所以只可以用舊版本嘅SoC去評估勝算
唔覺得有咩問題
【實名舉報毒舌大狀真人版數以億計美元100%做慈善】揭露香港法律界長久以來不當行為
天使之翼
63 回覆
26 Like
21 Dislike
篇意見寫到明因為你當時未攞relief from sanction
所以只可以用舊版本嘅SoC去評估勝算
唔覺得有咩問題
所以只可以用舊版本嘅SoC去評估勝算
唔覺得有咩問題
如果你齋告律師失德攞返450000先
法援意見都覺得你有機會贏到喎
你有無睇㗎
法援意見都覺得你有機會贏到喎
你有無睇㗎
睇完都唔知你講乜鳩
搵ChatGPT重寫啦
搵ChatGPT重寫啦
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_BHRMwf9I3sqfWud3HlATjP-uHWyaalS/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115591332026129620493&rtpof=true&sd=true
我大狀skeleton Part D MERIT
2. Jugement 59段
58. With regard to (i) and (j), the Defendants would be prejudiced if the present action is allowed to be continued:
(1) As rightly pointed out by Mr Ho, this is a stale commercial dispute commenced in 2017 centred on an oral agreement allegedly concluded in 2015.
(2) The Defendants were entitled to assume that the action had been dismissed after the Unless Order came into effect for 2 years 8 months. If the Court does not enforce an unless order, an innocent party will be left in the uncertainty of not knowing when the party in the wrong can come back to ask for an extension of time.
(3) By not receiving appropriate advice from Vidler and Co and other solicitors, the Defendants have been vexed with various applications. On 6 May 2023, the Plaintiff issued a summons which sought to shift the costs liability to TCW. The application was dismissed by Master Lai with costs on 16 May 2023. The same argument was raised again when the Plaintiff opposed leave to commence taxation, but was rejected by Master Hui on 4 April 2023. Then, at the Stay Summons hearing, the same argument was raised for the third time and rejected by Registrar Kwang.
59. On the other hand, failure to take out a discovery application under the Unless Order could not have prejudiced the Defendants. However, if relief is not granted, the Plaintiff would be deprived of the opportunity of pursuing a potentially substantial claim. Whilst he may have a claim against TCW for damages arising from the dismissal of the claim, the proprietary relief of 35% shareholding sought by the Plaintiff cannot be claimed against TCW.
60. Given, the disproportionate nature of the sanction, the fault of TCW, the lack of intentional and contumelious disregard of court orders, and balancing the prejudice to both parties, I exercise my discretion to grant relief from the sanction imposed in the Unless Order in the interests of justice, despite the inordinate and inexcusable delay.
我大狀skeleton Part D MERIT
2. Jugement 59段
58. With regard to (i) and (j), the Defendants would be prejudiced if the present action is allowed to be continued:
(1) As rightly pointed out by Mr Ho, this is a stale commercial dispute commenced in 2017 centred on an oral agreement allegedly concluded in 2015.
(2) The Defendants were entitled to assume that the action had been dismissed after the Unless Order came into effect for 2 years 8 months. If the Court does not enforce an unless order, an innocent party will be left in the uncertainty of not knowing when the party in the wrong can come back to ask for an extension of time.
(3) By not receiving appropriate advice from Vidler and Co and other solicitors, the Defendants have been vexed with various applications. On 6 May 2023, the Plaintiff issued a summons which sought to shift the costs liability to TCW. The application was dismissed by Master Lai with costs on 16 May 2023. The same argument was raised again when the Plaintiff opposed leave to commence taxation, but was rejected by Master Hui on 4 April 2023. Then, at the Stay Summons hearing, the same argument was raised for the third time and rejected by Registrar Kwang.
59. On the other hand, failure to take out a discovery application under the Unless Order could not have prejudiced the Defendants. However, if relief is not granted, the Plaintiff would be deprived of the opportunity of pursuing a potentially substantial claim. Whilst he may have a claim against TCW for damages arising from the dismissal of the claim, the proprietary relief of 35% shareholding sought by the Plaintiff cannot be claimed against TCW.
60. Given, the disproportionate nature of the sanction, the fault of TCW, the lack of intentional and contumelious disregard of court orders, and balancing the prejudice to both parties, I exercise my discretion to grant relief from the sanction imposed in the Unless Order in the interests of justice, despite the inordinate and inexcusable delay.
