Since an earlier commenter suggested a couple possible defenses against a Rule 4.33 Application, I once again asked Google AI to list the variety of potential defenses and I verified them against all the reading I've been doing, and I've highlighted the most important part of all of them:
Now, I want you to examine the full set of possible defenses and identify the common feature of all the highlighted bits. So what's the common feature? Simple:
Every single defense requires something to have already happened.
That is, every one of those possible defenses requires something to have happened before the filing of the Application; there is no possible defense that involves the Plaintiff/Respondent doing something after the fact.
In short, once a Rule 4.33 Application is filed, the only conceivable defenses available to the Plaintiff/Respondent are events or agreements or filings that must have already happened. There is nothing the Respondent can do after the Application is filed that would save them.
Make sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment