NSW Riding a Scooter in Car Park Without a Helmet?

[Adam1user]

To clarify.
Tim was right...
he said section 10 bond would not / could not happen because this is a traffic matter. He was right. He advised you to steer clear of this approach.

Someone else suggested you go down the private property road. Your response? "it is my ticket off. Great idea." Tim corrected you and again his advice was good. He even provided a reference to the road rules. You know. Like the law...

He also advised that " There is a remote possibility that the Magistrate will dismiss the matter.
That will not make you clever, just lucky."

Tim gave you Rock solid advice. 3 times. He was right every time... He helped you win this because you knew better than to go in asking for a section 10 when such an option is not available to the judge NOR did you go in making loony bin claims about private property, which would have equally made you look silly to magistrate and you took his advice. You went in, and plead for clemancy because there is a remote chance the Magistrate 'will dismiss the mater'. He helped you and your response? A thank you?
Nope... Not you champ... Mate you would have made a fool of yourself in court making stupid arguments... Read the whole thread again. He was the one that set you on the right path to win this thing. OUCH.

Mate you are taking everything out of contest and taking it to your advantage, I will also respond to you in the other comment. I was out all day and just came back, so go my response there and it will be the same point. In summary, if I made a fool of myself and making stupid arguments, then as per your point, the Magistrate is the dumbest ever been: past, present and future. You (and your fake GOD Tim W) did not answer my question: why was the infringement cancelled as if it was not issued at all? it is not on my record? (A Point for you as you don't understand, I answered that in other post, if you understood it, I made a good, strong and convincing argument to the Magistrate, based on that, the Magistrate cancelled as if it was not issued. Seriously I don't know how come you keep repeating and give the BS comments when the issue is nearly a year ago and I did not get the infringement. For God (Not Tim W) sake, get some brains before you write to my comments, I hate it when people are easily stupid and don't understand what they read. I don't insult anyone unless they insult me, I will not let it go, if you do that, what I mean letting people insulting you and letting it go, that is your problem. Did you read the whole thread comments? Really, did you? you got blind at my comment about the private road that I answered in a quick way and I was wrong to take the private road as an excuse. Did you go blind at this? Did you read my response to Rob Legat - SBPL? I am sure you got blind there too, right? I answered him in the method he wrote to me, in a respectful manner. He is a good lawyer, unlike Tim W who thinks he is a lawyer as he read couple of books and that is it. If you read the all the comments in this thread, his response was (not in the exact words) I will not get Section 10 and I will pay the fine. This is not issue and I am not angry at that all, this is a valid comment and his opinion, what pissed me off, is that he accused me of being above the law, and started talking down on me, this is why I pissed at him, he is not a GOD and you are not too. READ ALL T HE COMMENTS IN THE THREAD AND DON'T PICK AND CHOSE TO YOUR LIKING, YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. Also, read Tim W comments in other issues, he insults others, this is his approach. I also asked him and he did not answer, if he is practicing law, how come he is involved so much in this website? also, his responses are long,,,,, this takes time, when does he practice law? or is it done by remote control? I dealt with other lawyers, their time is full on....
For your information my request to the Magistrate was as follows (after my argument which was written): "I am seeking section 10 or as you see fit" and the Magistrate did not mention anything about not being able to get section 10 (not stating it is right or wrong because the Magistrate did not mention it) and after stating the reasons, the Magistrate cancelled the fine. I repeat that I went 3 times to court for traffic matters and in the the 3 matters were to my favor (my winning rate is 100%, what is yours or Tim W?) ,,,,, wow,,,, so I made a fool of myself the 3 times,,, and in the 3 times the Magistrates were dumb stupid people, right???? please, stop replying, I hate to keep proving you wrong. You don't understand what you read and you take things out of context!!! are you getting your training from Tim W?
Please explain to me why the 3 times I selected that I went to court and the final result was to my favor? I must be the luckiest man ever, it has nothing to do with being able to analyse the issue, understand the law and apply it and then put a strong and convincing argument. This did not happen, I went and made a fool of myself, right?

 

[sammy01]

Your original questions was "I like feed back on whether the Magistrate would consider the above and issue section 10 if possible." Read the first post.
and in the ramblings above you stated that nobody answered the questions. U'm again you're wrong. I did answer that exact question for you... Here have a read... I wrote:
" Section 10 good behaviour bond (I believe) can be granted by a magistrate for minor criminal matters... So low range drink driving does not incur a lost of demerit points. Drink driving is covered under criminal law. Crazy though it may seem, so a first time low range drink driver could get a section 10 bond, no fine, no loss of licence and no loss of demerit points..."

