Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:I'll ask again because you either didn't comprehend the question or don't have an answer.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Are you trying to claim that Kamla's statement wasn't based on the two reports and that the two reports were generated after her claims?
Forget Kamla, why haven't the sources of the two reports sued for defamation? Perhaps it's because they didn't defame A&V and were accurate in their assessment.
I am not trying to claim anything. Kamla made her statement 10 Sept 2017, the Kroll and Gaffney Cline reports came weeks after.
You were wrong/made an error. Don't try to turn it on me. Those reports played no role in what Kamla initially said, she was working only with an interim audit report that wasn't definitive and now the arbitration showed as wrong.
Kroll and Gaffney Cline can't sue for defamation because they weren't publicised.
Once again thanks for your legal opinion.
Habit7 would have us also believe that the interim audit report was being done prior to the two reports that Petrotrin paid for. He's saying Petrotrin did an interim report without receiving the reports that it paid for to be conducted.
Did the arbitration consider the two reports? If they did A&V should be taking the two sources to Court for damages as his contract was terminated based on the findings of the two reports.
Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:I'll ask again because you either didn't comprehend the question or don't have an answer.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Are you trying to claim that Kamla's statement wasn't based on the two reports and that the two reports were generated after her claims?
Forget Kamla, why haven't the sources of the two reports sued for defamation? Perhaps it's because they didn't defame A&V and were accurate in their assessment.
I am not trying to claim anything. Kamla made her statement 10 Sept 2017, the Kroll and Gaffney Cline reports came weeks after.
You were wrong/made an error. Don't try to turn it on me. Those reports played no role in what Kamla initially said, she was working only with an interim audit report that wasn't definitive and now the arbitration showed as wrong.
Kroll and Gaffney Cline can't sue for defamation because they weren't publicised.
Once again thanks for your legal opinion.
Habit7 would have us also believe that the interim audit report was being done prior to the two reports that Petrotrin paid for. He's saying Petrotrin did an interim report without receiving the reports that it paid for to be conducted.
Did the arbitration consider the two reports? If they did A&V should be taking the two sources to Court for damages as his contract was terminated based on the findings of the two reports.
De Dragon wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:I'll ask again because you either didn't comprehend the question or don't have an answer.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Are you trying to claim that Kamla's statement wasn't based on the two reports and that the two reports were generated after her claims?
Forget Kamla, why haven't the sources of the two reports sued for defamation? Perhaps it's because they didn't defame A&V and were accurate in their assessment.
I am not trying to claim anything. Kamla made her statement 10 Sept 2017, the Kroll and Gaffney Cline reports came weeks after.
You were wrong/made an error. Don't try to turn it on me. Those reports played no role in what Kamla initially said, she was working only with an interim audit report that wasn't definitive and now the arbitration showed as wrong.
Kroll and Gaffney Cline can't sue for defamation because they weren't publicised.
Once again thanks for your legal opinion.
Habit7 would have us also believe that the interim audit report was being done prior to the two reports that Petrotrin paid for. He's saying Petrotrin did an interim report without receiving the reports that it paid for to be conducted.
Did the arbitration consider the two reports? If they did A&V should be taking the two sources to Court for damages as his contract was terminated based on the findings of the two reports.
There is some talk, I haven't been able to get a trusted source, that Kroll and Gaffney's findings were flawed because of bad PT data. Anyone can confirm this?
Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:I'll ask again because you either didn't comprehend the question or don't have an answer.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Are you trying to claim that Kamla's statement wasn't based on the two reports and that the two reports were generated after her claims?
Forget Kamla, why haven't the sources of the two reports sued for defamation? Perhaps it's because they didn't defame A&V and were accurate in their assessment.
I am not trying to claim anything. Kamla made her statement 10 Sept 2017, the Kroll and Gaffney Cline reports came weeks after.
You were wrong/made an error. Don't try to turn it on me. Those reports played no role in what Kamla initially said, she was working only with an interim audit report that wasn't definitive and now the arbitration showed as wrong.
Kroll and Gaffney Cline can't sue for defamation because they weren't publicised.
Once again thanks for your legal opinion.
Habit7 would have us also believe that the interim audit report was being done prior to the two reports that Petrotrin paid for. He's saying Petrotrin did an interim report without receiving the reports that it paid for to be conducted.
