August 2022
The Disengagement Disguised as Progress
August 2022 marked a turning point.
Where “we’ll raise it in evidence” meant “we’ll delay it in silence”.
And I was left holding the whole thing again.
The hearing on 11 August was listed for directions — but what unfolded was far more than procedural.
It exposed the fault lines between safety and strategy, dignity and delay, truth and tactics.
By the time August rolled in, I was prepared.
Organised. Clear.
I flagged my objections to the property inspection.
I challenged the Defence tactics.
I laid bare the emotional strain and safeguarding concerns we were facing—again.
And still, what came back was the same as before:
- Neutrality packaged as professionalism
- Delays rebranded as “due diligence”
- Loopholes treated like procedure
I said: This isn’t about access. It’s about safety.
They said: “Let the judge decide.”
Then added: “It likely won’t be raised until trial.”
And implied: “So why worry—no order’s been made yet?”
The pattern hadn’t changed.
They were still turning real safeguarding concerns into speculative admin.
When I asked for protection, they gave me prep quotes.
Update the chronology. Sort the exhibits.
Another witness statement.
Another round of “preparation.”
All the while, context was being stripped away—my objections softened into silence.
My warnings repackaged into paperwork.
So, I paid again.
I cooperated again.
And still—
They kept just enough distance to avoid responsibility.
The Meeting That Revealed More Than It Resolved
On 9 August 2022, I sat opposite the barrister—ready, resolute, clear.
What should have been a strategic briefing turned into a quiet derailment.
I raised the pressure I’d been under to cover our expert’s Part 35 response fees.
The barrister confirmed that the judge had stated—during the hearing on 16 May 2022—that those fees were the Defendant’s responsibility.
He agreed to request repayment.
But I wasn’t just misled by the system.
I was misled by my own solicitor.
She had already drafted an email for me to send to the expert confirming I was liable and asking him to adjust his invoice accordingly.
That wasn’t a misunderstanding.
It was a procedural rewrite of cost responsibility.
Before I could challenge it, she interrupted and described the Defence solicitor’s conduct as “misogynistic,” “volatile,” and “unprofessional.”
The barrister acknowledged her concerns and indicated he would raise the behaviour post-hearing.
This exchange diverted the focus from billing transparency to solicitor conduct.
The question of why I was made to carry costs I didn’t owe was lost.
I then asked whether she had acted unlawfully by working off-record.
The barrister said no. “She is doing you a favour,” he said.
A favour that cost me thousands.
A favour that kept her free of procedural accountability.
A favour that let her advise me to settle and soften while still collecting full fees.
But I was no longer buying it.
Not the distraction.
Not the diplomacy.
Not the excuses.
These events—documented across emails, meeting notes, and billing records—did not reflect a misunderstanding.
They formed a sustained pattern of procedural deflection, off-record advice, and cost misrepresentation that warrants scrutiny.
The Hearing That Confirmed the Pattern
Two days later, at the hearing on 11 August 2022, I watched it unfold in real time.
My solicitor hadn’t briefed the barrister on our outstanding works list—even though she’d received it.
He confirmed in court:
“Other than the claimants’ expert report still stands, he does not have any further information.”
— (Court Transcript, 11 August 2022)
Then came the moment that exposed the fracture.
The Defence solicitor attempted to read out our GP’s letter.
The judge interrupted:
“I don’t want you to read it. I want you to tell me its relevance.”
The Defence solicitor failed to answer.
Our barrister objected:
“I do not think it is necessary to read the GP’s letter.”
The Defence solicitor insisted:
“I can, and I will—it is my right.”
The judge pressed:
“What does a GP’s letter have to do with a building dispute?”
This exchange didn’t just expose procedural overreach.
It confirmed that safeguarding concerns were being reframed as tactical delay.
The judge shut him down, clarified the rules, and reinforced the boundaries.
Then came the moment that still echoes.
The Defence solicitor tried to justify remote access.
He slipped—said the expert needed instruction from “the claimant,” then corrected himself.
The request, despite prior objections and safeguarding concerns, suggested an attempt to influence the expert’s inspection in real time.
The judge asked:
“Can’t your client be available by phone?”
The Defence solicitor mumbled.
The judge turned to our barrister:
“What is your position on the Defendant having access to the claimants’ home?”
