Blackstone Code Chapter 951: Calm down
, update the latest chapter of Blackstone Password as soon as possible!
At least not lose!
This has met Lynch's request for the current situation.
A large number of newspapers reported this news, and the "Buren Times", which was bad at every moment a few days ago, stood up again, saying that this is the beginning of a new legend every moment.
Their editor-in-chief even highly praised Lynch's skills in the report, saying that with his intervention, the current downward trend was stopped at every moment, and he was favored by many evaluation agencies, and is expected to create new miracles .
There are also some all-time stores locally in Bupen, and they were also "stolen" from the all-time counters.
Just as everyone was looking forward to it, the first trial began.
A total of 24 stores of Bu Pein unilaterally tore up the agreement with each moment, and before the contract was not fulfilled, they took down the counters of each moment without authorization. The court accepted the case and carried out trial.
Twenty-four shop owners, with the help of good luck and color, have hired a barrister willing to represent them in this lawsuit "for free".
According to Bu Pein's market situation, if you want this barrister to sue for himself, it will cost at least hundreds of thousands to hundreds of thousands, or even more.
He told the media that the reason why he did this was that he did not want the capitalists to use the wealth and power in their hands to use legal weapons indiscriminately, making the law a sharp knife in the hands of the capitalists to "slaughter" the people.
His speech has caused a lot of heated discussion in the society. Many people think that he is the real conscientious lawyer of the Federation and a moral model of the legal profession.
It's just that they don't know, before he announced "free", he received 300,000 lawyer fees from well-meaning people.
For the time being, Lucky and Colorful are reluctant to go off the court in person and fight hand-to-hand every moment, and they need a lawsuit to determine what will happen to them after they go off the court.
On such a pleasant weekend, the Bupen City Court was in session.
After the plaintiff's lawyer expressed his opinion, the judge looked at the attorney in the dock, "Does the defendant's attorney have anything to say?"
When he was questioning, he looked down at some of the explanatory documents in front of him. In fact, there was no need for a formal trial in this case, and the verdict could be pronounced directly in the quick court.
From the judge's point of view, the breach of contract by these defendants is very obvious, and no matter what their reasons are, they have created a fait accompli of breach.
And the only claim in this case is the lawsuit against breach of contract to recover liquidated damages. It is simple and clear. If it is placed in a fast court, the judgment can be pronounced in at most two minutes.
It's just that the society and the media are paying attention to this matter, and the people at the bottom of the society are suing all the time. Some rights organizations are paying close attention to this matter, and they have to put it in court for trial.
Look at the rows of cameras in the back to see how much attention is paid to this case.
The defendant's lawyer stood up, "Your Honor, I have two things to declare."
The judge nodded and couldn't help but give the guy a chance to speak.
All barristers, in addition to the fact that they do surpass others in terms of professional ability, are more about their social network.
Once the most famous barrister in the Commonwealth, the case victory rate represented by him is one of the best in the entire federal judicial history.
His own excellence is only one aspect, the more reason is his father——
Growing from a district court judge to a federal Supreme Court judge is the main reason why he has always guaranteed his winning rate.
Later his father failed to run for lifelong justice, and the barrister gradually faded out of the public eye, leaving only a few myths in the industry.
Like the defendant's lawyer, who also has some connections in the judiciary, it just so happens that the judge knows this.
"The first point is that this case is not a completely isolated case. Before this case happened, the defendants I represented have actually sued the court for breach of contract every moment..."
As he speaks, his assistant brings some materials to the judge's table.
The judges and prosecutors and others each have a copy.
While they were flipping through the pages, the defendant's lawyer continued, "It can be seen from the initiation of these lawsuits that the plaintiff's unilateral breach of contract is actually the first, and my agent is solving the problem through legal channels."
"There is a sequence of events, so..."
The lawyer raised his hand casually at every moment, "I object to the statement of the defendant's lawyer, Your Honor, the claims of this case are very clear, and there are no problems as the defendant's lawyer said."
"We have no breach of contract in any form. We have sufficient supply at all times, and we can deliver goods anytime, anywhere."
"I don't think it has reference value and significance in this case because of an ex parte lawsuit that has not gone through a court trial and has no specific trial results."
The judge was silent for a while, then nodded, "The objection is valid, the defendant's lawyer, the lawsuits you mentioned have not yet had judicial results."
