View Single Post
  #1  
Old 05-14-2010, 02:32 AM
pokeman pokeman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: calgary
Posts: 190
pokeman has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default lawyers acting badly

lawyers acting badly

[background]
my case involves small children and severe abuse at the hands of their mother , foot on their throat, bleeding from mouth, violent violent abuse.

what some might not realize is that "reporting child abuse" throws you into the canadian legal system where your case is treated much like a "car accident" case where money might be paid out ... the abusers lawyer tries to "get them off" no matter how compelling the evidence ...

this topic is about how far a lawyer might go to free their client and if anyone else has noticed "under the table" type maneouvers that could have put your child in danger

I noticed a number of tricks her lawyers did in court, one even had the participation of a federal judge

[lawyers acting badly]

here's a few i picked up on :

(a) her lawyer filed a report written by a physcologist with a page
missing - the recommendations , the last page that was filed ended
in an ambigeous sentence as to whether the mother should have access
to the children, the only sign something was missing was a hanging
semicolan :

my own lawyer didnt clue in, nor did the legal assistent ... I did.
her lawyer filed it, the missing page was +12 recommendations that
would take +2 years to complete ...

coincidence ? or lawyers acting badly


(b) my X wrote an outrageous affidavit, I left the children home alone
, neglected them , a real piece of fiction and all easily proved otherwise,
it was attached to a motion and was filed ...

they filed it in provincial court, our case was in federal court, its a
checkbox on the cover sheet, they then faxed the filed motion to children's services who opened a case, a judge never heard the motion cause it wasnt valid, however children's services did a safety assessment, which was the purpose of filing it children's services had the mother under supervision order and this was an attempt for children's services to pardon her ...

coincidence ? or lawyers acting badly

(c) I represented myself on occassion due to lack of funds, on one occassion standing before the judge i was ordered to pay 100% for my X's supervison, the judge asked me if "I agree" - as I pleaded with the judge trying to show the debt I was under, her lawyer kept saying things like "the mother should have overnight access" , "the mother should be allowed to attend the school" , basically a whole shopping list of privledges that would place the children in the mothers care unsupervised ... I kept thinking 'has she lost it, what is she talking about'


this judge only had a few minutes to review a case they never seen before

Remember everything said in court is on the clerk's tape in cronilogical order, i am asked if I agree to paying 100% supervison over and over by the judge and my X's lawyer is injecting these statements into the clerk's tape.

Having no choice due to the Justice not wanting to see my debt records I said I have no choice but to agree ... at which time the Judge and Lawyer almost simualtaneoulsy refered to a court of rule the record can not be changed.

The trick they played ( lawyer and judge ) is that on the clerk's tape I agreed, my X's lawyer put a whole shopping list of items onto the clerks tape which she brought back to the judge some days later and got a court order ...

coincidence ? or lawyers and judges acting badly


(d) My X's lawyer told the judge the supervision company needed to be paid 30 days in advance, the judge granted the court order stating i needed to pay in advance, I went to the supervison company and they said "no, thats not our policy, but I have a court order here stating you have to pay in advance".

getting a different judge I brought this up to the justice, the X's lawyer started two stepping stating she doesnt think she said that ( dear in the headlights ) so I suggested we get the clerks record and review it, after all a client lieing is one thing but a lawyer lieing to a judge seems to be a bit much if this system has any credibility at all.

judge didnt really seem to care if the lawyer lied or not

coincidence ? or lawyers acting badly

or a better question, does this system have any credibility at all ?
Reply With Quote