Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LF32 "need to see daughter" pt.2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tayken..Thank you for your case law. Thank you for your contributions. You're good at what you do.
    Like Ive said before again and again. I do seek lawyer advice. I do spend an incredible amount of time at FLIC. I do get free consults. I am working 3 jobs to try and afford a lawyer. I don't just rely on ppl in this forum.

    I don't know what it is you have against me but make no mistake .. I am just as good of a litigant as Working Dad and I will come back on here with either 50/50 or sole and make you eat every word that trickled out of your mouth. You claim to be a realist, but you seem like a pessimist to me. You don't think I have what it takes? You're motivating me to self-represent more than anyone here. Now go ahead and copy and paste the very first line of this post and go on a tangent about it. Thanks for the support.
    Tayken. Ill invite you to the motion and/or trial so you can watch me trample all over this lawyer. And you can use my canlii files for caselaw to help other's. Deal?
    And thank you to everybody in this thread. If it weren't for you I may have done something irrational by now. Im ahead of the game in this case and building it nicely with visual access calendars (thank Mr. T.), an amazing factum and affidavit of motion (thanks FB) and all the amazing support that Tayken seems to disapprove of. I will win. Trust me.
    Last edited by LovingFather32; 06-26-2014, 10:47 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Straittohell View Post
      The parallel should have been apparent, but I will explain. In this forum, LF32 has been subjected to many people suggesting he get more legal help, despite him clearly indicating that he knows that he needs one, but cannot afford what he needs. In my parable, I suggested that a dying man seek medical attention when he clearly knew he needed it. In both cases, we have two people drowning in agony, and being offered little more than a suggestion that they acquire something that is beyond their reach.
      Here is why your example fails again...

      LF32 has not be shot and not at risk of death.

      You are splitting your argument. I recommend you read some Eddy and come back when you are going to actually contribute to this forum.

      Another way to look at your argument and why it fails is simply that it is a formal fallacy.

      Good Luck!
      Tayken

      Comment


      • Tayken .. you ever been robbed of your child for 5 months. False Allegations that you're innocent of (could care less if you believe me .. I am)? Ill tell you your heart beats so hard out of your chest t seems like youre going to die.

        The analogy of shot and at risk of death is a pretty darn close analogy. Unless you've been through what Im going through, please don't try and say his analogy is too far base.

        And please relax with the "formal fallacy" philosophy class. Seems to me you just like to bust balls. You know what he meant as did everybody else.
        Last edited by LovingFather32; 06-26-2014, 11:03 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          I don't know what it is you have against me but make no mistake .. I am just as good of a litigant as Working Dad and I will come back on here with either 50/50 or sole and make you eat every word that trickled out of your mouth.
          You are not WorkingDad nor should you ever think you are. You should read his past threads on this forum. See how he framed his questions, positions and looked for help. How he took information and then used it and how much outside research well beyond this forum he invested into his file.

          You may have similar passion but, you are not WorkingDad. Your postings demonstrate this.

          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          You claim to be a realist, but you seem like a pessimist to me.
          That is because I don't agree with your position, approach and don't trust that you are truthful with anything you post to this forum. There are many logical holes in your story.

          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          You don't think I have what it takes? You're motivating me to self-represent more than anyone here.
          It is unfortunate that I motivate you.

          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          Now go ahead and copy and paste the very first line of this post and go on a tangent about it. Thanks for the support.
          I am not here to "support" you. Sorry you feel that my purpose to this forum is to support you or anyone.

          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          Tayken. Ill invite you to the motion and/or trial so you can watch me trample all over this lawyer. And you can use my canlii files for caselaw to help other's. Deal?
          Not interested in attending your matters. That would require me to provide you my real identity and suffice to say, anyone who talks in such grandiose terms is generally not someone I would associate with.

          Feel free to post your case law to this site. The only poster to ever do this is you-know-who. I also challenge you to find a single thread on this forum where your idol ever made such a statement as you have done above in bold.

          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          And thank you to everybody in this thread. If it weren't for you I may have done something irrational by now.
          If this is the case, I recommend you seek a medical professional to discuss your issues with.

          Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
          Im ahead of the game in this case and building it nicely with visual access calendars (thank Mr. T.), an amazing factum and affidavit of motion (thanks FB) and all the amazing support that Tayken seems to disapprove of. I will win. Trust me.
          Family law is not a win-lose situation. It is a series of compromises. It is not a battle to be won. I am sorry but, no one walks out of a court case as a "winner".

          CanLII - 2012 ONSC 3208 (CanLII)

          This decision will not vindicate one parent and disparage the other. This family did not get to where they are by the simplistic analysis presented by the father, which is, but for the mother’s bad behaviour the father would have a perfectly wonderful relationship with his three children. No, the issues in this family are far more complex and subtle than that. The “truth” will not set this family free, because there is no one single truth. Only the parties, working together in a therapeutic setting, can set this family free.
          I encourage you to read the case law I linked above... My concerns with your position and "winning attitude" are addressed much better by the Honourable Madame Justice Mossip.

          Good Luck!
          Tayken

          Comment


          • Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
            And please relax with the "formal fallacy" philosophy class. Seems to me you just like to bust balls. You know what he meant as did everybody else.
            Feel free to write me off. These rules of logic are how justices determine "truthfulness" on the "balance of probabilities".

            Good Luck!
            Tayken
            Last edited by Tayken; 06-26-2014, 11:12 PM.

            Comment


            • lol Have fun picking apart every word Tayken. You're a bully. Im used to ppl like you now.
              Last edited by LovingFather32; 06-26-2014, 11:19 PM.

