86

HOW STRANGE IS IT YOU TRY TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE ACCESS TO YOUR COURT? YOU MAKE TORTURING TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ON PEOPLE WHO HAD DONE NOTHING BAD TO YOU EXCEPT THAT THEY WANT TO APPLY FOR THAT VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF BEING HEARD.  

ALSO YOU ACCEPT THAT IN  SERVING A COMPLAINT ONLY SPECIFIC WAYS ARE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE EVEN IF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT CAN BE PROVIDED THROUGH OTHER PATHS AND REFUSE THAT FOR HERE? WHAT IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED IN SERVING A COMPLAINT IS JUST FOR THE SERVED PERSON TO KNOW ABOUT THE COMPLAINT. HERE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PERSON MUST BRING HIMSELF TO ACCEPT DEALING WITH THE OTHER PARTY.

I ALSO HAVE NOT DONE TO YOU OR FAILED TO DO LATER FOR A NEGOTIATION PROCESS CORRECTING THAT WHAT THIS GUY DID OR FAILED TO DO TO ME. I DID NOT DO ANYTHING BAD TO THE COURT TO BEGIN WITH. THE RELATION BETWEEN YOU AS A COURT AND ME AS A LITIGANT IS SIMPLY THE RESULT OF ESTABLISHED POSITIONS NOT POSITIONS  CREATED AS A CONSEQUENCE TO PRECEDING ACTIONS MADE WITH CHOICES.

FURTHERMORE,  GENERALLY ONE TAKES THE DECISION TO ENTER OR NOT ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION FROM THE SIDE OF HIS OWN BENEFIT AND WHATEVER HE CARES FOR. BUT IF YOU PERCEIVED ME BEING IN ARROGANT POSITION TOWARD SETTLEMENT, REGARDLESS OF THAT BEING TRUE OR FALSE, THEN THAT IMPLY PERCEIVING ME AS FAILING TO CARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OPPOSING SIDE WHICH IMPLY ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WHO IS MORE ON THE RIGHT SIDE IN THE  CASE WHICH IN TURN SHOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU MORE REASON NOT TO DENY THE PETITION.