How does due process work?

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In a civil matter, are the facts all to be set down in the pleadings,
before the matter is heard?
If so what is to be heard?
If not, is it not very amateurish and wastefull of court resources to
NOT establish the essential facts, which may require time consuming
evidence collection, before the hearing?
Is the sytem considered as being an adverserial system, and thus the
Court may NOT initiate it's own argument/s?
Do the rules recognise that a finite time is required to prepare a legal
argument and/or a rebuttal?
By 'argument', I mean a construction of:
facts plus statutes and precedence(sp?) leading a to conclusion in law.
What is the time allowed to prepare and file/serve an affidavit
replying to a 'founding affidavit': the initial document of the plaintiff?
How many rounds/cycles of affidavits are allowed?
Where would I read on line, the procedure/rules relating to my
questions?

== TIA.

[Norman Wells]

I would think Google might be a start. It helps with all sorts of
homework questions.

[The Todal]

On 27/5/12 22:44, no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> In a civil matter, are the facts all to be set down in the pleadings,
> before the matter is heard?

Yes

> If so what is to be heard?

Question not understood.

> If not, is it not very amateurish and wastefull of court resources to
> NOT establish the essential facts, which may require time consuming
> evidence collection, before the hearing?

Not applicable

> Is the sytem considered as being an adverserial system, and thus the
> Court may NOT initiate it's own argument/s?

Non sequitur. In English law we have an adversarial system but the judge
is free to ask questions in the course of the trial and frequently does.

> Do the rules recognise that a finite time is required to prepare a legal
> argument and/or a rebuttal?

Yes

> By 'argument', I mean a construction of:
> facts plus statutes and precedence(sp?) leading a to conclusion in law.
> What is the time allowed to prepare and file/serve an affidavit
> replying to a 'founding affidavit': the initial document of the plaintiff?

In English law, "founding affidavit" is not the normal way of commencing
a court action - in fact, I've never heard of the term, but maybe it
does exist.

> How many rounds/cycles of affidavits are allowed?

Have you done any research at all?

> Where would I read on line, the procedure/rules relating to my
> questions?

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules

[no.to...@gmail.com]

In article <a2gpsd...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> On 27/5/12 22:44, no.to...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In a civil matter, are the facts all to be set down in the pleadings,
> > before the matter is heard?
>
> Yes
>

> > Is the sytem considered as being an adverserial system, and thus the
> > Court may NOT initiate it's own argument/s?
>
> Non sequitur. In English law we have an adversarial system but the judge
> is free to ask questions in the course of the trial and frequently does.

How does "ask questions" constitute "initiate it's own argument/s"?
OK, a question could serve as a cunning/underhand/unjust prompt.
I should have written "the Court may NOT submitt a new argument, which
is not in the pleadings". My definition of "argument" is below.
Is "argument" the wrong word to describe that structure?

>
> > Do the rules recognise that a finite time is required to prepare a legal
> > argument and/or a rebuttal?
>
> Yes

This is relevant to the main point:
apart from being in conflict with the adverserial principle, by introducing
its OWN NEW argument in Court, the [pro se] party is denied the necessary
time to prepare a rebuttal. Ie. denied due process.

>
> > By 'argument', I mean a construction of:
> > facts plus statutes and precedence(sp?) leading a to conclusion in law.

> > What is the time allowed to prepare and file/serve an affidavit
> > replying to a 'founding affidavit': the initial document of the plaintiff?
>
> In English law, "founding affidavit" is not the normal way of commencing
> a court action - in fact, I've never heard of the term, but maybe it
> does exist.
>
> > How many rounds/cycles of affidavits are allowed?
>
> Have you done any research at all?
>

It's better if I 'move forward' from YOUR facts, than cite outside
authority.

> > Where would I read on line, the procedure/rules relating to my
> > questions?
>
> http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules
>

Thanks, good stuff.
The following from YOUR rules is applicable to the particular matter:-
Please give an opinion on the queried points.
] (2) A claimant may use the Part 8 procedure where -
]
] (a) he seeks the court's decision on a question which is unlikely to
] involve a substantial dispute of fact;
]
] 8.5
] (1) The claimant must file any written evidence on which he intends to
] rely when he files his claim form.
]
Doesn't this imply that all facts relied on must be 'on-the-papers/pleadings,
in-the-record' and that no ad-libbing in court by either party is allowed?

] (2) The claimant's evidence must be served on the defendant with the claim
] form.
]
] (3) A defendant who wishes to rely on written evidence must file it when
] he files his acknowledgment of service.
]
] (4) If he does so, he must also, at the same time, serve a copy of his
] evidence on the other parties.
]
Doesn't this imply that all facts relied on must be 'on-the-papers/pleadings,
in-the-record' and that no ad-libbing in court by either party is allowed?

]
] (5) The claimant may, within 14 days of service of the defendant's
] evidence on him, file further written evidence in reply.
]
Doesn't this acknowledge that a finite reasonable time is required and
allowed for each party to prepare their arguments, and that consequently
any new [not on the record before the hearing] argument by the Court
is not allowed -- because it denies due process?

] (7) The claimant may rely on the matters set out in his claim form as
] evidence under this rule if the claim form is verified by a statement of
] truth.
]
Is this rule calling "matters" what I've defined above as "arguments"?
Doesn't the current use of "matter" in law-jargon refer to the entire
entity: from the initiation of the dispute until the resolution of the dispute?

] (2) The court may require or permit a party to give oral evidence at the
] hearing.

Isn't an "affidavit" equivalent to "verified by a statement of truth"?
-----

Thanks for your input.

[Doug]

On May 28, 8:53 am, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

Are you still at school then?

Doug.