Res judicata dilema of perpetuating falseness?

[A***@gmail.com]

Assuming that the universe IS consistent and determinable,
there seems to be 2 contradicting requirement of common law:
1. precedence means that you can build on previous knowledge,
like we do in science, instead of wasting resources re-inventing
the wheel;
2. res judicata, time limits ...etc. which close off a dispute.

But what happens if <res judicata, time limits ...etc.> has
'found' a fact that contradicts a findable fact of a different
dispute?

Do the Courts say "for the purpose of Case-A it's found that
2+3 NOT-equals 5". And for the purpose of Case-B it's found
that 2+3 IS-equals 5"?

Where would I find some pointers to on-line explanations
of this topic?

== TIA.

[GB]

Post by A***@gmail.com
Assuming that the universe IS consistent and determinable,
1. precedence means that you can build on previous knowledge,
like we do in science, instead of wasting resources re-inventing
the wheel;
2. res judicata, time limits ...etc. which close off a dispute.
But what happens if <res judicata, time limits ...etc.> has
'found' a fact that contradicts a findable fact of a different
dispute?
Do the Courts say "for the purpose of Case-A it's found that
2+3 NOT-equals 5". And for the purpose of Case-B it's found
that 2+3 IS-equals 5"?
Where would I find some pointers to on-line explanations
of this topic?
== TIA.

Isn't that what the appeal system is for? That, plus the principle that
a higher court decision binds a lower one on matters of law. Don't
confuse findings of fact with findings of law.

[A***@gmail.com]

Post by GB

Post by A***@gmail.com
Assuming that the universe IS consistent and determinable,
1. precedence means that you can build on previous knowledge,
like we do in science, instead of wasting resources re-inventing
the wheel;
2. res judicata, time limits ...etc. which close off a dispute.
But what happens if <res judicata, time limits ...etc.> has
'found' a fact that contradicts a findable fact of a different
dispute?
Do the Courts say "for the purpose of Case-A it's found that
2+3 NOT-equals 5". And for the purpose of Case-B it's found
that 2+3 IS-equals 5"?
Where would I find some pointers to on-line explanations
of this topic?
== TIA.

Isn't that what the appeal system is for? That, plus the principle that
a higher court decision binds a lower one on matters of law. Don't
confuse findings of fact with findings of law.

Does that mean that an appeal may NOT be refused on res judicata
grounds? Nor 'time limits'?

You probably think "2+3 IS-equals 5" is NOT a matter of law.

Is the following a finding of law or of fact?
The respondent writes to the supplier:
"Check my enclosed spreadsheet, which shows that the
correct charge is $10 per month, whereas you've been
false billing for $11. So that your $22 demand was wrong.
And now [time has move on] I owe $30. If you can't find
fault with my spread sheet, then acknowledge that the current
balance owing is $30, so that I may settle, else I'll continue
to withhold, to escalate this to Court, where your incompetwnce
will be exposed."

The creditor/applicant contrived a default judgement.

The Court accepted the creditor's argument [was it fact or law]
that the default judgment set-aside application must be refused
because the respondent admitted owing more than the claim
[by the letter which was written AFTER the default judgment].

Text is [square brackets] represents what was evolving in real
time.

WDYS ?

PS. Yes, if there is no dispute as to the facts, then it must be
a question of law. Which is the case here.

[David L. Martel]

Avoid,

You seem to have real situation that is troubling you. Rather than
writing cryptic hypothetical questions perhaps you could briefly summarize
what has happened.
I gather you were sued and lost with a default judgement.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[n***@isp.com]

Post by David L. Martel
Avoid,
You seem to have real situation that is troubling you.
Rather than writing cryptic hypothetical questions perhaps
you could briefly summarize what has happened.

He has done this. Many times. Albeit mostly using different news
group screen names of which Avoid[etc] is just one of his less used
ones. And albeit, too, that in almost all his postings that relate to
the situation including lawsuit that again putatively triggered his
most recent one he has indulged in apparently obsessive incorrectly
assumed generalized assumptions exacerbated by a relentless commitment
to being (or perhaps by inability not to be) cryptic and, in many ways
worse, compulsively repetitive.

Post by David L. Martel
I gather you were sued and lost with a default judgement.

He was and did. Although too often they take some deciphering, the
gist of Avoid's many past news group postings about that lawsuit when
fairly read is the following:
That he had a garden variety billing dispute during the 1990s
with a supplier of municipal utilities services to a building he
owned;
That he peremptorily mishandled that dispute so as to
precipitate litigation;
That before or at several points during the ensuing mini-Saga,
he consulted one or more attorneys at least (and perhaps more than)
one of whom advised him to pay the sums claimed on the ground that,
regardless whether or not he agreed and understood this, letters or
other documents he furnished the plaintiff effectively admitted the
indebtedness;
That he disregarded this advice both before and after the
utility sued him in (or, since he has been vague about timing, maybe
more than two years before) 1999 but alleging a routine and, hence,
non-complex collection claim which provided him with the occasion to
allege and to try to prove whatever defenses he wished to establish;
That although actually aware of that lawsuit, he instead chose
to default;
That the plaintiff accordingly was granted a default money
judgment against him;
That he then inexplicably waited more than two years after the
grant of that judgment to move pro se to set it aside;
That, however, in addition to its much belated timing, he made
that motion in a self-prejudicial way by, among other things, being
confusing about the facts, by mostly trying to rely merely on a hyper
technical defense which anyway lacked merit and, with respect to any
actually substantive defense (did he or did he not owe the amount sued
for?), by disregarding and so failing to comply with some basic easy
to understand (if he had paid attention to them) statutory
requirements for the grant of such a motion;
That he not surprisingly was unsuccessful in appealing pro se
from that motion's denial;
That he eventually made a second but even less merited motion
to the trial court for relief from the judgment purportedly on the
basis of a newly discovered legal theory which that court correctly
denied on, among others, collateral estoppel grounds;
That he was predictably unsuccessful in his attempt at a pro
se appeal from that denial; and
That although the litigation was therefore finally concluded
years ago, he keeps posting essentially the same 'plaints disguised as
questions to Internet news groups apparently primarily as a
psychotherapeutic exercise to vent spleen at what he sneeringly refers
to as mentally challenged "law people" tainted by a "clerk mentality"
-- characterizations he uses to contrast his self-assessment to the
effect that he is a brilliant logician justly frustrated by, as he
purports to see it, the inability of lawyers' and judges' and others
knowledgeable about law to appreciate his brilliance and to explain to
his satisfaction procedures of including limitations for fact
determination in civil litigation, principles of res judicata and
collateral estoppel, the significance of statutes of limitation and of
rule prescribed time limitations within which to make various kinds of
motions or to appeal, etc., etc., all of which, however, have been
explained to him by numerous for the most part evidently knowledgeable
respondents.

Post by David L. Martel
Good luck,

This is not a sentiment likely to be helpful to Avoid since the
over-all message of his postings is that he has made his own "luck"
mostly in ways by which he avoids taking responsibility for stupidly
made decisions of his own.

[GB]

Post by n***@isp.com
This is not a sentiment likely to be helpful to Avoid since the
over-all message of his postings is that he has made his own "luck"
mostly in ways by which he avoids taking responsibility for stupidly
made decisions of his own.

You're not a wholehearted fan of him, then?

[n***@isp.com]

Post by GB

Post by n***@isp.com
This is not a sentiment likely to be helpful to Avoid since the
over-all message of his postings is that he has made his own "luck"
mostly in ways by which he avoids taking responsibility for stupidly
made decisions of his own.

You're not a wholehearted fan of him, then?

I was one of the persons who took his questions seriously and
responded accordingly, perhaps continuing to do so too long after it
became apparent that he was not genuinely posing questions and that
his (purported) requests to engage in dialog were ploys for trolling.

[GB]

Post by n***@isp.com

Post by GB

Post by n***@isp.com
This is not a sentiment likely to be helpful to Avoid since the
over-all message of his postings is that he has made his own "luck"
mostly in ways by which he avoids taking responsibility for stupidly
made decisions of his own.

You're not a wholehearted fan of him, then?

I was one of the persons who took his questions seriously and
responded accordingly, perhaps continuing to do so too long after it
became apparent that he was not genuinely posing questions and that
his (purported) requests to engage in dialog were ploys for trolling.

I am afraid that there are some people with issues on usenet. I suppose
that it does them some good to discuss things with them. So, look at it
as your good deed for the day/week/month.

[The Todal]

Post by GB

Post by n***@isp.com

Post by GB

Post by n***@isp.com
This is not a sentiment likely to be helpful to Avoid since the
over-all message of his postings is that he has made his own "luck"
mostly in ways by which he avoids taking responsibility for stupidly
made decisions of his own.