點解要跟佢個個因為所以？
第一下就係錯嘅你跟佢思路？
第一下就係錯嘅你跟佢思路？
佢由3億屈到你變45萬而因為你破產銀碼大過45萬所以法援覺得太少reject 你，你仲未明班魔鬼玩咩？
if relief is not granted, the Plaintiff would be deprived of the opportunity of pursuing a potentially substantial claim
個官講呢句，唔等於你單case有merit
只係講，如果唔grant relief，你就失去左機會去打官司
對你損害好大
邊有話你有merit
同埋你大狀緊係寫你有merit
唔通叫法庭dismiss你單case
個官講呢句，唔等於你單case有merit
只係講，如果唔grant relief，你就失去左機會去打官司
對你損害好大
邊有話你有merit
同埋你大狀緊係寫你有merit
唔通叫法庭dismiss你單case
我都可以話你塊面紅色 所以你係南美土著
唔覺有咩問題
same logic
唔覺有咩問題
same logic
而同時對面大狀都寫無MERIT，如果唔關事點解兩邊大狀都要寫MERIT落去？同埋我寫既有MERIT 係有証據support 唔係對面同呢個法援處大狀係到咩都唔睇9吹
同埋如果佢9吹就得，咁要個trial 來做咩？
同埋如果佢9吹就得，咁要個trial 來做咩？
4.2. 法援署大狀和法庭事實及法官意見唱反調，把Peter Wong 極嚴重失德講成維他命
我係講緊呢到
點樣唱反調？
大家都同意TC Wong有錯
同埋法官根本無就你單案嘅勝算評論過
我係講緊呢到
點樣唱反調？
大家都同意TC Wong有錯
同埋法官根本無就你單案嘅勝算評論過
所以implicitly 雙方大狀都寫MERIT 証明法庭係要睇
而7年以來雙方所有律師大狀都無人講過呢個法援處大狀既所謂enforce唔到既"觀點"(佢可以9吹，對家講大話常態化ga la)
enforce到唔到係咪佢個大狀9吹就一定岩？(唔洗trial搵個大狀吹下就係?)
而7年以來雙方所有律師大狀都無人講過呢個法援處大狀既所謂enforce唔到既"觀點"(佢可以9吹，對家講大話常態化ga la)
enforce到唔到係咪佢個大狀9吹就一定岩？(唔洗trial搵個大狀吹下就係?)
page 40 of master D Ho transcript:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1znh-5xCZ_wEer8Ee6SCnlI0_4VjOcKAf/view?usp=sharing
there is a residual discretion on the part of this court
and I'm afraid I have to leave the plaintiff to either go
after the former solicitor, who is insured, right, at least
$10 million. Is it still $10 million, 一千萬都唔夠畀wor, 而家
Right. But then the more -- the higher the amount, the more
expensive it would be for the solicitors to buy the
insurance.
Anyway, so it's either go after the former solicitor or
frame a fresh claim, or properly pleaded claim for
continuing breach of copyright, for example. But in this
regard I observe that Ho & Chan(?), a long time ago, had
already advised again this course of action, but Gary just
didn't take it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1znh-5xCZ_wEer8Ee6SCnlI0_4VjOcKAf/view?usp=sharing
there is a residual discretion on the part of this court
and I'm afraid I have to leave the plaintiff to either go
after the former solicitor, who is insured, right, at least
$10 million. Is it still $10 million, 一千萬都唔夠畀wor, 而家
Right. But then the more -- the higher the amount, the more
expensive it would be for the solicitors to buy the
insurance.
Anyway, so it's either go after the former solicitor or
frame a fresh claim, or properly pleaded claim for
continuing breach of copyright, for example. But in this
regard I observe that Ho & Chan(?), a long time ago, had
already advised again this course of action, but Gary just
didn't take it.
同埋你睇清楚法援處個大狀，佢係想係無經過trial既情況，加上佢睇錯野(話我無比一個我比左兩次既expert fee)，講到我原來個單既所有野都係"因為佢覺not enforcable --> no reasonable chance--> nuiance claim--> no merit"，咁你都覺得合理?
