PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[abaddon]

Pretty much - yes. It was not overturned. It was vacated because I missed the filing deadline.

You missed the deadline, but that is everyone elses fault. Not buying it.

The only way they could win. And they made me sick by turning on the tower illegally.

No evidence presented. You have been given a simple protocol to follow and refuse to follow it

I have enough evidence of what they did and why to win a court case if I so wished. I just may try. It is also criminal. I will be laying police charges.

You could have presented such evidence in court, if you had it. Yet the court was not convinced.

The interdict was on health grounds. Not only was I told that I could never win such an application, but I then found that no Advocate would take the case because it would be "bad for business". So that should tell you how good my legal skills are. I had other lawyers who are involved in such cases look at my application and tell me how good it was. In another matter in 2008 I had a judge tell me that he wished lawyers could present their case as well as I had done.

Big sack of anecdotes with no corroboration beyond your say so.

It might require the Court's permission to continue because certain time limits may have expired and need condonation. I would also have to apply to have an order that the matter was in the public interest and all parties should bear their own costs. To avoid the SLAPP tactics.

Sucks for you, since you have already informed us that you are incapable of meeting deadlines.

Otherwise they will use the Stalingrad defense which ex-President Jacob Zuma has been using for decades using State money (and an illegal bank loan from VBS - Venda Building Society - which collapsed after massive fraud so Zuma does not have to repay them) to fund the huge legal bills.

This has exactly nothing to do with your claimed sensitivity to EMF. Are you now claiming that Zuma and his nefarious financial transactions are a cause of your claimed EMF sensitivity? No? then take it to the politics section. It has no place here

 

[Pixel42]

You can count. It may be about 6 months because I have a long term strategy and I want the test done right.

Six months is reasonable for setting up a formal, witnessed, test. But before you go to all that the trouble, you need to do an informal, unwitnessed, dry run, to ensure you're not barking up the wrong tree. You could do that in a few days. My count is for that dry run, which is what you agreed to do, and will stop when you do it. Depending on the result, I may start a new one for the formal, witnessed, test.

The posts here have convinced me I gain nothing by posting on this forum.

You could gain a great deal. Refusing to learn what others are willing to teach is your choice.

BTW. I am accused of psychosomatic pain and other harm. If that was the case then I would not have sat next to the modem for 15 minutes wondering why I felt no bad effect. But once the modem went to high power it was only 5 minutes.

Your use of the word 'accused' here is inappropriate and revealing.

You don't currently know what's causing your symptoms, it might be psychosomatic, it might be almost anything. A single, uncontrolled, observation like this tells you almost nothing.

Note:
You mistake a stated intention for a promise. How often people do this. I tell them what I plan to do and when circumstances change I get accused of breaking a promise.

I read what you said as a commitment, if I misinterpreted you I apologise. I can only say in my defence that I would certainly have treated it as a commitment if I had said it.

More importantly, nothing has changed. You are still making a claim which can be easily tested, but instead of testing it you are making excuses and delaying.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Oh, just another thought.

JU. Again your ignorance of the law is showing. An interdict is an application. Applications are determined on the papers submitted. Oral argument in a hearing is only in case the judge misunderstood a bad submission. No oral evidence is accepted except under exceptional circumstances - and often that requires a stand-down for preparation, and the scope is very limited to an important fact.

The judge confirmed to me that he had read ALL the papers, including the ones emailed to him the day before by Telkom, and also my answer to Telkom I emailed the night before. I had a right to se him in his chambers to confirm that. The judge allowed those papers despite the late submission even with 4 weeks that they had. Telkom should have been penalized with a hefty costs order against them.

Bottom line. He did his job. There was no bias, unlike the the judge who went against the rules and precedence in vacating my interdict. THAT judge was clearly forum-shopped and pressured by the establishment who probably wrote his judgement for him.

 

[Mojo]

PartSkeptic, any chance that you could reply to this?

You say that you “want to buy or hire more instrumentation before [you] go ahead” with the test.

Why do you need more instrumentation? It’s a really simple test: someone turns the modem on or off according to a coin toss, and you decide which it is. No “instrumentation” required.

In your suggested protocol you have said that as part of the test you will “test the emf in the lounge and in the bedroom where my head will be”, and will “measure the radiation with the Gigahertz HF35C meter. RMS and PEAK in 4 directions. From the wall, from 45 degrees from the wall in the up, left and right.”

