What follows is a forthcoming article that could be written soon: It is the year 2020. Would you really intend to commit several criminal offences for what is worth an $8.99 sandwich? Who in his white cotton shoe picking mind would abrogate all the laws that protect us and fail the Law exam book that he or she hands out to students to ask what is their position as a Law Society staffer and to confirm their authority as a Law Society Director after they read an article about a small local charitable Angel service firm? You seem to think there is an absolute authority that will vitiate his own Court authority in your presumption where you say you reserve the right as a Law society temporary worker and a few others to keep the property the organisation was ordered to return. The society and its directors are liable for the criminal misfeasance. There is vicarious liability. This is contempt of court. Initially, they failed as alleged by taking a $100,000 bribe to intimidate and interfere with the member's business and business name. It was rather unnecessary when the name was on sale back then for $70000.00. Now it is on sale for $8.99 when nothing is worth anything if they keep threatening human life for a little business name worth the cost of a small Hyundai; now worth the cost of a uh...Subway(TM) or Jimmy John(TM) sandwich. The name is irrelevant. Do you steal food? It is the goodwill and the service that matters. This acceptance of the bribe was misfeassnce in public office and a breach of trust. This just in; as previously discussed former Law Society Employees and current Employees as well as the Law Society corporately are liable contrary to section 127 of the Criminal Code [(the “Disobeying a Court Order Charge”)]; in failing to return all business property belonging to Warren A. Lyon and the Angel Ronan Firm. This charge stands with two counts that includes failing to obey the actual trust order while then claiming costs for work pursuant to that order although no accounting was done; a fraud on the court for which they are also liable. The business records need to be returned. The business records are required for his own purposes. The failure to return makes them also liable to answer to the offence of Business Interference. The Court is the victim for this contemptuous behaviour. The fact that the owner of the property is black is irrelevant.
What follows is a forthcoming article that could be written soon: It is the year 2020. Would you really intend to commit several criminal offences for what is worth an $8.99 sandwich? Who in his white cotton shoe picking mind would abrogate all the laws that protect us and fail the Law exam book that he or she hands out to students to ask what is their position as a Law Society staffer and to confirm their authority as a Law Society Director after they read an article about a small local charitable Angel service firm? You seem to think there is an absolute authority that will vitiate his own Court authority in your presumption where you say you reserve the right as a Law society temporary worker and a few others to keep the property the organisation was ordered to return. The society and its directors are liable for the criminal misfeasance. There is vicarious liability. This is contempt of court. Initially, they failed as alleged by taking a $100,000 bribe to intimidate and interfere with the member's business and business name. It was rather unnecessary when the name was on sale back then for $70000.00. Now it is on sale for $8.99 when nothing is worth anything if they keep threatening human life for a little business name worth the cost of a small Hyundai; now worth the cost of a uh...Subway(TM) or Jimmy John(TM) sandwich. The name is irrelevant. Do you steal food? It is the goodwill and the service that matters. This acceptance of the bribe was misfeassnce in public office and a breach of trust. This just in; as previously discussed former Law Society Employees and current Employees as well as the Law Society corporately are liable contrary to section 127 of the Criminal Code [(the “Disobeying a Court Order Charge”)]; in failing to return all business property belonging to Warren A. Lyon and the Angel Ronan Firm. This charge stands with two counts that includes failing to obey the actual trust order while then claiming costs for work pursuant to that order although no accounting was done; a fraud on the court for which they are also liable. The business records need to be returned. The business records are required for his own purposes. The failure to return makes them also liable to answer to the offence of Business Interference. The Court is the victim for this contemptuous behaviour. The fact that the owner of the property is black is irrelevant.
Comments
Post a Comment