on the up
You need to be very careful in the way you make these statements, I reckon. You are presenting your opinion as fact.Originally Posted by Goblin
What you are doing is seen in the eyes of the law as libel. Potentially libel of a lawyer.
Might not be the best of moves Goblin.
And I to my motorcycle parked like the soul of the junkyard. Restored, a bicycle fleshed with power, and tore off. Up Highway 106 continually drunk on the wind in my mouth. Wringing the handlebar for speed, wild to be wreckage forever.
- James Dickey, Cherrylog Road.
Hardcore Biker
Agreed riffer....it's all "hearsay",the ONLY ones who know the truth are Rickards and Nicholas themselves.As long as a Jury with the evidence put before them comes to the conclusion they did,then who are we to say they got it wrong?Hell,Wayne Barnes in last years World Cup quarter final All Blacks vs France "got it wrong" but we can bleat and moan all we like,it dosen't change the fact we lost!The old saying "You can forgive but never forget"comes to mind.
Off the wagon
Not stating opinion as fact, just stating an opinion. The example he and his ilk have set it's no wonder I have a problem with authority.
Rest In Peace
The Law Society is a crock of Shit - my personal experience - has anyone ever been successful at taking a lawyer to the Society and winning??? They look after their own.
Actions speak louder than words or good intentions
He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up. - Paul Keating
e mare libertas
... when confronted with hysterical accusations from females with issues who expected miracles at three dollars an hour?
Bastards.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
on the up
I'm not saying they were right or wrong in their decision at all. My opinion on the whole matter was never stated.
My point is that if someone is acquitted of a crime, continuing to say that they were guilty of it is a libelous action.
The difficulty here is separating personal feelings from legal process. There is no reason in legal process to prohibit him from taking up the law.
Lawyers are not generally regarded as the most honorable of people. I think he'll fit right in.
And I to my motorcycle parked like the soul of the junkyard. Restored, a bicycle fleshed with power, and tore off. Up Highway 106 continually drunk on the wind in my mouth. Wringing the handlebar for speed, wild to be wreckage forever.
- James Dickey, Cherrylog Road.
Hardcore Biker
I must say tsk tsk to some comments here. Isn't it going where angels fear to tread - slinging off at Nicholls, considering that unless you were there you can not know 100% the truth of what unfolded.
Events subsequent to the trial more than proved it was an extremely unsafe acquittal to the satisfaction of many intelligent folk who followed the matter. Seems some haven't been paying attention! Did they not notice the anti Rickards march on Parliament?
Admission to the bar or "good character" judgements should not be based solely on convicted or not convicted - that would set a very low standard... as the smartest scum never get convictions.
Nurses and Drs can lose or be denied registration sans conviction. If a vet that kills cats gets sacked from the SPCA (Close Up) with no convictions, why should an almost dead cert rapist get an honored position?
IMO the law society was wrong to only look at the transcript of the Nicholas trial, and should have checked out the other related trials too - to get a better picture. In not doing so it has clearly reached the wrong conclusion - one that is partial and not very logical, and is out of sync with public sentiment. In making that decision it has essentially said it doesn't believe Nicholas sworn testimony. It is not a jury. She should sue the bastards for making her look untruthful. Just goes to show that any woman or bloke who'd expect fair or sensitive treatment at or after a sex offence trial is dreaming. If she took a civil suit I'd expect a different outcome - as the weight of evidence is there like with that OJ case - they won civilly right?
As for the spin based comment made by the law society, of not holding "conduct" from 20 years ago against a man. That would be all very well - had he confessed, taken responsibility and either apologised to Louise in a restorative justice or just humanly decent manner, and perhaps done some time for the crime. Yet there has been no apology - just ongoing offending ie lies and denial around what occurred, which I'm convinced was probably rape, but at the least was certainly exploitation. These two things sometimes have a blurred dividing line.
That must be so distressing to the victim to whom I give most creedence, or victims (who knows if there were more).
Personally I don't believe any law society in any other country would have made such a fool of itself in the interests of PC or ?backcovering. Another of those fairly regular "freak things" that makes you ashamed to be Kiwi, was that spineless decision. Maybe he told the fools he knew where they lived, gaining compliance with no baton needed. Checks many boxes on the psychopathy list - both Mr R, and the organisation called law society if it truly was backcovering rather than just packed with bleeding heart morons.
Geriatric hoon
I just finished reading Inspector Graeme Bell's book "Murder Mayhem and Mischief". (If there's any spelling or other errors in that pardon me I've given the book back.)
He says we don't have a justice system we have a court system. It's all a game and the game is designed to make money for the players.
A profession already low in public esteem just managed to take a significant downward leap...
Hardcore Biker
Where on earth do you get this. Juries do not define reality. If you saw your neighbour kill your mother but he fooled the jury do you think that makes him innocent. No - just not proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt to at least one of 12 random individuals. ou get rotten apples in juries too.
But as it was explained by a lawyer to me it is still perfectly fine to call the murderer a murderer under the defamation and libel law of NZ, so long as you believe and have good cause to state that (witnessing the murder as with witnessing your rape would constitute that), and so long as there is no malice or intent to harm the murderer by stating that.
There is sufficient evidence about the place for people to truly hold the opinion Rickards has raped - or how come hundreds marched on Parliament claiming so? Were they all mad or stupid? These cases will never be adequately dealt with until all persons are equipped with forehead chips that videotape all their interactions.
Easily ammused
And if my son got falsly accused of raping some slapper I wouldn't want you on the jury.
Some things are worth dying for, living is one of them.
Kicked out of a one-man band.
Hmm ... when people say that things DID happen when the evidence points to the contrary ... and at the same time bring personal attacks into it ... sorry, but they lose all credibility.
Salted Pork
It would be a bigger joke if it sent people to prison without evidence solely because your co-accused had previously been convicted of a similar offence, even though there was no suggestion that the accused had been involved in that previous offending.
The guy is a scumbag, no question in my mind and cops that turn defence lawyers have a special type of stink to them. He'll probably be in partnership with that creep Comeskey before you know it.
on the up
Sorry buddy. In this case the jury did define the reality. He was accused, tried, found not guilty. There's the reality.
No evidence in the previous posters comments to indicate that they were at the scene of the alleged rape.
And therein lies the rub. Can you really suggest there was no malice in Goblin's comments? Are you also suggesting Goblin was a witness to the events in question? Without these two pieces of the puzzle your argument is specious.
Maybe, but I'd hate to live in that world. Face it - the jury system isn't perfect but its better than summary justice. Would you prefer the Judge Dredd scenario? Or Chinese or Arab Justice? If you take the emotion away from this you're left with the facts, and the justice system tells us that the jury has to convict on the facts. Anything else is heresay. Continuing to promote hearsay without any evidence to the contrary in a manner which could prejudice a person's future ability to provide for themselves clearly fits under the definition of libel.
Yes, he's obviously a dodgy bugger. Would make a perfect defence lawyer. My understanding was that he was more interested in dealing in Maori Restorative Justice-type work (ie Waitangi Tribunal hearings).
There's a certain irony there about the man working in a restorative justice industry.
And I to my motorcycle parked like the soul of the junkyard. Restored, a bicycle fleshed with power, and tore off. Up Highway 106 continually drunk on the wind in my mouth. Wringing the handlebar for speed, wild to be wreckage forever.
- James Dickey, Cherrylog Road.
Easily wound up!!
Candor
I think you made some good points with respect to how other professional bodies may view matters of character and integrity but those organisations have the privilege of being able to take a "we know better than the courts" position. I can't really see how the law society to take that attitude and have either themselves or the system they represent retain any credibility
"There must be a one-to-one correspondence between left and right parentheses, with each left parenthesis to the left of its corresponding right parenthesis."
The instructions are simple...
The evidence did not point to the contrary...it merely didn't point hard enough to the facts as presented by the prosecution. The fact that Louise spent 20+ years trying to get justice and eventually managed to 'out' Dewar and his particular shennanigans, is all the proof I need to believe her. That, coupled with the 'company' Rickards kept, and I know what went on at the house R occupied in Taradale at the time of the more recent trials, all paints the picture of a most unsavoury bastard who has skirted round paying for his particularly nasty conduct. At least the police wouldn't have him back - perhaps they know the truth, or no longer wanted to be associated with the taint he carries. I guess the legal profession couldn't care less about any such taint.
Oh, and 'hearsay'? Means what a second person tells a third of what a first person told the second. It does not mean what a first person says was done to them, but isn't believed.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks