Part A - Claimant S Statement: Fill & Download for Free

£350m a week amounts to £18,200 million per year. The head of the UK Statistics Authority said Vote Leave’s continued use of the £350 million was “misleading and undermines trust in official statistics.”You can verify yourself how much the UK actually pays to the EU, contained in appendix C of the Uk Gov't own Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis figures (PESA) which are audited and accurate.In 2016 the UK Gov't paid £10,761m to the EU. Without taking account of EU contributions to the UK, this is made up of:£8,502m in Gross National Income Contribution (GNI), about half what Germany pay, and less than France.£2,751m Net VAT, i.e. import VAT - Export VAT, likely to not change.£3,085m in TOR - Agricultural Duties, Sugar levies, Customs duties, likely to rise under WTO rules.Per head of population, the UK pays substantially less GNI than Germany, France & Italy; less than half what Ireland pays, and less than some smaller countries Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg.In reality that amounts to about 70p in every £100 of tax paid. For an average UK family annual tax & NI bill of £8116, the contribution to the EU is just over 15p per day, or £1.05 a week. Most of that money goes to member states. The (alleged) “wasteful, inefficient bureaucracy” of the EU costs less than 7p a week. For comparison, Interest on government borrowing costs £9.31 per week; Welfare, health and benefits cost £87.40 per week, UK Gov’t administration costs £3.28 per week.*EDIT* A recent study reported in the Sunday Times shows that migrants from EU countries contribute £20bn net to UK tax income.The UK abatement adds €13.3m to the EU bill of Cyprus, €1700m to France. Every man, woman and child in Luxembourg pays €51 per year premium on their EU contribution towards the UK abatement.In terms of power compared to total GNI payments, each UK seat costs €128m, a long way behind France (€221m) Germany (€219m), Italy (€164m) Spain (€149m) and similar to Ireland (€128m).Where is that money?The Government spent more than £400m on increased budgets over six departments for Brexit preparations in 2017/8. This is expected to rise to £900m in 2018/9., according to the budget.The long-term cost of replacing the administrative, regulatory and joint agencies which are currently jointly managed through the EU will cost the UK far more than the current GNI contribution.On top of this, the government’s own fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), has forecast that Brexit will raise the UK’s deficit and debt, thereby requiring tax rises, spending cuts or a combination of the two. The OBR, like most economists, think this because there is good evidence that the UK economy will be more closed to trade, investment and migration once it has left the EU, reducing tax revenues.Why is nobody suing the Brexit Campaigners?Under civil law, the problem would be identifying a cause of action was or which area of law to sue under. There is no contract between the campaigners and the public. Three is no statutory duty for a campaigner to tell the truth; it’s unlikely that even a politician like Boris Johnson has a “special relationship” or was giving specialist advice to the public that could be considered under the law of negligent misstatement. Malicious falsehood requires there to be a false statement about the claimant, not a false statement in general.Deceit is claimable when a knowingly (or recklessly) false statement is made, intending for that statement to be relied upon by a person (or class or persons), but the claimant relies on it and suffers damage. Although it is widely accepted that there will be losses, there is no current actual personal loss for an individual to make a claim on.In criminal law, fraud by false representation is when a false statement is intentionally made, causing loss to another (Fraud Act s.2), or exposure to loss. Again this refers to personal loss that would be impossible to quantify as a direct result of the statement.There is a current prosecution for misconduct in a public office pending against Boris Johnson, in that he was instrumental in promoting disinformation as part of his leadership of the Vote Leave campaign. If found guilty, Mr Johnson may receive a criminal conviction which would have a minimal penalty but may prevent him standing as an MP.

In a word – no, China is not afraid of Australia in the dispute.Australia is trying to assert their place in the regional order of things as it can ill afford to be a mere bystander when so much is a risk for the region with an estimated USD 5 trillion of goods traversing through the South China Sea. Therefore it is no surprise that Australia is a loud and supporting regional voice with her allies over the growing concern and interest in protecting this strategic piece of maritime territory.Peter Yan provides some Interesting perspective on historical events, which seem to be apparently fueled by his unbridled patriotism. I would argue that they are somewhat idealistic in nature and skewed by the cumulative nature of events that have taken place.It is somewhat ironic that for a country that prides itself on 5,000 years of recorded history that the Chinese government or historians are unable to present substantial evidence that the claimed SCS is or was historically China’s. The continued rhetoric that China has an indisputable historical claim seems desperately based vague claims that only first appeared on Chinese maps in 1947. These maps were first drawn up by the then ruling Republic of China (ROC) Kuomintang, and later adopted by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). There were individual claims, but certainly nothing that extended to the entire SCS, and even these such claims were disputed by other claimant parties.China, a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), agreed to extinguish existing historical claims when it signed the agreement in 1982. The reality for China is that it has severally constrained its expansionist and revisionists aspirations by having signed the UNCOLs agreement. In some ways, the UNCOLs agreement is an inconvenient historical agreement that I’m sure the Chinese leadership will decry that it was a weakened China who signed the agreement and now times are different.In the context of the SCS, Japan is not a claimant to the South China Sea dispute but rather East China Sea. However as mentioned previously, with so much trade flowing through the SCS to an economic powerhouse like Japan, no wonder they are set to play a strategic role in helping secure the trade routes.I agree in part with Mr Yan about his point of the US being the aggressor. The US since the end of World War II has underwritten the security of the region, especially given its special place for ending much of the hostilities that occurred from the expansive Japanese ambitions.As quickly as the WWII ended, the world rushed into the cold war. This war of ideology naturally flowed into various theatres of conflict, such as Korean peninsula, Vietnam and the Malay crises. Asia was for an extended period a big part of the global chessboard in the cold war.I think it is fair to say that had the US and her allies not established such a strong presence, the security of the region would look very different than it does today. This goes a long way to explaining the US’s continued presence in Guam, Okinawa, previously the Philippines (until they were ejected) and South Korea. They are there because of conflict, not because of the desire to expand their ideologies or claim more territory.A natural byproduct is that this continued military presence serves the broader strategic interest of the US and its allies. While the US might have been the reluctant enforcer and world police, it has certainly filled the shoes of the role and used the role to its advantage.Despite China’s rhetoric on its peaceful rise (aggressive reclamation and building of artificial reefs, and very strongly worded and adversarial statements), the SCS is of strategic importance in China. Especially in the context of its revisionist aspirations, addressing historical grievances and providing a normative platform from which they can play a central role in the development and prosperity of the region. Such a position is naturally meet with suspicion and caution with some Asian countries welcoming the U.S. involvement as a strategic hedge against the Chinese.There seems to be general agreement that Asian unity, especially amongst Asean nations and cohesion is required along with multilateralism to ‘manage’ China’s influence in the region. Furthermore, an open regionalism and multilateral institutions like the Asean Regional Forum and the East Asian Summit in addition to reinforcing unity, will provide countries outside the region, such as the U.S., Australia and EU countries a stake to help to ‘contain’ and ‘manage’ China' s influence.

