Justice IoM style

  • Anonymous
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Tue, 30/06/2009 - 03:35

Someone has just posted on "Justice US style" in relation to Madoff's sentencing.

Later today (I believe this very morning) we will see another example of "Justice IoM style" when the Deputy Deemster in our case, whose judgments in this matter to date have given little cause for rejoicing, hands down his judgment on costs. This, depositors may remember, concerns DAG's application, which was opposed both by the bank and PWC, that Treasury pay the bank's costs incurred by PWC in the failed SoA and also that the Treasury pay DAG's legal costs in the winding up petition, failing which the bank (as joint petitioner in the winding-up) pay the latter.

The real issue in these costs proceedings is whether the IoM Treasury can escape paying for the costs of their enormous folly in the SoA and make the creditors pay them instead. Of course that would be completely unjust, because the SoA was the Treasury's idea and the SoA has already caused depositors to be kept waiting for 8 months longer than was necessary for the DCSand liquidation to begin.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (21 votes)

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Judgment handed down

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 09:26

I am told by contact in IoM that judgment has now been handed down.

As far as I am informed:

(i) bank's costs in the SoA (I estimate at some 1.5million plus), mostly PWC's bills and those of its 3 lawyers, will NOT be paid by IoMT, so will fall to the bank and hence creditors;

(ii) DAG's legal costs in SoA and winding-up will be paid, but by bank and NOT by IoMT, and hence by creditors;

(iii) reference is made to the bank's refusal to make an appl;ication for IoMT to pay its costs in the SoA, which must of course have been the decision of the liquidators;

(iv) no order as to DAG's (wasted) legal costs in the costs application itself.

I am not going to comment save to say that DAG gets most of its legal costs, but not from the party responsible (the IoMT) and instead from the bank and hence the creditors as a whole and IoMT escapes from paying the costs consequences of developing and promoting its failed SoA.

Agreed, Bobwin

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 14:29

I agree with you, Bobwin. This sitation is unbelievable if, indeed, it is true. The case needs to be appealed/go to a higher court. The fact Simpson did not even make an application for the IOMT to pay the banks costs is further ammunition for his removal - he needs to do more than wander into the office occasionally and pick up his mail (which is his regular behaviour as was stated by a contributor on another forum)


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 15:40

Reading the judgement, it would appear that any Appeal would be unsuccessful and simply add further costs to be taken from the bank's assets. This is because the Deemster views the fact PWC have not asked for their costs to be recovered from the Treasury makes it "impossible" for the court to rule that they should. Given this, is there any legal argument that we can expect to sway the decision in an Appeal? I would think not.

The fact PWC did not ask for their costs to be paid for by IOMT may well be further ammo to replace them, especially as by not doing so they could be "in derelict of duty", but no doubt PWC are preparing for this challenge, and will ensure they are paid every penny they are "owed" before they are displaced. I maintain the issues are whether there is any guarantee replacing PWC will result in a return of more of the banks assets to depositors, that if there are to be higher returns will these compensate the extra costs associated with replacing PWC, or is it worthwhile for depositors to simply replace PWC because they are seen by many as being entirely creditor-unfriendly and they must go regardless of the cost consequences?

@cw: The thorn in my side.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 15:25

Take a day out.
What do you really want?

You want what we all want a just resolution to the situation. But your problem is that you think you can can get it by siding with the powers that be.

To out it brutally, and to put it bluntly, you are up a tree. But you blather on regardless. You have a choice here. You can come back and attack me.. stupid, confrontational, detail... , but surely by now you are finally getting the drift. We've all been screwed, these guys want business as normal as soon as possible.
They want to forget you, me, everybody else. I don't go along with this. I wont forget.

Time to make a call cw. You think sides, I think right and wrong. How long----?????


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 21:05

Follow the Tao, are you able and willing to help organize DIRECT ACTION on the streets?


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 16:39

I won't forget either.

You guys with the money not paid out by DCS (e.g. you): it's up to you if you want to replace the liquidator or appoint a conflict liquidator. I've got no vote as I've gone for DCS.

Either way, "worst" that can happen to me if you decide to replace PWC, as far as I can make out, is I get my protected funds paid at a later date. In your scheme of things, no big deal, but to me it would be. However, I'd not blame you or others for wanting to get rid of PWC as I think they've been acting like a bunch of c**t's.

That's my call. What's next? As implied from the outset, "I'm all ears".

Costs Judgement

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 14:21

Elgee, if your information is correct, then this is not a judgement--it is imbecilic.

How can any right minded person decide that the depositors have to pay for something they did not order?

So we defend our position and win and then have tp pay the costs incurred--I am amazed that IOMG did not ask for their costs to be paid by the bank as well--the DD Corlett would probably have found a reason to support that too.

To say that my flabber is gasted is an understatement---however based on their past performance, I suppose I should not be surprised that the IOM gang have shafted us once more--I do believe in ultimate justice--it may take time but somehow, someway, we have to get even with these self serving excuses for men.

You only have to look at Mandy--the comeback kid--for a real example of how to make huge mistakes and get rewarded--bit like bankers and ministers and accountants in the IOM--UK set the example I guess.

PWC working on behalf of depositors--pass me the bucket!

When tasked with eliminating a lawyer, a banker and an accountant, the would be assassin was only given two bullets.

After the event, he was asked what he did-"I shot the lawyer twice!"

Here's to the impoverishment of the IOM-won't take long once the banks and insurance companies' profits dip--I hope I live long enough to see it!

The Judgement is here

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 14:38

extract from the judgment

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 15:05

This is an extract from the DD's judgment on costs, made on 23 June 2009, which pertains directly to a conflict involving PWC itself:

"The Costs of the JLPs

"[34] As to the application made by DAG, that the costs of the Liquidators Provisional in relation to the Scheme and the Winding-Up Petition should be paid by the Treasury, it follows that I am not prepared to make such an Order in circumstances where I have not made such an Order in favour of DAG. Furthermore, it would be most unusual, if not unprecedented, for me to make an Order in favour of a party who has not asked for such an Order. It is the case, as Mr. Caine made quite plain during the hearing on 23rd June, that his clients have instructed him not to make any such claim against Treasury. I have no doubt that the Liquidators Provisional have incurred very considerable costs which, if not reimbursed by the promoters of the unsuccessful Scheme, will inevitably lead to possibly a quite material diminution in the assets available for distribution. The Liquidators Provisional were of course specifically empowered by Court Orders of 29th January 2009 and 19th February 2009 to conduct such work, but this would not prevent them from seeking an Order that their costs thereof be paid otherwise than out of KSFIOM. Nevertheless, the Liquidators Provisional have made a firm decision that they will not seek an Order against Treasury for the reimbursement of those costs in whole or in part. In those circumstances I take the view that this must be a matter for the Liquidators Provisional and perhaps the creditors who may, as Mr. Chambers submitted, take the view that the Liquidators Provisional have acted in dereliction of duty in failing to pursue such an Order. I express no view whatsoever as to whether this would be a reasonable course of action. Certainly so far as the JLPs are concerned, they do not seek a costs order against Treasury and consider that the Scheme Petition was properly brought. I do not consider that it would be a proper exercise of judicial discretion to make an Order against Treasury in those circumstances.

"[35] The effect of my decision therefore is that the costs of the Liquidators Provisional of and incidental to the Scheme and the Winding-Up proceedings will be paid out of the assets of the Company in the usual way.

the LP missed the opportunity to claim & lost creditors money

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 06:33

there is logic in what the Deemster has said

the IOMT were the promoters of the failed scheme and they should bear the costs

LP on the instruction of the court worked on the scheme with IOMT and incurred significant costs

they clearly should have claimed these costs back from IOMT when they had the chance to do so

they didn't..so the court can't help them..so their costs (as with all their other costs) will be paid by KSFIOM

why didn't they claim? negligence? carelessness?

another question for DAG legal team to pursue

but surely grounds to sack the current LP

"why didn't they claim?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 07:07

"why didn't they claim? negligence? carelessness?"

In my view neither. The question of claiming their SoA costs from IOMT was clearly raised (more than once) in the phone calls with Frog. MS ummed and aahed (as per usual) and finally, under insistence from Frog, mumbled evasively and unconvincingly that well, yes he would ask. It was - and is - obvious that he was too compromised by them to do so with any conviction, much less to stand up to them in court. For me this speaks volumes ....

Grounds to sack him? Surely. But then what? Are we sure we can do better and at what cost? To sack or not to sack .... ?

@anrigaut: All he had to do was ask.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 20:53

It's a game.
MS knows the rules or he doesn't.
Let us reduce the situation to binaries.
He refused to ask. Why?
It's a dialectic. By not asking... look what happened.
I don't think MS is stupid. I think he's compromised.
I think PWC are compromised.

KISS (keep it simple, stupid)

If I was cross-examining MS he wouldn't have quite the easy ride he's had to date.


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 21:05

On Simpson / PWC simply failing to address the issue of SOA costs from the outset. How about asking Simpson directly via email why he did not? As normal expect a load of cr.p in first response, but then persist ?

BTW should be in tonight / tomorrow am if you ok to call.

Madoff sentencing

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 04:03

The link to the posting about Madoff's sentencng is here:


Depositors may like to suggest who, in our case, they think deserves to serve 150 years in jail.

Deemster's judgment

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 04:11

I anticipate that depositers may be interested in the costs judgment to be made later today, because I think it is likely to be controversial and also the last judgment to be made in our bank's winding-up proceedings. As to whether it will be a judgment worthy of the late Lord Denning or one that is deficient in some way, that remains to be seen and I leave it to others to decide.

It may assist for this purpose if I introduce several phrases used by lawyers in relation to judgments:

(a) ratio decidendi, usually abbreviated to ratio, means the reasons for the decision and incorporates the legal principals on which the decision rests

(b) obiter dictum, or simply obiter means all statements made in the judgment that are not essential to the decision and therefore not part of the ratio

We may find, on reading the judgment, that other terms spring to mind that hardly need defining. One such example is wrong.

Ahead of the news Elgee?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 12:00

It wouldn't surprise me in any way to see the DD bend the law to fit his political situation i.e. he lives in the IoM, exacts a tributary, and a judgement against the Treasury would be 'breaking ranks'.
I don't know where your source is Elgee but I sense there is somebody prescient operating here, I can't imagine any other reason for your posting. We'll see won't we.
I have no special respect for lawyers, although I look to the law, or rather I look to the current ideological status of the judiciary. In reality they seem approximate to 'bankers' in general, it's just that they are trained in some sort of conflict resolution role in the court of the presiding elite, and the contract is they extract a premium for having the ear of such. The American founding fathers would be disappointed, hence the mess in the USA at the moment. It's a constant battle.

At this exact moment in time I can't find any reference to a decision being handed down in the press, I've just done a search.

A thought, perhaps HNW's Harvard alumnus might post a public repost if the decision turns out to be as you appear to be suggesting? Perhaps they might defend their wealth gained I assume through playing a legal game. Perhaps they might share some insights of their awesome educational attainment. Perhaps they might like to try and justify the apparently exalted role of their profession. And I assume this posting might reach their eyes. So tell me, Harvard alumnus, what is the role of an lawyer in a corrupt regime, and why might you be particularly well qualified to represent us? You know the tricks? You're 'in house'? I can't remember where in the American press that I read the criticism that it was the USA educational elite that has just led that nation into the economic crisis that we're all suffering (isn't that overweight chubby faced famously 'alpha' clown Summers from your campus?), but it was an obvious argument and basically hard to refute.
I think those to whom this posting is really directed should, given their apparently awesome accomplishments obviously based on their innate intelligence, should by this point have picked up on the sub-text here- I personally wonder if they have the guts to respond.

