View Single Post
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 08-02-2017, 09:11 AM
OrleansLawyer OrleansLawyer is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,679
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough

telling you that you have 2 hours then allowing other side to rant on for 3 hours and giving you only one hour and cutting you off abruptly is another thing.
Since that is not the situation described by the OP your analogy is irrelevant.

I've been before a judge that initially told me too late I had my chance already when i mentioned I had something else to say following conclusion of my oral submission. But then I gave off the body language that I had somethimg very important to say and that I was saddened and shpuld maybe report the judge to the judical council and just sat there quietly and the judge turned to me very politely and asked me to go ahead and say what I had to say and listened to it and thanked me for sharing it with her. I have tons of respect for that particular judge.
Based on your description, the judge's line of thought was "this person will be more satisfied with the result if they are able to whinge on right now instead of feeling justice was not served later. Thus I will bend the rules for them". The judge used their discretion to allow you to make additional submissions. They were not obliged to do so.

Just remember that judges are supposed to permit you to speak and listen to you when you speak.
There are rules. Parties, whether represented or not, are expected to follow them. Being a litigant does not grant you an audience for an indefinite period of time. Judges can, and are expected to, set time limits for matters.

they don't get to break laws just because they are a judge.
No laws were broken.

I didnt realize parties were in court to entertain the judge , or the boss, as you like to refer to them. I would also sure hope that your very own relationship with your boss is one that of a 2 way street.
Litigation is about persuasion. If you are meandering on then the judge is unlikely to follow your arguments; therefore you will not be persuasive. The judge is present to make a decision based on the facts and law, not hold your hand as you vent about how unfair life can be.

cut people off during their submissions because the judge failed to properly manage the motion and conduct it fairly, i.e., shortening the motion by one hour and giving one party the majority of the time to speak realizing the other side won't have enough time to speak.
Reading comprehension - the OP did not say they received half of the time. They argued their motion, other side responded and argued a cross motion, their responding submissions to the cross motion were truncated.

Perhaps they went long with their initial motion, or the judge had heard enough information, or they ought to have included more in their initial motion? You are assuming information not given.

Orleans Lawyer is, in fact, a real lawyer.
Everything said in this, and any other, message is not intended to be taken as legal advice. I do not hold myself out to be a lawyer, adult or literate. Any resemblance this or any other message may have to legal advice or common sense is entirely coincidental. This message was generated through the combination of a monkey hitting a keyboard with a rock and advanced spell check software.
Reply With Quote