Report of Demise of RateYourSolicitor Premature

by small town - . Sat Sep 16, 2006 22:21

But if you come from a village..... when in Rome.

It means she was either a good ride or a strictly utilitarian ride depending on
your use of bicycles- ie functional or for the pleasure of the wind in your
hair. thus it was a sexual allusion.

she is right to have it removed.

no-one wants a cad to refer to em as a ride of any description.
if he did, he is a cad-if he didn't then its derogatory.

by Ann - VLPS Sat Sep 16, 2006 23:57

Good article, and very funny!

I would just like to clarify a few things:

The message in the Latest News on CrookedLawyers.com is in error. The domain name RateYourSolicitor.com was in fact suspended without any notification to us after Judge Michael Hanna issued an injunction. However, the site is still fully functional without its name at http://207.210.96.145 so feel free to submit new ratings!

The comment about Barrister Jayne Maguire is not under her own name, but that of a solicitor who employs her. You can read it here:
http://207.210.96.145/index.php?section=details&id=10394

You can read today's Independent article on the subject here:
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=...14654

We are working hard towards getting the name back well before the 5th of October.

-Ann (RateYourSolicitor.com Moderator)

by Seán Ryan Sun Sep 17, 2006 14:11

Today’s Sunday Times published an article that could spell the beginning of the end of free speech on the Internet for people from Ireland.

“Soon the courts are likely to draw boundaries across the previously uncharted terrain of the Internet.”

This was in relation to ongoing attempts at silencing people from talking about the lack of service we get from ‘professional’ people in this country. This is the latest piece of propaganda that goes after the site www.rateyoursolicitor.com (the name is down but the site lives on at: http://207.210.96.145 ).

It’s interesting that the State would seek to supposedly enforce anti-defamation laws on Internet sites, not situated in Ireland, and that they would garner the information they seek to use as evidence from these types of sites, using advanced IP sniffers, but without having served search warrants to those they claim that are solely responsible for the sites (in this case, the much harried activist John Gill).

This could all happen very quickly, so it behoves interested parties to act quickly and decisively (e.g. Indymedia.ie), as the following quote from the article shows.

““I have a number of cases against sites in the pipeline,” said Paul Tweed, a defamation specialist. “The law in Ireland is in an embryonic stage. I would like to think courts here would be influenced by recent English decisions. The situation will evolve fairly dramatically from now on.””

Read the full article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2361568,00....html

by Fwee Bwian + Fwee Sschpeetch Sun Sep 17, 2006 23:01

so you're the 'Moderator' at RYS.com, eh?

were you appointed a moderator before or *after* getting sued for this?

does that title have any practical meaning for you, or is it for decoration, mostly?

what have you been doing since 1st Sept 2006 when that comment was posted on your site?

- sigh - - - - don't feel obliged to answer those questions, but start thinking

it was only a question of time before this inevitable legal reaction arrived - in terms that big-game safari-hunters can readily grasp - this is sort of like when you stick your head in a lion's mouth and start flicking his love-spuds with a wet towel

the 5th of October should be an edifying spectacle - if you imagine the Court as the Roman Colliseum, the assembled Legal Profession as the Plebians baying for blood and your own good selves as the Christian Martyrs being chained to a stake while the Starving Beasts (McGuire & Co) are goaded up from the dungeons beneath the hot, thirsty sand ...

so, unless you've got better lawyers than OJ Simpson's tucked up your tunics someplace, I am sorry to prophesise that "alea jacta est", (the dice is cast) etc ...

fighting this case to a decision may actually be the worst option - an alternative worth considering would be to remove the offending material (which, to be honest, it is pretty hopeless to defend), issue an apology, untake that the 'oversight' in having failed to moderate comments posted by the public will not be repeated and pay some modest damages while admitting no liability for anything - newspapers do this all the time, settling on the steps of the court after some light haggling.

on the other hand, going in there and letting the bewigg'd fiends loose on you will probably result in a negative precedent which could limit the online free speech rights of everybody in this unFree State of Blueshirts.

therefore, think very carefully about your next move and please do yourselves a favour and get some competent, independent legal advice (for example, british-based barrister who can practise here and knows a bit about defamation law).

for the future, RYS.com might be a more useful and less vulnerable resource if it would provide some actual EVIDENCE (like scanned .PDF documents, etc) of misconduct by the named members of the Legal Profession, as opposed to raw, unsupported accusations which can be thrown up anonomously, possibly even by the very solicitor who will later sue you into bankruptcy for defamation of his/her hitherto (publicly) unblemished reputation.

