Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Mon May 09, 2011 11:21 pm

CommuRider wrote:Is it possible that he can have the listing move to an earlier/later time? Hmmm


No - its currently printed on the court lists, the dates & times are listed - everyone just shows up at the same time & waits until your number is called.

You can see them here (google downing centre court lists):
http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/courtlists/ns ... enDocument

Just search for "Besh" and you can see my time & case number ;)

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Tue May 10, 2011 9:53 am

All done & dusted!!!

A lawyer beat me by 2min & already cleared it out.
No more court to worry about!

User avatar
jasimon
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:56 am
Location: Riding

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby jasimon » Tue May 10, 2011 12:10 pm

Any confidentiality clauses in the final settlement?

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Tue May 10, 2011 12:24 pm

jasimon wrote:Any confidentiality clauses in the final settlement?


Absolutely not.

User avatar
jasimon
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 9:56 am
Location: Riding

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby jasimon » Tue May 10, 2011 12:31 pm

:D

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Tue May 10, 2011 1:13 pm

Good to hear it's done and dusted @Nate.

Came across this story - they get younger every day

http://lawyerslawyer.net/2011/05/09/sol ... r-forgery/

A 27 year old solicitor working in family law twice lied about the existence of a document, and then forged it. That was just one and a bit years after a harrowing admission application in which the Board of Examiners split on whether she should be admitted, as a result of what VCAT’s Deputy President McNamara referred to as ‘allegations of plagiarism’ at the College of Law, and a want of frankness in their disclosure. The Board had given the solicitor a stern warning at the end of the hearing. For the forgery, the solicitor was fined $3,500 and reprimanded, the Commissioner’s submission that a year’s suspension was warranted being dismissed as ‘disproportionate’: Legal Services Commissioner v SJJ, McNamara DP, 14 April 2011. If followed, this decision suggests once again that interference by VCAT with a practising certificate requires quite profound dishonesty.

As to the fine, it may be that $3,500 was a significant fine for this solicitor: her financial circumstances were described as ‘exiguous’, but she was employed as a solicitor by a respectable Melbourne firm at the time of the penalty hearing, looked set to remain so employed by her supportive employer, and her circumstances seem to have been principally affected by the size of her mortgage. The general deterrence of a fine of this sum would be enhanced if its appropriateness in the context of the solicitor’s ability to pay it were explained in greater detail. That way, solicitors weighing up the risks of forging a document against its perceived desirability (yes, that is the theory of general deterrence) would be able to remember back to the report of the case in question and think ‘Well if he was fined $5,000 and had an annual disposable income of $25,000 living in a modest home, I must be looking at a fine of something like $20,000 since my disposable income is four times his, and I live in a home twice as large as my family actually needs.’

One infers that the solicitor chucked a sickie. Challenged to produce a medical certificate by her law firm employer, she twice asserted the existence of such a document, and then forged one and gave it to her employer, representing that it was authentic. The fraud detected, she was summarily sacked, and her employer lodged a complaint.
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

cp123
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby cp123 » Tue May 10, 2011 3:10 pm

Nate wrote:
jasimon wrote:Any confidentiality clauses in the final settlement?


Absolutely not.




So who was this fine piece of work you had the misfortune to meet.....



:twisted:

edited to add - I wonder whether he actually gives a flying fark as to what crap he put you to these last months/years. I would actually like to know whether he even "got it" and acknowledged his mistake and even said sorry to you.

User avatar
jules21
Posts: 10386
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby jules21 » Tue May 10, 2011 3:16 pm

CommuRider wrote:One infers that the solicitor chucked a sickie. Challenged to produce a medical certificate by her law firm employer, she twice asserted the existence of such a document, and then forged one and gave it to her employer, representing that it was authentic. The fraud detected, she was summarily sacked, and her employer lodged a complaint.

typical evasive lawyer. anyone with half a brain would have just gone to the doctor, told them they weren't feeling good and asked for a certificate. but why do that when you can concoct a devilishly cunning plan to outwit the system? :)

zero
Posts: 3056
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby zero » Tue May 10, 2011 3:19 pm

cp123 wrote:
Nate wrote:
jasimon wrote:Any confidentiality clauses in the final settlement?


Absolutely not.




So who was this fine piece of work you had the misfortune to meet.....



:twisted:

edited to add - I wonder whether he actually gives a flying fark as to what crap he put you to these last months/years. I would actually like to know whether he even "got it" and acknowledged his mistake and even said sorry to you.


I don't think there is much point outing him under the current circumstances. I concede it took far too much legal arm bending to get him to pay the medical costs, but it is done and dusted now, and civil procedures are meant for making good, not for revenge.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Tue May 10, 2011 3:30 pm

cp123 wrote:So who was this fine piece of work you had the misfortune to meet.....

edited to add - I wonder whether he actually gives a flying fark as to what crap he put you to these last months/years. I would actually like to know whether he even "got it" and acknowledged his mistake and even said sorry to you.


