From: Peter Parry on
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:04:59 +0100, "john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote:


>Wakefield dropped that claim as Deer wanted all his documents that related
>to the gmc case and he didn't want to let him have them for obvious reasons.

As there is a strict time limit of twelve months for taking legal
action for allegations of libel, slander or malicious falsehood
(running from the date the supposedly defamatory statement was made)
he now has a bit of a problem doesn't he?


From: john on

"D. C. Sessions" <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>
> Lawyer: "Your Honor, I object!"
> Judge: "Why?"
> Lawyer: "Because it's devastating to my case!"
>

You wish. Some court that was, a phrama front


From: john on

"sunnydisposition" <thetipoff(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d34c9187-917a-4cb5-9344-9d83fa5ef0b3(a)d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

In fact, more proof that Wakefield is a liar can be found on this
point at Mr Deer's website. The fraudster doctor's lawsuit against
The Sunday Times was stayed until AFTER his GMC:

Pictures speak

Wakefield http://whale.to/v/wakefield1.jpg
Deer http://whale.to/a/image/deer41.jpg


From: Mark Probert on
On Apr 30, 3:24 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> "D. C. Sessions" <d...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Lawyer: "Your Honor, I object!"
> > Judge: "Why?"
> > Lawyer: "Because it's devastating to my case!"
>
> You wish.  Some court that was, a phrama front

Are phrama courts unique to the UK?

From: D. C. Sessions on
In message <KY-dnX8SHsshGEfWnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, john wrote:
> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message

>> Lawyer: "Your Honor, I object!"
>> Judge: "Why?"
>> Lawyer: "Because it's devastating to my case!"
>
> You wish. Some court that was, a phrama front

/Whoooooosh!/

--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> -+