You're not a wholehearted fan of him, then?

I was one of the persons who took his questions seriously and
responded accordingly, perhaps continuing to do so too long after it
became apparent that he was not genuinely posing questions and that
his (purported) requests to engage in dialog were ploys for trolling.

I am afraid that there are some people with issues on usenet. I suppose
that it does them some good to discuss things with them. So, look at it
as your good deed for the day/week/month.

There are lots of people who, having lost in a court of law, hope to win
in an illusory Court of Public Opinion and believe this to be that court.

Perhaps the only answer that would satisfy them is "you have been the
victim of a monstrous miscarriage of justice and it's a great pity that
nobody can now put it right".

They certainly don't want to be told why the decision was correct.

[David L. Martel]

Post by A***@gmail.com
But what happens if <res judicata, time limits ...etc.> has
'found' a fact that contradicts a findable fact of a different
dispute?

What? Can you go over point 2 again. Point 2 is that some matters may no
longer be heard in court, for various reasons. The dispute is closed off.
There's no reason to have any "facts". The court will not hear anything and
no facts will be found.
I note that you are cross-posting in the UK groups. Law is different in
different countries.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[c***@jprude.net]

Post by A***@gmail.com
Assuming that the universe IS consistent and determinable,
1. precedence means that you can build on previous knowledge,
like we do in science, instead of wasting resources re-inventing
the wheel;
2. res judicata, time limits ...etc. which close off a dispute.

Statements #1 and #2 do not have anything to do with one
another. They consequently cannot not and do not logically
contradict one another. And especially when subjected to any
reasonable interpretation insofar as the common law and common law and
code related legal systems are concerned in particular, they are not
even remotely factually inconsistent

For one who has the intellectual and economic means to
undertake scientific research and to do related work where there is
not a governmental prohibition against or governmentally enabled
prevention of and not someone in some credibly coercive manner
preventing so doing, there will not be a closing off of further such
research and work that would prevent devising and trying to build
variations of rather than having to re-invent the proverbial wheel.
Instead, a comparatively very well established scientific custom and
practice is not to close off scientific research and to encourage
scientifically significant off-shoots of a previously invented wheel.

In contrast, a key premise of statement #2, which you mention
but evidently do not understand or anywhere sufficiently appreciate,
or which you pretend not to understand, is that principles of res
judicata and of collateral estoppel, etc., and law prescribed time
limits in what presumably are the legal systems of interest to you
have the functional and, hence, practical purpose in the interests of
justice and effective judicial administration of referring to
different litigation related scenarios in which opportunities for
litigation by the affected parties can and may and will be closed off
or, as the case may be, not be closed off if there are facts and
related principles of law that provide a legitimate basis to reject
claims to the effect res judicata or collateral estoppel or some
asserted bar by reason of the passage of time, etc., do not apply so
as to close off litigation.

In other words, as distinguished from what if any 'universal'
principles may apply elsewhere or for other purposes in the universe,
for the purpose of human legal systems your combining as if logically
and factually relevant premises your two numbered statements above is
an exercise as helpful as would be trying to analyze the 'universal'
applicability or not of the by now classic parody of an assertedly
Given Truth that a woman without a man is like a fish without a
bicycle or you purporting to infer from the fact that today I have a
yellow handkerchief in my jacket pocket what the prevailing price of
turnips will be tomorrow in China.

But, then, maybe for you it is a definite maybe that verbal
combinations like 'Jumbo Shrimp' or 'military intelligence' or 'pretty
ugly' convey information that help establish that the universe IS
consistent and determinable.

Post by A***@gmail.com
But what happens if <res judicata, time limits ...etc.> has
'found' a fact that contradicts a findable fact of a different
dispute?

This would depend on you at least fact specifically and
honestly answering these questions:

To what if any extent by 'different dispute' do you refer to
different parties than those who were party to the lawsuit to which
principles of res judicata, time limits, etc., apply and also to
disputes between or among those different parties that arise from
different transactions and occurrences and related claims than those
at issue and which were determined by the lawsuit to which principles
of res judicata, time limits, etc., apply?

To what if any extent does your use of the phrase 'different
dispute' refer instead merely or mostly to an effort by a party to a
finally determined lawsuit in which that party participated or to an
effort by an individual or business entity of some kind in privity
with that party to re-label as 'new' and 'different' what, in
actuality, is the same or basically the same dispute that was at issue
in that now concluded lawsuit so as to try to relitigate already
finally judicially determined claims of fact and of law as against the
other party to the concluded lawsuit or as against an individual or
some sort of business entity in privity with that other party?

Post by A***@gmail.com
Do the Courts say "for the purpose of Case-A it's found that
2+3 NOT-equals 5"[ a]nd for the purpose of Case-B it's found
that 2+3 IS-equals 5"?

Generally, No, and correctly so, for party1 if party1 was a
party to and participated in the Case-A lawsuit by or against party2
if Case-B arises from the same or essentially the same transactions
and occurrences that were at issue in finally determined Case-A.

Insofar as a fact, as such and as distinguished from a
principle of law is concerned, not infrequently, Yes in respect of
party3 and party4 litigating in Case-B if they are not alter egos of
or otherwise in privity with party1 and party2 to Case-A and/or if the
transactions and occurrences resulting in Case-A were materially
different from those at issue in Case-B.

Insofar as principles of law are concerned that are invoked or
contested by party4 or party5 who/which, respectively, are unrelated
to party1 and to party2, possibly (and correctly), Yes, and possibly
(and correctly), No, depending on what those principles of law are
said to be and on the particular nature of the transactions and
occurrences that resulted in the not consensually resolved claims
being determined in Case-B.

By the way or as the case may be maybe not by the way:

Saying that (in a base-10 number system) 2+2=4 is less a
'fact' than a mathematical principle tantamount to an arithmetic
definition especially as compared with and distinguished from whether
it is a 'fact' that, 'The cat depicted in this photograph died last
week' or the facts that defendant1 was given a sum of money by
plaintiff1 in exchange for defendan11 saying to plaintiff1, 'This is a
loan which I agree to and will repay to you next Monday' or the fact
that at approximately 3 p.m. yesterday in Paris, France, defendant2
punched plaintiff2 in the nose; etc.; and while importantly
influenced by whether, in fact, defendant1 said to plaintiff1, 'This
is a loan which I agree to and will repay to you next Monday' and by
whether plaintiff1 then handed the sum of money referred to in
exchange, saying that such a transaction considered as a whole is a
'loan' is mostly to express a principle of law.

Post by A***@gmail.com
Where would I find some pointers to on-line explanations
of this topic?

Some good sources would be for you to search and read news
group responses to someone who has posted with the screen name 'Chris
Glur' or email addresses '***@absamail.co.za' or
'***@gmail.com' since many on-line explanations of these
issues which include many pointers provided to that person.

Other good sources would be reading a fair sampling of
especially appellate judicial opionions in the jurisdiction of
interest to you and in comparable jurisdictions that illustrate and
explain what is summarized above; obviously.

By the way, 'precedent' would be more preferable for your
purposes than the word you spell above as 'precedence'.

[Greegor]

Fraud upon the court has no SOL.

[A Michigan Attorney]

Post by A***@gmail.com
Assuming that the universe IS consistent and determinable,
1. precedence means that you can build on previous knowledge,
like we do in science, instead of wasting resources re-inventing
the wheel;
2. res judicata, time limits ...etc. which close off a dispute.

These are two different principles. The first establishes issues of law
that apply in all later cases. The second establishes issues of fact
that only apply to later cases between the same parties (not referring
to "time limits etc.", which I don't understand in this context).

Post by A***@gmail.com
But what happens if <res judicata, time limits ...etc.> has
'found' a fact that contradicts a findable fact of a different
dispute?

Generally speaking, if a court establishes a fact issue between two
parties, then those parties are bound by that finding in any later
disputes. The term for this is preclusion or preclusive effect. But
there are conditions, e.g., the issue has to have been actually
litigated on the merits in the first case. A default judgment, for
example, is not given preclusive effect in some states.

Post by A***@gmail.com
Do the Courts say "for the purpose of Case-A it's found that
2+3 NOT-equals 5". And for the purpose of Case-B it's found
that 2+3 IS-equals 5"?

Not exactly. If res judicata (or its little brother, collateral
estoppel) applies, then the court doesn't make that second finding at
all. It uses the first one.

Post by A***@gmail.com
Where would I find some pointers to on-line explanations
of this topic?

Google "res judicata" and "collateral estoppel".