No names will be mentioned, whether or not you wish to do your own FOI/digging based on the case number. You can get the case number from here, which has ALL parties which attended court that day & the associated case number:
http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/courtlists/ns ... enDocument
Just search for "Besh" and you can see my details & case number
Zero is correct on that one - this was about the accident & my injuries/expenses, not trying to name & shame someone - hence a name has never been mentioned.

No - he completely refused all communications 1 month after the accident and only formal emails regarding proceedings after that, I can make no guesses as to his feelings towards the amount of pain/suffering i had, although depending on how much of this thread he has read (*waves*) he may not know how much i went through, as he "had to rush to china" and settlement was with another lawyer.

As per the settlement agreement: "without admissions, the defendant has paid...."
So I would say it appears they are still trying to not to show any guilt explicitly.
I didnt bother arguing to have that removed, its redundant & the case was about the compensation not the guilt.

Guilt to be decided by the people of Australia, if my knowledge of the social pecking order in society is correct - as low as "those bloody cyclists!!!" are, dodgy lawyers are even lower ;)
Last edited by Nate on Tue May 10, 2011 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jules21
Posts: 10386
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby jules21 » Tue May 10, 2011 3:35 pm

Nate wrote:As per the settlement agreement: "without admissions, the defendant has paid...."

that's pretty standard isn't it? no one wants the payment to open themselves up to further action and liability - you want it to be final.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Tue May 10, 2011 3:37 pm

jules21 wrote:that's pretty standard isn't it? no one wants the payment to open themselves up to further action and liability - you want it to be final.


Covered by another term "accept the sum in full satisfaction of all claims.. in the proceedings", "plaintiff releases the defendant entirely from all claims in relation to "the accident""

All in good time....

cp123
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby cp123 » Tue May 10, 2011 4:02 pm

sorry nate - i must be thick.... i searched for case number on that same website only.... thousand apologies. :oops: :oops: :oops:

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Tue May 10, 2011 4:23 pm

cp123 wrote::oops: :oops: :oops:


Not a problem kind sir *dips hat*

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 13242
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby trailgumby » Tue May 10, 2011 5:02 pm

Doubt there was any remorse or inclination to apologise. Loss of face is a big deal in his culture, assuming the name points to his ethnic origin.

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Tue May 10, 2011 6:07 pm

I just got a 403 when I clicked on Nate's link - document has been deleted. Anyone else got that?
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Tue May 10, 2011 6:09 pm

jules21 wrote:
Nate wrote:As per the settlement agreement: "without admissions, the defendant has paid...."

that's pretty standard isn't it? no one wants the payment to open themselves up to further action and liability - you want it to be final.


"without admissions."

Indeed. Does he have a linkedin account?
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Tue May 10, 2011 6:21 pm

CommuRider wrote:I just got a 403 when I clicked on Nate's link - document has been deleted. Anyone else got that?


Google "court list downing centre" then 1st link:
http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/local ... courtlists
select Downing Centre --> 10th May

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Tue May 10, 2011 6:27 pm

Oh. It is just the ct list. No document or summary?
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Tue May 10, 2011 6:29 pm

CommuRider wrote:Oh. It is just the ct list. No document or summary?


no - i'll start working on all that stuff soon, gonna take a while to steralise everything & put it in a readable & easy to follow format (timeline or equiv)

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29016
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Mulger bill » Tue May 10, 2011 9:17 pm

Isn't teh interweb wonderful for finding out stuff...
A shame you had to show up for nothing, last dig perhaps?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:46 pm

Just in case anyone was still loosing sleep - still working a bit on this one.

Been a crazy few weeks with a new job & lots of other stuff... however a few extra little tid bits just popped up!
Which was a very pleasant surprise...
Puts the police in a VERY difficult situation as well

There's also been way too many cycling stories in the media of late :(

User avatar
CommuRider
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby CommuRider » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:52 pm

Hmmm...case still not closed @Nate?
Amateur oenologist and green-friendly commuter.

User avatar
Nate
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby Nate » Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:18 pm

CommuRider wrote:Hmmm...case still not closed @Nate?


The court case has ended, yes

User avatar
JV911
Posts: 5451
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:22 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Legal thoughts - hitting a pedestrian

Postby JV911 » Fri Jul 01, 2011 8:32 am

i think someone got cleaned up on the corner of clarence and druitt this morning

was bound to happen with peds always crossing clarence against the red and cars/bikes coming down druitt and turning onto clarence
<---LACC--->
<---BMC SLR01--->


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: malnar