TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

AV Drilling wins its case

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11548
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » June 21st, 2021, 5:44 pm

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.

User avatar
De Dragon
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17902
Joined: January 27th, 2004, 3:49 am
Location: Enjoying my little miracles............

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby De Dragon » June 21st, 2021, 5:45 pm

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?

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Redman » June 21st, 2021, 6:03 pm

You guys are misunderstanding the sequence of events.

There was a team authorized to make recc to the board based on what needed fixing in all aspects of operations.
The team was in place since 2016 ish.

This team uncovered discrepancies.

On notification of such the board authorized further INTERNAL investigation....that's the audit report that Kamla buss.


That report being an internally investigated conclusion could not form the basis of a legal position...that's what the foreigners were for.

Kamla published an internal preliminary finding on the accusations...That's her problem, whether she said too much in a public forum is the question.

Redman
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 10430
Joined: August 19th, 2004, 2:48 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Redman » June 21st, 2021, 6:05 pm

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?


That jives with the last I heard.
I stopped paying attention at that point...

User avatar
sMASH
TunerGod
Posts: 21977
Joined: January 11th, 2005, 4:30 am

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby sMASH » June 21st, 2021, 6:13 pm

i am not seeing the pc ruling that the newsday referenced that let petrotrin terminate av d.

but from that article, was the info of two internal and the external audit by some krell(sp) from canada.

every ting on av side lining up for a big hit job. and documents missing from petrotrin side to defend the move, and even documents that should be available from outside sources.


is not what went on, its what u can prove....
the man delivering the oil is rowley good friend, the man receiving the oil on behalf of petrotrin is a former pnm candidate.
rowley called baksh the evening the story broke.
whole company shut down and replaced with smaller companies.
quamina placed on the inside, ramesh on the outside.
and after god is ramesh and then ramlogan.


so who gonna buy the refinery that not for sale and wasnt going to be shut down now....

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 6:24 pm

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)?

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11548
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » June 21st, 2021, 6:46 pm

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.

User avatar
De Dragon
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 17902
Joined: January 27th, 2004, 3:49 am
Location: Enjoying my little miracles............

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby De Dragon » June 21st, 2021, 6:58 pm

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.

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
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 7:00 pm

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.


So your current excuse for your inability to answer a question is that you shouldn't be questioned.

If you can't answer the question then I can only logically assume you don't know what you're speaking about which is a trait of yours hence why you should be questioned. Of course you will be questioned like you don't know anything as well as like you're a liar, manipulator and someone who spreads propaganda because that's what you get for being all of those things.

If only you could heed your advise about being knowledgeable.

In case you change your mind here it is again, on what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision?

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 7:03 pm

*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"*

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11548
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » June 21st, 2021, 7:40 pm

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.
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"*

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.

WhiteAnalyst
Street 2NR
Posts: 75
Joined: June 12th, 2021, 8:35 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby WhiteAnalyst » June 21st, 2021, 8:20 pm

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
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 8:25 pm

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"*

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.[/quote]

So why haven't you answered the question? The question was the first thing I asked.

In case you change your mind here it is again, on what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision?

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 8:28 pm

You can admit that you have no answer.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 8:31 pm

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.

WhiteAnalyst
Street 2NR
Posts: 75
Joined: June 12th, 2021, 8:35 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby WhiteAnalyst » June 21st, 2021, 8:37 pm

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.

User avatar
sMASH
TunerGod
Posts: 21977
Joined: January 11th, 2005, 4:30 am

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby sMASH » June 21st, 2021, 8:43 pm

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.

ttps is not the best example to cite for defaming before judgment. they always calling people criminal and cockroach when they make an arrest.

but in an industrial setting, u cant get 100m of product missing. it may be missing, until u review the data logs. but then u willl have to figure out where it left.
coming from a system where 250ml spillage qantified a chemical release, and an incident report to be generated with an investigation ensuing, with the managers informed and followed up in meetings at their level... its not what goes on in the industry.
and i doubt that that catshill was the only episode of misaligned figures. if was a systemic error, it woudl have shown up in other suppliers.

but, if is a problem with record keeping to supply the relevant data, then petrotrin look for dat, fork out the man 1billion he invested.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 8:45 pm

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
Street 2NR
Posts: 75
Joined: June 12th, 2021, 8:35 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby WhiteAnalyst » June 21st, 2021, 8:58 pm

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
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 9:09 pm

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
Street 2NR
Posts: 75
Joined: June 12th, 2021, 8:35 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby WhiteAnalyst » June 21st, 2021, 9:13 pm

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. :lol:
What you think of Dr. Richards?

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 9:21 pm

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. :lol:
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.

WhiteAnalyst
Street 2NR
Posts: 75
Joined: June 12th, 2021, 8:35 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby WhiteAnalyst » June 21st, 2021, 9:27 pm

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. :lol:
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 :lol:

"this Richards person you mentioned" It hurt that bad LOL.

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 9:27 pm

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
Street 2NR
Posts: 75
Joined: June 12th, 2021, 8:35 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby WhiteAnalyst » June 21st, 2021, 9:29 pm

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
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 9:30 pm

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. :lol:
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 :lol:

"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
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 9:33 pm

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.

WhiteAnalyst
Street 2NR
Posts: 75
Joined: June 12th, 2021, 8:35 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby WhiteAnalyst » June 21st, 2021, 9:40 pm

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. :lol:
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 :lol:

"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.


Imagine when UNC nerdy fellas like you playing Dota, all them UNC girls secretly with big PNM man who gyming like Habit. What you think of that?

Wraith King
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1633
Joined: May 12th, 2021, 3:55 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Wraith King » June 21st, 2021, 9:54 pm

^ Nice try Habit7 with the inferiority complex showing again but I'll stick to the question, on what legal basis is Kamla's defamation guilt established by the arbitration decision?

User avatar
Habit7
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 11548
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 10:20 pm

Re: AV Drilling wins its case

Postby Habit7 » June 21st, 2021, 9:55 pm

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.

No, I can't answer your question. Your apparent superior intellect has me dumbfounded. Take win.

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 65 guests