XPost: aus.legal   
      
   A more accurate question, which is a bit too long is:   
   "Why do law-people need elaborately simplified explanations   
   for what normal people see immediately?"   
      
   You know the 'trick' question:   
   "If in a race, you overtake the last runner, which position   
   do you have", is answered by 90% as "2nd last"; which is   
   wrong, because the question is invalid. Because the last   
   runner can't be over taken.   
      
   Then there's the human characteristic, of mental inertia:   
   a line of reasoning once established, is difficult to modify.   
   --------   
   All western law has the following:   
   - the charge which the defendent will be given an   
     opportunity to defend must be exactly made know   
      to him, prior to the Court hearing  - by the summons   
      details.   
   - if a debtor fails to appear in Court, as per summons,   
      the creditor can be granted a default judgment.   
      I.e. it is accepted that the creditor's claim is valid.   
   - if the debtor can show that his, missing the Court   
     hearing, was not intentional he can be granted a   
     set-aside of the default judgment, so that he can   
     state his case.   
   - if the debtor admits owing the claim, the default   
      judgment will not be set aside.   
      
   Q1. what is the logical reason for refusing to set aside   
    the default judgment if the debtor admits owing the   
    claim ?   
      
   Q2. what is the difference, if any between *THE* claim   
      and *A* claim ?   
      
   Q3. in the case that a debtor is billed at $11 per month,   
    and alledges that the correct bill is $10 per month; so   
    that the debtor therefore admits owing $30 for 3 months   
    service; has the debtor admitted the claim, where   
    the summons specified $22 for 2 months service ?   
      
   R4. If you can see why the reason given for refusing the set-aside,   
      given [in writing] as " the debtor admitted owing the,   
      money", is wrong; please write one sentence, explaining it,   
      which law-people can understand.   
      
   Q5. does the rule of "no set aside for claim admission",   
      intend to refuse due process were there is a percieved   
      dispute of the claim ?   
      
   Q6. Is there a percieved dispute, to be resolved, in the   
     above scenario ?   
      
      
   Thanks for any feedback,   
      
   nufsed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)