Why do we need personal injury attorneys for accidents instead of just dealing with the insurance directly?I will assume from your question personal injury was involved. I will also assume you refer to automobile collisions.In a perfect world, liability adjusters could simply review police reports, damage estimates and victims’ medical records, reports and billing statements, determine, indeed, the claimant was injured as a direct result of the automobile collision involving their insureds, and pay claimant a fair settlement and even policy limits as appropriate without claimant needing to retain counsel.Sometimes it happens. Usually not.Unfortunately, the world of settling injury insurance claims is far from perfect. To the contrary, claims is hardly perfect. It is highly charged and contentious, and very often requires the “strong arm” of a PI attorney to obtain justice for injured people.Consider liability adjusters have different interests than claimants. Even though liability adjusters have trouble accepting it, thanks to negligence on their insureds’ parts (which may be well documented on police reports and witness statements, etc., but they will refute anyway because they have to), claimants become their insureds as well. Then, liability adjusters have major caseloads and are under pressure to settle claims as quickly as possible for the least amount of money possible, irrespective of whether it is equitable or ethical; the latter situation because their interests lie with their policyholders and their insurance companies’ stock/shareholders.Further, so many people think they can outsmart a liability adjuster. Big mistake. No matter how sophisticated a claimant may be or thinks s/he may be, for insurance claims liability adjusters are more sophisticated than they are because handling claims is their job. Adjusters always know far more than claimants know. They do their job every day and do it well if the only claimants they have to face are those who are not represented.One more point is, again, no matter how sophisticated a claimant may be or thinks s/he may be, very likely s/he will not know how to professionally prepare a demand. As a plantiffs’ PI paralegal with seven years of litigation experience, I prepared many demands, including drafting the demand letter for attorney to sign and organizing our clients’ medical records, reports and billing statements so they present professionally. Again, even sophisticated people will have no clue how to solicit police reports, medical records, reports and billing statements and from whom. They will not know how to read police reports to ascertain the responsible party and mechanism of injury, analyze medical jargon and extract pertinent parts from medical records in which providers set forth causation of injury, mechanism of injury, whether injuries were the direct result of the automobile collision in question and if injured persons suffered permanent impairment as a direct result of the collision. Something else they will not know is they can hire an expert to conduct such things as vocational evaluations to bolster their cases. Good PI attorneys know these things.They CERTAINLY will not know what constitutes a reasonable demand and how much to settle for - yes, there are claimants who, themselves and without representation, demand hundreds of thousands of dollars for chiropractic whiplash cases realistically valued at twenty-five thousand dollars. In short, claimants do NOT know to submit their claims to adjusters.Finally, even sophisticated claimants do not know some insurance carriers will not talk settlement until claimants sue their insureds. Farmers, Allstate and, if memory serves, State Farm are three examples.Good PI attorneys know how to value cases, prepare and submit demands, and handle the followup. The followup will likely involve suing the tortfeasor. I’ll leave that point where it stands - litigating lawsuits is outside the scope of the question.Our firm took a case of a client who was injured in an automobile collision. She had worked for the airlines for years; her husband was a retired petroleum engineer who ran a tax preparation storefront. They both thought they were smarter than the average bear and tried to settle her claim themselves; the adjuster lowballed them.They came to us. We worked up her case and sued tortfeasor. Problems surfaced with our client’s case during discovery, such as client not being completely forthright about all of her medical treatment and having had words with defendant after the collision.Ultimately we settled client’s case for three times the amount of money the liability adjuster offered her and her husband.For these reasons and many more, if people want the best settlement possible, people need personal injury attorneys for accidents instead of just dealing with the insurance directly. Even if it means going to trial.