yesterday's hearing, page-38

soulmate,

you're the guys with absolutey no idea. you haven't got the first clue about the process in a court room.

there is a thing called court room tactics, and often barristers will overstate or put a certain slant on their argument to get what they want.

Here's an example: when CHM tried to adduce further evidence some time ago they stated in court that if they weren't allowed to present this evidence their case would be seriously disadvantaged.

It so turned out that the judge did not allow for this evidence. However just because CHM argued that this evidence is 'crucial or vital' does not mean that it is the be all and end all of the case. This is lawyer talk to get what you want.

You simians take every word literally because you've got no clue about the substance of what's going on. If I'm a barrister for MMX and CHM pulls some late evidence out of their backsides, then I'll want to know what the substance of the new evidence is before I start the hearing.

So in order to buy time to examine what new rubbish CHM is pulling out of their body cavities, a barrister will overstate the importance of that evidence to get the adjournment, and to see what new dirty tricks are being tried on.

CHM had to pay the costs for this exercise, you guys seem to just brush over this fact.

One of the guys on this forum posted that they knew one of the people who received a subpoena, and that this person was asked by CHM to sign an affidavit etc.

I'm not taking that as gospel, but if that's exposed for the dirty trick that it appears to be, then watch the judge explode at the next directions hearing on the 2 April.