"Until it is confirmed that the plaintiff has taken the lead in breaching the contract, your statement has no meaning."
The defendant's lawyer's thinking is very clear. Let the plaintiff, that is, the one who breaches the contract at all times, be the first. As long as the judiciary admits this, then the lawsuit against all the shop owners all the time now will be meaningless.
Why?
Because the shopkeepers have unilaterally terminated the contract after the breach of contract at every moment - this is a decision made under the precondition of default at every moment, and it will also be recognized and protected by the judiciary.
In this way, no matter what the content of the counterclaim is at every moment, there is no threat to the shopkeepers.
It's a pity that today's judge is not that good at skating, or that he's not on the defendant's side.
A lot of things don't mean you're in breach of contract when you say you're in breach of contract. The federation is a country with a rule of law. The law hasn't said that it's breached at all times, so you should say it's breached first. Who does it listen to?
Undoubtedly, the final explanation from the judiciary must be heard.
The defendant's lawyer squinted at his opponent on the other side, and said, "There is another question, Your Honor, I don't think it is an accident that the counters are lost every moment."
"According to the information I have collected, more than 2,000 stores across the country have sued them for breach of contract all the time because they lost their counters. I have reason to believe that this is actually an attempt to obstruct justice. case."
"I have used some despicable means every moment to steal that kind of counter, and use it as a means of attack to sue ordinary people who intend to use the law to protect their rights and interests. This case has been dealt with after a separate case is closed. ."
The "separate case" mentioned by the defendant's lawyer is that more than 2,000 stores reported the theft of their counters at the same time. The defendant's lawyer meant that the nature of the case could only be determined after the thief was found.
The attorney at every moment raised his hand again, "I object to what the defendant's attorney said, Your Honor."
"If the defendant's lawyer does not have solid and valid evidence to support his views, then I will sue him for defamation."
The judge frowned, this time he did not immediately support the plaintiff's lawyer's complaint.
Because he knew that what the defendant's lawyer said was not necessarily wrong.
There were more than 2,000 "fraud cases" all over the country all of a sudden. What's even more outrageous is that the other party didn't want anything, just dragged away the counters every moment. To say that this has nothing to do with every moment. relationship, that is absolutely impossible.
Even the judge thought about every moment, or Lynch arranged according to the plaintiffs mentioned in the subpoenas, otherwise there would be such a coincidence.
Most of the plaintiffs who sued Lynch were defrauded of the counters at every moment?
But the Federation is a country with a rule of law, and everyone can have any opinion. Some people even come out now and say that the president is actually an alien, and his purpose is to control the world without any problems.
To express one's opinion on any occasion is the most basic right granted by the Charter to every federal person, but if you want your claim, your point of view, to be supported by the judiciary, you must produce evidence.
Some people will think this is stupid, everyone knows it must have something to do with every moment, and they say what evidence is needed, this must be a cover-up.
But then again, if there is no need for evidence because of "everyone thinks", and the number of "everyone" capitalists is definitely much larger than that of ordinary people, then will it mean what the capitalists say in the future?
So sometimes it seems to be a rule to make things difficult for ordinary people, but in fact it is to better protect ordinary people.
Whether what the defendant's lawyer said is true or not, it doesn't matter, what matters is the evidence.
The judge looked at the defendant's lawyer, "How do you prove what you said?"
The defendant's lawyer shook his head, "I can't prove it, so I hope to temporarily postpone the sentencing of this lawsuit~IndoMTL.com~ and add a court hearing after the fraud case is over to try the case again."
The judge is hesitant. Once he makes a decision, other courts and other judges may use his decision as a reference. This is also the consensus of the judicial community.
It seems like nothing to put away, but in turn, for every moment, they become the loser.
The judge looked up at the plaintiff's lawyer. This was a very subtle and meaningful action. He was telling the plaintiff's lawyer that you can object, and I will support you.
This kind of statement is like some kind of unspoken rules. People outside the profession do not understand these rules and these small actions. The plaintiff's lawyer should understand.
It's a little surprising that the plaintiff's attorney didn't raise an objection, as if...he also seemed to support such a decision.
"Ten minutes to take a break while we discuss whether we support the defendant's claim..."
The judge knocked on the gavel and left the side door with a group of people who had to figure out what the **** was going on at all times.