From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Right Not to Support
Date: 18 Aug 92 07:20:16 GMT
Reply-To: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

-> In article <2RkFPB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpat
-> >
-> >I'm a Guardian ad Litem. The court appoints me to represent the interests
-> 
-> 	Well, good for you!  You finally put your cards on the table.
-> 	Now I understand.  I've only been asking these questions for
-> 	a few months.  See how easy it is to just answer?

I've mentioned it a few times --I thought that you knew. 

-> 	Tell him he's a guy who, up to now, has criticized people
-> 	who claim expertise in "family law", but never give evidence
-> 	of *why*!

A lot of people are car mechanics, and don't say why they are. Most of the
time, it just doesn't come up. The same is true, I think, of people who
have expertise in family law. Some learned through experience, some through
study, and others through both.

-> 	BTW, I have no idea what you're talking about in the above
-> 	paragraph.  It *is* interesting to me, however, how 
-> 	geographically concentrated people on this net seem to be.

There are a few of us here in Spokane, but I see posts from all over. I
don't think I get what you mean.

-> >Yes, you certainly do beat it to death. You keep looking for a free 
-> >handout. You want legal representation for nothing. Gimmee, Gimmee, 
-> >Gimmee. Not only that, but you want these people to risk their bar
-> >membership on the whim of a conversation. C'mon, Alan. Please. Get
-> >back on your medication.
-> 
-> 	Well people like you (and most others) don't *have* a bar 
-> 	membership to risk.  But that seems to make no difference.
-> 	The old, "be carefull or you might get sued", is always the
-> 	operator.

First, sorry. I didn't mean to be quite so, uh, toxic. 

Even people like me have to use some caution, we have cetain regulation
we need to observe. Lawyers in particular need to be careful though. I'm
aware of LAW which guards against their dissemination of legal counsel.
Perhaps someone can add to this, but I believe that a client/counsel
relationship needs to exist before substantive advice may be given. This
is done to protect the non-lawyers. 

Let's see if I can explain this right --I'm only stabbing at it here. If
an attorney offers an opinion (advice) specific to a case they aren't 
involved with, there is good chance that a listener may use that info in
a legal circumstance, and have it go wrong for them. They would have no
recourse against the lawyer, who (as Joe Blow) offered the opinion. So
the law says that unless they have an agreement where a party DOES have
recourse, they need to keep shut. A good example of this happened here a
while back when Hilary Miller (sp?) suggested that people not pay support
ordered in order to motivate an ex to provide ordered visitation. This
would, of course, have the immediate effect of getting the NCP caught in
a contempt rap. The court doesn't buy into "They did it, so I did it back"
kind of stuff. Anyway, if someone DID get into trouble because of that
advice, they couldn't sue Hilary for it --he was just commenting and not
offering client/counsel advice.

-> 	As to "gimme gimme", I've seldom if ever asked any questions
-> 	here which pertain specifically to any problem I might have
-> 	or have had.  And I can prove this!  I *HAVE* no problems.
-> 	I coast.  But I read and participate in this group to
-> 	enhance my overall knowledge base about child support issues.
-> 	It's supposed to be a *CONVERSATION* arena.  And when I
-> 	ask general questions, or see other people ask (maybe more
-> 	specific) questions and get read "the riot act", I consider
-> 	the whole thing a waste of time.

No, you haven't. But you have toasted Anne Mitchell pretty hard because she
wouldn't offer legal advice here on the net, and wasn't interested in the
initiating of a class suit. I won't get into the "would/wouldn't work" view,
but will say that a class suit is a huge undertaking with significant cost
in time, money, and resources. 

-> 	If you (admittedly) have so much experience and interest
-> 	in these matters, why aren't you or people like you willing
-> 	to relate different scenarios or answers to questions and
-> 	situations that come up?

But I *have* been doing exactly that, Alan. For a few years now. Jeez, I've
even posted cases quotes (modified to protect confidentiality).

-> 	I liken it to the man who dies at an accident scene where
-> 	a doctor is present, because he isn't physically capable
-> 	of signing a release form.

Well, sometimes it isn't the victim on the scene that does the suing. others
may initiate a suit if they have some standing --such as the wife of that
victim who couldn't sign. Sure, it's convoluded and even bizarre ate times,
but it has to do with legalities in a variety of realms.

-> 	Keep your legaleze in the courtroom, and keep this arena
-> 	a place for friendly, informantive conversation.

A little legalese is helpful sometimes. Given that the significant areas of
negativity stem from courts and law, it's good to know the terms and their
definitions.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick, Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us