Toodle-pip then, and best of luck on the day of reckoning!!

PS: Oh, by the way, if you do decide to go into court, you may want to start ingesting copious dosages of salt about a week beforehand - I am told that this can spoil a lion's appetite somewhat.

@ Seán Ryan,

you say "It’s interesting that the State would seek to supposedly enforce anti-defamation laws on Internet sites" -- no, that's a pretty dull and widely known fact of life, at least on planet Earth.

"... not situated in Ireland" -- if you want to be all esoteric about it, all 'internet sites' are situated in the, well, 'internet' - hence the generic name. But that is, for legal purposes, maybe just beside the point, as the owners and controllers of this form of publication are, let us presume for the sake of argument, within this legal jurisdiction and highly likely to be held accountable to the same laws as apply to other publishers. So, nothing particularly new or controversial there either.

"... and garner information using advanced IP sniffers" -- where is there even the slightest indication or logical reason to think that such has or will happen in this case? I'll wager 2 pints with you that none exists at all. IP sniffers are for analysing traffic in real-time and therefore completely useless in this case, whereas the IP-address of the comment poster is, presumably, securely logged by the hosting company in USA since 1 Sept 2006.

The fact that the host instantly blanked the site (or at least the DNS reference to it) in response to a mere phone-call from some 'Lawyer' (in a country they probably never heard of but think they should be bombing right about now, Gawd-dammit!) pretty much convinces me that they are spineless dogs big into 'voluntary collaboration' with the Govvamint, so, eh, I'd back it all up now pretty sharpish if there is anything you particularly value, it doesn't look like any court order (binding or otherwise) will be required to either wipe out the site or divulge all logs. Those touting yanks will be happy to cop a plea-bargain, so as to save their own fat asses from Gitmo, y'gettit?

"... without search warrants" -- do you get a search warrant to read the newspaper? Come off it.

So, what "quick and decisive" actions do you see Indymedia.ie as being behoofed to perform in light of RYS.com's present legal difficulties? A frantic flapping of wings, some squawking - will that be enough? Or is it to be a full-scale pre-emptive out-plucking of our own tail-feathers, again?

Awaiting further instructions ... over.

by d'other Sun Sep 17, 2006 23:17

Doesn't Pop Bitch get away with the stuff it prints about UK celebs because it is registered outside of the UK? Could these rate your whatever sites not adopt a similar tact? Between this case and the MCD threats of legal action against some forums t'is bad times alright.

by Some Clarification Sun Sep 17, 2006 23:43

The fact that the host instantly blanked the site (or at least the DNS reference to it)
The host is a different beast from the registrar. The host is still serving the site, but the registrar is the crappiest one in the USA. All the rest of what you say is correct. What a moronic waste of opportunity the site is. Still I suppose if they were to demand some sort of proof from the posters then they'd be getting into the "censorship" business according to many of the looneys that post there.

by Some more clarity Sun Sep 17, 2006 23:50

Uses a UK based registrar and is hosted by TheBunker who are a UK registered company but who have highly-redundant, ultra-secure hosting administer edby some of the best hackers (white hat of course!) in the world. They include people like Adam Laurie of bluetooth security hole fame, some of their servers are in actual ex-nuclear bunkers and are distributed around the world. These people are the best and you pay for it.

Without any exaggeration (and I have no professional ties to them) if your data is something that you want secured you go to TheBunker.

by Seán Ryan Sun Sep 17, 2006 23:51

Now that's just downright negative. Besides - look at the Christians now - but don't look too closely of course.

Defamation is a strange law - you know it and I know it. I think perspective could figure into this if it were fought out. Imagine someone spray-painted the wall of your house (or flat) and defamed a judge. Would it not be possible for you to argue that it was not your job to clean this up and indeed that you were keeping it as evidence to prove damage to your property?

Risky I think but doable, particularly if it can be proven that the spray painter was a confederate and comrade of the judge. Not to mention the possible embarrassment of washing the dirty linen as it were, in public.

As for the bet. Aw come on ya have to give me better odds than that. I'm going on what was said in the Times. I'm with you on this, I bet the server rolled over and exposed its stomach in abject supplication. The God fearin' US is too holy a basket to be keeping all of one's eggs in. Hence my warning about it. I'd suggest a warmer climate like Venezuela.

A Search warrant would be required to enter the newspaper offices and read all their files. Though I do take your point on it. I suppose morality and reality don't mix too well, particularly if one has lotsa readies and little or no ethics.

So even though I'm not willing to lose two pints to you, I'd enjoy sinking a few with you.

by Fwee Bwian + Fwee Sschpeetch Mon Sep 18, 2006 03:00

@ Seán,

well, that's what comes of relying on the shitty Sunday Times, mate - I take it to be nothing but a cheap vector for diversionary propaganda, the article certainly has little enough to do with legal reality.

you say "I'd enjoy sinking a few with you" - hmmn, I take your pint, I mean your point, I mean, that can be arranged in the due course of time, perhaps in the immediate aftermath of 5th October - I'll see you in court then so.

Everybody else is welcome also, it should be an historic show - free beer, drugs and 3D-goggles will be dispensed in court on the National Health. Also, it will be televised and beamed to an intergalactic audience.

by Mr T - Curious Mon Sep 18, 2006 14:26

Anyone recommend a good host and server that isn't afraid of crap like this?

Any Scandanavian, activist or simple free-speech friendly orgs out there that won't bottle it?

by nerraw Mon Sep 18, 2006 14:32

Popbitch gets away with it because what it publishes is true or in the case of last week's edition, when wrong they print an apology and pay a sum to charity.

Anyone wishing to seek a solicitor would be crazy to get advice from a mud slinging anoymous poster on some website.

Ridiculous idea

by Bored with Screwballs Mon Sep 18, 2006 19:38

More information is on this thread:

by Miriam Mon Sep 18, 2006 19:45

Wholeheartedly support the need for such a site but as it 's currently set up its impossible to know whether to believe what is said. There is too much scope for malicious posts - thats not fair when people's livelihoods are at issue. And it also means that the genuine complaints - of which there are so many - get lost in the noise from others. It only takes a clever solcitor (lots of them around) to post lots of outrageous claims to get the thing shut down.

by seedot Tue Sep 19, 2006 00:59

But I don't think the threat of being taken down is important, Miriam, so much as how something like this can be useful.

The site is still up. Given that you can fit the html, scripts, images and data on a usb key and get it hosted anywhere the only issue is access. Button campaigns and other ways around the DNS system, including moving to diferent tlds mean that with a bit of effort access is achievable also - regardless of what lawsuits in what jurisdictions are raised on the back of which messing around: with a bit of will it is possible to ensure a site like this is on the Internet.

(Note: this is newer than the internet. I read about charlie haughey and his million on cogair before it could be in the newspaper- 8 years later that site, along with stories about other major political figures that I believe were true but were never published either have now been more or less removed from the internet. )

Now that the days of seizing the printing press or the server are virtually behind us, it is necessary to pay attention to the first issue you raise - which is how a site like this can be useful. If information like this is shared in an existing community than it has credibilty but puts loads of pressure on that community to either defend the free speech or stamp it out. ref Boards.ie and MC, wher I think they made the correct but sad decision to stamp out free speech. But a site created implicitly for the purpose of rating or assessing people needs some form of log on that is verifiable and some way to prevent flooding - with both up and down mods.

This is not the case for all sources of information on the internet - this site at its best produces news and back up documention which is difficult to refute even given the anonymity provided. But different issues, diferent solutions.

