🚀 go-pugleaf

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote :

>> To the extent that you comment without distancing yourselves,
> 
> "Yourselves"?  What in the world do you think
> I have in common with these solicitors who,
> supposedly, have done you this terrible wrong?

You have supported their attempts at murder.

> Twenty years, a UK citizen was rude to me in Los Angeles.
> When should I expect my apology from the Queen?

The Dutch have a Queen.  Good Queen Brenda is, to you, Her Britannic 
Majesty.

I don't approve of my country folk being rude to you.  You do approve of 
your fellow religionists helping to put me to death.

There's a difference.

> Here's something that you simply do not seem
> capable of understanding: "Jew" does not imply
> an homogenous group of people all having similar
> beliefs, traits or appearance.

Fair comment:  Judaism has nearly as many Atheists as the Church of 
England.

> All you know of me is what I have written here,

Most of that I've forgotten.

> I've looked at your website.  I saw nothing
> which indicated anything other than a lot
> of people trying to help you.

That's clearly not true.  As bull shitters go, you should stick to 
practicing your manners in LA.

> You've completely misunderstood your paraphrase of that
> famous quote.  It encourages individuals to speak out
> against bigotry and prejudice, particularly when it is
> directed at others.

Well go on then:  stop supporting bent Jewish solicitors, Clifford Cohen 
& Foster - GLP solicitors - the Clifford Pfeffer Group - and speak out 
against their disgusting behaviour.

> You just did. Here's what you said:

Make a decent case, will yet?

> Do you think that is what Spielberg wanted you
> to take away from it -- "Do what you're
> best at, and try not to be too arrogant"?

I don't think he was promoting murder, unlike you, and your support for 
bent Jewish solicitors.

> Hmmm, yes.  Fortunately, Shindler's Jews didn't have
> to rely on you.  We'd have had a very different movie,
> wouldn't we?  "You Jews won't condemn the Jew that I
> don't like -- off the camps with you!"

I would defend the people who attack me.  I have not proposed as you say.

> Then may I suggest that rather than being abusive to
> the doctors and medical staff trying to help you,

I wasn't.  And I have already told you the comment is irrelevant.  You 
don't kill someone because they are rude, and rudeness is symptomatic of 
OSA anyway.

The last time I attended that Mark Woolford's surgery, I was quite 
welcome, owing a joke I had cracked in the sleep centre, at the 
receptionist.

> that you cooperate and make a
> nominal effort to be pleasant.

Tsk.

> If you do die, it won't be because
> there weren't doctors trying to help you.

No it will be because they're not allowed to help me, thanks, inter alia, 
to Jewish solicitors Clifford Cohen & Foster - GLP solicitors - the 
Clifford Pfeffer Group.

> Or are they evil Jewish Doctors?

How should I know?  All I know is, that there are no Jewish computer 
programmers - you have to be a complete dick to do that job.

> Because you don't seem clear on what you're
> commenting.  That's not what the judge did.

Try telling me - but - do you stand a chance, unless you know about the 
English judicial system and the effect of EU directives upon it?

> He dismissed the committal application because it was
> in YOUR interest to do so -- he was HELPING you by
> getting opposing counsel to agree to voluntary dismissal
> so that YOU would avoid prison.

No he did not.  He could not send me to prison without appointing 
solicitors to represent me.  That's why he dismissed the committal 
application.  He didn't dismiss it when first raised, or when I first 
asked for solicitors as a result.

Neither did he dismiss it when I applied for solicitors the second time; 
neither when I appealed his refusal.  He only dismisses the committal 
when I appeal, and he turns my appeal into an oral reconsideration.  He 
does say, though it is hardly clear, because HHJ Tetlow is obfuscating.

> I don't know UK law, though I assume it's
> not terribly different from law in the US.

It isn't.  But it's English law.  Scotland has her own system, and 
legislation, as does Northern Ireland.

> In the US, you complain to the appropriate Bar
> Association, which will investigate the complaint
> and, if valid, take action as appropriate, [ . . . ].

That is different, because in the UK, the complaints procedures are 
mainly to protect professionals against complainants.  A complaint about 
a Judge would have to be appealed.  Which gets me back round to my need 
for effective legal representation.

> What you don't understand, and what the judge tried to
> explain to you, is that solicitors have ethical and legal
> obligations and cannot follow instructions from a client
> that require them to violate the law or the canons of ethics. 

Yes they can.  It may not be lawful, but it is done.  Without legal 
representation, what can you do?

> Which is why I'm convinced that you are an
> antisemite. 

I'm not.

