 I discussed the issues that
arose out of the failures by the solicitor to
remit the agreed amount with the person who guided and assisted me. After we received the second court Order I contacted
the LAG again and I explained that I was getting confused again because of that
development. We wrote to the Court Manager on 22nd December 1999
after I delivered the two court Orders to the LAG for clarification. We had no
option but to challenge the submission of the second Court Order, and we did so in
explicit terms. Our comments as to the objectives of the persons who conveniently
ignored the negotiated agreement of 24th November 1999 cannot be ignored. Consider
therefore the content of the letter below and recognise why the only aspects covered
were: WHY THE NEED for such an instrument, if not simply to prove that the solicitor
was relying on the court and its staff to abuse the court's processes and facilities?
Breaching the spirit and purpose of the Mediation Agreement and ignoring the CONSENT
ORDER, for other agendas, appeared to be the objective!
 Our letter to the Court Manager - First
page.
You read the letter and
the introduction and consider the approach we adopted in the issues the court's staff
introduced with and through submission to us of the the second court Order.
 Our letter to the Court Manager - Second
page.
Consider the full text
of our letter and recognise that there was no way
we were prepared to accept the scenario and the propositions contained in the Second Court
Order. The contents of the second order and of our letter establish very clearly why we
were advised to go for mediation rather than find ourselves
at the mercy of the manipulators of an excellent legal
system, sadly in the hands of administrators who appear to be serving other priorities,
and not Justice.
The reply from the Court dated 18th January 2000,
reached us on the 21st. The author of the letter confirmed and qualified the fact that the
second order had been drawn some SIX DAYS AFTER the
conclusive CONSENT ORDER was drawn and posted by the court staff. The author also
confirmed references to the court file and the mediation resolution. No
mention anywhere in the reply, as to the agreed settlement and the REMITTANCE the
solicitor should have sent to us by 4 p.m. on 2nd December 1999. We did not raise that
issue in our letter of 22nd December 1999 to the court for obvious reasons. And the reply ignored the issue that had we received any funds we
would simply ignore the second Order because of the succinct terms agreed on 24th November
1999, that WERE CONFIRMED in the CONSENT ORDER the Court posted before the second Order.
 The Court's reply of 18th January 2000
You must be getting warm, now.
Again consider the simple fact
that no remittance had been contemplated or effected well over 6 weeks past the settle by
date! And nowhere any mention of that fact. The Court could easily justify its 'ignorance
of such realities' while relying on 'presumed settlement because of the explicit terms of
the Consent Order'. We did ensure that no reference to that convenient failure by the
solicitor, was made to the court when we wrote. We simply laboured the issue of the second
Court Order and the implications 'attached to the proposed scenario' for theatrical
productions.
The above are more than just
an introduction, by now. This fact you must agree. BUT, even more questionable activities
were to come!
In view of the above it was
considered proper to contact the LAG and seek further assistance and clarification. We
needed to unravel the miracle of the NO REMITTANCE MENTALITY
by the solicitor who intimidated he was going to give me a nose job if I pursued any claim
at court in respect of the outstanding balances. In the circumstances the proposed scenarios, as projected in the second court order
were of some concern to us. The 'scripted' scenarios rested and arose on out of the blue
assertions following service of the Summonses and the nose job 'promises' somehow could
not be ignored. I was more than concerned. |
