Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:06 pm
jacko wrote:wez 1927 wrote:jacko wrote:Just to say that the judge never said any of the things claimed in this thread about SH and Langston.
he said that theres a real probability that sam is langstone fact!
Just saying fact does not make it so.
In his judgment, J. Briggs said:
"The Club’s evidence discloses a real prospect that it will be established at trial that Langston’s governing mind and will at all material times was that of a Mr Sam Hammam."
This was summary judgement application, not trial. The actual documents were not seen. But the club argued in pleadings (the club's evidence) that, in a trial, they would show this to be the case. Therefore this was an argument that the application for summary judgement should be turned down. The judge agreed.
The judge did NOT give judgement that SH is Langston. That, my friend, is a fact.
Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:10 pm
Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:13 pm
jacko wrote:Only because you don't know what you are reading. See my explanation and try again.
Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:18 pm
wez 1927 wrote:jacko wrote:Only because you don't know what you are reading. See my explanation and try again.
i see that the judge has seen citys evidance and believes in trail it will come out that sam hamman is langstone
Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:30 am
dougblue wrote:taffyapple wrote:One thing i'm noticing now is that for all Sams spin doctoring and tales of
how he loves us all dearly. Everyone is seeing through it. He no longer has
a 'support base' of fans. Just a handful of personal friends who believe
him (or dont know him well enough NOT to believe him)
The tide has turned.
If this isnt sorted soon, any lingering respect the fan base had for Sam will
be gone for ever and i'd cringe at the kind of reception he'd get if he ever
did show his face in the ground (or City) again. It could be embarrassing
for him.
Sad end.
Is this what the Malaysians want? To destroy any memory of Mr Hammamm so are they pushing him?
Like wise vice versa
Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:33 am
jacko wrote:wez 1927 wrote:jacko wrote:Only because you don't know what you are reading. See my explanation and try again.
i see that the judge has seen citys evidance and believes in trail it will come out that sam hamman is langstone
Read it again. The clubs evidence was a pleading. It was an argument put forward by the club in a legal document. They said they would demonstrate it and it was a material fact that should be argued IN A TRIAL, and therefore summary judgment was not appropriate. The judge DID NOT see HOW the club would establish it.
I was at the RCJ every day for the hearings. Were you?
Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:33 pm