...

AyakaDunukofia:

I want you to agree with you, but you haven't convinced me yet

I have not even started convincing you and I actually do not intend to for in online debates scarcely are losing opponents honourable in conceding loss than in physical engagement, so I really do not even try.

I just use them to test and verify the strength of my assertion to see if any can come up with a valid rebuttal!

So if an opponent is convinced, it is theirs to keep.

AyakaDunukofia:

I don't think we'd be wandering this long if you knew it. May be it's possible in your Nigeria, but could you mention a saner clime where an aggrieved party interrupted a court proceeding in his or her favour?

In Saner Climes, is the Corruption of their Judiciary at the Magnitude and Decaytude the Nigerian judiciary has sunk into?

No I do say, for I practice there also.

So as I said earlier A Righty and Goodly Conducted Person can not be Contemned but A Liar and a thief, a Fraud and a Doer of Wrongs MUST BE CONTEMNED!

AyakaDunukofiapost=100200548:

One of the seminal cases that dealt with contempt of court was Att.-Gen. v Punch Ltd [2002] UKHL 50

Again, it was ruled in that case that, “contempt of court is the established, if unfortunate, name given to the species of wrongful conduct which consists of interference with the administration of justice. It is an essential adjunct of the rule of law. Interference with the administration of justice can take many forms” Did the so called lawyer do anything different?

As I implied, "he who has done no wrong is generally beyond accusation". Thus, just as it is allowable to promptly notify the Judge of "Errors" he may be making on the Truth of Proceedings eg Dates, Times, Names, Places, Amounts etc which is of course in step with the Law that "The Court Must Do No Wrong" therefore his notification to the magistrate of an error is within The Law as The Court Must Do No Wrong if it can be Avoided.

The Counsel's further extra problem is his implied allegation of collusion which is A REASONABLE APPREHENSION because it is "Seen" upto The Level of Judicial Notice that judges are Complicit!

Thus, because he may not be able to positively prove graft, he is in trouble but if the Court were Fair, Just and Right, understanding would be afforded him!

For he has The Defence of Error of the Court, Reasonable Apprehension and Judicial Notice of Judicial Graft!

And I did notice that you did not answer the question I posed, but no problem!

Dtruthspeaker:


I have not even started convincing you and I actually do not intend to for in online debates scarcely are losing opponents honourable in conceding loss than in physical engagement, so I really do not even try.

I just use them to test and verify the strength of my assertion to see if any can come up with a valid rebuttal!

So if an opponent is convinced, it is theirs to keep.



In Saner Climes, is the Corruption of their Judiciary at the Magnitude and Decaytude the Nigerian judiciary has sunk into?

No I do say, for I practice there also.

So as I said earlier A Righty and Goodly Conducted Person can not be Contemned but A Liar and a thief, a Fraud and a Doer of Wrongs MUST BE CONTEMNED!



As I implied, "he who has done no wrong is generally beyond accusation". Thus, just as it is allowable to promptly notify the Judge of "Errors" he may be making on the Truth of Proceedings eg Dates, Times, Names, Places, Amounts etc which is of course in step with the Law that "The Court Must Do No Wrong" therefore his notification to the magistrate of an error is within The Law as The Must Do No Wrong if it can be Avoided.

The Counsel's further extra problem is his implied allegation of collusion which is A REASONABLE APPREHENSION because it is "Seen" upto The Level of Judicial Notice that judges are Complicit!

Thus, because he may not be able to positively prove graft, he is in trouble but if the Court were Fair, Just and Right, understanding would be afforded him!

For he has The Defence of Error of the Court, Reasonable Apprehension and Judicial Notice of Judicial Graft!

And I did notice that you did not answer the question I posed, but no problem!

As I implied, "he who has done no wrong is generally beyond accusation". Thus, just as it is allowable to promptly notify the Judge of "Errors" he may be making on the Truth of Proceedings eg Dates, Times, Names, Places, Amounts etc which is ofcourse in step the Law that "The Court Must Do No Wrong" therefore his notification of magistrate of an error is within The Law as The Must Do No Wrong if it can be Avoided.

