Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

Post about Leyton Orient or anything else

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by redintheface » Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:28 pm

spen666 wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:
spen666 wrote:
brentmeistergeneral wrote:
brentmeistergeneral wrote:Can today please be about Orient and not about giving airtime or credence to 666 and his trolling drivel

REPEAT


So its trolling to correct an inaccurate post by stating the correct legal position?

In that case, I will continue to troll


It's not trolling, it's just nobody gives a flying f***, you repetitive bore.



Well clearly you do at least otherwise you wouldn't take the time to tell me.


I will not apologise or stop correcting false and inaccurate legal positions


Good on you spen666. Too many people on here don't like to have their preconceptions / positions challenged or questioned.
redintheface
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1657
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Disoriented » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:11 pm

spen666 wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:
spen666 wrote:
brentmeistergeneral wrote:
brentmeistergeneral wrote:Can today please be about Orient and not about giving airtime or credence to 666 and his trolling drivel

REPEAT


So its trolling to correct an inaccurate post by stating the correct legal position?

In that case, I will continue to troll


It's not trolling, it's just nobody gives a flying f***, you repetitive bore.



Well clearly you do at least otherwise you wouldn't take the time to tell me.


I will not apologise or stop correcting false and inaccurate legal positions


:lol: Keep on fiddling whilst Rome burns, Nero.
Disoriented
Elite Boarder
Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:34 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by French polisher » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:41 pm

spen666 wrote:
French polisher wrote:Spen666.
Do you understand that Limited Companies have "Directors" ?
Who are responsible for the Company? Who are the Directors of LOFC?



The Directors of LOFC Limited were not party to the court action.

The Directors of LOFC are employees of LOFC.

This court action was against LOFC Limited who are a legal person and they alone are responsible for the debts.


There is absolutely no evidence that has been made available that would make the directors or shareholders personally liable for the debts of LOFC Limited


Spen666 you are a Silly Boy. You try to give the impression you are knowledgelable in law. :yes
French polisher
Level Three Boarder
Level Three Boarder
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:50 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Disoriented » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:03 pm

French polisher wrote:
spen666 wrote:
French polisher wrote:Spen666.
Do you understand that Limited Companies have "Directors" ?
Who are responsible for the Company? Who are the Directors of LOFC?



The Directors of LOFC Limited were not party to the court action.

The Directors of LOFC are employees of LOFC.

This court action was against LOFC Limited who are a legal person and they alone are responsible for the debts.


There is absolutely no evidence that has been made available that would make the directors or shareholders personally liable for the debts of LOFC Limited[/

Spen666 you are a Silly Boy. You try to give the impression you are knowledgelable in law. :yes


More like a Mother-in-law to be honest. ;)
Disoriented
Elite Boarder
Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:34 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Adz » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:36 pm

Spen666, aren't the directors responsible to the shareholders for running the club in an orderly fashion? Would a minority shareholder have any power to push for the directors to be struck off, or do the majority shareholder's hold only this power?
Adz
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:24 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by SheffieldO » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:35 pm

Adz wrote:Spen666, aren't the directors responsible to the shareholders for running the club in an orderly fashion? Would a minority shareholder have any power to push for the directors to be struck off, or do the majority shareholder's hold only this power?


I was looking at this earlier via the link at the bottom of this post which addresses some potential causes of action for minority shareholders,one of which can be brought on behalf of LOFC Ltd (The seperate legal personality). My feeling is that LOFT/Adam Michelson will have already considered the possibility of this process and possibly dismissed either due to costs v potential remedy or the length of time such cause of action will take to trundle through the Courts whilst the Club is being burned to the ground.

I sure Spen666 means well by emphasising the Ltd Co point repeatedly which seems geared towards "don't waste your breath on this option", but I think it'd would be helpful to explore alternatives rather than constantly slamming the same door.

The more LOFC are stuck in this situation the more, I fear that we're going to end up with a saga like Blackpool supporters/Oystons. Although the Oystons are back in Court over next 5 weeks defending claims by Club President and minority shareholder Valarie Belekon. so this is the sort of action we should keep careful tabs on. However, 5 weeks of Court time is a massive cost and unlike Orient, there seems to be a substantil sum of money at stake.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/ ... 94overview
SheffieldO
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:53 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:58 am

French polisher wrote:
spen666 wrote:
French polisher wrote:Spen666.
Do you understand that Limited Companies have "Directors" ?
Who are responsible for the Company? Who are the Directors of LOFC?



The Directors of LOFC Limited were not party to the court action.

The Directors of LOFC are employees of LOFC.

This court action was against LOFC Limited who are a legal person and they alone are responsible for the debts.


There is absolutely no evidence that has been made available that would make the directors or shareholders personally liable for the debts of LOFC Limited


Spen666 you are a Silly Boy. You try to give the impression you are knowledgelable in law. :yes


Well the Law Society are convinced as they issue me a nice shiny practicing certificate every year, as incidentally do the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

I am presuming your sly digs at me are because you do not like the message even though it is factually correct.
spen666
Level Four Boarder
Level Four Boarder
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Smiley Culture » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:06 am

Nobody cares Spen. It's become boring, repetitive and annoying.
Smiley Culture
Boarding Heavyweight
Boarding Heavyweight
 
Posts: 5890
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:45 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:13 am

SheffieldO wrote:
Adz wrote:Spen666, aren't the directors responsible to the shareholders for running the club in an orderly fashion? Would a minority shareholder have any power to push for the directors to be struck off, or do the majority shareholder's hold only this power?


I was looking at this earlier via the link at the bottom of this post which addresses some potential causes of action for minority shareholders,one of which can be brought on behalf of LOFC Ltd (The seperate legal personality). My feeling is that LOFT/Adam Michelson will have already considered the possibility of this process and possibly dismissed either due to costs v potential remedy or the length of time such cause of action will take to trundle through the Courts whilst the Club is being burned to the ground.

I sure Spen666 means well by emphasising the Ltd Co point repeatedly which seems geared towards "don't waste your breath on this option", but I think it'd would be helpful to explore alternatives rather than constantly slamming the same door.

The more LOFC are stuck in this situation the more, I fear that we're going to end up with a saga like Blackpool supporters/Oystons. Although the Oystons are back in Court over next 5 weeks defending claims by Club President and minority shareholder Valarie Belekon. so this is the sort of action we should keep careful tabs on. However, 5 weeks of Court time is a massive cost and unlike Orient, there seems to be a substantil sum of money at stake.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/ ... 94overview



There is plenty that can be done, but instead people keep trying to import personal liability on FB when the liability for the debts is that of LOFC.

People need to get over the fact FB is not personally liable and look at the bigger picture.

All the time and effort claiming FB should be forced to go to court etc is time wasted and time and effort diverted from sorting out the issue of the club..

People need to distinguish between FB, LOFC Ltd and LOFC Holdings Ltd. There to date has not been a scrap of evidence to allow any imputation of personal liability on Fb, so why are people continually trying to suggest he is personally liable.

It does nothing to take the club forward or help to get rid of FB
spen666
Level Four Boarder
Level Four Boarder
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Exile Canberra Australia » Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:16 pm

"People need to distinguish between FB, LOFC Ltd and LOFC Holdings Ltd. There to date has not been a scrap of evidence to allow any imputation of personal liability on Fb, so why are people continually trying to suggest he is personally liable".

Yeah Spen you know every inside action and deed, and every scrap of evidence being a poster on a public forum.
With that much intellect, how come you spend most of your time posting your legal interpretation on a situation you know f. all about.

This forum is not a court of law and you aint no judge judy. But then with no evidence you may be.
You must know more than LOFT as they, in their statement make the position clear.
Last edited by Exile Canberra Australia on Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Exile Canberra Australia
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:08 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:28 pm

Exile Canberra Australia wrote:"People need to distinguish between FB, LOFC Ltd and LOFC Holdings Ltd. There to date has not been a scrap of evidence to allow any imputation of personal liability on Fb, so why are people continually trying to suggest he is personally liable".

Yeah Spen you know every inside action and deed, and every scrap of evidence being a poster on a public forum.
With that much intellect, how come you spend most of your time posting your legal interpretation on a situation you know f. all about.

This forum is not a court of law and you aint no judge judy. but then with no evidence you may be.
You must know more than LOFT as they, in their statement make the position clear.



WTF are you on about?

Its you that keeps trying to claim FB is personally liable for the debts or actions of theLIMITED LIABILITY company.

