Sunday, May 13, 2012
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!
God bless all of you protective mothers on Mother's Day, and also our friends and supporters in our struggle for justice for our children.
I wanted to remind you that Mary, the Mother of Jesus understands our struggles, understands our love for our children and the tremendous obstaces we face speaking the truth to corrupt judges, corrupt attorneys, and even more corrupt mental health professionals.
I was talking to a group of friends the other day and I said Christians forget that Jesus celebrates the weakest amongst us. Those who are the very least, He elevates to the very highest position, those who are reviled He praises, and upon those who are denied, he pours our His Holy Spirit.
And so we Protective Mothers continue to battle on, secure in our Victory through Jesus Christ, knowing that we will prevail.
Today on this special day, one that is so vital to Mary, the Mother of Our Lord, and also to us as Mothers, I want to remind you again of Mary's words as she celebrates Christ's entrance into the world:
My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
He hath shewed strength with his arm, he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy.
As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
This is the essence of the Christian message. The love of the very least among us. The love of those most vulnerable. The love of those most tragically harmed.
Mary says,
He will scatter the proud! He will put down the mighty!
He will send the rich away empty!
He will have mercy on them that fear him! He will exalt the lowly! He will feed the hungry!
So, we can rest easy today, knowing that God supports us in our struggles, he upholds us in our weakness, he loves each one of us beyond measure. Many of you do not have your children with you today, your hearts are aching, and you are overwhelmed with pain and worry. Know that you are not alone, that God loves you and your children and you will prevail and find healing.
Friday, May 11, 2012
CHARLES I. BAUER V. PATRICIA S. BAUER, FA 97-0715559 (1), WAR OF WILLS
To start with, in this case I am not going to get right into the players or the story; I'm just going to go straight to the money issue. Because money has to be one of the primary themes of the case.
As it turns out, this is the story of a fairly non traditional couple who kind of break the mold in many ways. However, in the way they divorced they didn't break the mold; instead, they walked down the path of high conflict divorce which we are all so familiar with.
They walked it to the point where Judge Bishop stated, "This case is a war of wills cloaked in a custody dispute. The battle consumed eleven trial days, and the parties have incurred approximately three hundred and seventeen ($317,000) thousand dollars of legal fees and attendant litigation costs."
Ok, I am jumping right to the end of this case where there is a more detailed discussion of the fees. It looks as though plaintiff (father) was represented by two attorney's serving as co-counsel at trial which added up to $193,302, the Defendant's (mother) attorney cost $92,516, and then the counsel for the minor child submitted a bill for around $32,000 which does add up to the $317,000 the judge was talking about regarding legal fees.
Ok, I love this kind of addition and subtraction. I guess Judge Bishop was willing to be open about the legal fees but he was not willing to itemize the so called attendant litigations costs, over and above the base $317,000.
This consisted of the costs for the custody evaluation by Dr. James C. Black, which was probably around an additional ten thousand or more, then the cost for the psychological evaluations, another five thousand or more, then the cost for the substance abuse evaluator and the neurologist, several thousand more, and then over and above that, according to Judge Bishop, "Each of these medical and mental health professionals provided a report to the court. Several of them testified as well."
Ok, then, the cost of the expert testimony alone was extremely expensive, no doubt. That's four expert witnesses, and who knows how many days of testimony they had to come in for. Plus, there must have been some fun depositions, don't you think! Depositions of the expert witnesses, and also depositions of the parties! Just one great big fun time!
So, what do you say, guys, with legal fees, attendant court costs, costs of transcripts, costs of travel for Mrs. Bauer, what do we have--around maybe $400,000 as a reasonable estimate for the entire divorce. Wow! Lots of people made a killing here!
Judge Bishop seems to be pretty amazed by all this money going around, but I'm sure you the reader and I am not that surprised. Seriously, I must have spent the same amount on my divorce and others I've spoken to have easily gone to a million or more.
I can recall my first attorney when he saw an investment account statement of some stock which I was using to pay his fees; he sat there with the statement in his hands this gloating look on his face like, yes, this will all be mine, and it was within a few short months. The greed I saw play itself out in my divorce was extraordinary.
Thousands and thousands of dollars, a small fortune, gone, all gone. My future, my children's future, all in the hands of attorneys. And the judge in this case actually takes the time to question that? I am amazed. Where has he been as a judge in Connecticut? In la la land?
