18 months ago I was charged with basically attempting to firebomb The Melbourne Hotel in West End. Today I was found not guilty which leaves me free to commence the civil case against the hotel and actions of it’s employees.

I will be charge the hotel with Failing to Supply Sufficient CCTV to properly monitor their employees in their duties and…

Allowing a non-certified employee to act as security.

I will also charge that employee with assault.

I believe they are near—to-infinitely screwed but I am happy to discuss the matter and re-examine this conclusion.

Postpocelipse said:

18 months ago I was charged with basically attempting to firebomb The Melbourne Hotel in West End. Today I was found not guilty which leaves me free to commence the civil case against the hotel and actions of it’s employees.

I will be charge the hotel with Failing to Supply Sufficient CCTV to properly monitor their employees in their duties and…

Allowing a non-certified employee to act as security.

I will also charge that employee with assault.

I believe they are near—to-infinitely screwed but I am happy to discuss the matter and re-examine this conclusion.

Were you attempting to firebomb The Melbourne Hotel?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Postpocelipse said:

18 months ago I was charged with basically attempting to firebomb The Melbourne Hotel in West End. Today I was found not guilty which leaves me free to commence the civil case against the hotel and actions of it’s employees.

I will be charge the hotel with Failing to Supply Sufficient CCTV to properly monitor their employees in their duties and…

Allowing a non-certified employee to act as security.

I will also charge that employee with assault.

I believe they are near—to-infinitely screwed but I am happy to discuss the matter and re-examine this conclusion.

Were you attempting to firebomb The Melbourne Hotel?

No. They made that up but my blunder was not backing up their cctv with my phone placed in an appropriate position.

Are you going to take civil action against them from detriment of character and what not

Cymek said:

Are you going to take civil action against them from detriment of character and what not

oooh yeah!!! They are going to have a list of grievances stemming from this incident they won’t find the end of.

Were you found not guilty on grounds of insanity?

mollwollfumble said:

Were you found not guilty on grounds of insanity?

Not guilty on grounds of the witnesses(4 of them) not having corroborating statements or being able to lie convincingly.

As is usual in these sort of posts I would love to hear the other side of the story.

AwesomeO said:

As is usual in these sort of posts I would love to hear the other side of the story.

I’d like the number of sides we hear to be an even number.

AwesomeO said:

As is usual in these sort of posts I would love to hear the other side of the story.

You haven’t heard my side, only what I allege they have failed to do or done unlawfully.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

As is usual in these sort of posts I would love to hear the other side of the story.

I’d like the number of sides we hear to be an even number.

The reality is there is no coin……..

AwesomeO said:

As is usual in these sort of posts I would love to hear the other side of the story.

I will give you this much. Two incidents occurred with only one making it onto the cctv record. If the 2nd incident had been recorded the money would already be in my pocket, which is why they will have to pay much, much, much more……..

You could add it up this way. The hotel staff alleged I had basically committed an act of terrorism with intent to harm and damage. I did nothing more than out think them in my attempts to resolve a matter in which they behaved inappropriately. This has been supported by a verdict to which I did not need to supply evidence to achieve exoneration. In criminal court I am not required to give evidence. In civil court they are not given this privilege and I am able to reveal the facts at the leisure of my representation. My representation has already performed in an outstanding manner. I expect them to very easily dismantle the witness statements so that is more than obvious what genuinely occurred.

Long story short you could consider being less cynical.

Did I mention that my barrister is a pre-eminent, precedent setting former prosecutor?

Postpocelipse said:

Did I mention that my barrister is a pre-eminent, precedent setting former prosecutor?

I’m looking forward to the opportunity to have conversations of broader topic with him.

I’m not normally one for offering unsolicited advice, but any rule can be broken once. If they offer you $12.50 in an out of court settlement – take it. Courts generally don’t favour one one party trying to take the other to the cleaners. You actually have to establish that you have been damaged and that your claim of costs is reasonable. You can’t sue for damages as a form of fine against the other party, that’s Hollywood stuff.

Being made whole is the expression.

party_pants said:

I’m not normally one for offering unsolicited advice, but any rule can be broken once. If they offer you $12.50 in an out of court settlement – take it. Courts generally don’t favour one one party trying to take the other to the cleaners. You actually have to establish that you have been damaged and that your claim of costs is reasonable. You can’t sue for damages as a form of fine against the other party, that’s Hollywood stuff.

