posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:38 PM
a reply to: Morrad
As for the comments you made about the case, you simply have some things around your neck here. It was NOT sustained ANYTHING over a two year period.
I saw the man a grand total of ONCE between the time he raised a false allegation about products in our store, and the time I saw him in court. On
that occasion, I allowed him to board a bus ahead of me out of courtesy.
The LIES the man told were about all manner of things I had apparently done, including hurling abuse across the street, menacing him with gestures
from my doorway (even though you cannot see my doorway from the position he accused me of being in when this stuff is meant to have occurred).
Furthermore, our local paper got some of the key facts of the situation wrong in terms of how the case worked itself out.
My mother DID appear, at every court date that she was supposed to. The judge made a ruling based on probability BECAUSE I WAS NOT PERMITTED TO ENTER
MY STATEMENT BECAUSE OUR SOLICITORS FAILED TO ENTER IT IN TIME AND ONLY ALERTED ME TO ITS BEING REQUIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE
THEY ATTEMPTED TO ENTER IT INTO EVIDENCE! We paid people to handle the paperwork and the technical aspects of the case, because we were all too
buggered up to do it ourselves at the time. As it turned out, not just one, but two sets of solicitors failed us...that's by the by. I never, NEVER
declined to comment, in court about the events that lead to the court date being necessary, and the paper can say what they like otherwise, because it
will not change the facts of what happened.
I declined to comment to the BBC directly, because they had been involved with the efforts of the fraudster who concocted this case, to have this
judgement pass through in his favour, from the very beginning, and had been extremely combative in their approach to us as well.