In the meantime I think it would be good to make absolutely clear that whatever they decide on the 5th of October is completely irrelevant this side of the digital divide.

by Seeking some evidence Tue Sep 19, 2006 01:32

If information like this is shared in an existing community than it has credibilty

I think you've got to expand that a bit. Given that popular culture refers to information obtained from the internet as a joke it might be more accurate to say that a community that believe this has credulity:
http://blog.wired.com/internetspoofs/
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/recount/article/100
http://www.computerjokes.net/111.htm

And you know what? ... if you point out that I'm drawing on web sources here I'll puke, really, I will.

by seedot Tue Sep 19, 2006 01:45

There are a number of communities or fora with fairly trusted identities that I would participate in. I have read the things that the usernames there have written on a large number of topics. If there was a discussion there about a service provider (or an event as in the case of MCD and Boards) I would still accept this is the internet and just peoples opinions and lies and whatever - but the discussion would carry more weight for me than that on a site that is set up purely to slag off people and offers complete anonymity. I wouldn't believe a discussion on an established community without thought - but i would find it more credible.

I'm not sure simple log ins would make the information much more believable on rateyoursolicitor but i think with protection it could be possible to gain value from a rating site like this - possibly more of a general sense of the state of the trade than specific recommendations / categorisations you would believe in. I would believe many of the reports of Oxegen that I read on boards and elsewhere.

Indy is different - I don't believe there are studios doctoring footage and a mass posting campaign to fool us all about the numbers at the Terence Wheelock march. I'm not proposing you should trust anything here because it is a community - but because there is back up.

by bhg Tue Sep 19, 2006 05:59

also available at
http://3486670993/ in IE
http://3486670993:80/ in FF

worked out with
http://3285873655/not-a-dot.html

by court reporter Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:21

Someone called Ann on this discussion thread obviously thinks a website that describes a woman as a "parish bicycle" is hilarious.

Incredibly, this same person also poses as someone who is fighting for 'justice'.

I think she has more than adequately shown to the readers of this comment-line her own concept of j'justice.

Readers of Indymedia will, having seen the contributions of the people behind the 'ratemysolicitor' web-site, see that the purpose of the site is not to give a fair and balanced assessment of lawyers, but to get back at lawyers whom people like Ann hate because, either they have represented the victims of the obsessive campaigns of Ann and her pals, or because these lawyers told Ann and her like that the legal system is not a vehicle for their abusive and obsessive campaigns to victimize their imagined persecutors.

Perhaps we should start a new web-site called "ratemycrank".

By the way, is it appropriate for Indymedia to allow itself to be used as a vehicle to enable people access sexist and abusive web-sites?

by anon Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:28

Irishhealth.com's new 'Rate My Hospital' facility gives you the opportunity to tell us how the hospital scored under a range of different headings.
It will help build a picture of the level of service offered by each hospital and how patient-friendly they are.

http://www.ratemyhospital.ie/

I wonder if we need a site to rate the ratemy sights. Its seems ratemysolicitor might get only 1 star for showing up.

by Ian Tims Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:42

The site is also available here http://url.ie/22t

by court reporter Wed Sep 20, 2006 16:37

For fairness, and because some of the cuties behind the sexist and defamatory rateyour solicitor web-site think that they are beyond the reach of the High Court, I have taken the step of e-mailing the solicitors on record for the lady-barrister who was referred to as a 'parish bicycle' with the details of the addresses through which this web-site remains accessable. I have also forewarded the contributions from Mr. Tims et al and their trumpeting that they have managed to defy the High Court.

I really think that the bullys behind this abusive web-site should be faced with the consequences of their cowardly convictions - (and the opportunity of another day before Their Lordships)

by puzzled Wed Sep 20, 2006 18:59

Hi Court Reporter,

Since you seem to be in the legal business, can you thow any light on my query from the other thread. I am looking for the wording of the Solicitors Oath which it is said they must take in order to pracise. If you know it, would you mind putting up here?

thanks

by puzzled Thu Sep 21, 2006 18:25

Thank you CR.

