Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: telegram has channels with conversations...

Posted by alexandra_k on October 24, 2020, at 16:16:10

In reply to Re: telegram has channels with conversations..., posted by alexandra_k on October 24, 2020, at 16:02:22

I think the issue is genuinely that we don't have many people who are good at that. I mean so say I don't think there are many lawyers on the legal aid list that would be as... assertive... to the University of Auckland lawyers as I, myself, am personally being.

I think most would be cowed.

Not as assertive with objections and the like. From what I have seen of court process... Things are very ploddy. Sleepy. People don't object. Judges don't object. When judges ask questions (especially of more junior lawyers) they are actually a bit apologetic, even, that they may be throwing them off their stride which might cause them to lose track which might mean that they are supposed to speak but don't have anything to say at all...

There's an element of that.


I did read something that said that the judges ability to decide the case was fairly indepent of the skill of the lawyer. The judge relied on the lawyers to get the facts before the judge but the judge had many many years of expertise with the law and the judge could look things up for themselves and so on, too, so basically, even if the lawyer did not raise something that they should have or whatever the judge could still ensure justice was done by bringing these things in themselves...



That's now how it's supposed to go. Of course the judge thinks they are independent and impartial. But the idea of having lawyers is to really put forwards the best case and ensure that things aren't prematurely decided.


It seemed to me that the judge was coming down on the side of the University...

Because the University presented a nice time-line of proceedings and it was easy for the judge to go 'yes, okay, since the other party doesn't have anything better sounding and you guys have made a lovely timeline lets go with that'.

But I had to object. And say they missed their deadline on filing a statement of defence. So judgement may proceed without them. So I request judgement proceed without them. They were late. Too bad.

And their timeline changed the issue. The hearing is about the issue I raise as the applicant. They put in a motion to strike out my application and made the hearing be about their issue. But their issue is irrelevant. PRoceed to summary judgment without them they were late.


The judge ended up finding some other law that said they MUST file a statement of defence. I don't know about that.


They were ORDERED to file a statement of defence for the issue that I (the applicant) raised.

But I don't know that that would have been the outcome if I hadn't have objected. And requested summary judgement. And pointed out that they changed the issue to something irreelvant on their timeline.


They pay me -- right?

They stole my life.

And gave it to tehir incompetent progeny so we can have wrongful death, wrongful death, wrongful death, oopsie! you had an allergic response to the wool we left inside you hahahahaha! wrongful death'...




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1111015