Umbertoecho, you make some really necessary powerful points. You know your stuff and I have no argument about that. But sometimes your personal language detracts from the otherwise excellent points you are making. The sudden shift in tone and language doesn't help. Yet I also value your comments at other times.
AUSTRALIA – Artemis Legal launches inquiry into group and class action lawsuits against Jehovah’s Witnesses
by jwleaks 63 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Simon
I have to agree with steve2 - your previous response, Umbertoecho, is totally unwarranted.
You made a big issue of this company not being on some official list and I asked a reasonable question of "where is that list" then you PM me to say it's all secret and can't and won't be shared.
That's fine, but I don't understand how there can be an "official list" of companies that people can deal with but no one is allowed to know who is on that list or where that list comes from or how to verify it but they get chastised for mentioning a company that isn't on it !
Any legal company can advertise for whatever services they want IMO, if there is some legal limitation then there would be some legal notice of such, surely?
Anyway, there're no need for rude and insulting language when people ask reasonable questions.
-
marmot
I don't trust a lawyer who doesn't know how to spell "perjure" (look at the "theocratic war" heading) -
Giordano
I went back and reread the statement it reads very similar to the way they present a Tort case in the USA where they do a class action law suite over one specific area like cigarette smoking or a defective product. The company and or group settles and then the attorneys get half the settlement and the couple of hundred claimants get the rest divided among them.
I had a $10,000 loss with a publicly traded company I invested in due to dishonesty on the part of the company and my settlement was $3.20.
-
umbertoecho
I have to agree with steve2 - your previous response, Umbertoecho, is totally unwarranted.
You made a big issue of this company not being on some official list and I asked a reasonable question of "where is that list" then you PM me to say it's all secret and can't and won't be shared.
Fair enough about the anger inside of me. And taken on board.
As to you Simon. Asking me for personal information is presumptuous. Who are you really?. I don't know you I don't even know your real name. So why should I trust you when you could be anyone.? If you had the right to know, then you would have gone through the process and be fully informed of what the next, best move would be.
Simon. who are you? A moderator? Do you really think this gives you the right to ask me to tell you things that are really none of your business? No. You have no right to ask and then subtly imply I am being furtive in some way.
Did you initiate this RC. No. Where you ever a part of it? No. So you don't have the right to ask. It seems downright ghoulish.
As to Lee Elder: To him I apologise for being well, basically rude. That is not on.
But how can anyone assume for one second that any person/victim that the RC has on their records will be doled out to lawyers looking for a quick buck. It won't happen. The RC has those very personal records.
The public documents, if you care to read them...........Are witness lists and a few manuals, letters and internal documents. They detail the public hearing they deal with the two cases that were used to support that part of the hearing. That's it.
The RC continues for two more years yet. That is a long time and a good time to gather as much information as possible. No need to jump the gun and start a litigation without waiting to see what a thorough analysis will deliver. Much better to wait and then, armed to the hilt.........go for the attack legally. Not one second before.
-
Simon
As to you Simon. Asking me for personal information is presumptuous. Who are you really?. I don't know you I don't even know your real name. So why should I trust you when you could be anyone.? If you had the right to know, then you would have gone through the process and be fully informed of what the next, best move would be.<
I am not asking for any personal information. You posted that people should beware because this company isn't on some official list. I simply asked what / where that "official list" you were referring to was so people could make sure to follow it. It now seems that you are saying there is no official list. I don't understand the concept of an official list that no one can access.
You haven't explained what this official list is or why people should follow your advice as to who they should and should not deal with. We don't know you either - aren't you being presumptuous telling people what they can and cannot do?
Simon. who are you? A moderator? Do you really think this gives you the right to ask me to tell you things that are really none of your business? No. You have no right to ask and then subtly imply I am being furtive in some way.
My name is Simon and I have owned and run this site for the last 15+ years.
Everyone has the right to ask anyone else to explain or expand on what they said. You have the right to give a reason why you won't or can't or not say anything but you don't have the right to be insulting.
Did you initiate this RC. No. Where you ever a part of it? No. So you don't have the right to ask. It seems downright ghoulish.
What on earth are you on about? I was simply asking in order to help you to explain yourself better. All you have done is wave your arms and shout warnings but not explained why. I was attempting to help you to communicate better,
Read what I said: "Can you maybe explain that / refer us to some official notice?". How is that asking for personal information?
I don't know why you have taken an innocent and obvious follow up question to what you posted as some sort of "attack".
As to Lee Elder: To him I apologise for being well, basically rude. That is not on.
Thank you - manners cost nothing.
But how can anyone assume for one second that any person/victim that the RC has on their records will be doled out to lawyers looking for a quick buck. It won't happen. The RC has those very personal records.
Who is assuming that? If someone choses to go to a law firm and give then information then that is their concern. As far as my understanding goes, the RC is to find out what happened and address failings and gaps in protection. They are not there to seek or dole out recompense to anyone - that would be the domain of law firms that people could engage. Obviously the results of the RC would likely be a factor in their success.
The public documents, if you care to read them...........Are witness lists and a few manuals, letters and internal documents. They detail the public hearing they deal with the two cases that were used to support that part of the hearing. That's it.
So what was the big deal? Why couldn't you just say that when first asked? All you had to say was "there is no official list of law firms that people are limited to dealing with". That is what I was asking - whether there was and if so where people could find it.
The RC continues for two more years yet. That is a long time and a good time to gather as much information as possible. No need to jump the gun and start a litigation without waiting to see what a thorough analysis will deliver. Much better to wait and then, armed to the hilt.........go for the attack legally. Not one second before.
I think everyone is free to do what they chose and what they decide is in their best interests. The remit of the RC as I understand it is not to seek justice or compensation on behalf of the victims is it?
-
OrphanCrow
Simon: The remit of the RC as I understand it is not to seek justice or compensation on behalf of the victims is it?
You need to read up on the redress scheme. That is the compensation for the victims that is being addressed by the RC.
The Royal Commission is also giving assistance and support to the victims in their search for justice through the civil courts.
Have you not been following this, Simon???
-
wifibandit
Yea! Who the hell is this "Simon" guy?!
-
steve2
To the best of my knowledge, no one on this thread has sought personal information. -
Simon
You need to read up on the redress scheme. That is the compensation for the victims that is being addressed by the RC. The Royal Commission is also giving assistance and support to the victims in their search for justice through the civil courts.
That doesn't mean that is the only avenue for someone with a claim to pursue things and even if it were - that would be the answer to the question I asked about the "official list". If the only option is "contact the RC [here]" then that would be the answer.
Getting all antsy and making claims that people are "ghoulishly demanding personal information" is just ridiculous.