Outcome

Prolaser III, Prolaser IV, Prolite+
Day
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby Day » Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:32 pm

Wow. You have no idea at all.

Gravy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Outcome

Postby Gravy » Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:08 am

9hundred wrote:(The Law not open to interpretation ok)

I think we have a new contender for the stupidest thing posted on this forum. As if the law is not open to interpretation... :roll:

Day wrote:Wow. You have no idea at all.
Beat me to it. :mrgreen:

9hundred
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:02 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby 9hundred » Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:57 am

beat me to it yes another idiot.

9hundred
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:02 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby 9hundred » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:21 am

Sean Hardy may very well have been able to beat the lot in contesting the facts of this case, but definitely not in interpreting them.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8242
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Outcome

Postby Hardy » Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:57 am

Sean Hardy may very well have been able to beat the lot in contesting the facts of this case
There was pretty much no hope whatsoever of anyone beating even one of your charges by contesting the facts of your case - i.e. by defence giving evidence to contradict the police evidence. Let alone beating all of them...
An opinion based on the facts, especially your own version of them, would have been useless. Which is why I refused to offer one.

9hundred
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:02 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby 9hundred » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:33 am

hmmm, I thought contesting the facts was your specialty and one of the key ingredients to your massive success in beating cases.

Boki
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby Boki » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:20 am

@ 9hundred,

What an absolute imbecile you are.
You’ve got no clue what’s going on. You had your chance to go see Hardy as soon as you got your summons papers, instead you waited up until a couple of days before your day in court to post it on this forum and then you started bitching about it was $300 too much and how you are not going to pay for something that you thought was uncertain. But Hardy advised you that you will get 12 -15 months based on your case info that you provided and in the end you got 15 months, so he was spot on (and he gave you that info for free). Imagine the possibilities if you paid $300 for a conference, but no, you thought you were too smart for everyone. Then once Paul Smith gave it to you good, you come back complaining how you tried so hard to meet with Hardy. The judge was right, should've just thrown you in jail.

Whirlpool is for faggots, most of the people on there haven’t got half a brain.
Just have a look at these;
https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-r ... &ux=482877
https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-r ... &ux=482877
And a new one just in >>> https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-r ... 15638&p=14

You got done for 165 in an 80 with a BAC of 0.085%. Now that is living a life that’s “always on the edge” and “full of extremes”. Except there is one problem now, you will have to live your life a little less extreme and without driving a car, otherwise they will take away your “livelihood” as well and throw you in jail. So if you want the ultimate extreme experience - keep driving and every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you will feel the adrenaline kick in knowing you could go to jail if the police pull you over whilst your licence is disqualified.
You have been speeding for over 10 years and still don’t know how to do it properly.
What do you think HWP does 3am in the morning? When they have nothing on, they sit on freeways/hotspots; have one hand on their crutch and the other on a fishing rod with a PL3 as bait. What a sucker, that was an amateur mistake. You deserve to cop it for mindlessly speeding.

9hundred wrote:I have never contradicted myself

9hundred wrote:(The Law not open to interpretation ok)

You are genuinely f**ked in the head if you can’t realise what people are telling you.
Why did you ask “Can these circumstances be reviewed in relation to such a charge?” on your very first post here if you think law cannot be interpreted? For someone to review your circumstances – it takes someone to consider your situation, compare it to the law and exercise discretion – all this is called “interpreting”. We wouldn’t have judges/courts/lawyers if there was no interpretation of law allowed. We would just have all set offences and corresponding penalties without any discretion or consideration.
9hundred wrote:hmmm, I thought contesting the facts was your specialty and one of the key ingredients to your massive success in beating cases.

If you read the front page of the site Hardy states that "Before you decide whether to handle your court case yourself, understand that over 90% of the cases I win are because of deficencies in the police case and legal technicalities. Less than 10% of cases that I win rely on your evidence being accepted by the Magistrate. If you don't have a skilled lawyer who knows how to find technicalities and deficiencies in the police case then you may be throwing away 90% of your chance of winning your case". See if you can work out what he means in that paragraph.

You work as a Chef…?? With this amount of stupidity, you’ve probably caused many cases of food poisoning. You should be nowhere near a kitchen. Nothing worse than a delusional drop-kick in their 30’s.
Go back to Whirlpool where people will tolerate your illiterate crap, no one here wants to waste their time with f**kwits.

Day
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby Day » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:55 am

Welcome back Boki! :lol:

9hundred
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:02 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby 9hundred » Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:10 pm

Whoa you are brutal in your judgement! Ok, I can only be left with the assumption that Sean would have run a very similar case, resulting in very much the same outcome.

Boki
Posts: 918
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby Boki » Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:54 pm

Yeah I agree it seems a bit brutal. But it was also brutal for the others that were genuinely trying to help you and were getting nowhere.

You'll have to decide what's best for you now - either sweat it out here or start fresh overseas.

Good luck and don't drive anymore. All the best.


P.S. Day, I'm not back, just a once-off cameo appearance as I purchased a DayPass from Hardy LOL.
I see these forums have gone a bit loopy. Who is responsible for quality control on here.

Gravy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Outcome

Postby Gravy » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:06 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

To put this into context 9hundred, you have brought Boki out of retirement for that rant, such is the arrogance and the rather astonishing depth of your lack of understanding (of both written communication and legal process) displayed in your posts.
9hundred wrote:beat me to it yes another idiot.
What does this even mean? Are you agreeing with Day and me that you are an idiot? That's the only conclusion I can come to from the text in that post, despite it clearly being the opposite of your intent. Not everyone is a good communicator in written form, and that's ok, but for goodness' sake take on board what EVERYONE else is trying to tell you and stop with the whole fingers-in-my-ears-shouting-"LA LA LA, CAN'T HEAR YOU, I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG" routine.

Your arguments are convincing no one and it is painfully clear that you are not seeking advice; rather you are seeking someone to agree with you. Well, you won't find that here. Either learn about humility pretty quickly, or go away and try whirlpool.

Gravy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Outcome

Postby Gravy » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:10 pm

Boki wrote:I see these forums have gone a bit loopy. Who is responsible for quality control on here.

It's an open internet forum on which Sean, very admirably, permits virtually absolute freedom of speech; so I'm going to answer Darwin.

Also Godwin's Law, but mostly Darwin. :mrgreen:

Gravy
Posts: 1004
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Outcome

Postby Gravy » Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:00 pm

9hundred(in a PM) wrote:What does it even mean? BEAT ME TO IT, just like Day, you yourself are a dickhead if you can't even interpret it correctly. :roll:

Firstly, I'm not concerned if you post your vulgarities directed at me onto the forum. In fact, I'd rather you didn't hide behind PMs.

Secondly, anyone who has graduated from primary school can interpret what you are TRYING to convey; I was merely using that post to demonstrate the point that you are struggling to accurately convey your contention and in turn comprehend other's contentions. This is actually very nicely demonstrated (ironically, by you - even if you do fail to appreciate that irony (is that in itself ironic???)) in the title and first post of this thread:

You failed to understand what Sean told you, left everything to the last minute and are now blaming everyone but the person solely responsible. As a result of that, have fun catching the bus.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8242
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Outcome

Postby Hardy » Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:26 pm

I can only be left with the assumption that Sean would have run a very similar case, resulting in very much the same outcome.

I won two counts of driving whilst suspended today without anyone giving any evidence.
Then a new client came in this arvo with reams of documents - wants me to appeal his speeding/dangerous driving case after he lost it in the Magistrates Court. There were major problems with the charge and summons, so I merely glanced at all the stuff he thinks is his good defence. Had he seen me at the outset it would have been an easy win. Now, after he has run and lost his case, it throws everything into disarray and I think winning on appeal using the stuffed charge and summons argument is now only 50/50. And nothing he had to show me improved his chances much at all. It is very true that 90% of wins have nothing whatsoever to do with anything the client tells you.

Oh - and nice to see Boki back and I'll consider his offer to be moderator! :P

Day
Posts: 1595
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby Day » Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:55 pm

Hardy wrote:Oh - and nice to see Boki back and I'll consider his offer to be moderator! :P


Fingers crossed. :mrgreen:

9hundred
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:02 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby 9hundred » Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:06 pm

Alright well I will keep that in mind. You seem to have a special gift or some mysterious magical power that differentiates yourself and I was curious to know what it was, but because we never reached that conference, I guess I will never know.

nofines
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:29 am

Re: Outcome

Postby nofines » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:16 pm

Not a special gift or magical powers, just a trained professional specialising in this area of law.

He doesn't win all cases and probably will be the first to tell you. He can't give any real advice till he reviews the case details. That takes time and it is only reasonable that people pay for his time.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8242
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Outcome

Postby Hardy » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:44 pm

Oh, and I got an acquittal on drug driving charges today - similar strategy. The acquittal had nothing at all to do with anything my client could have said. Seems you don't appreciate that defence lawyers aren't interested in trying to prove the client is innocent.

9hundred
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:02 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby 9hundred » Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:16 am

If you use a similar strategy for an acquittal in these cases, wouldn't the police prosecutors have closed those holes by now, rather than continue to have them exposed?

BN2
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:18 pm

Re: Outcome

Postby BN2 » Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:04 pm

9hundred wrote:If you use a similar strategy for an acquittal in these cases, wouldn't the police prosecutors have closed those holes by now, rather than continue to have them exposed?


I would not think its closing loopholes but things like lack of training/knowledge of the police informant and human error.


Return to “Lasers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest