XPost: uk.legal
Our law in the English speaking world: N America India &
the other ex-colonies is all basically the same; originating
from english law. And the superficial differences should not
hide the common underlying principles and universally
applicable logic.
But apparently for expediency, law people don't [and eventually
apparently CAN'T] think from first principles. To save effort
they just match up familiar phrases with stereotypical scenarios.
So eg. if you've got a dispute with the bank about your bicycle
loan: where the bank claims you owe $10 and you can prove
that you owe only $5, and you write a letter to the bank:
"Re. your bicycle-loan-claim for $10: please check my
documents enclosed, which prove that I owe $100 house
mortgage + $5 bicycle-loan = $105 total; and accept $105
gold-sovereigns from my messenger, and close my account,
else indicate any error in my documents."
And when you apply for the default judgment rescission,
perhaps because the
[and I notice that this applies also for the current UK rules]
in "next to the rules for setting aside a default judgment",
the clowns say you have no defence, because you admitted
owing more than the claim. $105 is more than $10.
You don't believe me ?
Voice recording equipment and certified transcripts and
certified records are marvelous. That's why an open press
is the cornerstone of a democracy.
------------------
When I read the 'rules for different countries/jurisdictions, they
all feel completely understandable, reasonable and consistent.
So when I mention HERE "founding affidavit" why can't the
English law-boys see that my term "founding affidavit"
relates directly to their rule:
(Part 22 requires particulars of claim to be verified by a
statement of truth) ?
I tried to start from the must basic principle of "due process",
to see what terms THEY currently use for the key concepts.
But I can't get any sense, so I'll just use MY terms.
--------------------
Please comment on:
How would the highest appeal Court in YOUR jurisdiction act?
Scenario 1.
The procedure [equivalent to the UK "Part 8 procedure"]
called an APPLICATION [as opposed to an ACTION] is
simpler/cheaper and the decision is based on the
"founding affidavit" , "answering affidavit"
and possibly a further [from the applicant] "replying
affidavit", and even, rarely, permission from the court
for further affidavits, to clarify the FACTS.
The record/transcript shows that after the respondent had
before the
invited the pro-se' applicant to speak, the court said . Ie. he hadn't received/read the VITAL
affidavit, refuting the central fallacy of the answering affidavit;
and after locating it, hastily decided, based on the argument
of the answering affidavit.
Scenario 2.
In the same matter as 1 above, the Appeal judges effectively
acknowledge that the argument of the answering affidavit
which was refuted in the replying affidavit, which the trial
court had not accessed nor read before the hearing, was
absurd [putting cause AFTER effect] by introducing THEIR OWN
[Appeal judge's : mero moto] new/not-in-the-record,
argument which was also invalid.
1. In an adversarial system, it is not for the court to introduce
their own argument.
2. By throwing a new argument at the pro se' party
[standing up] they denied the appellant due process,
opportunity to disprove their argument.
Scenario 3.
At a sheriff sale/auction it was witnessed that the
land/house which was auctioned, was bid far above
market price, so that after the genuine bidders were
driven away, the sale was 'cancelled and said to be
and then the
land/house was re-auctioned to the scammers with
no competitive bid.
I'm speculating that the existing law allows this,
because
Scenario 4
sub-economic [government subsidised] houses for poor
ignorant people were noted to be being 'executed' by
shark lawers. A 'strange' lawer took it upon himself [he
mentioned some thing about "giving the profession a bad
name"] to ride the matter up to the Constitutional Court.
Here's the punch-line: the con-court
|