              Comment


              • That is because I don't agree with your position, approach and don't trust that you are truthful with anything you post to this forum. There are many logical holes in your story.

                So Im not truthful in my posts now? Logical holes? You really are something else. I know enough to be 100% honest in order to get the correct advice.

                Please tell me what Ive been untruthful about? Im intrigued.
                Last edited by LovingFather32; 06-26-2014, 11:20 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                  Feel free to write me off. These rules of logic are how justices determine "truthfulness" on the "balance of probabilities".

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken
                  You've been written off the second you told me you had no faith in me.

                  Please don't ask me to seek medical attention when your "grandiosity disorder" goes untreated.

                  Comment


                  • LF32, I sent you that help we talked about, as opposed to simply talking down to you and disingenuously saying "Good Luck" at the end of every single one of my messages.

                    Now, I originally said there were no strings, but I do have a request. Stop talking to Tayken. Let him post whatever he wants, and take what you can from his case law, but don't get into a war of words with him. When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but only the pig likes it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Straittohell View Post
                      LF32, I sent you that help we talked about, as opposed to simply talking down to you and disingenuously saying "Good Luck" at the end of every single one of my messages.

                      Now, I originally said there were no strings, but I do have a request. Stop talking to Tayken. Let him post whatever he wants, and take what you can from his case law, but don't get into a war of words with him. When you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but only the pig likes it.
                      It's a breath of fresh air to know there are still good ppl in this world. Straittohell, Arabian, Mr. Toronto, FB, Beachnanna, and everybody else. I will keep working towards getting a lawyer and in the meantime Ill keep doing what Im doing. Despite what some may think (you know who you are), I have been building a pretty solid case thus far. Im a psychology graduate and I learn fast. I know its a sad story. I WILL come out on top. This will have a happy ending. In behavior analysis we do what is called the ABC's of behavior. Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence in order to determine the causality of the maladaptive behavior. The antecedent is what occurred just prior to the behavior. The Behavior usually is escape/avoidance but most the time it's "attention-seeking". In order to diminish the maladaptive, "attention seeking" behavior we must use the process of "extinction" as a consequence. This decreases the probability of the behavior occurring in the future. I will use this behavior principle to not let the "attention-seekers" get the best of me as my attention provides a source of positive reinforcement that feeds the maladaptive behavior.
                      Last edited by LovingFather32; 06-26-2014, 11:50 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
                        Short Motion means short

                        all the facts are in on todays events...it's short at this point, it's for a Judge to look over. Discussing anything further on it with the lawyer is a waste of time. (that'll drive the lawyer batty)

                        1) endorsements
                        2)Copy C/R
                        3) access chart
                        4) requested interim access
                        5) drug tests
                        6) police check
                        7) interim parenting plan
                        8) disclosure efforts and denial of any allegations
                        9) All judges get comfortable it seems with graduated access or person overseeing overnights with "serious allegations" when it's "interim"
                        10)mini interim parenting plan
                        11) 1 hour access events, supervisor affidavit.

                        other stuff

                        12) settlement offer sent "interim one" on date so-so
                        13) Costs

                        the Details.. Facts described by you with above exhibits attached

                        all under a 10 minute read.
                        Yes and I believe a more reasonable offer would be weekends and Wednesday nights. But FB made a good point with his "in the alternative...in the alternative" suggestion a while back.

                        Comment


                        • Wow finally caught up.

                          Lots of flames without any firefighters.

                          My suggestion is to confirm with the lawyer your access for every Thursday from now until your motion.

                          post the letter here before you send it.

                          I agree start copying a third party on all emails you send.

                          Comment


                          • Yes I like FB's varying degrees of offers.

                            Because if you look at the result of a lot of case law, A person goes to Court for lets say PROBLEM A and after the Trial or Motion process, the Judge if he thinks PROBLEM A hadn't pleaded well or the person was kind of right on some issues Orders option B
                            The next thing the Judge deals with is Costs...knowing that the person went and lost PROBLEM A.....and they get creative here to split the judgement to minimize costs

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                              In behavior analysis we do what is called the ABC's of behavior. Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence in order to determine the causality of the maladaptive behavior. The antecedent is what occurred just prior to the behavior. The Behavior usually is escape/avoidance but most the time it's "attention-seeking". In order to diminish the maladaptive, "attention seeking" behavior we must use the process of "extinction" as a consequence. This decreases the probability of the behavior occurring in the future. I will use this behavior principle to not let the "attention-seekers" get the best of me as my attention provides a source of positive reinforcement that feeds the maladaptive behavior.
                              Seriously??? How about this: She wants something different than you and she is using her strongest bargaining cards (your kid, and 'woman in distress') to get it. It's a war, not a character training exercise.

                              15 years ago, a male co-worker of mine was going thru divorce - with a 2-yr old son. They were 2 bright young hardworking professionals. He didn't say much, and I didn't understand what he was going thru, but one thing sticks in my mind, and was amplified by my recent experiences: He said it was all about CONTROL.
                              Last edited by dinkyface; 06-27-2014, 10:45 AM.

                              Comment


                              • brief preperation.........when it's absolutely finalized with attachments, number in the top right corner....page 1 of 30.....then page 2 of 30...and so on

                                Make sure the 3 copies of briefs are "exactly the same"....I read somewhere judges hate searching for missing material.....and it does happen (my ex did more than a few times)

                                The problem is too many last minute changes or revisions and your stuck with 3 pre made duplicates that you have to pull apart and add too and then re number....it only takes one distraction ..and the judges copy doesn't match yours....OUCH.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X