Courts can order compensation for the victim but thats usually for material damages or lose

party_pants said:

I’m not normally one for offering unsolicited advice, but any rule can be broken once. If they offer you $12.50 in an out of court settlement – take it. Courts generally don’t favour one one party trying to take the other to the cleaners. You actually have to establish that you have been damaged and that your claim of costs is reasonable. You can’t sue for damages as a form of fine against the other party, that’s Hollywood stuff.

pfft. you haven’t heard a word I said. What could have been immediately avoided and settled amicably was turned into 18 months of defamation defense on my part causing SIGNIFICANT disturbance to my time with my child. YOU BETTER BELIEVE ME THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE FORGOTTEN BY COLLECTIVE HOTEL MANAGEMENT!!

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

I’m not normally one for offering unsolicited advice, but any rule can be broken once. If they offer you $12.50 in an out of court settlement – take it. Courts generally don’t favour one one party trying to take the other to the cleaners. You actually have to establish that you have been damaged and that your claim of costs is reasonable. You can’t sue for damages as a form of fine against the other party, that’s Hollywood stuff.

Courts can order compensation for the victim but thats usually for material damages or lose

No not at all. Victims of crime do not assess cost to property readily but do cost to lifestyle, income and mental well being.

Oooooo capslock.

Oooooo capslock.

I’m only revealing some detail on a difficult experience that I have been unable to relate readily until now. It might take another couple of days worth of fair sleep before I let my defensive reflexes relax.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

I’m not normally one for offering unsolicited advice, but any rule can be broken once. If they offer you $12.50 in an out of court settlement – take it. Courts generally don’t favour one one party trying to take the other to the cleaners. You actually have to establish that you have been damaged and that your claim of costs is reasonable. You can’t sue for damages as a form of fine against the other party, that’s Hollywood stuff.

Courts can order compensation for the victim but thats usually for material damages or lose

No not at all. Victims of crime do not assess cost to property readily but do cost to lifestyle, income and mental well being.

Income yes but not sure how mental well being is compensated in monetary terms,

AwesomeO said:

Oooooo capslock.

he said Oooooo!

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Courts can order compensation for the victim but thats usually for material damages or lose

No not at all. Victims of crime do not assess cost to property readily but do cost to lifestyle, income and mental well being.

Income yes but not sure how mental well being is compensated in monetary terms,

Calculated by cost to my dependants.

Is this for an incident occurring in November 2014?

AwesomeO said:

Oooooo capslock.

If you thinks 18 months of shit doesn’t warrant an occasional capslocked reference I can only resent that begrudgingly.

Divine Angel said:

Is this for an incident occurring in November 2014?

Yeah nah no way don’t know what you are talking about.

Postpocelipse said:

I’m only revealing some detail on a difficult experience that I have been unable to relate readily until now. It might take another couple of days worth of fair sleep before I let my defensive reflexes relax.

I’m sure that there is more to it than what you have divulged to us, because what you’ve posted reads as clutching at straws.. at best.

but good luck with it

You’re forgetting I know your name and the court lists are publicly available, as is the original newspaper article outlining your alleged crime.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’m only revealing some detail on a difficult experience that I have been unable to relate readily until now. It might take another couple of days worth of fair sleep before I let my defensive reflexes relax.

I’m sure that there is more to it than what you have divulged to us, because what you’ve posted reads as clutching at straws.. at best.

but good luck with it

My barrister taught me very effectively that due courtesy requires procedural prioritising. This is the reason one introduces ones representation and outlines ones grievance in brief before involving debatable variables.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’m only revealing some detail on a difficult experience that I have been unable to relate readily until now. It might take another couple of days worth of fair sleep before I let my defensive reflexes relax.

I’m sure that there is more to it than what you have divulged to us, because what you’ve posted reads as clutching at straws.. at best.

but good luck with it

My barrister taught me very effectively that due courtesy requires procedural prioritising. This is the reason one introduces ones representation and outlines ones grievance in brief before involving debatable variables.

sounds like he’s interested in a new beemer

Divine Angel said:

You’re forgetting I know your name and the court lists are publicly available, as is the original newspaper article outlining your alleged crime.

Am I? My not guilty verdict did not require me to give evidence. This does not mean my barrister does not already have all the evidence required to finalise these matters appropriately. I am not sure what you are implying but some questions still can only be answered by my representation at this stage so I still have restrictions on what I can talk about.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I’m sure that there is more to it than what you have divulged to us, because what you’ve posted reads as clutching at straws.. at best.

but good luck with it

My barrister taught me very effectively that due courtesy requires procedural prioritising. This is the reason one introduces ones representation and outlines ones grievance in brief before involving debatable variables.

sounds like he’s interested in a new beemer

No I think he has enough of that and is a professional fighter who enjoys seeing good results come of due diligence.

