littlebigman said:
well cq as 4 the first part of ur contribution, if i knew a better way 2 say it i would...but its input like urs that helps me know i must keep try'n 2 say it in whatever way i can...
as 2 ur second point that exists partly in ur imagination, i must admit it does also partly exist in reality.
b aware though that i did win the first hearing 4 summary judgment motioned 4 by the gov and the case was set 4 trial...
gov then motioned 2 retry their move 4 summary judgment (a bit unorthodox 2 get the second chance) and that time they prevailed on the semantics 2 which the appeals court is now grappling with...
no offense taken cq...
please indulge me in the same request on ur part...
ok this might be my lack of education but isnt a summary judgment just a decision made on the basis of statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the facts of the case, and one party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law.
In Common Law legal systems, issues of law, that is to say, what the law actually is in a particular case are decided by the judge, except when jury nullification of the law acts to contravene or complement the instructions or orders of the judge, or other officers of the court. A factfinder has to decide what the facts are and apply the law. In traditional Common Law the factfinder was a jury, but in many jurisdictions the judge now acts as the factfinder as well. It is the factfinder who decides "what really happened," and it is the judge who applies the law to the facts as determined by the factfinder, whether directly or by giving instructions to the jury. Absent an award of summary judgment (or some other type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit will ordinarily proceed to trial, which is an opportunity for each party to present evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that such party is saying "what really happened," and that, under the judge's view of applicable law, such party should prevail. For a case to get to trial, the parties have to take various steps (often known as 'directions'), including disclosing the documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements and other steps.
so i guess my question is, what exactly do you have a summary judgement for? and what exactly is the reason for it being set for trial, which in almost total condridiction to what a summary judgement is?
since all court records are common public records, is there by any chance a CASE # that you have for whatever it is you are so overwordingly trying to explain to us. since its public record any of us at any giving time are leagally able to look at, read and summerize our own opinions of exactly what it is your trying to say.
from this two page post that you have created i am still not sure to what the heck your point is. more then once through your arguement (cause thats exactly what this is turning into) i found that you condridict yourself in things that your saying.
i am just i guess trying to understand what your trying to say, or what point your trying to make.