我打個比喻, 就好似因為你塊面紅色-->你南美來既-->你唔識講廣東話-->所以你唔可以同我講到野
我打個比喻, 就好似因為你塊面紅色-->你南美來既-->你唔識講廣東話-->所以你唔可以同我講到野
中間法援處仲要係拖延，加拒絕溝通既態度，最後錯埋D factual 野
要砌你只要佢想有咩唔得，再做得明顯D佢同對家既大狀可以立場一樣tim，9吹砌你有幾難，唔洗睇証據，依案例直接話你同個案例一樣唔洗trial 都知，明屈你你吹咩
簡單D講，佢呢D係一條線logic 既陷阱
A-->B-->C-->D 而根本無A, 或者A係好明顯false但好似無人講過而砌到你A
而呢度A就係個法援大狀既"你所有claim 都唔enforcable(佢覺得/佢老闆叫佢咁講+唔洗trial一定係)"
咁所有案都可以唔洗trial搵個狀9吹下就一定案例applicable一定佢吹咩都岩
A-->B-->C-->D 而根本無A, 或者A係好明顯false但好似無人講過而砌到你A
而呢度A就係個法援大狀既"你所有claim 都唔enforcable(佢覺得/佢老闆叫佢咁講+唔洗trial一定係)"
咁所有案都可以唔洗trial搵個狀9吹下就一定案例applicable一定佢吹咩都岩
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vb98Ohju_B2XVPbrS86ttgmX7j4UXCkn/view?usp=sharing
page 19, 46段 (佢覺得)doom to fail 之後講到Peter Wong misconduct 係維他命，會防止我輸更多既錢
page 19, 46段 (佢覺得)doom to fail 之後講到Peter Wong misconduct 係維他命，會防止我輸更多既錢
見你咁堅持先同你講兩句
得罪講句
你堆野全部都係啲不著邊際捕風捉影既野
你連個大概都講唔出
一味話自己好多證據好多乜乜乜
咁樣無用的
你可以覺得全世界都錯，都無心睇你啲野就9up
但當全世界都覺得1+1=2，得你覺得唔係既時候
反省點解自己有個咁既諗法
Present上有咩問題令全世界都唔理解你
孤芳自賞有撚用
呢度個個都問緊你個case係乜
簡短講但你都講唔出黎
講多句，就算你有錢 （但你係被破產中我理解？）
除非好多好多錢
無律師會想接你呢種客
9唔撘8啲野已經，仲要咬返自己
邊啲係重點又分唔清，唔關事又拎黎講
重點係，Track record咬過法援，咬過上手律師大狀etc
你想搵律師處理就有啲難囉
有客都唔會揀個咬自己既客，明唔明？
無客果啲自己諗
你又唔係蠢，但呢啲要自己醒覺啦
將心比己
作啲諗下人地（包括官、法援、䰠手師）拎上手會點睇件案
唔係你點睇、你覺得點點點
你呢套係work的話你唔會磨撚左7年
得罪講句
你堆野全部都係啲不著邊際捕風捉影既野
你連個大概都講唔出
一味話自己好多證據好多乜乜乜
咁樣無用的
你可以覺得全世界都錯，都無心睇你啲野就9up
但當全世界都覺得1+1=2，得你覺得唔係既時候
反省點解自己有個咁既諗法
Present上有咩問題令全世界都唔理解你
孤芳自賞有撚用
呢度個個都問緊你個case係乜
簡短講但你都講唔出黎
講多句，就算你有錢 （但你係被破產中我理解？）
除非好多好多錢
無律師會想接你呢種客
9唔撘8啲野已經，仲要咬返自己
邊啲係重點又分唔清，唔關事又拎黎講
重點係，Track record咬過法援，咬過上手律師大狀etc
你想搵律師處理就有啲難囉
有客都唔會揀個咬自己既客，明唔明？
無客果啲自己諗
你又唔係蠢，但呢啲要自己醒覺啦
將心比己
作啲諗下人地（包括官、法援、䰠手師）拎上手會點睇件案
唔係你點睇、你覺得點點點
你呢套係work的話你唔會磨撚左7年
你可以同林涼水個客講相同既說話，唔係點會叫毒舌大狀，我係齊証據呀，你覺得1+1=3 我堅持係=2
唔work 你有咩高見?我要照顧未接手potentially corrupt而又想guilt trip 我既未出現律師感受？
唔會囉，我就係要爆呢班魔鬼大獲
唔work 你有咩高見?我要照顧未接手potentially corrupt而又想guilt trip 我既未出現律師感受？
唔會囉，我就係要爆呢班魔鬼大獲
2024年11月8日更新，
過去一個月在處理法援署的腐敗問題，法援署律師的態度及行為都十分惡劣，分別是:
1. 故意拖延（4月申請，一直不合理有心拖延，拒絕就案件重點清晰溝通，等對方申請我破產，最後出的所謂大狀意見亦發現基於完全錯誤的事實粗製）
2. 預設偏頗立場地意圖以不準確資料及極不合理立場拒絕我的申請
法援署偏幫有錢人，指鹿為馬，負責律師拒絕溝通，要我就他們的決定去上訴。法援署行為反映背後有一股魔鬼勢力在利用錢作怪影響。
a. 法援署信件:
20240912拖延解釋：https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NgGKmIzA_hGtEbQXbBtINxjAAy_VZ0y7/view?usp=drive_link
20241104無理拒絕解釋：https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VL4PxjRZwbSi5lzSUbdU9EGbEHwThOgB/view?usp=drive_link
20241104法援署大狀意見:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J8Rld7F4-ftbxrl9gcujKc9zxeOfahI8/view?usp=drive_link
b. 本人最近20241105-20241106 email及支持文件:
20241105 email指出法援署大狀得到的資訊明顯錯誤:https://drive.google.com/file/d/12FAMCtn2dIGLUMThQ1YI3xbM69oJWBXi/view?usp=drive_link
20241106 email指出1582案之前大狀以Part D: STRONG MERIT給法庭考慮，法庭亦平衡過相關包括MERIT作為要點作出判決:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sFGgqTdUuOFRlI9rtHOFsexebWIXaxn0/view?usp=drive_link