Many people are under the impression that there is such an oath and that Solicitor's obligations under oath as Officer of Court can take precedence over his/her obligation to clients in the type of situations where the two agendas are in conflict. Examples are carrying through of Court Orders in Liquidation/Marriage separation/ family cases.

From what you say, there is no such Oath to the Court.

by puzzled Fri Sep 22, 2006 20:59

Hello again,

I would love to get the opinions of others on the case outlined in this link http://www.crookedlawyers.com/uploads/case11.htm

In particular, I would like to get Court Reporter's view on it or any other lawyer on this site.

by puzzled Sun Sep 24, 2006 08:44

Still looking forward to your opinions on the case outlined in the link in the previous posting.

Thanks

by court reporter Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:17

I am not a lawyer but a public servant who works in the courts.

I have made enquiries with colleagues in the Wexford area and the high-court and no one knows of any court-case or situation even vaguely resembling what is alleged in this link.

Gazumping happens because sales of land (including the buildings on them) are generally made 'subject to contract' to protect both purchaser (who may need to obtain loan-approval from a lending-institution and ensure the vendor has good title to sell) and the vendor (who needs to ensure he will be paid and not 'strung-out' whice the prospective purchaser shops around for a better deal elsewhere). Unfortunately, our system of conditional contracts is open to abuse by vendors (in a rising market) and by purchasers (in a falling market). The problem is that any alternatives that have been mooted all have their own drawbacks.

On a general theme, you should be very sceptical of anything claimed by the people behind rateyour solicitor and its associated sites. Usually what they claim bears no relation whatsoever to the facts. At best they provide an entirely one-sided and self-serving version of events. One case posted on their site alleges that land was sold against the wishes of both parties. The reality is that the party who posted this allegation has at all times opposed and obstructed the sale, while the other party, who has a court order for the sale of the relevant land, has been the victim of a campaign of obstruction and contempt, and has suffered injustice, loss, and the threat of impoverishment through the shennagans of the obstructor. If there is to be criticism of the courts in this case, it is for their reluctance to commit the person who is so contemptuous of the courts and his unfortunate victim.

by mac consaidin Fri Sep 29, 2006 00:04

Court reporter clearly has a great deal of access to court records and time to research and make enquiries. It is a pity that he/she does not also take to heart that justice requires balance and fair hearing for all parties coming before the courts seeking justice and that both parties, winners and losers have a right to tell their own story.

I was the plaintiff in the Wexford case and I ussure everyone that my account is fair and true. If the pleeded evidence had properly arrived in court and I had lost on a legal point, then I would have no complaint. Because the defendant's solicitor engineered the destruction of pleeded evidence as he did, I have every right to complain and to warn others of how dirty lawyers can be. The High Court case No was 1998/5043p and Court reporter will find the sworn affidavit admitting the destruction of evidence in this file in the High Court.

As regards Court reporters comments about the family law case. No written court order to sell the lands has ever been discovered and no record of the judgement that has ruined all these peoples lives has been discovered.

Finally, it is quite disturbing that a public servant, employed in the Court Service, can trawl court records and write here anonymously and with such disdain and contempt for the lives of those on whom he/she pronounces with such certainty. So much for the balanced scales and blindness of our Courts service.

by court reporter Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:03

It is rich indeed for someone associated with the cowardly anonymous 'rateyour solicitor' to be complaining about my my use of a ,nom de plume'!

No one 'engineered' the destruction of deeds. That is the point. These crank litigants presuppose that anything that goes against their self-interest is the result of a monsterous criminal conspiracy against them.

These people just can't accept the reality that a neutral court , having heard BOTH sides of the story, held against them and in favour of whosoever they were gouging.

That is why we have independent courts and judges.

Can you imagine YOUR fate being in the hands of people who think that calling a lady barrister a 'parish bicycle' is a useful and fair argument?

by mac consaidin Sat Sep 30, 2006 01:51

Court reporter is a court official. He/she is paid by state (taxpayers) to operate a neutral and fair court system for the citizens who come to his court for a hearing.

Anonymously, in the last post, he/she berates his citizen clients as "crank litigants". In addition, Court reporter is making these posts during office hours presumably on a computer paid for by the taxpayer. To support his deeply prejudiced arguments he is trawling thgough court records and phoning other court officers and county registrars around the country. Again all while he is drawing a good salary and supposed to be working at operating an efficient court service. I write on my own time, in my own name, to tell my own story and those of others that are known to me. We are very different animals!

If a solicitor advises his client that the only way to win his case is to destroy a certain piece of evidence and if the solicitor then releases that piece of evidence into the hands of the person he has so advised. Then egineered is a polite term for a disgraceful act. Lawyers and even court clerks, do this type thing every day and appear to see nothing wrong with it.

Finally, court reporter needs to be reminded that the young lady in the court case has stated that she knows that it was one of her male colleagues who inserted the offensive post on the Rateyoursolicitor website. Much of the traffic on that web site has been inserted by solicitors commenting on their own practices (favourably) and those of competitors (less favourably). Some solicitors have been putting offensive things on the site under anonymity to try to detract from their own actions and to try to discredit and remove this site, which for the first time is allowing people to tell of their experiences with lawyers and courts.

Finally if a teacher, nurse or docter showed such disdain for the people they are paid to care for as court reporter clearly shows towards the citizens that he/she is paid to care for, they would and should be fired. Court reporter will probably be promoted.

That why the web site is so essential.

by New to Indymedia Sun Oct 01, 2006 08:27

I have been reading with some horror the "contributions" to this thread by the individual called Court Reporter. If this person is typical of the employees of Irish courts, then God help us! Shouldn't a reporter be fair and balanced? Court Reporter is clearly biased and can't tell a fact from a figment of his imagination.

To top it all off, he slanders the public (who pay his salary!) anonymously, while accusing the people on Rate Your Solicitor of cowardice for being anonymous. This isn't even true--I have seen comments on the site signed by John Gill.

I am interested to see what will happen on the 5th of October.

by Bored with Screwballs Sun Oct 01, 2006 17:20

Court Reporter has contributed clarifying facts and information to people who are apparently completely unfazed by the fact that RateYourSolicitor is now being taken to court because of unsupported allegations about the private sexual behaviour of a named individual being smeared across the (un)radical, and (in)accurate RateYourSolicitor site.

Instead of condemning both this horrible, personalised, conservative attack on a young woman working professionally and the medium of a website which allows this sort of spreading of nonsense allegations there are a lot of posts attacking Court Reporter.

Any suspicion of sympathy that I might have had with people who have posted to RateYourSolicitor is now completely gone. I will now automatically assume that they are indeed cranks and screwballs who are motivated to make sexist, personal attacks on people that get in their way.

Good on Court Reporter for sharing information with the rest of us to expose the fraud and untrustworthiness of RateYourSolicitor. You can see more of the craziness of these people on this thread:

by mac consaidin Mon Oct 02, 2006 00:17

Monday again CR. Time to while away a few more Court office hours on the court office computer blackguarding the poor unfortunates who trusted you and your court officer friends with their problems. Better than working for a living Isn't it?

To pass a bit more time you should check out the links pasted below.

http://www.crookedlawyers.com/uploads/case12.htm

http://www.crookedlawyers.com/uploads/case11.htm

By the way, you will be delighted to know that since the RYS was reported as off air it has had 200,000 hits. Great isn't it?

ps John Gill is really looking forward to Thursday. See u there!

by mac consaidin Wed Oct 04, 2006 13:01

Please note that the web site has a slightly changed name and is again available directly at www.rate-your-solicitor.com

Also please note that the Court Case to try to have the site www.rateyoursolicitor.com removed is tomorrow morning in High Court at 10.30. The case is listed as Jayne Mansfield V John Gill & oths. Read the News Feature on this case in the newswire section of Indymedia. All support is welcome.

PS a link that I posted in last comment was incorrect. The correct links are
http://www.crookedlawyers.com/uploads/case11b.htm
http://www.crookedlawyers.com/uploads/case11.htm