XPost: aus.legal   
      
   In article , "Al"  wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
   Can you cite an authority for that.   
   I don't dispute it but I'd like to see the formal wording.   
      
   OK, in the context of my query. The summons [as required] specified   
   that the debt was owed per. account submitted, which account was for   
   2 months services [including variable/metered water consumption].   
   So, can the default judgment set aside, be refused, on grounds that   
   when the default judgement was granted, the debt had grown to   
   $30, by the debtor's LATER admission ?   
      
   Could you eg. infer that the debtor didn't receive the summons by   
   just providing proof that he'd been in a coma for 3 months including the   
   summoms delivery time?   
      
   Can you infer that the cat's not breathing, by proving that it's dead, or   
   must you have allegded that it's not breathing ?   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
   Ok, but 'sneaky stuff' is too vague for me.   
   ------------   
   The debtor needs to have alledged 'his arguement'.   
      
   < But the MA/creditor took the debtor's spreadsheet admission   
   of owing $50 at month 5 ie. AFTER the default judgment as   
   an admission of 'the claim'.  And the Court accepted it.   
   Then the appeal Court accepted that cause can't come after   
   effect and changed the argument to "oh well you admitted   
   owing $30 at the time of the summons; so you did admit   
   owing the debt and more.>   
      
   NB. the debtor failed to alledge DIRECTLY that he owed   
   $20 at the time that the claim for $22 was made.  Because   
   this fact was contained in the debtor's spread sheet, which   
   the creditor used to illogically 'prove' that the debtor admitted   
   the claim.   
      
   So the necessary allegation by the debtor was in the record,   
   but was submitted by the CREDITOR.   
   So, formally the debtor didn't submit the necessary allegation.   
   But if we consider the purpose of the rule: "all necessary   
   allegations must be in the record before the decision/argument",   
   then we see that the necessary allegation was provided by the   
   opponent.  Would that satisfy the debtor's legal requirements ?   
      
   > Al.   
      
   Thanks for the feedback,   
      
   == Chris Glur.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)