Our barrister replied:
“It is unheard of putting questions and directions to the expert while the Defendant, his solicitor, their lay-witnesses and the claimants are all present at the same time.”
The judge agreed:
“I’ve never heard of it either. Even if I had, I wouldn’t have it.”
That wasn’t just a ruling.
It was a shield—raised at the exact moment we needed it.
The Cost Wasn’t Just Mine
It was my cub.
Because for a brief second—one I’ll never forget—I saw how close they came to losing him.
And if that had happened, I wouldn’t have been far behind.
That meeting, that hearing, that silence?
They weren’t isolated moments.
They marked key points in a pattern of procedural failure.
Then the Defence solicitor fired off an email.
Suddenly, I was cast as the one delaying.
Stalling.
Refusing to cooperate.
- No mention of the timeline of emails.
- No reference to the crime reports.
- No indication to the judge that this was anything more than a simple disagreement about access.
This month wasn’t just frustrating—it was revealing.
Because by August 2022, I had begun to sense the pattern.
But I didn’t yet have the full map.
The documents were scattered.
The contradictions were buried.
The record was diluted.
It wasn’t until June 2024—after months of forensic review across three years of correspondence, transcripts, and billing trails—that the architecture became clear.
This wasn’t a series of oversights.
It was a coordinated pattern—documented across emails dated 8 and 9 August 2022, confirmed by the barrister’s remarks during the 9 August meeting, and reinforced by procedural silence at the hearing on 11 August.
And every time I spoke clearly,
The procedural response softened.
The safeguarding context was stripped.
And the record was diluted.
Below
The transcript that turned silence into evidence.
August 2022, contradiction-resistant and fully legible.
Hearing Transcript — 11 August 2022 3pm
(Anonymised)
Only at the third hearing was the formal Court script logged in the transcript.
By then, the system had finally caught up to the stakes I’d been naming all along.
It’s possible the script was read aloud at earlier hearings too—I remember hearing “you are not permitted to record the hearing” before each began. But those moments weren’t captured in the transcripts. Only August 2022 holds the procedural preamble in full.
To preserve clarity and flow, the technical preamble—login issues, participant confirmations, and the formal script—has been placed at the end of this transcript, not the beginning.
It’s all here, fully included and contradiction-resistant, But it doesn’t help readers orient themselves at the start.
The main body begins when the Judge enters and addresses the parties.
(Opening Section 3pm)
District Judge: Good afternoon. Counsel for the Claimants, I think you are for Claimants, and I have got Counsel for the Defendant for the Defendant. I am told the Defendant is not present, and First Claimant is present by telephone, because I think she has had some issues being able to join by video. But we have not got Second Claimant. Have I understood that correctly, Counsel for the Claimants?
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes, that is correct, sir.
District Judge: Good. And this matter is again listed before me for directions. There was a hearing back in May when I ordered the Claimants to file a witness statement setting out what works, if any, had been undertaken and what was (inaudible) outstanding.
I have a witness statement from First Claimant, dated 17 May, which seems to deal with the first part of that order, but not the second. She says in paragraph 5:
“I can confirm, prior to [the Expert]’s report of March ’21, a number of rectification works have been carried out as a matter of urgency during July, August and September 2020. However, since the inspection and report, we have not had any further work carried out.”
But I don’t know what works remain outstanding. Are you able to help me with that?
Counsel for the Claimants: I had a conference with the Claimants this week. Other than the original expert report which, obviously, still stands, I do not have any further information. I mean, if it needs a second statement to fully comply with the order, then I suggest we do it that way, if that means the simplest way.
District Judge: Well, I say that, you know, I am concerned about delay and increasing costs and we have already been waiting since May. So I think I have to make the best decision that I can make on the basis of what I do know.
Now, the main issue, it seems to me – because there are some proposed directions from both of you – but the main issue seems to be whether we have one expert on either side or whether the court directs a single joint expert. Counsel for the Claimants, is that still the main issue?
Counsel for the Claimants: Well, I can tell you that following the conference, we would support a single joint expert funded jointly. It does seem to me this case is crying out for a settlement —
District Judge: Yes.
Counsel for the Claimants: — and the only way in which that can be done objectively is with a single joint expert.
District Judge: Good. Well, that is helpful. Counsel for the Defendant, I think that is your position, is it not? Counsel for the Defendant, I cannot hear you.
