Initial e-toll notice seen as misleading

[Bundu]

He is a senior respected advocate, and his appointment is to represent SANRAL's interests. If you appointed your lawyer, you would want him to represent your interests, regardless of whether those interests are right or wrong.

just sad to think that we are paying for him to screw us - and some of us are also paying OUTA, to protect us

 

[IzZzy]

Can't multi-quote on this POS BB, but whilst the facts are the facts, its about (1) proving them; and (2) what inferences can be drawn from the proven facts.

Obviously in any court case there are competing views on the inferences, and challenges as to whether certain facts are admissible etc, and, of course, the Judge must take a view at the end.

Each party is freely entitled to be heard, and raise their own arguments.

Not sure how ethics comes into play here but you seem to suggest that popular opinion should trump an individual's right to legal representation. If this were so, we would be a banana republic.

If he truly doesn't believe in SANRAL's position, they would have instructed him to proceed nonetheless - at their risk. Watch out for comments like "I am instructed by my client that...".

 

[DJ...]

just sad to think that we are paying for him to screw us - and some of us are also paying OUTA, to protect us

And they're paying with our tax money too. We're funding both sides of the argument and unfortunately for those opposed, the vast majority of the funds are going Sanral's way...

 

[chrisc]

Walked passed the e-toll kiosk in Killarney mall yesterday, the 3 people in there were busy busy busy at their computers. There were no customers.

Solitaire, Angry Birds and reading MyBB?

 

[LazyLion]

He is a senior respected advocate, and his appointment is to represent SANRAL's interests. If you appointed your lawyer, you would want him to represent your interests, regardless of whether those interests are right or wrong.

There used to be an ethical code and if a lawyer found out that his client was lying or misrepresenting facts he would recuse himself.
It was only the scumbag lawyers that would actually go ahead and represent a client that they blatantly knew to be in the wrong.
I guess money talks louder than ethics for those bottom feeders.

 

[LazyLion]

Not sure how ethics comes into play here but you seem to suggest that popular opinion should trump an individual's right to legal representation. If this were so, we would be a banana republic.

ethics = telling the truth.
Unterhalter = "Public knew the costs from the start"
FACT = the costs of the tolling were only revealed after the World Cup.

I guess you must be in the same class of lawyer as this guy... which is why you are finding it difficult to deal with the truth.

 

[Tns]

all this e-crap was only fully revealed after the soccer, will not be e-tagged

 

[Bundu]

ethics = telling the truth.
Unterhalter = "Public knew the costs from the start"
FACT = the costs of the tolling were only revealed after the World Cup.

I guess you must be in the same class of lawyer as this guy... which is why you are finding it difficult to deal with the truth.

well let's hope the judge knows the truth and penalizes the scammers