I’m not implying anything. I just wondered if the incident I found in public records was the same one. You’ve been found not guilty, that’s fine. I’m not going to link to the article if that’s what you’re worried about.

Divine Angel said:

I’m not implying anything. I just wondered if the incident I found in public records was the same one. You’ve been found not guilty, that’s fine. I’m not going to link to the article if that’s what you’re worried about.

I haven’t socialised normally for a long time. My heart breaks every time Xander thinks I might not want to spend more time with him. I’m tired and still concerned for his mum’s basic sanity and have never been quite sure how I got so loaded up. Idk. I didn’t mean to suggest anything I just didn’t quite know what you were conveying.

Postpocelipse said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m not implying anything. I just wondered if the incident I found in public records was the same one. You’ve been found not guilty, that’s fine. I’m not going to link to the article if that’s what you’re worried about.

I haven’t socialised normally for a long time. My heart breaks every time Xander thinks I might not want to spend more time with him. I’m tired and still concerned for his mum’s basic sanity and have never been quite sure how I got so loaded up. Idk. I didn’t mean to suggest anything I just didn’t quite know what you were conveying.

How old is he ?
You may miss out on seeing him now but when he’s older things may change when he starts to realise things said about you don’t match with his experience.

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m not implying anything. I just wondered if the incident I found in public records was the same one. You’ve been found not guilty, that’s fine. I’m not going to link to the article if that’s what you’re worried about.

I haven’t socialised normally for a long time. My heart breaks every time Xander thinks I might not want to spend more time with him. I’m tired and still concerned for his mum’s basic sanity and have never been quite sure how I got so loaded up. Idk. I didn’t mean to suggest anything I just didn’t quite know what you were conveying.

How old is he ?
You may miss out on seeing him now but when he’s older things may change when he starts to realise things said about you don’t match with his experience.

No he is observant enough to know what he sees now. He just needs a little verbal/cuddly reassurance and he goes back to being as patient as he can be.

btw the woohoo is about as listless a woohoo as you can get. I think I was facing 5 years on the primary charge or something. even when you are certain of the facts that is not a comfortable proposition to have to live with for 18 months.

Postpocelipse said:

btw the woohoo is about as listless a woohoo as you can get. I think I was facing 5 years on the primary charge or something. even when you are certain of the facts that is not a comfortable proposition to have to live with for 18 months.

I imagine not, glad it worked out OK

The general purpose of posting this thread and related ones was to narrow down topics of discussion with my barrister, not to wildly ruminate about something not already understood by trusted counsel.

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

btw the woohoo is about as listless a woohoo as you can get. I think I was facing 5 years on the primary charge or something. even when you are certain of the facts that is not a comfortable proposition to have to live with for 18 months.

I imagine not, glad it worked out OK

I had to just go with the truth doesn’t need me to explain itself in court and left it in the hands of barri. He is respected.

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

I’m not normally one for offering unsolicited advice, but any rule can be broken once. If they offer you $12.50 in an out of court settlement – take it. Courts generally don’t favour one one party trying to take the other to the cleaners. You actually have to establish that you have been damaged and that your claim of costs is reasonable. You can’t sue for damages as a form of fine against the other party, that’s Hollywood stuff.

pfft. you haven’t heard a word I said. What could have been immediately avoided and settled amicably was turned into 18 months of defamation defense on my part causing SIGNIFICANT disturbance to my time with my child. YOU BETTER BELIEVE ME THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE FORGOTTEN BY COLLECTIVE HOTEL MANAGEMENT!!

I’m just telling you the way courts see it. You can’t use this as a windfall opportunity, you don’t get a free swipe at a company because they have money. You have to prove your damages. Courts will only award damages to recover loss, not anything extra because of hurt feelings.

just saying, don’t start counting your money yet even if you have a case against them, you can’t milk it for all they’re worth.

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

I’m not normally one for offering unsolicited advice, but any rule can be broken once. If they offer you $12.50 in an out of court settlement – take it. Courts generally don’t favour one one party trying to take the other to the cleaners. You actually have to establish that you have been damaged and that your claim of costs is reasonable. You can’t sue for damages as a form of fine against the other party, that’s Hollywood stuff.

pfft. you haven’t heard a word I said. What could have been immediately avoided and settled amicably was turned into 18 months of defamation defense on my part causing SIGNIFICANT disturbance to my time with my child. YOU BETTER BELIEVE ME THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE FORGOTTEN BY COLLECTIVE HOTEL MANAGEMENT!!