Did the arbitration consider the two reports? If they did A&V should be taking the two sources to Court for damages as his contract was terminated based on the findings of the two reports.
I am trying to hold back my tongue but you are talking utter nonsense. And rather than admit that your wrong you digging a deeper hole.
Kamla made her defamation statements on 10 Sept 2017 based on the Audit report. PT can make an audit internally, it doesn't need Kroll and Gaffney. They announced on 30 Sept that they were going to use Kroll to probe.
17 Nov 2017 PT said that Kroll and Gaffney confirmed some of what in the Audit Report.
But you believe Kamla hear Kroll and Gaffney in Nov and time traveled back to Sept to inform herself?
The Privy Council didn't determine whether or not there was fake oil, it was to determine whether PT's suspicion of fraud was enough grounds to evict A&V from Catshill, it was not to examine the reports like what the arbitration did.
Nobody is accusing Kroll and Gaffney of defamation. They did a private report for Petrotrin based on the data PT owns. The defamation case is being made against Kamla for naming Haniff Baksh and making libelous statements about him, his character and his business.
Next time, inform yourself about topics before you wade into topics you know very little about.
Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:I'll ask again because you either didn't comprehend the question or don't have an answer.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Are you trying to claim that Kamla's statement wasn't based on the two reports and that the two reports were generated after her claims?
Forget Kamla, why haven't the sources of the two reports sued for defamation? Perhaps it's because they didn't defame A&V and were accurate in their assessment.
I am not trying to claim anything. Kamla made her statement 10 Sept 2017, the Kroll and Gaffney Cline reports came weeks after.
You were wrong/made an error. Don't try to turn it on me. Those reports played no role in what Kamla initially said, she was working only with an interim audit report that wasn't definitive and now the arbitration showed as wrong.
Kroll and Gaffney Cline can't sue for defamation because they weren't publicised.
Once again thanks for your legal opinion.
Habit7 would have us also believe that the interim audit report was being done prior to the two reports that Petrotrin paid for. He's saying Petrotrin did an interim report without receiving the reports that it paid for to be conducted.
Did the arbitration consider the two reports? If they did A&V should be taking the two sources to Court for damages as his contract was terminated based on the findings of the two reports.
I am trying to hold back my tongue but you are talking utter nonsense. And rather than admit that your wrong you digging a deeper hole.
Kamla made her defamation statements on 10 Sept 2017 based on the Audit report. PT can make an audit internally, it doesn't need Kroll and Gaffney. They announced on 30 Sept that they were going to use Kroll to probe.
17 Nov 2017 PT said that Kroll and Gaffney confirmed some of what in the Audit Report.
But you believe Kamla hear Kroll and Gaffney in Nov and time traveled back to Sept to inform herself?
The Privy Council didn't determine whether or not there was fake oil, it was to determine whether PT's suspicion of fraud was enough grounds to evict A&V from Catshill, it was not to examine the reports like what the arbitration did.
Nobody is accusing Kroll and Gaffney of defamation. They did a private report for Petrotrin based on the data PT owns. The defamation case is being made against Kamla for naming Haniff Baksh and making libelous statements about him, his character and his business.
Next time, inform yourself about topics before you wade into topics you know very little about.
This is exactly the advice you should utilise.
After all the fluff you conveniently didn't answer the only question I asked you to.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:I'll ask again because you either didn't comprehend the question or don't have an answer.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Are you trying to claim that Kamla's statement wasn't based on the two reports and that the two reports were generated after her claims?
Forget Kamla, why haven't the sources of the two reports sued for defamation? Perhaps it's because they didn't defame A&V and were accurate in their assessment.
I am not trying to claim anything. Kamla made her statement 10 Sept 2017, the Kroll and Gaffney Cline reports came weeks after.
You were wrong/made an error. Don't try to turn it on me. Those reports played no role in what Kamla initially said, she was working only with an interim audit report that wasn't definitive and now the arbitration showed as wrong.
Kroll and Gaffney Cline can't sue for defamation because they weren't publicised.
Once again thanks for your legal opinion.
Habit7 would have us also believe that the interim audit report was being done prior to the two reports that Petrotrin paid for. He's saying Petrotrin did an interim report without receiving the reports that it paid for to be conducted.
Did the arbitration consider the two reports? If they did A&V should be taking the two sources to Court for damages as his contract was terminated based on the findings of the two reports.
I am trying to hold back my tongue but you are talking utter nonsense. And rather than admit that your wrong you digging a deeper hole.
Kamla made her defamation statements on 10 Sept 2017 based on the Audit report. PT can make an audit internally, it doesn't need Kroll and Gaffney. They announced on 30 Sept that they were going to use Kroll to probe.
17 Nov 2017 PT said that Kroll and Gaffney confirmed some of what in the Audit Report.
But you believe Kamla hear Kroll and Gaffney in Nov and time traveled back to Sept to inform herself?
The Privy Council didn't determine whether or not there was fake oil, it was to determine whether PT's suspicion of fraud was enough grounds to evict A&V from Catshill, it was not to examine the reports like what the arbitration did.
Nobody is accusing Kroll and Gaffney of defamation. They did a private report for Petrotrin based on the data PT owns. The defamation case is being made against Kamla for naming Haniff Baksh and making libelous statements about him, his character and his business.
Next time, inform yourself about topics before you wade into topics you know very little about.
This is exactly the advice you should utilise.
After all the fluff you conveniently didn't answer the only question I asked you to.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Rather than try to question me as I don't know what I am talking about when it is who not only don't know was misinforming. How about you research what is the basis Baksh's defamation suit and see if anything Kamla said about him now is true.
When you try to interrogate ppl next time, do so from a position of knowledge.
Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:Habit7 wrote:Wraith King wrote:I'll ask again because you either didn't comprehend the question or don't have an answer.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Are you trying to claim that Kamla's statement wasn't based on the two reports and that the two reports were generated after her claims?
Forget Kamla, why haven't the sources of the two reports sued for defamation? Perhaps it's because they didn't defame A&V and were accurate in their assessment.
I am not trying to claim anything. Kamla made her statement 10 Sept 2017, the Kroll and Gaffney Cline reports came weeks after.
You were wrong/made an error. Don't try to turn it on me. Those reports played no role in what Kamla initially said, she was working only with an interim audit report that wasn't definitive and now the arbitration showed as wrong.
Kroll and Gaffney Cline can't sue for defamation because they weren't publicised.
Once again thanks for your legal opinion.
Habit7 would have us also believe that the interim audit report was being done prior to the two reports that Petrotrin paid for. He's saying Petrotrin did an interim report without receiving the reports that it paid for to be conducted.
Did the arbitration consider the two reports? If they did A&V should be taking the two sources to Court for damages as his contract was terminated based on the findings of the two reports.
I am trying to hold back my tongue but you are talking utter nonsense. And rather than admit that your wrong you digging a deeper hole.
Kamla made her defamation statements on 10 Sept 2017 based on the Audit report. PT can make an audit internally, it doesn't need Kroll and Gaffney. They announced on 30 Sept that they were going to use Kroll to probe.
17 Nov 2017 PT said that Kroll and Gaffney confirmed some of what in the Audit Report.
But you believe Kamla hear Kroll and Gaffney in Nov and time traveled back to Sept to inform herself?
The Privy Council didn't determine whether or not there was fake oil, it was to determine whether PT's suspicion of fraud was enough grounds to evict A&V from Catshill, it was not to examine the reports like what the arbitration did.
Nobody is accusing Kroll and Gaffney of defamation. They did a private report for Petrotrin based on the data PT owns. The defamation case is being made against Kamla for naming Haniff Baksh and making libelous statements about him, his character and his business.
Next time, inform yourself about topics before you wade into topics you know very little about.
This is exactly the advice you should utilise.
After all the fluff you conveniently didn't answer the only question I asked you to.
On what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision (which is a claim you have made)?
Rather than try to question me as I don't know what I am talking about when it is who not only don't know was misinforming. How about you research what is the basis Baksh's defamation suit and see if anything Kamla said about him now is true.
When you try to interrogate ppl next time, do so from a position of knowledge.
De Dragon wrote:He brought that defamation in 2017, can an arbitration finding in 2021 be used as evidence in a defamation case? Wouldn't all documents have been filed already and wouldn't it be based on statements she made at that time?
