Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/)
-   General Chat (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f7/)
-   -   It's OFFICIAL: Ottawa divorce forum now on court papers. (http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f7/its-official-ottawa-divorce-forum-now-court-papers-13175/)

WorkingDAD 09-25-2012 12:01 PM

It's OFFICIAL: Ottawa divorce forum now on court papers.
 
Hello All

I went to court house last week to pick up better copies of all endorsement for my trial record. To my surprise I did find another motion and affidavit of Applicant which were filled with a court on Sep 7, 2012 which I had no idea that exists.

Obviously I was not served with it (or may be more correct way to say - as of today I did not received it ). So I made a copy (only affidavit part without exhibits)

It mostly the same stuff (except restrain order and press charges for obstruction of justice) but now Ottawa Divorce forum is officially on the record. There is whole section about it actually.

Quote:

Ottawa Divorce Forum

24. Respondent constantly trash Applicant thru that website, he issues each move of matter involving Applicant. Applicant asked on numerous occasions to stop, but Respondent does not listen. ( Exhibit A )

25. In Respondent tread "Where are we and where we are heading" Respondent wrote following: "... She requested from Google to delete it (yes I know that it's not how its works blink)." ... I have so much to cover in trial that I am not sure it will be shorter than previous one"( Exhibit A) That is another prove, that Respondent wants/plan to prolong issue/take more time. He also says trial, not oral hearing.

26. Next posts from same tread of Respondent are ' ... her position now is hey Google did not prove that is me so it's not me - that not how its work as I know (I hope at least)', ' ... that would be even better to have during trial, but I have something else smile'. ( Exhibit A )

27. Based on last post we can see that Respondent is planning 'new evidence to show'. That brings us to new tread' KIJIJI or not KIJIJI ( Exhibit A )

28. In that tread Respondent is asking people, who bought anything from Applicant, attaching applicant email on public forum and some rewards. Than he saying that he will do same thro kijiji. He was even lauphing there "... can you imagine argument in court Appl: your Honor he paid $100 bucks to each of those 27 individuals ..." ( Exhibit A )

29. Another prove of Respondent prolonging issue is planning to ask another disclosure. ( Exhibit C)

30. Respondent got so many advised on forum, that Applicant credibility is shot, that he gained big confidence in what he is doing. Respondent thinks that he is allowed to bring to court anything without actual prove, as court will not belief Applicant anyway.

31. What Respondent did not get that "previous credibility should not hunt Applicant forever".

32. This is very serious accusation, but yet there no secondary prove to support Respondent evidence.

33. Applicant and child were both "punished" just on base of some unproven accusations
.

and

Quote:

22. After questioning Respondent posted on "Ottawa divorce forum" (which Respondent is using to trash Applicant and talk about his case) in his thread l "4, 5 hours on discovery" (Exhibit A)" ... I have to pay for that circus", "every donor of 100 will have scanned PDF and every donor of 500 will have audio recording in addition?"

23. If Respondent is saying on public forum such things, he should not be trusted with recording in court, as he might "sell" this too.
Since a lot of people can actually see what was posted and what discussion were about on thous tread and now see how it presented in affidavit you may see what I am dealing with.

Any advice? Should I even bring it up to Judge's attention or just ignore it?

I do not think that I should worry about what I post on a forum as it all public record anyway and there is no publication ban but still kind of made me think how we are even argue that in court before she admit that she is storm/confusedmommy ?

WD

Pursuinghappiness 09-25-2012 12:21 PM

Extremely extremely amusing.

Personally, I'd submit a short reponse in my application reponse and ignore it in court. Most likely, so will the judge. I'm confused as to relevance here? She's trying to suggest that the court shouldn't listen to any of your evidence because you allegedly paid someone for something? What on earth is she talking about? How does that have anything to do with the issues you're trying to get resolved in court?

What she wrote is even difficult to read...its very incoherent. The only reason I can make any sense out of it is because I read the forum. A judge will probably be totally confused. I'm not sure how you'd get through that story in court and it certainly isn't relevant aside from further illustrating the mental instability of the person you're dealing with.

However, you may not want to ignore it completely in case it does come up for some reason. I would simply attach some of her posts regarding her multiple children with fake fathers, dogs in bedroom, etc. Also attach any evidence you have regarding her or the library's IP addresses to confirm her identity. Again, its nonsensical, bizarre material to attach but in case it comes up, it may show how odd and disturbed she is. Otherwise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you posting here to request advice. Its basically no different from anyone asking advice for their divorce anywhere. You are free to discuss what you like.

If she is upset because her lack of credibility has been caught on a public forum, that's hardly anything that you are responsible for. Perhaps she should stop making up stories online.

Honestly what a lunatic...and what a colossal waste of court time.

