Fight Club
- Thread starter resourceful
- Start date
- Status
Pursuinghappiness
New member
Incredibly humourous thread...thank you for the laugh.
Tayken: I'm keeping an eye out for a new blog on you to go along with the one the OP started about his ex's lawyer and judge. Maybe you'll be in the book or the movie too!
As to this:
What about the lawyer that you have slandered and defamed repeatedly Resourceful? What if she was suicidal? Clearly you didn't consider her feelings when you were labelling her as "fat" on your idiotic salacious blog.
I find it interesting that you think its ok to personally and professionally attack your ex's legal representation and the judge in your divorce case but cry and whine like a toddler when someone draws attention to your repeated fallacious reasoning.
You are a classic case of being able to give it and not take it. You're a true coward in every sense of the word.
Tayken: I'm keeping an eye out for a new blog on you to go along with the one the OP started about his ex's lawyer and judge. Maybe you'll be in the book or the movie too!
As to this:
What about the lawyer that you have slandered and defamed repeatedly Resourceful? What if she was suicidal? Clearly you didn't consider her feelings when you were labelling her as "fat" on your idiotic salacious blog.
I find it interesting that you think its ok to personally and professionally attack your ex's legal representation and the judge in your divorce case but cry and whine like a toddler when someone draws attention to your repeated fallacious reasoning.
You are a classic case of being able to give it and not take it. You're a true coward in every sense of the word.
cbarker78
New member
b-OOOOOOOO-rrrrrrrrrring!
LMAO!!!!!!! I wouldn't want to be branded a $hit-disturber and possibly face banishment..... all I do is sit on the forum waiting to jump down other's throats and draw wild conclusions based on the patterns of clouds... where would I be without the wise words of our illustrious members
blinkandimgone
Moderator
What?!? No tea leaves??
For shame. *banned*
For shame. *banned*
cbarker78
New member
tea leaves?! c'mon Blink... get with the program.... no one uses tea leaves anymore!! Those are reserved for travelling side shows.... for the rest of us poor saps at home who've been bled dry by the leeches - er, lawyers - we have to resort to more cost effective methods (i.e. clouds)
blinkandimgone
Moderator
Ok, OK....you can stay.
I hear cloud computing is trendy these days anyways...
I hear cloud computing is trendy these days anyways...
slughead10
New member
how is slander to call her fat....she is just look at her picture. definitely fat and i would be willing to bet she has a fish problem too......
Last edited:
Tayken
Well-known member
Damn you Blink and your censorship! You know what you deleted would be so appropriate now.
slughead10
New member
ok then advice from the justice has no relevance then.....you can't suck and blow at the same time......
slughead10
New member
Tayken
Well-known member
Judges often blow "hot and cold" at a Conference. That is because they offer opinions and not JUDGEMENTS. This is why the briefs and other materials can't be used at trial or on motion unless the court orders otherwise.
That is why the Rules do not even permit you to even disclose what was discussed at a Conference unless a court orders otherwise.
The Rules of Conferences in the theme of the message thread's title (Fight Club):
1st RULE of CONFERENCES you do not talk about CONFERENCES in "with prejudice" correspondence, in affidavits and at trials.
2nd RULE of CONFERENCES you do not talk about CONFERENCES in "with prejudice" correspondence, in affidavits and at trials.
3rd RULEof CONFERENCES if someone yells "stop" or goes limp, taps out the CONFERENCE it goes on MOTION or to TRIAL for proper judgement.
4th RULE of CONFERENCES is that only the parties and their lawyers are allowed in the room.
5th RULE of CONFERENCES is one CONFERENCE at a time.
6th RULE of CONFERENCES is no affidavits, no baseless allegations.
7th RULE of CONFERENCES is they will go on as long as it appears both parties are close to settlement in the matter.
8th RULE of CONFERENCES is that if this is your first appearance before the court you weren't dragged in on an Emergency ex-party motion.
Good Luck!
Tayken
Last edited:
slughead10
New member
so they are useless unless you are a judge or lawyer who gets paid to waste peoples times.....
and at my conference there was another per on there...beats me what she was doing but she came in before the justice and stayed for the conference also my lawyer brought one of his young lawyers to sit in...sounds like the rules are bullshit to me...along with the idea of a conference.....
Tayken
Well-known member
It depends... Many matters with arm twisting from a judge can bring things to settlement rather than further litigation. But, if you are dealing with a highly conflicted party and a "negative advocate solicitor" your comment does apply.
1. You could have instructed your lawyer in accordance with the Rules to remove the understudy/articling student and your lawyer would have had to comply with your request in accordance with the Rules. (Furthermore, you should not have been billed for this person's time unless your retainer states they are co-counsel.)
2. You could have had the other person and/or asked your lawyer who that person was and the reason they were in the room. It could have been a clerk or other staff which are often present. You could have had this person removed under the Rules as well.
3. Your lack of questioning to your lawyer and what was happening doesn't necessarily make it "bullsh*t". Your understanding clearly of the Family Law Rules could use some improvement and you should know your rights. Although you pay your lawyer to represent you... You also pay your lawyer to follow the Rules and do as *you* instruct.
4. I am in agreement with you that in a highly conflicted matrimonial dispute conferences often are not useful for anything else but addressing technical issues for disclosure, etc... and not addressing substantial issues (as stated in the Rules) which cannot be done without consent of both parties. But, generally a judge will just make a technical order to proceed to motion (or trial) from there if requested to resolve the issue. (I.e. Nadia's recent posting ...)
Good Luck!
Tayken
Last edited:
slughead10
New member
rule 4 no one is allowed in the room........ i didn't see any exemptions in your rules
bullshit is always bullshit
also the judge can blow hot and cold to bully people into settling on less then they are entitled too......or impose their biased views on the parties?
this is our great and fair and self correcting system......give me a break
i smell a scam.....
blinkandimgone
Moderator
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Clearly the judge's advice is relevant. You are purposely distorting what Tayken wrote. His statement was clearly referring to things said at a case conference that had no relevance to the case conferance.
One has to wonder sometimes, how people who so obviously go out of their way to misinterpret things don't end up 'accidentally' cooking their head in a microwave. It does explain how they end up getting their ass handed to them in court and gives them a fallback to blame for their ignorance.
One has to wonder sometimes, how people who so obviously go out of their way to misinterpret things don't end up 'accidentally' cooking their head in a microwave. It does explain how they end up getting their ass handed to them in court and gives them a fallback to blame for their ignorance.
slughead10
New member
You can't cook your head in the oven because you can't close the door
And you think I am obtuse
Tayken
Well-known member
1. Because you didn't know the Rules, your lawyer didn't inform you of the Rules and you didn't have the Rules enforced. If requested to the judge the judge would have had to follow the Rules and ask the people to leave.
2. It isn't bullshit. You are trying to paint a situation where you were helpless and the judge didn't enforce the Rules for which is your responsibility to request.
3. Next Conference you have have the Rules enforced. You know them now and can have the room cleared. Feel free to read the Family Law Rules... It is not all that complex.
They can only make judgements for technical matters. By the Rules of a conference they can't "impose their biased views" as in accordance with the Rules no substantive issue can be ordered without CONSENT of both parties. You don't have to do what a judge recommends in a Case Conference on substantive issues. Your lawyer should have explained that to you... You do pay your lawyer to inform you of the Rules and what they should be doing.
If the matter was substantive you shouldn't have agreed to it. What happened at a Conference which you consented to which didn't agree to? Your lawyer should have fully informed you. Feel free to raise the concern with the lack of professionalism (possibly) with the Law Society.
What scam do you smell?
Good Luck!
Tayken
SingingDad
New member
Tayken..
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
― Thomas Paine, The Crisis
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
― Thomas Paine, The Crisis
- Status