Chris Willie Williams (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} disclaimerwill) wrote,@ 2008-06-03 17:48:00 |
|
Jurisprudence Fetishist Gets Off On Technicality
My grandpa is getting sued for divorce by his wife's adopted son. Yes, it is more than a little silly!
I'm going to try to get through the backstory quickly, because my experience with most of it is secondhand, pieced together from what my parents tell me, and it's actually not the point of this entry: My grandma died in 1998. Not terribly long after, Grandpa started seeing Margaret, an old biddy whose moods, as far as I ever saw, range from snide to flat-out nasty. Over protests from my dad and his sisters that amounted to a sustained, months-long shriek, Grandpa wound up marrying her. Since then, Margaret has developed Parkinson's and, by last year, had reached the point of being unable to take care of herself, falling frequently, and lapsing into hallucinations and dementia.
Margaret has an adopted son named Jeffersen [sic]. If I understand correctly, he's actually her grandson, but Margaret legally adopted him as her son after her biological son--Jeffersen's father--went to prison and/or died. Jeffersen is a scuzz. After she married Grandpa and until Margaret required constant care and supervision, Jeffersen would appear only when he wanted to ask Margaret for money. As a result, they saw him pretty often. (Thankfully, Grandpa's finances are completely separate from Margaret's.)
As Margaret's condition deteriorated, Jeffersen's mooching pretty clearly--to my mind--entered the realm of elder abuse and financial exploitation. He would show up at the apartment, write sizeable checks to himself from Margaret's checkbook, and get her to sign them even though she was clearly not of sound mind. (My family attempted to report him to elder services and were told that such acts don't constitute abuse. That is not true.) However, at this point, Jeffersen was occasionally tapped to look after Margaret when Grandpa needed or wanted to get out of the house for a bit. Jeffersen wasn't so crazy about that part of his relationship with Margaret, and he'd often just not show up or leave before Grandpa got back home. Eventually, Grandpa simply told Jeffersen he wasn't welcome in the apartment anymore.
Around last Christmas, Grandpa wound up in the hospital and then a rehab facility for a period of time, and so Jeffersen was summoned to take care of Margaret for awhile. He protested quite a bit, but eventually collected her. This sparked a long drama where Jeffersen refused to let Grandpa speak with Margaret, refused to tell Grandpa where he'd stuck Margaret, kept texting my dad demanding access to Grandpa's apartment, etc.
So last month, Grandpa was served with divorce papers by Jeffersen. Jeffersen has Margaret's power of attorney, so this is something he just decided to do because he doesn't like Grandpa, and also to see if maybe he can squeeze some money out of Grandpa in the process. (In the divorce papers, Jeffersen alleges that Grandpa "abandoned" Margaret when Grandpa was in the hospital, but he himself seems to have abandoned this tactic.)
A week or two ago, Jeffersen, his attorney, and Grandpa, Dad, Aunt Marcy, and Grandpa's attorney all went before Judge Martha Anderson. To hear my parents tell it, the discussion between Jeffersen's Barry Zuckerkorn-level attorney and the judge went something like this:
"On what grounds are you suing for divorce?" the judge asked.
"My client has power of attorney," Jeffersen's lawyer replied.
"But on what grounds are you suing for divorce?"
"Power of attorney."
Once the judge understood that there was no basis for the divorce beyond Jeffersen stamping his foot and saying, "I wannit!" she said she'd never heard of such a case and wanted to take a few weeks to think about it or search for precedent or whatever. So everyone has to go back to court on the 18th.
To feel less antsy and helpless in the interim, Dad did some sleuthing about Judge Anderson, to see if he could get a bead on her ruling habits. He dug up the following YouTube video, in which Judge Anderson presides over a motion filed by plaintiff Karen Stephens against defendant Paul Nicoletti:
Dad thought the video was pretty funny, and it is, inasmuch as everybody's kind of a jerk. But the comments posted below that video on YouTube, apparently by an involved party who won't let double-posting etiquette stop her from futilely attempting to post a link, eventually led me to this fascinating Metro Times article about a Shelby Township family driven to financial ruin by an unscrupulous contractor. Both Stephens and Nicoletti play supporting roles in the piece, and theirs is a complicated B-story within an odyssey already millipedian with tentacles. I'll try to simplify the incidents leading up to the above clip, as I understand them:
Nicoletti, the defendant, used to be Stephens's lawyer. He also used to be the lawyer of Marie Dreilich, who is a friend of Stephens. Dreilich wound up suing Nicoletti for malpractice, and Stephens was planning to be Dreilich's key witness because of her own problems with Nicoletti's law-talkin' abilities.
However, before that suit went to trial, Nicoletti went in front of Judge Anderson and got a personal protection order against Dreilich (again, not the woman in the video), claiming she was harassing him. It sounds from the story like she probably was, actually. Strangely enough, though, the PPO that Judge Anderson signed prohibited Dreilich from coming into any contact with any of Nicoletti's former clients. Which includes Stephens.
So that meant not only that these two women could not testify on each other's behalf in lawsuits against Nicoletti (they tried it and Dreilich wound up arrested for violating the PPO), but they couldn't even legally hang out together even though they're very close friends! Like, they couldn't go to church together anymore. Nicoletti effectively took out a restraining order between two grown adults who are completely unrelated to him and who really didn't want to be prevented from seeing one another! It's kind of brilliant, if you think about it.
Now, Nicoletti did threaten to take out a PPO against Stephens as well, but never did it... because he didn't need to! He already kept these two women away from each other and thus weakened Dreilich's lawsuit against him! So even though, in the video, Stephens admits that there was technically no PPO signed by Judge Anderson against her, there kind of was. And Judge Anderson knows it, because she rejected a couple motions by Dreilich to get the PPO rescinded so she and her friend could be in contact with each other.
I'm sure Judge Anderson was sick of hearing about it by the time this video takes place, because these two women do sound like they've made quite a nuisance of themselves (and the video shows that Stephens, at least, isn't doing herself any favors by mouthing off), but it's kind of a dick move on the judge's part to fine her the $500 since she knows the whole story. I assume Judge Anderson knows she overstepped her bounds in signing that PPO in the first place and is pretty defensive about it, which I bet has something to do with her freak-out in the video.
So at any rate, I hope sanity prevails when Grandpa goes before her later this month. I thought the Metro Times story was very interesting, though, which is why I thought I'd share.
As a reward for reading all this, here's the funniest Judge Judy segment I've ever seen. Even if you typically (justifiably) scoff at my television-viewing habits, trust me when I tell you that it's worth 10 minutes out of your day to watch the entire thing. The defendant lets fly with some of the most quotable non-sequiturs daytime TV has to offer, and there's even some impressive physical comedy for you lowbrows. Enjoy!
CURRENT MUSIC: Sea Lion by Ruby Suns.
CURRENT MOOD: Detoxing. Psychiatrist's office is still closed.
CURRENT FAVORITE BLOG: The Wit and Wisdom of Jessica Porridge. Jessica Porridge is a nutbar who frequently posts nigh-illegible but hilariously fervent comments in response to articles on the Waterville Morning Sentinel's website, and this guy David has been collecting her comments in LiveJournal form. Reading all her published thoughts on topics ranging from a senior who donated $6,500 to the town of Thorndike ("the town will only use you're money for non sense you don;t need like that crumbaly ashphalt that dosen't really fix the pot-holes and makes it hurt to go out across to your mailbox with barefoot, or more stupid WALLGREENS that are as bad a dump as Right Aid with low life stockboy's!I bet it's not to late to stop paymennt on yourcheck and use it for a RESPONSABL: Chairty like Olimpya Snowe!!!") to the National Day of Prayer ("I hope no one flew off off the handle, like Pastor OBamma and started praying about thing's that aren;t there place to pray about!!") is a lot like watching Idiocracy. It's a collection of derangement so pervasive that it starts to make its own otherworldly sort of sense after awhile.
My grandpa is getting sued for divorce by his wife's adopted son. Yes, it is more than a little silly!
I'm going to try to get through the backstory quickly, because my experience with most of it is secondhand, pieced together from what my parents tell me, and it's actually not the point of this entry: My grandma died in 1998. Not terribly long after, Grandpa started seeing Margaret, an old biddy whose moods, as far as I ever saw, range from snide to flat-out nasty. Over protests from my dad and his sisters that amounted to a sustained, months-long shriek, Grandpa wound up marrying her. Since then, Margaret has developed Parkinson's and, by last year, had reached the point of being unable to take care of herself, falling frequently, and lapsing into hallucinations and dementia.
Margaret has an adopted son named Jeffersen [sic]. If I understand correctly, he's actually her grandson, but Margaret legally adopted him as her son after her biological son--Jeffersen's father--went to prison and/or died. Jeffersen is a scuzz. After she married Grandpa and until Margaret required constant care and supervision, Jeffersen would appear only when he wanted to ask Margaret for money. As a result, they saw him pretty often. (Thankfully, Grandpa's finances are completely separate from Margaret's.)
As Margaret's condition deteriorated, Jeffersen's mooching pretty clearly--to my mind--entered the realm of elder abuse and financial exploitation. He would show up at the apartment, write sizeable checks to himself from Margaret's checkbook, and get her to sign them even though she was clearly not of sound mind. (My family attempted to report him to elder services and were told that such acts don't constitute abuse. That is not true.) However, at this point, Jeffersen was occasionally tapped to look after Margaret when Grandpa needed or wanted to get out of the house for a bit. Jeffersen wasn't so crazy about that part of his relationship with Margaret, and he'd often just not show up or leave before Grandpa got back home. Eventually, Grandpa simply told Jeffersen he wasn't welcome in the apartment anymore.
Around last Christmas, Grandpa wound up in the hospital and then a rehab facility for a period of time, and so Jeffersen was summoned to take care of Margaret for awhile. He protested quite a bit, but eventually collected her. This sparked a long drama where Jeffersen refused to let Grandpa speak with Margaret, refused to tell Grandpa where he'd stuck Margaret, kept texting my dad demanding access to Grandpa's apartment, etc.
So last month, Grandpa was served with divorce papers by Jeffersen. Jeffersen has Margaret's power of attorney, so this is something he just decided to do because he doesn't like Grandpa, and also to see if maybe he can squeeze some money out of Grandpa in the process. (In the divorce papers, Jeffersen alleges that Grandpa "abandoned" Margaret when Grandpa was in the hospital, but he himself seems to have abandoned this tactic.)
A week or two ago, Jeffersen, his attorney, and Grandpa, Dad, Aunt Marcy, and Grandpa's attorney all went before Judge Martha Anderson. To hear my parents tell it, the discussion between Jeffersen's Barry Zuckerkorn-level attorney and the judge went something like this:
"On what grounds are you suing for divorce?" the judge asked.
"My client has power of attorney," Jeffersen's lawyer replied.
"But on what grounds are you suing for divorce?"
"Power of attorney."
Once the judge understood that there was no basis for the divorce beyond Jeffersen stamping his foot and saying, "I wannit!" she said she'd never heard of such a case and wanted to take a few weeks to think about it or search for precedent or whatever. So everyone has to go back to court on the 18th.
To feel less antsy and helpless in the interim, Dad did some sleuthing about Judge Anderson, to see if he could get a bead on her ruling habits. He dug up the following YouTube video, in which Judge Anderson presides over a motion filed by plaintiff Karen Stephens against defendant Paul Nicoletti:
Dad thought the video was pretty funny, and it is, inasmuch as everybody's kind of a jerk. But the comments posted below that video on YouTube, apparently by an involved party who won't let double-posting etiquette stop her from futilely attempting to post a link, eventually led me to this fascinating Metro Times article about a Shelby Township family driven to financial ruin by an unscrupulous contractor. Both Stephens and Nicoletti play supporting roles in the piece, and theirs is a complicated B-story within an odyssey already millipedian with tentacles. I'll try to simplify the incidents leading up to the above clip, as I understand them:
Nicoletti, the defendant, used to be Stephens's lawyer. He also used to be the lawyer of Marie Dreilich, who is a friend of Stephens. Dreilich wound up suing Nicoletti for malpractice, and Stephens was planning to be Dreilich's key witness because of her own problems with Nicoletti's law-talkin' abilities.
However, before that suit went to trial, Nicoletti went in front of Judge Anderson and got a personal protection order against Dreilich (again, not the woman in the video), claiming she was harassing him. It sounds from the story like she probably was, actually. Strangely enough, though, the PPO that Judge Anderson signed prohibited Dreilich from coming into any contact with any of Nicoletti's former clients. Which includes Stephens.
So that meant not only that these two women could not testify on each other's behalf in lawsuits against Nicoletti (they tried it and Dreilich wound up arrested for violating the PPO), but they couldn't even legally hang out together even though they're very close friends! Like, they couldn't go to church together anymore. Nicoletti effectively took out a restraining order between two grown adults who are completely unrelated to him and who really didn't want to be prevented from seeing one another! It's kind of brilliant, if you think about it.
Now, Nicoletti did threaten to take out a PPO against Stephens as well, but never did it... because he didn't need to! He already kept these two women away from each other and thus weakened Dreilich's lawsuit against him! So even though, in the video, Stephens admits that there was technically no PPO signed by Judge Anderson against her, there kind of was. And Judge Anderson knows it, because she rejected a couple motions by Dreilich to get the PPO rescinded so she and her friend could be in contact with each other.
I'm sure Judge Anderson was sick of hearing about it by the time this video takes place, because these two women do sound like they've made quite a nuisance of themselves (and the video shows that Stephens, at least, isn't doing herself any favors by mouthing off), but it's kind of a dick move on the judge's part to fine her the $500 since she knows the whole story. I assume Judge Anderson knows she overstepped her bounds in signing that PPO in the first place and is pretty defensive about it, which I bet has something to do with her freak-out in the video.
So at any rate, I hope sanity prevails when Grandpa goes before her later this month. I thought the Metro Times story was very interesting, though, which is why I thought I'd share.
As a reward for reading all this, here's the funniest Judge Judy segment I've ever seen. Even if you typically (justifiably) scoff at my television-viewing habits, trust me when I tell you that it's worth 10 minutes out of your day to watch the entire thing. The defendant lets fly with some of the most quotable non-sequiturs daytime TV has to offer, and there's even some impressive physical comedy for you lowbrows. Enjoy!
CURRENT MUSIC: Sea Lion by Ruby Suns.
CURRENT MOOD: Detoxing. Psychiatrist's office is still closed.
CURRENT FAVORITE BLOG: The Wit and Wisdom of Jessica Porridge. Jessica Porridge is a nutbar who frequently posts nigh-illegible but hilariously fervent comments in response to articles on the Waterville Morning Sentinel's website, and this guy David has been collecting her comments in LiveJournal form. Reading all her published thoughts on topics ranging from a senior who donated $6,500 to the town of Thorndike ("the town will only use you're money for non sense you don;t need like that crumbaly ashphalt that dosen't really fix the pot-holes and makes it hurt to go out across to your mailbox with barefoot, or more stupid WALLGREENS that are as bad a dump as Right Aid with low life stockboy's!I bet it's not to late to stop paymennt on yourcheck and use it for a RESPONSABL: Chairty like Olimpya Snowe!!!") to the National Day of Prayer ("I hope no one flew off off the handle, like Pastor OBamma and started praying about thing's that aren;t there place to pray about!!") is a lot like watching Idiocracy. It's a collection of derangement so pervasive that it starts to make its own otherworldly sort of sense after awhile.
