"Guy Fawkes" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well we went in half an hour late at 3:15, in there for an hour.

As of 4:15 pm 5EX90059 is a dead duck, struck out as an abuse of
process, in the judge's words "...because no jury has a hope of making
sense of it..." and "... the file here is over 1000 pages long..."

Have to say, I can't disagree with the beak, he was clearly as sick of
it as I was, and his points were quite correct, should have been
___FAR___ more concise, and thus not waste the courts time wading
through tons of stuff, and hence and abuse of process.

And I accept I contributed to this "verbiage", but hey that's me, gotta
be true to yourself.

Bottom line.

The beak specifically said he is not forbidding me from filing the case
again, and indeed using the same publications as the basis for same,
but he did specifically advise that if I do so I should consult a
solicitor.

--------------------------

Afterwards Mr Hancox and Mr Stevens did not look like victors, I have
no doubt this will be portrayed this way, but there it is, and I
haven't lost, one the one hand it is a relief to be able to put aside
the mountain of crap that has built up so far and start afresh, and on
the other I fought, and you never lose when you fight, that either
makes sense or it doesn't.

Mr Hancox spoke to me outside the court, he pretty much said he assumed
I was simply going to file again, he also asked if I was after his
house, I said no, I just want my name cleared, he can't do that.

Mr Tilley's status and 5EX00597 is of course unchanged.

M J Eady's ruling is of course unchanged, as is all the proofs
established up until that point that the three individual defendants
were in fact sole authors and solely responsible legally.

It'll take a few days for the court papers to come through, and that
needs to happen before anything else.

----------------------------

So there you go folks, that's the straight skinny to date.

It's still sunny out so I'm off to take the dog for a walk down the
river and have a pint at the usual.


THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER!

The truth of the matter is that Judge Griggs was quite ready to grant
baldrick interim injunctions, in regard to each of the 3 defendants, and
only seemed to come round to the idea of a strike out, after I had several
times pointed out that baldrick had ignored 3 unless orders, and had failed
entirely to comply with any of the instructions therein!

The points made by the "beak" would not have been made had I not been there,
or had not put the facts of the matter very concisely. It seemed that even
though he was quite prepared to ignore baldrick not complying with the Judge
Frenkel orders made last October, was not prepared to explain to me in
writing, why he felt the order made by Justice Gray on 2nd December, was of
as little value as that made by Judge Frenkel.............

I get the distinct feeling that we shall have not heard the last of this
arrogant, clueless, little ****, but as I shall be making an application for
a civil restraint order, costs, and compensation, first thing tomorrow
morning, I feel he has had his day in court, and will not be returning, at
least until he has paid the £28k he still owes!

Finally ironic that someone who complains of being referred to as a "nonce"
turns up in court with a lady friend young enough to be his
daughter.............!

Finally ironic that someone who complains of being referred to as a "nonce"
turns up in court with a lady friend young enough to be his
daughter.............!

Great grand daughter you mean. Did she have a clean nappy on?

Very well done Chris/Ken. I nominate you as Troll of the year.

"Just Another Residents Fan" wrote in message
oups.com...

Finally ironic that someone who complains of being referred to as a
"nonce"
turns up in court with a lady friend young enough to be his
daughter.............!

Great grand daughter you mean. Did she have a clean nappy on?

Very well done Chris/Ken. I nominate you as Troll of the year.


Having vanquished baldrick in court, I feel I should now permantly post as
"Guy Fawkes" and bunt as "baldrick"...................what say you?

Guy Fawkes wrote:

Having vanquished baldrick in court, I feel I should now permantly post as
"Guy Fawkes" and bunt as "baldrick"...................what say you?

Nah Ken, You have rightly earned the name "King Troll". Suppose you
could always keep "Guy Fawkes" as a sock...