Why is this necessary?

 

[Mojo]

Oh, just another thought.

JU. Again your ignorance of the law is showing. An interdict is an application.

No it isn’t; it’s an order from a court instructing someone to refrain from doing something.

 

[EvilBiker]

To CY, EB and JU.

Your extreme ignorance about how the law is supposed to work, how it does work in practice, and how often it is corrupted and subverted, is quite obvious to me.

It shows how little you know because nearly every statement made by you guys is wrong, even with legal input.

<snip>

I may write a small book teaching people (and many lawyers) the tricks of the trade. The first case I had when I was 24 years old was my divorce. God helped me by having a work colleague tell me how my opposing lawyer won his cases. He had dirt on most lawyers and judges. If he could not win the case, he had no problem throwing his own client "under the bus" - probably for a "fee".

I find it hilarious that you assume that just because you've been involved in a couple of court cases, you assume that you know more than anybody on how the law works.

I've been involved in numerous court cases, both represented and unrepresented - two divorces and two personal injury cases, a community case as community representative, as well as cases where I've acted as technical expert (RF expert, Quality expert).

Oh, and I did it without having to dig up "dirt" on my opponents. I'm amazed at your gods scruples. Should I write a small book too?

ETA: I would not consider myself an expert at law: I'm not a lawyer, I'm an engineer, but I know how the system works.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

To CY, EB and JU.

Your extreme ignorance about how the law is supposed to work, how it does work in practice, and how often it is corrupted and subverted, is quite obvious to me.

It shows how little you know because nearly every statement made by you guys is wrong, even with legal input.

That is in addition to blatantly false statements.
Let me take an easy one.

CY says : "Dude, it's literally hundreds of pages"

My application was 153 pages.
Pages 20 to 34 deal with my health and harm.
The science study annexures are pages 97 to 146.

How do you justify your comment?

I justify my comment from the documents you linked to.
Your presentation of the supposed medical evidence for your claim begins on Page 89, and continues almost to the end of the document, at Page 493. There are a few pages of other materials, but the vast bulk of it is you bombarding the court with quackery and anecdote.
At least 400 pages, then. My comment seems justified to me.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

When I was in the USA I learned (with God' help) that the way the system works is that the secretaries to the judge do the grunt work. They summarize for the judge. They contact the lawyers to help with the summary if the lawyers have not already done so, and get input of a thorny issue. I visited the judges office and spoke to the secretary to "resolve a minor issue". That gave me a chance to influence them.

You are now openly admitting you attempted to subvert the course of justice.

In this case the judge saw I did not have a robe on. "Are you the engineer?" he asked me. "Where are your opponents". I said they were not there yet. He said that I could leave his chambers - he was going to order the tower shut down. The judge clearly met with the opposing parties in his office because they knew what was coming. He gave them ample opportunity at the hearing to try to change his mind and they could not.

Earlier, you said this had happened before the hearing, not after. Which was it? If this was after, why did the judge not recognise you? Could you clarify this?
Also, is it usual in South African law for the judge to announce his judgement in private, and with only one of the two parties present?

I may write a small book teaching people (and many lawyers) the tricks of the trade. The first case I had when I was 24 years old was my divorce. God helped me by having a work colleague tell me how my opposing lawyer won his cases. He had dirt on most lawyers and judges. If he could not win the case, he had no problem throwing his own client "under the bus" - probably for a "fee".

So you're OK with attempting to influence the judge's secretaries, and with a judge agreeing before the hearing that you were going to win, but you draw the line at actual blackmail.
Good to know.

I got a big corporate lawyer who mis-advised me so as to boost the fees for both lawyers. I had him on tape so he could not deny it. I got a ridiculously small bill because I was going to the Attorney General. I went to 6 lawyers who declined to take the case once they knew I knew the game. I asked the last lawyer to advise me "off the record". He told me how I could win but I had to do it myself to pull it off. The bad lawyer dropped the matter and gave it to a young inexperienced lawyer. I enjoyed not only beating him but aggravating him as I pretended to be "dumb".

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Yet more irrelevant- and highly suspect- anecdotes.

