Humblemans Appeal –please Read Post #1 Before Posting

[foolishgirl]

ANDthe reason for refusal to appeal is:

 

Findings of facts made against defendant-who was not believed. Various technical points of defence were not sufficiently established on the facts.

 

and here is the opening ph. of the Judgment

 

By this action the claimant seeks to enforce payments due under a credit card agreement made initially between the Beneficial Bank and the defendant in 1998. This case is one of an increasing number of rather unsatisfactory cases where opportunistic defendants who are in debt, whether or not they are able to pay those debts, seek to avoid paying those debts by raising a number of very technical points under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, hoping to trip up their creditors and thereby avoiding the enforcement of the debt.

 

:D:eek: There's not a lot more you can say is there?!!

[humbleman]

:D:eek: There's not a lot more you can say is there?!!

 

It's pretty scary stuff, seriously.

 

Someone in a dominating position is able to make a judgment about you and ruin your life with a flick.

[MandM]

:D:eek: There's not a lot more you can say is there?!!

 

I can think of loads of things to say but I don't want to get Cagbooted again

 

M

[stripper]

Me to

Stripper:mad:

[Delfi101]

Shocking - it's almost like the stance is one based on some misguided personal 'morality' and not logic and precedence.

 

If morality had anything to do with it our banker/DCA friends wouldn't get through the doors.

[humbleman]

further down the judgment

 

 

.Unsurprisingly, the defendant failed to pay and these proceedings were instituted. He did not make the payment of £1,xxx by 12th October, nor did he make any payment. As a consequence of his breach of contract and failure to remedy the default notice, solicitors were instructed. In accordance with the credit agreement that entitled the claimants to add costs to the defendant’s balance. The defendant has made no payment to his account since the default notice and by the time the proceedings were commenced the debt outstanding had reached just over £17,800.

 

 

Like I mentioned on the main thread, at the time the account was terminated HFC's internal legal dept. conceded that the agreement in unenforceable.

[diddydicky]

i think she must be a very clever judge indeed and i cannot understand why the legal system is creaking

 

after all she can sum up all the evidence and reach a decision before the case has even begun

 

i would report her also for abusing the court process since clearly after the third minute she was wilfully wasting the courts time

[the_shadow]

i think she must be a very clever judge indeed and i cannot understand why the legal system is creaking

 

after all she can sum up all the evidence and reach a decision before the case has even begun

 

i would report her also for abusing the court process since clearly after the third minute she was wilfully wasting the courts time

 

haha quite!

S.

[foolishgirl]

It's pretty scary stuff, seriously.

 

Someone in a dominating position is able to make a judgment about you and ruin your life with a flick.

 

It's very scary stuff HM - I wasn't being frivolous.

 

Get your appeal out of the way & then make a complaint re. her behaviour.

Edited January 22, 2010 by foolishgirl
addition

[humbleman]

FS

 

I didn't take it as, anyway.

[cashins]

Subbibing -and good luck

[PriorityOne]

Just a thought....

 

I'm wondering if you could/should go down the line of your Judge appearing to breach the judicial oath (via the Bar Council) with her bias and prejudice as part of your Appeal.... instead of later.

[humbleman]

Just a thought....

 

I'm wondering if you could/should go down the line of your Judge appearing to breach the judicial oath (via the Bar Council) with her bias and prejudice as part of your Appeal.... instead of later.

 

She had made such comments, without knowing my full circumstances. Like as though there was something undue written on forehead or she looked up the black book that says I am a liar.

[Docman]

Humbleman

 

I could possibly understand the comments from a Deputy District Judge who didn't know anything about the Consumer Credit Act but to attribute these comments from a circuit judge just mystifies me.

 

Be careful though, the judge claims to find against you on the facts, not the law. Please anyone correct me but I thought you can appeal against a judgment on a point of law, but not fact.

 

That said, the comments show an attonishing degree of bias which any half decent barrister couuld use to win an appear. I think you have to make more in your instructions to counsel of the comments contained within the judgment. My draft is for when you are instructing counsel earlier on in the process.

 

I would end the instructions by referring to the court hearing and attaching the judgment and transcript. ull out the comments that you have posted as examples of the judge' bias and let the barrister draft the remaining application.

[PriorityOne]

Humbleman

 

I could possibly understand the comments from a Deputy District Judge who didn't know anything about the Consumer Credit Act but to attribute these comments from a circuit judge just mystifies me.

 

Be careful though, the judge claims to find against you on the facts, not the law. Please anyone correct me but I thought you can appeal against a judgment on a point of law, but not fact.

 

That said, the comments show an attonishing degree of bias which any half decent barrister couuld use to win an appear. I think you have to make more in your instructions to counsel of the comments contained within the judgment. My draft is for when you are instructing counsel earlier on in the process.