I got you an answer to the question you asked... A thank you? Nope. why? I'm guessing you got distracted by the ramblings of some other nutter suggesting the private property argument. Regardless, clearly you do not read (and understand) all of the comments on this thread - because if you did you would have understoon that NOPE a section 10 isn't something a judge can do in minor traffic infringments.... and you would have known that because I TOLD YA.

I then followed up, as did others to help you understand the private road thing ain't gonna float:

"Hey no worries... you came looking for help. Every punter here has said you're on a hiding to nothing. if you take it to court, I hope you prove us all wrong... but I know where I'd put my money if i was a betting man and sadly it is on the other horse. Let us know how you go....Best chance? Your exemplary driving record rather than the private road / low speed zone defence..."

So champ - I do read all the comments (well kinda - see your rambling up there are incomprehensible) But I think you said you don't insult people unless they insult you... NOPE on the other thread you told some bloke incorrect advice and told him to leave the country and 'go back to where you came from'. Which is about as racist as when racists say "I'm not racist but...". Infact your whole rant was insulting to a man with mental health issues. So go sit on the naughty chair and write out the word 'compassion' 50 times. Seriously mate, you comments to that bloke were well out of line and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

So you went to court, you didn't do the private property argument, which both myself and Tim advised would not work but you thought was a great idea and put you back on the road to salvation. Both of us suggested that the only thing that was gonna save you was your good driving record. We were right again and we were also right when we told you a section 10 bond isn't an option. The magistrate didn't give you a section 10 bond because they're not applicable in traffic matters. But I think I've mentioned this to you before. But I think I've mentioned this to you before. Yup wrote it twice to make you read it twice.

So I'm gonna take you up on something else you wrote in the ramblings above "If you read the all the comments in this thread, his response was (not in the exact words) I will not get Section 10 and I will pay the fine." NOPE NOT HIS EXACT WORDS AT ALL. In fact NOTHING like his words. His advice was, section 10, nope. Not applicable in a traffic matter. Good advice. Private property? nope wont work. Don't do it. Good advice. You did the time, now do the time. Good advice - after all respect for law is what makes for a good society. And finally you might get lucky if you've got a very good driving record. Again good advice, accurate and it is what got you offthe hook. Sad I'm having to write this twice. Said I'm having to write this twice. Yup did it again, you need it.

Almost finally - You wrote:
Please explain to me why the 3 times I selected that I went to court and the final result was to my favor? I dunno, I'm not god, you have given exactly zero information about the other 2 times and you want an answer. Christ - Oops I mean Tim - You wanna have a go at me for taking stuff out of context? when you want me to answer THAT question - With NO CONTEXT?

Mate - punters come here. They offer opinions and advice. A bit of thick skin is sometimes necessary - to that end I recommend you take a tea spoon of concrete in your coffee to toughen up. BUT the place isnt facebook or twitter nor is a public toilet on which to write crap. So please treat it and the punters on here with respect. Crap like saying I have a mental disability or your racist rant on the other post are not welcome here.

 

[Adam1user]

Your original questions was "I like feed back on whether the Magistrate would consider the above and issue section 10 if possible." Read the first post.
and in the ramblings above you stated that nobody answered the questions. U'm again you're wrong. I did answer that exact question for you... Here have a read... I wrote:
" Section 10 good behaviour bond (I believe) can be granted by a magistrate for minor criminal matters... So low range drink driving does not incur a lost of demerit points. Drink driving is covered under criminal law. Crazy though it may seem, so a first time low range drink driver could get a section 10 bond, no fine, no loss of licence and no loss of demerit points..."

I got you an answer to the question you asked... A thank you? Nope. why? I'm guessing you got distracted by the ramblings of some other nutter suggesting the private property argument. Regardless, clearly you do not read (and understand) all of the comments on this thread - because if you did you would have understoon that NOPE a section 10 isn't something a judge can do in minor traffic infringments.... and you would have known that because I TOLD YA.

