“the case has no merit” and (“credence to the claim” or “recognition of the claim”)

When a lawyer says “the case has no merit” in response to defending a lawsuit where he is the Defendant, in essence that means he/she has a legal opinion and that is his judgement. That does not mean he is correct. A defendant cannot be his own judge.

 

When a lawyer says he/she does not want to give “credence to the claim” in defensive of a lawsuit, it means he/she is “pleading the fifth” amendment and does not want to incriminate themselves.

 

The first is an appeal to his/her authority as the expert. The second is the common use of “pleading the 5th” and not wanting to say anything that can be used against him/her. This could be due to guilt OR not knowing how to respond to the assertion or allegation. If that occurs, simply ask for a moment to confer or more time if research is required.

 

A 30 day continuance is ridiculous if it is simply a 5 minute iPhone lookup to reference some law text. But that is a separate subject.

 

Talking or responding to the claimant or plaintiff with the grievance is usually NOT giving “credence to the claim”.

 

To cite a recent precedent, in the case between Andrew Bransford Brown vs. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, both uses of the above were essentially “pleading the 5th” to avoid a GUILTY verdict or a CONSPIRACY TO hide the GUILTY. It was NOT due to a lack of legal knowledge or the need to consult. It was a refusal to accept the possibility of General Counsel’s possibility he was wrong.

 

In the above mentioned case, a summons was issued over email after in-person notice was given. The summons was to schedule a meeting to discuss where the next meeting was to occur. This initial meeting was simply to locate a representative agreeable to both parties, a venue agreeable to both parties, and the possible need for a judge that was agreeable to both parties. In the Plaintiff’s assertions, the venue selected by the Defendant was filled with Defendants. The judge(s) selected by the Defendant were all Defendants themselves (or at a minimum were in the same “club” as the Defendant).

 

So, in the Defendant’s failure to appear to the summons, the Plaintiff was forced to be his own acting judge. That was the reason behind the Judge’s very conservative ruling.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: