3 ms·

Here is why he claims he didn't show up: > I didn't lie in my review of Sommerfield Browne and them suing their own client for gain shows everyone what they ar

Here is why he claims he didn't show up: > I didn't lie in my review of Sommerfield Browne and them suing their own client for gain shows everyone what they are. > Their friends and family will back them up, as will the other lawyers. > I submitted my case based on written law and the judge said it did not apply to me and ordered me to omit the law from my submission, before the trial hearing. > The fact is the judge put £6,000 costs on me before the case was even heard - I was literally priced out of justice. I could not attend or I would be accepting these costs. I cannot fight a rich solicitor in front of a biased judge. Seeing there was no justice here I decided not to give the court legitimacy by attending.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Mindwipe 6y ago
I mean, that's not very good logic given he's now on the hook for four times that. His understanding of the costs is wrong anyway.
- geoduck14 6y ago
  If only he could find a lawyer to help him understand the costs.
- andrepd 6y ago
  >His understanding of the costs is wrong anyway. Which is yet another point against the justice system. If a regular person being accused cannot understand things nor can they afford someone who does... hiw can they defend themselves?
  - tjalfi 6y ago
    > Which is yet another point against the justice system. If a regular person being accused cannot understand things nor can they afford someone who does... hiw can they defend themselves? They mostly can't in the US - our justice system relies heavily on coercive plea bargaining. People like Shanta Sweatt[0] plead guilty because the alternative is to face a much longer potential sentence at trial. 90+%[0][1] (94% of convictions at the state level, 97% at the federal level) of cases go through plea bargaining and never reach a courtroom. I've also heard from a judge that people who represent themselves are often mentally ill. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec...
conistonwater 6y ago
> I submitted my case based on written law and the judge said it did not apply to me and ordered me to omit the law from my submission, before the trial hearing. I wonder what this means? I don't fully trust that guy to accurately summarize issues of law.
- pjc50 6y ago
  One of three things has happened: - the guy has been led astray by internet law and is some kind of "sovereign citizen" or similar lunatic, in which case nothing he says should be taken at face value - he genuinely has been mistreated, and is now incredibly paranoid of lawyers and unwilling to seek representation - he got a quote for representation and an estimate of the possible losses, probably in the six figure range, and decided to cut his losses as quickly as possible (also, the use of UK libel law to bully people into silence over basically correct points has been a serious problem)
  - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
    Yes with experience this dies sound like the guy was one of those people who quite often are vexatious litigant's
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Amusing (in a terrifying way) that the judge ruled the review was likely to dissuade other clients from doing business with the law firm. Isn't that the whole point of a site like TrustPilot and of reviews in general? Does this mean everyone who has ever received a negative review now has grounds to sue for defamation? A defence against defamation is evidence that the accusations are true. Did the judge even check?
    - notahacker 6y ago
      Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel, if the person who left it is unable to defend the truth or reasonable belief behind their claims. This has always been the case. A defence against libel is that the accusations are true, but if you don't submit any evidence to support that, the judge's job isn't to try to prove that you were telling the truth for you.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Mindwipe 6y ago

I mean, that's not very good logic given he's now on the hook for four times that. His understanding of the costs is wrong anyway.

geoduck14 6y ago
If only he could find a lawyer to help him understand the costs.
andrepd 6y ago
>His understanding of the costs is wrong anyway. Which is yet another point against the justice system. If a regular person being accused cannot understand things nor can they afford someone who does... hiw can they defend themselves?
- tjalfi 6y ago
  > Which is yet another point against the justice system. If a regular person being accused cannot understand things nor can they afford someone who does... hiw can they defend themselves? They mostly can't in the US - our justice system relies heavily on coercive plea bargaining. People like Shanta Sweatt[0] plead guilty because the alternative is to face a much longer potential sentence at trial. 90+%[0][1] (94% of convictions at the state level, 97% at the federal level) of cases go through plea bargaining and never reach a courtroom. I've also heard from a judge that people who represent themselves are often mentally ill. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen... [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec...

conistonwater 6y ago

> I submitted my case based on written law and the judge said it did not apply to me and ordered me to omit the law from my submission, before the trial hearing. I wonder what this means? I don't fully trust that guy to accurately summarize issues of law.

pjc50 6y ago
One of three things has happened: - the guy has been led astray by internet law and is some kind of "sovereign citizen" or similar lunatic, in which case nothing he says should be taken at face value - he genuinely has been mistreated, and is now incredibly paranoid of lawyers and unwilling to seek representation - he got a quote for representation and an estimate of the possible losses, probably in the six figure range, and decided to cut his losses as quickly as possible (also, the use of UK libel law to bully people into silence over basically correct points has been a serious problem)
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Yes with experience this dies sound like the guy was one of those people who quite often are vexatious litigant's
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Amusing (in a terrifying way) that the judge ruled the review was likely to dissuade other clients from doing business with the law firm. Isn't that the whole point of a site like TrustPilot and of reviews in general? Does this mean everyone who has ever received a negative review now has grounds to sue for defamation? A defence against defamation is evidence that the accusations are true. Did the judge even check?
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel, if the person who left it is unable to defend the truth or reasonable belief behind their claims. This has always been the case. A defence against libel is that the accusations are true, but if you don't submit any evidence to support that, the judge's job isn't to try to prove that you were telling the truth for you.