06-20-2016, 02:46 AM
(06-20-2016, 01:08 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I said he admitted in the criminal suit that he knew he had permission, and then in the civil suit he tried to lie to change it to protect the caretaker/cemetery because there was a clause in their insurance about wrecking in a stolen car.
This is a complete lie.
In post #134 of this thread http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Classless-Lawyers?page=7 about the CIVIL case you said this. . .
"he admitted that the owner left the keys in it and that it was assumed permission for us to drive."
The truth is that in the CIVIL case he admitted that he knew he DID NOT have permission to drive the car. His testimony is cited in the Court of Appeals opinion from the CIVIL case. It is public record. Anyone who wants to read it can see that you are a complete and total liar.
Next time when I prove you are a liar you should just shut up instead of telling more lies. I own you on this issue and the more you keep lying the worse you look.
And.finally there would have been no difference in the liability of the cemetary caretaker if the car was stolen or not. It would only have made a difference for the liability of the car owner, not the cemetary caretaker.