Counsel for the Defendant: Sorry. Sorry, sir. I forgot I was on mute. So yes. Those who instruct my learned friend have very helpfully prepared a schedule of directions showing what is in dispute; I hope you have that before you. So it incorporates both sets of proposed directions. And I understand it to be the case it is agreed between the parties that there should be a single joint expert. I do not think that is in dispute.
The greater issue appears to be access to the Claimants’ property on the part of the Defendant, myself and Defendant’s lay witnesses. That currently seems to be the sticking point on this. Now, my learned friend has just mentioned he has had a conference; I do not know if this is still a sticking point.
I am concerned by a letter that has been filed, which you, hopefully, have before you, sir, from the Claimants’ GP....
District Judge: Counsel for the Defendant, can I just interrupt? I have probably got hundreds of pages, loose, none in a bundle.
Counsel for the Defendant: Right.
District Judge: All very unsatisfactory. And, quite frankly, what a GP says, how does that have any relevance to a building dispute?
Counsel for the Defendant: Sir, do you have that letter?
District Judge: Well, amongst hundreds of pages somewhere. How is it relevant?
Counsel for the Defendant: Well, I will read it to you, I mean, unless my learned friend wants to read it to you.
Counsel for the Claimants: I do not think we need to explain that; it is a non-issue.
District Judge: I do not want to read it; I want you to tell me its relevance.
Counsel for the Defendant: Well, it has come from the Claimants.
District Judge: How is it relevant to a building dispute?
Counsel for the Defendant: Well, what they are saying is that because of constant harassment from myself —
District Judge: Yes.
Counsel for the Defendant: — Claimant’s mental health has deteriorated
District Judge: Yes.
Counsel for the Defendant: — such that the GP is recommending that neither I nor the Defendant should go and attend at their property.
District Judge: Why do you need to attend at the property?
Counsel for the Defendant: Well, I need to take instructions from the Defendant in terms of what is being asserted has happened, because he has not been there for two years. So we do not know, for example, whether the condition of the property has been changed by third parties.
We know from the First Claimant’s statement that the work has been undertaken since he left. So we do not know what has been done and its relevance to this. And it will be very difficult for him to give evidence when he has not seen the property.
District Judge: Looking at the claim form, brief details of the claim, “We are claiming for £18,243.51 for the (inaudible) from the substantive work for the building work.” That is what the claim is about.
If there’s going to be a single joint expert, the expert will visit the property, your client can give the expert instructions beforehand as to what the state of the building was when he left it. The expert, if he wants clarification, can speak to your client. So I again ask the question, why do you and the Defendant need to visit the Claimants’ property?
Counsel for the Defendant: Well, bearing in mind this is based on works alleged to be defective —
District Judge: That is why we have got a single joint expert.
Counsel for the Defendant: But he or she is going to need instructions from the Defendant. No one is suggesting that it is done with the Claimants. But there may well be issues that the surveyor, the single joint expert, needs clarification on there and then.
District Judge: Well, then he can telephone your client, can he not? Your client can be available at the end of the telephone.
Counsel for the Defendant: Well, he can be, but it does —
District Judge: Counsel for the Claimants, what is your position, please?
Counsel for the Claimants: Well, you are absolutely right. Instructions and questions are going to be put to the expert, in writing, it is unheard of that all parties and lay witnesses attend an inspection at the same time.
District Judge: And if I heard of it, I would not allow it. You are in a position where the expert is potentially coming under pressure from one side or the other, and that is not fair on the expert.
Counsel for the Claimants: Exactly.
District Judge: Now, inevitable that the expert is visiting what happens to be a property owned by the Claimants. But, well, that is what sometimes happens in these cases.
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes. Well, I suggested that just the expert, that he picks up the keys, that he goes along, and if he has queries of the Defendant or the Claimants, then he can telephone them. It is as simple as that.
District Judge: Well, I think so. I would say there is no need for the Claimants to be present at that time and there is no need for the Defendant to be present either. So we have got equality of arms here; we are treating both parties in exactly the same way.
And as I say, if the expert has anything that he wants to clarify, provided both parties are available on the telephone, well, the expert simply telephones them.
Counsel for the Claimants: I agree, sir.
District Judge: That is the way to deal with it, I think. Now, I have got a number of draft directions before me. So, Counsel for the Claimants, which direction do you want me to—
Counsel for the Claimants: The “Defendant’s proposed directions with a point of disagreement”; I think that probably covers both. Then we can work through that.
District Judge: Do we all have then before us, please, the document that Counsel for the Claimants is now asking me to look at? Within the tram lines, it reads, “Defendant’s proposed directions with points of disagreement” with the Claimants’ proposed directions highlighted in red, for hearing on 9 August. Counsel for the Claimants, you have that in front of you, do you?
Counsel for the Claimants: I have it in front of me.
District Judge: Counsel for the Defendant, do you have that?
Counsel for the Defendant: Yes, I do.
District Judge: Thank you. Well, let us go through that then point by point. So with an allocation to the fast track, you are suggesting dates of non-availability. That is a bit unusual. Why do we need that, may I ask?
Counsel for the Claimants: I agree. It is not something that I have inserted, and I would not encourage it at this stage. It is a late stage, seems to me.
District Judge: Yes.
Counsel for the Claimants: As far as (inaudible).
District Judge: Subject to what you say, Counsel for the Defendant, can I take that out?
Counsel for the Defendant: Yes, sir, that is fine, yes.
District Judge: So that comes out. So the numbering changes. I think, can I, please, insert instead of number 2. Counsel for the Claimants, are you going to be having carriage of this order or is it going to be as it is or—
Counsel for the Claimants: I am open to suggestions. Obviously, I am in person in the sense that I am employed for today—
District Judge: Yes.
Counsel for the Claimants: —but I am more than happy to do the directions unless my friend wishes to do so.
District Judge: Counsel for the Defendant?
Counsel for the Defendant: Yes. No, that is fine. I am quite happy with that, yes.
District Judge: Alright. Is it going to be you, Counsel for the Defendant, or is it going to be Counsel for the Claimants? — Counsel for the Claimants, is it going to be you?
Counsel for the Claimants: I am happy to do it, sir.
District Judge: — Right. Thank you. So instead of two, can you please include – because I think it is very important in this case – will you please include the standard ADR paragraph, which encourages the parties to obviously attempt to resolve the matter outside of the court arena.
It is the standard ADR direction. If you look up on the template directions, then I am sure you will be familiar with it, and I am sure Counsel for the Defendant will be familiar with that order.
Counsel for the Defendant: It is actually at number 10 but the ---
District Judge: Well, it should not be at number 10; it should be at number 2 because one of them ---
Counsel for the Claimants: It is at number 10, actually. I will simply switch it.
Counsel for the Defendant: Yes.
District Judge: Yes. So what is at number 10 comes to number 2, please.
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes, that is fine.
District Judge: It should be the last thing we are telling the parties to do when they have done everything else. It is the first thing.
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes.
District Judge: Alright. So the ADR then goes into number two. You have got standard disclosure; that seems fine. You have got witness statements; that seems fine. Well, 5 comes out, does it?
Counsel for the Claimants: It does, yes. There is a new 5 there, as you can see. So expert evidence, single joint expert. Then you say, “The parties shall agree a suitably qualified expert, agree a joint letter of instruction”. We are not going to have both parties present, so ---
Counsel for the Claimants: No, that is out.
Counsel for the Defendant: Sir, can I request that it is made expressly clear that neither party is present when the single joint expert attends?
District Judge: Yes, of course.
Counsel for the Claimants: That is fine. Shall I put that as number 3?
District Judge: Yes. So instead of “both present when the expert attends the claimants’ property”, it would be “neither party be present” ---
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes. Yes.
District Judge: --- “when the expert attends” ---
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes, that is fine.
JUDGE PHILIPS: --- Alright? Then you have got “Copy any communications to the expert and received from the expert to the other party”, “jointly liable for 50 per cent of the expert’s fee”. Well, that is entirely sensible.
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes.
District Judge: You have then got, actually, the “neither party shall be present at the property at the time”. So we do not need it in twice, but I do not mind where it is, as long as it is in once.
Counsel for the Claimants: So shall we delete this little 3 and let us leave it as (c).
Counsel for the Defendant: Yes, that is fine.
District Judge: I think so, because little (c) is a little bit more comprehensive, because ---
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes.
