SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

barcher - 'bro' hugs that you get through this all without any more bad luck in the justice realm. I've been pulling for you since you joined and thought you could be in R with this loony npd bitch. And I'm pulling for you now.

I just want to add that I hope you are detached enough from this crappy business deal that is your D that you will be ok if it turns out as ridiculous as the previous decisions have. Detachment is your friend here (and everywhere else too).

Either way this all turns out, we've got your back.

Hang in there. Sending out strength and a big, fat dose of SI MOJO!!

I will be filing an ethical complaint with the State bar association once this divorce is over. Actually, I will be filing multiple ethics complaints after this divorce is over.

I would encourage you to rethink this strategy. Certainly you have what could be interpreted as a legitimate claim against your attorney #2, but filing an ethics complaint against opposing counsel might weaken or negate a legitimate complaint against your own representation.

Fabrication of evidence? Or opposing counsel believing your STBXW's version of events? Those are two very different things, and I suspect it is the latter vs. the former. My ex's counsel believed everything he said, and we slaughtered him at our only hearing. After that, counsel was much less likely to believe their client, as we had impeached his integrity pretty severely. His second attorney had the same experience.

STBXW's attorney has done an excellent job of bilking her client out of many many billable hours.

I'd take that any day over an ethics complaint.

Cat

And I'm pulling for you now.

Thank you. This means more than you know. Well, you probably know (been there, done that)

I just want to add that I hope you are detached enough from this crappy business deal that is your D that you will be ok if it turns out as ridiculous as the previous decisions have. Detachment is your friend here (and everywhere else too).

I am probably not as detached as I could be, but I do okay. This divorce stuff occasionally bothers me for a few hours but no more than a day.

For example, I met with our "expert witness" CPA yesterday and I found a lot of it upsetting for reasons that I don't fully understand. Probably because he was going through the math of my income versus what I am paying STBXW and it was obvious how badly I got screwed by last summer's temporary orders.

All that said, you are right. I feel pretty good about my life post-divorce. Even my current financial situation could be resolved, at least partially, by getting divorced. I can start selling things and jettisoning monthly expenses that I can't now simply because I am legally married.

Fabrication of evidence? Or opposing counsel believing your STBXW's version of events? Those are two very different things, and I suspect it is the latter vs. the former.

Nope, it's 100% fabrication of evidence, but you think what you want to think. I know the difference between STBXW's version of the story versus fabricating evidence.

I said:

***STBXW's attorney has done an excellent job of bilking her client out of many many billable hours.***

I'd take that any day over an ethics complaint.

I think this is a horrible thought.

My STBXW is spending a lot of money for her BS legal representation. Most of STBXW's money comes from me, so I am literally (although not technically) paying for most of it. And theoretically, much the funds spent on STBXW's legal fees would be spent on my kids... so you keep being happy about my kids being screwed out of fun/assets/whatever in lieu of giving that money to a troll of a attorney.

[deleted because of double-posting]

[This message edited by barcher144 at 4:04 PM, September 9th (Wednesday)]

Nope, it's 100% fabrication of evidence

I'm just curious about this, as it doesn't pass the sniff test.

Your STBXW's attorney likely relies heavily on her for information about your marriage, parenting, etc. And if things are "made up" and then refuted by third party evidence, this isn't a situation that any attorney wants to be in. Unless, of course, what was "fabricated" cannot be refuted.

And theoretically, much the funds spent on STBXW's legal fees would be spent on my kids... so you keep being happy about my kids being screwed out of fun/assets/whatever in lieu of giving that money to a troll of a attorney.

I wouldn't say I was happy about it. And there's nothing that says that she would have spent the money on the children. I know you have been critical of her parenting decisions in the past, particularly where expenditures are incurred.

It's a sorry situation all the way around, as are the majority of divorces. The point I was trying to make is that filing an ethics complaint on opposing counsel AND filing an ethics complaint on one of your three retained attorneys may result in neither being seriously considered. You should probably consider this carefully and proceed cautiously.

Cat

This means more than you know. Well, you probably know (been there, done that)

I'm just curious about this, as it doesn't pass the sniff test.

I was forced to pay attorney's fees for failing/refusing to sign a release of my medical records from a medical provider from whom I had never received any treatment.

The judge, in his ruling, cited a bunch of "Findings of Fact" that were somehow submitted to the court without my knowledge (i.e., they were not included in STBXW's affidavit or her attorney's verbal testimony in court).

The first time that I heard of this specific medical provider was at a pre-trial hearing, about 3 weeks before the judge made his ruling (the temporary hearing was in May... the pre-trial was in June). STBXW's attorney personally handed me the medical release for me to sign, when my attorney was not present. I told her that I have never received treatment from this facility and she literally told me to "shut up and sign it" so I did.

My attorney will be addressing this at trial. It should be super easy to prove because I never received treatment from this provider. Because I did not receive treatment from this provider, I *could not* have refused to sign a release of records from that facility.

But hey, it doesn't pass your sniff test.

