Re: Witness for the Defense
Posted by v on 5/31/05
I don't know. Shouldn't there be copys of this check list some where? and maybe intripplicate. As in the case you get a copy. Another copy goes into your folder at work, who gets the third copy, signd by you of course. So there is no question about the authenticity of this document. You have an atty i presume. Since you know about this, you have two months to disprove it. They may have bought you time that will work in your favor. On 5/31/05, Michael wrote:
> On 5/31/05, Lillian wrote: >> On 5/23/05, Michael wrote: >>> I have a trial set for this Thursday. All of the sudden >>> the defense says their witness has a doctors appointment >>> and can't make it. They sent a letter to the judge saying >>> they want to re-schedule the trial. Then they sent a >>> letter to the appeals board to try to re-schedule the >>> trial for some bull.... story about needing doctor >>> reports. I can't believe how dirty these people can get. >>> It's like there running out of options. My question is >>> can the trial go on without there witness or is the judge >>> going to set another date. >> >> It's more likely that the Judge will set another date for the >> Court if the letter arrives with plenty of time, but than >> again depends on the Judge ... it seems to me that they are >> 'buying more time'.. witnesses are very important in these > cases ! >> > Not only did he give them a 2 month extension, they came up > with a form they say I checked saying the injury didn't occur > at work. Just when you think the insurance company can't get > any lower they crawl deeper into the sewer. As for the > witness they have, I've never spoken to her about the injury. > She was head of Human Resources at the time. She was the one > that hired me at the company. We got along great.
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Witness for the Defense, 5/23/05, by Michael.
- Re: Witness for the Defense, 5/31/05, by Lillian.
- Re: Witness for the Defense, 5/31/05, by Michael.
- Re: Witness for the Defense, 5/31/05, by v.
|