Originally posted by CrazyDaisy
View Post
A justice can't make a substantial order on anything at them just like a conference. So, basically it is a good opportunity to NOT TALK AT ALL and let the other party blab on with nonsense and you just respond yes/no to the justice.
If you watch very skilled barristers they say very little in the court room. A crappy one will ramble on about this and that and even contradict themselves e.g. "Well, my clients business was doing really well but, yes the business was loosing X$ every month and accumulated a large debt against the family's finances." What is it then crappy lawyer? The business was "thriving" or "failing"? It can't be both. You don't even have to point out these logical fallacies that spew forth from these negative advocates... Justices ears are highly tuned to the crap that they vomit in the court room like that. A very skilled lawyer will stand quietly handing their "friend" more rope rather than "objecting" or "challenging" anything they say. They are highly skilled in their understanding of "relevance" and address huge diatribes in 10 words or less.
I wouldn't fret... The less you talk and the more you offer solutions to resolve the matter the better. You don't have to defend yourself at conferences and "talk to" meetings... Nor should you. The purpose of these things is not to test evidence but, SOLVE PROBLEMS.
Good LucK!
Tayken
Leave a comment: