Jump to content

Divorce court


Parsnip Totin Jack

Recommended Posts

Round one is over and declared a draw.  Wo7 was not allowed in the courtroom, PRT did not appreciate her presence at the courthouse at all.  Attorneys presented their arguments, LAJ wants half her pension and the joint bills to be paid by PRT.  PRT argued that the medical bills were incurred by LAJ and are his responsibility.  Her living expenses consume all of her pension, she would be destitute if she had to share ten percent.  No compromises were reached.  Arguments continue in May.

Wo7 reviewed PRT's claimed expenses.  Many are inflated or made-up when compared to a spreadsheet of the same expenses prior to the separation.  I'm pretty sure that PRT doesn't remember sharing their financial details with Wo7 when they were looking for help a year ago.

LAJ told Wo7 he's willing to settle for whatever just to get this over with.  PRT knows this and will drag it out to get him to settle for less than his share.  Wo7 told him to suck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​That is something I have never done.  Must be entertaining or there wouldn't have been all those Judge shows..

​When I was laid off by P&W many years ago I had some time on my hands while my wife drew federal jury duty in New Haven.  I drove her down every day and sat in on a civil trial involving police brutality that was rightfully found in favor of the plaintiff even though he was a drunken dirtbag who often showed up to beat his estranged wife.  The jury managed to ignore this and state that the arresting policeman didn't have the right to club him across the face with a flashlight when no one was watching.

Watching the trial was interesting.  I got to see things that the jury wasn't allowed to.  I got to listen to lawyers arguing points of the law in a sidebar while the jury was out of the room.  After the trial I got to hear about the deliberations that went on in the jury room.  All interesting behind the scenes moments that show some of the inner workings of our justice system.

Yes, at one point I was questioned by the judge when someone in the courtroom told him that a jurors husband was sitting in the room.  I told him that my wife was much too strong a person to allow me to talk about the trial until it was over.........and that it was best for me to keep my mouth shut.  :P

Of course the story had a bit going for it on both sides.  One side was a broken eye socket that shouldn't have happened and the other was the frustration of the police when they make dozens of calls to the same location for the same reason and can't prevent what happened.

My wife must be on the list.  A few years later she got a the civil part of a murder trial.

  • Heart 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Then, a lot of folks are living outside of their means.  For the ones with families, they should not have had children, unless they could easily afford it and have a substantial emergency fund in place.

​What DH said is true.  The problem with PRT and LAJ is both of them have a problem with denying immediate gratification.  They want something and they want it now.  Kind of like some people and bicycles (ducks head).  Seriously, Joe has several versions of the same tool.  When he couldn't find something he needed he'd go out and buy another one.  I can't wait to see this effing mess in my rearview mirror.  I'll keep you entertained until then though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​What DH said is true.  The problem with PRT and LAJ is both of them have a problem with denying immediate gratification.  They want something and they want it now.  Kind of like some people and bicycles (ducks head).  Seriously, Joe has several versions of the same tool.  When he couldn't find something he needed he'd go out and buy another one.  I can't wait to see this effing mess in my rearview mirror.  I'll keep you entertained until then though.

I see so many people using credit to buy things they can not afford.  They also buy and rent places that are beyond their affordability.  

I buy a lot of bike stuff, but I also save more than 30% of our yearly income.  The way we afford this is to live in a very small home.  

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​And I have 2 hammers and 2 screw drivers….. <also hangs head>

Well, I bought a second battery charger after forgetting that I bought one last fall.....

Had one, it died about two months after the warranty ran out. Went to buy another one, all they had was the same brand and I was pissed off, so I didn't buy one. Apparently I caved, at some point and bought one and forgot. A couple of weeks ago, I went and bought one and hooked it to my riding mower. After a few days, I went to transfer it over to the ATV and..... much to my chagrin, I found that it was already hooked up to one I'd bought last fall....

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I bought a second battery charger after forgetting that I bought one last fall.....

Had one, it died about two months after the warranty ran out. Went to buy another one, all they had was the same brand and I was pissed off, so I didn't buy one. Apparently I caved, at some point and bought one and forgot. A couple of weeks ago, I went and bought one and hooked it to my riding mower. After a few days, I went to transfer it over to the ATV and..... much to my chagrin, I found that it was already hooked up to one I'd bought last fall....

We call this age related dementia.  Just wait until you buy 6 vacuum cleaners from the same door to door salesman.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​The post said that I had just been laid off at the time.  Retirement came many years later.  Trust not what the dothead says.  We have history in another place that I'm not going to bring here.

This is Wilbur's fault. He implied I need to step up my game.  Still harmless but my antagonism is ratcheting up. Allah in the name of entertainment of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​Serves her right.

 

And then there's this:

 

						1994's MOST BIZARRE SUICIDE
								   
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given by the American Association for
Forensic Science, AAFS President Don Harper Mills astounded his audience in
San Diego with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the
story.

"On 23 March 1994, the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and
concluded that he died from a shotgun wound of the head. The decedent had
jumped from the top of a ten-story building intending to commit suicide (he
left a note indicating his despondency). As he fell past the ninth floor,
his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, which killed
him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety
net had been erected at the eighth floor level to protect some window
washers and that Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide
anyway because of this."

"Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide
ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he
intended. That Opus was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below
probably would not have changed his mode of death from suicide to homicide.

But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been successful caused
the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.

"The room on the ninth floor whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied
by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing and he was threatening her
with the shotgun. He was so upset that, when he pulled the trigger, he
completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the a window
striking Opus.

"When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one
is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with this charge, the
old man and his wife were both adamant that neither knew that the shotgun
was loaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his
wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her -
therefore, the killing of Opus appeared to be an accident. That is, the gun
had been accidentally loaded.

"The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's
son loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal
incident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial
support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun
threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would
shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son
for the death of Ronald Opus.

There was an exquisite twist. "Further investigation revealed that the son
[Ronald Opus] had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his
attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the
ten-story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through
a ninth story window.

"The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...