I’m just telling you the way courts see it. You can’t use this as a windfall opportunity, you don’t get a free swipe at a company because they have money. You have to prove your damages. Courts will only award damages to recover loss, not anything extra because of hurt feelings.

just saying, don’t start counting your money yet even if you have a case against them, you can’t milk it for all they’re worth.

you are the one assuming what the damages I seek will involve. do you want to start again there maybe?

hmm, pre-eminent precedent setting former Crown Prosecutor as barrister who has already accepted the matter over your advice p_p? really?

Postpocelipse said:

hmm, pre-eminent precedent setting former Crown Prosecutor as barrister who has already accepted the matter over your advice p_p? really?

You said you were happy to discuss and re-examine the matter.

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

hmm, pre-eminent precedent setting former Crown Prosecutor as barrister who has already accepted the matter over your advice p_p? really?

You said you were happy to discuss and re-examine the matter.

I have limitations on what I can discuss. Naturally. You just gave me nothing of any accuracy to respond to so I provided my reference.

I can only wonder what the upper management of the Melbourne Hotel is discussing with it’s lawyer’s after this morning’s contact with counsel.

Postpocelipse said:

I can only wonder what the upper management of the Melbourne Hotel is discussing with it’s lawyer’s after this morning’s contact with counsel.

seems you’re more concerned with retribution than justice..

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

hmm, pre-eminent precedent setting former Crown Prosecutor as barrister who has already accepted the matter over your advice p_p? really?

You said you were happy to discuss and re-examine the matter.

I have limitations on what I can discuss. Naturally. You just gave me nothing of any accuracy to respond to so I provided my reference.

Perhaps you need to ask some difficult questions of your lawyer then, is he telling you the of the absolute best-case scenario or the most likely. As him what the worst-case scenario is.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I can only wonder what the upper management of the Melbourne Hotel is discussing with it’s lawyer’s after this morning’s contact with counsel.

seems you’re more concerned with retribution than justice..

How’s that? I only know what my list of grievances is and what it means to them. I don’t think they will be having a comfortable discussion. If I get that much does it count against the elbow to the head from behind for absolutely no cause by an non-security member discomfort I experienced? Or everything that followed in their obscuration of this fact?

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

You said you were happy to discuss and re-examine the matter.

I have limitations on what I can discuss. Naturally. You just gave me nothing of any accuracy to respond to so I provided my reference.

Perhaps you need to ask some difficult questions of your lawyer then, is he telling you the of the absolute best-case scenario or the most likely. As him what the worst-case scenario is.

Not something I’m free to divulge other than counsel’s advice accords with my concerns.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I can only wonder what the upper management of the Melbourne Hotel is discussing with it’s lawyer’s after this morning’s contact with counsel.

seems you’re more concerned with retribution than justice..

How’s that? I only know what my list of grievances is and what it means to them. I don’t think they will be having a comfortable discussion. If I get that much does it count against the elbow to the head from behind for absolutely no cause by an non-security member discomfort I experienced? Or everything that followed in their obscuration of this fact?

Maybe from your previous post, Limits of authority.

You come across as a bit manic at the moment. Up the meds.

AwesomeO said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

seems you’re more concerned with retribution than justice..

How’s that? I only know what my list of grievances is and what it means to them. I don’t think they will be having a comfortable discussion. If I get that much does it count against the elbow to the head from behind for absolutely no cause by an non-security member discomfort I experienced? Or everything that followed in their obscuration of this fact?

Maybe from your previous post, Limits of authority.

You come across as a bit manic at the moment. Up the meds.

Question for my doctor. I am experiencing significantly less apprehension than I was 24 hours ago and not in any discomfort.

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

I have limitations on what I can discuss. Naturally. You just gave me nothing of any accuracy to respond to so I provided my reference.

Perhaps you need to ask some difficult questions of your lawyer then, is he telling you the of the absolute best-case scenario or the most likely. As him what the worst-case scenario is.

Not something I’m free to divulge other than counsel’s advice accords with my concerns.

I’m not asking you to divulge it to me. You need to be asking some questions of your lawyer about what are likely realistic outcomes. Don’t rely on the opening claim as being your expectation of the outcome, opening claims are usually way overestimated.

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Perhaps you need to ask some difficult questions of your lawyer then, is he telling you the of the absolute best-case scenario or the most likely. As him what the worst-case scenario is.

Not something I’m free to divulge other than counsel’s advice accords with my concerns.

I’m not asking you to divulge it to me. You need to be asking some questions of your lawyer about what are likely realistic outcomes. Don’t rely on the opening claim as being your expectation of the outcome, opening claims are usually way overestimated.

I haven’t relied on anything but events unfolding up till now. I don’t expect that to change a great deal.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I can only wonder what the upper management of the Melbourne Hotel is discussing with it’s lawyer’s after this morning’s contact with counsel.

seems you’re more concerned with retribution than justice..

How’s that? I only know what my list of grievances is and what it means to them. I don’t think they will be having a comfortable discussion. If I get that much does it count against the elbow to the head from behind for absolutely no cause by an non-security member discomfort I experienced? Or everything that followed in their obscuration of this fact?

well for one, the thread title…
“Woohoo! or how to maximise a payout.”

then your posts.
“I will be charge the hotel with Failing to Supply Sufficient CCTV to properly monitor their employees in their duties and…
Allowing a non-certified employee to act as security.
I will also charge that employee with assault.”

2 charges that there is no law against, the assault charge is up to you to prove

“oooh yeah!!! They are going to have a list of grievances stemming from this incident they won’t find the end of.”

“which is why they will have to pay much, much, much more……..”

“Did I mention that my barrister is a pre-eminent, precedent setting former prosecutor?”

“YOU BETTER BELIEVE ME THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE FORGOTTEN BY COLLECTIVE HOTEL MANAGEMENT!!”

“hmm, pre-eminent precedent setting former Crown Prosecutor as barrister who has already accepted the matter over your advice”

err, define payout? define woohoo?

I’d prefer to drop the subject really and think about some other things for something different to the last 18 months…………..

Postpocelipse said:

err, define payout? define woohoo?

$10,000 or so

Postpocelipse said:

err, define payout? define woohoo?

pay|out

NOUN

a large payment of money, especially as compensation or a dividend: “an insurance payout” synonyms: payment · payout · reward · recompense · consideration · bribe · inducement · ‘incentive’ · enticement · payola · kickback · sweetener · carrot · backhander · hush money · slush fund · cut · graft · bung · dropsy · plugola · schmear · sling · douceur · drop

woohoo

interjection, Informal.
1.
(used to express excitement, delight, etc.):
Woo-hoo! It’s Friday!

You could find that the hotel gets fined or charged and your compensation is less than expected

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

err, define payout? define woohoo?

$10,000 or so

who says results are simply in $‘s?

Cymek said:

You could find that the hotel gets fined or charged and your compensation is less than expected

That end is not up for discussion and I refer to my earlier sentiment.

Someone likes holding grudges!

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

err, define payout? define woohoo?

$10,000 or so

who says results are simply in $‘s?

you did,,

“I will give you this much. Two incidents occurred with only one making it onto the cctv record. If the 2nd incident had been recorded the money would already be in my pocket, which is why they will have to pay much, much, much more……..”

Postpocelipse said:

I’d prefer to drop the subject really and think about some other things for something different to the last 18 months…………..

Dropping the subject would be good if it means you will post fewer nonsensical threads,

Witty Rejoinder said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’d prefer to drop the subject really and think about some other things for something different to the last 18 months…………..

Dropping the subject would be good if it means you will post fewer nonsensical threads,

i’m just chit-chatting like everyone else. how about you rebury that sentiment in your colon area?

hhhmmmm, let’s see. I was working earning 1k a week when this occurred and after the incident my work dried up because I could not predict my future stability for an employer. Then there is the effect on my access to my child etc. I think the lowest number this will prompt will be quite substantial.

I have to say if someone took the ‘woohoo’ here seriously they are just not familiar with my degree of sarcasm, which seems significantly implausible after the years I’ve spent hear taking the piss out of carry on…………

FYI and future reference. A reason I have remained here is to record my state of mind. Xander’s mother loves to play couch-potato psychiatrist just like some people here. Because my legal diary requires indication of state of mind I chose this method of recording that. Anyone want to continue to question my lucidity go right ahead but you already look stupid enough IMO.

When a lawyer asks a witness a question, a single words phrasing and tone can provide a witnesses recall with strongly embellished fabrication. Just one of the significant reasons leading is ruled against on questions of contention.

I once assumed those here would be a little beyond this level of suggestion and have been proven wrong time and again. In this regard I reiterate the importance of sticking to subject matter and avoiding personal remarks.

The newspaper article

ChrispenEvan said:

The newspaper article

Which is now entirely worthless because it is based entirely on statements now considered less than worthless. Proves how much you pay attention Boris ya gormless twit!

You didn’t hear the part about how they are now subject to perjury charges when I beat them in civil court did you fat batter?