Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LF32 "need to see daughter" pt.2

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

  • Originally posted by arabian View Post
    I am curious as to why your own lawyer hasn't given you a more detailed account of things, specifically the nature of the complaints/allegations. Very strange indeed.

    Being the last to know doesn't seem right.

    Doesn't sound like it is substantive as the police aren't involved (or are they?).

    Smoke and mirrors just to get you rattled perhaps?
    No police ever involved Arabian. Only time they were involved was when I filed for missing person's and they said I couldn't. In that report the officer even said "Mr. __ wasn't satisfied with our answer". Im glad he wrote that. I wasn't satisfied. I also made a complaint about mischief .. townhouse was a wreck, things broken, they said she lived there is she could wreck whatever she wanted. I was treated poorly.

    When I received my "Freedom Of Info Package" the result of ex's visit to the cop shop was "No Evidence or allegation that are criminal in nature. This file is closed". In the same package it was noted that CAS do a follow up. They did and it read "Follow Up Concluded. No issues".

    Smoke N Mirrors
    Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-16-2014, 01:13 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by arabian View Post
      The moving party fills out the application/motion and attaches a sworn affidavit. Responding party responds with sworn affidavit and possibly a cross-application. If the motion is for September 25th I would assume this process is currently under way? Am I missing something?
      Lawyer and I are scheduling the day/night before the motion of (24th). We already know his Affidavit's, etc will come in the night before the motion. It'll get handled. We're both cognizant of this fact. If we have to stay up all night we will. This will not be an adjournment.

      Lawyers been served. Whether he contests it, says he's not available, etc? Who knows. He always seems to have a trick of his sleeve and he never responds to my lawyer. He cant hide for ever.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
        Which means the position in the REPY was a lie.
        I REALLY want to compare her police report to her "Answer". It will be filled with discrepancies and inaccuracies I bet. They've been avoiding talking about police report .. even told CC judge there was none. Hmm. Of course the one I got was all blacked out .. not much help.

        Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
        OP is picking up and dropping positions as this moves along...one case law I read was "it was like the other party was trying on clothes

        My bets are OCL and the LAO scumbag lawyer are acquainted, he's interfered on who the OCL office picked for an assessment.
        Stellar analogy. Exactly what it is.

        OCL and LAO are together. Yes. This explains LAO lawyer telling my lawyer "Ill do whatever OCL recommends". She doesn't work with toddlers. She advocates that false accusers should go unpunished, violence against women, men are guilty until found innocent and her main specialization is addictions .. not access, toddlers, etc. I did my research. I hope Im not jumping the gun on her b/c she was actually very nice.

        Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
        I don't know both of there names, but if it was me I'd put both names together and Google it or check case law for both names ...see what comes up..
        Tried that. This OCL worker doesn't have one family law hit, no canlii's, nothing.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Janibel View Post
          Yep, that's what I have thought from the start of this thread ... even my scumbag STBX was told IMMEDIATELY what he was accused of (right before having his finger-prints taken). It is a fundamental right to be told of all accusations in order to prepare a proper defense.
          Janibel. Id give anything to have some disclosure. I didn't have my fingerprints taken. No police whatsoever (for the full 8 year relationship actually). Mo concern of substance abuse that whole time either. All of this surfaced the MOMENT she abducted my child.

          My lawyer cant give me a detailed account because she doesn't have disclosure either. OCL tells me its normal for everybody to know but us.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
            In this matter Janibel, OP has been playing the "victim" card because they have no real evidence.

            Judge's aren't stupid

            DIG DIG DIG!
            How can LF32's Ex profess to be a "victim" when there has been no crime? Police don't wait months on end before arresting a suspect - they do it on the spot or next day. There is NO history of DV, NO history of child abuse/neglect, NOTHING in LF32's background that would suggest he is aggressive or alcoholic? And the smoking pot thing .... really? "mariwanna" will be legalized any day now? 85% of Canadians can't be wrong?

            All of this boils down to utter nonsense. LF32's lawyer should have insisted on an emergency motion to have IMMEDIATE access to his little girl on the grounds of unfounded allegations causing him a serious prejudice.
            There is something very ODD about this case .... just doesn't add up.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Janibel View Post
              How can LF32's Ex profess to be a "victim" when there has been no crime? Police don't wait months on end before arresting a suspect - they do it on the spot or next day. There is NO history of DV, NO history of child abuse/neglect, NOTHING in LF32's background that would suggest he is aggressive or alcoholic? And the smoking pot thing .... really? "mariwanna" will be legalized any day now? 85% of Canadians can't be wrong?

              All of this boils down to utter nonsense. LF32's lawyer should have insisted on an emergency motion to have IMMEDIATE access to his little girl on the grounds of unfounded allegations causing him a serious prejudice.
              There is something very ODD about this case .... just doesn't add up.
              My first lawyer advised against an EM. That's why it didn't occur. I went for an EM myself few months later and was told "I couldn't prove child was in any danger". Went to CC and that judge had to err on side of caution but warned ex of her unilateral ways. He rejected hair follicle. I got one anyways.

