Actually, the situation in the market and my recognition for his games was also based on his exaggeration but he still chose to play it again here on the same target. With the option I mentioned in the preceding post he could have suggested to me that anything I heard from the judges of the court and supposedly made me feel strongly that they would be on my side meant nothing more than resolving and dealing with the original merits of the case fairly. If he really thought that my faith in the outcome was built that much high based on things I heard from the judges of the court then that needed to be fitted with something not contradicted. Instead, his behaviour was more like he wanted to take away whatever was left than that of facing a strong thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment