TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT

At the first hearing, before the hearings begin, it is usually necessary to answer a number of questions and questions to the court: whether we support the action, whether we support the requests for evidence and which, whether we maintain such and such formal conclusions, in what order we will hear witnesses, how is this point of the action to another. Over the years, I have seen a change (or there has been some change in my vision): twenty years ago, the representative often said with calm that he left this and that issue to the court to be recognised. He said so much about the claim itself that he supported it.

It seemed to me that the representative who says so is simply unprepared or not interested in the case. When the court asked me if I supported the action, I immediately wanted to justify for an hour why my action was well founded. I perceived every court decision as being directed against my case. Actually – against me. It was only years later that I realized during one of the hearings that perhaps the opposite is true: that a representative who is beating himself up in the courtroom fiercely about EVERY issue may not know what is important and what is most important in the case. He may not know what the fundamental issue is about him. It doesn’t have to be that way, and it probably isn’t. But so it can be.