Tuesday, 25 April 2017

pieces of me.

It's just one of those days when you have 50 things on your to-do list but everyone is on your tail like their case is the only one you're working on.

I am reminded of the parable of the unforgiving servant in times like these - when my boss does not berate me for a mistake I made, but assists me as much as he can instead. Makes me stand back and re-evaluate how harsh I have been on my students in comparison to his response to my mistakes. 

Instead of taking over what I perceive to be my boss' role of berating myself when I have erred, I'm taking a few minutes to recap what I have learned today:-

#1 - Maintain the same level of efficiency in lull periods as in busy periods so that I don't have to drastically increase my level of efficiency during busy periods. 

#2 - Get enough sleep so that my mind can function at its optimum level instead of being the dull thing it is right now. I can get more work done that way.

#3 - While I cannot control when my clients decide to call me or check on their files (which, like today, means they decided to call almost all at once), I can control how I respond to it.

#4 - There are people who are willing to help me and I do not have to bear everything on my own. My colleagues are awesome and I thank God for them.

#5 - I will get more done when I'm in a better mood. Being unkind and unfriendly to other people does not lead to a good mood in any way. Therefore, smiles, thank-you's, and hold-on-ya's work better for this goal than frowns, curt no's, and I'm-busy-go-away's.

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Listen to the lawyer.

What is a subpoena?

A subpoena is a legal document issued by the court (though prepared by a lawyer) with the court's seal, ordering a witness to attend court on such and such a date to testify or produce documents on behalf of the party who requested for the issuance of the subpoena. 

Because it is issued by the court:-

(a) non-compliance with a subpoena amounts to contempt of court; and
(b) evasion of a subpoena (where successfully proved) amounts to contempt of court.

Why are subpoenas issued / necessary?

Under the laws of evidence, a party who makes an allegation has the burden to prove it, that is, by producing documents or calling witnesses to provide oral testimony. 

The general rule is that the maker of a particular document must attend court to prove the authenticity and the contents of the document, unless both parties agree to dispense with such proof.

(Maker of a document = the person who wrote / signed / prepared the document)

Hence, the bundle of documents filed in court is to be categorized as follows:-

(a) Part A - both parties agree that the document is real and agree with its contents;
(b) Part B - both parties agree that the document is real but someone disagrees with its contents; and
(c) Part C - someone says the document is fake and disagrees with its contents.

Subpoena witnesses are usually formal witnesses, for example, a bank officer to testify that a bank account statement is authentic, because it was disputed by the other party for who knows what reason. 

Some subpoena witnesses are essential witnesses who can testify concerning a material (important) fact, for example, the Plaintiff says in his pleadings or during trial that Person A was there when the Defendant caused the accident and can prove that he's telling the truth. Person A has to be called to corroborate the Plaintiff's allegation, otherwise it is only a bare allegation without substance. Under the Evidence Act, the Defendant can ask the court to presume that the Plaintiff is hiding something by failing to call Person A despite being able to do so (that's a whole other topic to discuss). 

Subpoena witnesses usually have nothing to do with the case, in that they are not personally liable for anything. If they were personally liable, they would have been made a co-Defendant or a third party to the case. So they actually have nothing to lose from attending court. Especially since the law requires the party who subpoenaed the witness to give the witness "reasonable allowance" for attending court.

What I'm trying to say is - don't bash the lawyer for requesting for the subpoena. He's just trying to do his job under the law, and not trying to "trouble" or "disturb" you, or "make your life difficult".

When is a subpoena served?

When a lawyer hands you a subpoena, lets you read it, or explains its contents to you - all the while being in arm's reach of you - it's complete service on you even if you don't sign it or take it with you. The lawyer should explain this to you after you refuse to sign / take it. So listen carefully.

What do I do after I've been served with a subpoena?

Attend court. Consult a lawyer if you must, but if that lawyer you consulted is worth their salt, they'll tell you to comply with the subpoena. Non-compliance with a subpoena entitles the lawyer to immediately apply for a warrant of arrest to be issued against you on the very day you fail to turn up in court. 

If, for some reason, the lawyer is unable to put you on the stand on the day of trial and the matter is postponed to another date, the lawyer will write to you to inform you of the next trial date. It's his duty to do it.

Don't accuse the lawyer of forcing you to attend court, because:-

(a) the subpoena is a court order, not a lawyer's order;

(b) shouting won't magically excuse you from attending court; 

(c) you are entitled to challenge the subpoena in court if it really has nothing to do with you; and

(d) you're not attending court for nothing - under the law, the party who called you has to reimburse you for expenses incurred.

Please note that you are required to attend court from the date mentioned in the subpoena until you finish your testimony. The lawyer usually tries to make the best arrangements for all witnesses so that you don't have to come to court unnecessarily (read: wait a whole day only to be told the case is postponed). 

Why? Because then they'll have to pay you more, and trust me - they don't want to do that.

What happens in court?

The lawyer who requested your presence will ask you questions in what we call the "Examination-in-Chief". 

The opposing lawyer will then ask you questions in what we call the "Cross-Examination". During this stage, things may or may not get a little uncomfortable, because the opposing lawyer is basically trying to disprove everything you just said. 

The first lawyer will then ask you some clarifying questions in what we call the "Re-Examination" if necessary, that is, if you said something inaccurate or which requires clarification during the Cross-Examination. 

Then you go home and receive your allowance. 

Why am I saying all this?

Because I'm sick and tired of people who refuse to listen when I try to explain these things to them ("Nothing to do with me, I don't want to hear it"), and then get angry and complain ("you're doing this to disturb me"), when all I've done is send them a letter informing them of then next trial date (as required under the law). 

Seriously, people. 

Listen to the lawyer. 

If you're cooperative (read: not red-faced, shouting, or making false accusations), you guys can be best friends.

Plus, why are you running away from the subpoena? Have something to hide?

Just sayin'.

Monday, 1 August 2016

Seeing People and Not Their Reactions

Esmond and I signed up for a counseling course this year under the Satir model of counseling. 

The special thing about this model is that instead of dealing with people's reactions or behaviour, we learn to see what is underneath the behaviour (the symptoms) and deal with their sense of self, yearnings, expectations, perceptions, feelings (the cause).

What I really appreciate from the course so far is learning how to accept my feelings instead of resisting them. 

Most people know I'm a crybaby. I cry at every movie; I cry when someone else cries. 

Most people also know that I'm a stickler for protocol and procedure. There are certain things we should do; there are certain things we shouldn't do. Almost everything is a matter of can or cannot, should or should not. 

That includes feelings. 

I should not feel angry. 

I should not feel upset. 

A child should do this, a parent should do that, a student should think this, a teacher should think that.

Vulcanism, yet completely un-Vulcan, in that I thought I should not feel certain things, yet I could not stop feeling them.

I have been re-watching the Star Trek movies. Hee!

It was frustrating to feel sad or hurt, because those emotions often turned into anger or guilt, when I felt trapped by my own rules. 

This course taught me that there is a difference between accepting my feelings, and responding negatively to them. 

I can accept without liking. 

I can accept without responding negatively. 

I can accept, and thereafter move on.

Applying what I learned to people around me, I saw first-hand the difference it made when I told people to accept what they were feeling and stay with it, than when I had hurried to calm them with a box of tissue or what I thought were logical or comforting words.

Shortly after we signed up for the counseling course, our church began a church-wide course called Freedom in Christ Discipleship Course by Steve Goss and Neil Anderson. The course shows us how a lot of Christians are living in bondage or not living the victorious Christian lives the Bible promised. 

The premise of the course is "the truth will set you free".

(a) Christ has already set us free by His work on the cross and His resurrection. 

(b) By His work on the cross, Christ gave us the gift of complete and utter acceptance (we are completely accepted as God's children), significance (we were created to do good works which He prepared in advance for us to do) and security (nothing can separate us from His love).

(c) However, humans being humans, we forgot. 

(d) Or we didn't understand. 

(e) Or we didn't know the truth.

(f) Therefore, we continue to behave in unhealthy ways in our quest to gain acceptance, significance and security from other people or things, or even God.

(g) Feelings are important. Because without laying everything on the table and being vulnerable, we cannot truly forgive, and we cannot truly deal with an issue that has been affecting us.

(h) We can't control our feelings, but we can control the thoughts that lead to those feelings. We choose to land our thoughts or ditch them. 

(i) Forgiveness is a choice we make, not an emotion. Likewise, getting out of a life of sin is a choice we make, because Christ has given us everything we need to live a godly life (2 Peter 1:3).

(j) By the grace of God which He has already freely given us, will we make the choice to be free?

For the first time, I learned to truly forgive. 

Because I could pray, "Father, I choose to forgive (name of person) for (name the act) which made me feel (state feelings). I pray that You will bless (name of person)."

Not, "Father, help me forgive", or "Father, I want to forgive", but "Father, I choose to forgive."

I have also had the privilege of putting my counseling training (although halfway only la) to good use. 

Picture taken from here.
Although this song is about marriage teehee.

I guess the most liberating and eye-opening thing for me this year is that I learned to strike a balance between condoning someone's behaviour by sympathizing with them, and accepting someone's behaviour as a fact without having to like that behaviour.

I can accept that people behave a certain way without having to say they should or should not, can or cannot behave that way. Because I cannot change people, but I am in complete control of how I respond to them.

It's amazing how many people's perception and expectations, and thus behaviour stem from a broken point in their early years.

Knowing this, seeing this, understanding this... how can I not love them with the love of Christ?

How Christ must have loved all those who hated Him - this God who sees the hearts and minds of man!