>> Murder is wrong.
> 
> No one is being murdered.

Except me (and a few million others in the third world, Iraq, et al.)

> Who preaches standards?  Who is "they"?  I'll try this
> one more time: "Jews" is not a monolithic, homogenous
> group. All Jews do not believe the same thing.

You don't have those commandments given to Moses, then.  Are they only 
for Christians, or for Jews who exceed 3 on the "frum" scale?

> Then I'll spell this out, too:  Jews, any Jews, all Jews,
> have no special obligation to you because you believe you
> were wronged by some lawyers who may (or may not) be Jewish.

That wasn't Oskar Schindler's approach.  He didn't say, sad but nothing 
to do with me.  He acted.

> There is no such thing as "group guilt" or
> "group responsibility" (which, incidently,
> was one of the messages of Shindler's List).

There is such as thing as individual responsibility, and everyone who 
walks past on the other side of the street, bears some responsibility.  
Everyone.  I couldn't ignore cruel and inhumane treatment, even if the 
victim was you.  Honest.  Straight up.  Rude as you as are, I wouldn't 
let it happen, if I could stop it.
 
> How about kosher laws?

Try do no murder, and do not bear false witness.

> How about when Englishmen misbehave?  Why is YOUR
> responsibility for these solicitors, as an
> Englishmen, somehow less than Jews in other countries
> who have no say whatsoever in your justice system?

I don't think it is.

> So the Pope should atone for Jonestown?

If he knowingly let it happen, yes.

> I haven't heard anything that
> they've done which merits criticism.

Offered to represent me and refused to represent me.

Refused to let me have my papers.

> "You lot"?  I don't speak for any "lot."

Well you'll get turned into a pillar of salt then, won't you?

>> They are not going to state it explicitly,
>> are they?  Be realistic. 
> 
> So the very absence of evidence
> supports your allegation.

You do have to look just a bit further than do these people say they are 
engaged in murder, which is just about the standard you have set, esp wrt 
Tetlow.


> I'll tell you this: in the US, as a matter of law it is
> a breach of the writer's copyright. In the US, publicly
> accusing someone of murder is defamation per se.

No.

Even in the US, one can say that murderers are murderers.  What happened 
to the promised litigation, if their case is so good?

> I doubt it.  Marking something "Private and
> Confidential" means nothing in the United States
> unless you have a non-disclosure agreement. 

Does in England.  It would place an obligation on me to keep it so, but 
the contents would exclude that (since litigation is normally public).

>>  These are not decent tactics, are they?
> 
> In the US, they are both decent and legal.

Are they fuck.

> I find it impossible to believe that in
> Britain, which has a much broader social
> safety net than in the US, this would not
> be the case as well.

You are correct - but I cannot execute my rights because I am denied 
legal representation.  Look at those letters properly, and you will see I 
offer these people a key.  They don't have a complaint:  so they ignore 
that offer.

That's what's happening.  When I got that note complaining no access on 
11 March 2004, I went to the Court, and filed an Affirmation, including 
that note as an exhibit, on 10 March 2004.

>> and I have offered them a key, because
>> they claim they cannot get access. 
> 
> The documents indicated otherwise.

The documents say as much.  See Reminder 2, letter dated 21 April 2004.

> Oh, please.  One of my closest friends has severe sleep
> apnea -- severe enough to require multiple surgeries to
> correct.  He's neither rude, nor an antisemite.

Neither am I.

>> If you read it properly, you will see the 
>> reason for refusing me the dental device,
>> is complete rubbish.
> 
> Not being a doctor, I have no idea.

Read the supplied text, from a medical text book.

> However, you've admitted to the
> rudeness, and that is reason
> enough for refusing to treat you.

No I have not, and no it is not.  Rudeness is not an excuse for murder.

> And the significance of Mr. Bernard's
> sexual orientation is . . .what?

BTSOOM.

> I don't blame you for anything other than
> being possessed of offensive and virulent bigotries.

Not to mention my patience with you:  patience of Job no less.

> I would consider the threat of liability for practicing
> law without a license a rather weighty one.

In England, we have doctors practicing, who are banned from doing so in 
Canada.

> It's a personal matter -- _my_ choice.

That's it:  if you want to let a murder take place, you may.

No one's going to argue with you, not even a Jew.

>> I deny anti Semitism.
> 
> Your posts boast of it.

I deny anti- Semitism.  I'm not even anti-you.

> Are you now saying that kindly judge, who showed
> so much patience and forbearance, is corrupt?

As bent as Nixon.


-- 
http://www.tom-moore.com