              Yes I could have went for a motion for extended access, etc but without disclosure and self repping decided to build my case and get disclosure instead. No it doesn't make sense. When this gets to canlii (if it does) you'll see all my facts are true Everything Ive said has been the truth since post # 1, thread # 1.

              Tayken also said there were logical holes. There are. The logical hole is that dirty games are being played. But everything I type is the god's honest truth.

              There is something VERY ODD about this case. It's been bloody odd since day 1.
              Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-16-2014, 01:54 PM.

              Comment


              • Once allegations are made....everything stops

                Case law Arabian posted is rife with a crazy ex running around showing every shrink or CAS a recording along with more allegations

                The LAO scumbag lawyer is no different than the crazy ex from above

                Make sure your documenting dates of events LF32, no matter how minor the event, it could become important later.

                You found out the LAO scumbag lawyer had the OCL confirmation when....

                You were in the dark on OCL until what date?

                How long was the LAO scumbag "briefing the OCL" before the OCL contacted you.

                Did the OCL spend a week dancing with the LAO scumbag lawyer until she decided to take on the matter? (talked into it) and inform you of it.

                OCL came with a pre biased opinion, she only wanted to interview people currently around D3.....STUPID RIGHT we all thought so.

                There's other stuff, the point is this OCL wasn't appointed to a task, she was hand picked,

                Sure the OCL office gets the CC endorsement...and checks who's available to handle a toddler assessment (only clinicians can) and what a coincidence who was picked. Miss... all men are guilty until there proven guilty

                There are no coincidences

                Destroying "expert" opinions is neat....because old articles the experts wrote can be used against them at Trial to show they are pre biased to come to there own conclusion going into any matter.

                This is child abduction with allegations to garner custody.

                Both parents indulged... both parents had loud arguments....now piss off and assess the child.

                What stops the "assessment" is the interference by the LAO scumbag lawyer waving his clients spy cam transcripts around.

                Back to the Case Law that was posted ( I love it)

                One time the crazy ex showed the recording to the wrong shrink or person...and then CAS was called against the crazy ex

                So ...LAO scumbag lawyer is running around with his scrolls....OCL finally looks at the B.S

                Next thing you know .......LF32 gets some kind of odd notice from OCL ..something's up I haven't made my assessment yet.

                Then OCL just disappears.

                To me....to anybody....OCL you would think would be on top of this matter, informing both parties on status......but she isn't

                To this OCL all men are guilty....To this OCL maybe she would of advised her LAO scumbag friend that CAS should of been called first....and stepped aside for a bit so that could be done. (to hang LF32)

                Just keep your eye on what doesn't "fit" LF32.....record all events...even the little ones.....like when OCL called...and how long she disappeared

                The Family Law PROCESS is not fair, there's games within games...you have to be suspicious of everything to protect yourself.

                Comment


                • Yes. Remember I posted a while back that I didn't understand how ex had OCL already and whenever I called I couldn't get any answers. The coordinator actually said "we have to make sure the worker isn't biased in any way and its the summer". Umm So how come the other party already had her? Something smells here. They had their letter a good month before me. Maybe more. Why?


                  Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
                  So ...LAO scumbag lawyer is running around with his scrolls....OCL finally looks at the B.S

                  Next thing you know .......LF32 gets some kind of odd notice from OCL ..something's up I haven't made my assessment yet.

                  Then OCL just disappears.

                  To me....to anybody....OCL you would think would be on top of this matter, informing both parties on status......but she isn't

                  To this OCL all men are guilty....To this OCL maybe she would of advised her LAO scumbag friend that CAS should of been called first....and stepped aside for a bit so that could be done. (to hang LF32).
                  Yes Mr. T. You get it. My lawyer's starting to get it. Also don't forget that she all of a sudden has "concerns" about supervisor (right after her affidavit that is obviously great for my case).

                  The chronology of all of this is devastatingly obvious. All just prior to a motion. Any judge will see this. OCL seems to be speaking for ex to make it more credible though.
                  __________________________________________________ ________
                  i.e - Ex has concerns about supervisor .. Oh .. OCL does now.
                  Ex didn't report to CAS. Oh .. OCL did for her (nice favor)
                  Ex's lawyer says naa .. disclosure not happening .. OCL says .. naaa
                  Disclosure not happening.
                  There's more. It's just a bit much.
                  __________________________________________________ __________
                  Too many coincidences for me now. She seems nice. I hope Im wrong. But I also would like to know her experience with Custody/Access recommendations. Because I have 10 articles on substance abuse and only 1 on "men are guilty until proven guilty" and "women shouldn't be punished for falsely accusing".

