Question - is this just a question of semantics or is "someone" trying to hose me? I am self representing and feel I did ok at the case conference. I have the fax of judge's endorsement (which I suspect his lawyer does not know I have) which reads:
"Questionning - there is an order for questionning of each party with respect to financial matters and particularly credit card statements for 2003 to 2006, loan statements from xxx and/or xxx for loans in 2003, 2004, 2005 that might have been paid to the respondent and bank account statements, personal and business, for 2003 to 2006."
I just received the "draft" from his lawyer which has changed the endorsement wording to read:
Each party may question the other with respect to financial matters including: (same specifics).
My thinking: his version seems to "limit" questioning to those matters whereas judge's version suggests questionning can go beyond the scope of the "specified" things and that they are emphasised as being "in particular?"
Your thoughts please??????
"Questionning - there is an order for questionning of each party with respect to financial matters and particularly credit card statements for 2003 to 2006, loan statements from xxx and/or xxx for loans in 2003, 2004, 2005 that might have been paid to the respondent and bank account statements, personal and business, for 2003 to 2006."
I just received the "draft" from his lawyer which has changed the endorsement wording to read:
Each party may question the other with respect to financial matters including: (same specifics).
My thinking: his version seems to "limit" questioning to those matters whereas judge's version suggests questionning can go beyond the scope of the "specified" things and that they are emphasised as being "in particular?"
Your thoughts please??????
Comment