newsnight

'Inforwars' majorwingnuttery and fake news and which just happens to be a favorite site of llap.

https://www.snopes.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/ On 5 November 2017, a gunman clad in black opened fire on parishioners at a Sunday service at a Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing at least 26 people. Within hours of that massacre, fake news sites were shamelessly exploiting the tragedy for personal gain by disseminating fabricated information about the shooter. One common theme to such fake news stories was that the shooter was connected to the “Antifa” movement: http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/01/29/man-behind-one-the-biggest-sites-accused-fake-news-former-bbc-worker Raw Whois Data Domain Name: YOURNEWSWIRE.COM Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com Registrant Name: Sean Adl-Tabatabai http://yournewswire.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/

Source? 'The mass shooter who opened fire inside a Texas church killing at least 26 - including a two-year-old child - has been identified as a 26-year-old US Air Force veteran and Bible study teacher'. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11940967

In reply, so you made that up to for your own mischief making. You don't know because it never happened. Reallly yes I have never met them, and it helped to confirm that you are trolling.

Who made that allegation, can you cite the post for us? I have never met the Irving people, are you just trolling for the attention?

I supposed that having gone thus far in his comrehensive judgment, it might be difficult if not impossible for any Deemster to reinterpret his findings of fact and law in that case when the next stage of it comes to Court, if it does come to Court because the parties have not been able to arrive at an agreed settlement of it. We shall see.

In this regard only we have a shared position, I too often have cause to wonder about the justice of ‘it’ all, if ‘it’ can be defined as causality, and effect, so far as the conduct of Government goes. In your interesting post, you have used the word ‘apparently’ three times, ‘appears’ once, ‘murky’ once, ‘concocted’ once. You obviously have some axe to grind large or small regarding the Irving’s, which is manifestly apparent from the composition of your post. Be that as it may. I am not qualified in the law and have ‘no dog in the fight’ to attempt to address the finer points of the judgment as handed down by the Deemster Corlett, but I do have observations to make about naïve businessmen, and failure to pay tax and national insurance by businesses on the Isle of Man. If the contention is that the Irving’s are to be held culpable and subject to public vilification because they jointly or individually failed to keep proper accounts or pay on demand tax and NI then let’s have equanimity and make all in that category subject to equal treatment. So, were the Directors of the Sefton Group who failed to pay tax and NI and who at various times claimed to Government that the company/ companies were balance sheet insolvent subject to public vilification? They were not publicly vilified. As they described it later before a Committee of Inquiry, they were valiant business warriors struggling against the tyranny of Graham Ferguson Lacey, a man Allan Bell described as a lunatic running the madhouse. They protested that they had done all they could to curb the excesses of GFL, in fact they hadn’t liked him or his business methods, and he in turn hadn’t much liked them, as they now told it. The facts are they hadn’t paid the company’s bills as they had fallen due, and the Government was a substantial creditor, however, a political decision was made not to go to the Courts to obtain a winding-up order and liquidate the Sefton Group companies. Then we have the matter of EuroManx. A company that kept no accounts or accurate financial records and was to all extents and purposes balance sheet insolvent almost, if not actually from the moment it was trading on the IOM. Those Directors kept no accounts, didn’t pay the bills as they fell due and owed the Government substantial sums of money. Ex-Chief Minister Brown described EuroManx as a company he and his administration ‘had become very fond of’. No application to the Courts to wind-up EuroManx by the Treasury or anybody else in the IOM Government was made. The final loss to the public purse is available to anyone wanting to know what that sum is by simple dint of effort to go and find it. Were those Directors subject to public vilification? No they were not. What about moves to disqualify post the inevitable court order to wind-up the Company, no, nothing was done. So who are the naïve businessmen? If being naïve is enough to visit dire consequences upon those culpable of it, then let the tumbrils roll and crowd them in, because on past events alone it would take more than one cart to carry them all Deemster Corlett in his judgment wrote that he found Mr Harding’s conduct ‘inexplicable’ and he stated that so far as Mr Carter was concerned a possible explanation for his conduct in regards with Mr Harding in the ‘conduct of the case is characterised by his willingness to bend over backwards to be fair to the Government's arguments rather than to be a fearless advocate for his own client’. Some may say that is an accurate description of someone who could be fairly described as a ‘lickspittle’. With regards to other aspects of his conduct others might say that he was self-admittedly well out of his depth, and was simply incompetent to deal with the matters he was being paid to deal with. If your face fits, is an expression often used to explain in short form the often inexplicable reasons why some are favoured and others are not. Why some are forgiven transgressions and others not, why some are made into mult-millionaires and others are laid low, why some companies are wound-up and others have multi-millions of public money provided to keep them afloat. The Irving’s case has done this much, it has given the public an object lesson of what can happen when your face doesn’t fit and people take it upon themselves to act on that. If we are to have things done in the IOM with a view to ‘justice’ , then let’s have justice applied equally. We are a long way from that as I see it from where we are standing now. As for Icarus, that is a much more apposite description to be made about the IOM Government’s modus operandi than any small businessman’s ambition that I have seen on the Isle of Man.

171.He had a very good working relationship with Mr Goodwin and indeed had acted for him in his personal capacity. Perhaps Mr Carter ought to have perceived a conflict of interest because it seems to me that Mr Carter's conduct of the case is characterised by his willingness to bend over backwards to be fair to the Government's arguments rather than to be a fearless advocate for his own client. 172.I consider that he was too forgiving of Mr Harding whose inexplicable conduct (as it seems to me) on 24th February 2010 began the regrettable chain of events. Mr Carter's client's interests ought to have come first. 173.To some extent he sat in judgment on the conduct of the Irvings and took the view that in the end "the right thing has happened". It is obvious that this is not the role of an advocate in civil litigation of this type. Provided he did not mislead the court or otherwise behave unethically, it was his job to put his clients' case as forcefully as possible to the court. It was the court's job to determine whether SHL should be wound up and not that of Mr Goodwin, Mr Harding or Mr Carter. There was in my view most definitely an argument to be put on SHL's behalf. The matter was by no means as clear cut as Mr Carter appears to think that it was 246.As for the allegation that the Claimants were contributorily negligent in failing to produce evidence of the solvency of SHL in order to enable an appeal or a set aside application to proceed, it seems to me that the issue of the alleged solvency of SHL is not relevant to the Claimants' causes of action. Their case it seems to me is founded on their loss of a chance of surviving the winding-up proceedings by reason of Mr Carter's breach of duty. Their case is that they were in the process of and may well have obtained alternative financing which would have enabled them to defend the petition, based as it was on an undisputed income tax debt of £182,929.98. Their near certainty of obtaining an adjournment of the hearing and their chance of obtaining a dismissal of the petition were lost by reason of Mr Carter's negligence. "Solvency" is not a word which appears in the winding-up petition or in sections 162 or 163 of the Companies Act 1931. The only live issue on the petition was whether SHL was unable to pay the income tax debt and arguably also the debts of the other Government creditors who appeared at the hearing. Despite the petition having been advertised on 26th and 28th January 2010 no other creditors appeared at that hearing. The damage occurred on the making of the winding-up order and the failure immediately to ensure that Deemster Doyle was appraised of the true position so that he could make an order based on correct information. 247.On the totality of the evidence now before me, I can well see an argument (albeit with the benefit of hindsight) that ultimately SHL will have been wound up at some unknown date after the 24th February 2010. I take into account Mr Irving's admission during the course of R v Harding that SHL was unable to pay its debts at the material time. However, it is impossible to know how matters might have turned out. It is clear from Mr Carter's pleaded case and his own evidence that on 24th February 2010 no one knew the accurate financial position of SHL. There was a distinct possibility that SHL would have survived and there was most certainly an arguable case to be put to Deemster Doyle based on the way in which the Petition was pleaded. The Government's case was that SHL was "unable to pay its debts". The burden of proving this was on the Petitioner. Despite Mr Irving's admission made in other proceedings, the issue is often not a straightforward one. Inability to pay debts is defined or "deemed" by section 163 of the Companies Act 1931 and it is clear from the Petition that reliance was placed solely on the service of a demand for payment of the tax debt and a failure to pay it within three weeks (section 163(1)(1)). Reliance was not placed on section 163(1)(3) which refers to the court being satisfied that the company is unable to pay its debts and in determining that issue, the court "shall take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company". Clearly that subsection requires a wider examination of the company's financial position. 248.The main point surely is that the Claimants were deprived of the chance of SHL surviving and this is something which can properly form the basis of a claim for damages.

