An opening gambit at endgame?.
“Chess Gambit is an opening where one side sacrifices material, hoping to achieve an advantageous resulting position. In most cases, in exchange for the material that side gets better development, weakens the opponent’s king, or opens some lines for an attack”.
PCX - “I'm wondering if it would be possible to subpoena some one from CASA to appear in one of your upcoming court cases to assist the court in understanding how this whole situation came about”.
I'm wondering why this move was left until one day before the scheduled hearing. Considering the requirements imposed on subpoena and the serving of same. 'Please explain' is a central issue to all of Buckley's woes; in a court, with jurisprudence on deck. With good legal counsel and a carefully prepared brief; it should be possible – in theory at least, to get to the radical cause. Or at least provide some sort argument for counsel to examine. I am curious as to why this was not done 'in the beginning' or at least, as a strategy, allowing the least possible time for CASA to prepare a case which could withstand clinical examination – in court. In the AAAT CASA get away with blue murder; but in court, things are different, particularly with a lawyer/barrister who understands the 'guts' of the case.
Let's hope Glen can now run fast enough now to catch the bus which he should have been on, early. Just my two bob's worth......
Toot – toot.
“Chess Gambit is an opening where one side sacrifices material, hoping to achieve an advantageous resulting position. In most cases, in exchange for the material that side gets better development, weakens the opponent’s king, or opens some lines for an attack”.
PCX - “I'm wondering if it would be possible to subpoena some one from CASA to appear in one of your upcoming court cases to assist the court in understanding how this whole situation came about”.
I'm wondering why this move was left until one day before the scheduled hearing. Considering the requirements imposed on subpoena and the serving of same. 'Please explain' is a central issue to all of Buckley's woes; in a court, with jurisprudence on deck. With good legal counsel and a carefully prepared brief; it should be possible – in theory at least, to get to the radical cause. Or at least provide some sort argument for counsel to examine. I am curious as to why this was not done 'in the beginning' or at least, as a strategy, allowing the least possible time for CASA to prepare a case which could withstand clinical examination – in court. In the AAAT CASA get away with blue murder; but in court, things are different, particularly with a lawyer/barrister who understands the 'guts' of the case.
Let's hope Glen can now run fast enough now to catch the bus which he should have been on, early. Just my two bob's worth......
Toot – toot.