Losleones wrote:Bones wrote:From the WeRe Forum
![Image](http://i.imgur.com/EzBORcq.png)
She's keeps on bleating the nonsense that she's paid yet wants to file a case against PT. Not the sharpest tool in the box
![bang head :brickwall:](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif)
Why is it in every SovCit/Freetard court case the other side's lawyers invariably wind up breathing hard, looking shocked and storm out in a foul mood, most lawyers aren't that emotional being the soulless creatures that they are (no offence meant to any of the soulless lawyers on here
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
).
Looks like the lawyer has done some of their homework, although the Guardian article wouldn't carry as much weight as the FCA warning and I am surprised that wasn't brought up, in the "This is a scam from merry old England that has come over here" part of the property attorney's case. But I imagine they have that covered.
As for her case she seems to think that the other sides lawyer has a duty of care to her, in as much as she asked the opposing attorney to help her bring a claim against PoE (which is what PoE instructs followers of his woo to ask, which is quite a clever tactic for reasons I will put below), they don't which is why it was refused a lawyers duty is supposed to be first to the court (for the overriding principle of justice) and second to their client, they do not have to care at all about the other side or what will happen to the other side as a consequence of their actions.
Now for why I think Peter's instructions to his followers to sue him if it doesn't work is quite clever, first if we take it that Peter knows it's not going to work he'd be anticipating a lot of court cases being brought against him, he's not so worried about this, he's kept his contact details relatively sparse and could easily vanish. But what it does do is further a delay and give the victim an argument that won't help them in their battles against eviction/disconnection/actually paying the debt they owe but that they think should be a valid argument. Not only that but they are far more likely to request help from the other side in any court hearing, the other side who don't have any duty to them and who are only interested in getting the best result for the people who are actually paying them. However the follower being refused will assume that the refusal means that Peter's method is valid and not that the lawyer arguing that they should be evicted doesn't actually care that much about them.
By telling people to sue him Peter is very cleverly making it unlikely that any of his followers would do that and instead letting the circumstances infer something to them that, like the lawyer storming out, simply was in the followers imagination.