only sites that are fallowed [sic] by Muslims are fair game
See, I told you that you knew more about this than I do.
Which is a very far cry from you accusation that Muslims are habitual liars
Not "habitual liars." Excellent liars.
even when it hurts their own case
Well, the most interesting example of this was a case brought by the County Zoning Authority against an Afghani family that had a very large house, part of which they sublet into apartments for unrelated people.
I knew the homeowner because he did a lot of translations in court, although he lost his right to translate because he was accused of submitting fraudulent time sheets, and rather than be convicted of multiple felonies, he just quit translating in that court. He said they were prejudiced against him because he was Muslim.
And he did have a felony conviction for insurance fraud, but that was also an example of prejudice against him because he was Muslim.
So, the county case, same thing. Prejudice against Muslims. His father was the former mayor of Kabul, and lots of people came to see him and ask his advice, and pray with him, so that explained the dozen or so taxis parked out front all the time.
I was on the premises for not one, but two inspections by the county, and there was absolutely no evidence that anybody else lived in the house. The woman on the sofa with the baby is his sister, and so forth.
So we go to trial, and the county puts on their case, and then I put on his case, and he's got two dozen people there ready to swear that nobody lives in the house but his family, but I only called him, his wife, his son, his mother, and his father.
Then the county puts on rebuttal.
They bring in surveillance photos of stoves, refrigerators, beds, dressers, etc., being hauled away in the morning before the inspection, and then being hauled back AFTER the inspection.
And the woman on the sofa with the baby testifies, too, she's actually from Nicaragua.
That one was the worst.
He was really mad that I had not found out before court that the County had this evidence. Like it was my fault for not realizing he'd lied to me.
Then there was the one where the couple refinanced the house and did not read the closing documents until several days too late, and tried to rescind the loan after the three day recission date passed, so brought in the entire family to testify about the recission date, but the children couldn't keep the story straight, even though they were clearly coached. Not that it mattered, the lender had time-and-date-stamped the attempted letter of rescission.
Now, of course, time-and-date stamps can be backdated, but the judge paid attention to the inconsistencies and found against them, and for the lender.
They did not realize that there is a Rule Against Witnesses which prohibits sitting in court to hear what other people say so you can keep your story straight.
Afterward, they tried to get me to write a letter to the Bar Association telling them that the judge was asleep during the trial and prejudiced against Muslims.
In both cases, if the judge had believed them, they would have won. And they did not have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning without lying. So, why not lie?
The irritating thing was that I could have negotiated a pre-trial settlement on better terms than they wound up getting from the judge. This is the part that bothers me.
Anyway, I assume you realize that I think you know exactly what I mean, but you're lying about it when you deny it. But it's getting boring, so I am willing to drop it. I can't prove you're a liar, I just believe you are.
And of course, your response is that I am Prejudiced Against Muslims. |