District Judge: --- it says, “ability of the expert to gain entry to the property will be arranged by means of the expert being presented with the key and approach allowed, or letter delivered to the expert office”. I think you perhaps also ought to include there, “both parties should be available by phone on the date of inspection to deal with any questions the expert wishes to raise.”
Counsel for the Claimants: Where do you want that to say exactly?
District Judge: At the end of (c).
Counsel for the Claimants: OK.
District Judge:It can be a new line, but it can be part of (c).
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes, yes. OK
District Judge: It is the way that we are envisaging that this is going to be dealt with. And one of the concerns of the defendant was, well, what happens if the expert has got some questions to ask? Well, you know, we do need these parties to be present on the end of the phone, so it can be dealt with quickly on that day.
Then letter (d), “Neither party shall have any contact with the expert, save for correspondence in written form in respect of where the other part will be copied in. And the expert shall be requested to ensure that all correspondence sent to the either party is copied to the other.” Well, I think that is pretty standard.
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes.
District Judge: And then you have got, “Any questions to the expert shall be served by 10 January, copied to the other party. Expert replies simultaneously served by 31.” And you have got “Schedule of loss”, “Counter schedule”, “Pre-trial checklists. You have got a trial window, 10 April.” Let me give you a window. It will be 10 April through to 5 May.
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes.
District Judge: You have suggested the time estimate of day and a half, including reading time, which is probably sensible. You will need to include a direction, please – so it is a new direction – that the claimant must file and serve, at least 10 working days before the trial, a trial bundle, prepared in accordance with Practice Direction – bear with me ---
Counsel for the Defendant: 39.
District Judge: No, it is Rule 39. And it is Practice Direction 32, paragraphs 27.1 ---
Counsel for the Claimants: Sorry, Rule 32.
District Judge: No, it is not rule; it is Practice Direction 32.
Counsel for the Claimants: Right.
District Judge:Paragraphs 27.1-27.15.
Counsel for the Claimants: 32.
District Judge:Because I think that is important. And then possible (inaudible). Can you also make clear, please, in the directions that the trial – because what you have said is “the trial window should be set for the period 10 April ’23”, I have told you until 5 May, “time as spend one and a half days”.
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes.
District Judge: Better say – make it absolutely clear, “The case be listed for trial during the trial window as in person trial”.
Counsel for the Claimants: Certainly.
District Judge: Because that needs to be set out in the order.
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes.
District Judge: And, obviously, the court will send you the date, and then you have the date and then everybody can attend the court building on that day. Subject to that, Counsel for the Claimants, is there anything else from yourself?
Counsel for the Claimants: No, sir.
District Judge: Thank you. Counsel for the Defendant, is there anything else from yourself?
Counsel for the Defendant: No. No, thank you, sir.
District Judge: Good. I am grateful to both of you. And can I ask then, please, Counsel for the Defendant, to draft the order, send a copy to Counsel for the Defendant for his approval?
Counsel for the Claimants: Yes.
District Judge: Today is Thursday. If it could come in by no later, please, Counsel for the Claimants, close of business, let us say Monday next week? Does that give you enough time?
Counsel for the Claimants: It will be done tomorrow, sir.
District Judge: Excellent. The sooner, the better. But, certainly, I know everybody is busy, but if I can give you until then, you know, the sooner you get it into me, the sooner I can look at it and get it approved.
Alright, if there is nothing else, I am grateful to you both for your assistance. I will bring the hearing to an end. A very good afternoon.
Counsel for the Defendant: Thank you.
Counsel for the Claimants: Thank you, sir.
Counsel for the Defendant: Good afternoon.
August 2022 – The Curtain Lifted
The Defence claimed their client couldn’t give evidence without seeing the property.
But the Judge reminded them: that’s why a single joint expert exists.
The Defence wasn’t seeking clarity.
They were seeking access.
And not just access—unauthorised access.
The transcript now confirms it:
The push wasn’t procedural.
It was strategic.
And the Judge said no.
September arrived with new tactics—laced with harm and pressure.
They disobeyed a Judge’s ruling until the joint expert put his foot down.
Not through the front door—
But through procedural backchannels.
And it wasn’t just the Defence solicitor.
Our solicitor was causing equal harm through serious errors.
Neither solicitor was done.
They were recalibrating as a tag-team.
And this time, they weren’t just testing legal boundaries.
They were trying to redraw them.
Technical Preamble Follows
The hearing concluded at approximately 15:55.
What follows is the technical preamble — the login exchanges, participant confirmations, and formal Court script — which would ordinarily appear at the beginning of a transcript.
To preserve clarity and flow, it has been placed here at the end, so readers can focus first on the substance of the hearing.
It remains fully included, contradiction-resistant, and unedited.
Court Clerk: Hello, Counsel for the Claimants — can you hear me?
Claimants’ Counsel: Yes, I can hear you fine. Can you hear me?
Court Clerk: I can. I hear and see you clearly, thank you.
For the record, could you state your name and your role in today’s hearing?
Claimants’ Counsel: My name is Counsel for the Claimants. I represent both Claimants.
Court Clerk: Are you expecting any solicitors?
Claimants’ Counsel: No. I believe the Claimants will be joining us directly.
Court Clerk: One of them is joining now. Hello, First Claimant — can you hear me?
First Claimant: Yes. Can you hear me?
Court Clerk: I can hear you fine. Are you joining by phone link again?
First Claimant: No, I’m on my computer, but we had trouble logging in. No camera, I’m afraid.
Court Clerk: That’s fine. For the record, could you state your name and your role in today’s hearing?
First Claimant: Yes. I’m the First Claimant.
Court Clerk: Is the Second Claimant with you?
First Claimant: Not at the moment. He said he’ll try to join, but I’m not sure.
Court Clerk: If he does, please let me know — I’ll need to repeat the script.
First Claimant: Of course. I’ll let you know.
Court Clerk: Thank you.
Court Clerk: Hello, Counsel for the Defendant — can you hear me?
Claimants’ Counsel: I think he’s muted.
Court Clerk: Yes, it looks like he’s having trouble logging in. We’ll wait a few minutes.
Claimants’ Counsel: OK.
Court Clerk: Thank you. Hello again, Counsel for the Defendant — can you hear me?
Claimants’ Counsel: There’s a message from his end.
Court Clerk: I’m replying now. Yes, we know you can hear us, but we can’t see or hear you yet.
Claimants’ Counsel: There should be a screen option to activate camera and microphone.
Court Clerk: Counsel for the Defendant — can you hear me?
Defendant’s Counsel: Yes, I can hear you fine. Can you hear me?
Court Clerk: Yes, we can hear and see you now. Thank you.
Defendant’s Counsel: I had to switch browsers. Chrome wasn’t working.
Court Clerk: That’s often the case. Glad we got there in the end.
Defendant’s Counsel: Thank you.
Court Clerk: For the record, could you state your name and your role in today’s hearing?
Defendant’s Counsel: I’m Counsel for the Defendant.
Court Clerk: Is the Defendant attending?
Defendant’s Counsel: No, just myself today.
Court Clerk: Thank you. Now, I’ll read the formal script before handing over to the Judge:
This hearing is being recorded by HMCTS. Personal recordings or publication are prohibited and may constitute a criminal offence. Please mute yourselves when not speaking to avoid interference. Ensure you are in a private space. This hearing is conducted via video link but remains a formal legal proceeding.
This is case number [REDACTED], Claimants versus Defendant, heard at the Civil Justice Centre on 11 August 2022 at 3:00 pm before District Judge [REDACTED].
Court Clerk: First Claimant, has the Second Claimant joined?
First Claimant: No, not yet.
Court Clerk: If he does, I’ll need to repeat the script.
First Claimant: I don’t think he will, but I’ll let you know if he does.
Court Clerk: Thank you. Are you still there?
First Claimant: Yes. I can’t see you though — is there something I need to switch on?
Court Clerk: Can you see the other participants?
First Claimant: No, I can’t see anything.
Court Clerk: I can’t adjust that from here, but I’ve sent a suggestion in the chatroom to test your camera.
First Claimant: That would be great.
Court Clerk: Can you see that in the chatroom?
Claimants’ Counsel: You should see a camera icon at the bottom of your screen — you can unmute it.
First Claimant: Is that a camera there?
Court Clerk: It should be blue — a rectangle with a triangle on the end. Looks like a budget camera icon.
First Claimant: I’ve got a TV. No, I don’t see any of those. It’s an old computer.
Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved
| Visitor Counter: | |||||||
 |  |  |  | |  | ||