Well, The judge considered two points:
1. My ex was named in the writ and should have been served. All the documents were mailed to her, but she was not formally served with a summons.
2. An obscure procedural technicality on time limits from the initiation of the action to the court date today. Both lawyers were ready to proceed. Judge kiboshed.
So, no stay of enforcement. No hearing. We will re-initiate the action, either by renewal or by filing new. We will serve the ex. FMEP now claims that some of the money does go to her, despite earlier contradictory statements from both California and FMEP.
My facts and statements have not changed in 20 years. Cali and FMEP have changed their stories every time they say something.
Can you say "duck and dodge" boys and girls?
1. My ex was named in the writ and should have been served. All the documents were mailed to her, but she was not formally served with a summons.
2. An obscure procedural technicality on time limits from the initiation of the action to the court date today. Both lawyers were ready to proceed. Judge kiboshed.
So, no stay of enforcement. No hearing. We will re-initiate the action, either by renewal or by filing new. We will serve the ex. FMEP now claims that some of the money does go to her, despite earlier contradictory statements from both California and FMEP.
My facts and statements have not changed in 20 years. Cali and FMEP have changed their stories every time they say something.
Can you say "duck and dodge" boys and girls?
No comments:
Post a Comment