2005-07-17 - 2:42 p.m.
Enjoying a quiet afternoon while everyone naps.
I had made a nightgown for Raitlin I was very proud of about two months ago. At that time I commented to my mom how it was so hard to get anything else done! I had hoped to make a few nightgowns. Then Katie asked Grandma if she could make some. So I was very pleased when they arrived just in time for Katie's birthday and inspired the pajama party theme party. The girls had a blast!
They also were a bit tired as the day before we all trecked to Buffalo where they DENIED my request for an adjournment and counsel as they CLAIM they don't honor nuptial agreements in NYS
WHOO HOOO!! The good news is that I am almost positve I was just ENSURED grounds for an appeal! I am pretty sure that constitutes BONA FIDE PROCEDURAL ERROR....
hmmm... My former attney never filed a MOTION to withdraw, I called PRIOR to the 48 hr requirement, AND then FOLLOWED the instructions of the CT SECRETARY who said to PUT THE REQUEST IN WRITING which I DID via e-mail ! (I KNOW that E MAIL is NOW CONSIDERED THE SAME AS SNAIL MAIL FOR LEGAL PURPOSES!! )
I happened to have written a brief on that for Research and Writing Class in law school... and I am SURE by now that the law has simply been in favor of that trend that was effective then as accepting E-MAil.
In any case I went ahead to trial PRO SE
The other attorney seemed frustrated - so I think I was holding my own and doing a damn fine job! Heee.... Heee.
He did think I was an idiot so first thing he ATTEMPTED to do was get the Psycologist report "stipulated" which is legal mumbo jumbo for his quick attempt to get it to be considered as FACT without any possibility to QUESTION it.
The judge said "Since you are representing yourself you have the right to come in and review all documents. "
I have to contact her directly to arrange a time to do so.
That's BETTER than even having an attny as all court documents ARE NOT accessible to parties! IN NY the parties ATTORNEYS have access and are STICTLEY allowed to SUMMARAIZE and give only info relevant to their clients- but the rest is protected!
AS PRO SE I will have GREATER access to information from the court's discovery process!
My only regret was that I wasn't quick witted enough to shoot back right after cutting him off "I'd like to have Bonnie McLaughlin's report stipulated in this matter"
But if I remember maybe that's how I should start off the next trial date as it is to be continued.
That would be classic! I am SURE the humor of it wouldn't be missed!
And I think being a wise ass can't really hurt me at all at this point.
So that line of questioning ended establishing that Westely bought this house BEFORE the court order. Touche
It was actually funny. I think all the stuff he was HOPING for came out opposite.
He went into a line of questioning about what the kids called Westley and their DAD
The trial was FUN so far. My former attny thought I would be a horrible witness due to my honest rambling. I think it is in fact IN MY FAVOR as the bigger picture gets told. I also honestly answer and get to discuss so much so quickly that I feel like it is VERY EASY for me to actually take ANY question and include what I see as PERTINENT related information rather than simple YES or NO answers. I think that is ONLY in my favor as the more they HEAR the more of a sense they will get of our home than only the few horrible incidents. YES they are REAL-- and I did honsestly talk of those.
"NO--She was RARELY spanked.Twice a year would likely be an overestimate for KAterina"
I talked of the TWO times I could recall Soren being spanked.
When asked about spanking I honestly fleshed out my NEVER NECESSARY philosophy, and that until JULY 2004 Westely HAD AGREED!! HE in fact initially said he didn't believe in spanking then changed his tune after a few years (and when he was losing patience in July 2004 and only then started to use that as discipline with the kids! )
I talked of the fact being that VERBAL abuse was the real insidious problem FIVE YEARS AGO. When asked about the incident Soren talked of I was able to acknowledge it and that it occured FIVE YEARS AGO.
So I feel VERY GOOD that the judge has heard that!
EVEI AM SO PLEASED TO BE AT TRIAL AS IT GIVES
a. A POSSIBILITY for a BETTER OUTCOME
b. If the outcome IS NOT BETTER at least years from now I CAN BE AT PEACE KNOWING THAT WHATEVER HAPPENED WAS NOT DUE TO ME AGREEDING TO A SETTLEMENT I FELT COERCED INTO
c. IF the kids DO remain with their DAD but then CHANGE their mind-- or if things with him REVERT back to unhealthy... I can honestly say I FOUGHT to prevent them being there long term. I won't be guilty of not having foresight! I will be able to let them know I TRIED MY BEST