'Debt Collector'

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 3:05am

pirelli wrote: »

Here u go so!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui7EB1Yx9SM

I said ego, nothing else. Now we have taken this thread off topic way too much even for me. So can we get back to the OP.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 9:07am

bigneacy wrote: »

Hi,

I am having an issue at the moment with a pseudo debt collector.

A few years back I opened a business, the business was part funded by a private investor who was to remain a silent partner. It was for a small sum - €5000. It was all very informally done - deal done on a handshake so to speak - no paperwork or the likes - I gave him a photocopy of my passport and statement of my home address to give him the reassurance. We had great hopes for the business and the future - wanted to make our fortunes - there was informal mentions of 25% ownership, hoped to double his money in a few months - the usual.

The business went south after a short while and was wound up amid some possible legal proceedings with a third party. The investor was informed of this and as far as i was concerned - cut his losses. In the meantime I signed up to a new phone contract and have changed my number.

I got an email two days ago from a amateurish email address along the lines of debtcollector1234 @ gmail.com. Saying in relation to the debt i owe of 10,000 to call a mobile number to make arrangements, "If you ignore this request our agents will pay you a visit. You have 48 hours to make contact on the number above, We have your home address and the your parents home address. If contact is not made in this time an agent will be called to these addresses.
Thank You"

Now, the address I was living at at the time of the deal is a different one to where I now live. My parents address is also different. This evening my brother gets a phonecall where a man, who would only give his first name, told him his number was very easy to find and advising that he could do this the easy way or the hard way.

My brother asked was that a threat - he said he has never threatened anyone in his life. My brother asked him several times where he got his number - he wouldn't answer, asked for his name- wouldn't give it. Asked for the company he worked for - wouldn't give it.

He openly discussed the details (details which he should never have had in the first place) of my 'debt' to my brother over the phone.

So I have a few questions

1. Do I owe a debt?
2. Do debt collectors have a legal standing in Ireland? If so, are they licensed in any way?
3. I haven't made contact back as of yet - should I do so, or just ignore?
4. What should be my next move? Solictor?
5. What should I do if phonecalls to my brother or other relatives persist?
6. What should I do if the 'debt collector' shows up on my doorstep?

1. Do I owe a debt?
Did you declare bankruptcy, What did you owe and to whom ?
2. Do debt collectors have a legal standing in Ireland? If so, are they licensed in any way?
They might be able take u to court but not much else.
3. I haven't made contact back as of yet - should I do so, or just ignore?
Who is it most likely to be..creditors, suppliers, clients, landlords etc etc..you probably owe lost of bills. Was there anything or any person you didn't include in your bankruptcy.
4. What should be my next move? Solictor?
Yes! Discuss it with a solicitor maybe you do owe someone 5000 euro's then contact them and pay it back.
5. What should I do if phonecalls to my brother or other relatives persist?
Contact the Garda and make complaint
6. What should I do if the 'debt collector' shows up on my doorstep?
Then you will be able to answer most of your above questions yourself. you could also try crying like a little girl and see what happens. Call your solicitor and talk to him through your letter box that is what fitspatrick,drumm and quinn have been doing.

Amazotheamazing · 08-02-2012 12:02pm

pirelli wrote: »

I am quoting the citizens information ireland so please don't all the while try to sound like a reasonable advisor then lecture me about so called danger's of giving opinions over the internet.

Citizens information:

The requirements of the Consumer Protection Act and the EC Product Prices Regulations 2002 apply to online advertising. There is also some protection for Irish consumers from misleading advertisements received by email. The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumer_advertising.html

What's the relevance of the citizen's advice you're referencing?

The OP hasn't given us enough info to know eitherway what happened between himself and the person who loaned/invested/gave the money.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 12:58pm

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

What's the relevance of the citizen's advice you're referencing?

The OP hasn't given us enough info to know eitherway what happened between himself and the person who loaned/invested/gave the money.

Ask the OP what happened between himself and the person, I am not the OP how am i meant to know. I was responding to researchwill so pointless looking for relevance when you haven't or don't seem to want to have a clue as to what i am posting about.

The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.

That line 'emphasizing investors' sounds helpful; more helpful than your post any day. What do you suggest the OP does..how would you address his questions in the OP?

blueythebear · 08-02-2012 1:16pm

pirelli wrote: »

Ask the OP what happened between himself and the person, I am not the OP how am i meant to know. I was responding to researchwill so pointless looking for relevance when you haven't or don't seem to want to have a clue as to what i am posting about.

The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.

That line 'emphasizing investors' sounds helpful; more helpful than your post any day. What do you suggest the OP does..how would you address his questions in the OP?

In fairness, the question you're trying to answer is whether the money given to the OP was a loan or was considered an investment to be paid back only if the business venture was successful.

The links you have given in relation to SI68/2003, and in relation to fraud have absolutely nothing to do with this. The only way the first question above should be answered is by going to a solicitor, outlining all of the facts and getting proper advice.

Not trying to be hurtful, but this thread is a prime example of why a person should not get legal advice over the internet. This thread is an incoherent mess of bickering coupled with wild speculation and outlandish theories as to the back story. It would be great if people could try and stick to the facts given and attempt to formulate a coherent response from there.

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 1:39pm

pirelli wrote: »

Ask the OP what happened between himself and the person, I am not the OP how am i meant to know. I was responding to researchwill so pointless looking for relevance when you haven't or don't seem to want to have a clue as to what i am posting about.

The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.

That line 'emphasizing investors' sounds helpful; more helpful than your post any day. What do you suggest the OP does..how would you address his questions in the OP?

It is posts about judge Judy and citizens advice on topics that have nothing to do with the OP, that I have given up on this thread. While there is a reference to investors in the information you posted, the information is for consumers, it is to protect the likes of you and me if we see a web site advertising say an investment in company shares. There must be certain safe guards for the consumer.

You stated earlier you are an engineer if I remember correctly. Imagine now a situation where a person has asked a question or posed a problem about something you know a lot about. You mentioned nano tech, so say the question was about how to provide power to nano technology. Say I said its power why not use AA batteries, well to me it fits the question but it shows a total lack of understanding of the issues not much use having a nanobot that requires a microscope to see if it is attached to a bloody great big battery.

That is the problem with your post, yes you are trying to help the OP but how is a TV show judge who rules in favour of a fraudster in any way given the OP relevant info.

While your post from citizens advice does relate to investment it has no relevance to the OP. the posting of SEC info the same.

The simple facts of life are, people enter into contracts everyday without writing them. The example I gave about Irish distillers shows how huge deals are some times done on no more than a hand shake, that hand shake cost DCC a fortune. People enter into small loans and investment every day with out writing it down, is that a good idea no but people will do it. Then sadly when lawyers get involved its their fault, even though all they are trying to do is fix the mess.

I have clearly stated the OP should seek proper advice, if he can not afford it then FLAC or MABS maybe able to help.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 2:06pm

blueythebear wrote: »

In fairness, the question you're trying to answer is whether the money given to the OP was a loan or was considered an investment to be paid back only if the business venture was successful.

The links you have given in relation to SI68/2003, and in relation to fraud have absolutely nothing to do with this. The only way the first question above should be answered is by going to a solicitor, outlining all of the facts and getting proper advice.

Not trying to be hurtful, but this thread is a prime example of why a person should not get legal advice over the internet. This thread is an incoherent mess of bickering coupled with wild speculation and outlandish theories as to the back story. It would be great if people could try and stick to the facts given and attempt to formulate a coherent response from there.

Hurtful to whom?

Your not meant to seek legal advice! It is against the charter.. that's why the legal forum is such a madhouse; it's designed not to work in the first place. A place where you are neither allowed to seek or give advice.

Just to get this clear i am not here to show off my my brilliant legal mind i am interested in miscarriages of justice and there are very few brilliant minds on this forum in that area. In fact zero...and it is an area you should understand. I am qualified in other areas and law is not my profession although i have done certificates and I might finish off the FE1 but only as a hobby.

I am not an enthusiastic law graduate and if they are the only people you think should post here then you might look to open a sub forum where you can talk shop all day.

Also that link is titled us securities etc..was just an example of how investors can sue you.I wasn't going to spend hours trawling google just to prove a point i know little about in any case. Being an investor does not necessarily mean you lose all your money if the business goes bust particularly if one party is unable to say if it was an investment.

In regards to your comments about the thread, you would be just another poster adding to that confusion. I suppose if you can make a small difference in the world you will be content, even if it is whining about a thread in a forum somewhere that you might get closed.

The greater majority would like see reform of the legal profession and the industry if that is the right word as a whole. That will never happen because and i do not wish to be hurtful, but all that ever happens with lawyers is they bicker, make wild speculations and outlandish theories and never achieve anything and rip everybody off so they can make some money.

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 2:21pm

pirelli wrote: »

Hurtful to whom?