"Don't talk back some ruler says. or everything you need will go away." Recognise this quote Harvard Alumnus?

Second bite: Just read Elgee's later post with some supposed strands of the judgement.

I find myself thinking that some people are making the argument that we need to be nice to MS and the IoM government because we need to work with them, that people mouthing platitudes that in the end cannot be shown to have produced anything except more delay and cost for us need to be encouraged and/or placated otherwise they will not be inclined to assist. What's the cliche: With friends like this who needs enemies.

Given the behaviour so far how do you think hauling the directors et al. in front of the Court will go?
I was thinking this when thinking of Frog's point of view, that at this point all that is available is the possibility of working with 'them'. If MS can't even bring himself to ask, to ask! (what would he have lost? - and Elgee's information suggests that this was equivalent to a 'Et tu Brute' action) what chance is there going forward?

Here are three posts to help you think more concretely about the situation. They contain some very nice pithy commentary, which might be extracted and used. As no doubt you'll be feeling angry you'll like the second link (linked to by FTalphaville this morning) which is character assasination of Bernanke by Shedlock, you'll be cheering from the sidelines, catharsis.

Martin Wolf:
Mish Shedlock:
ref from FT:
Roubini on 'Why you could see the crisis coming' (for when we get the directors and the FSC to court)
A 50 minute lecture to the PI institutute of theoretical physics. And before anybody points it out, of course Roubini is from Harvard.

Before you think this is just another needling comment, possibly even off-track, I'll say this. I never expected 100%, I never expected to have my request for a funds transfer ignored, nor expected to find such a cock-up by the directors and the regulatory authorities, nor to be pissed around to this degree by the IoMG and told to pay for the privilege. My anger is cold and reasonable. My expectations are not naieve. We are still more than just a nuisance. To me continuing to try and bring out all the facts is a worthwhile aim, and one I will contribute to. But I have some very serious questions about 'positive relations'.

Ahead of the news Elgee?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Tue, 30/06/2009 - 14:40

It was once observed by a colleague that while the sciences and other subjects are mainly seen as being the province of experts, the law belongs to all of us and we all feel entitled to make our views known. I am very slow, so it has taken me years to learn to switch between a physics mode of thinking and a legal mode, and to combine with limited success the two modes of thinking in my present occupation. A respectable argument can be made that both subjects are both essentially about applying laws, one natural and the other man-made, but in the first the laws are inviolable and in the second they are meant to change and in practice they are also inexact.

Physics only produces surprises when something is discovered that is outside the scope of existing laws, and even then it is often predicted by theory beforehand. The law only produces surprises when a judgment is made (or a verdict or other jury decision is given) that flies in the face of reasonable expectations. Surprising jury decisions, obviously in England mostly confined to criminal law (a narrow area of law of little academic interest), are usually referred to as perverse verdicts and play no part in developing new law. Surprising judgments are usually referred to as "wrong", and are amenable to being overturned on appeal. Indeed, the process of appeal is the means by which new judge-made law is made in common law jurisdictions such as England. In the absence of bad or at least questionable first-instance judgments, judge-made law would never have been able to develop. So it can be argued (a little tongue in cheek), that while advances both in physics and law rely on surprising results being obtained from time to time, the former requires the surprising results to be perceived as being right whereas the latter requires them to be perceived as being wrong.

Having said all that, it could be concluded (again, a little tongue in cheek) that those of us who value the rule of law owe a debt of gratitude to the numerous bad judges whose judgments have lent themselves so plainly to being appealed, and there would be some truth in that. However, when it comes to judgments on costs (costs orders), appeals are widely held to be ill-advised since while the rule is that costs normally follow the event, they are always in the discretion of the judge. There is no physics analogue of this - physicists cannot claim any right to add a few additonal digits to their result, flip a sign or a charge or invert a number or move the decimal point. However, by a costs order a judge can turn a victory into a defeat, an award of damages into a huge debt and completely rob a party of its success. Is it fair, no? Is it just, no? is it physics, no? Is it law, yes?

