#family court lawyer | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

pynkhues · 8 days

Note

"Surviving trauma doesn't make you an expert on other people's trauma" is how I'm paraphrasing your tag. But it's such an important point to me. I feel like not just internet spaces but also societal mental health conversation has been ignoring this for decades. I can talk about this extremely broadly because I think it's one of the problems with 12 step type of addiction treatments. But it's also especially popular in the realm of victims of crime and/or abuse of any kind. Surviving trauma only makes you an expert on your own personal trauma and healing. There is no universal cure for any trauma, everyone needs something different. And treating others requires a level of detachment that rarely exists in amateur survivors of similar trauma. Sorry for preaching about this in your inbox but your tags really reminded me how passionate I am about this. I've experienced people scolding me for abandoning support groups and group therapy types of things when they didn't feel helpful to me because they helped them and "I just didn't give them proper chance".

(x)

Don't apologise, anon! I totally agree, and I'm really sorry that you've had that experience with support groups and group therapies.

I've been thinking about this a lot actually since the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial and the horrific treatment of her during all of that, but it's been a pretty big factor in my life these days in general.

Like, look, this is kind of getting a bit in the weeds of my real life right now, but my aunt's very angry at me and my mum at the moment in a way that's been pretty exhausting. (Putting this below a cut because nobody needs to read this, haha)

My aunt is a victim-survivor of some pretty horrific domestic violence. It was many years ago now, and she's done a lot of healing and is in a better place overall, but the situation currently with my sister going through emotional and financial abuse, gaslighting and physical intimidation, with her ex-husband has I think brought up a lot for my aunt, and the result is that she's really trying to dictate the choices that my sister makes as she's going through this.

My aunt has been genuinely so supportive of my sister, but she's also been incredibly judgemental and critical. It's been a really challenging space for their relationship, and, by proxy, my relationship with my aunt, because she calls me (and my mum, who's her sister) up to try and influence my sister's decisions. We're in this current kinda stand-still over it because we're six weeks out from final trial in family court, and my ex-BIL has done something very threatening to my sister, and my aunt wants my sister to get an AVO. We tried to get my sister an AVO last year, and the police told her that until he put her in hospital, they wouldn't give her one. Now my aunt wants my sister to try again, and my sister's lawyers are saying no, because it looks like a play to the judge. They've been in family court for two years, and to try again this close to final trial may be legitimate but to a judge it'll read as a move that could influence her custody of her children.

My sister doesn't want to take that risk, her lawyers don't want to take that risk, and in my opinion, the worst result would be for her to try, have it on the record that she tried, get the same response she did last year that he hasn't put her in the hospital yet, and ergo get no AVO and a bad mark on her heading into court. On top of that - - AVOs don't do shit. They're a piece of paper that maybe bump you up a few spots in the queue when you call the police.

Anyway, my aunt's furious about this and it's become this huge thing where my aunt feels she knows better because she got an AVO, because she's been through this already, because none of us understand what she understands, and I'm like - - it's exhausting, and it's unfair. Their experiences are not the same by any stretch of the imagination, and I hate that a part of me keeps thinking that what happened to my aunt didn't end because of an AVO, it ended because he was a gambling addict and he was killed over an unpaid debt.

My aunt really is trying to do the right thing by my sister, and I love her for that, but there is this disconnect between survivor experiences that can cause an enormous amount of friction and complication, and I think we need to get better in general at acknowledging that.

#my aunt also wanted to wear white ribbons to court and my sister said no #like the judge is literally going to be watching us and the lawyers have warned us already that these things influence family court #like they've seen cases lost on a family member rolling their eyes and scoffing in the seats #and it looks manipulative #and my aunt genuinely can't wrap her head around that #my sister's told my mum she's got to big sister up and rip it off my aunt's chest if she tries it during the week we'll be in court lol #like it's sad it really is but it's also reality y'know?#but my aunt calls me and i'm like #my sister and i talk everything through and discuss outcomes but these are her choices to make right now #and i think she's doing amazing and i'm not going to try and influence her choices #especially when i think what you're suggesting is bad #anyway #fun times #i do lowkey feel like an expert in family court now though so i guess i kind of get that feeling of experience feeding a sense of expertise #which isn't actually real haha #because yeah being an expert at the moment in my sister's case is not the same thing as being an expert in court #by literally any stretch of the imagination #i do like joking to one of my best friend's who coincidentally is a family lawyer that we have the same job now #she hates the joke lmao but gets it at least #rl

5 notes · View notes

purple-worm · 1 year

Text

Some excerpts from Adv. Vrinda Grover's statement at the Supreme Court of India, as a part of the 15 petitions that were heard for the marriage equality bill. She presented arguments for the concept of a chosen family which was a more progressive stance on how families/unions could be defined by the constitution and it goes beyond just same-sex marriage. It could cover polyamory and recognition of queerplatonic intimacies between 2 or more individuals, and much more:

“During COVID, a study that was done on trans persons found that when trans persons due to lockdown and the nature of the disease, had to return to their natal families and their homes. Over there they faced violence. They faced conversion therapy which is prohibited. And that was actually an illustration of what would happen if other social formations of care and support did not exist. This is what has been described as an atypical family. This form of chosen family is recognized in our law; for instance, adoption.

Adoption is a form of chosen family. Today we recognize families and we conceptualize family as by blood, marriage or adoption."

"There is increasing legislative and judicial recognition of a person who may not necessarily be conjoined through marriage or conjugal intimacies. In relation to the advanced directive, every person who is not a minor shall have a right to make an advanced directive in writing specifying any of the following individual or individuals in order of precedents he wants to appoint as his nominated representatives.

"..Ensure that laws and policies recognize the diversity of family forms, including those not defined by descent or marriage and take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure that no family may be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity of any of its members, including with regard to family related social welfare and other public benefits, etc. "

"I would say that what we are canvassing before this court is a different imagination. A new imagination of marriage and relationships and of family. An imagination which actually places at the foundation, love, care, and respect which may or may not come from the natal family because of my sexual orientation and gender identity.”

"There can be a feminist jurisprudence and feminist critique of family and that family can perpetuate caste purity and patriarchal control; so there may be persons who are of different sexual orientations and gender identities, which because of the hostility of natal families actually form intimacies that are non-marital, non-procreative, which are intimacies that are the only social conclave and support they can find."

Her statements were pleasantly surprising. Most of the earlier petitions chose to only focus on gay marriage and trans people having the right to marry, and I didn't expect any of the (star)lawyers/petitioners to go beyond that. But this. This is a sign of liberation. It reminds me a lot of the family code that granted marriage equality in Cuba. I love that we have some very progressive minds fighting this case.

#marriage equality #india #this better go well #lgbt #indian lgbt history #she was such a queen for this #a lot of the earlier petitioners werent intersectional enough #they were making points that painted same-sex marriage the cure all for most issues lgbt #someone said that “our families already accept us. now its just the courts that are left”#sir- no-#a lot of them came from upper caste hindu lgbt lawyers who have families that accept them so it's unsurprising #and so having vrinda and raju ramchandran speak after the govt tried to paint this as an issue of the elites was GOLDEN #SC better come up w the sexiest ruling in indian queer history or ELSE-#also w our temple art and kama sutra can yOu bEliEvE we have to fight for this #lgbtq

24 notes · View notes

kylos-starlight · 9 months

Text

*makes weird popping noises with my mouth*

#Sorry I haven't been super present the last 2 days. I have family court on friday and I always get on edge #even though it's an uncontested trail because dumbass ex literally messaged my lawyer and was like 'I can't participate because #I'm ''busy'' with criminal court. like nice bs excuse. you fucked up big time too bad if you're dealing with criminal court what a good way #to say you want nothing to do with your daughter. not like I'd ever let you near her. plus she never wants to see him again.#hell she doesn't even call him dad she calls him by his first name! which i don't fault her. he needs to rot for what he did to her #anyways sorry im venting im just wound the fuck up #im frustrated because court says nothing concrete can be done in terms if sole custody which considering he is being charged for abuse #to her the family side should just give sole custody to me... he's made it clear time and time again that he doesn't fuckin care.#ahhhh SORRY I'm in overthink mode and I'm frustrated with the court system.#tw: abuse mention #venting.tw

5 notes · View notes

mutualconsentdivorce · 1 year

Text

Alimony and Maintenance play a very important role in entire matrimonial litigation during divorce cases. Alimony laws are provided for the spouse to ensure that the other spouse should in case of divorce not be helpless and the spouse should be able to lead the same lifestyle as the other spouse live.

#Alimony and Maintenance #domestic violence lawyer #family court lawyer

1 note · View note

astarab1aze · 6 months

Note

Do nightfolk have... lawyers?

yes! they're still people, of course, and they more or less live similarly structurally to humans (a lot of wild differences, but still). in the us, their lawyers are usually tommy-knockers (who also help the gilde family run the banks), but really, they could be fey, goblins, vampires, shifters, at one time there was a barghest (how? magic), another a beholder, etc etc. nightfolk aren't exactly the most strict when it comes to who can do what, so long as so-and-so can actually perform the job functions (and are certified, depending on the field).

nightfolk lawyers are kind of- cut-throat. the lawyering game is just as messy and convoluted as it is in a human context, worse actually, and there aren't very many to go 'round so they're very expensive. in most cases, any who can't afford them have to represent themselves, one won't be provided by the state except in very 'particular circumstances' (where it pertains to really old laws like, er, consider laws like 'the law of surprise' - stuff like that, weird laws, binding vow removal too (that entire process is a paaaaain in the ass)). it seems cruel and unusual, but nightfolk are taught throughout childhood all about the legalities of their society since it's still adapting to human expansion and industrialism, modernizing, balancing their own traditions, ways of life, in some ways protecting humans from them and the monsters and such that still very much lurk in the world and one world-ending cataclysm after another-- they have to know everything, they have to be prepared. whether they end up needing to use any of that information is irrelevant. anyway-

you could theoretically divorce a god and it be totally accepted legally by everyone involved, few questions asked. attitudes about wacky, surely mindboggling stuff, are by and large best summed up as a roll of the shoulders most of the time. they all hear wild shit all day, every day, so lawyers, judges, and all kinds of legislative types have an easier time being objective and decisive, er, pragmatic (as well as being corrupt, but that's not what this post is about!).

as i think on it now, how one would become a lawyer is by apprenticeship. you work with a lawyer, they teach you everything, you learn, you take certification classes, the nightfolky bar exam lol, and there you go i guess. it takes a good long time, cos you need your mentor's approval and recommendations from several other supervisor types, character letters, and then you have to go through extensive background checks, take an oath, a binding vow to your firm as a condition of proper employment (and to the department of regulatory sorceries)-- and so on. it's an enormous pain in the ass to become a lawyer and that's why it's an undersaturated field.

#☿ || Headcanons.#/ the law of surprise is from the witcher (yes; i have brainrot #but i'm using it as an example to illustrate my point bc i don't have anything loaded skdjfhs; i haven't thought too hard on any of that)#/ (but now that we're here.... hmmmMMmMMmmmmM)#/ i imagine they sometimes consult human lawyers for things like... family court #/ or they go to clerics who sometimes handle civil matters #/ if any of my rambling makes sense skdjfhs #/ i want to make a post about the knockers cos it's an old miners legend both the us and some countries in europe share #/ but i wanna put just a teensy bit of a spin on them. just...haven't yet lol

6 notes · View notes

wedesignyouny · 7 months

Text

Get Through the Legal Maze: Comprehensive Guide to Select the Best Divorce Attorney in Queens

Getting Through the Legal Maze: A Comprehensive Guide to Selecting the Best Divorce Attorney in Queens

Introduction:

Divorce is unquestionably one of the most difficult periods in a person’s life. It becomes vital to have the best legal counsel during this critical time. Finding a reputable and skilled divorce lawyer is essential if you’re in Queens, New York, and need to navigate the complicated divorce procedure in order to guarantee a just and seamless outcome.

Recognizing the Value of a Divorce Attorney:

A number of legal issues, including asset partition, child custody, and spousal maintenance, are involved in divorce procedures. A knowledgeable divorce attorney can help you navigate the complex legal procedures, defending your rights and pushing for the most favorable result.

What Makes a Superior Divorce Attorney:

1. Knowledge of Family Law:

Seek out a divorce attorney who specializes in family law. This experience guarantees a thorough comprehension of the particular difficulties and subtleties connected to divorce matters, particularly in Queens.

2. Local Knowledge:

You can gain a tactical edge by hiring a divorce attorney who is knowledgeable about the judges, court procedures, and specifics of the Queens area’s legal system.

3. Communication and Compassion:

Divorce is an emotionally demanding process. Not only can an understanding divorce attorney efficiently communicate and keep you updated during the process, but they can also offer emotional support in addition to legal assistance.

Why Lawyers for Divorce in LM?

LM Divorce Lawyers, a reputable option for anyone looking for a divorce lawyer in Queens, can be found at the website link.

1. Experience: LM Divorce Lawyers has years of family law experience and a solid track record of resolving a range of divorce matters.

2. Local Focus:

Because LM Divorce Lawyers is a Queens-based company, they are able to customize their strategy to meet your particular needs because they are aware of the particular characteristics of divorce disputes in the community.

