Suppression of dissent occurs when an individual or group which is more powerful than another tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party, rather than engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party’s arguments or viewpoint. Hitler’s Third Reich is a classical example.
Freedom of speech is not recognised on greenockmorton.org by Trust toady Tontastic David Bell and his two Trust committee member moderators.
Freedom of speech, even for TRUST MEMBERS was not recognised on the G.M.S.T. forum by Herr Gillter. The lying Trust Chairman bean counter has clearly taken over where Gillter left off.
Indeed the lying Trust Chairman bean counter consistently refuses to answer legitimate questions from a TRUST MEMBER because – without an iota of proof – he claims that that member has funded Mr.Gallacher.
Mr. Gallacher’s comments about his funding are highlighted below.
Jim Gallacher’s statement is again published below and will continue to be published daily – as a source of reference – until it is re-instated elsewhere.
Today, 10:34 PM
I’ve held my tongue on this for a long time on the advice of my lawyer, but last Monday’s court decision has changed things. The Trust say they will NEVER allow the Stars case to be decided by a sheriff and they will apply to have it dismissed if they ever have to, so I’m now free to say some things I wish I could have said long ago.
This is the ABSOLUTE truth and I would have said the same under oath in court if the Trust had not stopped me getting a fair hearing after all of their stuff about an ‘open and shut’ case.
If anybody wants to argue I can’t stop them but I’m begging the decent posters to ignore the cowards who post stuff behind aliases. We have a very good idea who they are anyway, and it’s a disgrace that the Mods have allowed some of the stuff – especially private E-Mails being posted.
My first point knocks out the Trust’s argument completely. My Trustee is in control of my estate until the end of my Trust Deed, BUT he wrote to the Trust saying he has no interest in the court case. He also said that he’d ‘look at their claim no matter what a sheriff decided’, and that ‘Nick Robinson knows the Trust’s best chance of getting any money is for the case to go ahead’. He told me that ‘it’s in the interests of the creditors as a whole for the case to be heard’. He agrees with my solicitors that I AM ENTITLED TO DEFEND THE ACTION.
The case should have been recalled last Monday, Sheriff Herald did NOT agree with the Trust’s argument, and I’ll explain that later.
My Trust Deed.
I’m very sorry now that I didn’t discuss the matter as the Trust Accountant has used it as a loophole to get out of my case being heard.
Just to set the record straight I have apologised to my independent financial backer who has nothing to do with Morton and has NEVER posted on this board and I’ve also tried to set things straight with others who have supported me. Ernie Newall and I worked together from the very start to try to get the truth out into the open, and in no way has he used me to further any agenda as has been suggested by the usual suspects.
I’d also like to thank my backer tremendously. As I already said he has no Morton connections and he only got involved when he heard I was being stitched up. He’s only interested in getting the truth exposed and the money’s a drop in the ocean to him, but without his help I couldn’t have fought against the Trust bullies. He even came up with £3,500 to guarantee the Trust’s award and costs if they had won. They knocked that back. WHY?
Once the other E-Mails are put in to context it clarifies the situation. One states that if I had the money, at that time it was about £5000, I’d pay it to The Trust in order to stop police involvement then we could all sit round a table and find out where the issues were and they could re-pay me the money once it was resolved.
It was a stupid choice of words under enormous pressure as the full E-Mails show. In fact my lawyer used the terms ‘intimidation, attempted extortion, and blackmail’. I made an appointment with the Trust Treasurer to try and go through the figures but he cancelled at the very last minute, after Stuart Duncan was informed a meeting had been arranged between us, no other date was apparently suitable before they went to the police.
TWICE in the E-Mails I asked for details of the Trust’s account to pay in my cash surplus of about £250 and TWICE Mr. Duncan knocked that back. He just said that our next communication would be with the police. I can’t understand how Mr. Robinson can possibly claim that was a ‘debt’ when it was held in safe keeping by my lawyer until he saw fit to pay it over. He also claims that surplus alcohol stock I had in my flat was a ‘debt’. Well the truth is that the Trust agreed to uplift it LONG before I signed my Trust Deed and repeatedly failed to do so and I ended up having to deliver it to them on my lawyer’s advice! All of this is recorded.
Sean Donnelly also took surplus alcohol home and claimed on this message board that it was sold and money handed to the Trust, but there is no record in Mr. Robinson’s accounts. WHY?
The original ‘deficit’.
The Trust told the Police I owed them almost £5,000 but the actual figure I had worked out as not accounted for (and nothing to do with me) was only £1445 and the Police agreed with my figures.
What is now known, and CAN’T be disputed is this:-
In Mr. Robinson’s final accounts (the last of six I believe) he stated that Sean Donnelly put £210 of ticket money – all in five pound notes – into the ‘bucket’ at the end of the evening. That is something my lawyer would have disputed in court. It just doesn’t add up any more than Stuart Duncan’s claim that he handed me £600, a claim which he first officially made to my lawyer fully SEVEN months after the event! There was no MENTION of it in the figures the police were given by the Trust. What right had Mr. Robinson to accept Stuart Duncan’s version as the gospel truth when it was in complete contrast to mine? He was supposed to be looking at the figures independently. All of that and MUCH more would have come out in court.
£25 was eventually deducted from the alleged ‘deficit’ when it turned out that Sean Donnelly had not paid for his own ticket!!
I was credited with only £55 for bar losses (spillage, breakages, monetary mistakes etc) against the ‘deficit’. My lawyer argues that it was likely to have been a lot more, especially as there was no ‘Cellar Boy’ – a device used in pubs to reduce spillage.
My meeting with the Trust Committee.
Mr. Robinson ‘took over’ from the very beginning. He said that the meeting was ‘only about my figures’ and he repeatedly refused to discuss Sean Donnelly’s. He demanded I ‘make him and offer’ which I refused. He and Chris McCorkindale then promised my lawyer that they would give him the report of the sub-committee of three looking into Sean Donnelly’s apparent deficit. That sub- committee was made up of Donnelly himself, McCorkindale, and Robinson. They never produced the promised report. WHY?
Mr. Robinson said ‘he did not ascribe all of the losses of the evening’ to me, and promised my lawyer he’d also pursue the other party. That has never been done. WHY?
Mr. Robinson also stated to my lawyer that a sum of £250 missing from Sean Donnelly’s figures was still under query when he knew full well that it had been accounted for. He had checked weeks before with John Gisbey.
Last Monday’s Court hearing.
When my lawyer put it to Sheriff Herald that I AM entitled to defend the action – as my Trustee agrees – he didn’t dispute that.
It was only when the Trust’s lawyer started to talk about a witness list of 15 and court time and expense that the sheriff stopped the action being recalled. The joke is that, TEN of the witnesses are Trust witnesses and I only have FIVE including myself, although my lawyer has signed affidavits from a Police Officer with 30 years’ experience, and several others who are respected in their chosen professions.
I was forced to call those witnesses because of false allegations made in the Trust’s eleven signed statements, (not legal affidavits) they lodged with the court thirteen months ago, and my lawyer intended to show that some of those were deliberate attempts at perjury.
The Sheriff DID NOT AGREE WITH THE TRUST’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, and Nick Robinson’s statement is completely misleading.
Sheriff Herald decided to save court time and costs by keeping the sist in place. It was an easy option in what’s after all only a Small Claim. He never at any point said I couldn’t defend the action. Why would he keep it sisted if it wasn’t legal for it to be heard eventually? He would just have kicked it out last Monday.
The Trust has just bought time, and in doing that have cheated my true creditors and the sad thing is there’s nothing my Trustee can do and Mr. Robinson knows that full well. They have rejected a £3,500 bond guaranteeing their award and costs if they win. They know they’ll get buttons or more likely nothing at all from the Trustee even if he does accept their claim. What’s happened to their ‘open and shut case’? Why are they now terrified to let a sheriff decide who was right and wrong?
No doubt they will cite overall cost as the issue. Well I put it to them WHY did you inform the Trust Members at the SGM and AGM that costs would be under £1000.
When the Trust Deed is over the sist WILL be recalled. My lawyer says that if the Trust then applies to have its own case dismissed I’m likely to get substantial costs.
A final point.
This will be my solitary post on this matter.
Yours In Truth