The judge, in his ruling, cited a bunch of "Findings of Fact" that were somehow submitted to the court without my knowledge (i.e., they were not included in STBXW's affidavit or her attorney's verbal testimony in court).

SOMETHING had to be filed in court for the judge to have this information. And as such, opposing counsel is beholden to provide a copy or notification to your attorney of such. Such a filing should be on file in the file retained at the courthouse. If your attorney of record did receive this information, then it is on them for not sending you a copy and discussing it with you.

STBXW's attorney personally handed me the medical release for me to sign, when my attorney was not present. I told her that I have never received treatment from this facility and she literally told me to "shut up and sign it" so I did.

You are entitled to legal counsel for such. Was there a reason why you didn't seek legal counsel, first for hearing about a supposed medical provider that did not treat you and secondly for signing something presented to you by opposing counsel? "I'd like for my attorney to review this first and have an opportunity to discuss it with counsel" is an appropriate response. She could get nasty, but she cannot deny you a consultation with your attorney.

I'm just very curious as to how this all came about, because it runs counter to all experiences I have had in court, and I ran a courtroom as a court clerk one summer, so I am familiar with the process. Someone just does not hand something to the judge--there is a process and there is a step informing opposing counsel. I would be very curious to look in the official court file.

Cat

[This message edited by Catwoman at 5:53 PM, September 9th (Wednesday)]

Cat - I think what barcher has been saying all along is that the correct process was not followed and he didn't know about things because his previous attorneys dropped the ball.

What's so hard to understand about that? Just because there's a system and a way things are SUPPOSED to work doesn't mean that's what happened.

People get screwed over all the time in courts. That's what appeals courts are for. I know we're talking D here and not criminal, but the same principle applies. Shit's not always perfect - or another way of putting it - SNAFU.

just sayin.....

what barcher has been saying all along is that the correct process was not followed

We don't know that the process was not followed and Barcher's attorney was not notified. That's why I suggested looking at the file that is kept at the courthouse to see what was filed.

Attorneys simply cannot go and hand a sheaf of papers to a judge. There is a process in terms of motions and such by which this is accomplished. There is also a mechanism for informing opposing counsel. It's Practicing Law 101. A judge would not accept anything of this nature directly from an attorney--it must be filed appropriately and part of the case file, and the judge references the case file for their rulings.

I suspect that opposing counsel was notified and did not pass the information along to Barcher, possibly due to some of the confusion that ensued by having three separate attorneys on this case. This can be addressed in a complaint to the Bar Association (if there was actual negligence) and might potentially be a point of discussion for redress in the trial. However, right now, what is of paramount importance is to find out what this document entailed and to discuss with the current attorney how to address this (if it can be addressed). That's why I suggested going to see the file housed with the court, as it would be complete.

A very good friend of mine is a Superior Court judge and has been on the bench for a very long time (when he was first elected as a judge, he was the youngest Superior Court judge in the country). Very savvy fellow, and when I asked him about this, he 100% agreed with me. Sure, people get raw deals, and some people get a fair deal that they believe is a raw deal. But a good judge rules the courtroom and follows the process and makes sure the attorneys do as well. Very few attorneys would risk their law license to play games of this nature.

What's important now is to make sure that any issues with the initial rulings can be set straight with the final ruling of child support, custody and spousal support. NOTHING should have been presented from opposing counsel directly to someone represented by an attorney, and he should not have signed it without his attorney looking it over. Unfortunately, that's water under the bridge, since Barcher did sign it without his attorney consulting with him.

Cat

NOTHING should have been presented from opposing counsel

Proving my point exactly - it SHOULDN'T have happened, but it did.

SOMETHING had to be filed in court for the judge to have this information. And as such, opposing counsel is beholden to provide a copy or notification to your attorney of such. Such a filing should be on file in the file retained at the courthouse. If your attorney of record did receive this information, then it is on them for not sending you a copy and discussing it with you.

That's part of the problem. Attorney#2 was such a useless piece of crap that I don't know what was happening on her end. I literally only worked with Attorney#2's paralegal until after the preliminary hearing.

(aside: your original concern was that filing multiple ethical complaints will thwart their success. First, I don't care if the complaints are successful. Second, the complaints are of a completely different nature. The ethical complaint against Attorney#2 is that she did not represent me at all. I literally did not communicate with her by voice or by email between the intake interview and the preliminary hearing, for which she failed to show up. More importantly, all of the legal advice that I was given during this period was from her paralegal, which is also a violation of ethics)

I have read the affidavit that opposing counsel submitted to the court. There are complaints about me not quickly signing over medical releases, but there is NOTHING about this specific provider. I worked closely with my then-attorney's paralegal on our response affidavit; our response affidavit basically says that we signed all of the releases that we were asked to sign with 6 business hours of the judge signing his protective order (protecting the privacy of my medical records) on April 8.

That said, I know that that opposing counsel SOMEHOW communicated to the court that she had sent an email to my attorney (on April 23, according to the judge's "Findings of Fact") requesting the release of my medical records from this provider. I do not know how opposing counsel "knew" of this medical provider, because I NEVER RECEIVED TREATMENT FROM THIS MEDICAL PROVIDER. Fast forward, I was forced to pay legal fees for failing to provide my medical records from a provider where I never received treatment.

This would all be very difficult to prove as fabricated evidence except that I have never received treatment from this provider.

How difficult is that for you to understand?

You are entitled to legal counsel for such. Was there a reason why you didn't seek legal counsel, first for hearing about a supposed medical provider that did not treat you and secondly for signing something presented to you by opposing counsel?

I had nothing to hide in my medical records and I knew that I was required to release my medical records. Although my attorney was not present (she had just stepped out of the room), signing the release was not a big deal because I was already compelled to do so. That doesn't mean that opposing counsel's behavior was appropriate or ethical, however.

I'm just very curious as to how this all came about, because it runs counter to all experiences I have had in court, and I ran a courtroom as a court clerk one summer, so I am familiar with the process.

To summarize, I have been saying that something has gone really wrong with the judicial process. You are saying that something has gone really wrong with the judicial process. Yet, you are indicating that I am wrong and/or lying about this. Huh?

Yet, you are indicating that I am wrong and/or lying about this. Huh?

No, I'm trying to help you.

You initially said that the "Finding of Fact" documents did not contain any reference to the provider at question. Then in a later post, you detail that opposing counsel had emailed your attorney about it AND that you had heard about said provider approximately 3 weeks prior to the judge's ruling. If it was mentioned at that time, did you speak with your attorney about it? Did you let them know that you had never seen this provider? Did you talk about a strategy to refute this claim? I'm trying to understand what exactly happened.

So what it looks like is that there was likely some sort of motion/official documentation and your attorney didn't respond to it appropriately. That is exactly why I advised to look at the case file at the courthouse to see what was filed and when. This way, you and your current attorney can better refute this.

I see no "corruption" or "collusion" here, based on the trickle of information. I do see an attorney that did not adequately represent her client's interests and that would be subject to a complaint before the bar. While you may not like opposing counsel, and her end run trick on you signing materials was certainly sneaky (but not likely an ethics violation--just like the age-old trick of filing a motion at 4:55 on a Friday afternoon), it is still likely that opposing counsel did not commit any violations, which is why I caution you on taking any sort of ethics action against opposing counsel as it has the potential to harm your credibility. I do believe, only based on what you have detailed, that you have a possible complaint before the bar for Attorney #2.

But now is the time to think about strategy and figuring out how you use the information you have to refute their claims and impeach your STBXW and make her credibility suspect. I hope you are engaging in some productive conversation with your counsel along these lines.

Cat

barcher, I would suggest that you focus your energies on the issues of your case. I'm not sure why, but your thread seems to have gone off-course. I'm not sure why but some posters seem to be convinced that you don't understand your own case, they know more about what is going on than you do, and you are doing everything wrong. Rather than spend your time refuting them and responding to their questions, I would suggest that YOU lead this thread with YOUR questions to see if anyone has ADVICE for you, not just "your wrong you don't know the law and STBXWW's lawyer must be right".

Or if you are just giving updates for those who have followed your story, please do so. I know you have been through a lot and you seem to be in a better place now. I know you are excited about finally reaching a resolution on this. I hope it works out well for you.

An important update.

The two most important issues that need to be resolved are STBXW's salary and mine.

My state's statutes on divorce are very clear that the salary of *voluntarily* underemployed individuals needs to be calculated at their full-time equivalent salary.

STBXW has been claiming that she has always worked 30 hours per week and so her income should be computed that way. She sent me an email last March, stating that she only worked 30 hours per week so that we could spend more time doing fun stuff on the weekends. She then used the day off each week to run errands and to clean.

Today, we deposed her boss. He explicitly stated that he asked her to come back to work full time (i.e., 40 hours per week) in 2007 and that *she* asked for a reduction in her workload. He then went further, stating that he had the financial capacity to bring her on full-time whenever she was ready.

Game. Set. Match.

If the judge agrees with our arguments (and there is no reason to suggest otherwise), then I am going to be in good shape financially. She basically won't be eligible for alimony and the child support payments are going to be reasonable.

Great news!

Congrats! I don’t comment on your posts much because I don’t have experience with what you’re going through with this complicated D, but I have been reading and hoped you would get a win on something. Finally!

Wooo Hooooooo!!!!! Wow barcher, this IS great news.

And this is good not only because of the financial implications but also because it is proof that SHE'S A FUCKING LIAR.

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall when she and her L are discussing this!!

I assume that opposing counsel was present at the deposition, which is customary. If that is the case, I would imagine that you have given the other side a compelling reason to settle vs. having the judge determine the outcome. That would be the optimal outcome, I would think.

Cat

I hope your life changes for the better after the trial. It seems that your legal position is solid and the deposition turned out well. I did breath a deep sigh of relief after your last update.