Wraith King wrote:*Habit7 makes false claim*
*Gets asks to provide the basis of his claims*
*Habit7 cries that he shouldn't be questioned and the basis of his claim is "trust me ah kno"*
Habit7 wrote:LOL
You are if wrong and strong was a tuner.
You made the false claim that "I don't think she'll be found guilty as her statement was based on the information contained in two reports." This is false factually and chronologically.
Because you refuse to acknowledge this you are trying to act like you posed some gotcha question to me I can't answer.
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:He brought that defamation in 2017, can an arbitration finding in 2021 be used as evidence in a defamation case? Wouldn't all documents have been filed already and wouldn't it be based on statements she made at that time?
Kamla took a report labelled Private and Confidential and its conclusion was not definite, used that as a basis to make defamatory statements against Baksh. The culmination of that interim report was the arbitration which shows Baksh as not being guilty of fraud. Therefore Kamla had no basis to defame Baksh.
In the same way, if the TTPS has you as a suspect for murder, and someone repeats it to several ppl that you are a murderer, but then TTPS say you are no longer a suspect, they
*Gets asks to provide the basis of his claims*
*Habit7 cries that he shouldn't be questioned and the basis of his claim is "trust me ah kno"*
WhiteAnalyst wrote:Habit7 wrote:LOL
You are if wrong and strong was a tuner.
You made the false claim that "I don't think she'll be found guilty as her statement was based on the information contained in two reports." This is false factually and chronologically.
Because you refuse to acknowledge this you are trying to act like you posed some gotcha question to me I can't answer.
Oh goooshhh.....you mash him up there.
Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Habit7 wrote:LOL
You are if wrong and strong was a tuner.
You made the false claim that "I don't think she'll be found guilty as her statement was based on the information contained in two reports." This is false factually and chronologically.
Because you refuse to acknowledge this you are trying to act like you posed some gotcha question to me I can't answer.
Oh goooshhh.....you mash him up there.
The schizophrenia is strong on this forum.
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:He brought that defamation in 2017, can an arbitration finding in 2021 be used as evidence in a defamation case? Wouldn't all documents have been filed already and wouldn't it be based on statements she made at that time?
Kamla took a report labelled Private and Confidential and its conclusion was not definite, used that as a basis to make defamatory statements against Baksh. The culmination of that interim report was the arbitration which shows Baksh as not being guilty of fraud. Therefore Kamla had no basis to defame Baksh.
In the same way, if the TTPS has you as a suspect for murder, and someone repeats it to several ppl that you are a murderer, but then TTPS say you are no longer a suspect, they have defamed you. That is why the press publishes the names of ppl after they are charged, and they say it is alleged or they are accused. The press in 2017 didnt call Baksh a fraud, Kamla did.
Whether 3yrs or 10yrs later the facts come out, you cannot defame ppl's character on claims that are not facts.
WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Habit7 wrote:LOL
You are if wrong and strong was a tuner.
You made the false claim that "I don't think she'll be found guilty as her statement was based on the information contained in two reports." This is false factually and chronologically.
Because you refuse to acknowledge this you are trying to act like you posed some gotcha question to me I can't answer.
Oh goooshhh.....you mash him up there.
The schizophrenia is strong on this forum.
Truth hurts. You getting licks from a big PNM man. No wonder your injun woman leave you for one of them.
Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Habit7 wrote:LOL
You are if wrong and strong was a tuner.
You made the false claim that "I don't think she'll be found guilty as her statement was based on the information contained in two reports." This is false factually and chronologically.
Because you refuse to acknowledge this you are trying to act like you posed some gotcha question to me I can't answer.
Oh goooshhh.....you mash him up there.
The schizophrenia is strong on this forum.
Truth hurts. You getting licks from a big PNM man. No wonder your injun woman leave you for one of them.
That's exactly why you resorted to insults.
WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Habit7 wrote:LOL
You are if wrong and strong was a tuner.
You made the false claim that "I don't think she'll be found guilty as her statement was based on the information contained in two reports." This is false factually and chronologically.
Because you refuse to acknowledge this you are trying to act like you posed some gotcha question to me I can't answer.
