(11-12-2015, 16:38)TheWorthinGer Wrote: How is the story "clearly true" - just out of interest? Is truth judged by the number of tweets? Have you seen the email? Has the judge? Is the judge satisfied that not only does it say such a thing in the email, but also that the email is reliable and it's content to be believed?
The only thing that is true is that Quest has made the claim.
Barristers are Advocates - they say what they are told to say as long as they don't know that it's untrue: Quest could equally have been asked to repeat an untruth.
Absolutely spot on, TWG.
Our QC made a claim. Their QC made a counter-claim. Yet we're supposed to believe one and disbelieve the other. Wonder what qualifying factors are applied to that decision?
(11-12-2015, 16:38)TheWorthinGer Wrote:Trusevich Wrote:Don't think it makes any difference. The process of repayment is well under way.Were any of the signatories acting in their/an official capacity? That's the question. I'm beginning to suspect not.
Plenty of people are keen to paint King as lying again. I don't think it's relevant at all. The real talking point is the matter of who signed the injunction order (suggestions are that it was Sandy Easdale), and whether he had the authority to do so on behalf of the Rangers board. If not, the whole shooting match is a mixed-metaphorical busted flush.
That'll all come out in the January hearing, I suspect.
Here's hoping that all of the SD contract begin to unravel.
Well, we know that Sandy Easdale was never on the RIFC Board of Directors as he wasn't allowed to be, so it therefore makes sense that he wouldn't be allowed to act in an official capacity for the RIFC board either. It all depends on who else was involved, if anyone at all.