notorial dissent wrote:That was positively mind numbing.
This was interesting
Page 23
THE JUDGE: hold on a moment because three people have to look at their
diaries. We will see if we can do another date. For the benefit of those compiling
the pre sentence report, it seems to us that there are a number of factors which
indicate higher culpability in this particular case, one of those is that there was
planning what happened, another is that there was obvious distress on the part of
the occupiers of the property including the distress of the children which was
ignored. In relation to the occasion when a group of supporters attended others
were involved by Mr Ebert and there are also some, arguably some factors, that
indicate that greater harm was caused.
Page130.
Those are the features to which I have referred: your previous warning, the
ignoring of obvious distress, the planning, the taking of other people with you.
Okay, at last we have some concrete news on the Crawford transcript which is not as good as I'd hoped. We were expecting about 200 quid but it's a lot more as you can see from the below estimate.
We're waiting for them to give us an estimate for just the judgment which will be considerably less, maybe not more than £100, which is all we can do unless any more want to join in or existing sponsors can stump up a bit more. Currently we have just under £200 so we need the same again plus a bit. Remember, you're getting some Ebert thrown in too so it's double value. Whether it will be as pricelessly funny as pure Ebert, I cannot say.
Re: Crawford v Bradford & Bingley PLC
Thank you for instructing us to prepare a transcript in the above case on your behalf. We confirm that we are now in possession of the recording from the court and we write to confirm the process that will follow and our terms of business.
The hearing has been timed at 2 hours 10 minutes. Under the terms of our contract with The Ministry of Justice we are required to bill you on the basis of the number of folios in the transcript. A folio consists of 72 words.
We have three available turnaround times, each costing a different amount.
Our standard charging rate is based on a 15 working day turnaround from receipt of tapes. The charge for this is £1.30 per folio.
Our express charging rate is based on a 7 working day turnaround from receipt of tapes. The charge for this is £1.50 per folio.
Our final charging rate is based on a 48 hour turnaround from receipt of tapes and this is £1.70 per folio.
Our standard rate is likely to cost somewhere in the region of £338.00 plus VAT which brings a total of around £405.60.
Our express charging rate is likely to cost somewhere in the region of £390.00 plus VAT which brings a total of around £468.00.
Our 48 hour charging rate is likely to cost somewhere in the region of £442.00 plus VAT which brings a total of around £530.40.
We will calculate an accurate bill upon concluding your work which may be under or over our estimate, depending upon how closely your case follows the average in terms of number and speed of speakers etc.
Transcripts are sent electronically. If you require a hard copy through the post then a P&P fee of £5 applies. Please indicate whether you would like a paper copy as this will need to be added to the estimate.
If you wish to proceed with this matter please immediately send payment to the value of the estimate to this office, plus the £5 P&P charge if it applies. We accept cheque, postal order and bank transfer. Unfortunately we do not accept credit or debit cards at this time. Our account details are as follows:
We accept cheque, postal order and bank transfer. Unfortunately we do not accept credit or debit cards at this time. Our account details are as follows:
I know this guy Peter who might be able to help you.
YiamCross wrote:Okay, at last we have some concrete news on the Crawford transcript which is not as good as I'd hoped. We were expecting about 200 quid but it's a lot more as you can see from the below estimate.
We're waiting for them to give us an estimate for just the judgment which will be considerably less, maybe not more than £100, which is all we can do unless any more want to join in or existing sponsors can stump up a bit more. Currently we have just under £200 so we need the same again plus a bit. Remember, you're getting some Ebert thrown in too so it's double value. Whether it will be as pricelessly funny as pure Ebert, I cannot say.
Not sure if this will work if you don't have a facebook account. If not I'll think of something else.
I read this a few months ago, absolutely hilarious, well worth snickering over, especially the bit where theJudge vainly attempts to get them to provide mitigation.
I just read that, too. All I can say is, I never realized how utterly stupid the man is, he makes Forest Gump look like Steven Hawking. I also applaud the judge, I guess its just the British way to try to be politely chiding when what the defendant desperately needed was to be smacked on the forehead with a cricket bat and told "You had a trial and you were convicted, you bloody twit, and now we're deciding how long to send you to prison for. Nothing else. NOTHING ELSE. YOU WERE CONVICTED OF A CRIME! YOU DO NOT OWN THE HOUSE!
That link is awesome.
He grafittis the house, harasses the lawful owner, gets banged up. A must read especially the parts about psychiatric reports where Ebert hasn't got the faintest what the court is on about!
EDIT: It must be quite painful for the judges to be having to deal with Ebert. Ebert is either as thick as a plank or a shrewd individual that doesn't know how to get his point across coherently.
Just over a week ago, I had to get a locksmith to our daughters house -£175.
I looked into the cost of a court transcript 2 years ago (because I had a personal interest in a case).
I now have 2 potential part time and very lucrative sources of income to think about - one on call 24 hours per day in all weathers and one 9 till 5 in a heated court room.
AndyPandy wrote:
I read this a few months ago, absolutely hilarious, well worth snickering over, especially the bit where theJudge vainly attempts to get them to provide mitigation.