I notice that, rather conveniently, you have omitted to show where in the endless reams of court documents we might find the evidence of perjury, actual court decision, and the admissions by the TelKom representatives that your actions might destroy their industry.
How about it?

 

[JayUtah]

JU. Again your ignorance of the law is showing.

I expected that you would respond, as usual, by calling everyone else ignorant. It's all you have. It wore thin a long time ago.

THAT judge was clearly forum-shopped and pressured by the establishment who probably wrote his judgement for him.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

JU says: "You had an ex parte conference wherein the judge revealed his prejudice. This is turning into a bad TV legal drama."

Ex Parte. You are not using the legal term properly.

Of course I am. A communication with the judge regarding the merits of a matter under his jurisdiction outside the presence of all parties to it is ex parte. Routine communication simply to ascertain the progress of the case is not ex parte. Did you discuss the merits of your case?

The judge clearly met with the opposing parties in his office because they knew what was coming.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Why are you guys all trying to discredit my ability and my knowledge and my experience?

No, that's not the right question. Why are you constantly -- and I mean constantly -- trying to prove that you are so much smarter and more competent than everyone else, including people you barely know? You are narcissistic to a fault in your arguments. No matter what the subject is, you spin anecdote after anecdote to "prove" you're the best around. And in doing so, you avoid the specific questions and issues raised in people's rebuttals.

 

[JayUtah]

I notice that, rather conveniently, you have omitted to show where in the endless reams of court documents we might find the evidence of perjury, actual court decision, and the admissions by the TelKom representatives that your actions might destroy their industry.

That's what I was hoping to have received -- actual evidence of the claims made, from the court records. Instead we get the usual. "You guys are all so ignorant, here's a bunch of anecdotes." And, "I'm so smart I'm going to write a book to tell lawyers how to do their jobs." Page after page after page of ego-stroking, and zero substance.

 

[JayUtah]

No it isn’t; it’s an order from a court instructing someone to refrain from doing something.

Analogous to an injunction in U.S. law. Funny thing is, I never mentioned interdicts. It's just one more thing PartSkeptic is trying to shove into someone else's mouth to create the impression that his opponents are all ignorant. Which of course is the ultimate goal.

Yes, some of us do have a fair amount of court experience. I'm in a profession that has a perpetual target painted on its back. I've been an expert witness. I've been a plaintiff, both represented and pro se. I've been a defendant, both represented and pro se. I don't like being in courtrooms, but I enjoy the subject of law. Most of the people I hang out with are lawyers, law students, and law professors -- including the Democratic candidate for governor in our state. And yes, I was party to a case that went all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court on a matter of judge's instruction to the jury regarding the but-for theory of causation. That was a fun one.

Am I a lawyer? Far from it. Loss Leader and I have discussed the law on this forum. I'll leave it to him to offer his professional opinion on my understanding of it, if he so chooses to offer it. Do I have any experience with the South African legal system? Not a whit. And I'm generally inclined, therefore, to defer to PartSkeptic on local matters of procedure (if I can pick them out from the reams of insults and anecdotes). That doesn't mean I don't know my way generally around the law, and that I don't smell a fish here.

 

[JayUtah]

Pretty much - yes. It was not overturned. It was vacated because I missed the filing deadline. The only way they could win. And they made me sick by turning on the tower illegally. I have enough evidence of what they did and why to win a court case if I so wished. I just may try. It is also criminal. I will be laying police charges.

This is nothing but pure conspiratorial bluster. You don't have evidence of anything. "I missed the deadline because the Bad Guys turned on their electronic beams and made me too sick to obey your order," is just laughable.

Moreover, here you have people with expertise in gathering evidence that withstands scrutiny not only in science but at law. They're telling you how to do it. They're very much trying to be on your side. But for some inexplicable reason, you refuse their help. Instead you insist on heaping invective and insults upon them. Is your standard practice to bite whatever hand tries to feed you?

 

[PartSkeptic]

This is nothing but pure conspiratorial bluster. You don't have evidence of anything. "I missed the deadline because the Bad Guys turned on their electronic beams and made me too sick to obey your order," is just laughable.

Moreover, here you have people with expertise in gathering evidence that withstands scrutiny not only in science but at law. They're telling you how to do it. They're very much trying to be on your side. But for some inexplicable reason, you refuse their help. Instead you insist on heaping invective and insults upon them. Is your standard practice to bite whatever hand tries to feed you?