I then followed up, as did others to help you understand the private road thing ain't gonna float:

"Hey no worries... you came looking for help. Every punter here has said you're on a hiding to nothing. if you take it to court, I hope you prove us all wrong... but I know where I'd put my money if i was a betting man and sadly it is on the other horse. Let us know how you go....Best chance? Your exemplary driving record rather than the private road / low speed zone defence..."

So champ - I do read all the comments (well kinda - see your rambling up there are incomprehensible) But I think you said you don't insult people unless they insult you... NOPE on the other thread you told some bloke incorrect advice and told him to leave the country and 'go back to where you came from'. Which is about as racist as when racists say "I'm not racist but...". Infact your whole rant was insulting to a man with mental health issues. So go sit on the naughty chair and write out the word 'compassion' 50 times. Seriously mate, you comments to that bloke were well out of line and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

So you went to court, you didn't do the private property argument, which both myself and Tim advised would not work but you thought was a great idea and put you back on the road to salvation. Both of us suggested that the only thing that was gonna save you was your good driving record. We were right again and we were also right when we told you a section 10 bond isn't an option. The magistrate didn't give you a section 10 bond because they're not applicable in traffic matters. But I think I've mentioned this to you before. But I think I've mentioned this to you before. Yup wrote it twice to make you read it twice.

So I'm gonna take you up on something else you wrote in the ramblings above "If you read the all the comments in this thread, his response was (not in the exact words) I will not get Section 10 and I will pay the fine." NOPE NOT HIS EXACT WORDS AT ALL. In fact NOTHING like his words. His advice was, section 10, nope. Not applicable in a traffic matter. Good advice. Private property? nope wont work. Don't do it. Good advice. You did the time, now do the time. Good advice - after all respect for law is what makes for a good society. And finally you might get lucky if you've got a very good driving record. Again good advice, accurate and it is what got you offthe hook. Sad I'm having to write this twice. Said I'm having to write this twice. Yup did it again, you need it.

Almost finally - You wrote:
Please explain to me why the 3 times I selected that I went to court and the final result was to my favor? I dunno, I'm not god, you have given exactly zero information about the other 2 times and you want an answer. Christ - Oops I mean Tim - You wanna have a go at me for taking stuff out of context? when you want me to answer THAT question - With NO CONTEXT?

Mate - punters come here. They offer opinions and advice. A bit of thick skin is sometimes necessary - to that end I recommend you take a tea spoon of concrete in your coffee to toughen up. BUT the place isnt facebook or twitter nor is a public toilet on which to write crap. So please treat it and the punters on here with respect. Crap like saying I have a mental disability or your racist rant on the other post are not welcome here.

I am not going to waste my time writing a long message. In summary, for my helmet issue: I gave all the facts and the basis of my argument, although mentioned not going to get section 10 but to pay the fine and move on with my life, then Tim W stated that I was above the law (in that meaning and others), while I did state I was wrong, and I did mention that I wrong in using the private road, clearly you still go blind to that? and come back in the same record,,,, like Tim W. If you can not understand what you read, that is your problem, not mine. I will not write more, I got better things to do in my time and no one is asking to respond to any of my comments. Better that way. If you don't listen, I will not listen, it goes both ways, I am right and you are wrong in any way you write it. I was not lucky, I went knowing that the court result will be to my favor and you are both are pissed at that, so let us leave it to that, you still picked parts of the comments and not all, so you are taking things out of context. I will not respond to any comments.

 

[Adam1user]

Your original questions was "I like feed back on whether the Magistrate would consider the above and issue section 10 if possible." Read the first post.
and in the ramblings above you stated that nobody answered the questions. U'm again you're wrong. I did answer that exact question for you... Here have a read... I wrote:
" Section 10 good behaviour bond (I believe) can be granted by a magistrate for minor criminal matters... So low range drink driving does not incur a lost of demerit points. Drink driving is covered under criminal law. Crazy though it may seem, so a first time low range drink driver could get a section 10 bond, no fine, no loss of licence and no loss of demerit points..."

I got you an answer to the question you asked... A thank you? Nope. why? I'm guessing you got distracted by the ramblings of some other nutter suggesting the private property argument. Regardless, clearly you do not read (and understand) all of the comments on this thread - because if you did you would have understoon that NOPE a section 10 isn't something a judge can do in minor traffic infringments.... and you would have known that because I TOLD YA.