http://www.iomonline.co.im/article.cfm?id=35700&headline=Irvings celebrate court victory&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2017 Irvings celebrate court victory Thursday, 31 August 2017 By by Adrian Darbyshire adrian.darbyshire@iomtoday.co.im Twitter:@iomAdrian in Business Jonathan Irving Retired businessman Jonathan Irving and his son Jamie have won a major court victory over the winding up of their Street Heritage company seven years ago. In a High Court judgment, Deemster Corlett ruled that Street Heritage’s advocate Jerry Carter had been negligent by not turning up in time for the winding up hearing that took place on February 24, 2010. Mr Irving said he and his son had now estabilished liabiility in their multi-million pound negligence claim. He said: ’We brought this claim at our own cost and risk at their own cost and risk for the joint benefit of the creditors of Street Heritage Ltd. ’As a family, at long last we feel vindicated and hope that we can now draw a line under this and move on.’ In his judgment, Deemster Corlett concluded it would have been ’very probable that the court would have agreed to adjourn the case, thereby giving the company time to attempt to put together a rescue package’. That rescue package would have been based upon a sale of land in Peel and promises of cash to pay off a tax debt totalling £182,929. Mr Irving told the High Court that publicity from the winding-up order had tainted their other businesses which were ’damned by association’. Ticket sales for the 2010 Bay Festival, which the Irvings were organising through a separate company, started to dry up and it went on to make a loss. For his part, Mr Carter told the court he believed that the Irvings’ financial empire was due to collapse in any event as Street Heritage was ’clearly insolvent’ at the time of the presentation of the winding-up petition, with other creditors ’waiting in the wings’. He said he was told by the Irvings that the hearing was at 10am but by the time he had arrived at 9.40am, the case had already been dealt with. Deemster Corlett said: ’The company and the Irvings therefore lost the chance of staving off the winding-up order.’ He concluded that Mr Carter acted negligently and was in breach of contract in not ensuring he knew the correct time for the hearing and not bringing the Deemster back into court to rescind the winding-up order. He found the Irvings were not guilty of contributing to the situation and that Mr Carter’s breach of duty and contract were capable of causing the type of losses alleged by the Irvings, including those incurred in the 2010 Bay Music Festival. The judgment does not deal with any award of damages. l More on this story in next week’s Examiner.

https://www.judgments.im/content/J1928.htm Conclusion 254.For the reasons set out in detail in this judgment I have therefore concluded that the Defendants did act negligently and in breach of contract as alleged in paragraphs 17.3, 17.4, 17.5, 17.6 and 17.7 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim, but not otherwise as set out in paragraph 17. 255.Also that the Defendants were in further breach of contract and were negligent as alleged in paragraphs 21.6 and 21.8, but not otherwise as alleged in paragraph 21. 256.I conclude that the Defendants did owe a duty of care in tort to the Claimants in their personal capacity as alleged in paragraph 10 and that the breaches of contract and negligence which I have found were capable of causing at least one of the types of personal loss to the Claimants as set out in paragraph 23 and that it is just that liability be imposed upon them. 257.The Claimants are not guilty of contributory negligence as alleged in the Re-Amended Defence. 258.Issues of causation and quantum must now be addressed by the parties and, if they cannot reach agreement, further directions must be given to bring this case to a conclusion.

The names of all the parties that attended the meeting Rob Goldstone set up at Trump Tower will be in the media over this weekend. The documents that were provided to the Trump representatives by the Russian attendees are now part of the investigation.

A lot of information. With much more to come out of America in the coming days. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/world/europe/natalia-veselnitskaya-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer.html Natalia Veselnitskaya, Lawyer Who Met Trump Jr., Seen as Fearsome Moscow Insider 'William Browder, an American-born hedge fund manager who has tussled repeatedly with Ms. Veselnitskaya, said of the elder Mr. Katsyv: “In the world of Russia he’d be the equivalent of a Chris Christie: no formal relationship to the Kremlin, but with very strong relations to the powers that be.” The family’s trust in Ms. Veselnitskaya was rewarded in May, when she helped Denis P. Katsyv, Pyotr’s son, fight the money laundering claims in New York brought by the Manhattan federal prosecutor at the time, Preet Bharara. Mr. Bharara tangled with Ms. Veselnitskaya several times and protested at one point that she had been charging the government for a $995-a-night room at the Plaza Hotel. The case was settled two months after Mr. Bharara was dismissed by President Trump. Prevezon Holdings, Mr. Katsyv’s company, paid $6 million to resolve the claim without admitting any crime. While the prosecution portrayed the settlement as a victory, Ms. Veselnitskaya told the newspaper Izvestia that it was “almost an apology from the government.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/07/11/inside-the-link-between-the-russian-lawyer-who-met-donald-trump-jr-and-the-trump-dossier/?utm_term=.8c389d1a96f4 https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/acting-manhattan-us-attorney-announces-59-million-settlement-civil-money-laundering-and On the Justice Department website is a link to download the settlement Order. 'Page 9. The Parties agree that the Complaints do not allege that any of the Defendants, Claimants, or Denis Katsyv, Alexander Litvak, or Timofey Krit, is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the arrest, detention, or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or that they have acted as an agent of, or on behalf of or in agreement with a person in a matter relating to the arrest, detention,or death of Sergei Magnitsky.' http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/feds-sue-seize-pricey-manhattan-real-estate-russian-money-laundering-scheme-article-1.1450964 The civil lawsuit comes nearly four years after the death in prison of whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who in 2007 uncovered the massive crime. His fate outraged human rights activists and led Congress to pass in 2012 a law known as the Magnitsky act, which blacklisted Russian officials linked to human rights violations. Days later, Moscow retaliated by barring Americans from adopting Russian orphans.

Mr President Elect, the very heterosexual class act. It appears that so long as it is pussy and not cock that is the target of his activities, all is to be forgiven by some of like mind. http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/314891/trump-russia-girls-howard-stern-2001-aj-benza/ Contains link to audio of the show. 'In 2001, a gossip columnist discussed Donald Trump’s Russian sexcapades on ‘Howard Stern’In February of 2016, a “Howard Stern Show” clip from 2001 had resurfaced of then real estate mogul Donald Trump, who had called into the show and engaged in a dick-measuring contest with in-studio guest and gossip reporter A.J. Benza. The two were snapping at each other over a woman they both dated, a model named Kara Young. Benza and Trump went back and forth over who stole whose girlfriend, then this curious exchange went down: Trump: I assume A.J.’s clean. I hope he’s clean. Benza: Meanwhile, he bangs Russian people… Stern: Russian people? Trump: Who are you talking about, Russian people, A.J.? I don’t know anything. Benza: He used to call me when I was a columnist and say, “I was just in Russia, the girls have no morals, you gotta get out there.” [Trump’s] out of his mind. Meanwhile in the Senate; http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/c-span-online-feed-briefly-interrupted-russian-tv-n706421

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien Lyin' Donald: 101 Of Trump's Greatest Lies