By Hanny on July 5, 2017 Verified by Email

One of our customer (who is a lawyer) sued us in this court today for a faulty Pool Heater that we never sold to him nor installed it. What is most disturbing is that even before the case started, the Judge made sarcastic remarks to my boss implying that he was lying. The Judge is Caucasian and my boss is Asian. Throughout the whole proceeding, my boss was never allowed to complete his questioning, cutting him off by saying that he was going "round in circles". The Plaintiff called his witness (representative from the manufacturer of the Heater) who confirmed that they were unable to confirm cause of the problem. There were also many inconsistent "facts" submitted by Plaintiff which my boss was constantly cut off when he tried to question the Plaintiff. Despite all that, the Judge ruled in the Plaintiff favour giving reasons that the Plaintiff sounded more convincing than my boss. My boss is supposedly vague in his defence (never mind that he is not a lawyer!) Isn't the judge supposed to make rulings based on facts?? It is very clear that the Judge had already made up hid mind before presiding on this case and my boss never stood a chance. I have heard rumors about the Judicial community having a non-verbal code of ethics where they will support each other no matter the case. I am beginning to wonder if this is true and if not, was it the colour of my boss' skin that led to this outcome?
This is the second time that my boss has had to deal with unethical Judges from this court. We sued a customer years ago and the Judge ruled in our favour only to be overturned by another Judge! Seems to me this small claims court is a joke and unless you are a lawyer, you will never stand a chance of ever proving your innocence.

Write a Comment

By Hanny on July 5, 2017 Verified by Email

One of our customer (who is a lawyer) sued us in this court today for a faulty Pool Heater that we never sold to him nor installed it. What is most disturbing is that even before the case started, the Judge made sarcastic remarks to my boss implying that he was lying. The Judge is Caucasian and my boss is Asian. Throughout the whole proceeding, my boss was never allowed to complete his questioning, cutting him off by saying that he was going "round in circles". The Plaintiff called his witness (representative from the manufacturer of the Heater) who confirmed that they were unable to confirm cause of the problem. There were also many inconsistent "facts" submitted by Plaintiff which my boss was constantly cut off when he tried to question the Plaintiff. Despite all that, the Judge ruled in the Plaintiff favour giving reasons that the Plaintiff sounded more convincing than my boss. My boss is supposedly vague in his defence (never mind that he is not a lawyer!) Isn't the judge supposed to make rulings based on facts?? It is very clear that the Judge had already made up hid mind before presiding on this case and my boss never stood a chance. I have heard rumors about the Judicial community having a non-verbal code of ethics where they will support each other no matter the case. I am beginning to wonder if this is true and if not, was it the colour of my boss' skin that led to this outcome?
This is the second time that my boss has had to deal with unethical Judges from this court. We sued a customer years ago and the Judge ruled in our favour only to be overturned by another Judge! Seems to me this small claims court is a joke and unless you are a lawyer, you will never stand a chance of ever proving your innocence.

Write a Comment