XPost: aus.legal   
   From: al_nevski@yahoo.com   
      
   The indirect proof (i.e. ...therefore, he must have...) is only practiced in   
   criminal proceedings.   
   In civil litigation, you are not to infer your conclusions beyond what's in   
   your claim.   
      
   Think of the civil litigation as a sword duel.  Any thrust must be   
   irect  --  no sneaky stuff.   
   To draw "nearby" conclusions  --  that's the sneaky stuff.   
      
   Al.   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:h8liph$ghq$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >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)