denying visits

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
With your attitude you are guaranteed to lose which you obviously have if
you think this is false hope.

You are obviously not aware the people who disagree with you have been
through the system, have experience as custodial parents and non-custodial
parents, and have studied family law issues for years.

Your spamming of this group always seems to come down to basic differences
in your theories versus our knowledge of practice. It's like going to a
fathers rights attorney who claims to had made sophisticated and complex
legal arguments on behalf of clients. When asked for examples of how they
worked to change how judges normally rule, the attorneys cannot produce any
anecdotes about how the outcomes were influenced by their arguments.

It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings it is
obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by listening to
losers.You either had a poor or unpaid attorney, a meritless case for your
custody or tried to run your case yourself.Just because you or a group of
losers that gather on a newsgroup dont win your cases doesn't mean a father
with a good case and a good lawyer cant win his case.

oe"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
With your attitude you are guaranteed to lose which you obviously have if
you think this is false hope.

You are obviously not aware the people who disagree with you have been
through the system, have experience as custodial parents and non-custodial
parents, and have studied family law issues for years.

Your spamming of this group always seems to come down to basic differences
in your theories versus our knowledge of practice. It's like going to a
fathers rights attorney who claims to had made sophisticated and complex
legal arguments on behalf of clients. When asked for examples of how they
worked to change how judges normally rule, the attorneys cannot produce
any
anecdotes about how the outcomes were influenced by their arguments.

"fathersrights" wrote
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.
==
ROFLAO!!
==
By your own postings it is
obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by listening
to losers.You either had a poor or unpaid attorney, a meritless case for
your custody or tried to run your case yourself.Just because you or a
group of losers that gather on a newsgroup dont win your cases doesn't
mean a father with a good case and a good lawyer cant win his case.
==
Citations of cases you "won?" You are the loser around here--attempting to
scam money
from noncustodial parents by peddling your snake oil and pretending you're a
lawyer.
Hmm..aren't there laws against that?

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
TACTIC 1
Pleadings requesting only limited visitation are the best evidence of an
unwillingness to facilitate! Use those pleadings as an example in your
closing argument. Argue: "My client seeks equal time for the parents. Mrs.
X
seeks to limit the father's time to every other weekend. Mrs. X's
pleadings
... (lift up her pleadings).. and arguments before this court ... are the
best evidence of her unwillingness to further a close and continuing
relationship between the child and the father!" (A major AND CASE WINNING
element in best interests statutes)

I have to call BS again. This tactic has nothing to do with current custody
law.

Here's a hint for your next version of your fathers rights scam - Suggest
fathers work aggressively to get a favorable Parenting Plan approved by a
judge to allow them pre-determined and well defined access to their children
that a court will enforce. And the plan can have an impact on the CS paid
if structured correctly.

Where did you get your experience? I don't think I've read that here. What
percent of fathers that come to you end up with custody? I don't think I've
read that, either.

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings it is
obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by listening
to losers.You either had a poor or unpaid attorney, a meritless case for
your custody or tried to run your case yourself.Just because you or a
group of losers that gather on a newsgroup dont win your cases doesn't
mean a father with a good case and a good lawyer cant win his case.

oe"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
With your attitude you are guaranteed to lose which you obviously have
if
you think this is false hope.

You are obviously not aware the people who disagree with you have been
through the system, have experience as custodial parents and
non-custodial
parents, and have studied family law issues for years.

Your spamming of this group always seems to come down to basic
differences
in your theories versus our knowledge of practice. It's like going to a
fathers rights attorney who claims to had made sophisticated and complex
legal arguments on behalf of clients. When asked for examples of how
they
worked to change how judges normally rule, the attorneys cannot produce
any
anecdotes about how the outcomes were influenced by their arguments.

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings it is
obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by listening
to

what the hell Is a nort?

On Apr 7, 7:48�pm, "fathersrights" wrote:
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings it is
obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful *by listening to
losers.You either had a poor or unpaid attorney, a meritless case for your
custody or tried to run your case yourself.Just because you *or a group of
losers that gather on a newsgroup dont win your cases doesn't mean a father
with a good case and a good lawyer cant win his case.

oe"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

...





"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
With your attitude you are guaranteed to lose which you obviously have if
you think this is false hope.

You are obviously not aware the people who disagree with you have been
through the system, have experience as custodial parents and non-custodial
parents, and have studied family law issues for years.

Your spamming of this group always seems to come down to basic differences
in your theories versus our knowledge of practice. *It's like going to a
fathers rights attorney who claims to had made sophisticated and complex
legal arguments on behalf of clients. *When asked for examples of how they
worked to change how judges normally rule, the attorneys cannot produce
any
anecdotes about how the outcomes were influenced by their arguments.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The ONLY advice you ever gie here is to go to your site to sell your
book (or whatever it is). You never give advice here.

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in message
...

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings it
is obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by
listening to

what the hell Is a nort?

I think it's a typo--he really meant "snort".

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in message
...

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings it
is obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by
listening to

what the hell Is a nort?

I think it's a typo--he really meant "snort".

Obhiviously.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"teachrmama" wrote
"Dusty Steenbock" wrote

"fathersrights" wrote
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise
you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings
it
is obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by
listening to

what the hell Is a nort?

I think it's a typo--he really meant "snort".

Obhiviously.
==
Heh, I wonder if he uses that word in his "briefs."