On my side!

That remark is jaw-dropping. Give me some solid examples of the "help" I am getting?

My responses show my displeasure at their insults.

Bite the hand that feeds me!

Another jaw-dropper.

What I am seeing is false facts, and nasty opinions based on false assumptions and false interpretations of my posts.

I am not fooled. I know the standard of evidence required for court. I just had no idea that a judge would make decisions that flew in the face of what he was presented with. Some-one told me I should have had the police witness my test of the tower being on illegally. Since when does a citizen require evidence to be on the same standard as a murder trial. Even there, they accept witness testimony.

But I have been "helped" by the way the Respondents went about it. The evidence trail is quite clear, and they cannot hide it.

There is only one reason to turn on the tower illegally and then try to cover it up. Tell me why you think they did it? If you try to tell me they did not turn it on, then you are not helping - just throwing doubt where there is none.

See my next post.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Through a series serendipitous events I found out about the tower that the Telcos say was powered down for two weeks when in fact it was powered up.

I am not going to give details, and I did not get this from the person involved, or others who know the person.

I have the name of the cell company, the location of the tower, the person's name, and the date.

There was a lawsuit. The person DID get a high standard of evidence to show the harm being suffered, AND that the tower was NOT switched off. If I follow up, I know I have to do the same. The person is now very ill, and has retreated to the bush to get away from radiation. It is likely the tower was a major factor.

The law suit was settled. The tower was taken down and damages were paid. But the person had to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement).

Due to the NDA, the company is not the one using the myth of a two week shut-down but others certainly repeat this incident as if it were fact.

To JU.
One could understand that a tower is removed because procedures were not followed. It happens quite regularly.

Tell me why you think damages were paid and why there was a NDA?

The Telcos have a strategy of crushing opposition using SLAPP tactics - all the way to the Concourt. Most towers are only taken down or removed when there is fierce community opposition and often when the property owner changes their mind about renting.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Analogous to an injunction in U.S. law. Funny thing is, I never mentioned interdicts. It's just one more thing PartSkeptic is trying to shove into someone else's mouth to create the impression that his opponents are all ignorant. Which of course is the ultimate goal.

Yes, some of us do have a fair amount of court experience. I'm in a profession that has a perpetual target painted on its back. I've been an expert witness. I've been a plaintiff, both represented and pro se. I've been a defendant, both represented and pro se. I don't like being in courtrooms, but I enjoy the subject of law. Most of the people I hang out with are lawyers, law students, and law professors -- including the Democratic candidate for governor in our state. And yes, I was party to a case that went all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court on a matter of judge's instruction to the jury regarding the but-for theory of causation. That was a fun one.

Am I a lawyer? Far from it. Loss Leader and I have discussed the law on this forum. I'll leave it to him to offer his professional opinion on my understanding of it, if he so chooses to offer it. Do I have any experience with the South African legal system? Not a whit. And I'm generally inclined, therefore, to defer to PartSkeptic on local matters of procedure (if I can pick them out from the reams of insults and anecdotes). That doesn't mean I don't know my way generally around the law, and that I don't smell a fish here.

Okay now you are being reasonable. Although you could have left out the snarky put-down.

You are quite right about the similarities in the procedures and laws of various countries. The naming conventions may be different, but most countries adjust their laws to be in line with international jurisprudence.

There are some key differences. The French have a different system where judges have the power of inquisition. South Africa does not use the jury system. The USA only allows costs under certain conditions. The UK and NZ do not have constitutional law.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Of course I am. A communication with the judge regarding the merits of a matter under his jurisdiction outside the presence of all parties to it is ex parte. Routine communication simply to ascertain the progress of the case is not ex parte. Did you discuss the merits of your case?



Assumes facts not in evidence.



No, that's not the right question. Why are you constantly -- and I mean constantly -- trying to prove that you are so much smarter and more competent than everyone else, including people you barely know? You are narcissistic to a fault in your arguments. No matter what the subject is, you spin anecdote after anecdote to "prove" you're the best around. And in doing so, you avoid the specific questions and issues raised in people's rebuttals.

Another reasonable post.

Ex parte.
In my case, the merits were not discussed. I did settle with the judge that I address him as "Your Honor" instead of "My Lord, or Your Lordship".