I then followed up, as did others to help you understand the private road thing ain't gonna float:

"Hey no worries... you came looking for help. Every punter here has said you're on a hiding to nothing. if you take it to court, I hope you prove us all wrong... but I know where I'd put my money if i was a betting man and sadly it is on the other horse. Let us know how you go....Best chance? Your exemplary driving record rather than the private road / low speed zone defence..."

So champ - I do read all the comments (well kinda - see your rambling up there are incomprehensible) But I think you said you don't insult people unless they insult you... NOPE on the other thread you told some bloke incorrect advice and told him to leave the country and 'go back to where you came from'. Which is about as racist as when racists say "I'm not racist but...". Infact your whole rant was insulting to a man with mental health issues. So go sit on the naughty chair and write out the word 'compassion' 50 times. Seriously mate, you comments to that bloke were well out of line and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

So you went to court, you didn't do the private property argument, which both myself and Tim advised would not work but you thought was a great idea and put you back on the road to salvation. Both of us suggested that the only thing that was gonna save you was your good driving record. We were right again and we were also right when we told you a section 10 bond isn't an option. The magistrate didn't give you a section 10 bond because they're not applicable in traffic matters. But I think I've mentioned this to you before. But I think I've mentioned this to you before. Yup wrote it twice to make you read it twice.

So I'm gonna take you up on something else you wrote in the ramblings above "If you read the all the comments in this thread, his response was (not in the exact words) I will not get Section 10 and I will pay the fine." NOPE NOT HIS EXACT WORDS AT ALL. In fact NOTHING like his words. His advice was, section 10, nope. Not applicable in a traffic matter. Good advice. Private property? nope wont work. Don't do it. Good advice. You did the time, now do the time. Good advice - after all respect for law is what makes for a good society. And finally you might get lucky if you've got a very good driving record. Again good advice, accurate and it is what got you offthe hook. Sad I'm having to write this twice. Said I'm having to write this twice. Yup did it again, you need it.

Almost finally - You wrote:
Please explain to me why the 3 times I selected that I went to court and the final result was to my favor? I dunno, I'm not god, you have given exactly zero information about the other 2 times and you want an answer. Christ - Oops I mean Tim - You wanna have a go at me for taking stuff out of context? when you want me to answer THAT question - With NO CONTEXT?

Mate - punters come here. They offer opinions and advice. A bit of thick skin is sometimes necessary - to that end I recommend you take a tea spoon of concrete in your coffee to toughen up. BUT the place isnt facebook or twitter nor is a public toilet on which to write crap. So please treat it and the punters on here with respect. Crap like saying I have a mental disability or your racist rant on the other post are not welcome here.

I did not read my comments in the Helmet issue the last two days, but I remembered one point that I want to state (if you read all my comments you would have read it), I saw two different lawyers from legal aid and provided them with the same points that I mentioned in comments for this issue and both stated that most properly I will get section 10 and one stated if I did not, I should fight it. so how come both of you state there is no section 10 for my issue? I will find out for myself about this point, this is for my own benefit, just in case I needed for the future, and not because of you.
Sammy01 when you read the comments, read them all and follow the trend of conversation, you stuck on point which I did admit I was wrong (private road) and you keep raising it. so you have limited thinking. This is what I get from reading your responses. You also stated part of Tim W final result and did not comprehend what his total opinion which was completely wrong.
Other have mentioned to me I was wrong, but they did that in respectable manner, and I thanked them.
I am sure now you will keep saying I was lucky, seeing 2 different lawyers, analysing the issue and providing a strong convincing argument before going to court is not clever but it is just lucky..... wow!!!

 

[sammy01]

nope mate not stuck on the private road bit. That is just one example where Tim and myself gave you good advice for which in return you've been rude which is the point I'm trying to make you understand. Another bit was about the section 10 bonds... I'll get onto that later.

Now as for your criticism that Tim said you're above the law... Sure you admitted you were in the wrong.. BUT you followed it up with a list of lame excuses - read your first post. You were only going 300-400 metres? you were not going fast? you were not on a road? blah blah lame excuses. BUT there was ONE extenuating fact fact that you did mention and you got GOOD advice on and that was a good driving record. So when you read the comments in their entirety you come across as a spoilt brat looking for anything to get away with it. Seriously mate, that is how it comes across - all the more when you choose to ignore the nice folk who answered your original question and did so nicely. Let me prove it.

