Griffiths To Take Legal Action On Charges

Recommended Posts

Markham
Posted
Posted

You must have missed the bit in my explanatory post which mentions the fact that the judgement would most likely be enforced against the State through its London Embassy - because, as I understand it, those he is suing are all State officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Lee
Posted
Posted
You must have missed the bit in my explanatory post which mentions the fact that the judgement would most likely be enforced against the State through its London Embassy - because, as I understand it, those he is suing are all State officials.
So in other words, you feel the London Embassy in the Philippines or even in London :bash: has power outside its walls? IMO any of the big boys who think they can push around any of the little boys because they feel they are smarter, better, richer, more powerful etc, are in for a terrible surprise, and then on top of that all its citizens may end up suffering if they ever tried to enforce any judgement not won within the Philippines. I too feel they are foolish in filing this ahead of the outcome of the trial, I guess we will see who is correct when the verdict comes in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markham
Posted
Posted
You must have missed the bit in my explanatory post which mentions the fact that the judgement would most likely be enforced against the State through its London Embassy - because, as I understand it, those he is suing are all State officials.
So in other words, you feel the London Embassy in the Philippines or even in London :540: has power outside its walls? IMO any of the big boys who think they can push around any of the little boys because they feel they are smarter, better, richer, more powerful etc, are in for a terrible surprise, and then on top of that all its citizens may end up suffering if they ever tried to enforce any judgement not won within the Philippines. I too feel they are foolish in filing this ahead of the outcome of the trial, I guess we will see who is correct when the verdict comes in.
Did I say that? I didn't say anything remotely like that! Lee: the article states that the Writs are to be served on State officials and because they are Government employees, the State is also a Respondent. I am certain that Griffiths' Barrister will obtain a Judgement against the State (ie the Philippines) and it will be enforceable at government level, likely to be through its (RP's) London Embassy. Right now there is no filing. The UK has a different system to the US and RP when it comes to law suits. Civil cases are only listed after a statutory period of time has elapsed to allow the Respondents to notify the Plaintiffs of a defence or counter-claim -- or with an offer to settle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Lee
Posted
Posted
You must have missed the bit in my explanatory post which mentions the fact that the judgement would most likely be enforced against the State through its London Embassy - because, as I understand it, those he is suing are all State officials.
So in other words, you feel the London Embassy in the Philippines or even in London :540: has power outside its walls? IMO any of the big boys who think they can push around any of the little boys because they feel they are smarter, better, richer, more powerful etc, are in for a terrible surprise, and then on top of that all its citizens may end up suffering if they ever tried to enforce any judgement not won within the Philippines. I too feel they are foolish in filing this ahead of the outcome of the trial, I guess we will see who is correct when the verdict comes in.
Did I say that? I didn't say anything remotely like that! Lee: the article states that the Writs are to be served on State officials and because they are Government employees, the State is also a Respondent. I am certain that Griffiths' Barrister will obtain a Judgement against the State (ie the Philippines) and it will be enforceable at government level, likely to be through its (RP's) London Embassy. Right now there is no filing. The UK has a different system to the US and RP when it comes to law suits. Civil cases are only listed after a statutory period of time has elapsed to allow the Respondents to notify the Plaintiffs of a defence or counter-claim -- or with an offer to settle.
Yes I guess they can always deduct it from the aid money they give to the Philippines, or ask another country such as the US to give it to them from all they give to the Philippines. Oh wait, I do not see that the UK gives aid to the Philippines in the form of cash, maybe they can cut back on relief efforts in emergencies. You cannot get blood from a stone, so I will wait for this to play out, and I am fairly sure the results will not be as expected. Oxfam in Philippines aid flight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markham
Posted
Posted

Lee I really don't appreciate when you make sarcastic and pointed remarks in response to serious points I have made in trying to explain the situation to you. My information about these writs and their enforceability was given to me very recently by a Solicitor who specialises in international law and I have no reason to doubt him. If you don't want me to post here any more, then simply send me a PM and I'm gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis
Posted
Posted

boy o boy now I have heard everything. this reads like another case of the big bully trying to push around the small kid on the block. how can someone sue for liable when they do not even know if the evidence brought out in the trial will sustanciate the claims made. I thinks it is nothing more tehn a person charged with murder tying to divert the attention from the charges against him. I thinks public opinion will go against that type of action & the suing party will end up hurt more then if they sat back & waited to see what can be proved. I am no expert but from what I have read & seen he is signing his gf life in prison certificate by even suggesting that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Lee
Posted
Posted
Lee I really don't appreciate when you make sarcastic and pointed remarks in response to serious points I have made in trying to explain the situation to you. My information about these writs and their enforceability was given to me very recently by a Solicitor who specialises in international law and I have no reason to doubt him. If you don't want me to post here any more, then simply send me a PM and I'm gone.
Mark I never said that but it seems you only wish to read things that agree with your POV. I hope you continue to post because members deserve to see all POV's and not just yours or mine, or other members. Just as you deserve to post your POV, I believe I too am allowed to post mine. I stand, or maybe it is sit, by my opinion that you cannot get blood from a stone. Knowing the law and seeing how it is applied is too very different things, and if nothing else this case should prove that to anyone following it. added, Now seeing that Travis posted, he brings up a good point, how would anyone know something is untrue if they have not yet waited for the evidence to be presented to back up those supposedly libelous statements? :540:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Travis
Posted
Posted
Lee I really don't appreciate when you make sarcastic and pointed remarks in response to serious points I have made in trying to explain the situation to you. My information about these writs and their enforceability was given to me very recently by a Solicitor who specialises in international law and I have no reason to doubt him. If you don't want me to post here any more, then simply send me a PM and I'm gone.
wow touchy touchy touchy. it seemed to be a valid point of not getting blood from a stone & I was thinking it too but I did not know the UK does not give aid & I feel neither should the US & especially coz the US gave 1 million to the Philippines & the pres gave 1 million to Japan for relief so I guess they really did not need the million after all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Lee
Posted
Posted
Lee I really don't appreciate when you make sarcastic and pointed remarks in response to serious points I have made in trying to explain the situation to you. My information about these writs and their enforceability was given to me very recently by a Solicitor who specialises in international law and I have no reason to doubt him. If you don't want me to post here any more, then simply send me a PM and I'm gone.
Mark, maybe my humor came off wrong in my post, so let me ask this in a simpler way, could you please explain to me how they expect to collect the money. It is great to shake a sword and post all you have posted about this, but since they do not give aid, and they do not appear to be a trade partner, what leverage does your govt have to collect from the Philippines, or any of its people? Now what leverage might the Philippines have with how many of your people in the country? Think about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garpo
Posted
Posted

None of the writs have even been filed yet. If and when they do, then we can see who they are served on and for what reason. As it stands right now it is just some more gas being passed by the defense team. My guess is that any case filed in the UK will be countered in the Philippine courts. Where I think Mark is missing the boat is that he thinks these cases will all be heard in the UK which probably not happen, The Philippines can have the cases heard here in Philippine courts since here is where the events took place. I really do not see how the UK government would or could reject such a request. Any public officials that could be served would be on the local level and not the national level so I do not believe that even if a judgement is awarded that the UK could request any type of payment through the embassy in the UK. Contrary to what some or one may think I doubt very much that the UK Government is going to let a slander civil suit become a political event that they would most likely look like some type of bully, with the view that the Philippine courts are not able to deal with the situation. All the Philippine government would have to argue is that the events took place in the Philippines, Santos is in the Philippines and the Philippines would certainly welcome Griffiths to come back so that he and Santos can file as many civil cases as they would like, I do not see Griffiths or Santos lawyers having much of an argument as to why the cases could not be filed in the Philippines where they should be heard. Why in the world should everybody have to go to the UK for a case in which all events took place in the Philippines? It might be different if Santos and Griffiths were not allowed to file their civil cases in the Philippines, but that just is not the case and is not happening. If and when the writs are served, the lawyers will motion the UK courts to have the case heard in the Philippines and in my opinion there is no good reason for the UK to not agree. As I understand it, that is just the way that international law works. Griffiths and his lawyers may think and imply that the UK government or courts will take a position of support for them. I just do not see that happening. Too many other countries would surely side with the Philippines I don't believe that the UK courts or Government want to get into the practice of deciding Philippine civil cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...