2007-03-02 - 5:32 a.m.
Awoke eary as I intended on drafting my version of what I heard the JUDGE say at the hearing on FEB 8
A few substantial differences than the draft I was sent from Westley's attorney
I DID NOT hear the Judge say my petition for exclusive use of home was denied.
I DID hear him say he is "leaving the parties where they are for now" and "nwither is to interfere with the other" and
I DID Hear him indicate that he was INCLINED to rule the nuptial would hold BASED ON WHAT HE HEARD, but also that he felt there were further arguments to be heard.
I think he was a VERY GOOD JUDGE who in fact observed that when my attorney tried to enter into evidence a document that was objected to as it didn't meet the best evidence requirement and was heresay... that he NOTED the interplay of me actually trying to call attention to a NOTORIZED document that WOULD HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE. She was focused and concerned about me being DISTRACTING and was concerned about me not INTERRUPTING and NOT BEING IMPULSIVE and due to those factors I think she was just tuning me out and that got missed by her. But I really think the observant judge noticed those subtleties.
This morn I think it won't be hard to very tactful explain the motion to withdraw her as counsel without criticism of her but that it is really out of NECESSITY for me to get the other arguments and EVIDENCE introduced on that matter that were not heard or properly presented before the court when I HAD THEM THERE IN THE COURTROOM And wanted to introduce them.
Not too surprising. I in fact EXPECTED this to happen.
I in fact TOLD MY AU PAIR that I didn't think she need worry about my neighbor who I will so creatively call TACO who has been showing up at the house (when my car was in a different location and it appeared we were not home) only to be surprised we WERE HOME.
She has observed him scoping the house. I went over calling 911, emergency procedure, my cell # etc... and my friend had come to stay with her and the kids overnight when I traveled.
She indeed wasn't uncomfortable (or didn't SEEM to be THANKFULLY) so I didn't worry too much about it.
THIS WAS ANTICIPATED.
THATS A GOOD REASON NOT TO ONLY KEEP ONE COPY OF DOCUMENTS
BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIES
BUT CAN BE OVERCOME WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPLAINATION FOR NOT PRODUCING THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.
THEFT OF BUSINESS RECORDS IS INDEED A CRIME
I'M CALLING THE SHERIFF RIGHT NOW.
ITs not that hard to see a fucking clear motive, in particular as it has been alleged this was WESTELY'S PLACE BEFORE WE WERE MARRIED and that I CAME HERE FOR AN UNLAWFUL TAKING.
The other thing I had to do this morn was check status of the actions... see what suprises lay in store... like see if the NONSUIT perhaps was filed and honored... as I do have to review procedure for that. I am not sure if the only requirement is WITHDRAWAL of the action by the party who brought it. IF so, that would explain why I got a call indicating opposing counsel is filing a motion this AM to schedule a hearing on the matter of the nuptial.
Yeah.... when you say at ONE point in the record that I AM A DOMICILIARY OF VA and then MOVE TO ENJOIN RELOCATION OF CHILDREN FROM LOUDOUN COUNTY.... but then LATER say I came here to try to effect a TAKING of my husbands property that you claim is not my home, it kind of seems a bit INCONSISTENT.
Of course if it turned out that the new place my hubby is in were titled in my name or some other weird quirky means of trying to substantitate THE LIES then maybe you can get away with that... and since THAT EXPENSE would be LESS than having to actually SHARE ASSETS of our marital home, I just wouldn't be at all surprised at anything anymore.
I wasn't too surprised to find the business files gone AS WELL AS ALL MY LEGAL PAPERS FROM THESE PROCEEDINGS.
But that was predictable. People OFTEN PLAN AND PREPARE FOR PREDICTABLE.