#19. The court testimony of Stanislaw Jablonski

Jablonski tells us about a second incident where Zaremba crashed his car (and then attributed the damage to myself). For my part however, just as with Zaremba’s story about the crash, it was simply not translated. I did not even read about it until about three months later. Such is polish Justice.

1. I know why I am here In the court. I bought this car from Zaremba. Zaremba called me to fix the car, and I bought it. This cars front bumper was damaged and broken. It had a broken light, a broken front glass. It had a dent in the roof, on the back of the roof, the antenna, in the middle part, I don’t exactly remember, the left front wheel cover and the back right wheel cover. I painted many parts, I don’t remember. There was also that the front mask was damaged, it was crooked in the middle. In the middle of the mask were waves and it looks like it was crooked. (Now some of the damages of course don’t match. But here it comes:)
2. Broken front light and a crooked mask(hood) in the front were caused by a car accident about which was told to me by Zaremba. The accident happened just before my buying the car. I bought that car in June or July of this year Zaremba told me something about the car hitting something. Broken front light and a crooked mask in the front were caused by a car accident about which was told to me by Zaremba. (Did you catch that? The court didn’t. And there are two points to make. Firstly, Jablonski is telling us rather specifically that there was a subsequent accident and so this accounts for the second estimate’s differences. But also he is specifically pointing out where the hood was damages IN THAT SECOND CRASH. By saying this, he is of course calling Zaremba a liar: “ As a result of the events of the 15th of May the following was damaged: a small flaw on right back mudguard and right back door, an indent to the right of the front mudguard, an indent and unhinging of the cover of the engine…” See my point? ) <3>3. The accident happened just before my buying the car. I bought that car in June or July of this year. The bumper was cracked, and the front mask and I think the left wheel cover. I made the roof smoother and I painted elements which were damaged. I found out from Zaremba that the damages were caused by some fight. I don’t want to say anything more. (Now, Jablonski has been coached in the art of subtlety by whoever was coaching Zaremba. I guess they thought that my translator’s inability to translate might allow them to hide what they were saying. It did. Not cool. Not fair. Not justice. He makes the previous statement, and then goes on in a monotone about other damages, sort of hiding what he had said in the text, deflecting the weight of the statement. Too subtle for this court, too subtle for my lawyer, too subtle for my translator…)
4. After reading testimonies-I don’t remember exactly how much they paid for the car, but I bought it I think for 17,000 pln. This was a very good price. At the day of buying the car, the value was 22 or 23 thousand or more. In a professional workshop, they have much higher prices than mine. Insurance firms have their books where they have middle market prices. When I bought that car, this is what happened. I don’t know how much the they would pay for fixing the car. I didn’t count it. The proper owner of the car is my wife. I don’t remember if Zaremba, when he was selling me that car, if he was telling me something about any other damages, and because of the damages I told you, I bought that car for 17,000. I put a new glass in. (And that was the end of that day.)