So since you've asked again and again. I'll answer again and again... Maybe you need to read my comments in their entirety because this has been explained to you previously.

"so how come both of you state there is no section 10 for my issue?" Good question, thanks for asking. Let me answer again and again.

The decision

Want to know what type of penalty the court can give you? Click on this page to find out.

www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au

section 10's are for criminal matters. For a section 10 to be applicable YOU need to be going to court for something that is covered under the crimes act. It doesn't apply - you were going to court over a traffic act. It is purely and simply an administrative thing. Section 10's are not applicable for traffic matters (unless they're at the extreme end - drink driving - hooning etc)

Here is another link to explain it.
Obtaining dismissal under Section 10 - Barclay Churchill | Sydney Defence Laywers | Sydney Family Lawyers Section 10 is an alternative to a CRIMINAL CONVICTION. You were not charged with a criminal offence. This is probably my 4th or 5th go at explainging this simple fact to you. Tell me again about who here has a mental disability?

Or as I put it way back when
"But I don't think a section 10 bond is applicable to traffic infringements."

And I'm right. Tell me again about stuck on private roads? tell me again about limited thinking. Tell me again about reading things in their entirety. Would you like me to use smaller words? section 10 is not available to a judge for traffic infringments.
But you chose to ignore my comment way back when...
BTW - section 10's are not applicable for traffic infringments. DO U UNDERSTAND this very simple fact?

But lets get back on task here. You've stated on the other thread that you're gonna mention this thread every time Tim says anything you disagree so you can chortle like an arrogant child because YOU won and in the meantime railroad other punters threads because your ego is more important than their questions... Well done champ.

But here is the thing champ. What Tim said about 'discounts' for making an early plea was right. Unlike your comments on the subject which were manifestly wrong. Your information was factually incorrect. Your sarcasm directed at a man with mental health issues was immoral and your racist and biggoted language was appalling. So feel free to mention this thread anytime you want. Just realise I'll be reminding you of some cold hard truths about your inability to comprehend morals and simple sentences. Section 10's don't apply in traffic matters. Yup wrote it again so that eventually you might understand.
Now go and apologise to that poor man on the other thread for your racist and biggotted language.

 

[Adam1user]

nope mate not stuck on the private road bit. That is just one example where Tim and myself gave you good advice for which in return you've been rude which is the point I'm trying to make you understand. Another bit was about the section 10 bonds... I'll get onto that later.

Now as for your criticism that Tim said you're above the law... Sure you admitted you were in the wrong.. BUT you followed it up with a list of lame excuses - read your first post. You were only going 300-400 metres? you were not going fast? you were not on a road? blah blah lame excuses. BUT there was ONE extenuating fact fact that you did mention and you got GOOD advice on and that was a good driving record. So when you read the comments in their entirety you come across as a spoilt brat looking for anything to get away with it. Seriously mate, that is how it comes across - all the more when you choose to ignore the nice folk who answered your original question and did so nicely. Let me prove it.

So since you've asked again and again. I'll answer again and again... Maybe you need to read my comments in their entirety because this has been explained to you previously.

"so how come both of you state there is no section 10 for my issue?" Good question, thanks for asking. Let me answer again and again.

The decision

Want to know what type of penalty the court can give you? Click on this page to find out.

www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au

section 10's are for criminal matters. For a section 10 to be applicable YOU need to be going to court for something that is covered under the crimes act. It doesn't apply - you were going to court over a traffic act. It is purely and simply an administrative thing. Section 10's are not applicable for traffic matters (unless they're at the extreme end - drink driving - hooning etc)

Here is another link to explain it.
Obtaining dismissal under Section 10 - Barclay Churchill | Sydney Defence Laywers | Sydney Family Lawyers Section 10 is an alternative to a CRIMINAL CONVICTION. You were not charged with a criminal offence. This is probably my 4th or 5th go at explainging this simple fact to you. Tell me again about who here has a mental disability?

Or as I put it way back when
"But I don't think a section 10 bond is applicable to traffic infringements."

And I'm right. Tell me again about stuck on private roads? tell me again about limited thinking. Tell me again about reading things in their entirety. Would you like me to use smaller words? section 10 is not available to a judge for traffic infringments.
But you chose to ignore my comment way back when...
BTW - section 10's are not applicable for traffic infringments. DO U UNDERSTAND this very simple fact?

