Motion for Leave and Presumption of regularity Meaning_

FOR my PERSONAL REFERENCE STUDY GUIDE

According to US LEGAL.COM A motion for leave is a request for permission to file something that isn't allowed as a matter of right under law. It is often a request for an extension of time to file something past a filing deadline. Rules of procedure and court rules, which vary by court, govern the methods and timelines of filings. When a deviation is sought from such rules, it is a matter of discretion for the court to grant the request for leave.  Presumption of regularity is a principle applied in evidentiary evaluation that transactions made in the normal course of business are assumed to have been conducted in the usual manner unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. THIS IS MY NOTE: JUSTICES AS CLOWNS BELOW  IS A SCENE OF A  CLOWN JUGGLING  AROUND 3  COLORED BALLS AND OUT FROM HIS MAGIC SKILLS  HE ENDED  UP SHOWING YOU JUST ONE WHITE BALL LEFT WHICH YOU DID NOT KNOW NOR SEE WHERE IT COME FROM AND 3 OTHERS GO, JUST ACCEPT IT AS REAL ,(3 COLORED BALLS= 1 WHITE BALL),  HERE, THE CLOWN DID NOT CHEAT UNDER THE PRINCIPLE  OF PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY UNLESS YOU COULD SHOW EVIDENCE ON HOW THE CLOWN CHEAT BUT ENSURE THE AUDIENCE WILL  LISTEN TO YOU OR ELSE THE AUDIENCE AND THE CLOWN ALTOGETHER WILL BE LAUGHING AT YOU. AS LIKE WHAT SOME FEEL AS THEY READ NEXT: In its June 2, 2009 Resolution, the Court En Banc clarified its April 28, 2009 Resolution in this wise As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that: No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. Thus, a decision becomes final and executory after 15 days from receipt of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. However, when a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the Court therefore allows the filing of the second motion for reconsideration.In such a case, the second motion for reconsideration is no longer a prohibited pleading. In the present case, the Court voted on the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent cities. In effect, the Court allowed the filing of the second motion for reconsideration. Thus, the second motion for reconsideration was no longer a prohibited pleading. However, for lack of the required number of votes to overturn the 18 November 2008 Decision and 31 March 2009Resolution, the Court denied the second motion for reconsideration in its 28 April 2009 Resolution.[5] AMUSED OR CONFUSED? THEN READ IT AGAIN....