Not Only in Gloucester Circuit Court.....

It's been some time since I posted on this blog.  With the passing of my estranged husband, I found myself working very hard to simply return to a life of normalcy, one that did NOT require my "showing cause" in Gloucester Circuit Court for simply trying to live.

However, I recently was saddened to see that Gloucester County Virginia is not the only place where such insanity as requiring a woman to pay spousal support to her abuser is the standard practice.  In San Diego, CA, a woman was ordered to pay her abuser, her ex-husband, convicted of sexual abuse, sentenced to serve years in prison, $3000 per month...........  Yes, you read that correctly.

Below is a link to the account of this case.  I am encouraged by this woman's determination to get the law changed in her state. I hope that national attention to her case will extend help to the many others who are subjected to the insanity, which is, apparently, not limited to "po dunk" court rooms, but is part of the "norm," even in big cities.

 Wife Ordered to Pay Abusive Ex-Husband Alimony

Next of Kin

I have not had the opportunity to sit in on court hearings in the Gloucester County Circuit Court in a few weeks.  My own case has taken such a dramatic turn, I am busy dealing with it.  However, I can note from this experience, that the craziness extends beyond the local courthouse.. in fact, my most recent experiences are from the small town of Woodruff, South Carolina.

When my husband, the one I was in the process of divorcing, passed away last month, his family decided it was appropriate to name the mother as next of kin and to proceed through funeral and burial without notifying me.  While it is true we were in the process of divorce, it is not true, as they indicated to the coroner's investigator who worked the case, that we were divorced.  Therefore, in the eyes of both the Commonwealth of Virginia, in which we last lived as husband and wife, and the state of South Carolina where we were married and where he passed away, since we are not divorced, we were still married at the time of death and the surviving spouse is the next of kin.  Simple, right?

Well, to the contrary.  When, six days after his death and three days after his burial, my attorney informed me of his being notified of my husband's passing, I contacted the Spartanburg, SC coroner's office to get information.  I learned that the death certificate is pending toxicology report and such.  I was also told by the investigator that I would need to get a document from the court that states we were still married at the time of his death, or the coroner would have no way to change the stated next of kin.

That sounded a little odd to me, but I went to my Gloucester County Clerk of the Court and inquired about getting such a document.  She looked confused and indicated there was no such thing to be provided...unless we are divorced, in which case there would have been a divorce decree, the only thing the court could provide is my marriage certificate...which, by the way, is already available to the folks in SC as that is where we were married.  She suggested I confer with my attorney to see whether he could provide something to satisfy the SC coroner's investigator.

My attorney suggested the best move would be for me to send the letter I had already penned to the coroner's office.  In the letter, I gave my attorney's contact information.  I sent the letter via certified mail, and sure enough, within a week, I received a certified mail response from the investigator...he wanted what he'd requested in the first place, a statement from the court... not from me.  He noted that he would communicate with my attorney, since I had provided that information.

So followed another meeting with my attorney, who, I might add, was completely unimpressed with the SC coroner's investigator.  Seems my attorney called the guy and spent an extended amount of time going through my file to find SOMETHING this guy would accept... in the end, it was a single line at the end of the Pendente Lite order that the investigator indicated would suffice for his needs... the line stated as follows:

" and this matter is continued upon the docket of the Court."

No, seriously, this is the necessary information this guy needed... why?  Because, he told my attorney, they have so many cases of people fraudulently CLAIMING to be next of kin.... Really? You mean, like my husband's mother, whom, I am certain this investigator is not challenging to provide PROOF of her claim as next of kin?  Actually, in all seriousness, this sounds like an investigator who made a mistake, overstepped his bounds and is now costing me money, time and stress to correct his error.

I have yet to be notified by the coroner or his investigator that the correction has been made, but will be following up with phone call and written inquiry next week.

And so, I might yet end up seeing the inside of the Woodruff Court ... time will tell. 

Case Dismissed?