The Deputy Deemster commented today, on handing down his judgment, that DAG had observed that our matter had brought the Isle of Man courts into disrepute. I make no such comment, then or now, because I believe it is important to have been at a hearing and heard all the arguments and facts before saying anything concrete about a judgment. Alternatively, to do what a court of appeal would do, and read the transcript of the hearing andthe judgment. The transcripts of both will shortly be obtained by the DST and put on the website. In the meantime, I leave the comments to others, other than to make the obvious statement that the IoM Treasury has been allowed to escape responsibility for the financial consequences of its folly.

The power of analysis. (reply to Elgee).

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 15:01

Thanks for the comment Elgee.
Entertaining as always.

After this comment I might agree that the legal terrain is yet again becoming clearer.
If we are thinking attrition, or even agreement then this cannot be other than for the best.

We have to date represented ourselves honestly. This is the foundation of justice.
I don't seek to misrepresent myself. I don't seek to misrepresent my behaviour.
But I will not tolerate misrepresentation by my adversaries. It is that simple.

We appear to be grinding, to use (my) verb of choice, towards such a consensus.
The Judiciary, in currently the persona of the DD, seems to be reaching the same conclusion.
The commentary may be encoded, I might be misreading the commentary, but the Judiciary know the logic of argument in their universe. They are sending out within decisions information as to the issues that will decide their future actions. They might be said, considered to be behove to the, political requirements of thier employers. But they protest, albeit gently at present. The political powers that be are used to obeisance. I don't know what signs there are that challenge the understanding that this obeisance continues. This is a high profile case, and we need to continue to raise the profile. Because in the end the IoM Judiciary know they need to comply with norms extant 'fuera de su isla'. Justice is universal, because it is based in the psychology of it's subjects. Your point about costs in critical. But more, what happens when the plaintiffs are dismayed by the costs?

And I am not personally am not dismayed by the potential costs. I will pay. This is a personal committment.

What say the apologists of the HNW? I note their 'cheap' comments of their blog, always a blog, never a forum. Why not? They don't actually debate, they play some pathetic version of pseudo power politics (realpoliticic).
They are corrupt. They seek a mutually advantageous accomodation. I don't. I sit above their corruption. I won't be bought. That's why many don't like my commentary.

What is right is right. The rest is bullshit. Bullshit rules normally. I'm still alive, I have to accomodate to bullshit daily, like the rest of us. But this case is seems to me to be offering the oppportunity to push the parameters. Those that have the power will recognise this posting as being a direct challenge.

We are still in the game. Everybody that reads this needs to make their own decision: Do we go for broke or not?

when will you all learn? why are you surprised?

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 07:38

god, havent we all learnt after 9 months who we are dealing with come on wake up. Please, is dag trying to get justice on the isle of man ? is everyone serious, we got the short straw in all of this badly. I dont want to see our savings evaporating like a leyland liquidation on lawyers crap, real action is the website of what happened to us , the grief we are going through and deterring other depositors. This will make more of an impact not going to toylands court please wake up


  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 08:02

Yes, when are you all going to wake up. We are dealing with the big boys and they take no prisoners. No use appealing to decency, ,honesty or any other good qualities. These people have no shame. Being nice in their eyes, is a weekness to be trampled on and boy have they made mush out of us. ARE WE VICTIMS?? NO !! We are going to be winners. UP AND AT EM !!

@conned. Agreed. But let's plan.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/07/2009 - 15:43

Take time.
There is nothing new about this situation.
How do we fight back?
Honesty and work.
Others are reading this, even the IomG. Your posting was not for nothing.
The truth will out, but slowly, they are controlling it, we want to profit from it. They want to protect their advantages as well.

Attrition, grind, Two key concepts.
What will put us ahead is lightness of foot. Tread lightly go easy stay free. They want us to go away.
And this is very clear, "Go away."
We are not going away, Mr Brown, Mr Bell. We are here for the long run. Dance.