Louis Luyt - final verdict

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by Ferdi Greyli » Mon, 13 Sep 1999 04:00:00


The court case that Louis Luyt started to stop a judicial inquiery
into his running of the SA Rugby Football Union is over.

SA's constitutional court has given it's verdict in the final apeal.
Luyt loses all applications and gets crapped on by the court for the
way he handled things.

 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by lou » Wed, 15 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> The court case that Louis Luyt started to stop a judicial inquiery
> into his running of the SA Rugby Football Union is over.

> SA's constitutional court has given it's verdict in the final apeal.
> Luyt loses all applications and gets crapped on by the court for the
> way he handled things.

Congratulations Ferdi on your ANC's victory in the court case. I am glad
that we now all know that the South African Statepresident is above the
law. Hopefully President M'Beki will not allow his lieutenants to take
over his functions.

I trust that you are enjoying the close partnership that now exists
between Big Louis and your ANC?

 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by an.. » Wed, 15 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> > The court case that Louis Luyt started to stop a judicial inquiery
> > into his running of the SA Rugby Football Union is over.

> > SA's constitutional court has given it's verdict in the final apeal.
> > Luyt loses all applications and gets crapped on by the court for the
> > way he handled things.

Let me see if I understood this right?  The court craps on Louis Luyt for
the way he handled things?  By implication, the Constitutional Court
therefore also crapped on the SA Supreme Court.  Only in SA.

 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by Ferdi Greyli » Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:00:00



<<>> The court case that Louis Luyt started to stop a judicial
inquiery

Quote:
>> into his running of the SA Rugby Football Union is over.

>> SA's constitutional court has given it's verdict in the final apeal.
>> Luyt loses all applications and gets crapped on by the court for the
>> way he handled things.

>Congratulations Ferdi on your ANC's victory in the court case. I am glad
>that we now all know that the South African Statepresident is above the
>law. Hopefully President M'Beki will not allow his lieutenants to take
>over his functions.>>>

Oooo... we are pissed off.....

But also stupid.
1. It was a full bench of the constitutional court.

( I seem to remember here somebody, was he called Lou? who when the
case was proceeding in the lower courts, was very impressed with the
judiciary's independence and frowned heavily on people who pointed out
the judge's right wing past...)

2. The judgement specifically says the president is NOT above the law.
Makes a huge point of that. But it also says that Louis Luyt had no
case under the law and that his legal team was not very competent. It
also then takes the lower court judgement and tears it apart on legal
principle. Just about all of it.

<<I trust that you are enjoying the close partnership that now exists

Quote:
>between Big Louis and your ANC? >>

What close partnership Lou? He merged his party with the UBM, who is
an opponent of the ANC. Did it pass you by, Lou?

See, now you can support him again......

So Lou: You were wrong heh?
Remember I told you not to celebrate as the court case was not over
yet?

 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by Ferdi Greyli » Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:


>> > The court case that Louis Luyt started to stop a judicial inquiery
>> > into his running of the SA Rugby Football Union is over.

>> > SA's constitutional court has given it's verdict in the final apeal.
>> > Luyt loses all applications and gets crapped on by the court for the
>> > way he handled things.

>Let me see if I understood this right?  The court craps on Louis Luyt for
>the way he handled things?  By implication, the Constitutional Court
>therefore also crapped on the SA Supreme Court.  Only in SA.>>

No Andre. You are here very deeply entangled in a fallacy that you are
clever enough to see if you stand a bit back from it.

The constitutional court - on appeal - said:

1. Luyt loses his application on legal grounds.

2.. The lower court made an erroneous judgement.

Very normal in all countries with decent legal systems.

It is called a system of appeal to higher courts.

It has for ages been a backbone of good legal systems. I am surprised
that you did not know about it.

If we did not have it, then of what use will higher courts be?

 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by lou » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> <<>> The court case that Louis Luyt started to stop a judicial
> inquiery
> >> into his running of the SA Rugby Football Union is over.

> >> SA's constitutional court has given it's verdict in the final apeal.
> >> Luyt loses all applications and gets crapped on by the court for the
> >> way he handled things.

> >Congratulations Ferdi on your ANC's victory in the court case. I am glad
> >that we now all know that the South African Statepresident is above the
> >law. Hopefully President M'Beki will not allow his lieutenants to take
> >over his functions.>>>

> Oooo... we are pissed off.....

Ooo Ferdi reads so much in so few words ... and then does a big
explanation which was not asked for. So easy to pull your chain Ferdi
:)  

Quote:

> But also stupid.
> 1. It was a full bench of the constitutional court.

Did I say anything else?