Oh goooshhh.....you mash him up there.
The schizophrenia is strong on this forum.
Truth hurts. You getting licks from a big PNM man. No wonder your injun woman leave you for one of them.
That's exactly why you resorted to insults.
so you think the truth is insults? Well then the saying truth hurts is really for you then lol.
Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Habit7 wrote:LOL
You are if wrong and strong was a tuner.
You made the false claim that "I don't think she'll be found guilty as her statement was based on the information contained in two reports." This is false factually and chronologically.
Because you refuse to acknowledge this you are trying to act like you posed some gotcha question to me I can't answer.
Oh goooshhh.....you mash him up there.
The schizophrenia is strong on this forum.
Truth hurts. You getting licks from a big PNM man. No wonder your injun woman leave you for one of them.
That's exactly why you resorted to insults.
so you think the truth is insults? Well then the saying truth hurts is really for you then lol.
Your bandar gene seems to be dominant because you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence.
WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Habit7 wrote:LOL
You are if wrong and strong was a tuner.
You made the false claim that "I don't think she'll be found guilty as her statement was based on the information contained in two reports." This is false factually and chronologically.
Because you refuse to acknowledge this you are trying to act like you posed some gotcha question to me I can't answer.
Oh goooshhh.....you mash him up there.
The schizophrenia is strong on this forum.
Truth hurts. You getting licks from a big PNM man. No wonder your injun woman leave you for one of them.
That's exactly why you resorted to insults.
so you think the truth is insults? Well then the saying truth hurts is really for you then lol.
Your bandar gene seems to be dominant because you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence.
Them same genes yuh injun women like and pushing out.
What you think of Dr. Richards?
Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:
Oh goooshhh.....you mash him up there.
The schizophrenia is strong on this forum.
Truth hurts. You getting licks from a big PNM man. No wonder your injun woman leave you for one of them.
That's exactly why you resorted to insults.
so you think the truth is insults? Well then the saying truth hurts is really for you then lol.
Your bandar gene seems to be dominant because you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence.
Them same genes yuh injun women like and pushing out.
What you think of Dr. Richards?
Go have a banana. Not two as you can share the other with a powdered chest and neck or this Richards person you mentioned.
Wraith King wrote:Back to Habit7, on what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision?
It's okay to say that you can't answer or there is no legal basis and you were just throwing things out there hoping persons would believe it.
WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:
The schizophrenia is strong on this forum.
Truth hurts. You getting licks from a big PNM man. No wonder your injun woman leave you for one of them.
That's exactly why you resorted to insults.
so you think the truth is insults? Well then the saying truth hurts is really for you then lol.
Your bandar gene seems to be dominant because you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence.
Them same genes yuh injun women like and pushing out.
What you think of Dr. Richards?
Go have a banana. Not two as you can share the other with a powdered chest and neck or this Richards person you mentioned.
Just now you go be bringing them same thing for yuh girl child
"this Richards person you mentioned" It hurt that bad LOL.
WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:Back to Habit7, on what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision?
It's okay to say that you can't answer or there is no legal basis and you were just throwing things out there hoping persons would believe it.
The big PNM man mash you up already like he did to your gyul. What you think of that?
Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:
Truth hurts. You getting licks from a big PNM man. No wonder your injun woman leave you for one of them.
That's exactly why you resorted to insults.
so you think the truth is insults? Well then the saying truth hurts is really for you then lol.
Your bandar gene seems to be dominant because you can't seem to comprehend a simple sentence.
Them same genes yuh injun women like and pushing out.
What you think of Dr. Richards?
Go have a banana. Not two as you can share the other with a powdered chest and neck or this Richards person you mentioned.
Just now you go be bringing them same thing for yuh girl child
"this Richards person you mentioned" It hurt that bad LOL.
Inferiority complex to go with schizophrenia. At least I can't fault you for having inferiority complex.
Wraith King wrote:WhiteAnalyst wrote:Wraith King wrote:Back to Habit7, on what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision?
It's okay to say that you can't answer or there is no legal basis and you were just throwing things out there hoping persons would believe it.
The big PNM man mash you up already like he did to your gyul. What you think of that?
Habit7 can't answer the question so he's using an alternative account to distract.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 65 guests