I've been reading a book called "Aftertime" by Sophie Littlefield about a post apocalyptic world where Zombies roam the streets looking for living people to eat. This is how the author describes the bloodlust of these zombies,
"The maniacal frenzy of their hunger could not be tempered by any obstacle. They'd run across glass, across hot coals, across this terrible scorched earth that was the end of the world if it meant fresh, uninfected flesh. They were body eaters, after all, and that was all they lived for."
If you replace the word "flesh" with money, the word "body eaters" with money suckers, you'd have most lawyers, that's for sure. Maniacal, insane, crazy for profit, no matter how much damage they do, no matter how many lives they destroy, men, women, children, it's all the same to them, to lawyers.
More in Part II....
As it turns out, this is the story of a fairly non traditional couple who kind of break the mold in many ways. However, in the way they divorced they didn't break the mold; instead, they walked down the path of high conflict divorce which we are all so familiar with.
They walked it to the point where Judge Bishop stated, "This case is a war of wills cloaked in a custody dispute. The battle consumed eleven trial days, and the parties have incurred approximately three hundred and seventeen ($317,000) thousand dollars of legal fees and attendant litigation costs."
Ok, I am jumping right to the end of this case where there is a more detailed discussion of the fees. It looks as though plaintiff (father) was represented by two attorney's serving as co-counsel at trial which added up to $193,302, the Defendant's (mother) attorney cost $92,516, and then the counsel for the minor child submitted a bill for around $32,000 which does add up to the $317,000 the judge was talking about regarding legal fees.
Ok, I love this kind of addition and subtraction. I guess Judge Bishop was willing to be open about the legal fees but he was not willing to itemize the so called attendant litigations costs, over and above the base $317,000.
This consisted of the costs for the custody evaluation by Dr. James C. Black, which was probably around an additional ten thousand or more, then the cost for the psychological evaluations, another five thousand or more, then the cost for the substance abuse evaluator and the neurologist, several thousand more, and then over and above that, according to Judge Bishop, "Each of these medical and mental health professionals provided a report to the court. Several of them testified as well."
Ok, then, the cost of the expert testimony alone was extremely expensive, no doubt. That's four expert witnesses, and who knows how many days of testimony they had to come in for. Plus, there must have been some fun depositions, don't you think! Depositions of the expert witnesses, and also depositions of the parties! Just one great big fun time!
So, what do you say, guys, with legal fees, attendant court costs, costs of transcripts, costs of travel for Mrs. Bauer, what do we have--around maybe $400,000 as a reasonable estimate for the entire divorce. Wow! Lots of people made a killing here!
Judge Bishop seems to be pretty amazed by all this money going around, but I'm sure you the reader and I am not that surprised. Seriously, I must have spent the same amount on my divorce and others I've spoken to have easily gone to a million or more.
I can recall my first attorney when he saw an investment account statement of some stock which I was using to pay his fees; he sat there with the statement in his hands this gloating look on his face like, yes, this will all be mine, and it was within a few short months. The greed I saw play itself out in my divorce was extraordinary.
Thousands and thousands of dollars, a small fortune, gone, all gone. My future, my children's future, all in the hands of attorneys. And the judge in this case actually takes the time to question that? I am amazed. Where has he been as a judge in Connecticut? In la la land?
I've been reading a book called "Aftertime" by Sophie Littlefield about a post apocalyptic world where Zombies roam the streets looking for living people to eat. This is how the author describes the bloodlust of these zombies,
"The maniacal frenzy of their hunger could not be tempered by any obstacle. They'd run across glass, across hot coals, across this terrible scorched earth that was the end of the world if it meant fresh, uninfected flesh. They were body eaters, after all, and that was all they lived for."
If you replace the word "flesh" with money, the word "body eaters" with money suckers, you'd have most lawyers, that's for sure. Maniacal, insane, crazy for profit, no matter how much damage they do, no matter how many lives they destroy, men, women, children, it's all the same to them, to lawyers.
More in Part II....
H.B. 5509 DENIED, BUT THE BATTLE STILL RAGES!
Just so you know, the Judiciary Committee decided not to bring Raised Bill No. 5509 forward for a vote and so it wasn't brought to the full House Or Senate for consideration.
Still, this is no reason to be at ease. The Connecticut Alimony Reform group and its allies that sponsored the bill won't be resting. They are continuing to press forward in order to get this bill passed. In their own words,
"We are hard at work developing the next stages of our strategy."
We also need to be hard at work developing the next stages of OUR strategy!
H.B. 5509: AN OUTRIGHT ATTACK ON WOMEN, SEE LETTER FROM THE PERMANENT COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Testimony of
The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women
Before the
Judiciary Committee
March 19, 2012
Re: H.B. 5509, AAC The Payment of Alimony and Child Support
Senators Coleman and Kissel, Representative Fox and Hetherington, and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) regarding the above referenced bill.
H.B. 5509 would restrict the duration of alimony, and severely limit the grounds for which the Court could deviate from the law. PCSW opposes passage of this bill because it does not take into consideration each family’s finances, circumstances, and the trade-offs that were made when the marriage was successful, i.e. one spouse remaining out of the workforce to care for the children. It also provides the obligor with additional mechanisms to control the ex-spouse’s household after divorce.
Divorced women earn about 13% less than divorced men - $38,046 for divorced women and $43,621 for divorced men.
In addition to pay inequity, women have less income because they are the primary caretakers in the family. Women are more likely to have taken time off or work or worked part-time to care for the family’s children. Men continue to increase their income because their spouses are caring for their children while they work.
In divorce this income disparity continues because women still have to take time out of the workforce to care for the children, but now they have less income. Child support only pays a fraction of the expenses needed to provide a household for a child, and it doesn’t calculate extra expenses such as extracurricular and school activities.
Passage of this bill will result in custodial parents, which are mostly women, continuing to bear the brunt of the financial responsibility for the parties’ children. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and look forward to working with you on this issue.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
DR. RUDOLF BEE'S NIGHTMARE DIVORCE!
As I continue to investigate the issue of corruption in CT Family Court, I occasionally come across stories that are totally tragic.
These are stories of divorces that continue over a period of years, sometimes up to a decade or more while eating up litigants' entire resources, all of their savings, their real estate, their investments--literally everything they have, leaving people destroyed both financially and emotionally. Much of this is the result of attorney misconduct and judicial abuse.
Below is a link to a divorce case that caused untold damage to one individual--Dr. Rudolf Bee. Clearly, this case started to go wrong in so many ways right from the beginning. It leaves us pondering such questions as:
1) What recourse does the family court system and/or the State of Connecticut have in place for divorces that are clearly out of control and destroying the lives of the people involved in it?
2) Also, what role do attorneys and judges play in creating these situations and don't legal professionals have a responsibility to take preventative measures to make sure this kind of harm and damage does not take place?
3) Isn't the legal profession in family court a form of organized crime the way attorneys fix cases, and drain litigants of multiple thousands of dollars?
Keep in mind that in Connecticut, a quarter million is nothing in terms of what litigants such as Dr. Rudolf Bee lost--think of the millions squandered in the Tauk divorce!
Isn't it time to put a stop to this corruption?
3) Isn't the legal profession in family court a form of organized crime the way attorneys fix cases, and drain litigants of multiple thousands of dollars?
Keep in mind that in Connecticut, a quarter million is nothing in terms of what litigants such as Dr. Rudolf Bee lost--think of the millions squandered in the Tauk divorce!
Isn't it time to put a stop to this corruption?
Click on the link below, review the case and tell me what you think!
http://www.kangarootrial.com/
Thursday, May 3, 2012
WHAT THE ABUSIVE FATHER'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT WANTS! SCREW THE BITCH!
MAJOR EXPOSE ON JUDICIAL ABUSE IN CONNECTICUT!BY INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER KEITH HARMON SNOW
SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN, EXTORTION, MENTAL TORTURE! NETWORKS OF LEGAL PROFESSIONALS. PSYCHIATRISTS, ATTORNEYS, JUDGES, AND CLERKS IN COMPLICITY, EARNING MILLIONS AND EXPANDING THEIR POWER IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
READ IT FOR YOURSELF!
THEN TAKE ACTION!
http://yourworldnews.org/blog/?p=3522
SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN, EXTORTION, MENTAL TORTURE! NETWORKS OF LEGAL PROFESSIONALS. PSYCHIATRISTS, ATTORNEYS, JUDGES, AND CLERKS IN COMPLICITY, EARNING MILLIONS AND EXPANDING THEIR POWER IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
READ IT FOR YOURSELF!
THEN TAKE ACTION!
http://yourworldnews.org/blog/?p=3522
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
DIFFERENT NAME, SAME OLD CRIMINALS!
For anyone who has taken an interest in my prior report regarding the firm O'Connell, Flaherty, and Attmore, LLC and their sloppy and negligent treatment of their clients, I just wanted to report that the firm has recently changed its name.
What has happened is that Julia Morris, the attorney who manages the practice and pursues all the former clients the firm is cheating through collections, has now taken a more prominent role. I guess this is one situation where crime pays. Anyway, the company is now being called O'Connell, Attmore, and Morris, LLC. Trust me when I say that even with a new name, this company is still a menace to anyone who goes to family court.
So, what happened to our pal, James T. Flaherty, of O'Connell, Attmore, and Flaherty fame? Well, he has been sent away with his tail between his legs, OK, OK, ok, maybe it wasn't like that. Maybe he just walked away. What do I know! He has now established a new law firm in West Hartford called the Flaherty Legal Group, LLC.
And let me share with you the same sentiments. It may be there is a new name to this company, but what you really have is the same old Flaherty. So, if you really want to mess up your divorce case, make sure to contact him.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
PARTICIPATE IN A NEW STUDY ON RELATIONSHIP ABUSE AND FAMILY COURT! USE YOUR EXPERIENCES TO HELP OTHERS!
Have you been psychologically, physically or financially abused by the co-parent of your child or children? Have you been in Family Court?
We are studying relationship abuse, family characteristics and Family Court outcomes and are seeking adults over age 25, who have been separated at least 3 months, who experienced relationship abuse, and who have children from that relationship who are under 16. Volunteers will provide informed consent, complete questionnaires and agree to one 90 minute interview. Participants will be provided with a $20 Target Gift Card as a thank you for participation.
Call Liane Leedom, M.D. 203 615-1633 for more information.
We are studying relationship abuse, family characteristics and Family Court outcomes and are seeking adults over age 25, who have been separated at least 3 months, who experienced relationship abuse, and who have children from that relationship who are under 16. Volunteers will provide informed consent, complete questionnaires and agree to one 90 minute interview. Participants will be provided with a $20 Target Gift Card as a thank you for participation.
Call Liane Leedom, M.D. 203 615-1633 for more information.
HOW MUCH CAN JUDGES DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE ADA?
I first requested ADA accommodations at the CT superior court a few years ago. Since that time, the ADA Coordinator has steadily refused to grant my requests for accommodation and has denied that I am even eligible for accommodations.
This is particularly frustrating since my case goes marching on month after month and still I am not receiving any accommodations at all even though I have repeatedly asked for them. It is amazing how long it takes to go through this process because of the delays and evasions and avoidance of the ADA Coordinator.
For example, I sent in my first request for accommodations and only got a response to that request four months later! It was a denial of my request. Then I sent in a request for an explanation, and that took another couple of months to answer. So, time keeps on going by, and before you know it, two years have passed, or even more. At least, that is what happened to me, and I am sure the same happens to other people.
Of course, I eventually filed a grievance because the ADA Coordinator denied me accommodations, and again, I ended up being denied, even though I have a well documented disability. The attorney who responded to my grievance basically told me that the judge had turned down my request for accommodations and he said that the judge has complete authority to make such a determination.
In his words, he stated, "If a request for an accommodation was approved by an ADA coordinator, the accommodation would be implemented. If it is a request for a simple routine matter, such as providing a sign language interpreter, the decision would be made by the ADA Coordinator. If, however, the request is not routine, or if the accommodation given would impact the proceedings before the judge, that decision would always involve input from the judge. Ultimately, a judge has the legal authority to control the proceedings before the court."
The kind of accommodations I was asking for consisted of requesting breaks if I became overwhelmed, and having an advocate with me to repeat statements made by the judge or the opposing attorney if I didn't hear them well. I also requested freedom from discrimination based upon my disability. All of that, according to the ADA Coordinator, was entirely at the disgression of the judge to grant or deny.
But is this really true? Can a judge simply flout federal law--and the ADA is federal law, just because he wants to?
My best assessment is that a judge does not have this broad, sweeping authority to do as he or she pleases when it comes to granting accommodations according to the ADA. This is what a few of the ADA Guides I found online stated regarding this particular point:
Denial of accommodation: An application (for reasonable accommodation) may be denied if the court finds that: A) the requested accommodation(s) would create an undue financial or administrative burden on the court; or B) the requested accommodation(s) would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.
So it is not true that a judges can do whatever they want and that they have unlimited authority to do as they please in regard to the ADA. To repeat, to deny reasonable accommodations, Judges would have to show the undue burden of the accommodations or that they entailed a fundamental alteration of the trial court proceedings as a consequence of them.
So, now I know!
But in 2011 when I received the incorrect information from the Attorney on the grievance committee, I wasn't aware of that and I didn't know enough to follow up with a protest. So another year went by and I still didn't receive the accommodations I was entitled to.
And this is the struggle here in Connecticut as litigants such as myself work towards the goal of obtaining some measure of justice. People will lie to us--ADA Coordinators will lie to us, judges will lie to us, court clerks will lie to us, attorneys will lie to us. Still, we have to sort out the information we receive, figure out what is the truth, and remain undeterred in the face of such obstacles.
It doesn't seem in the least bit right, but that is the reality of the judicial system here in CT and the sooner we face that fact the sooner and the better we will achieve our goals. If we ever do, of course. It's all a crap shoot. But that's what we are trying for.
EXTRA NOTE:
I thought I would add this extra comment from a reader which points out judicial liability for decisions like this in regard to the ADA. Her comments are as follows: "I think that explanation puts the judge at serious risk: determining access is an executive function, not a discretionary one. A judge cannot perform an executive function when charged with discretionary issues. He or she looses personal immunity. This is the one place where a judge is not immune." So I think it is worth taking note of the possibility that a judge can be sued if he denies a litigant ADA accommodations that the litigant is entitled to. This is a point that is worth pursuing.
This is particularly frustrating since my case goes marching on month after month and still I am not receiving any accommodations at all even though I have repeatedly asked for them. It is amazing how long it takes to go through this process because of the delays and evasions and avoidance of the ADA Coordinator.
For example, I sent in my first request for accommodations and only got a response to that request four months later! It was a denial of my request. Then I sent in a request for an explanation, and that took another couple of months to answer. So, time keeps on going by, and before you know it, two years have passed, or even more. At least, that is what happened to me, and I am sure the same happens to other people.
Of course, I eventually filed a grievance because the ADA Coordinator denied me accommodations, and again, I ended up being denied, even though I have a well documented disability. The attorney who responded to my grievance basically told me that the judge had turned down my request for accommodations and he said that the judge has complete authority to make such a determination.
In his words, he stated, "If a request for an accommodation was approved by an ADA coordinator, the accommodation would be implemented. If it is a request for a simple routine matter, such as providing a sign language interpreter, the decision would be made by the ADA Coordinator. If, however, the request is not routine, or if the accommodation given would impact the proceedings before the judge, that decision would always involve input from the judge. Ultimately, a judge has the legal authority to control the proceedings before the court."
The kind of accommodations I was asking for consisted of requesting breaks if I became overwhelmed, and having an advocate with me to repeat statements made by the judge or the opposing attorney if I didn't hear them well. I also requested freedom from discrimination based upon my disability. All of that, according to the ADA Coordinator, was entirely at the disgression of the judge to grant or deny.
But is this really true? Can a judge simply flout federal law--and the ADA is federal law, just because he wants to?
My best assessment is that a judge does not have this broad, sweeping authority to do as he or she pleases when it comes to granting accommodations according to the ADA. This is what a few of the ADA Guides I found online stated regarding this particular point:
Denial of accommodation: An application (for reasonable accommodation) may be denied if the court finds that: A) the requested accommodation(s) would create an undue financial or administrative burden on the court; or B) the requested accommodation(s) would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.
So it is not true that a judges can do whatever they want and that they have unlimited authority to do as they please in regard to the ADA. To repeat, to deny reasonable accommodations, Judges would have to show the undue burden of the accommodations or that they entailed a fundamental alteration of the trial court proceedings as a consequence of them.
So, now I know!
But in 2011 when I received the incorrect information from the Attorney on the grievance committee, I wasn't aware of that and I didn't know enough to follow up with a protest. So another year went by and I still didn't receive the accommodations I was entitled to.
And this is the struggle here in Connecticut as litigants such as myself work towards the goal of obtaining some measure of justice. People will lie to us--ADA Coordinators will lie to us, judges will lie to us, court clerks will lie to us, attorneys will lie to us. Still, we have to sort out the information we receive, figure out what is the truth, and remain undeterred in the face of such obstacles.
It doesn't seem in the least bit right, but that is the reality of the judicial system here in CT and the sooner we face that fact the sooner and the better we will achieve our goals. If we ever do, of course. It's all a crap shoot. But that's what we are trying for.
EXTRA NOTE:
I thought I would add this extra comment from a reader which points out judicial liability for decisions like this in regard to the ADA. Her comments are as follows: "I think that explanation puts the judge at serious risk: determining access is an executive function, not a discretionary one. A judge cannot perform an executive function when charged with discretionary issues. He or she looses personal immunity. This is the one place where a judge is not immune." So I think it is worth taking note of the possibility that a judge can be sued if he denies a litigant ADA accommodations that the litigant is entitled to. This is a point that is worth pursuing.
Friday, April 13, 2012
VERY WICKED LAWYER JOKE!
A very successful lawyer parked his brand-new Lexus in front of the office, ready to show it off to his colleagues. As he got out, a truck came along, too close to the curb, and completely tore off the driver's door of the Lexus.
The counselor immediately grabbed his cell phone, dialed 911, and it wasn't more than 5 minutes before a policeman pulled up. Before the cop had a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer started screaming hysterically.
His lexus, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter how the body shop tried to make it new again.
After the lawyer finally wound down from his rant, the cop shook his head in disgust and disbelief. "I can't believe how materialistic you lawyers are," he said, "you are so focused on your possessions that you don't notice anything else."
"How can you say such a thing?" asked the lawyer.
The cop replied, "Didn't you know that your left arm is missing from the elbow down? It must have been torn off when the truck hit you."
"My God!" screamed the lawyer, "Where is my Rolex?"
The counselor immediately grabbed his cell phone, dialed 911, and it wasn't more than 5 minutes before a policeman pulled up. Before the cop had a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer started screaming hysterically.
His lexus, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter how the body shop tried to make it new again.
After the lawyer finally wound down from his rant, the cop shook his head in disgust and disbelief. "I can't believe how materialistic you lawyers are," he said, "you are so focused on your possessions that you don't notice anything else."
"How can you say such a thing?" asked the lawyer.
The cop replied, "Didn't you know that your left arm is missing from the elbow down? It must have been torn off when the truck hit you."
"My God!" screamed the lawyer, "Where is my Rolex?"
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
CHECK OUT BARRY GOLDSTEIN'S RECENT UPDATE ON WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS DOING FOR PROTECTIVE MOTHERS!
See the link below in order to get updated information from Barry Goldstein regarding the Department of Justice and what they are doing for protective mothers:
http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/u-s-department-of-justice-v-custody.html
http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/u-s-department-of-justice-v-custody.html
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
ANOTHER LAWYER JOKE!
In a trial, a Southern small town prosecuting attorney called his first witness to the stand, a grandmotherly elderly woman.
He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"
She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned.
Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again relied, "Why yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women, one of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died!
At that point, the judge asked both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice, said,
"If either of you bastards asks her if she knows me, I'll throw your sorry asses in jail for contempt."
He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"
She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy, and frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."
The lawyer was stunned.
Not knowing what else to do, he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?"
She again relied, "Why yes, I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. He's lazy, bigoted and he has a drinking problem. He can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women, one of them was your wife. Yes, I know him."
The defense attorney almost died!
At that point, the judge asked both counselors to approach the bench, and in a very quiet voice, said,
"If either of you bastards asks her if she knows me, I'll throw your sorry asses in jail for contempt."
Sunday, April 8, 2012
THAT NASTY DIVORCE TANGO, BY ANONYMOUS
You sign your name and thus begin
Dancing that nasty divorce tango.
There’s so much that you just don’t know
As lawyers drum their heels and take you in
To dance that nasty divorce tango.
Their hearts are empty and their promises hollow
As they wink and nod with knowing grins
While dancing that nasty divorce tango.
Those lawyers say, “Let the money flow!”
For we’ll need thousands of dollars to win
With a lift and a twirl and arms akimbo.
“Lash out with lies, unleash the innuendo!
Rip open the wounds; let the pain fester
Keep on dancing that nasty divorce tango.
And they snap their fingers and entice you to follow
Until you waste away with disappointment
With a lift and a twirl and arms akimbo
Dancing that nasty divorce tango.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)