                  A Perfect Storm is brewing against me.
                  Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-16-2014, 04:23 PM.

                  Comment


                  • I'll keep reminding myself of this judgement from WD's case, which will by the way be used in my case.

                    . I find that if the Applicant were to be granted custody, at the very least she would fail to promote the Respondent’s relationship with the child. More likely, she would actively subvert it. I also worry that she would make inappropriate choices, particularly in relation to language development and education.

                    5 In contrast, the Respondent has consistently shown maturity, insight and good judgment in relation to the child. His comprehension and vision with respect to medical and educational issues are vastly superior. I find that he recognizes ____ need to have two parents, and he would promote mother-son contact.
                    . T
                    The Respondent father shall have sole custody of the child, born January 4, 2009.

                    567. The Applicant mother shall have liberal and generous access.

                    Comment


                    • A perfect storm. That's all this is.
                      Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-16-2014, 04:32 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrToronto View Post
                        This is child abduction with allegations to garner custody.

                        Both parents indulged... both parents had loud arguments....now piss off and assess the child..
                        Halleluiah!

                        Comment


                        • Review this case that Tayken posted. You do not have the funds this father had, but you don't need to because you have this precedent.

                          http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...million-17654/

                          Comment


                          • Thank you Rio.

                            I like this part:

                            [23] The OCL approaches the jurisdiction argument from a different perspective. It submits that, because the OCL was not a party to the protection proceedings, it should not be liable for costs. However, in its factum, the OCL makes reference to a decision of Justice Eleanor M. Schnall in Children's Aid Society of St. Thomas and Elgin County v. Lyndsay S., Ryan D., Sergio D. and Lorraine Caroll Ann T.-D. (No. 2) 2004 CanLII 19361 (ON CJ), 2004 CanLII 19361 (ON CJ), (2004), 46 R.F.L. (5th) 330, [2004] O.J. No. 289, 2004 CarswellOnt 390 (Ont. C.J.). In that case, Justice Schnall made a costs order against the OCL notwithstanding its non-party status in the litigation. Justice Schnall held at paragraph [65]:

                            [65] Party status is not a determinative factor in entitlement to costs. The wording of subrule 24(2) simply means that the presumption in favour of a successful party does not apply in a case where the government agency is a party.

                            Justice Schnall then went on to find that, in the case before her, the OCL had participated in the litigation and conducted itself so inappropriately that an award of costs was not only justified but, indeed, called for.

                            Great Case Law on many levels

                            Comment


                            • http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...million-17654/

                              __________________________________________________ _____________
                              [336] When scrutinized, a very different picture emerged at this trial. L.D.B. claimed that she was so fearful of C.D.B., due to his emotional abuse and controlling and coercive conduct, that she often just went along with things no matter how unreasonable. The audio recordings are one piece of evidence that show her to be the exact opposite of fearful. Someone who is fearful would not scream at the person she is allegedly fearful of to "shut the fuck up" multiple times.
                              __________________________________________________ ______
                              Yes. If there are recordings my ex yelled (screamed at me on some occasions). Why would she present recordings/transcripts when she was an equal party? UNLESS .. they've been edited. In which case, there will be many gaps, etc. If she has the actual recordings of the arguments .. Im gold. She put me in my place a lot. Definitely NOT fearful.

                              Comment


                              • Yes let's try and get it right the first time

                                A lot of people "trust" the system and are led into believing by well mannered sharks during the process, only to find out a week or so prior to being in front of a Judge, that the sharks ripped the carpet out from under there feet....too late

                                Your getting information, and tools UPFRONT LF32 so you don't get led into the ditch.

                                I remember you wrote on bringing up to OCL you'll be without a supervisor in Sept ....and the OCL's response was go to a supervised access center????

                                I mean come off it...the OCL see's and talks to the EX and probably sleeps with the LAO scumbag lawyer, and she couldn't say....I'll chat with the EX on accepting another Supervisor?

                                How do you "assess" a child in a Supervised access center? Apparently the OCL didn't care

                                I also like the reaction from OCL when LF32 brought up the EX was a recorder type person
                                .
                                Nobody likes to be secretly recorded because they'd act different if they knew, just like the "recording person would"

                                There is no "report" to throw together for Sept 25th if there is , the OCL had it pre made up in July

                                The "report" is to pull the rug out from under LF32's feet a week prior to the Court date, to destroy the motion

                                The OCL knows the EX is in Quebec just like the LAO scumbag knows, the EX has left the jurisdiction with both of their blessing and now probably CAS

                                ALL these meetings must be in the LAO scumbags office.

                                I like the Police Report LF32 obtained where CAS wasn't interested

                                Let's see how a OCL can make them interested. She obviously wants "backup" for her biased assumptions
                                Last edited by MrToronto; 08-16-2014, 07:00 PM.

                                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