Principle subverted to procedure.

[noS...@gmail.com]

This query is about legal *theory*: not the dog-laws in your or my
jurisdiction. Ie. we have a common base of 'English law'.

US wording is "a *race* for the presidency": which reduces great
achievement to footballer's tactics.
Obviously litigation must be guided by its procedures and time-limits;
but what happens when great societal changes, eg. a war, which makes
long established procedural rules unachievable? Does litigation then
descend to manipulating time-limits?

Jurisdiction X has what they call "motion procedures": where the
argument is presented in affidavits, with no live evidence.
Normally there's a Founding affidavit, an Answering affidavit, and
a Replying affidavit [from the applicant if wanted].
Further affidavits may be submitted, after Court approval.

In a matter where party A had contrived a default judgement, he
again manipulated the timing rules, by serving the Answering
affidavit, [against the default judgment set-aside application,]
on the late afternoon, before the hearing set-down date. Thus
preventing the applicant from receiving the affidavit and preparing
a reply, before the hearing.

Is this possible in your/other jurisdictions?
Or was the applicant incompetent in choosing a set-down date, which
allowed the manipulator to slip-in uncontested argument?

It seems outrageous that the rules would allow such denial of justice,
yet in the same jurisdiction, only recently were decades old rules
amended, which allowed a house owners dwelling to be confiscated,
for a trivial debt, not related to the house payment, without
judicial over-site; i.e by a mere clerical entry.

Is this possible in your/other jurisdictions?

I've read spoofs about Texas laws of pioneer days, centuries ago.
Have the above described problems got a similar cause?
Perhaps such injustice accounts for Unibomber/S?