How a Court Case Works

Conversation With a Court

Note: this writing is a stream of consciousness exploration of the author. This is intended for your entertainment or education only.

A court case is a conversation between two parties. Like in regular conversation, you can say things back and forth to negotiate a solution, except there are several differences compared to a regular conversation. Here we examine the difference, the sufficiency evidence, how we may admit it, and how we may block it. This discussion revolves around the case of a hostile, bad faith, egregious, reckless, and dishonorable opponent as evidenced by their performance. This extreme case is taken to underscore methods by which a pro se party can secure justice.

Ideally relevant facts are proferred in an objective way, and an neutral referee selects a judgment. However, this is not the case, with hearsay indicating that a law suit is a 'crap shoot.' This means that an ethical logician may be troubled by the operating principles, which are (once again remining the reader that this is the extreme case of an evil opponent:

1. Facts are not proffered. They may be hidden or obfuscated deliberately. Witnesses may be discouraged or prevented from testifying. The opponent may attempt blockage of relevant information. Parties may outright lie to deceive for their advantage. Facts shown may be cause prejudice, preventing fair reasoning on the matter (such as presenting gory pictures of violence). Facts may be distorted to produce distorted conclusions. Sequence may be misrepresented, producing misleading evidence. Facts may be distorted statistically. False witnesses may be presented. Witnesses may lie under oath. And a 100 other ways that facts can be distorted. In a system based on honor and integrity, both parties would admit to their faults, however the general principles of scarcity economics and scarcity mindsets dictate that each party will be inclined to bias the facts to their favor.

Thus, for best results, the ideal case would be one of both parties admitting to their faults and strenghts. Since the chance of this happening is small, a legal system has purportedly been designed to become very good at distinguishing fact from fiction. That is at least its intent.

While the court strives to provide a forum for justice, every detail of enforcing it is up to the party involved. Evidence does not present itself automatically, ill faith of the opponent must be negotiated, and one is responsible for securing justice actively, not passively. Justice will not be given, one must use a set of tools to extract it. For this reason, one must understand procedure, rules of evidence, but most importantly the metarules. That is, subtle ways of enforcing or negotiating the toolbox that is available in a court case. This is the type of knowledge that a lawyer will have - the experience of how to negotiate everything as needed.

The difference between regular conversation and a court conversation are:

1. You can say anything in regular conversation. Not really. You can say anything in court. Not really. The court can hear anything, but it doesn't mean that what you say will be admitted into evidence. Before you admit something into evidence, a basis must be established for the relevance, non-prejudice, hearsay, first hand knowledge, and other factors. Here, one must understand all the Qualities that Allow Evidence To Be Admissible. Otherwise - this evidence will be ignored completely (or partially because a 'bell cannot be unrung'). General skills in conversation will help one negotiate in court.
2. In a conversation with friends, you have little liability for what you say. Not really. In a conversation in court, what you say may have more significant consequences. Thus, the question is - if you mess up - how can you correct yourself?
   1. The solution here is to have the facts in front of you, so you don't mess up.
   2. It seems that if court allowed people to strike what they said from the record, then going to court would be meaningless. Motion to Strike - should not allow striking core information, ie, getting rid of lies fro the intent of winning the case. In what cases should I watch out for a motion to strike relevant information? At all times!

Motions

These are things you can do. This is everything under the sun.Here is a list for criminal [1].

How to Communicate

Who can you talk to at any time? The parties involved include circuit court clerk, the judge's clerk, the judge, the opposing lawyer, the opponent, witnesses.

Can you simply write them by email?

For which actions do you need to notice the other party?

How do you talk to the court? Motions, the judge (their 'secretary' or 'judge's clerk' reviews them.

Discovery

• MO rule 57. [2]

How to Respond to Claims and Make Claims, Statements

In principle, the goal of any case should be summary judgment: all facts are in front of us, no controversy. Is it possible to get summary judgment on any case?