My ‘Education’ Begins

This is the sixth installment of ‘Divorce New Jersey Style’

BLOG 6 Post on 4 January 2017

Sometime after the debacle caused by ‘judge’ #1, ‘D’s lawyer hired another law firm, “experts” in forensic financial snooping.

Obviously, the purpose was to explore my financial history, to find things they could steal……..

Just as a side bar; one of the “forensic” law firm`s employees, was also on one of the lawyer “disciplinary review boards”, as a “lay ” person.

Lawyers “investigating” other lawyers, kind of like dogs looking after their own vomit !!

I want to point out that the ‘forensics’ cost approximately $19.000.00. Somehow, ‘D`s lawyer got ‘judge #3, and ‘judge’ #4 to have the money stolen out of my daughter`s In Trust Account at PNC Bank, that plus Sheriffs costs (?) to pay for what they ordered, not me !!!

The ‘forensics’ on me were presumably completed sometime between June and September of 2013. You will read at a later date, an interesting statement ‘D`s lawyer made about this ‘forensic’ report, paid for with money STOLEN from my daughter`s ITF account, on 1 May 2017, under oath…..

Remember, ‘judge’ #1`s order read that each litigant was to pay their own fees !!!!!!

October 31, 2013………Welcome ‘judge’ #3……

A hearing was held by ‘judge #3 on that date.

I was aware of the hearing but was not available to be there, and did not consider my absence to be an issue.
All parties were notified by me about my absence, and I assumed there wasn`t much for ‘judge’ #3 to rule on, because the issues were ruled on previously.

Another mistake !!

When it comes to ‘judges’, never assume anything, for apparently they can make up rules to suit themselves as the mood moves them, for there is no other rational assumption one can make. Well, there is, but I won`t make it here.

In any event, ‘judge’ #3 ordered me to appear at the ‘D`s lawyer office on 12 Dec 2013 for a deposition.

‘D’s lawyer canceled the deposition, never rescheduled it either, (I have the e-mails)……..In future motions filed by ‘D’s team in front of ‘judges’ #3, #4, & #5, ‘D’s team said and/or implied that I refused to appear for a deposition, thereby prejudicing a ‘judges’ decision against me.

Not that my appearing before a ‘judge’, which only happened twice out of 6 hearings, would have made a difference to the ‘judges’, for I was never allowed to speak.

Truth is, that I, on multiple occasions, both verbally and in writing requested to heard in deposition.

The significance of ‘D`s team lying comes to light in the “hearing” of 3 February 2014.

On November 12, 2013, I hired lawyer #3……. move over “Arnold Rothstein” you ain`t see nothing yet !!

Coming up, installment #7……..titled.. “RICO Act, Anyone ?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s