3. Client-Centric Approach:

LM Divorce Lawyers places a high value on open communication, making sure that you are aware of the situation and actively participate in making decisions at every stage of the divorce.

In summary,

selecting the appropriate divorce attorney can significantly impact the difficulties associated with going through a divorce in Queens. LM Divorce Lawyers offers full legal support during this trying time by combining experience, local knowledge, and a client-centric approach. Select a divorce attorney who is aware of your particular needs and situations to ensure that your rights are upheld and your future is safeguarded.

#Queens County Divorce Attorney #Divorce Lawyer Queens #Queens Divorce Attorney #Queens Family Court Lawyers

2 notes · View notes

leonardomongillo · 1 year

Text

Mongillo Law - Choosing the Right Family Law Expert - Your Key to a Successful Case

Divorce, child custody disputes, and other family law matters are often emotional and difficult experiences. The outcome of your case can have a lasting impact on your life, your family, and your finances. That's why it's crucial to pay attention to picking the right family law expert for your case and follow Mongillo Law - Tips for Choosing the Right Family Law Champion for Your Case. In this blog, we'll discuss the importance of selecting the right attorney and provide guidance on how to make the best choice for your specific needs.

1. Expertise and Experience Matter When choosing a family law expert, it's vital to consider the attorney's expertise and experience in handling cases similar to yours. Family law is a complex field, and each case is unique. An experienced attorney will have a deep understanding of the intricacies involved in family law matters and will be able to navigate the legal system effectively, increasing your chances of a favorable outcome. 2. Familiarity with Local Laws and Courts Family law can vary significantly from state to state, and even from one county to another. It's essential to choose an attorney who is familiar with the local laws and court procedures in your jurisdiction. This will ensure that your attorney is aware of any specific requirements or nuances that may impact your case and can represent your interests effectively in court. 3. Communication and Availability One of the most important aspects of any attorney-client relationship is open and clear communication. Your family law expert should be responsive to your calls and emails and should keep you updated on the progress of your case. A good attorney will be available to answer your questions and address your concerns, ensuring that you feel supported and informed throughout the legal process. 4. Compassion and Understanding Family law matters can be emotionally charged, and it's essential to have an attorney who is compassionate and understanding of your situation. A good family law expert will listen to your concerns, empathize with your circumstances, and provide guidance and support to help you navigate the challenging process. This is a reason why experts like Leonardo Mongillo assert that Choosing the Right Divorce Lawyer by Navigating Legal Labyrinth is essential. 5. Reputation and Recommendations Lastly, it's important to choose an attorney with a strong reputation in the legal community and positive recommendations from past clients. This can provide you with the confidence that your case is in capable hands. You can research online reviews, ask for referrals from friends or family, and consult with local bar associations to find a family law expert with a proven track record of success. Paying attention to picking the right family law expert for your case is crucial to achieving a favorable outcome. By considering factors such as expertise, experience, familiarity with local laws and courts, communication, compassion, and reputation, you can make an informed decision and increase your chances of success. Don't underestimate the importance of choosing the right attorney – your future and the well-being of your family depend on it.

#law-in-canada #lawyer-in-canada #leonardo mongillo law #advocate #family-law-canada #jurisdiction #legal representative #justice #family lawyer toronto #family law toronto #law-in-toronto #lawyer-in-toronto #family lawyer canada #family law #lawyer #courts

12 notes · View notes

fedoranon · 1 year

Text

I AM BACK FROM SHOPPING AND BACK INTO LIVEBLOGGING! (Long as hell so there’s a cut before the first direct quote.)

Also obligatory: I’m not a lawyer but I do have a 1964 pocket legal dictionary that probably belonged to my stenographer great grandmother. Also her notary seal which I know better than to use thank.

The difference between how the Court reacts to Ms. Foti’s [representing LoDuca] concluding remarks vs. Mr. Minkoff & Mr. Maulsby [representing the Firm and Schwartz together] is night and day, hard to sum up in quotes or screenshots. Posting the link again, I’m starting on page 48 of 64.

Basically, Ms. Foti gets to deliver her whole statement without interruption, summarizing LoDuca’s side of things and citing a particularly favorable case where a lawyer did not get sanctioned for relying on the work of a colleague in good faith that contained falsehoods. The Judge says “thank you” and calls for Minkoff or his colleague.

Immediately the interruptions start.

Minkoff wants to trade off with Maulsby, his colleague, Judge says that’s unusual.