HCA1582/2017本人大狀 Relief from sanction Skeleton: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_BHRMwf9I3sqfWud3HlATjP-uHWyaalS/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=115591332026129620493&rtpof=true&sd=true
HCA1582/2017 法官Queenie Au Yeung 就 Relief from sanction判決:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j4quYmEP_4Q0DpoiQsS-SubLv3Gq7Eqy/view?usp=sharing
(亦可到Hong Kong judiciary網上查詢：https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/judgment.jsp )
Master D Ho 在HCA 40/2023 中指出Peter Wong 一行人的misconduct 是幾十年來最嚴重及指出專業保險1000萬都不足以賠償 (另指出律師會懲罰不合比例及在細閱所有証據後): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1znh-5xCZ_wEer8Ee6SCnlI0_4VjOcKAf/view?usp=sharing
LAD drag and hide folder
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LR-Shr4FGG_gfWHNdX3wY6enlwYcmIJP
過去一個月在處理法援署的腐敗問題，法援署律師的態度及行為都十分惡劣，分別是:
1. 故意拖延（4月申請，一直不合理有心拖延，拒絕就案件重點清晰溝通，等對方申請我破產，最後出的所謂大狀意見亦發現基於完全錯誤的事實粗製）
2. 預設偏頗立場地意圖以不準確資料及極不合理立場拒絕我的申請
法援署偏幫有錢人，指鹿為馬，負責律師拒絕溝通，要我就他們的決定去上訴。法援署行為反映背後有一股魔鬼勢力在利用錢作怪影響。
a. 法援署信件:
20240912拖延解釋：https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NgGKmIzA_hGtEbQXbBtINxjAAy_VZ0y7/view?usp=drive_link
20241104無理拒絕解釋：https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VL4PxjRZwbSi5lzSUbdU9EGbEHwThOgB/view?usp=drive_link
20241104法援署大狀意見:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J8Rld7F4-ftbxrl9gcujKc9zxeOfahI8/view?usp=drive_link
b. 本人最近20241105-20241106 email及支持文件:
20241105 email指出法援署大狀得到的資訊明顯錯誤:https://drive.google.com/file/d/12FAMCtn2dIGLUMThQ1YI3xbM69oJWBXi/view?usp=drive_link
20241106 email指出1582案之前大狀以Part D: STRONG MERIT給法庭考慮，法庭亦平衡過相關包括MERIT作為要點作出判決:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sFGgqTdUuOFRlI9rtHOFsexebWIXaxn0/view?usp=drive_link
HCA1582/2017本人大狀 Relief from sanction Skeleton: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_BHRMwf9I3sqfWud3HlATjP-uHWyaalS/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=115591332026129620493&rtpof=true&sd=true
HCA1582/2017 法官Queenie Au Yeung 就 Relief from sanction判決:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j4quYmEP_4Q0DpoiQsS-SubLv3Gq7Eqy/view?usp=sharing
(亦可到Hong Kong judiciary網上查詢：https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/judgment.jsp )
Master D Ho 在HCA 40/2023 中指出Peter Wong 一行人的misconduct 是幾十年來最嚴重及指出專業保險1000萬都不足以賠償 (另指出律師會懲罰不合比例及在細閱所有証據後): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1znh-5xCZ_wEer8Ee6SCnlI0_4VjOcKAf/view?usp=sharing
LAD drag and hide folder
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LR-Shr4FGG_gfWHNdX3wY6enlwYcmIJP
如果有懶人包講下件事起承轉合先就好，一嚟唔知頭唔知路就冇咩興趣睇啲片
完全睇唔明 寫到一舊舊 仲要人自己聽埋3條片 89都推唔郁架啦 你想攪大件事就試下搵東張啦