Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AB
I assume that he becomes apprised of the nature of the complaint at the time the confiscation order is served, but I don't know.
|
In the process on which these laws is modelled, P. Schlubb gets a copy of the petition and the court's order in response to the petition and ex parte hearing when he is served with the order.
Does that give him fair notice of the nature of the complaint? Maybe. If the petitioner was clear thinking an candid in his written allegations, things should get pretty clear. If the problem is that the petitioner is not lucid and candid, a different process may follow.
I've seen a petitioner who is the client of a social service agency for people with debilitating psychiatric problems file for a protective order stating the he fears harm from the respondent, P. Schlubb. Only when it came up for hearing a couple of weeks later does the court learn that Petitioner's real gripe is that P. Schlubb moves Petitioner's furniture while he sleeps and has been the mastermind orchestrating everything from large failures to petty annoyances in petitioners life. A social worker tired of hearing about it, and in return for not having to hear about it again, coached the Petitioner on what to say to get an order.
So, you'll have social services apparatchiks who think they are underpaid getting rid of their own headaches by shunting their workload onto courts.