In a rather bizarre twist to my own pending case in the Gloucester, Virginia Circuit Court, June 15, I found out that my husband, the one I was in the process of divorcing, had passed away on June 9,  and his family had him buried on June 12.  I was never informed.  Rather, his family member called his attorney, notified him of my husband's death, and requested nobody tell me until I was in court, June 18, in front of the judge, expecting to proceed with the pre e.d hearing, and showing cause as to why I had not fully complied with the Pendente Lite order.

I was stunned to hear the news on several levels.  I was, however, grateful to the person in his attorney's office who decided it was appropriate, regardless of the request of the family member, to at least let my attorney know of the Defendant's passing.  Still, yesterday afternoon, at 3:00PM when I visited the Clerk of the Court, there was no notice given to me that I need not appear in court tomorrow.  When I asked, the woman behind the window, took my file, armed with the information I provided that my husband had passed away, and went down the hall to consult with the Judge's "right hand woman."  When she returned she affirmed I would not need to appear in court, the matter had been dismissed.

And so, as the next few weeks unfold, I will see another side of the Gloucester, Virginia Court.  My own case suddenly no longer a case, I am free to watch and learn, investigate and write about what I see...

Motion Never Filed

This is a motion I drafted.  I provided this motion to my attorney after an additional threat was received, issued from the cell phone of my estranged husband, and threatening to blow up my house and beat my "hind end" from one pond to the other....

I had already, on April 20, provided a similar request to my attorney, based on historical issues of threats to burn the house and to kill me...

Again I had requested he submit it on 5/6/10 after I notified him of the threat made on 5/5/10....

To-date, my attorney has acted on neither of these, nor issued a SHOW CAUSE for violation of the Order (against harassment -- the mutual injunctions).  Instead, the address I was trying to protect, has been made known... I was served with SHOW CAUSE papers at that address, on June 5, 2010.

Now, I wasn't expecting the motion to be filed as I wrote it.  Of course, I expected my attorney to clean it up and present it appropriately... but I guess he felt it was just not necessary. When I contacted his office to let them know I'd been served at that address, they responded with, "he wants to meet with you in person, Friday afternoon is his earliest appointment...."  So,tomorrow, I am confident, he will explain why he is still right and I am wrong in my reading of the Code, which requires I make such a motion BEFORE I am able to withhold the address from Discovery....

VIRGINIA:  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER

X. X. XXXXX

Plaintiff,

v.                                                                                          Case No:  XXXXXXXX

X. X. XXXXX

Defendant.

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS:  DISCOVERY

COMES NOW Plaintiff, X. X. XXXXX, by Counsel, X.X. XXXXX, Esquire, and hereby moves for the issuance of Protective Orders pursuant to § vscr-4:1 (c) to exclude from Defendant's Discovery any disclosure of physical address and telephone number of Plaintiff's Post-Separation Residence (PSR), for reasons of personal safety and so as to prevent further annoyance by threats directed at the Plaintiff by Defendant, and whereto Plaintiff now respectfully speaks as follows:

1.  That on May 5, 2010, Plaintiff received a telephone threat which is shown to have originated from the Defendant and documented by the attached Exhibits X-X and  X-X, which same threat was designed to discourage the Plaintiff's lawful prosecution of this case, and which delivered specific threats to the Plaintiff's safety and property in direct violation of this very Court's order preventing the occurrence of same conduct.  This threat having been duly reported to the law enforcement authority on May 6, has been digitally preserved in its original content, inclusive of originator information, and is available to the Court's examination.

2.  That this Defendant has previously and severally, threatened to set fire to the so-called marital residence and to the Plaintiff herself, and which events are further summarized in attachment hereto, authored on April 20, 2010, and labeled by the Plaintiff as "X-X."  Plaintiff states that for this specific reason and as a direct result of concern for her personal safety, she has vacated the marital home and has relocated to a Post-Separation Residence which is made secure by the effect that its physical location is not known to the Defendant.

3.  That there exist numerous records and admissions showing that this Defendant has willfully and maliciously propelled against the Plaintiff a campaign of serial domestic violence and threats committed within this jurisdiction, and which events were designed for purposes of Defendant's monetary enrichment, to dissuade the Plaintiff from seeking a divorce and from pursuing criminal charges.  These same plural acts of terrorism, made known by record to this jurisdiction, have included events of assault against the Plaintiff and against sheriff's deputies, and for which the Defendant is believed to be presently on Court Probation issued by Judge X.X.XXXX. 

WHEREFORE, based on the above reported information, the Plaintiff, by Counsel, respectfully requests remedies and protections as follow:

A.  First, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue Protective Measures with regard to the discovery of the physical address of her Post-Separation Residence (PSR).  Relative thereto, Plaintiff states that she has already provided to Defendant's Discovery, by Exhibits X-X through X-X, pertinent information regarding the PSR budgeting, expenditures, and source of funding, but she has withheld therefrom and refuses to provide to the Defendant her physical address, stating as reason "fear for her life."

B.  Plaintiff requests that the Court consider findings of Contempt against the Defendant, relative to his blatant disregard for the process of this Court and so as to discourage Defendant's continued conduct of threats and harassment designed to prevent the prosecution of this matter before the Court, and,

C.  That Plaintiff be awarded Court costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 4:12(a)(4) as concerns this Motion and its hearing.

                                                                                      X. X.XXXXX

                                                                                    _______________________

                                                                                      by, Of Counsel

Failure to File Motion

When I handed my attorney the Motion for Protective Order I had drafted, I expected him to ask me questions.  I was prepared to explain my position in requesting this motion be filed, but he did not ask me any questions.  He made only a single statement to the effect that he was glad I was taking that route rather than trying to hide the fact that I had bought the old farmhouse I was trying to protect.  I took that to mean he was going to take my draft, clean it up and file  the motion with the Court.  Why I thought that, I have no idea...just seemed that was his indication when he voiced his approval.  That was April 20, 2010.

The protective order requested the address of the old farmhouse I had purchased and in which I have been living, post separation, be provided only to the Court as needed, but protected from disclosure to the Defendant and his counsel, for safety reasons.  After all, Defendant has repeatedly threatened to burn down the "marital" residence, and kill me.  When he was served with my complaint for divorce, his first order of business was to call me on the phone and threaten me....  So, I decided it best to move quickly to secure another place to live, leaving the "marital" home vacant.  The protective order was requested in time to have it in place when the Pendente Lite hearing was held on April 23, 2010.

As it turned out, my attorney did not file my motion, as requested.  Instead, he focused on ensuring I submitted my proffers and budget sheet so he could have them filed and available to the Court during the P/L hearing.  That was, in my opinion, a complete waste of time.  Apparently no surprise to my attorney, the judge refused to consider fault and refused to look at the budget when making his Pendente Lite ruling...he opted to simply go by the "guidelines." 

Back in my attorney's office two weeks later, I asked again about my motion for protective order.  I was being pressured to complete discovery questions demanding I disclose all purchases made since separation.  I had willingly supplied these records, carefully covering the address so it could not be seen in the photocopies.  I had read the Virginia Code and knew if I wanted to withhold that address, I MUST have requested, by motion, the protection of that information.  Again I asked my attorney to get that motion filed.

On May 27, with the motion STILL not filed, having received yet another phone threat, this time from Defendant's "girlfriend," I met again with my attorney.  I carried with me, again, the proposed motion.  This time he asked the questions I'd imagined he'd ask when I originally submitted the motion request to him.  "Why do you want to file this motion?"  I explained my need to protect the house and my location from the Defendant and his attorney, and as I read the Code, I must file this motion to be able to withhold that information.  He explained again about, "how things are done" in this court.  The more "procedurally correct" method was to simply answer the discovery requirement, but not give the address.  When Defendant's counsel squawked about it, and the judge asked why I was withholding it, we could then present our case, and need for the protective order. 

Trying to trust my attorney, willing to accept he was the expert and I am just some goofball with access to the Internet and full of energy to make certain I am not completely ripped off by this system, I promised to let him work the case the way he knew to be best.

As Murphy's Law would have predicted, my attorney's failure to act as requested has now come back to bite me.  On Saturday, June 5,  I was alerted by my neighbor there was a man with a red car looking for me....this, it turns out, was the processor, here to serve me papers.  He showed up here, at my "safe" location.  And I don't have any way, now, to protect my address from disclosure... it has already been compromised.  And my life is, once again, in jeopardy, because of my attorney's failure to file.

My attorney told me, when last we met, that he was concerned that we are operating in an adversarial manner, which would make his representation of me more difficult.  Wanting to ensure he was given every chance to win my case, I resolved myself to the notion I would let him show his talents, without interference.  

And so, tonight, as I started to send him an email asking for explanation on his failure to file, and in which I shared the fact that the processor served me HERE and that the motion, or request to protect the address is now made moot by the fact that they already have it and are using it, I decided there was really no point.  A bell cannot be "unrung" and he was never going to file my motion anyway, so I could point to it as my defense for not providing the address during discovery.  I will not send the letter.   I will await my attorney's next move.  Proactive it will not be, I am afraid....

Protective Orders and Reasonable Costs Considered -- Pendente Lite

My Friday afternoon in the Gloucester, Virginia Circuit Court was, as I mentioned in my previous post, an interesting one.  Primarily interested in the divorce cases heard and decided here, however, I must switch my focus back to the only divorce case I witnessed that afternoon.

Conflicted Counsel from my case was representing the wife.  An attorney I had not before had the opportunity to observe was representing the husband.  The judge was the same as in all of the cases I have witnessed to-date.  Now, as I recall, and as is confirmed in the transcript of my own Pendente Lite hearing, Judge R. Bruce Long does not hear fault in Pendente Lite hearings.  To quote the honorable judge,

"You want me to get into the issue of fault, and I'm not going to deal with the issue of fault pendente lite.  I haven't done that in the past. I don't think it's a good idea to start that now."

OK, so let's proceed on that presumption then. 

Before the judge this day was a husband who has a protective order against him, and who works outside the home, earning $4000 per month, is living at his mother and stepfather's and is paying them $600 rent for room and board.  The wife also works outside the home but only three days per month, with a monthly income of approximately $150.  She and the two children, one of whom is an adult child with disabling migraines who receives social security support, the other of whom is a 16 year old, live in the marital home, the $1100 mortgage on which, is paid by the husband.

Now, the immediate question is pertaining to the temporary protective order that is in place and which prevents the husband's any contact with the wife or the children, with the exception of email or unless initiated by the wife or children.  The two attorneys argue the point back and forth about whether he should be allowed to text his children back when they text him, when it is considered "initiated by the child" etc.  Conflicted Counsel suggested the girls don't want their father contacting them and that a guardian should perform a study to determine what is in the best interest of the children......AND this good attorney, the same one who wants the Court to believe that my husband is just some poor soul who wouldn't hurt a flea, despite the court records in this very courthouse which speak to the contrary, was all over this protective order, speaking at length about how the husband is abusive, demonstrated by his use of the cell phone. According to Conflicted Counsel, this man, if he were on his way to work and called home to speak to one of his family, and they did not answer the phone so he could berate them over the phone, he'd turn the car around and come home so he could berate them in person.... excuse me, but are we discussing "fault" in a Pendente Lite hearing????

Well, OK, but what ELSE was considered in this award of support in this case? Oh yes, let's recall that this judge loves the "guidelines" ... those rather odd contrivances of reality that allow the judge to feel "equitable" while completely destroying decent people's lives.  So, the "guidelines" allow the consideration of "family debt" to include ONLY mortgage/rent and automobile payments.  The "guidelines" consider "family income" in terms of gross income.

Well, the family income reported to be about $4150 per month, with the adult child's SS support payment being added to the wife's income, for reasons unclear to anyone but Conflicted Counsel who offered it as such.  Opposing counsel opposed and the judge agreed with opposing counsel, that the SS support was better characterized for the purposes of the "guidelines" as "child support."  Conflicted Counsel was unhappy with this ruling, rather wanting the husband to be required to pay $807 per month in addition to that $440 amount already being paid by the State.  This, of course, is in addition to the $1100 mortgage, and the utilities, and the insurance costs the husband is carrying.  Nevertheless, Conflicted Counsel is adamant, this is not right, but the judge declares it is, and so it shall be.

Next, Conflicted Counsel challenges the "rent" being stipulated as the husband's payment to his mother and step-father for the use of a room in their house.  He defines the rent as "bogus" and designed to rob the family of much needed monies.  

The two attorneys examine and cross-examine the husband and the husband's step-father and the truth rings out pretty clear... the step-father isn't about to give the 45 year old step-son a free ride... he set the rent himself and has no qualms about charging it.  In the end, after Conflicted Counsel had badgered the two men about how much of the $600 was for food, and how much for utilities, and wasn't it true that the three bedroom house was really set up such that the mother (with cancer) was in one room, the step-father in another and the computer set up in the third, meaning that the husband was REALLY sleeping on the fold-out couch in the sun room, neither of the men would allow Conflicted Counsel to have his way.  The last exchange, directed at the 75 year old step-father, went like this,

"How did you decide how much rent to charge him?"

"I pulled it out of my hat."

"Did you wear that hat today?" asked Conflicted Counsel of the bald man in the witness chair.

"No, it's against the law to wear a hat in court."

(Good for the old man!  Conflicted Counsel needed to be taken down a peg or two!)

And then it was time to examine and cross-examine the wife.  Could she actually work more hours to help with the strapped financial situation?  Neither attorney did a particularly good job at getting this woman to explain a very odd work arrangement she has with an employer for whom she has worked 23 years... nor did anyone suggest that there might be another way to earn income that did not require the woman to leave the home, etc. etc.  Nevertheless, the judge looked at her last year's earnings and decided to base his numbers for the "guidelines" on those figures. 

The judge chose to allow the full $600 claimed by the husband, even though, as Conflicted Counsel pointed out, both the husband AND the father-in-law agreed that this amount included food and utilities, items that are NOT part of the "guidelines."  Nevertheless, the judge found it "reasonable" and so he USED HIS DISCRETION and granted them.

Now, the net result to the wife, according to Conflicted Counsel, is that she will get something like $400 plus the husband's portion of the child support and this will be very hard for his client.  Based on my own calculations, since the total monthly income is $4150 out of which is taken both taxes and insurance costs, I'm guessing the take home pay is more in the neighborhood of $3500 per month.  The husband is paying the $1100 for the mortgage, $600 in rent and will pay about $800 in combined spousal and child support.  He is also paying the utilities for the family.  Regardless, this man will pay more than half his take home pay to support his family during the pendente lite period.  I don't imagine that sounds too bad to someone who is being represented and who represents himself as being the one"at fault" for the failed marriage.

Nevertheless, the judge clearly considered the aspect of fault in this hearing, when he heard the protective order arguments and he extended the "guidelines" in this man's case, to include food and utilities.  These two considerations seem to me to be in direct opposition to his statements made during MY pendente lite hearing.  

In my case, while I am the innocent party, the victim of the abuse, the ONLY one who worked and contributed financially to the marriage and the assets thereof, and the one whose life was threatened repeatedly by the man who wanted to ENSURE I would never seek a divorce, even despite ALL of this, the judge, in refusing to hear fault, and further refusing to consider my actual budget (in that I pay ALL of the bills, all of the debts, AND was, for the first year of our now two-year separation, sending the man an ADDITIONAL $500 per month, to help him while he got a job... of course that never happened....), succeeded in awarding this abuser just under 50% of my take-home pay.   My monthly obligations without the additional support exhaust the entire take-home pay.

There are no children of our marriage.  We were married less than half the time of the couple in the case I witnessed Friday.  And, just in case the judge HAD reviewed my file the night before, as his "right hand gal" assured me he was doing when I tried to see my file the day before the hearing, he knew very well that he was putting me into a Catch-22 situation.  I simply cannot pay all of the family bills AND pay that "temporary" alimony without further encumbering a "marital" asset.....

I am still pondering the "why" of this ruling...  I did object to the order, though it took an act of God to get my attorney to include my objections on the "Seen and Objected to" line of the order.  I am going to file a motion for a reconsideration.  But, as of today, Conflicted Counsel has issued a motion for SHOW CAUSE of why I haven't complied with the order (as yet not signed by the judge as far as I know).

Something is just not right in this Gloucester, Virginia Circuit Court...  The judge who "never considers fault" pendente lite has considered it on two occasions I have witnessed... the first for an adultery case and this one with the protective order....

Next Friday will be another opportunity for me to further my research in this courtroom......

Bowser Refuses to Clear Right of Way -- Judge Long Returns Bowser to Gloucester County Jail

I spent Friday afternoon in court again.  I am watching, taking notes, and generally learning about the cases that come through this courtroom, the arguments heard, the decisions made, etc.  This Friday afternoon was a very interesting one, with only one of the cases being divorce related.

The first case I watched was one in which the defendant was led into court sporting his orange, county-issued jumpsuit.  The judge explained to this man that he'd had a survey performed of the "right of way" in question, and the cost of that survey was $2000.  Furthermore, the judge explained, the cost to clear that right of way was estimated at $2400.  The judge asked the defendant whether he was prepared to clear the right of way himself.  The defendant started to explain his position on the matter, and the judge cut him short. "are you going to clear it?"  The defendant obliged the judge and offered his single word answer, "No."

The judge reminded the defendant that he was going to be liable for the $4400 and would be returned to the county jail, and asked him if he wanted to change his mind.  The defendant responded with, "if I agree to this, I will be saying that everything I have been fighting for for five years is not true. No, I would rather stand on the truth and take the punishment."

And with that, the man who, presumably, is spending his time in the county jail for non-compliance with a judge's order, was led back out of the courtroom.  I wrote a note to myself...."Story here" as it seemed to me I had just witnessed something that has a very long history, and which was likely to be of interest.  Two things struck me about the less that five minute exchange between the players.  The defendant was not angry or belligerent sounding, seemed genuine and convinced he was standing up for the truth.  Judge Long seemed resigned to the fact that this defendant was not going to back down.  He did not beat the guy up, just gave him a second chance to change his mind, and then returned him to the county jail.  It seemed as if this scene had been played out more than once on this case.

Later that night, and again today, I spent some time researching the case, and it is, indeed, an interesting one.  The defendant charges corruption in the county, corruption that involves judges and attorneys, and more.  And his case is a simple one on the surface.  This is a land dispute.  The defendant, Bowser, claims he witnessed a surveyor on his property, marking and pounding in steel posts, changing, he contends, the actual property lines for property which he owns, robbing him, he says, of over 8 acres of land, when the "right of way" is included.  From what I was able to find on the Internet, this case has been in the Gloucester County circuit court for at least 3 years, with Bowser defending himself against the plaintiff who, according to Bowser, he has never been able to meet in court.  The plaintiff's attorney has been the only one there, and has, according to Bowser, been allowed to enter into evidence, faulty documents, while the defendant has had his documents, supporting his property claim, routinely denied.

Interestingly, this defendant, Bowser, also ran for Gloucester County Sheriff in 2007... although, just before the election, Bowser was sent to the county jail for his refusing to comply with a court order.... I am not clear as to whether the court order for which he was sent to jail is the one that ordered him to pay plaintiff's attorneys fees when the plaintiff filed a non-suit, after which the judge dismissed Bowser's counterclaim, or whether this was another order, requiring Bowser to clear the right of way.  Whatever the order, the sentence just before election day ensured he would have little chance of being elected to the position he sought.  He contends he was a front runner in the primary, with 36% of the vote.  Whether this is accurate or not, he was not elected Sheriff in the 2007 elections.

And here he is, two and a half years later, still fighting the same battle and still spending his time in the county jail, convinced the corrupt judges and attorneys are simply continuing a scheme to steal land from the rightful owners.....  Is Bowser's case a credible one?  I don't really know.  I'd like to see the transcripts, though, I suspect, there are great gaps in such, since much of what transpires in this court transpires without benefit of record....  Regardless, more research is called for and more research I shall do.

I actually was in court Friday afternoon until 6PM, with other cases lasting beyond the "closing time" at the Gloucester County Courthouse.  I will write about those cases in the days to come, but the one that took only five minutes left me with so many questions, I simply had to pursue it first.