I want you to know that what the lawyer did was legally wrong, perhaps not morally wrong. So he is not beyond accusation. The stage of the proceeding and the method of such a notification is critical. It is against the law to interrupt an ongoing court ruling. It was very stupid of the lawyer. There are numerous rulings on the contemptuousness of interrupting a Court proceeding. Orderliness is the hallmark of Her Majesty's courts. Case laws, precedents abound on this. However, you are free to hold your opinion. Bye from me.

AyakaDunukofia:

... Orderliness is the hallmark of Her Majesty's courts. Case laws, precedents abound on this. However, you are free to hold your opinion. Bye from me.

Aha I see now, you are still a slave of the Armed Thieves who plundered your lands and taught you to protect them.

Therefore, you do not know and neither do you want to know that Rightness and Goodness is the Honour of A Man as well as the Court.

And to do a Wrong, is not Right!

Thank you for the pleasure of your engagement!

Dtruthspeaker:


For he has The Defence of Error of the Court, Reasonable Apprehension and Judicial Notice of Judicial Graft!

In addition to the Defences available to the Lawyer is the Defence of Duty!

Duty to the Law and to the Court!

For Every Lawyer is Duty Bound by Law to Assist and Aid the Court in Arriving at a Just and Right Decision!

And as such, he Must Timeously and Forthwithly point out any Error or Wrong which would Interfere and Cause the Court to do a Wrong!

Further Every Lawyer is Bound to Uphold the Law even in the face of Injust-is and Wrongs with no exceptions whether to person, class or status!

For it is the Law that "the Law is No Respecter of Persons", and "All Are Equal in the Eyes of the Law" thus Any (irrespective of Position or Status or Even Judge) Who Does a Wrong, Must be Condemned for it, So is the Duty of a Lawyer to so Uphold the Law and Condemn Such a One!

truespeak:


In addition to the Defences available to the Lawyer is the Defence of Duty!

Duty to the Law and to the Court!

For Every Lawyer is Duty Bound by Law to Assist and Aid the Court in Arriving at a Just and Right Decision!

And as such, he Must Timeously and Forthwithly point out any Error or Wrong which would Interfere and Cause the Court to do a Wrong!

Further Every Lawyer is Bound to Uphold the Law even in the face of Injust-is and Wrongs with no exceptions whether to person, class or status!

For it is the Law that "the Law is No Respecter of Persons", and "All Are Equal in the Eyes of the Law" thus Any (irrespective of Position or Status or Even Judge) Who Does a Wrong, Must be Condemned for it, So is the Duty of a Lawyer to so Uphold the Law and Condemned Such a One!

Oh ooh! Very Sweet and Right Views!

Even the Defence of Public Policy and Public Good that The Court should not be a place of Mistakes and Errors, At All!

Cc: AyakaDunukofia

truespeak:


In addition to the Defences available to the Lawyer is the Defence of Duty!

Duty to the Law and to the Court!

For Every Lawyer is Duty Bound by Law to Assist and Aid the Court in Arriving at a Just and Right Decision!

And as such, he Must Timeously and Forthwithly point out any Error or Wrong which would Interfere and Cause the Court to do a Wrong!

Further Every Lawyer is Bound to Uphold the Law even in the face of Injust-is and Wrongs with no exceptions whether to person, class or status!

For it is the Law that "the Law is No Respecter of Persons", and "All Are Equal in the Eyes of the Law" thus Any (irrespective of Position or Status or Even Judge) Who Does a Wrong, Must be Condemned for it, So is the Duty of a Lawyer to so Uphold the Law and Condemned Such a One!

It's mad oh, if Lawyers and Mr. Rights Do Not Know Rightness Fully and are rather fighting against it, how then can the ordinary man on the street, including churches, Pastors etc know about Rightness and Righteousness?

Barrywilly:
It was wrong for the lawyer to be interrupting the magistrate while delivering his ruling. The best option is to appeal the ruling on the basis of his perceived wrongs. He deserved what he got even though it was wrong for the magistrate to take law into his own hand. You cannot be an accuser and the judge at the same time.

The Judge said that he said said something which he didn't say.
What type of devil/Satan is that??

Dtruthspeaker:


It's mad oh, if Lawyers and Mr. Rights Do Not Know Rightness Fully and are rather fighting against it, how then can the ordinary man on the street, including churches, Pastors etc know about Rightness and Righteousness?

Ha! It is crazy!