But lets get back on task here. You've stated on the other thread that you're gonna mention this thread every time Tim says anything you disagree so you can chortle like an arrogant child because YOU won and in the meantime railroad other punters threads because your ego is more important than their questions... Well done champ.

But here is the thing champ. What Tim said about 'discounts' for making an early plea was right. Unlike your comments on the subject which were manifestly wrong. Your information was factually incorrect. Your sarcasm directed at a man with mental health issues was immoral and your racist and biggoted language was appalling. So feel free to mention this thread anytime you want. Just realise I'll be reminding you of some cold hard truths about your inability to comprehend morals and simple sentences. Section 10's don't apply in traffic matters. Yup wrote it again so that eventually you might understand.
Now go and apologise to that poor man on the other thread for your racist and biggotted language.

I said that I will not respond so this will be my last comment and please don't reply with your lame excuses. Sorry I am not convinced and you are wasting my time. Your still state that I wrote lame excuses.... (I read first lines to lame excuses and stopped) then the Magistrate was a dumb enough to accept those lame excuses as you and your GOD did think it is lame.... I did not pay the fine, the Magistrate canceled it as if it was not issued, why you can not understand that you are wrong, this happened a year back, and I am over it, you are still trying to explain that you are right and Tim W (your GOD) is right. You are both WORNG. I have the outcome, the outcome is that the Magistrate cancelled the infringement as if it was not issued, it is not on my record..... how can you explain the opposite and claim it is lame excuses.... Please go get a brain.... I don't want to waste my time with something that I explained to you and this is the fifth time: I analysed the issue, I understood the law relating to it, I applied the law relating to it, I obtained advice before going to court (asking two lawyers), I prepared a strong and convincing argument (lame to you) and I chose to go to court knowing the outcome will be to my favor. The end result is that the Magistrate read my argument, was convinced with my "lame excuses" and repeated some of them before giving the judgement that the infringement is cancelled. I don't know if you understand this, maybe they should put the ability to draw pictures here.....

 

[sammy01]

You asked why a section 10 wasn't a possibility.
The answer.
Section 10 criminal law. You fronted a judge on a traffic matter. That is all I'm trying to get you to understand. Too difficult for you?

oh and your comments on the other tread were terrible. I wish you well.

 

[Atticus]

@Adam1user .... At the risk of regretting asking, but since I haven't seen an actual explanation anywhere ..... What was the incredible defence to this charge you brought to court that made the magistrate dismiss it ..

 

[Adam1user]

You asked why a section 10 wasn't a possibility.
The answer.
Section 10 criminal law. You fronted a judge on a traffic matter. That is all I'm trying to get you to understand. Too difficult for you?

oh and your comments on the other tread were terrible. I wish you well.

Mate, also, one point that I like to mention, is that when someone is addressing other person or people (written or verbal), that person needs to know the target people and amend their vocabulary to suit the target audience to ensure that the point is passed on or conveyed. First, English is my second language (not that it is a weakness), secondly, I became friends with the mechanics who help me with my scooter. I am a chartered accountant by profession, so I assisted couple of them with their taxes, they have not filed for several years, when they came to me with the letters from the ATO, the don't know what Notice of Assessment is ,or Tax Return is, etc..., so when I am talking to them I used examples to clarify what they are, although they have not completed university degrees, just trade, and they are not stupid, I did not give the Tax definition of the above forms, to look like a GOD, I just made the explanation in simple English so they can understand what is the objective of each document. Going back to Tim W and you, You keep stating the law and through in the legal terminology,,, that can cause some confusion in the communication, this is not a problem as the other person (Me in this case, I can ask questions and that is what I do when I don't understand an issue), but Tim W and yourself, just made yourselves as GODs, and concentrating on one word and forgetting the other,,,, at the end, I am right, I did not get the infringement and the Magistrate cancelled it as it it was not issued. As mentioned to you, I went to court 3 times, and the result for the 3 times were to my favor, so I have a winning rate of 100%, and that is based on my decisions, other fines I paid directly and did not bother even with the review process, I guess I am a lucky man...... I hate it when people make themselves as GODs, they are not. That is it. No need to respond, good luck to you! by the way what is your winning rate? and what is Tim W's?

 

[sammy01]

Nope I'm done. Your combative approach is your problem not mine.

Your rudness to that poor man on the other thread is appalling.