If something exciting might lead to something useful for the something, and when that something seemed reluctant to appeal, then the suo motu judge wanted to try it out. He had depleted the supply of legal pads and furnitures by doodling and whitling away the wood. The court and his chamber having nothing more to offer, as sacrifice at the altar of his hobby, resulted in this dire situation, forcing him to search for a brief and the skills of his go-to pro bono lawyer.
To be honest with himself, he accepted that the opening sentence was a bit confusing and felt the need for an expert opinion to decode and ferret out his suo motu case. Geopolitics unwittingly ended up giving a brief and respite to him. Itching for a good legal fight though feeling blindfolded, he started looking for his legal luminary.
Probably, scared of the judge’s earlier verdicts or worried about getting tangled in some more suo motu cases, the duo including his nephew, whom he was trying to groom as a trial lawyer, have vanished without leaving digital footprints. He thought - Clever guys, might have bought 2nd or 3rd hand burner phones to escape from his court. The judge presides over a defunct court, which he had usurped, and nobody cared what he did or did not do there.
Though an unrecognised legal luminary (no harm in blowing a small note in his own trumpet!), still he knew which switches functioned and which did not in that premises. Unfortunately, these things did not give him peace of mind, except the use of pads and wooden furnitures for his hobby. And this did not sit well with him.
One of such functioning switches diverted power to an incandescent bulb which lit an anaemic glow in his mind. When this eureka moment (powerful or weak) occurred, his lordship was precariously perched on a table, which was trying to perfect some dance movements. He controlled himself from jumping up and by force of court room habit, from shouting ‘Eureka, Eureka, Eureka’. What if they don’t come to the court, the court will go and get them.
He ran a mental directory of places, where normally these two lawyers hung out, occasionally visited and rarely revisited. His logic dictated to search in that place where no one would expect them to be. He chose the category of rarely revisited place and presto he found them, lolling under the shade of a withered tree, in a namesake forest which like his court existed only on paper.
The judge had a sense of humour.
At the mere sight of them he burst out laughing and asked, “What made you to
think that you could hide from me? Have you become so lazy to search for a
healthy tree? Get up, you lazy bones! We have an interesting suo motu to
deal with. Listen carefully and let me see how will you handle it and what will
be the verdict"
Precisely to avoid the judge and his penchant for taking suo motu cases and drag them in as pro bono counsellors on issues like ‘ant stealing sweets to America not buying weapons from other countries’, they were lolling under that withered tree.
Annoyed, they asked him why a session of his court in this forest?
The reply judge gave them a Taser jolt – “the case is legally outside the jurisdiction of even the regular courts. Though prima facie it is ultra vires, I am invoking ex arbitrio judicis, to hold this session. So, we will try it even in a jungle or a namesake forest. Understand, suo motu cases cannot wait for the convenience of courts or counsellors. Since you people have not turned up at court, I came over here.”
Leaving the counsellors speechless, the judge asked, “Do you have any pretrial and post-trial motions before we start the proceedings?” Mesmerised by this eloquent speech laden with Latin terms, a snake started to slowly ascend on the stump of the tree on which the judge had decided to preside from. The duo wondered what law points this slider wanted to hear! Unaware of this, the judge while searching for a piece of wood to use as gavel, almost went over the head of the snake.
The duo murmured to themselves, " Why
should he saddle us with this judgeship?"
The judge, sensing imminent threat to his bench (tree stump) said hurriedly, " Not so fast. One of you to prosecute and the other to defend. Now, read the docket and proceed when ready, I am all ears!"
Forced to enact a drama, the senior pro bono counsel declared himself as the opposing advocate leaving the judge’s nephew the role of the prosecutor. The case docket proclaimed, “The boon and bane of deals”
Nephew:
A deal is beneficial, if both the parties feel it would be better to
forget and move on.
Pro bono: Not if the deal is brokered by a
third party. Then there stands the gift horse and affected parties should not
hesitate to look into its mouth.
Nephew: No. will this not amount to mistrust,
as deals are trust based?
Pro bono: Yes. They should be, but perspectives differ. After all, the deal or a war basically revolves around perspectives of one or the other involved.
The judge to mark his presence intoned, “I
agree. Counsellors move it on.”
The counsellors exchanged a quick “horse or the case?” Though he could not hear it clearly, the judge sent them a warning look.
Pro bono: “Striking a deal in commerce, trade and economy is beset with mindsets, across the negotiating table. Ego hangs thick in the air. After many iterations, a finalised deal will still be advantageous to one of the sides.
Nephew: Then, without splitting more hairs, pack the bags and leave with what you could get
The judge almost applauded this decisive verbal blow on the pro bono but reined in his enthusiasm to clap. He sorely missed his unwhittled gavel left in his chamber?
The judge, to inject clarify, asked, “Don’t we need negotiators when wars are raging or conflicts are boiling?
Pro bono: I would not trust political negotiators. Wars or conflicts need hardened negotiators who understand and speak the language of bullets. Territories and boundaries are not easy commodities to strike a deal with.
Judge prompted his nephew, “Any counter?”
Nephew: Certainly judge. The learned pro bono counsell not preferring political negotiators is surprising to me Sovereignty and self-respect or ‘conflict gone too far to make any difference now attitude’, are the complicating factors or the potholes and speed breakers. It becomes hard for the deal maker to drive through objections.
Pro bono: Prosecution is judging the full movie by looking at a single scene. What happens if the deal maker runs out of patience or has other deals to broker? Is it not conflict of interests? If a lone deal maker enters the scene, there might be many inducements and quid pro quos on offer to seal a deal. In the case of my type of bullet-language negotiators, it would be a cut and dried deal.
Nephew: Will not the quid pro quo might be monetary help to one and sell armaments to the other nation as an insurance policy for a possible future conflict?
Pro bono: Judge, I object strongly the imputation that a quid pro quo is to prepare the other nation for a future conflict. The fine print in the peace accord might contain a clause allowing the deal maker to own a military base or a mining right as facilitator's charge. After the ink dries on the accord, both the parties wonder why they themselves could not have waved the white flags and saved the base and the mines! That is why I said, I would not prefer political negotiators.
Nephew: The negotiators come into picture only when the so-called waving of white flags did not happen.
This rebuttal pleased the judge, though he felt it was an argument suffering with anaemia.
Pro bono: If two or three deal makers descend, this would raise the complexities in the complicated negotiations. Each one will be trying to land the best maximum quid pro quo advantage for their respective countries, benefitting Commerce, Trade and armament industries. Where is equity in this?
The prosecuting counsel lost his cool and looked menacingly at the pro bono counsellor. To defuse the situation quickly, the judge loudly clapped his hands and cried order ,order ,order. Rattled by this sudden thunderclap, the snake lost further interest in the proceedings and the judge’s body parts, slowly uncoiled itself from the tree stump and left.
Unaware of the fangs that, by a mere kissing distance, missing to inject a dose of venom, the judge asked, "Why female negotiators are not on the scene?
Nephew: They are tough negotiators. That is why female deal makers are not deputed.
Looking at pro bono counsellor, the judge asked, “Want to add or oppose?”
Pro bono: (who dares to go against?!) “Their intuitive assessment and focus will primarily be on what the population will get out of it rather than what business would flow into the armaments and mining industries. Not only they are tough but reaching an accord …...”
As the arguments whizzed over his head, the judge sat like a frozen statue. Breaking the trance, he asked. "Counsellor, all these happen before or during or after the war?" If all these have happened before start of a conflict, I am inclined to reject the argument. If these things are happening during a war, then I have some questions."
Actually, the counsellors were clutching at non-existent straws. They welcomed the opportunity to know what those questions the learned judge would be coming up with.
An anti-Eureka moment struck the learned judge. To buy some time in order to find wiggle room, he did what he could do, at any time as a judge. Announced an adjournment citing other legal engagements!
The nephew murmured a quip "Maybe with the neighbour feeding a pack of stray dogs that bark and howl at the judge, whenever they see him."
Pro bono (murmured): “Has he gone out of his mind? The judge had declared an adjournment, here in this namesake forest!
The judge heard these asides as loud as the barking of those stray dogs. He decided to take his nephew to task after dealing with the dogs. He made a mental note to review all such snide remarks before writing the judgement on this case. At this point, a supernova eureka moment exploded in his mind. Recovering poise and with a smug smile he announced, “There was no such suo motu case and I just wanted to check how sharp your legal brains were functioning!”
Turning toward his nephew, he said, “bark is better than getting bitten – case wise and canine wise!”
Irritated by this intruding attitude of the judge they replied “Judge, we
too played the same game. Till some time
back, there was a venomous snake taking measurements before taking a jab at
you. We lost the opportunity to witness that precision strike as exactly at
that point you thunder clapped for order in the proceeding. Our loss, we
regret!
Judge, you are not a kid anymore to be playing April Fools in the month
of August. We knew you were up to something when we saw the masked case title, "
Negotiated treaty or betrayal?". Having come so far let us help you to
gather some wood for your whittling leisure.
The judge found himself royally stumped, forced to sit on a tree stump! Not in a position to threaten them with
contempt of court, he decided to give them a hand in collecting wood pieces for
his hobby.
You wonder what was the verdict? We will hear it when they come out of the woods!