question on court/law/judge behavior

Not having a lawyer in general, (unless small claims) is a mistake. See, you need to pay your tribute to the system. And if a judge sees you are bypassing that tribute, things aren't going to go well for you. No matter that you are 100% correct.

What's that saying again? A man who represents himself, has a fool for a client.

 

Eh, Lawyers get paid by the hour on everything they do. They have no issue getting paid for reading. Something else is missing. Ive only dealt with FED judges on the criminal side and they were more than squared away.

 

yeah, i was posting with 3 things going on at the same time (re spelling errors)...minor daughter is a heir of the estate, mom is the sole beneficiary of the ex husbands TSP. estate (2 older daughters from previous marriage) are claiming that the tsp - a non probate asset belongs in the estate and should be turned over by mom. GAL was appointed to represent the minors interests - and is working to put the TSP into the probate as well. both say the named beneficiary was voided because of the divorce. however TSP has VERY specific rules that are federally governed concerning beneficiaries and a divorce does not negate a named beneficiary - as they are claiming. hope that clears it up. this info is easily found online with multiple cases that came to the same conclusion.

 

a quote from the lawyer you listed...and further proof that she is entitled the TSP as named beneficiary

In the event of a divorce, a member should take steps to file a new designation of beneficiary with TSP to ensure that the beneficiary they want to receive benefits is the person currently named. Otherwise, TSP has no option but to pay out to the beneficiary listed, even if that is a former spouse! That is true even if the former spouse waived any interest in the TSP account.

 

Sounds like that is the lawyer you need to hire to draft that up in "legalese" for you.

 

oh we have entered a whole opposition to the estates claim - it lists NUMEROUS cases, settled law etc...(without spelling mistakes lol) and the judge hasnt even read it! lol. while threatening double damages unless the money is turned over - while not making a judgement ordering it....too be honest its better written than the opposing counsel and with less spelling mistakes lol.

 

Dumb question (trying to learn) but if you are the beneficiary why is it part of the estate and why can you not just withdraw it?

 

Sounds like you need a Criminal lawyer.....

 

Aren’t they all criminals?

 

Nothing would surprise me when it comes to judges and the legal system.

I sat in a courtroom on a death penalty appeal case where a judge had come out of retirement specifically to hear the case because he had been on the bench during the original trial. One of the grounds for appeal was court bias, specifically the judge in question!

On more than one occasion I personally saw this judge fall asleep during testimony. That is when he wasn't shrieking at people or having them removed from the courtroom, or routinely forgetting/mixing up the names of the lawyers, witnesses and defendant.

I saw a lot of other things there you would only expect to see in a movie about some kangaroo court in a third world nation run by a petty dictator. Scared the living shit out of me.

 

good questions - and why are they saying it needs to be turned over to the estate...

 

The dunning-kruger effect is strong with this type of nightmare client. Those that are 100% convinced of the correctness of their position but are only aware of 99% of the law not only lose every time based on the 1% they don't know, but they also require the most maintenance and time for any attorney. More time is necessary to explain why they are wrong than is required to win their cases.

Would you reject a doctor when ill and suggest medically treating or operating on yourself because you've 'done your research'? Get an attorney you trust. Follow their advice. Or don't and suffer the consequences and bemoan the system.

 

When my sister went though a similar situation, though not nearly as convoluted, the judge made it very clear that if there was no current wife when he died then the children were entitled to an equal share of the estate. No one else mattered. Both his mother and his then current girlfriend were claiming that they had a right to the estate. Judge, to his credit, kicked them both out of the room as soon as he realized that my nephew was the only blood child produced by him telling both they had no standing in the case.

Find a lawyer if the amount you are talking about is enough that it matters. As stated above the system is pay to play.

 

that basically describes the entire beeb...lol

 

I was a courtroom clerk for 9 months about 12 years ago. I recently left a position as a clinical case manager in a mental health circuit court and worked closer than I preferred with judges.

 

I stopped there...

 

Work through to a settlement. My Stepfather, who was 15 years older than Mom, had a son from his previous marriage. Mathematically, it was a sure thing that he'd pass before Mom, and he structured his estate to protect some level of interest for his son. He got a chunk of cash upon his passing, but there were 2 funds for Mom to draw upon, one to go first, the other could only be drawn on if the first was depleted, but there was a clause stating that she could disregard that at her discretion. Of course, the fund depleted first was to distributed amongst all survivors after mom passed, but the second fund went to the stepson, and of course Mom exercised her discretion, and of course we ended up in court. Long story short, we spent a lot of money to end up settling.

 

Geez, this all makes being poor not seem so bad.

 

"money is the root of all evil" I wouldn't say all, but in a high majority of things.

I've seen some weird/sad things over money and family in my years, and well I hope that I don't have to deal with those problems.

 

The most important question is how many Holiday Inns has the OP stayed in?