Comments on: A friend in need (of a hitman?)

By: David

David — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:47:36 +0000

Cool. At least its progressing a little.

Wish him luck.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:34:05 +0000

A quick update: the hearing’s been and gone, she was a no-show, and the sheriff has granted an uncontested something or other. However, John’s ex can still throughly spanner the divorce right up until the final paperwork is done, which is still several weeks away.

Fingers crossed…

By: tm

tm — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:44:27 +0000

>is incompetence a prerequisite

Yes. You need a higher in it to be accepted into a law subject at a univertsity (A/S Level South of the Border).

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:30:18 +0000

Yeah, the same thought had crossed my mind too. This is his second lawyer, because the first was utterly incompetent. I suspect number two isn’t much better.

Incidentally, is incompetence a prerequisite for a legal career – in family law, at least? A relative’s experience suggests that small town lawyers couldn’t differentiate between their arse and their elbow without the aid of a diagram and all your life savings.

By: paul

paul — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:00:38 +0000

Umm, isn’t this exactly what John is paying his lawyer for? Surely his lawyer can give him advice on how best to proceed? Can’t John call him/her and say “this has been going on too long and I want you to find a way to get it sorted”? And if they can’t, it’s time to find a lawyer who can.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:03:50 +0000

Thanks very much, everyone (and everyone who emailed too). I’ll pass your sage advice on.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:05:12 +0000

Oh, and it’s a nicer option that not paying maintenance until she shows in court, because it’ll only affect her, not the kids as well.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:03:49 +0000

True, but what David & I are suggesting isn’t even using everything legitimately available to him; it’s merely preventing her from using things not legitimately available.

By: Tony Kiernan

Tony Kiernan — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:00:23 +0000

Yeah, using everything legitimately available to him is not playing dirty.

Sending the boys round, framing her for something etc. is playing dirty

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:17:26 +0000

> he’s basically a nice guy and doesn’t want to play dirty.

I can sympathise with that (no, really), but I really don’t think that questioning her right to Legal Aid is playing dirty. Trying to take away a weapon that she’s not actually entitled to have is playing clean.

By: David

David — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:49:24 +0000

Surely if this has been up before the sheriff before then it would’ve been recorded. She has failed to appear several times and each time has a different lawyer. Surely the court could speak to her previous lawyers to get confirmation that he’s not anything to do with her not turning up and remove any doubt on the sheriff’s part. It could be argued that since he is the one petitioning for divorce and if in previous occasions this has resulted in further delay then it is not in his interest for her not to show.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:49:10 +0000

Sorry I’m slow in replying to this – I’m having related conversations by email too. The problem, I think, is that he’s basically a nice guy and doesn’t want to play dirty. Which, unfortunately, means she’s getting away with this crap.

Consensus seems to be: stop paying maintenance until she actually shows up in court.