Jump to content

Durkin

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Durkin last won the day on May 11 2014

Durkin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

184 Excellent

About Durkin

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This should be an easy £10K in the small claims court but either way I hope you managed to buy a house. Cheers, Richard
  2. The evidence is attached here too. This was before the judges. Largely ignored. Cheers, Richard. Note of Argument 23 June 2016 no add.doc
  3. Hi Andy, As requested. My comments included the proof of the judicial dishonesty though. Or was it something else? Cheers, Richard. mal1511.pdf
  4. Hi Folks, They decided to slam on the brakes with more lies. The dishonest judiciary in Scotland continues to refuse to protect the innocent party from injustice. Human rights violations and continuing intentional harm completely poo-pooed. How can completely different actions that happened after an earlier ruling possibly have been decided in the earlier ruling? Could I have gone about the human rights violations differently? Do I really need to trot off to Europe to highlight the dishonesty Parliament remains keen to protect the malfeasance and it seems that attitude needs to change before any of us will achieve justice and appropriate redress. Cheers, Richard. Final_judgement_Dec_22 with comments.doc
  5. Hi Folks, Can interest incurred on legal expenses be claimed against a perpetrator? For example, if a high interest credit card is used to pay for representation against a bank that have deliberately refused redress for more than a decade, the interest alone has more than tripled the cost of litigation. Can the victim claim any expenses? For example, having to hire a private detective to trace the key witness to the crime? I'm stuck with Scottish Law at the moment but I'd be interested to hear if it's possible in England. Of course, there ought to be provisions for this and it has been talked about. I'm just wondering if it's a reality yet? Cheers, Richard.
  6. Hi Folks, I decided to appeal the Aberdeen sheriffs incoherence! https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/man-back-in-court-over-laptop-costs-from-1998/ The sheriff ruled that my fresh case was "res judicata" (already decided), despite ruling that the fraud aspect wasn't. The sheriff principal backed him up but also mentioned a few aspects of the case that weren't res judicata. Neither interested in seeing justice done on their watch! The judge in the Inner House did have the good grace to acknowledge that the earlier Inner House ruling was dubious but whether he'll grease the wheels of justice or slam on the brakes will be determined this summer. Cheers, Richard.
  7. Hi Folks, The Sheriff Principal in Aberdeen refused to allow me a hearing today not because of Res Judicata or Limitation but because of "Incoherent pleadings" and averments "lacking in specification". Worryingly, he was unclear as to which of the new principles I was introducing included malice. He hadn't bothered to ask but it should be clear that malice persists in everything that the bank has exposed us too. The sheriff seemed a tad peeved that I "accused" the higher judiiciary of dishonesty despite him having the evidence in front of him of excactly that! It seems I'll need to start again with "coherent" pleadings and "specific averments". I've attached a new claim. Please help with pleadings and suggest what might be inspecific in the averments. Perhaps it's time to have a go in the Royal Courts of Justice? Cheers, Richard Initial Writ 25 Feb 2016 no add.doc
  8. Thanks. It's just a written form of what I'll have to listen to at the hearing tomorrow. Hopefully the sheriff won't use too much of it in their ruling. I'm still working on my response to this drivel. Best to get things written down. I'm keen not to delay things any longer. That's the bank's tactic. Richard.
  9. Hi Folks, Here's the latest waffle from HSBC while they continue to deny us redress. Just in time for tomorrow's appeal. Unbelievable what they get away with. Let's hope the Sheriff Principal is bothered about justice. It's not so much of a lottery at this stage. They are (we survive) or they aren't (we're destroyed). Cheers, Richard. Bank submissions 8 Feb 2016.pdf
  10. Thanks SP, I can see the legal costs mounting while the injustice persists. I'm doing all that I can in the hope that it'll not be necessary to take the law into my own hands. It is a fresh litigation. Entirely different from the prior litigation. Something the sheriff seems keen to overlook in favour of the (edit) bankers. Cheers, Richard
  11. Hi Folks, The local sheriff is seeking to deny justice by incorrectly applying res judicata. He's allowed a motion to prevent new facts and evidence being heard. His interlocutor and my intended appeal attached for those interested. I'm getting very peeved at the injustice and judicial corruption that I am encountering. Any tips on how I might modify the appeal? Cheers, Richard.
  12. Thanks CB, I think it's best to leave things as they are, all in one thread. It will be interesting if I manage to find justice after being originally rebuffed by the "supreme" Court. Cheers, Richard.
  13. Hi Folks, I've edited (in red) my pleadings attached here. 11 Human Rights issues included should they become necessary. First to dodge res judicata and prescription. Neither should be used to defeat justice and defend incorrect decisions but lets see what the sheriff says on Thursday. Cheers, Richard. How do I get this post linked to a tweet (as opposed to the whole thread)?
  14. The evidence from the prior litigation shows that it was intentional. It's time to put an end to this ruinous oppression being bestowed upon us by criminal bankers. Lets hope Scottish Law won't alllow res judicata and time restraints to block justice in favour of these criminals and absurd rulings. Richard.
×
×
  • Create New...