Quote:

> ( I seem to remember here somebody, was he called Lou? who when the
> case was proceeding in the lower courts, was very impressed with the
> judiciary's independence and frowned heavily on people who pointed out
> the judge's right wing past...)

So are you now saying here that this judge is a right winger? And he was
not fair in his judgement? That he puposefully discriminated against the
defendants in this case on racial grounds? That he took SARFU's side
against his beter judgement (if you'll pardon the pun)? And you call me
stupid? Hoo boy!

Quote:

> 2. The judgement specifically says the president is NOT above the law.
> Makes a huge point of that. But it also says that Louis Luyt had no
> case under the law and that his legal team was not very competent. It
> also then takes the lower court judgement and tears it apart on legal
> principle. Just about all of it.
 .

> <<I trust that you are enjoying the close partnership that now exists
> >between Big Louis and your ANC? >>

> What close partnership Lou? He merged his party with the UBM, who is
> an opponent of the ANC. Did it pass you by, Lou?

Was LL not elected to a JSC standing commitee in parliament ahead of
more experienced DP candidates by and ANC dominated caucus? Where do you
get your information from? Oh yes and can you give me a reference as to
what you mean by 'merge of parties'?  We obviously have different ideas
as to what it means.

Quote:

> See, now you can support him again......'

Selective memory again eh Ferdi???

Quote:

> So Lou: You were wrong heh?
> Remember I told you not to celebrate as the court case was not over
> yet?

And did I not congratulate you on your win Ferdi? Nothing like a sore
winner! You remind me of the NZ and OZ supporters in this newsgroup.
Anyway congratulations again on you and the ANC's victory.
 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by lou » Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> >> > The court case that Louis Luyt started to stop a judicial inquiery
> >> > into his running of the SA Rugby Football Union is over.

> >> > SA's constitutional court has given it's verdict in the final apeal.
> >> > Luyt loses all applications and gets crapped on by the court for the
> >> > way he handled things.

> >Let me see if I understood this right?  The court craps on Louis Luyt for
> >the way he handled things?  By implication, the Constitutional Court
> >therefore also crapped on the SA Supreme Court.  Only in SA.>>

> No Andre. You are here very deeply entangled in a fallacy that you are
> clever enough to see if you stand a bit back from it.

Now play nice Ferdi ...

Quote:
> 2.. The lower court made an erroneous judgement.

... because the acting judge is a right winger?
 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by Ferdi Greyli » Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:00:00



<<>> 2.. The lower court made an erroneous judgement.

Quote:

>... because the acting judge is a right winger?>>>

No because he was a shit judge.
 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by Ferdi Greyli » Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:00:00



<<>> ( I seem to remember here somebody, was he called Lou? who when
the

Quote:
>> case was proceeding in the lower courts, was very impressed with the
>> judiciary's independence and frowned heavily on people who pointed out
>> the judge's right wing past...)

>So are you now saying here that this judge is a right winger? And he was
>not fair in his judgement? That he puposefully discriminated against the
>defendants in this case on racial grounds? That he took SARFU's side
>against his beter judgement (if you'll pardon the pun)? And you call me
>stupid? Hoo boy! >>

This is such a dumb deduction to make from what I said that it is
obviously not worthwhle taking this any further.
 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by lou » Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> <<>> ( I seem to remember here somebody, was he called Lou? who when
> the
> >> case was proceeding in the lower courts, was very impressed with the
> >> judiciary's independence and frowned heavily on people who pointed out
> >> the judge's right wing past...)

> >So are you now saying here that this judge is a right winger? And he was
> >not fair in his judgement? That he puposefully discriminated against the
> >defendants in this case on racial grounds? That he took SARFU's side
> >against his beter judgement (if you'll pardon the pun)? And you call me
> >stupid? Hoo boy! >>

> This is such a dumb deduction to make from what I said that it is
> obviously not worthwhle taking this any further.

Like I said - and you call me stupid? Read your creatine deductions as
an example.
 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by lou » Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> <<>> 2.. The lower court made an erroneous judgement.

> >... because the acting judge is a right winger?>>>

> No because he was a shit judge.

And you call me stupid ...
 
 
 

Louis Luyt - final verdict

Post by lou » Fri, 01 Oct 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> <<2.. The lower court made an erroneous judgement.

> >> >... because the acting judge is a right winger?>>>

> >> No because he was a shit judge.

> >And you call me stupid ...>>

> Yes you are stupid.

> You don't seem to be able to grasp what is means when a full bench of
> the highest court of appeal slams a lower court's judgment the way
> they slammed this one.

And you call an acting judge a right winger in a public forum and do not
understand English  ... I rest my case your honour.

Very nice selective snipping - but then what else should I expect from
you!