OttawaDivorce.com Encourages Fraud?

[Grace]

Please read Jeff's Blog regarding this subject. Apparently someone has reported him to the Law Society. With 463 current members and 131 active members, I'm hoping that all of you will take the time to reply to this blog.

I support Jeff and his web-site 100%. I find his information invaluable. I am also grateful to have these forums as a place to vent my fustrations and hopefully to help others through my own experiences.

[god knows the truth]

hi Grace, good morn'
what is this all about-fraud? I don't get it. For what? Jeff simply gives his legal advice and tries to help us out. can you explain this to me. How can someon be reported for fraud when they are going by the book?
thanks grace, have a great day and I hope things are going well in your 'neck of the woods'. bye for now

[ladyluck]

I posted on the blog, but I thought I'd say what I believe here too.

From my blog reply:
I don’t get this either. I haven’t seen any advice that “encourages” fraud. It simply shows people a nice environment to mingle and support each other. I also didn’t see anything on the site that couldn’t be found in some law book. JMO.

And here's more of what I think:
Whoever (do you know who filed the complaint?) filed this complaint must be either (1) jealous of the site's success; or (2) their jealous of some case Jeff's won...hmm... makes perfect sense to me.

[gooddadgoingmad]

Wow, I've read the blog and the allegations are so ridiculous. I literally sat in the chair upon reading it and shook my head. How anyone could interpret that as encouraging fraud is beyond me. Obviously the individual is not very bright!

Jeff, this must be very disappointing for you. I'm sure that the law society will see very quickly that this is simply someone's attempt to be malicious.

I'd like to add that it's very possible that the individual is a member of this site who didn't like what he/she was being told. Let's face it people, there are some very disturbed and strange people out there who are capable of far worse than this! I wonder if it's possible that someone wasn't getting the advice they wanted to hear and then lashed out.

I appreciate this site for it's open candor and good advice. I support it 100% and I hope this works out for Jeff. Good luck! Let us know how it goes.

[CatvsLion]

Where is this 'blog'?

[Jeff]

Thanks so much for everyone who has privately and publicly expressed their support. I really appreciate it. It is disconcerting to get a complaint like that and your support means a lot to me.

Where is this 'blog'?

It's here:
http://www.ottawadivorce.com/blog/

That's where I usually post the newest additions to the site.

[Jenny]

you need to remember it is only a complaint at this stage right? Hopefully it all blows over

[logicalvelocity]

Jeff,

It is a sad day indeed when a complaint is made against yourself for your pro bono initiative. It appears that there is an irate reader that took offense.

I read the page that you referred to on strategies. The information that is posted is common knowledge and ultimately at the end of the day it is up to the Judge and the courts to administer the laws and determine the facts.

This is the Internet which is open to international borders. If they don't like what they read in the forums they don't have to visit either. Whatever happen to freedom of speech in this country. Anything said in here is opinions. Freedom of speech shall prevail! The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us as Canadians this right.

I really hope that the complaint gets set aside and the allegations are dismissed. This forum is a awesome play to discuss experience, vent or ask a question of someone that may have a similar experience or is in a similar predicament.




LV

[Jenny]

Is it an anonymous complaint? Will you see who made the complaint? curious about the process this takes. I have a licensing body with my career and there is quite the procedure involved in handling discipline decisions.

I imagine with most complaints it is about a particular lawyer/client relationship and this may be fairly unique in terms of the advice being out there for anyone to read.

[Julie]

Jeff,

The advices you give out to those who are in need should be awarded - I am so sorry to hear about this news.

I want to hear from the person who has reported you and hear his/her explanation of doing so. This just just full of balony.

I really hope everything'll get resolved. If you need our help, you know where to find us!

G'luck and I will pray for you.

[Jeff]

At this point, I don't really know much more about the complaint than what I posted. So far, all that's happened is that the complaint has been received by the Law Society and I've been informed of it.

It's considered an "advertising complaint" by the Law Society. I'm guessing that they would consider it under Rule 3.04(1)(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct:
http://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulation/a/profconduct/rule3/

[mom2two]

well, this is not fair!

Jeff, this forum, is not only helpful I think to both paries, as I also think your forum can save courts ALOT of time and money, with some people just not sure if they have a case or not , and some people without your help will make court arrangements and waste time and money, <well you get the idea!> anyways want to thank you and will contine to support you in future!!

[logicalvelocity]

Jeff,

After reading the regulation pertaining to the complaint,

I think you are within the scope of the regulation. What is posted is techniques and strategies. How is this in bad taste? Ultimately it is up to the courts to render a judgement based on facts of the situation. A court has a paramount obligation to put the child's interest first and foremost which they do.

I do not see how the webpage brings the profession or the administration of justice into disrepute.

Advertising Services Permitted

3.04 (1) Subject to subrule (3), a lawyer or a law firm may advertise their services or fees in any medium including the use of brochures and similar documents provided that the advertising:


(a) is not false or misleading;

(b) is in good taste and is not such as to bring the profession or the administration of justice into disrepute; and

(c) does not compare services or charges with other lawyers or law firms.

It is a fallacious and vexatious complaint if you ask me.

LV

[Grace]

I found this case on the Law Society web site. Does this mean the Law Society also encourages "fraud", and encourage people to evade their child support obligations, on their website?:

Stock options not considered income for child support purposes

In a Guidelines test case, an Ontario Superior Court Judge has ruled that profits from employee stock options and vested unexercised stock options do not form part of "annual income" for the purpose of calculating child support.

The case involved a couple who divorced in 1991. The father, the vice-president of a major high-tech company, was required by the terms of the divorce settlement to pay $3,000 per month in child support for his three children. In 1993, he exercised some stock options and sold shares resulting in a profit of $385,048, and in 1999 he exercised more stock options and sold shares which resulted in a profit of $3,181,315. He still retained further stock options. His annual income before stock options was $377,000. The mother applied to increase the amount payable for child support, arguing that the money realized from the exercise of stock options and sale of shares should be included in income for the purpose of calculating child support.

Mr. Justice Douglas Rutherford relied on s. 17(1)(c) of the Child Support Guidelines in excluding from income the proceeds from the sale of shares in 1993 and 1999. He reasoned that "they are large amounts which do not form a pattern of ‘income’," and that "these large elements of the respondent’s wealth have come into his hands in relatively recent years and this is not one of those cases in which the children may now be deprived of a high-end lifestyle which they enjoyed before the divorce . . . the children have always been more than adequately supported."

Justice Rutherford further refused to impute income to the father based on the valuation of money which could be realized annually by exercising vested share options and selling these shares, reasoning that "that would be to take the value of property which is not income and treat it as income."

References:
Arnold v. Washburn, [2000] O.J. No. 3653 (S.C.J.), online: Quicklaw (OJRE).
C. Schmitz, "$3.5 M in Stock-Option Profits Don’t Count for Child Support" The Lawyers Weekly, vol. 20, no. 21 (October 6, 2000), pp. 1, 11.

Date digested: October 18, 2000



Found at: http://library.lsuc.on.ca/GL/stay_in...ort%20purposes

[logicalvelocity]

way to go grace!

good stuff

LV