MR. MINKOFF: Actually, your Honor, I don't necessarily agree. I have divided arguments up before in other courts. If your Honor doesn't want us to do that, give me a moment to speak --

THE COURT: It would be customary to ask to do that. MR. MINKOFF: I am asking. THE COURT: Now you're asking that I'm granting it. The point is, you ask. MR. MINKOFF: Yes. THE COURT: Then I grant it. You don't presume. MR. MINKOFF: I apologize.

Like a misbehaving toddler. Treating Minkoff like he did Schwartz and LoDuca, who have seriously misbehaved in this court and are having the fear of God and Early Retirement put into them. I need to go back and finish the June 6th filings yet, there’s so, so much [I’m pretty sure Schwartz represents that he didn’t use ChatGPT to do any writing but I’m pretty sure this transcript points to the Judge believing he did], but I wonder what the hell is in there that pissed the Judge off so much already?

Anyway, he gets going pretty good for a couple pages here. I don’t find it as compelling as Ms. Foti’s statement, personally, but she has somewhat relevant case law and that always helps. It seems like Maulsby is going to do the actual arguing that they don’t meet the standard that LoDuca and Schwartz’s lawyers agree on, this “subjective bad faith” or I’d call it “intentionality” standard. Minkoff’s main thing is that this was new technology, it’s a known fact that lawyers are old and not hip with new technology and couldn’t have known ChatGPT isn’t a super search engine that has access to paid databases despite the fact that NO online search engine has access to all case law and, I cannot emphasize this enough, CHAT is in the TITLE [and also again I’m fairly sure Schwartz also used it to write for him].

Then Minkoff makes the Cardinal Sin of ascribing the Judge’s motive, or basically saying why he’s done what he did (WRT having this hearing), which my dad always emphasized that you must NEVER EVER DO in any circumstances but especially in a court room.

MR. MINKOFF: [...] Now, this Court has done its job of warning the public about these risks, warning the profession about these risks. THE COURT: That's not my job, and I didn't set out to do that. MR. MINKOFF: I understand that it's not your job as a judge to do it, but you did it. THE COURT: That was not intended as a warning. That was intended as an order to show cause to bring these respondents before the Court to answer for their actions and nothing more. MR. MINKOFF: I understand that, your Honor. But whether your Honor intended it or not, the effect is what I said, which is that the public is now on notice of this problem, which my client was not on notice of and did not know about at the time. Now, just as AI teaches itself, now it is up to lawyers to learn about these dangers.

There’s a certain intelligence in writing to addressing your conclusion to your perception of the audience’s mind state, but I think this is a reach. ~The Judge is just trying to warn us of the dangers.~ Nah, fam, sanctions are on the line for a reason. This isn’t a SLAPP, it’s Judge who knows the law and how lawyers are supposed to behave.

Maulsby refers back to their previously filed papers a lot more than Minkoff and Foti, and I’ll admit this is the type of law work that goes over my head a lot. I’m related to lawyers, stenographers, and notaries, and I’ve answered phones a few times but I’m not trained in this kind of thing and I don’t pretend I am. It feels a bit tedious though, like maybe he loses his place a few times? I can catch that he’s citing several cases where sanctions were imposed, and saying that this case isn’t like that.

He goes on about the “bad faith” and “knowledge” elements in a way that honestly sounds a bit written by ChatGPT himself. Very vague, repetitious, I don’t like his style and the Judge doesn’t either:

THE COURT: Let's not reiterate -- you are both from the same firm. You are partners? MR. MAULSBY: Yes. THE COURT: I have granted you the opportunity to supplement Mr. Minkoff's arguments. Please try to refrain from reiterating his arguments. If you have something new to say, I'm all ears. MR. MAULSBY: Understand. I will.

"If you have something NEW to say” AKA this is why I didn’t want to let you talk in the first place. The Judge loses all patience at this point:

THE COURT: I think this point has been made. MR. MAULSBY: The firm has taken appropriate remedial measures -- THE COURT: I think that point was made also. Your firm put on a CLE for the firm. Is that right? MR. MAULSBY: That's one of them, Judge THE COURT: I heard from the principal of the firm. Is this something that's in the record that you are going to tell me, or is this something not in the record? MR. MAULSBY: I'm summing the record, your Honor. THE COURT: This is something in the record. MR. MAULSBY: Yes. THE COURT: What is it in the record and tell me where I find it. MR. MAULSBY: I'm sorry. THE COURT: Tell me where I find what you are about to tell me in the record. MR. MAULSBY: Mr. Corvino's declaration talked about the remedial measures. THE COURT: I read it. MR. MAULSBY: I may not be understanding the question. I'm sorry. THE COURT: I have Mr. Corvino's declaration. I have heard from him. I'm all ears if you have something new you want to say. But reiterating your written submissions is not particularly helpful. MR. MAULSBY: That's fine, your Honor.

[A CLE is the continued learning hours that lawyers need to do if they want to continue to be barred.]

AND THEN HE JUST CONTINUES ON. IDK maybe he skipped a paragraph but he just goes “The point I’m trying to make is” and keeps going like more of the same. I’m not sure why he feels the need to “sum up” the record -- this isn’t a jury trial and these aren’t closing statements on the case, he’s here to present evidence and argue why sanctions shouldn’t be imposed.

Unless he doesn’t think the Judge read all those submissions two days ago, which. In this case? After all the false fucking cases he had his clerk run down? Sure, Jan.

Next IS one of the few points where they argue on behalf of the Firm well, although I think the best argument for them is the “We get out of the way and let our lawyers do their job” type statement Corvino made.

He’s arguing that the sanctions would be unduly punitive because sanctions are supposed to be a “deterrent message” but in Minkoff’s section the Judge already said “That's not my job, and I didn't set out to do that.“ That was about warning the public, not warning these lawyers but the point remains: the Judge isn’t here to warn the lawyers, he’s here “ to bring these respondents before the Court to answer for their actions and nothing more”.

The Judge has some closing comments, first thanking everyone for coming, then:

I want to make an important observation. It's not fair to pick apart people's words, but I'll just note that, repeatedly, this has been described as a mistake. And framing this as a mistake, I understand why it's framed that way, and the mistake is to have submitted the brief on March 1 that cited nonexistent cases.

But that's not what this is all about. [...] I doubt we would be here today if the narrative ended there. There was a reply brief filed by Avianca. The record will reflect whether that brief put Mr. Schwartz and Mr. LoDuca on actual notice that their cases were nonexistent. There was an order from the Court on April 11 calling upon Mr. LoDuca, not a law firm, not an entity, not the plaintiff, Mr. LoDuca to submit copies of the cases. We know how Mr. LoDuca responded to that. We know how Mr. Schwartz prepared the response. We know what they submitted and what they said about it. We know a lot more now. But this case is not just about the March 1 submission. It's what happened thereafter is an important part and an essential part of that narrative.

And then he marks the affadavit as Exhibit 1 and adjourns the hearing.

If I’m Schwartz walking out of this hearing, I’m terrified. The Judge was not pleased with the presentations by his team, ascribing the Court’s motives and being unnecessarily repetitive.

If I’m LoDuca walking out of this hearing, I’m feeling a bit less shaky? But I personally wouldn’t make any bets. His best defense is that he didn’t do due diligence, and as a lawyer you have an obligation to your clients and the court to do just that.

If I’m Corvino, I’m wondering if no news is good news, as it were. The Judge didn’t have questions for him, the lawyers hardly mentioned the Firm as a whole in their presentations, maybe they’re really just there because they happen to be these idiots’ employers? Their best defense is also not knowing anything, but not being familiar with the case makes it a lot more credible.

If I’m Mata, I’m probably gonna sue these guys for my medical bills pending how the retrial goes. Assuming he can bring this again once the dust settles, but I don’t see why this wouldn’t be a mistrial or otherwise dismissed without prejudice? I believe is the term.

If I’m the defendants or their counsel, I’m laughing my ass off at this while also being fucking pissed that what should have been an open and shut case is being dragged out like this. What a waste of time. Why wouldn’t you at least skim what you’re presenting. gods above.

So yeah. Let me know if y’all see what I do vis a vis the Judge not being happy with Schwartz’s lawyers and why.

#2 stupid 2 sanction #I should note that i'm not a lawyer i just have lawyers and stenographers in the family #including the remnants of a law library in the house #so like. I can look up the technical terms but when you get into citing specific cases it all goes over my head #I saw someone point out that it's relatively simple to get temporarily admitted to this court esp if you work with someone who's already #barred there so like. Loduca gotta be kicking himself that he didn't just wash his hands of all this.#also idk why the firm is sharing counsel with schwartz instead of loduca when schwartz was the one who did the dubiou #s action. unless its about when they were called to show cause?#idk idk not a lawyer not a paralegal etc.

3 notes · View notes