| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"colinberry1" |
| Date: |
23 Oct 2006 08:02:48 AM |
| Object: |
S O S, to a sacred being on this planet! |
I have come here since all else has failed, probably one of these
"religious faith" out there may help my wife, since I have lost all
faith in everything that I once believed in, we had a personal injury
claim against Costco, my wife and I went shopping when four washing
machines fell two of which fell from 30ft and struck her fracturing
three of her vertebrae and sustaining a head injury.
We have had two solicitors that have worked against my wife's interest
never following the pre-action protocol and never obtained an expert
witness on her behalf after the defendant had accepted liability.
I have tried some of the largest solicitors in the UK, that deals with
head and spinal injuries but they all say that the case is to large for
them to handle, and told me to get in touch with the Law Society.
I have been down that road with the Law Society before, all they have
offered me concerning our first solicitor was a fine of =A31,000 which
we did not want, all I want is justice for my wife so if our legal
system cannot help her probably there is a God out there who can help,
who cares and who will help her two accomplished the Justice she
rightfully deserves.
So what I am asking, is there a solicitor that has a moral ground that
rise above the mentality that prevail, solicitors who are not willing
to take a case on because there is too much corruption involved and
only prefer the virgin cases.
Apparently I am advised to forget about Costco but sue the solicitor
for professional negligence and I will receive the same compensation, I
have refused on moral grounds that it was Costco who dropped those
washing machines on my wife and not the solicitors.
Somehow I feel if there is a solicitor that anybody knows whom believed
in Justice please find him for us, we are not asking him to work a
miracle but just be honest with us and do what he can without trying to
protect this large corporate from escaping blame even though they have
admitted liability could this be possible it certainly looks that way.
Colin & Mary
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: S O S, to a sacred being on this planet! |
25 Oct 2006 01:53:52 PM |
|
|
"colinberry1" <colinberry1@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1161608568.356147.199720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have come here since all else has failed, probably one of these
"religious faith" out there may help my wife, since I have lost all
faith in everything that I once believed in, we had a personal injury
claim against Costco, my wife and I went shopping when four washing
machines fell two of which fell from 30ft and struck her fracturing
three of her vertebrae and sustaining a head injury.
Ooookay and this has what, exactly, to do with atheism?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: S O S, to a sacred being on this planet! |
23 Oct 2006 04:54:44 PM |
|
|
colinberry1 wrote:
We have had two solicitors that have worked against my wife's interest
never following the pre-action protocol and never obtained an expert
witness on her behalf after the defendant had accepted liability.
Costco accepted the liability.
Do you wish them to reverse this decision so you can get more?
I have tried some of the largest solicitors in the UK, that deals with
head and spinal injuries but they all say that the case is to large
for them to handle, and told me to get in touch with the Law Society.
I have been down that road with the Law Society before, all they have
offered me concerning our first solicitor was a fine of £1,000 which
we did not want, all I want is justice for my wife so if our legal
system cannot help her probably there is a God out there who can help,
who cares and who will help her two accomplished the Justice she
rightfully deserves.
So what I am asking, is there a solicitor that has a moral ground that
rise above the mentality that prevail, solicitors who are not willing
to take a case on because there is too much corruption involved and
only prefer the virgin cases.
Apparently I am advised to forget about Costco but sue the solicitor
for professional negligence and I will receive the same compensation,
I have refused on moral grounds that it was Costco who dropped those
washing machines on my wife and not the solicitors.
Somehow I feel if there is a solicitor that anybody knows whom
believed in Justice please find him for us, we are not asking him to
work a miracle but just be honest with us and do what he can without
trying to protect this large corporate from escaping blame even
though they have admitted liability could this be possible it
certainly looks that way.
I can see why this is a big case. You want somebody who has admitted guilt
to "unadmit" it so you can get more.
I might be tempted to change my mind if you would explain what they offered
and why you don't think it is enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "colinberry1" |
|
| Title: Re: S O S, to a sacred being on this planet! |
24 Oct 2006 05:05:27 AM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
I might be tempted to change my mind if you would explain what they offer=
ed
and why you don't think it is enough.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/d3ab2281bceecad=
1?hl=3Den&
Mike Painter wrote:
colinberry1 wrote:
We have had two solicitors that have worked against my wife's interest
never following the pre-action protocol and never obtained an expert
witness on her behalf after the defendant had accepted liability.
