AmyJo wrote:If you know anything about divorce attorneys they are the dirtiest scummiest thing since sleazy politicians.
My divorce attorney in Layton was one of the most ethical, kindest lawyers I could have hoped to hire. I was very fortunate. She won me custody of my daughters when I lived in North Carolina and jurisdiction was in Utah.
- Doc
Likewise, mine was smart, ethical and wise. My own experience with the local bar is that there are good and bad apples in all area of practice. Family law is no worse than others.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I don't know. This is a total s*** show, and it's awesome. I hope the truth comes out eventually.
Oh, me too!
On divorce lawyers; some interpret their job as representing their client's interests, advising them as to what they can legitimately claim and how to get it, and putting their case in court as effectively as is consistent with ethical practice. Some see themselves as hired attack dogs who will use any tactic that damages the opposition, regardless of ethics, so long as they think they can get away with it.
The second kind do not by any means always end up with happier clients.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:My divorce attorney in Layton was one of the most ethical, kindest lawyers I could have hoped to hire. I was very fortunate. She won me custody of my daughters when I lived in North Carolina and jurisdiction was in Utah.
- Doc
Likewise, mine was smart, ethical and wise. My own experience with the local bar is that there are good and bad apples in all area of practice. Family law is no worse than others.
All I've seen are the bad ass ones. The worse bad ass ones, the better. When you're going for divorce it's the women attorneys who give lawyering the wicked reputation it has earned. They are tough as nails, and if you haven't got one, you soon wish you had. When I needed a good family law attorney years ago I hired a nasty bitch, and so did the other side. You should've heard them going at each other in the judge's chambers. I mean screaming and yelling at each other. That's what they do for a living. Guess you haven't really experienced life from that angle, until you have had one in your corner.
No, mine didn't resort to committing perjury. If she had she might have faced disbarment or suspension of her license. The other side may have, but there was no reason for her to do that although I wouldn't have put it past her.
When you're fighting for your children you are fighting for your life. I fully understand where Karran was coming from. And he did not commit the perjury. The other side was willing to from the attorney to his ex-wife. Enough said.
That takes a scumbag lawyer who would resort to that.
Karren reminds me of several individuals I've encountered in my legal practice. All were very manipulative and could not be trusted to accurately convey facts. I would not take his uncorroborated word on anything in this matter.
He is appealing to public opinion based solely on his own selective providing and interpretation of facts. From what he says, the following persons who have access to more than his side of the story have rejected his claims:
1. The judge in his divorce trial 2. Law enforcement 3. Psychiatrists 4. The State Bar (on his suborning perjury claim)
All those folks had more information than Karran will ever give us.
It would be interesting to hear the opinions of a trained mental health professional, fully informed on the facts, as to whether what Karran has done over the years has helped or hurt his daughter.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
AmyJo wrote:All I've seen are the bad ass ones. The worse bad ass ones, the better. When you're going for divorce it's the women attorneys who give lawyering the wicked reputation it has earned. They are tough as nails, and if you haven't got one, you soon wish you had. When I needed a good family law attorney years ago I hired a nasty bitch, and so did the other side. You should've heard them going at each other in the judge's chambers. I mean screaming and yelling at each other. That's what they do for a living. Guess you haven't really experienced life from that angle, until you have had one in your corner.
No, mine didn't resort to committing perjury. If she had she might have faced disbarment or suspension of her license. The other side may have, but there was no reason for her to do that although I wouldn't have put it past her.
When you're fighting for your children you are fighting for your life. I fully understand where Karran was coming from. And he did not commit the perjury. The other side was willing to from the attorney to his ex-wife. Enough said.
That takes a scumbag lawyer who would resort to that.
Karran has not accused anyone of committing perjury. All we have at this point is Karran's accusation that McConkie tried to persuade a witness to commit perjury. And we have no idea whether or not Karran ever committed perjury in the case.
by the way, my attorney was a woman. My ex had three -- two women and one man. The man was the worst of the three. Making sweeping generalizations based on what one has seen is questionable at best.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:... the following persons who have access to more than his side of the story have rejected his claims:
1. The judge in his divorce trial 2. Law enforcement 3. Psychiatrists 4. The State Bar (on his suborning perjury claim)
All those folks had more information than Karran will ever give us.
...
And, um, the court gave him custody of the kids? Is that not a factor in forming an estimate of this situation? It does not exactly amount to 'rejecting his claims' does it, and in a matter central to most divorce proceedings too?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
AmyJo wrote:Karran was ultimately granted full custody of his children from which his ex-wife did not contest.
Have you seen the actual order?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Res Ipsa wrote:... the following persons who have access to more than his side of the story have rejected his claims:
1. The judge in his divorce trial 2. Law enforcement 3. Psychiatrists 4. The State Bar (on his suborning perjury claim)
All those folks had more information than Karran will ever give us.
...
And, um, the court gave him custody of the kids? Is that not a factor in forming an estimate of this situation? It does not exactly amount to 'rejecting his claims' does it, and in a matter central to most divorce proceedings too?
Did it? What does the order actually say?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951