Judge says King may be guilty of contempt but that does not mean Rangers are as no proof board authorised his statement
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
View Poll Results: What is your attitude to a new "Rangers" entering at Div1?
- Voters
- 1016. You may not vote on this poll
-
Opposed - and will walk away from Scottish professional football
537 52.85% -
Opposed - but will continue to support the game.
454 44.69% -
In favour.
25 2.46%
Results 32,551 to 32,580 of 45185
-
10-12-2015 10:36 AM #32551
-
10-12-2015 10:36 AM #32552
Court now being told details of how last court injunction was served on Rangers. Counsel says was sent to their office
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:37 AM #32553
Court shown email sent to King from James Blair about the confidentiality order. SD counsel says proves King untruthful in affadavit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:38 AM #32554
In Kings affadavit he says he did not fully read the order and did not believe in banned him discussing "the fact of meetings"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:39 AM #32555
SD arguing over an email from King acknowledging existence of order. Judge querying whether that extended to discussion of meetings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:39 AM #32556
Judge: Mr King said that on oath. Do I disbelieve him? You [SD] haven't proved to a criminal standard this extended to discussion of meeting
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:40 AM #32557
SD: Can hardly be clearer he sent an email acknowledging. Judge says King said on oath he didn't read injunction in detail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:41 AM #32558
Judge notes that email alone is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt although his affadavit may be "difficult to accept"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:41 AM #32559
King statement read out: I did not review the injunction in detail at that time as James Blair had provided restriction in body of email.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:42 AM #32560
In Kings affadavit he states he did not open attachment in email from James Blair
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:42 AM #32561
Judge: The consequences of going to prison are quite severe for [King]. He could say goodbye going to US for forseeable future (for example)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:43 AM #32562
Judge notes that King is a "successful businessman" and sending him to prison would have 'serious consequences'
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:43 AM #32563
Judge asks SD to prove King wilfully disregarded the order. Says SD should have asked for King to be cross-examined in court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:44 AM #32564
SD: One could hardly look for clearer evidence in him having admitted he received an important email headlined "URGENT: Draft order".
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:44 AM #32565
Judge questions why SD have not applied for King to give oral evidence as then he could have 'judged his statements for myself"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:44 AM #32566
SD: There cannot be reasonable doubt he had knowledge of the order.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:45 AM #32567
Counsel for Sports Direct calls King's position "completely implausible"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:45 AM #32568This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
So just because you are a successful businessman means your exempt form the law and court orders now?
-
10-12-2015 10:45 AM #32569
SD: It is wholly implausible Mr King (didn't understand email). Judge retorts that it "amazes me" how people act in this regard these days.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:46 AM #32570
SD: If he was saying I didn't get the email, that would be one thing. He isn't. He's not saying he wasn't aware of the order.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
-
10-12-2015 10:46 AM #32572
Counsel for SD says they only have to show King's "knowledge of the order" not his "understanding of it"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:48 AM #32573This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-12-2015 10:48 AM #32574This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:50 AM #32575This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Someone I am aware who was successful businessman was sentenced o2 years in Perth precisely because he was successful. The evidence of 35,000 text messages on his phone relating to drug transactions was kind of damningThere is no such thing as too much yarn, just not enough time.
-
10-12-2015 10:50 AM #32576This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-12-2015 10:51 AM #32577
Seems to be a break just now. Kings defence that he did not bother to read the court judgement is pretty poor, even to my untrained legal mind.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:52 AM #32578
Counsel for SD notes that each director of Rangers was sent a copy of court order.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
10-12-2015 10:52 AM #32579This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-12-2015 10:52 AM #32580
As mentioned previously, SD currently discussing the detail of how the notice of order was served. Copy to all Rangers directors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks