is what they said.
And for me, I wondered if that was as strong a vote as I made it out to be. This is also a selective review of evidence – which is funny. Why would you put weight on evidence that is not as close?
Or is that my bias, taking one to be more credible than the other. Like adducing fresh evidence, where it was relevant and credible, when does a court choose to say, sure but you should have done this earlier and you could but you didn’t.
The same concept as a statute of limitations – I’m not sure I agree.
But it makes sense in practical terms, to prevent drip feeding, to present wastage. But it is my faith that judges can be kind. That they will not close their eyes.
I just need a hand on my mouth, to stop us from calling out.
On a whole, in those three weeks, I was happy seeing those things still be useful.
So the answer to ( ) is “yes”.
And my answer is “it’s okay”.
There were lost opportunities, that I am sad to have lost, that could have made a difference.
Hearing isn’t a proxy for seeing, or rather talking isn’t a proxy for hearing it myself. But that that was the answer, made me assured.
Mediation follows the file, and he has never discouraged it.
And that is hopeful, but what does that m e a n?
K told us that the practice directions strongly encourage mediation. The new knowledge that shifts our retroactive tainting.
The conclusion is that it means, well, really, not much. I want to see more before that changes my assessment.
Courage, one: a person who says in the same breath that they enjoy the adversarial process and that they would not discourage mediation.
Better, two: a person who says in the same breath that they don’t enjoy the adversarial process and that they are learning to do mediation.
Three, a warrior who says so honestly that they are there in the class to understand how to use those tools for non-mediation uses.
Four, a lawyer who says so honestly while leaning back in their chair that this was convenient.
Five, a lawyer who says so honestly while we lean forward that they had a serious discussion and the answer they settled on was “Yes, we can defend him.”
Is that preference for people who are honest? Even if they could hurt you with that honesty. Or is it the type of honesty, the delivery of that honesty?
It is a preference that I can’t explain or understand, I thought I would prefer people who would be less so. But not only the intention but the tone, the underlying emotion was also honesty.
That they felt comfortable enough to say things like that, is a level of confidence that I want to someday reach. The sound of courage that touched me – and the sound of frustration, the sound of patience being worn thin.
The tightness in their voice. Someone who does not control and restrict their emotions well is also someone used to expressing their emotions, and that reflects itself in honesty.
I didn’t work well with it.
As much as I found that straightforward and honest, I couldn’t adapt myself or my responses to what we were trying to do at that moment.
Even if I could anticipate, or even if I understood what he was trying to do, I couldn’t soften the blow he was dealing or receiving.
And that I’ve held close for a long time that control is essential. They surprised me and I wanted to protect them in whatever way I could, though there were such limited options:
Saying it because I couldn’t stay silent, saying it because I trusted it to be true, more than just saying it for nothingness.
The hand that held onto my armrest as I unconsciously swivelled in my swivel chair, or rested on my shoulder when I felt the most embarrassed during feedback, belonged to a reliable person.
Though we didn’t work perfectly together and it was certainly very difficult, it made me think a lot about myself and about us.
When picking a team, how much similarity is needed? Should similarity be desired, should it be needed, or should I pick people who are different from me knowing that I am not comfortable with those differences?
In a pair like that, it’s indisputable that K and I had the best experience when co-mediating, but was that because the parties were calm, or was it because we are similar where it counts?
No doubt, our brains are different – but we have alignment in overt gentleness which leaves me comforted.
That wasn’t there for my other partners, and of course, I was warned against taking this kind of match for granted. I can feel the mismatch in my discomfort, all the way into my bones and I don’t want it.
A comfort that comes from knowing the person who is seated with you, knowing how they will react, and knowing that you know what they want from you. That’s important for me to match you and co-mediate by your side.
I also learnt that it’s important for me to express this to the other person, and though I am gathering from hints, the other can be averse to drawing inferences.
“For me, it is important to hear how they feel. I want to see and hear them vocalise their emotions.”
To you who dares roll the dice,
the lady has spoken twice.
Her faith in her ask,
is clear without a mask.
Four weeks will suffice.