Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I honestly would prefer that judges not do this, and simply refer to Meads v. Meads rather than spending further time on nonsense like this. The judge in this case actually considers the arguments. It's a waste of judicial resources, which are already scarce, and even more so now due to the fact that a bunch of things got postponed this year.
I assume Graesser talked to Rooke about it before doing this, but I just don't see the point in any of it. It's a bunch of nonsense. We know. You don't even need to entertain it.
|
This is my concern too. Graesser does explain in 130 and 131 why he was compelled to write detailed reasons.