You be the judge

Great Debates
41

Mikey:

Listen, I don’t want to be a jerk – I am relatively new here, after all.

But out of a curiousity that was sparked from this thread, I have gone back and read other posts from “MikeyLikesIt.”.

This, of course, led me down the unfortunate path of “FormerAgent,” and “Finder,” about which the less said, the better.

Mikey, I don’t know you from Adam. And, as I say, I’m new here myself. But as a veteran of other online communities, I suggest that a reputation for integrity is a good thing to have, especially when you are known only by your words, and not your deeds, and in an environment where anyone with a Juno account can create a new board identity in ten seconds.

If I, in a posting, made an inadvertant error, or left a false impression, or caused people to believe I might be less than honest… I can tell you that I would bend over backwards in an effort to correct it. And I would be extra careful that my future posts didn’t contribute to any false impressions.

Now, in several different threads in different forums, you’ve said things which… um… give rise to the suspicion that you’re not being completely upfront about things. There’s no need to recount them; my point is simply that if you value the development of a good reputation, perhaps now would be a time to bend over backwards to show that this OP was made honestly.

Or – if it was not – now would be a good time to say, “Look, guys – mea culpa. I thought of this scenario, and thought it would inspire more genuine thought and reaction from the board if I presented it as real. It was an error in judgement, and I’m sorry now that I did it. But it does highlight the very real inquities in divorce law today, and it would be a shame if my error in judgement caused us to lose focus on that very real issue.”

I cannot speak for anyone else here, of course, but I can tell you that I would welcome either approach right now, and would be very inclined to let bygones be bygones, if any bygones there be. :slight_smile:

OK. 'Nuff said.

Cheers,
Rick

42

Sorry, Mikey, that’s a no can do. We have every bit as much right to post to this or any other thread as you do.

Now then: what we know or don’t know about you is simply irrelevant. You have described for us a scenario which calls for a moral judgement. It is certainly possible for us to voice opinions on the situation as you have described it. However, to give an informed opinion we require a complete understanding of the situation. The fact that you have refused to provide any corraborating evidence of this story, along with the multiple holes already pointed out, suggests that the scenario is, in fact hypothetical. If you are presenting a hypothetical or imaginary situation as a fact, you are lying to us and we don’t appreciate it.

If this is a simple misunderstanding, then take Rick’s advice and we will let bygones be bygones.

If I am incorrect and this is a true story, and you can present confirmatory evidence for it, then by all means do so and I will apologize profusely.

Felice

“Everything, once understood, is trivial.” -WES

43

I see, so you think that a non-custodial parent shouldn’t have to support his/her kids? And taking care of them to the best of his/her ability is just “fixing the shit”?? God, I hope you’re sterile!

Touching little Christmas scene: Daddy watches while three year old Janie opens her present, a big stuffed teddy bear. Janie squeals with delight, runs over to Daddy, throws her arms around his neck and plants a big wet kiss, gazes up at Daddy adoringly: “I wuv you, Daddy!”

“And I love you, sweetheart. At least until Mommy hurts me or pisses me off, then as far as I’m concerned you can rot on the street or in a foster home.”

The OP – suspect as it is – affirmatively states that these are Jeff’s kids. They are every bit as much his responsibility as hers – and maybe more from a moral standpoint if the mother is the scum she is described as.

I love your concern over Jeff’s wallet rather than his kids. There’s more important things in this world than money, y’know?

-Melin

44

I realize I haven’t addressed the merits of the question, having been hung up in technical details about the question.

While I lack the fiery indignation that Melin has, I agree with her completely on the merits. (I will leave unanswered the sterility wish, however).

A parent’s responsibility is to care for his children. In this case, Mommy has essentially stolen money that should have been used to care for the kids. If Dad bought them food, clothing, and medicine, and someone broke into the house and made off with them, I hope he wouldn’t say, “Tough luck, kids. I bought the stuff for you once. Now you’re on your own.”

  • Rick
45

Actually, circumstantial evidence is quite sufficient to prove a point in a court of law.

The title of the thread is “You be the judge.” I’ve been a judge. And what I did, at any rate, was make a summation to the jury, thus my closing comment “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.” Thus I presented my argument and my conclusion based on the story given in the OP. I did not call the poster a liar; I called the post a fraud. It’s possible – though becoming more and more unlikely as we see Mikey’s responses – that he either didn’t get it right in the re-telling or, as another poster suggests, that he was presenting a hypothetical which for his own reasons he wanted us to think was a true case.

Mikey complains that we’ve asked logical questions about the “facts” as asserted in the OP:

In fact, the questions that I’ve raised, seeking to know more “details,” are those that any reasonably intelligent second year law student would ask. The only way that you get to evidence is by asking questions, and the questions that I’ve presented are those which go to testing the truth of the allegations. Notice how instead of giving us any answers Mikey simply becomes defensive and vulgar.

As other posters have pointed out, one of the glaring apparent flaws in the story is the presence of the assistant District Attorney. The DA’s office does not get involved in these kinds of cases. Where are there criminal charges here? Bigamy? No, there’s nothing in the OP that says that the woman married both men. Adultery? Please – they do not prosecute for adultery in California. Theft (in that she was spending Jeff’s money on Arnold)? Nope – community property means that she had every legal right to spend that money as she wished, and indeed many a woman has found to her horror that she has no legal recourse when her husband is spending vast sums on his mistress. Child abuse/neglect? No, there are no facts which point to this, and nothing in the OP to suggest that the woman was being prosecuted for this. This is a family law case, it is not a criminal case.

Mikey – put up or shut up. Give me the name of the district attorney who allegedly is handling this case and the county in which it is pending. This is a matter of public record, so there should be no problem with this. Since you say you’ve seen the filings, perhaps you can give us the name of the parties involved, or even ask to see them again and get the case number off of the document. I’ll have my attorney service pull a copy of the file. If it backs up what you’ve posted here, I’ll post my favorite recipe for crow pie along with my apologies.

-Melin

46

Walter Wunderlich, Assistant DA and Mentor of Attorneys involved in case

Filed 1/3/00
Case#: FL-(TBA) & DV-(TBA)

Now then

:slight_smile:

[Note: This message has been edited by TubaDiva]

47

Hmmm.

My Martindale-Hubbell (1996 edition) does show a Walter E. Wunderlich, who passed the California Bar in 1963, a graduate of University of California at San Francisco and Stanford.

This notation appears beneath the entry: “Devotes all or the greater part of his or her time to the affairs of a single client, or is retired, semi-retired, or semi-active, or principally engaged in activities other than the practice of law.”

I called the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney is Jan Scully. Her office’s main number is (916) 874-6218. The voice mail permits you to spell out a name. Using “Wunderlich” produced a “there is no voice mailbox”-type error message.

I then pressed 0 to speak with a live human being. The man that answered, who said he was the receptionist, did not know Walter Wunderlich, and when I specifically asked if Wunderlich was an ADA, replied that he was not. I pressed him (“Are you sure??”) The man replied that he knew all the ADAs, and that none was named Walter Wunderlich, or indeed any Wunderlich.

I asked the man I was speaking to for his name, and was told, “Oh, this is just general reception.”

Possibilities:

The Martindale listing tells us that Wunderlich exists and is (or was) a lawyer. The fact that he isn’t currently an ADA…hmm…

Here’s my current theory: he (Wunderlich) is a retired ADA, and is (as Mikey alluded to) mentoring other lawyers to keep from going stir-crazy in retirement. One of his mentorees (mentees?) is handling this case. Mikey, not being hip to the world of law, didn’t know that Wunderlich was retired, and so identified him as “the DA” rather than “a retired ADA.”

Obviously, the facts lend themselves to other interpretations, also.

I can’t use Lexis anymore, so I await Melin’s contribution to this puzzle.

  • Rick
48

[/quote]
The Martindale listing tells us that Wunderlich exists and is (or was) a lawyer.
[/quote]

The State Bar identifies his practice as does the Martindale Hubbell, with the added notation that he is “active” (meaning he’s paid-up on his fees and current with his continuing education – we should all be so diligent! ;)). It does provide a different phone number for him than does the Parker directory, and I’m not about to call the gentleman at this time and inquire. I’ll wait for Mikey to post the “TBA” case number info and go from there. Hey, I said if I was wrong I’d apologize, and I will.

In searching the State Bar online membership records I discovered that there are 48 “Melindas” licensed to practice law in this state. I think I should start a club. < g > They’ve got my address wrong, though . . . .

-Melin

49

Walter Wunderlich also works with Boy Scouts as I do, and he teaches the law merit badge.
Oh and I havce met Jan Scully many times before, nice lady, attractive too.

Anyways, the case numbers will be available as soon as pretrial hearings (??) are completed, and counselors turn in their findings.

I’ll keep you all up to date.

And to all you who thought I wa fibbing:

:stuck_out_tongue: I wasnt see :stuck_out_tongue:

50

Mikey,

I do want to thank you for taking the “bend over backwards” approach – I think it was the right thing to do.

I wish we saw this more often in public officials.

“Senator, there are reports your correspondence with Bank of Wyoming over the past three years contain illegal agreements!”

“Very well – here are all my records for the past three years. In fact, here they are for six years. Judge for yourself.”

Of course, please don’t take this the wrong way, Mikey… even in my most skeptical of moments, I never suggested you had the morals of a politician! :slight_smile:

  • Rick
51

You are welcome, anything to keep my good name “good”.

So you all have my credentials (pit posted), know my life story and address (through a bit of searching), and now even confirm the information i give on my sources (Walter).

I feel so naked here on the supposedly anonymous internet, YOU ALL OWE ME FOR THIS.

:slight_smile:

52

Well, not so fast. We’ve only confirmed that a gentleman of that name exists, and that he is not currently employed with the DA’s office in Sacramento.

Case numbers are assigned immediately upon filing, so those ought to be available now.

-Melin

53

Do you ever quit? Cant you see that there is no point to lying over some tiny thing like this?

I mean doesnt it make sense, since im providing you all this info, and its not even my own fricking job or case, im doing this as a favor to you, since the rest of us were content to debate the big issue not seek details.

Can you appreciate all the extra work you are causing me?

54

Mikey, this is the world’s smallest violin, and it’s playing just for you: )(
smilingjaws, you said:

Since mom wasn’t actually married to the other guy, she hasn’t committed bigamy. The worst you could charge her with is Adultery, and that isn’t even illegal in most states. (It’s grounds for divorce, sure, but it won’t result in any jail time.)

55

No, I can’t appreciate that there is “all the extra work” involved here. Sounds like a phone call to me: “Hey Walter, I got some idiot woman on this message board I hang out at that doesn’t believe that you are a current ADA and that there’s this case you were telling me about pending. Can you give me either the name of the case or the file number so I can shut her up publicly, please?”

-Melin

56

After reading your last post, I did exactly that Melin.

His response quoted, “This isnt public information as of yet, and the fact that you discussed it on the internet makes me feel rather uncomfortable, but its no big deal. Try not to do that in the future. As for the nosy people who need proof, what kind of kooks are you dealing with on the internet? You oughta be ashamed for giving them any personal information on yourself for that matter, who says they arent all “disturbed”.
Just tell them, take it or leave it, since they probably do the same thing when making their commentaries.”

So I guess my answer is, “take it or leave it” but I think i have done enough to entertain you. Now debate the issue, or dont.

57

Let me give this a shot.

The wife goes to jail for fraud, after a public flogging. She is made to wear a big A on her dress. The other guy pays the husband back the money, with interest. The husband has his head examined. The children are given a choice of what they want and where they want to go.

58

Cyb, they’re two and three years old. Do you thnk they can make a choice? Hell, most three year-olds can decide if they want chocolate or vanilla (most adults, too, FTM).

59

Good point Andros.

So where are those who take “the womans” side? or is this a clear cut wrong on her part?

Where will NOW get its support for her as well?

60

Mike, there’s a law merit badge? Cool! Do you have to sue someone or put someone in prison? That would be a pretty neat merit badge, and it might help you get into law school (On the essay, “I put a convict into prison at the age of 7 in order to get my Law merit badge, and sued someone for my Civil Law badge at the age of 9.”) hehe

Um, the woman is a dirty, no good, lying sack of **** that ought to get beaten with a 10 foot, rubber hose like the filthy ***** she is. That’s just my opinion, of course. :wink: