2007-02-16 - 4:42 p.m.
YAH Au pair arrived without a problem! She is really lovely.
I am glad that the girls are happy about that increased time with him.
He also told me he wants to pick them up for the Wed overnight on the off week, and indicated he sent notice of that intent to my attny.
She called today and indicated that the court can not accept my pleading until they get the motion for her withdrawal from her. I knew that to be the case procedurally so am not too surprised. But I wanted to get it done and try JUST IN CASE as I have to focus and study and prepare for class and exam and felt like I might as well make whatever effort I can and give it my best shot.
What was startling in that project was just how CLUELESS I was regarding EVIDENCE
I cracked open that text that was dusty.... and brushed if off and realized just how pathetic my retention of that area of law was. I had NO CLUE about procedure and actually thought that the exhibits I included might be ADDMISSIBLE for JUDICIAL REVIEW.
IN any case, now having had the experience I am sure not to forget those points of procedure again. So there is light for me in that tunnel of error.
Ironically after this legal matter is all over I likely won't ever need this information again as when practicing IMMIGRATION LAW it is MOST OFTEN administrative filings in nature. Although I WILL NEED to know procedure and evidence for trials as needed. There IS potential for a lot of trial work in immigration depending on what kind of matters one handles. That however is most often in the pro bono realm and it will be a while before I can devote time to that so I am sure I will have experience and hopefully work with others to learn that well before I need to know it. The thing is, I can LOOK UP any of these procedural or evidentiary rules RIGHT BEFORE having to apply them IN THE REAL WORLD. (Unlike on a BAR exam which is RETENTION BASED)
I also most certainly would NEVER represent a client with as shoddy and fly by night effort as I did myself at the last moment. I only did that as the FACTS and ARGUMENT I TOLD my attorney and we talked about was NOT presented in the court.
That's the part I don't really get.
She DID try to tell me I didn't understand something. She claimed that she had one hour to respond to the PENDETE LITE matter and that the other side was welcome to raise the nuptial as THEIR DEFENSE, and that she had NO TIME to respond to it. Yet in the court she delivered a final ARGUMENT on my behalf AFTER THE OPPOSING COUNSEL raised his issue of the nuptial. ANd in fact he wasn't using that as a DEFENSE as he brought the case of the nuptial up AFFIRMATIVELY and ASKED FOR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE which really makes no sense.