Costco accepted the liability.
Do you wish them to reverse this decision so you can get more?
I have tried some of the largest solicitors in the UK, that deals with
head and spinal injuries but they all say that the case is to large
for them to handle, and told me to get in touch with the Law Society.
I have been down that road with the Law Society before, all they have
offered me concerning our first solicitor was a fine of =A31,000 which
we did not want, all I want is justice for my wife so if our legal
system cannot help her probably there is a God out there who can help,
who cares and who will help her two accomplished the Justice she
rightfully deserves.
So what I am asking, is there a solicitor that has a moral ground that
rise above the mentality that prevail, solicitors who are not willing
to take a case on because there is too much corruption involved and
only prefer the virgin cases.
Apparently I am advised to forget about Costco but sue the solicitor
for professional negligence and I will receive the same compensation,
I have refused on moral grounds that it was Costco who dropped those
washing machines on my wife and not the solicitors.
Somehow I feel if there is a solicitor that anybody knows whom
believed in Justice please find him for us, we are not asking him to
work a miracle but just be honest with us and do what he can without
trying to protect this large corporate from escaping blame even
though they have admitted liability could this be possible it
certainly looks that way.
I can see why this is a big case. You want somebody who has admitted guilt
to "unadmit" it so you can get more.
I might be tempted to change my mind if you would explain what they offer=
ed
and why you don't think it is enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: S O S, to a sacred being on this planet! |
24 Oct 2006 08:40:02 PM |
|
|
colinberry1 wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
I might be tempted to change my mind if you would explain what they
offered and why you don't think it is enough.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/d3ab2281bceecad1?hl=en&
As I said, if you explain what was offered and wehy you don't think it was
enough, I might change my mind.
Posting a link to another thread does not do that and I can only hope that
"The reason why I had decided to dismiss the first solicitor is because he
never fitted the cooker at all." is some sort of English slang.
Perhaps "fitting a cooker" means something to solicitors over there, but not
to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "colinberry1" |
|
| Title: Re: S O S, to a sacred being on this planet! |
25 Oct 2006 07:24:28 PM |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
As I said, if you explain what was offered and wehy you don't think it was
enough, I might change my mind.
Posting a link to another thread does not do that and I can only hope that
"The reason why I had decided to dismiss the first solicitor is because he
never fitted the cooker at all." is some sort of English slang.
Perhaps "fitting a cooker" means something to solicitors over there, but not
to me.
Hi Mike Painter
Sorry, after three and a half years later there has not been any offer
made. The reason why I had decided to dismiss my first solicitor was
because he never obtained any expert report for my wife's head and
spinal injuries, the law society said that he wasted a full twelve
months doing nothing, he never bothered to chase the defendants
representative for periods of three to four months at a time when he
never received any response for his letter, he also ignored all my
questions and never bothered to abide by the pre-action protocol. He
also never bothered to see the claimant till over a year after the
accident before an appointment was made.
Never obtained an interim payment till eight months after the accident
considering the claimant had received head and spinal injuries, this is
some of the down side of this first solicitor.
Here in the U.K. if the defendant admits liability the claimant is
entitled to obtain an expert witness or case management to assess the
needs of the claimant and obtaining early rehab for head injury
patient. But of course both of our solicitors ignored that right
completely, and the second solicitor even threatened to come off the
record, if we did not except the Defendant's experts report to be
submitted when proceedings was being issued, because we did not have
our own expert report and that a report by a medical experts had to be
issued with the proceeding.
We were told we could lose the case if we did not except to submit the
defendants expert report after I had told him from the very beginning
that we would not except that report, even the first solicitor told the
defendants representative that he was not willing to except their
expert report because it was only a short report.
http://homepage.mac.com/colinberry1/Media/James%20Millar%20Craig%20lied%201.htm
Mike Painter wrote:
colinberry1 wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
I might be tempted to change my mind if you would explain what they
offered and why you don't think it is enough.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/d3ab2281bceecad1?hl=en&
As I said, if you explain what was offered and wehy you don't think it was
enough, I might change my mind.
Posting a link to another thread does not do that and I can only hope that
"The reason why I had decided to dismiss the first solicitor is because he
never fitted the cooker at all." is some sort of English slang.
Perhaps "fitting a cooker" means something to solicitors over there, but not
to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