Pursuinghappiness 09-25-2012 12:30 PM

Quote:

30. Respondent got so many advised on forum, that Applicant credibility is shot, that he gained big confidence in what he is doing. Respondent thinks that he is allowed to bring to court anything without actual prove, as court will not belief Applicant anyway.

31. What Respondent did not get that "previous credibility should not hunt Applicant forever".

By the way, Point 31 here is interesting.

It sounds like she is trying to convince the judge to ignore her credibility issues with regard to previous testimony. I find that highly amusing. The continuing record exists for a reason and it definitely will "hunt" her for the remainder of her time in family court if she has a history of deception.

Did she write this response herself? Its so badly articulated and so ill-advised, I would guess that she did. I feel sorry for any judge having to deal with this type of litigant.

WorkingDAD 09-25-2012 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pursuinghappiness (Post 108895)
By the way, Point 31 here is interesting.

It sounds like she is trying to convince the judge to ignore her credibility issues with regard to previous testimony. I find that highly amusing. The continuing record exists for a reason and it definitely will "hunt" her for the remainder of her time in family court if she has a history of deception.

Did she write this response herself? Its so badly articulated and so ill-advised, I would guess that she did. I feel sorry for any judge having to deal with this type of litigant.

Yes it's her. It's not even response - it;s just another motion what she brought. We went before judge on Sep 13, 2012 and there was not even one word from her or judge about that affidavit. I had no idea it even there on that time.

during the trial all thous affidavits (as of now she filed 6 (+4 other people for her) will have to be dealt wit as it become part of evidence. So it's going to be long and painful.

Pursuinghappiness 09-25-2012 01:03 PM

WD:

Its hard to understand the relevance of this forum to her motion...since obviously we can't read the whole motion (and I have a feeling that even if we could, there wouldn't be much relevance). I'm going to assume that she's suggesting that you're harrassing her in some way and in addition, that due to her credibility here being damaged, you caused her (and your child) some harm.

If that is the case, it is such a ridiculous and insane leap...its hard to understand what to do..and may be very dependent on the judge you get. In my opinion, any rational judge is going to ignore most of this...maybe after clarifying her assumptions to humour her...and its going to reflect badly on her state of mind overall. However, strange things happen in family court.

This is a public discussion forum. She is under no obligation to be here or engage anyone here. She willingly comes here...she willingly is deceptive about her personal situation in order to get attention and obviously irritate you. Its impossible to argue harrassment when she openly initiates and perpetuates the online contact.

That being said...because its in your materials...you must respond. Other posters may have better advice but having dealt with a lot of affidavits full of crap...my advice is to keep the response brief and succinct. What the forum is...why you come here...a brief paragraph about her behavior and involvement (attaching her bizarre, fallacious posts to illustrate how odd she is)...its irrelevance in regards to the issues you're working on in family court.

She is free not to come to the forum at any point. I honestly cannot imagine any judge reading that crap and taking it very seriously. Its just nonsense. I suppose its possible that a judge might caution you on revealing personal details of hers online...but you haven't really done that. And in reality, in divorce situations...there's often one party running around lying to anyone and everyone that will listen....they rarely get called on slander/harrassment charges.

Although I know this is serious to you because you have to respond to it and deal with it...but surely you must be just laughing at the insanity of her putting this in a motion.

zenna70 09-25-2012 01:08 PM

Holy cow...we all hide behind anonymity to some certain degree.... but I guess this is a lesson learned for all. WOW :(

WorkingDAD 09-25-2012 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenna70 (Post 108899)
Holy cow...we all hide behind ananymity to some certain degree but I guess this is a lesson learned for all. WOW :(

Lesson of what?

zenna70 09-25-2012 01:16 PM

Working: Watch what ppl post...or did I read this totally wrong?...my apologies if I did.

Pursuinghappiness 09-25-2012 01:22 PM

Quote:

Holy cow...we all hide behind ananymity to some certain degree but I guess this is a lesson learned for all. WOW :(
This situation is the same as the threads on this forum regarding other public forum materials...such as facebook, twitter.

You should be careful what you post and always assume anyone/everyone can read it. However in this particular case, its absolutely fine for WD to ask for online advice in his divorce situation. At any time, if his ex felt harrassed or threatened...she was under no obligation to be here or to make fallacious posts in an obvious attempt to inflame WD. I find it highly amusing that she tries to imply that he damaged her "online forum credibility." First of all, she did that all by herself...secondly, who cares? Why on earth is her Ottawa Divorce Forum reputation important..especially to a judge dealing with custody/access issues?

I think you\'re right, however, that it is a reminder that one should be cautious in such an environment. Especially in regard to the person with the mental state that WD is dealing with.

FightingForFamily 09-25-2012 01:30 PM

OMG Blink, you\'re part of the continuing record now!

This is very interesting and has to be addressed but it really doesn\'t seem relevant.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0