In Sacramento, for example, Judge Peter J. McBrien has been in Family Law forever just about, BUT he has met with his share of litigants that seem to really not like him. Our experience with him has not been bad, but we are aware that many pro se litigants do not care for him.
A very interesting case was just published where McBrien was apparently the Judge. It is obviously a difficult case, with DV issues and far more. But if you look at what Mark Hughes did in the case, on appeal anyway, it didn't seem that it was set up for a loss. But when you discover that the parties did not procedurally (according to Family Law Codes and general civil procedure) get certain documents produced or requested, one can see --sort of-- why the case went bad.
Noticeably, it appeared that the Mother did not always tell the truth, the Father had history of drinking and possibly more, corporal punishment was alleged but then seemingly disappeared, the kids seem to waver back and forth as to their treatment by parents, and having practiced in front of Peter J (as we call him there)--- we probably are not that surprised at this result, but basically this case shows the difficulty Judges face when both parents are having, or have had issues like the facts in the case indicate.............
LIVING WITH PASSION AND PURPOSE // THE PHILANTHROPIST
Inspiration serves Garibaldi in his art and his life. “Living with passion and purpose” drives Garibaldi every day to transcend what he does as an artist into a philanthropist. A high school animation teacher first inspired him to take his passion for graffiti and turn it into a more positive and creative direction. Garibaldi never forgets this encouragement and more importantly the value of someone believing in him. Every performance is an opportunity to give back – either through teaching youth or providing resources to the community.
In a few short years, and at 29 years old, Garibaldi raised over $1,000,000 for nonprofits and charities across the country through his art. He works closely with charities such as Special Olympics, Echoes of Hope, Sacramento Children’s Home and World Vision.
Despite the apparent popularity of Facebook, even attorneys and Judges have gotten in trouble from "friending" or sending "like" requests or whatever nonsense has transpired.
For the record, attorney herein does not use Facebook and doesn't know or want to know how to work it, is not interested in learning how to use it, and quite frankly, believes that FB is basically garbage, but that many people like it because they can somehow garner attention, give out overly personal information, and basically, lose their personal rights unknowingly, but being rather naieve or dumb, do not realize what they are really doing.
Then, by willingly placing on FB, all the personal information that people don't need to know--such information can easily be gathered by anyone and then likely sold, disseminated, copied or whatever, including using such data for a family law case (or any type of case) and by then, it's way way too late to turn back the hands of time. American people in general, tend to like things like TV and gossip,which suits FB just fine.
The data that can be harvested from such sites as FB for advertisers, is actually probably a goldmine? Attorney has not researched the main companies who harvest data from FB, but we are sure it's very large because the number of people on FB is huge, and it's all in one place?
The other main issue attorney herein has realized with FB is that it's good for one thing--you can simply access the targeted parent online to see if that parent is bragging about misdeeds, posting pics of same, and the like. It's not difficult to find because the client's friends will tell client they saw this data on FB? and we can get that data--normally at no cost? We usually are able to get evidence like this for free, and most people these days could care less about privacy? AI (artificial intelligence) is not exactly something that we should all want, but we knew it was coming and not surprisingly, when the red light cameras that gave out those tickets (by taking your photo at the stoplights, without permission)-- CA finally shut all of them down after legal action was started.
10 SIGNS THAT FACEBOOK IS WRECKING YOUR LIFE http://facebookhaters.com/
1. You spend more time communicating through Facebook than in person.
2. You are on Facebook more than 20 minutes a day. 20 minutes per day adds up to 5.069 days per year of your life that you have completely wasted.
3. Facebook is the first thing you do when you wake up. And then you’re back on 15 other times throughout the day.
4. You completely ignore your child because you are too busy writing a post about how your eggs tasted strange this morning.
5. You’ve finished your nice dinner at a nice restaurant with your spouse, and you realize at the end that you were just Facebooking the entire time.
6. You announce an important change or event in your life on Facebook. “Hey mom and dad, I’m engaged!”
7. You cut off a quality conversation with someone you just met in real life so that you can send them a friend request.
8. You have been the recipient of the real life words “Please get off of Facebook and spend time with me”
9. You reveal something very deep and personal on Facebook which you regret forever.
10. Every time you find yourself with your circle of friends in real life, you catch yourself just reading your Facebook updates rather than actually talking to them.
IIn the Northern District of Illinois, judges still remember pro se litigant Bart Ross. Ross was a frequent filer in Chicago federal court, where, the Chicago Tribune says, his filings over a decade often compared doctors, judges and lawyers to Nazis and terrorists. In late 1994, Judge Joan Lefkow dismissed a medical-malpractice suit by Ross against the hospital where he’d been treated for cancer. Five months later, Lefkow came home to discover her husband, 64-year-old Michael Lefkow, and her mother, 89-year-old Donna Grace Humphrey, shot dead. The case was solved about two weeks after the murders, when a West Allis, Wisconsin, police officer witnessed Ross committing suicide in his van. His suicide note took responsibility for the murders. That’s one reason that the district takes security very seriously when it comes to pro se litigants, according to Chief Judge Ruben Castillo. Castillo spoke today as the moderator of an ABA Annual Meeting panel sponsored by the association’s Judicial Division, “The Unstable Pro Se Litigant: Strategies for Ethically Dealing with the Difficult Unrepresented Litigant.” Not every unstable litigant—a person with a mental illness or a borderline personality disorder—is necessarily violent, said Eric Drogin, the first panelist to speak. Drogin is a psychologist at Harvard Medical School, where he’s part of the Program in Psychiatry and the Law. He also has a JD and is a past chair of the ABA’s Section of Science and Technology Law. He listed a variety of mental illness diagnoses and the likely behavior in court of people with those problems. Depressed people and people with substance dependence, he said, might not show up at all, or might be completely unprepared if they do. But they can still pose serious problems, the panelists agreed. Drogin said filings from people with certain diagnoses “can be measured by the pound” or even the ton. Others may be antagonistic toward the bench, cry a lot or seek the spotlight inappropriately. “Litigation stress” can crank it up. And those behaviors can pose serious problems for judges, who have to maintain order while respecting the litigant’s rights. “One of the things we’re doing is trying so hard to make sure the person has access to the courts,” said U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois. “And we also don’t want them to run roughshod over the court.” Judge Frank J. Bailey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Massachusetts said one reason these litigants can be difficult is that their cases are not about money to them, which makes their reactions harder to predict. Often, they resist settling because they lose their forum. If a litigant seems to need attention, Bailey said, he’ll offer limited opportunities to get it by scheduling hearings that can go long or sending the case to mediation. Castillo added that it’s good to mention summary judgment early on, so attention-seekers realize there may not be a television-style trial. But the judges agreed that keeping control of the courtroom is vital, and they advised using a firm “judge voice.” They also agreed that it’s vital to identify problem litigants early—perhaps by the volume, frequency or nature of their filings—and plan accordingly. If someone seems dangerous, they said, plan to have security present or reduce their opportunities to show up to court. Attorney Jadd Masso, a litigator and partner at the firm Strasburger in Dallas who specializes in defending problem cases, said defense lawyers should pick their battles carefully. In one case his firm handled, a litigant who was unruly during a deposition was arrested and brought to court in shackles. That spawned a civil rights case and years of further litigation, including a trip to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans. A pro se litigant “is sort of a frightened animal,” he said. “You don’t really know [whether they’re harmless], so you have to treat them with kid gloves and be polite and professional and keep it focused on the law.” • See what people are saying about the events on social media, and follow along with our full coverage of the 2015 ABA Annual Meeting.
THE exchange of information in a divorce, related to the respective economic, financial, and personal situations -- including the extent of the property ownership, debt, and income, is part of the discovery process in litigation. Even if a case is not going to trial, the parties are entitled to know the extent of the assets, debts, property, financial transactions, etc. The exchange of this information is known as the "discovery" process generally, and there are very specific rules that apply to specific applications. If assets are hidden or never disclosed, if debts are amassed and never disclosed, if someone won a lotto and never disclosed it, or any type of financial gain or big loss that was kept hidden, the other spouse should know about it. In California, there has been ongoing case law dealing with financial issues where one spouse basically gets left out of the loop and doesn't know the full scope of what was going on (non disclosure)...
and when that kept happening, the Courts finally realized that "non disclosure" was the center of many cases going to appeal. New laws were passed to change the Family Code so that declarations of disclosure are done properly to help each litigant know their financial picture. For example, if a wife did not realize to what extent her husband had in terms of a trust funded by community assets, or stock purchased with community earnings (earned during marriage, and not from separate property) or a business that was set up with community earnings, and operated online such as an adult x rated venue, which takes in money online from credit cards--you get the picture. Or maybe the husband was paying support to an unknown child father outside of wedlock for 10 years. Depending on the case, many scenarios can have mixed facts, and not all cases will be alike. In fact, it takes years of working in Family Law to really see how bad things can get, especially if one party files bankruptcy and the other one does not. Fortunately, the bankruptcy rules help the spouse who has been shafted, for the most part, especially if fees relate to spousal support. http://sandiegolawlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Family_Law_Discovery_Issues.pdf
Document Production
In "document production" both spouses make available all documents that relate to the divorce, the marriage, their separate property, incomes, etc. Any party has a right to see most documents that even arguably relate to the divorce and related issues that will require resolution -- including division of property, finances, and debt; child custody and visitation; payment and receipt of child support; and payment and receipt of spousal support (alimony).
Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions
Interrogatories are questions requiring a spouse's version of the facts and support for his or her demands. These questions can be pre-printed "form" interrogatories, or specific questions asked just for your case called "special" interrogatories.
Questions can range from the broad ("Describe your current relationship with your children") to the specific ("Is it your position that respondent's taxable income for 2004 was $45,000?").
If the questions asked are not fair questions or are difficult to understand, your attorney will help you decide which questions should be answered and which should be objected to.
"Requests for admission" are not often used in divorce cases, but they can be very powerful tools. Requests for admission ask a party to admit or deny certain facts pertaining to the divorce and related issues, and they carry with them penalties for not answering, for answering falsely, or even for answering late.
Depositions
Depositions are sworn statements, when a person will answer questions from an attorney, and a court reporter will make a transcript of all that is said. Depositions can range in length from an hour to a week or more. Although all attorneys have their own strategies for depositions, there are basically two reasons to use them: to see what the other side has, and to do a "practice trial," that is, to see how a witness will appear and conduct themselves before a judge or jury.
Your attorney will tell you what he or she wants from you if you are deposed, but there are two general things to remember. First, never guess. The purpose of a deposition is to give facts, not to speculate as to what might have happened or what the right answer might be. Even if it makes you self-conscious to say it, sometimes "I don't know" is the right answer. Second, it is human nature to want to explain things so that your listener understands, but you should resist the impulse. It is your opponent's job to get the answers. It is your job to answer only the question asked, not to offer additional information.
Things to Remember About Discovery
Keep in mind that it is very likely that anything and everything will come out at some point in the discovery process. In divorce cases, this is especially true if the case becomes contentious and emotions run high.
It is imperative that you be honest with your divorce attorney about the facts and documents that may come out. He or she can't do the best job if you don't disclose everything.
Be honest. Nothing will make your position in a divorce case worse than lying in discovery and getting caught (i.e. about hidden assets, etc.), and it is likely that you will get caught if you are purposefully dishonest.
- See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/divorce/exchange-of-documents-and-information-discovery.html#sthash.T1CvXq53.dpuf
