Charles, going by your comments rather than a transcript, it sounds like this judge made little allowance for you as a self-represented litigant. Her "dog ate my homework" remark shows her insensitivity to people with ADHD, who can easily forget notes. A brief recess, to allow you to get your notes from home nearby, would have been less accommodation than I have seen the court give lawyers at times.
Also, the judge could have warned you of the consequence of not presenting your own evidence. This would not be giving you legal advice so much as ensuring access to justice. Rather, she apparently counted on you walking into this procedural trap, so that she could rule against you on formal grounds, without having to deal with the real merits of your case. I have observed judges, particularly this one, use that tactic before, against disliked litigants representing themselves.
Vaughn Barnett, I had a professional opinion given to me on this decision, and what Charles is completely unaware of is that an appeal is possible when there is an error in law that the lower court committed. It is the opinion of that professional that the appeal that Charles will do is dead on arrival. In which case, the road is over for you Charles, the SCOC won't hear your case either. YOU LOSE CHARLES!
The only error of law is that Blogger Charles didn't present a case. If you're not going to cross examine defence witnesses you are dead in the water. The court indulged him as did the City - this has dragged on for years. When you file an action it's your responsibility to push and present your case. Charles makes not effort then blames the other party for not rolling over and admitting they were all wrong - that's not how the world works. Vaughan Barnett - you should know by now you cannot hypothesise from a short legal decision of a two day trial - which sounds like it was all about the defence presenting witnesses and evidence and the Plaintiff doing zip, except ask for adjournments and refuse to cross examine! What Twilight Zone world are you people living in???
Charles, going by your comments rather than a transcript, it sounds like this judge made little allowance for you as a self-represented litigant. Her "dog ate my homework" remark shows her insensitivity to people with ADHD, who can easily forget notes. A brief recess, to allow you to get your notes from home nearby, would have been less accommodation than I have seen the court give lawyers at times.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the judge could have warned you of the consequence of not presenting your own evidence. This would not be giving you legal advice so much as ensuring access to justice. Rather, she apparently counted on you walking into this procedural trap, so that she could rule against you on formal grounds, without having to deal with the real merits of your case. I have observed judges, particularly this one, use that tactic before, against disliked litigants representing themselves.
Vaughn Barnett, I had a professional opinion given to me on this decision, and what Charles is completely unaware of is that an appeal is possible when there is an error in law that the lower court committed. It is the opinion of that professional that the appeal that Charles will do is dead on arrival. In which case, the road is over for you Charles, the SCOC won't hear your case either. YOU LOSE CHARLES!
ReplyDeleteThe only error of law is that Blogger Charles didn't present a case. If you're not going to cross examine defence witnesses you are dead in the water. The court indulged him as did the City - this has dragged on for years. When you file an action it's your responsibility to push and present your case. Charles makes not effort then blames the other party for not rolling over and admitting they were all wrong - that's not how the world works. Vaughan Barnett - you should know by now you cannot hypothesise from a short legal decision of a two day trial - which sounds like it was all about the defence presenting witnesses and evidence and the Plaintiff doing zip, except ask for adjournments and refuse to cross examine! What Twilight Zone world are you people living in???
ReplyDelete