UPDATE (March 17):
You will see when you read the comments below I believed Samantha was behind some of them. She insists she is not, and has filed a bar complaint against me that includes my assumption. I would like to state unequivocally I do not know the identity of the commenter and I may very well have been mistaken when I assumed it was Samantha. My apologies if I was wrong.
Before I continue with this story, I’d like to get something on the record.
All of the information you will read in this series came from research (which is ongoing) and conversations with Sarah that occurred late last year and in early January.
Sarah and I met when a mutual friend on Facebook introduced us. This mutual friend saw some of my posts about the firm that represented the husband in this case and, knowing what a terrible time Sarah was having dealing with that firm, directed her to my page.
That was in October, 2015, long after the trial you will later read about which concluded in May, 2015.
Now, these dates are important because a lawyer will
lie misrepresent to a judge in a post-trial fee petition hearing (hereinafter referred to as the “FPH”) about when Sarah and I met. That lawyer will further lie misrepresent when she tells that judge I contacted her Stockholm Syndrome-suffering client Samantha during the trial.
Why is my name, fabulous and exciting though it may be, being discussed at the FPH?
Simmer down, my darlings – that is coming up in a later blog. And what a delicious blog it will be, in which I will describe the single-most cringe-worthy incident of poor lawyering that may have ever occurred in the great state of Oregon.
Facts are Fun!
Not only did I not contact Samantha during the trial, I have NEVER contacted Samantha.
I have been told Samantha testified at the FPH that I contacted her during the trial and told her to sue her lawyers*, which would have been a neat trick since I didn’t know about this case until months after the trial was complete. I am receiving the audio transcripts today and will review to confirm, but if those transcripts say what I am told they will say, that’s perjury.
And the lawyer who elicited that testimony? Well, we here in legal circles like to call that “suborning perjury.”
That’s naughty behavior. Very, very naughty. If true, one could argue it would be a violation of your Diversion Agreement. Tsk, tsk, Captain Hook. Tsk, tsk!
At the very least, the lawyer made no effort to substantiate this outrageous claim. If she had, she would have known it was false, or as we in legal circles like to say, “utter bullshit.”
Who Controls What Around These Here Parts
When I began this series, Samantha accused Sarah of feeding me personal information on an ongoing basis and ruining her life, despite the fact I am using pseudonyms. That’s a little narcissistic, wouldn’t you agree?
Samantha made repeated demands that Sarah stop talking to me and is suffering under the misconception that Sarah has the power to make this blog go away. Sarah, understandably upset, reached out to me and asked what she should do.
I suggested she have Samantha contact me, because the only person with editorial power around here besides me is the Grim Reaper, and I’m sorry to disappoint some of you out there but I am a very healthy woman.
In fact, today marks the 59th day of my workout streak, something husband’s counsel, and I do mean all 11 of them(!), should do a little more of.
In other words, I’m still writing about this case.
I will also be writing in-depth about another disastrous case soon, and the parties can’t stop that series either. However, I will do them the same courtesy I did for this family and not use their real names. I will use the names of the lawyers, of course, but not the family.
Samantha has chosen to continue emailing Sarah about my blog, obviously to create a record for future litigation. Trust me, there will be future litigation. People who love drama and attention thrive on this shit, and the lawyers love the money (even if they do mock this client when she isn’t around, according to a former employee of the firm who has commented on this series).
So, herewith I am stating FOR THE RECORD, the following:
I have put a lot of work into this series and nobody, including Sarah, can make me cease publication. This case needs to be heard, discussed, and learned from.
I told Sarah when we met that once the train pulled out of the station, it was a straight shot to the final period.
I asked her some questions about the marriage so I could go beyond the court records and give the story a human element. She agreed and spoke with me but I have since told her I do not want to discuss her case for fear Samantha will somehow use it against her.
I’m a real lightening rod, have you noticed?
Samantha, if you would care to contact me directly with your concerns, please do. You can reach me at email@example.com.
In the meantime, your complaints to your ex-wife are futile, misdirected, and unfair. I suggest you focus your energies elsewhere.
Coming up next week:
The Box, the Lies, and the Unraveling
*By the way, you should sue your lawyers. They ripped you off, in my humble opinion, and even got you to hire their accountant as your own. Now that’s a full-service firm.
Did you miss the first two installments of this series? If so, click below!