If it were me I would also require a defendant in a case to be given a full body massage for the service of process to be correct. Why not? It is not like the current rules are needed for justice and fairness to defendants. The main thing needed is for the defendant to know that there is a complaint against him in the court. Anything other than that is much less needed if at all. That is because no matter how you make it difficult to serve a complaint it would not correct being sued for unjust cause. Even if you think about how just it would be in situations were the defendant himself needs to seek the details of the complaint instead of being directly provided to him it would be either a fair thing for sufficiently fair claim or a minor thing added to and compared with being sued unfairly and required to respond to that. So what is all this complication for?
Anyway, imagine how fun it would be when courts try to rule on claims from lawyers that there defendants received only partial massages and therefore the service of process was invalid (Although, seriously, it could still be less ridiculous, and childish, than much of the current chasing and hiding game).
But don't worry. My system may still consider a sponge bath to be in "substantial" compliance with the rule and accept such service (Of course, after wasting judiciary time that could have served some really needed thing other than finding a way around a complication I myself created for no reason).
No comments:
Post a Comment