Pro se litigant news
May. 19th, 2010 01:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muck_a_luckSo. See me using my *facepalm* icon.
1. A couple of months ago, the court ordered a certain visitation and custody pattern that the pro se litigant was unhappy about.
2. The pro se litigant filed some motions related to spousal support, to which Boss responded in opposition.
Today we received from pro se litigant two motions she filed yesterday.
One was for sanctions against our client for denying her custody and visitation. This is related to paragraph 1 above. As best I can understand her argument, he has denied her custody and visitation first by pursuing the courts original order, and then by abiding by it. Therefore, he owes damages to her and should be ordered to allow her to have custody and visitation again.
The other was for sanctions against Boss. This is related to paragraph 2 above. As best I can understand her argument, she thinks the court should sanction Boss for filing motions that make her look bad to the court. I assume she is talking about his opposition to her motion. Apparently, he should not oppose her motions because it "prejudices the court against" her.
Pro se litigants. The source of endless amusement.
Even funnier? As of last week, she HAS a new lawyer, so actually is no longer pro se. I cannot wait to hear the new lawyer's reaction to these motions. For the sake of my client's pocketbook, I sincerely hope he just instantaneously withdraws them.
1. A couple of months ago, the court ordered a certain visitation and custody pattern that the pro se litigant was unhappy about.
2. The pro se litigant filed some motions related to spousal support, to which Boss responded in opposition.
Today we received from pro se litigant two motions she filed yesterday.
One was for sanctions against our client for denying her custody and visitation. This is related to paragraph 1 above. As best I can understand her argument, he has denied her custody and visitation first by pursuing the courts original order, and then by abiding by it. Therefore, he owes damages to her and should be ordered to allow her to have custody and visitation again.
The other was for sanctions against Boss. This is related to paragraph 2 above. As best I can understand her argument, she thinks the court should sanction Boss for filing motions that make her look bad to the court. I assume she is talking about his opposition to her motion. Apparently, he should not oppose her motions because it "prejudices the court against" her.
Pro se litigants. The source of endless amusement.
Even funnier? As of last week, she HAS a new lawyer, so actually is no longer pro se. I cannot wait to hear the new lawyer's reaction to these motions. For the sake of my client's pocketbook, I sincerely hope he just instantaneously withdraws them.