Sadly idiots like you keep deliberately trying to confuse the issue and as a result time is wasted dealing with rubbish and nonsense.

What part of limited liability do you not understand?

Where is there any evidence that FB has done anything to make him personally liable?


Lets draw a line under this stupidity and stop your ridiculous claims about FB being personally liable.

Yesterday you were calling for FB to be forced to attend court to answer to allegations against a completely different legal person. A court action that FB was not a party to


Strangely each and every time you are asked to show how FB can be personally liable you fail to answer the question.


If your Law qualification from East Ham Tech is so good, you will be able to show where I am wrong in law. Strangely you have never managed to show that- probably because I am correct in the legal position I have stated, and I have also referred to the relevant stautes etc which confirm what I have stated
spen666
Level Four Boarder
Level Four Boarder
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Exile Canberra Australia » Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:41 pm

spen666 wrote:
French polisher wrote:
spen666 wrote:
French polisher wrote:Spen666.
Do you understand that Limited Companies have "Directors" ?
Who are responsible for the Company? Who are the Directors of LOFC?



The Directors of LOFC Limited were not party to the court action.

The Directors of LOFC are employees of LOFC.

This court action was against LOFC Limited who are a legal person and they alone are responsible for the debts.


There is absolutely no evidence that has been made available that would make the directors or shareholders personally liable for the debts of LOFC Limited


Spen666 you are a Silly Boy. You try to give the impression you are knowledgelable in law. :yes


Well the Law Society are convinced as they issue me a nice shiny practicing certificate every year, as incidentally do the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

I am presuming your sly digs at me are because you do not like the message even though it is factually correct.


Spen 666 There have been many solicitors taken to the Solictors Complaints Panel for their poor attendance on a client on a range of matters. I did that as a client, and guess what, I received a 'Without Prejudice Settlement' including a lump sum payment. A word of advice, being issued with a practicing certificate means you passed the exam and to date you have not been struck off and deemed acceptable to practice. But Spen 666, there are plenty of solicitors out there that have been cautioned but still take clients monies on instuctions. They are very good at that.

With reference FB, have you ever interviewed anyone in your office connected with this whole situation. I am sure if you have you cannot inform here as you would be in breach of the trust imposed in your role.

Untill you are found standing in the box at a court or hearing I suggest you keep refrained from posting any legal interpretation as another poster said you are getting borrrrring
Last edited by Exile Canberra Australia on Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Exile Canberra Australia
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:08 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Exile Canberra Australia » Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:48 pm

spen666 wrote:
Exile Canberra Australia wrote:"People need to distinguish between FB, LOFC Ltd and LOFC Holdings Ltd. There to date has not been a scrap of evidence to allow any imputation of personal liability on Fb, so why are people continually trying to suggest he is personally liable".

Yeah Spen you know every inside action and deed, and every scrap of evidence being a poster on a public forum.
With that much intellect, how come you spend most of your time posting your legal interpretation on a situation you know f. all about.

This forum is not a court of law and you aint no judge judy. but then with no evidence you may be.
You must know more than LOFT as they, in their statement make the position clear.



WTF are you on about?

Its you that keeps trying to claim FB is personally liable for the debts or actions of theLIMITED LIABILITY company.

Sadly idiots like you keep deliberately trying to confuse the issue and as a result time is wasted dealing with rubbish and nonsense.

What part of limited liability do you not understand?

Where is there any evidence that FB has done anything to make him personally liable?


Lets draw a line under this stupidity and stop your ridiculous claims about FB being personally liable.

Yesterday you were calling for FB to be forced to attend court to answer to allegations against a completely different legal person. A court action that FB was not a party to


Strangely each and every time you are asked to show how FB can be personally liable you fail to answer the question.


If your Law qualification from East Ham Tech is so good, you will be able to show where I am wrong in law. Strangely you have never managed to show that- probably because I am correct in the legal position I have stated, and I have also referred to the relevant stautes etc which confirm what I have stated


Factually incorrect my cv states The College of Estate Management- University of Reading.

Now spen 666 what you fail to grasp and if you read all my posts and other posts from others that developed the theme of thought (which you appear to have much time in your office everyday that should not be a problem.) you will finally grasp that I was seeking thought on the situation that FB may of breached the law which will have a bearing on LOFC position. That breach will not be based on his position within the intercompany structure. Maybe then you will show a different attitude.
Exile Canberra Australia
Level Five Boarder
Level Five Boarder
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:08 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by dOh nut » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:04 pm

Smiley Culture wrote:Nobody cares Spen. It's become boring, repetitive and annoying.


Keep it up spen666. Being accused of repetition on this forum is hilarious. The irony of that comment is just too funny for words.

As for boring and annoying. If you dare to input an opinion based on experience, knowledge or qualifications you will sadly rub many up the wrong way.

Frankly that's their problem not yours
User avatar
dOh nut
Boarding Hall of Fame
Boarding Hall of Fame
 
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:26 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Smiley Culture » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:27 pm

It's no surprise that President Business is backing another clown who blithers on and on about the same thing despite a lack of relevance.
Smiley Culture
Boarding Heavyweight
Boarding Heavyweight
 
Posts: 5890
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:45 am

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Level Ten Boarder » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:39 pm

Fail to see the issue with spens posts. His make total sense.
User avatar
Level Ten Boarder
Elite Boarder
Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:51 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:16 pm

Exile Canberra Australia wrote: ....Now spen 666 what you fail to grasp and if you read all my posts and other posts from others that developed the theme of thought (which you appear to have much time in your office everyday that should not be a problem.) you will finally grasp that I was seeking thought on the situation that FB may of breached the law which will have a bearing on LOFC position. That breach will not be based on his position within the intercompany structure. Maybe then you will show a different attitude.




So as I have been asking you for weeks what is it that makes you think FB is somehow personally liable for acts done by a limited company?

Your evident dislike of FB is, you may be surprised to learn, not something that allows the corporate veil to be pierced ( or in idiots terms- makes FB liable for the acts of the company).


So what is the basis of your attempts to hold FB personally liable and what exactly are you wanting to hold him personally liable for?
spen666
Level Four Boarder
Level Four Boarder
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by spen666 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:24 pm

Exile Canberra Australia wrote: .......
Spen 666 There have been many solicitors taken to the Solictors Complaints Panel for their poor attendance on a client on a range of matters. I did that as a client, and guess what, I received a 'Without Prejudice Settlement' including a lump sum payment. A word of advice, being issued with a practicing certificate means you passed the exam and to date you have not been struck off and deemed acceptable to practice. But Spen 666, there are plenty of solicitors out there that have been cautioned but still take clients monies on instuctions. They are very good at that.

With reference FB, have you ever interviewed anyone in your office connected with this whole situation. I am sure if you have you cannot inform here as you would be in breach of the trust imposed in your role.

Untill you are found standing in the box at a court or hearing I suggest you keep refrained from posting any legal interpretation as another poster said you are getting borrrrring


I bow to your clearly superior experience and your excellent legal training from a module at the Harvard of England aka East Ham Technical College.

You can cast whatever aspersions you like on my character, but there is as little basis for those as there is for your unfounded claims that FB is personally liable for the debts of the legal person that is LOFC Ltd



I will ask you once again, what is it you think FB is personally liable for and where is the legal basis for this. What is the evidence to support this?

I have repeatedly pointed you to the law on limited liability.

Unless and until one of the exceptionally rare exceptions is proven then there can be no question of anyone being personally liable for the actions of the legal person that is LOFC Limited.
spen666
Level Four Boarder
Level Four Boarder
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:17 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by dOh nut » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:14 pm

Smiley Culture wrote:It's no surprise that President Business is backing another clown who blithers on and on about the same thing despite a lack of relevance.


:clown :lol:
User avatar
dOh nut
Boarding Hall of Fame
Boarding Hall of Fame
 
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 4:26 pm

Re: Court (a), Second Leg 12/06/2017

PostPosted by Disoriented » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:37 pm

MafiosO wrote:
Smiley Culture wrote:Nobody cares Spen. It's become boring, repetitive and annoying.


Keep it up spen666. Being accused of repetition on this forum is hilarious. The irony of that comment is just too funny for words.

As for boring and annoying. If you dare to input an opinion based on experience, knowledge or qualifications you will sadly rub many up the wrong way.

Frankly that's their problem not yours


Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy. :lol:
Disoriented
Elite Boarder
Elite Boarder
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:34 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Pedant, Chief crazy horse, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], loughtonos, OrientOutlookPodcast, spen666 and 17 guests