I just read that, too. All I can say is, I never realized how utterly stupid the man is, he makes Forest Gump look like Steven Hawking. I also applaud the judge, I guess its just the British way to try to be politely chiding when what the defendant desperately needed was to be smacked on the forehead with a cricket bat and told "You had a trial and you were convicted, you bloody twit, and now we're deciding how long to send you to prison for. Nothing else. NOTHING ELSE. YOU WERE CONVICTED OF A CRIME! YOU DO NOT OWN THE HOUSE!
That link is awesome.
He grafittis the house, harasses the lawful owner, gets banged up. A must read especially the parts about psychiatric reports where Ebert hasn't got the faintest what the court is on about!
EDIT: It must be quite painful for the judges to be having to deal with Ebert. Ebert is either as thick as a plank or a shrewd individual that doesn't know how to get his point across coherently.
EDIT: Now he's on about kidnapping!
I think the Judge just wanted to put his head in his hands and shake his head, it's just pure comedy. Highly recommended reading, but not whilst drinking or eating unless you want a splattered screen !!
We all have our personal favorites from the hearing. Ebert generously gave us so much material. Mine is this exchange;
Q. Can I just understand from which angle you come? I mean are you a counsellor or a lawyer or a friend or what?
A. I’m a professional idiot. I have skill in ---
Q. That does not help me very much.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
Burnaby49 wrote:We all have our personal favorites from the hearing. Ebert generously gave us so much material. Mine is this exchange;
Q. Can I just understand from which angle you come? I mean are you a counsellor or a lawyer or a friend or what?
A. I’m a professional idiot. I have skill in ---
Q. That does not help me very much.
Wow..... a "professional idiot"..... there's so much more fun ahead of me.
I can't believe anyone would willingly admit to that.
.... wait.... if a person is smart enough to know they're an idiot... does that make them less of an idiot? I'm guessing there's some UK definition of idiot that I'm unaware of.
The redefinition of "idiot" is a Karl Lentz quibble, though he may have stolen the idea from some other guru. He reckons it merely means someone who is not a legal expert. Thus, when a judge calls Karl or his client an idiot, no offence is taken.
littleFred wrote:The redefinition of "idiot" is a Karl Lentz quibble, though he may have stolen the idea from some other guru. He reckons it merely means someone who is not a legal expert. Thus, when a judge calls Karl or his client an idiot, no offence is taken.
It's not a Lentz application in this case. I think he meant "idiot" as someone who's occupation was dumbing things down so that the genius of people like Ebert could be understood by the average Joe. Although his own definition of his job isn't a masterpiece of clarity;
A. All right. I’ll explain that. I have skill in helping people simplify their message, whatever it is, subject matter experts in any context. One could say Mr Ebert has subject matter expertise in his experience but has difficulty sometimes in clearly expressing what his perception of his experience is. And there’s a difference between his perception of his experience and what he does in relation to his perception.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
YiamCross wrote:Okay, at last we have some concrete news on the Crawford transcript which is not as good as I'd hoped. We were expecting about 200 quid but it's a lot more as you can see from the below estimate.
We're waiting for them to give us an estimate for just the judgment which will be considerably less, maybe not more than £100, which is all we can do unless any more want to join in or existing sponsors can stump up a bit more. Currently we have just under £200 so we need the same again plus a bit. Remember, you're getting some Ebert thrown in too so it's double value. Whether it will be as pricelessly funny as pure Ebert, I cannot say.
Re: Crawford v Bradford & Bingley PLC
Thank you for instructing us to prepare a transcript in the above case on your behalf. We confirm that we are now in possession of the recording from the court and we write to confirm the process that will follow and our terms of business.
The hearing has been timed at 2 hours 10 minutes. Under the terms of our contract with The Ministry of Justice we are required to bill you on the basis of the number of folios in the transcript. A folio consists of 72 words.
We have three available turnaround times, each costing a different amount.
Our standard charging rate is based on a 15 working day turnaround from receipt of tapes. The charge for this is £1.30 per folio.
Our express charging rate is based on a 7 working day turnaround from receipt of tapes. The charge for this is £1.50 per folio.
Our final charging rate is based on a 48 hour turnaround from receipt of tapes and this is £1.70 per folio.
Our standard rate is likely to cost somewhere in the region of £338.00 plus VAT which brings a total of around £405.60.
Our express charging rate is likely to cost somewhere in the region of £390.00 plus VAT which brings a total of around £468.00.
Our 48 hour charging rate is likely to cost somewhere in the region of £442.00 plus VAT which brings a total of around £530.40.
We will calculate an accurate bill upon concluding your work which may be under or over our estimate, depending upon how closely your case follows the average in terms of number and speed of speakers etc.
Transcripts are sent electronically. If you require a hard copy through the post then a P&P fee of £5 applies. Please indicate whether you would like a paper copy as this will need to be added to the estimate.
If you wish to proceed with this matter please immediately send payment to the value of the estimate to this office, plus the £5 P&P charge if it applies. We accept cheque, postal order and bank transfer. Unfortunately we do not accept credit or debit cards at this time. Our account details are as follows:
Have sent a PM - let me know if not received please.