Your not meant to seek legal advice! It is against the charter.. that's why the legal forum is such a madhouse; it's designed not to work in the first place. A place where you are neither allowed to seek or give advice.

Just to get this clear i am not here to show off my my brilliant legal mind i am interested in miscarriages of justice and there are very few brilliant minds on this forum in that area. In fact zero...and it is an area you should understand. I am qualified in other areas and law is not my profession although i have done certificates and I might finish off the FE1 but only as a hobby.

I am not an enthusiastic law graduate and if they are the only people you think should post here then you might look to open a sub forum where you can talk shop all day.

Also that link is titled us securities etc..was just an example of how investors can sue you.I wasn't going to spend hours trawling google just to prove a point i know little about in any case. Being an investor does not necessarily mean you lose all your money if the business goes bust particularly if one party is unable to say if it was an investment.

In regards to your comments about the thread, you would be just another poster adding to that confusion. I suppose if you can make a small difference in the world you will be content, even if it is whining about a thread in a forum somewhere that you might get closed.

The greater majority would like see reform of the legal profession and the industry if that is the right word as a whole. That will never happen because and i do not wish to be hurtful, but all that ever happens with lawyers is they bicker, make wild speculations and outlandish theories and never achieve anything and rip everybody off so they can make some money.

There have been outlandish theories and wild speculation on boards but I don't think it is normal for lawyers. In fact the biggest issue with lawyers is in my opinion as one that they are usually very conservative.

The problem people have with the SEC, while it may show investors have rights, that would a be in the USA and 2 in relation to proper regulated investment. Again to post from the SEC in relation to an Irish question is that it does not answer the question. Another example say a person asks about gun control law in Ireland and I post information from Texas where I can but a M16. While that might be an ok answer if the discussion is about how different countries treat guns, if the question is what kinda gun can I buy in Ireland it does not answer the question.

In relation to miscarriages of justice, this is a very small area of law. The biggest issue is that no system including the legal system likes to admit it made a serious mistake. But it does happen, some people get shafted, but in most cases it is not the judge jury solicitors or barristers that do the shafting it's the person who gives false evidence or makes a mess of the samples. The Birmingham 6, Guilford 4 etc. spent years in jail because of bad police work and bad lab work. The legal profession in the UK on that case other than a few exceptions did not cover themselves in glory. I once met Gareth Pearse, and asked her why was she the first solicitor to argue a case in the HOL she said because no barrister would take the case.

BTW in relation to lawyers never achieving something, I would disagree totally, many of the rights you and I take for granted happened because brave citizens with the help of lawyers stood up. Take the Hep C scandal it was lawyers against the odds took those cases yes without the very brave women it would never happened but with out lawyers, like Mary Robinson who was involved in a large number of ground breaking cases in relation to condoms, homosexuality etc. this country would have been a different place.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 2:58pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

It is posts about judge Judy and citizens advice on topics that have nothing to do with the OP, that I have given up on this thread. While there is a reference to investors in the information you posted, the information is for consumers, it is to protect the likes of you and me if we see a web site advertising say an investment in company shares. There must be certain safe guards for the consumer.

You stated earlier you are an engineer if I remember correctly. Imagine now a situation where a person has asked a question or posed a problem about something you know a lot about. You mentioned nano tech, so say the question was about how to provide power to nano technology. Say I said its power why not use AA batteries, well to me it fits the question but it shows a total lack of understanding of the issues not much use having a nanobot that requires a microscope to see if it is attached to a bloody great big battery.

That is the problem with your post, yes you are trying to help the OP but how is a TV show judge who rules in favour of a fraudster in any way given the OP relevant info.

While your post from citizens advice does relate to investment it has no relevance to the OP. the posting of SEC info the same.

The simple facts of life are, people enter into contracts everyday without writing them. The example I gave about Irish distillers shows how huge deals are some times done on no more than a hand shake, that hand shake cost DCC a fortune. People enter into small loans and investment every day with out writing it down, is that a good idea no but people will do it. Then sadly when lawyers get involved its their fault, even though all they are trying to do is fix the mess.

I have clearly stated the OP should seek proper advice, if he can not afford it then FLAC or MABS maybe able to help.

So the Judge Judy example isn't relevant to the OP's problem. It was however based on a verbal contract and i think at the very least that was relevant. At least I got one thank you.

Okay, i counted the thank you's... i assume the majority agree with you. wow have you never been thanked before researchwill. Well congratulations.

Why not hash this out again and again because you got a few thank you's so we can all see what a popular guy you are. This forum is saturated with law graduates with a keen understanding of the law and who seek out intelligent conversations about the aspects of the law they have studied and are not too keen on interpretations of the law that are not correct.

Nor am I a law student/graduate so i can never please these graduates or scholars of the law... I confine my activities here to the subjects i am knowledgeable and interested in. I happen to be a very active investor and i have alot more knowledge in this area than you probably have. As an investor I would feel more strongly for the investor than i would for the business person. That is what i meant by being entitled to my opinion.

I don't understand your analogy about nano technology being powered by duracell battery's.

Nanotechnology means building things from the bottom up, with atomic precision. Bottom up nanotechnology involves molecular self-assembly without guidance or management from an outside sources. You might say Chemistry and biology help assemble growth and not a set of AA duracell battery's.

I have to say as an engineer I find that comment utterly insulting and your crude understanding of the subject typical of your smug profession.

blueythebear · 08-02-2012 3:03pm

pirelli wrote: »

Hurtful to whom?

Your not meant to seek legal advice! It is against the charter.. that's why the legal forum is such a madhouse; it's designed not to work in the first place. A place where you are neither allowed to seek or give advice.

Hurtful to anyone who has posted on this thread.

Not going to comment on the Charter other than to say that it is there for a reason.

pirelli wrote: »

Just to get this clear i am not here to show off my my brilliant legal mind i am interested in miscarriages of justice and there are very few brilliant minds on this forum in that area. In fact zero...and it is an area you should understand. I am qualified in other areas and law is not my profession although i have done certificates and I might finish off the FE1 but only as a hobby.

I find it hard to believe that anybody would do the FE1s as a hobby. A Masters degree perhaps, but not the FE1s.

Miscarriages of justice occur in all areas of law, so one cannot be an expert in miscarriages of justice in the same way as one could be an expert in, for example, Intellectual Property law.

pirelli wrote: »

I am not an enthusiastic law graduate and if they are the only people you think should post here then you might look to open a sub forum where you can talk shop all day.

When did anyone ever suggest that law graduates should only frequent this forum? It's here so people can discuss legal topics. Laypeople and practitioners alike. Laypeople can get good information fromthis forum but it defeats the purpose if the information is just plain wrong or not relevant.

pirelli wrote: »

Also that link is titled us securities etc..was just an example of how investors can sue you.I wasn't going to spend hours trawling google just to prove a point i know little about in any case. Being an investor does not necessarily mean you lose all your money if the business goes bust particularly if one party is unable to say if it was an investment.

There's no point in coming on here and posting absolutely irrelevant links.

pirelli wrote: »

The greater majority would like see reform of the legal profession and the industry if that is the right word as a whole. That will never happen because and i do not wish to be hurtful, but all that ever happens with lawyers is they bicker, make wild speculations and outlandish theories and never achieve anything and rip everybody off so they can make some money.

Again, this is irrelevant except for perhaps showing that you have a natural dislike for the lawyering profession. So be it but I don't see the relevance to this topic.

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 3:14pm

pirelli wrote: »

So the Judge Judy example isn't relevant to the OP's problem. It was however based on a verbal contract and i think at the very least that was relevant. At least I got one thank you.

Okay, i counted the thank you's... i assume the majority agree with you. wow have you never been thanked before researchwill. Well congratulations.

Why not hash this out again and again because you got a few thank you's so we can all see what a popular guy you are. This forum is saturated with law graduates with a keen understanding of the law and who seek out intelligent conversations about the aspects of the law they have studied and are not too keen on interpretations of the law that are not correct.

Nor am I a law student/graduate so i can never please these graduates or scholars of the law... I confine my activities here to the subjects i am knowledgeable and interested in. I happen to be a very active investor and i have alot more knowledge in this area than you probably have. As an investor I would feel more strongly for the investor than i would for the business person. That is what i meant by being entitled to my opinion.

I don't understand your analogy about nano technology being powered by duracell battery's.

Nanotechnology means building things from the bottom up, with atomic precision. Bottom up nanotechnology involves molecular self-assembly without guidance or management from an outside sources. You might say Chemistry and biology help assemble growth and not a set of AA duracell battery's.

I have to say as an engineer I find that comment utterly insulting and your crude understanding of the subject typical of your smug profession.

That is exactly my point I don't koen about Nano tech I know nothing about it other than my interest in syfy. As you know what you are saying I will say well now I know a little bit more.

You pointed out to me how my example is bad in science, all I did was point out to you how your examples are bad in law. Not to make you feel small but just to show what the real situation is.

Lots of people come on here with preconceived ideas about different subjects, all I ever do is point out what I know if someone want to learn from that great if the don't that's fine.

If you remember recently there was a thread where a teacher made a comment about reporting a sexual assault, he had a huge issue with AGS, but on teasing out the information it turned out his problem was in reality with the principle.

You mentioned earlier about the thread dealing with the Sherlock SI, my point with that was many people could not even tell me the proposed wording of the SI which was about a page long. Yet those same people where telling me what the SI was going to do without ever reading it.

Imagine how you would feel, knowing my crap understanding to nanotechnology, if I believed all research should be banned because of my understanding, that would be scarry. Yet it's how we deal with the law everyday.

No one wants you to please them on here, all people want to do is exchange ideas and information. You pointed out how little I know about science, do I now get upset no I say well I learned a little today. On the other hand when a lawyer points out why another persons post is wrong he is told you are a smug lawyer.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 3:15pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

There have been outlandish theories and wild speculation on boards but I don't think it is normal for lawyers. In fact the biggest issue with lawyers is in my opinion as one that they are usually very conservative.

The problem people have with the SEC, while it may show investors have rights, that would a be in the USA and 2 in relation to proper regulated investment. Again to post from the SEC in relation to an Irish question is that it does not answer the question. Another example say a person asks about gun control law in Ireland and I post information from Texas where I can but a M16. While that might be an ok answer if the discussion is about how different countries treat guns, if the question is what kinda gun can I buy in Ireland it does not answer the question.

In relation to miscarriages of justice, this is a very small area of law. The biggest issue is that no system including the legal system likes to admit it made a serious mistake. But it does happen, some people get shafted, but in most cases it is not the judge jury solicitors or barristers that do the shafting it's the person who gives false evidence or makes a mess of the samples. The Birmingham 6, Guilford 4 etc. spent years in jail because of bad police work and bad lab work. The legal profession in the UK on that case other than a few exceptions did not cover themselves in glory. I once met Gareth Pearse, and asked her why was she the first solicitor to argue a case in the HOL she said because no barrister would take the case.

BTW in relation to lawyers never achieving something, I would disagree totally, many of the rights you and I take for granted happened because brave citizens with the help of lawyers stood up. Take the Hep C scandal it was lawyers against the odds took those cases yes without the very brave women it would never happened but with out lawyers, like Mary Robinson who was involved in a large number of ground breaking cases in relation to condoms, homosexuality etc. this country would have been a different place.

I was just being humorous in my previous post so please don't take offence. I suppose one would expect that USA laws would be radically different which in the detail they are but they are becoming more and more universal as the Market is an international and worldwide system.

Thank you for your piece on miscarriages of justice. I think your antidote about meeting Gareth Pearse sums up my fustration with Barristers and solictor's because ignoring this would be like an engineer ignoring the toxic waste of his manufacturing process or using carbon producing energies rather than considering alternative energies.

The legal profession to me is like Texaco or Shell oil in drilling for oil in Ecuador
without any regard for the pollution and waste and harm it can cause the ecosystem. The excuse it that it is just another drop in the ocean what harm can a little damage do.

It would be great if the legal profession acted responsibly and viewed miscarriages of justice like an oil spill and everyone pitched in to get the disaster cleaned up .

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 3:31pm

pirelli wrote: »

I was just being humorous in my previous post so please don't take offence. I suppose one would expect that USA laws would be radically different which in the detail they are but they are becoming more and more universal as the Market is an international and worldwide system.

Thank you for your piece on miscarriages of justice. I think your antidote about meeting Gareth Pearse sums up my fustration with Barristers and solictor's because ignoring this would be like an engineer ignoring the toxic waste of his manufacturing process or using carbon producing energies rather than considering alternative energies.

The legal profession to me is like Texaco or Shell oil in drilling for oil in Ecuador
without any regard for the pollution and waste and harm it can cause the ecosystem. The excuse it that it is just another drop in the ocean what harm can a little damage do.

It would be great if the legal profession acted responsibly and viewed miscarriages of justice like an oil spill and everyone pitched in to get the disaster cleaned up .

Good point about international law, yes because of banking and commerce being world wide trades those areas have what are by and large universal laws so to speak but really only in the international sphere.

I agree about miscarriages of justice but there are loads of lawyers would give their eyeteeth for a good constitutional law miscarriage of justice case. I receive at least one call a week asking my will I take a case with little chance of getting paid. I like many lawyers take those cases.

Yes some lawyers are only interested in the fees like some teachers are only interested in wage cheque as in any profession. I know doctors who won't see a client unless the have €50 and other doctors who will see clients with no medical card and little money. But like any time you are looking for people to do work for you search around ask people, you will be supprised.

I could tell countless stories where a lawyer has changed a persons life for no other reason than he is good at what he does. I am also sorry to say there are stories where lawyers don't. Like your example of exon not all lawyers are big law. Some practice in the hard areas of crime, child care and deportation.

Remember miscarriages of justice are rarely caused by lawyers but usually fixed by them. In relation to Heb C it was doctors who allowed bad product to be used. It was government who dragged out a case till the plaintiff died. It was lawyers who took those first cases with little chance or hope.

Amazotheamazing · 08-02-2012 3:45pm

pirelli wrote: »

Ask the OP what happened between himself and the person, I am not the OP how am i meant to know. I was responding to researchwill so pointless looking for relevance when you haven't or don't seem to want to have a clue as to what i am posting about.

The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.

That line 'emphasizing investors' sounds helpful; more helpful than your post any day. What do you suggest the OP does..how would you address his questions in the OP?

If you can't see just how much you've missed the point of what you're quoting I genuinely doubt anyone on boards, or possibly real life, will be able to explain it to you.

So with that in mind, let me just say, yes, you are completely right, carry on etc.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 4:03pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good point about international law, yes because of banking and commerce being world wide trades those areas have what are by and large universal laws so to speak but really only in the international sphere.

I agree about miscarriages of justice but there are loads of lawyers would give their eyeteeth for a good constitutional law miscarriage of justice case. I receive at least one call a week asking my will I take a case with little chance of getting paid. I like many lawyers take those cases.

Yes some lawyers are only interested in the fees like some teachers are only interested in wage cheque as in any profession. I know doctors who won't see a client unless the have €50 and other doctors who will see clients with no medical card and little money. But like any time you are looking for people to do work for you search around ask people, you will be supprised.

I could tell countless stories where a lawyer has changed a persons life for no other reason than he is good at what he does. I am also sorry to say there are stories where lawyers don't. Like your example of exon not all lawyers are big law. Some practice in the hard areas of crime, child care and deportation.

Remember miscarriages of justice are rarely caused by lawyers but usually fixed by them. In relation to Heb C it was doctors who allowed bad product to be used. It was government who dragged out a case till the plaintiff died. It was lawyers who took those first cases with little chance or hope.

A constitutional miscarriage of law..well if you know of a barrister that wants an instruction on such a case I know of a perfect constitutional miscarriage of justice. However these cases are always from years ago well outside the statute of limitations unless you can get around that.

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 4:06pm

pirelli wrote: »

A constitutional miscarriage of law..well if you know of a barrister that wants an instruction on such a case I know of a perfect constitutional miscarriage of justice. However these cases are always from years ago well outside the statute of limitations unless you can get around that.

The statute may or may not apply depending on the facts. Remember many of the abuse cases are upto 40 and 50 years old. But if you do have a case you will need to go to a solicitor. IF you want to PM me outline I may be able to send you in the right directon.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 4:24pm

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

If you can't see just how much you've missed the point of what you're quoting I genuinely doubt anyone on boards, or possibly real life, will be able to explain it to you.

So with that in mind, let me just say, yes, you are completely right, carry on etc.

It is related to consumer advertising. I do know that. Was the investor found through an email communication and was the business online.These are all possibilities. If the law protects investors in someway then it might be just such a situation. It's a shot in the dark rather than me misunderstanding what i was quoting.

Importantly neither you nor I are privy to these facts so there is no point in becoming belligerent but i appreciate your trying to form an opinion as to what position the OP might be in, perhaps answer his questions.

Amazotheamazing · 08-02-2012 4:30pm

pirelli wrote: »

It is related to consumer advertising. I do know that. Was the investor found through an email communication and was the business online.These are all possibilities. If the law protects investors in someway then it might be just such a situation. It's a shot in the dark rather than me misunderstanding what i was quoting.

Importantly neither you nor I are privy to these facts so there is no point in becoming belligerent but i appreciate your trying to form an opinion as to what position the OP might be in, perhaps answer his questions.

And what in the OP launched you down the consumer advertising path?

why not just wait for the OP to come back rather than fill in the blanks yourself?

'Debt Collector'

Comments