Hahahahahaha

Post of the year right there!

Edited by eaglesdare (14 Feb 2024 9.46am)

The Judge wasn't there. I was. Only two people know the truth. One is lying. I am not. You can choose not to believe me, that's your right. I though know the truth.

The Judge does indeed have to reach a decision based on his perception of the evidence. No one questions that. However, he was wrong and there was enough evidence for him to have not made his mistake. My barrister said that 99 out of 100 Judges would have found for me. I have a written transcript of that opinion, not just hearsay.

My insurers, their solicitors and the barrister all believe me. This was the email I got from the solicitors the next day, edited to remove personal details:-

"Good morning Mr.

? did call me yesterday to give me a brief summary of the days events. As you correctly state he is going to send me a full note including his thoughts on an appeal.

From ?'s comments, we got the 1 judge out of a 100, that would have found for the claimant.

I am more than happy to discuss matters further when I receive ?'s full note. He made it clear to me (not that I thought any different) that you could not have been any better as a witness and there is nothing more you could have done.

To say I am disappointed for you is an understatement.

Kind Regards"

I am awaiting the decision on an appeal but am not hopeful. Not because we wouldn't succeed but because the cost would outweigh the benefit as the scumbag has no resources and the costs could not be recovered. That's not my decision.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Feb 2024 12.03pm)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Trump lies every time he opens his mouth. That must be obvious even to someone like you.

I don't lie.

The Justice system exists to deal with criminals like the scumbag I am involved with. Along with people like Trump.

Not to penalise the innocent and their insurers.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

And this relates to US politics how?

If you are so sure you are Innocent then appeal the decision. At this moment in time you are guilty. Of course the Barrister will tell you what you want to hear. That is thier Job and what they are paid to do.

You can imagine just how hard I'm biting my lip here.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It doesn't relate at all. It just got diverted.

I cannot appeal the decision. When you accept car insurance you delegate that decision to your insurer.

My barrister was very angry. He had a McEnroe moment. He is a specialist who knows the law in this area like the back of his hand. The judge isn't. He is a divorce lawyer and when pieces of law were quoted had to pause and refer to books. He didn't like having to do that. He should never have been expected to handle this type of case so the real fault lies with whoever allocated it to him.

I am forced to wonder if there was a power motive at least partially behind the judgement. The financial reward was much lower than would have been expected for an injury of the type claimed which seems like trying to compensate for not accepting our argument.

The judge was kind to me personally and said he believed I was telling the truth as I knew it but in the light of no other explanation for the injuries must have unknowingly and accidently touched him. Which isn't true at all, or what I was accused of. I was accused of deliberately driving into him 3 times. He also had an accident at work several weeks later which explains the injury, but the judge overlooked.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.