Lawyers should introduce themselves before a hearing. In some places it is called "calling the roll" where both parties speak "off record" in order to expedite the process. If lawyers for any party choose not to attend or be late then that is up to them.

I have no problem with this except when it operates to the disadvantage of the self-represented litigants. In NZ they actually barred me from taking part, and then there was an illegal (by the lawyers) ex parte discussion of the merits of the case and how it was to proceed.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
How else did they know at the hearing? I have attended a number of "introductions", and the various advocates were always there. The support attorneys were at the Court room after I left the judge's chambers. The two advocates arrived together just before the hearing. I would say my assumption is reasonable.

My smartness.
If you ask people I know I do not try to prove myself. I am accepting of people and their own set of skills. When complimented on my intelligence I often respond by in a self-deprecating way to point out that we all have skill sets and I am lacking in some areas. And I am genuine in that respect.

But here I am being challenged. Many arguments rest on an implication that I am stupid, or ignorant, and am generally incompetent. If this was person to person, I would generally respond by a physical challenge. If people want to insult me to my face then they must back it up or apologize. Or be prepared to go to Court since I cannot hit first without consequences.

Since you are evidently in a helpful mood, what do you suggest I should do?

I accept that on internet forums people speak their minds. I find even posters who are not proficient can contribute. I have often gotten clues from such people.

Anecdotes
I supply my anecdotes as biographical information as to who I am and why I feel qualified to make the claims I do. People are judging ME unfairly because they make assumptions about me when THEY barely know me. I am not afraid to say who I am. It is part of assessing my credibility.

You have now supplied some background information about yourself, and that has raised my estimation of your experience and capabilities a lot. I still am concerned about the motivation behind your need to include personal put-downs of me in your posts. And I also find you avoid the certain issues that you could have difficulty with.

This thread is about my predictions - God inspired and my own opinions based on 71 years of experience. Hence I do not find an exchange of credentials to be a derail.

 

[Mojo]

PartSkeptic, what is the reason for your suggested protocol including taking measurements? Why do you require “more instrumentation” to carry out a test that involves having a modem turned on or off and you deciding, using nothing more than your own senses, which it is?

 

[abaddon]

On my side!

That remark is jaw-dropping. Give me some solid examples of the "help" I am getting?

My responses show my displeasure at their insults.

Bite the hand that feeds me!

Sure. Pixel proposed a rather simple protocol to determine if there even was any effect that warranted further investigation.

Since that point, you have hurled every excuse you could against doing so.

Pixel was scrupulously polite throughout.

Your response was invective and excuses for not doing so. How are you surprised at the reaction that generated? That behaviour is yours and yours alone. But we have already identified that you simply do not believe in personal responsibility.

Another jaw-dropper.

What I am seeing is false facts, and nasty opinions based on false assumptions and false interpretations of my posts.

I am not fooled. I know the standard of evidence required for court. I just had no idea that a judge would make decisions that flew in the face of what he was presented with. Some-one told me I should have had the police witness my test of the tower being on illegally. Since when does a citizen require evidence to be on the same standard as a murder trial. Even there, they accept witness testimony.

But I have been "helped" by the way the Respondents went about it. The evidence trail is quite clear, and they cannot hide it.

There is only one reason to turn on the tower illegally and then try to cover it up. Tell me why you think they did it? If you try to tell me they did not turn it on, then you are not helping - just throwing doubt where there is none.

See my next post.

But you have no evidence that they turned it on. None.

This is the root of your problems.

I will happily agree with you that the proximity of the tower to your home is outrageous. I certainly would not be a happy bunny to have such an eyesore erected outside my kitchen window.

In such an event, I would also likely seek legal redress as would my neighbours.

However, I would present a case on the basis of planning law, city ordinances and whatnot.

What I would not do is flood the court with unproven crank ideas as though it magically lent weight to the argument.

Yet that is exactly what you did. Put yourself in the position of the judge. What he sees is a sea of nutty claims which are all unproven. At that point, it doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, you have failed to get over the evidential bar.

The one valid objection you had becomes lost in a sea of conspiracies.

 

[Mojo]

The UK and NZ do not have constitutional law.

The UK doesn’t have a codified constitution, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have constitutional law. The situation in NZ is similar.