive at least one call a week asking my will I take a case with little chance of getting paid. I like many lawyers take those cases.

Yes some lawyers are only interested in the fees like some teachers are only interested in wage cheque as in any profession. I know doctors who won't see a client unless the have €50 and other doctors who will see clients with no medical card and little money. But like any time you are looking for people to do work for you search around ask people, you will be supprised.

I could tell countless stories where a lawyer has changed a persons life for no other reason than he is good at what he does. I am also sorry to say there are stories where lawyers don't. Like your example of exon not all lawyers are big law. Some practice in the hard areas of crime, child care and deportation.

Remember miscarriages of justice are rarely caused by lawyers but usually fixed by them. In relation to Heb C it was doctors who allowed bad product to be used. It was government who dragged out a case till the plaintiff died. It was lawyers who took those first cases with little chance or hope.

Amazotheamazing · 08-02-2012 04:45PM

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?

If you can't see just how much you've missed the point of what you're quoting I genuinely doubt anyone on boards, or possibly real life, will be able to explain it to you.

So with that in mind, let me just say, yes, you are completely right, carry on etc.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 05:03PM

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good point about international law, yes because of banking and commerce being world wide trades those areas have what are by and large universal laws so to speak but really only in the international sphere.

I agree about miscarriages of justice but there are loads of lawyers would give their eyeteeth for a good constitutional law miscarriage of justice case. I receive at least one call a week asking my will I take a case with little chance of getting paid. I like many lawyers take those cases.

Yes some lawyers are only interested in the fees like some teachers are only interested in wage cheque as in any profession. I know doctors who won't see a client unless the have €50 and other doctors who will see clients with no medical card and little money. But like any time you are looking for people to do work for you search around ask people, you will be supprised.

I could tell countless stories where a lawyer has changed a persons life for no other reason than he is good at what he does. I am also sorry to say there are stories where lawyers don't. Like your example of exon not all lawyers are big law. Some practice in the hard areas of crime, child care and deportation.

Remember miscarriages of justice are rarely caused by lawyers but usually fixed by them. In relation to Heb C it was doctors who allowed bad product to be used. It was government who dragged out a case till the plaintiff died. It was lawyers who took those first cases with little chance or hope.

A constitutional miscarriage of law..well if you know of a barrister that wants an instruction on such a case I know of a perfect constitutional miscarriage of justice. However these cases are always from years ago well outside the statute of limitations unless you can get around that.

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 05:06PM

pirelli wrote: »

A constitutional miscarriage of law..well if you know of a barrister that wants an instruction on such a case I know of a perfect constitutional miscarriage of justice. However these cases are always from years ago well outside the statute of limitations unless you can get around that.

The statute may or may not apply depending on the facts. Remember many of the abuse cases are upto 40 and 50 years old. But if you do have a case you will need to go to a solicitor. IF you want to PM me outline I may be able to send you in the right directon.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 05:24PM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

If you can't see just how much you've missed the point of what you're quoting I genuinely doubt anyone on boards, or possibly real life, will be able to explain it to you.

So with that in mind, let me just say, yes, you are completely right, carry on etc.

It is related to consumer advertising. I do know that. Was the investor found through an email communication and was the business online.These are all possibilities. If the law protects investors in someway then it might be just such a situation. It's a shot in the dark rather than me misunderstanding what i was quoting.

Importantly neither you nor I are privy to these facts so there is no point in becoming belligerent but i appreciate your trying to form an opinion as to what position the OP might be in, perhaps answer his questions.

Amazotheamazing · 08-02-2012 05:30PM

pirelli wrote: »

It is related to consumer advertising. I do know that. Was the investor found through an email communication and was the business online.These are all possibilities. If the law protects investors in someway then it might be just such a situation. It's a shot in the dark rather than me misunderstanding what i was quoting.

Importantly neither you nor I are privy to these facts so there is no point in becoming belligerent but i appreciate your trying to form an opinion as to what position the OP might be in, perhaps answer his questions.

And what in the OP launched you down the consumer advertising path?

why not just wait for the OP to come back rather than fill in the blanks yourself?

'Debt Collector'

Comments