 

I would end the instructions by referring to the court hearing and attaching the judgment and transcript. ull out the comments that you have posted as examples of the judge' bias and let the barrister draft the remaining application.

 

Agree...

[humbleman]

THE facts were very clear, instead of using statement like .

 

But here is a defendant that is saying you haven't done this, or you haven't supplied that.

 

she uses

 

Unsurprisingly the defendant failed to pay and these proceedings were instituted.

 

Here we have a defendant who is trying to get out of paying his debt.

 

She choose not to believe me, forget about the facts that were presented

[PriorityOne]

It's also showing no interpretation of the law (neither one way or the other actually)... CCA 1974; sec 127 (3) in particular.... which is what she was required to do.

[seriously fed up]

While its true that appeals can only be on a point of law (and not fact) its just as true to say that facts dont speak for themselves - they have to be interpreted! And that is one of the roles that the law plays - how to interpret the facts. In this case, instead of asking "is this account enforceable?" her honour seems to have started off from "is this another of these bloody people trying to get out of paying their debts?" In that way, it could be argued that what she has done is to misdirect herself in law - to ask the wrong question.

[foolishgirl]

While its true that appeals can only be on a point of law (and not fact) ....

 

Depends on the circumstances in respect of the 'fact' I think SFU although it's probably fair to say that sticking to points of law may be easier to nail:

 

Practice Direction 52 - Appeals

'3.2 The grounds of appeal should –

(1) set out clearly the reasons why rule 52.11(3)(a) or (b) is said to apply; and

 

(2) specify, in respect of each ground, whether the ground raises an appeal on a point of law or is an appeal against a finding of fact.'

[seriously fed up]

I think the point is in the part you have underlined - "an appeal against a finding of fact" - is another way of saying did the court misinterpret a presented fact in an unreasonable way.

I should have been clearer about this. My point was that its difficult to introduce new evidence - ie you can appeal against the view the court came to on the evidence but cant normally introduce evidence that wasnt presented at the original hearing if it were possible to do so. There can be exceptions to this - most dramatically in "In the Name of the Father" when Gareth Pierce introduces the alibi testimony that the prosecution had originally withheld from the defence. An irate prosecution stands up to object that "this is new evidence" The judge to be fair says "it is shocking new evidence" (the alibi had a note on it saying "not to be shown to the defence"). Prosecutor (still not finished) " M'lud, it was not introduced at the original trial". The judge responds "I think that is the point Mrs Pierce is trying to make".

Following this sort of thinking, I think an appeal could be based on

 

1. the judge misdirecting him/herself in law (ie misinterpretation of the statute)
   
2. misinterpretation of the facts presented in evidence
   
3. to introduce evidence which couldnt be presented at the original hearing (though this is difficult)
   

I think Humbleman could present an appeal based on either of the first two, and perhaps, if he were able to show that evidence had been withheld by the lender, the third as well.

Just to finish up on our legal system, despite the clear evidence of obstructing justice etc, no police officer has ever been disciplined, far less prosecuted for what happened to the Guildford Four. There is a tendency to close ranks.

[foolishgirl]

...you can appeal against the view the court came to on the evidence but cant normally introduce evidence that wasnt presented at the original hearing if it were possible to do so....

 

Agree

 

.....Following this sort of thinking, I think an appeal could be based on

 

1. the judge misdirecting him/herself in law (ie misinterpretation of the statute)
   
2. misinterpretation of the facts presented in evidence
   

Agree

 

3. to introduce evidence which couldnt be presented at the original hearing (though this is difficult)

 

I think Humbleman could present an appeal based on either of the first two, and perhaps, if he were able to show that evidence had been withheld by the lender, the third as well. .

 

Stick with the first two - he has ample to go there anyway

 

 

FG

Edited January 24, 2010 by foolishgirl
typo

[Mydogsawestie]

Foolishgirl I am uncertain of if to appeal for my judgement being handed to me this week, Seriously fed up has raised a few questions there already to help me with steering here but I would be ever so grateful if you were able to pop on by too? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/185814-d-judge-made-wrong-15.html#post2714887

Thanks

[seriously fed up]

I agree, the first two are the most obvious and thus the easiest to go for. But were Humbleman to come across positive evidence (ie not by innuendo) that the lenders were a bunch of lying scumbags who actually held the evidence that would show the account to be unenforceable then I cant see that doing anything but help his case along.

For instance, I think I am right in saying that a lender should not pretend an account is enforceable when they know that it isnt.

[humbleman]

For instance, I think I am right in saying that a lender should not pretend an account is enforceable when they know that it isnt.

 

Exactly.

 

The other thing is they are lying about the assignment.

 

They are also lying about the T & C's

 

and I could go on.........

[PriorityOne]

Exactly.

 

The other thing is they are lying about the assignment.

 

They are also lying about the T & C's

 

and I could go on.........

 

These are weaker arguments IMO....