At present, various types of phone fraud incidents are emerging one after another in our country, and the public security organs are unable to identify and control fraudulent calls in a timely and effective manner. The office telephone numbers of judges in various courts are not open to the public, giving criminals the opportunity to publicly commit fraud over the phone in the name of public security officers. In order to remind the public, many TV stations, news units, banks, public security and other departments have specially publicized that they should not trust various calls made in the name of court staff. This has caused the parties to misunderstand the court's telephone notification work and think that the court will not give The parties concerned shall call to notify relevant matters.
In fact, for some procedural documents and procedural matters, the court will often notify the parties by phone. Telephone notification, on the one hand, can improve the efficiency of the litigation process and avoid problems such as loss of travel time caused by mail delivery and invalid delivery caused by partial address errors; on the other hand, it can also better take care of the time of the parties and provide services to parties approved by the parties. Arrange work such as responding to appeals, submitting evidence, or holding court within the time limit.
In fact, the court’s telephone notification is just a way of transmitting information. The court will not require the parties to provide any property information over the phone, let alone require the parties to provide property guarantees or property transfer certificates.
2
Myth 2: Verbal facts are “facts”
In litigation, many parties have weak evidence awareness and are unclear about the formal requirements of evidence. Many parties do not even write a catalog of evidence or the purpose of the evidence. During the trial, most of the facts are based on the parties’ own “oral statements.”
As we all know, in civil litigation, litigation requires "evidence". In practice, there are often many situations where “the parties think they have made things clear, but the judge does not accept it.” In fact, judges generally do not believe what they say and only listen to oral statements of facts recognized by the other party.
Three
Myth 3: The facts determined by the court should be consistent with the objective facts.
The facts determined by the court are generally called "legal facts". "Objective facts" and "legal facts" are two concepts. "Objective facts" are facts that really exist and actually occur, and "legal facts" are facts determined by judges through thinking logic and relevant evidence, which have obvious reasoning and subjectivity.
The parties know the true appearance of the objective facts, but the judge is not a witness to the facts of the case. The judge can only describe the "legal facts" in his mind through the evidence and factual statements submitted by both parties. "Legal facts" are subjective and can only be infinitely close to "objective facts" and can never be 100% equal to "objective facts". Sometimes, based on differences in the judge's understanding and evidence identification, there will be situations where "legal facts" and "objective facts" are completely opposite. Once the parties believe that the facts determined by the judge are inconsistent with the "objective facts", they will think that the facts determined by the judge are wrong, or that the judge is obviously biased. This is actually caused by the fact that "legal facts" cannot be reduced to "objective facts" misunderstanding.