Today on Oh Hell No Theater

I would be the first person to admit that I am a borderline moron, like, a should-have-a-special-license-plate kind of moron. I've come to terms with it and I am learning to live with it, day by day, it's a process. But then I converse with laterals or colleagues and I wonder if maybe there's a lot of stuff that I just don't understand, like there's an answer that is glaringly obvious to me that other people don't see, which would imply that my neon-response is wrong, because if it was right, it would occur to everyone. Right?

Case in point:

Facts as related by potential client (Dad): Mom met a man 12 days ago and is moving out of the family home and into his cabin in a very remote area. Mom's new BF was arrested and convicted recently for kidnapping his ex-GF and is on felony probation. Child is 2. Dad is refusing to allow visits at new BF's house.

Obviously Mom exercises poor judgment in introducing son to new BF after two week relationship. Mom denies new BF has ever been in trouble, again, probably poor judgment if the story is true. Dad identified new BF from i'net news feed with photo and story. Has some confirming court records. No other known facts at this time. Mom threatens to have Dad arrested if he doesn't let her have child. He says she can visit at the family residence.

My strong sense is this situation is appropriate for supervised visits with Mom, no contact between child and new BF. Unsure about ex parte [emergency relief from the courts]. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Seriously? Someone with over twenty years experience needs to float a balloon on this?

But wait, there's more. Two hours later:

UPDATE: Dad just called me from son's school. Mom alerted him that she would be picking up the child and taking him to her new home. I spoke with Mom over the phone and explained our concerns. She agreed to let Dad take the child, but wanted to "give him a hug goodbye." And you guessed it, she picked him up and began to run off. Now the police have been summoned and Mom and Dad are waiting for them.

I told Dad to tell the police that if it turns out BF is not who we believe him to be, Dad will be OK with child going with Mom. That way, cops can confirm BF's identity and hopefully agree to let Dad have son until the court hears an ex parte.

Yup. And as the day wore on, other people shared their issues.

Here is a peculiar situation i need help with. I consulted with a potential client with a wierd situation, She basically got married to her spouse (in prison) so she could have conjugal visits. So, there are two children of the "marriage" and she had not seen her "husband" in about 10 years, yet she has never indicated to him that she wants a divorce or that she no longer wants to be married.

Now, she wants to buy a home, but wants to know if she should wait until she is divorced. My inclination is to say yes. wouldnt the husband have to quitclaim his interest while the divorce is pending, which will be difficult since he is in prison. As such, i proposed taking his default, assuming he wont respond. She also asked about a legal seperation??

Bottom line, isnt it safest to wait until she gets a divorce judgment before she buys a home? or else he might have an ownership interest right?

Any thoughts???

Textspeak in grown folk, it's like having to see mutton dressed as lamb. Why would a person be threatened by capitalization or apostrophes? Not to mention that the substantive questions are completely basic 101 type stuff. I was embarrassed for her.

I'm a little disappointed by this one too. All that possibility and the best he could do was whine to a listserv. Really? You couldn't hire someone to dress as a cop or Det. Art Vandelay and arrest him for fake identity theft? Or make him go through rounds of interviews including one to the "head office" in Rancho Cucamonga that turned out to be a Foster's Freeze? Bah.

This is both a warning and a request for advice. I just had a most bizarre experience. Our firm is hiring a new paralegal, and a gentleman named Edward A. Cosio responded to our ad on craigslist. He provided an excellent resume, showing 10 years of experience. He states he has been working at “Pillsbury, Madison & Cooper, LLP, A Professional Law Corporation” for the last five years as their senior paralegal in the family law division. (NOTE: you cannot be an LLP and a PLC at the same time, but I did not catch it at first glance). He also states five years experience working with the Los Angeles Superior Court Family Law Facilitator’s Office. He is a Certified Paralegal through Loyola Marymount University.

Also attached to the resume was a glowing letter of recommendation from the Firm Administrator, Timothy S. Johnson.

He showed up for his interview on time, was impeccably dressed, and well-mannered. His interview went well, but I just had a feeling that something was a little off. So I called the Firm Administrator to discuss the recommendation. The person who answered the phone sounded exactly like Mr. Cosio. I was transferred to the Firm Administrator, who also happened to sound exactly like Mr. Cosio.

Following up on my suspicions, I determined that there is no such firm as Pillsbury, Madison & Cooper. (It is Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro). The address on the letterhead is false. And a reverse search of the firm’s phone number revealed that it was actually a cell phone!

So first, I want to warn all of you of this fraud. Second, I am wondering if I should do something (besides warn all of you). I’m not sure it is a crime to falsify a resume. Or whether there is some agency I should inform. I feel like I should do SOMETHING, but have no idea.

The firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro doesn't exist anymore either, it was absorbed into some behemoth or other some time ago, and no, it has nothing to do with baked goods, I asked the same thing.

EARLY EVENING UPDATE: Mags brings it full circle!

Prisoners have access to notaries, participate in divorces and initiate and defend lawsuits. I once had a prisoner demand an increase in spousal support by setting an OSC. Grounds were that she objected to jail food, needed more clothes and more of an allowance. They have legal help (there are attorneys in prison, there is a law library, computers, etc.) Probably this is where Edward Cosio got his paralegal training, and forgery practice. More importantly they do know they have rights to property purchased during the marriage. Prisoners may be earning nothing but the community has an interest in the real estate, even with a quitclaim. I don't mean half.
She needs to complete her divorce first, and don't assume he will be cooperative about anything.
Of course if she married him just for the conjugal visits which take place in a trailer on prison grounds, she may not take good advice from you since she has probably ignored good advice all her life.