Posted by To Trina Wolf and others. If you want to get your son back (and improve your life), show the court you are not an abusive, narcissistic parent.
It is not an attempt to get you. It is an attempt to help you.
It is hard to understand. I can explain it.
—
Then I looked some more because what I saw the last time still bothers me. Internet browsing can tell the story through history. With current events all you get is now, so you have to wait maybe years to see how it turns out and then even more for what it means. I don’t know what it means, so that part is conjecture.
For now, until they come up with something more everlasting, the state supreme court case will be their legacy. I was curious why Michael Uda was absent from the Uda Law Firm. Perhaps it was a sabbatical to run for Montana state senate. I thought: I wouldn’t elect him.
But now I find out that he was trounced 82% to 18%. The thought entered my mind to file a bar association complaint before the election, but I missed that.
From what I can gather, most of the legal profession backed-out of the Trina Wolf case. She is a sick woman who needs help, not more lawyers and especially not supreme court cases that make her look ridiculous. I am not a lawyer but I remember the scene (motion) in the Tom Cruise movie where the older and wiser lawyer said ‘You object. You don’t object over and over because all that does is repeat the other side.’ The result was the judge said “The witness is an expert and the court will hear his opinion.” This case was lost–at least that way, with that defense–and all the appeal to the Montana Supreme Court did was make it unanimous and much louder.
Uda’s campaign website is sprinkled with the same uneasy rhetoric about a rigged and unfair legal system. Excuses don’t get any more pathetic.
Geez, the tribulations of the pathetic losers. Suppose I write the ABA and tell them he failed to treat her severe NPD and instead took advantage of her. He got her to buy into his pathetic (there’s that word again) little law firm for her own defense and piece of mind and she was swindled. As is typical of con artists, she was down and losing and she lost even more.
The ABA protest could be worth the effort. Usually “ethics” to lawyers means “illegal.” This has nothing to do with that at all. And it doesn’t have anything to do with a civil judgement either. From an ethics standpoint it has to do with the fiduciary responsibility of what is best for your client. But the real point of bringing it up is, do you want to know what is really behind it and possibly cure or solve it?
Trina’s first amendment rights… It is about the son!