jury or no jury on a divorce case?

[scottinalaska]

My friend, Mike, received a "memorandum to set civil case for trial" from the plaintiff, his wife, via her State appointed attorney. The nature of case is Divorce. And it appears that they are giving him 10 days to agree that a jury trial will not be needed, or serve and file an "opposition of counter memorandum."
In her quest to show cause as to why she wants a divorce and the two kids, she has spoken of a time when he was violent towards her before they were married 6 years ago. He hit and dented a refrigerator right after she told him that she had been sleeping with a buddy of his. This incident occurred before they were married and the circumstance surrounding this reaction was never brought up by his now fired previously hired attorney last summer at the initial hearing to get a restraining order in place.
This ONE incident has been paraded around as "domestic abuse" and supposedly just cause for her leaving him. As a side note, she has since moved in with a few guys for weeks at a time with the 2 and 3 year old kids. Mike, on the other hand, a Christian of a couple years, has continued working and is obviously distraught at the coming judgement of divorce that just might include a domestic violence issue on top of losing the kids to this wife.
Here is the question. Is a divorce case something that can have a jury trial? The divorce is inevitable. It is where the kids go that is hanging in the balance. A reasonable person who is not biased with hearsay, would give the mother visiting rights, but nothing more because of her continued endangerment. Numerous witnesses can testify to that with no end in sight! She has really no witnesses that are competent, has done NONE of the required paperwork even after being asked numerous times, and is simply signing paperwork the grant-paid, "Family Advocate" tells her to.
Should he resend a memorandum demanding a jury trial or am I on the wrong tree here?
thanks,
scottinalaska

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

My friend, Mike, received a "memorandum to set civil case for trial" from the plaintiff, his wife, via her State appointed attorney. The nature of case is Divorce. And it appears that they are giving him 10 days to agree that a jury trial will not be needed, or serve and file an "opposition of counter memorandum."
In her quest to show cause as to why she wants a divorce and the two kids, she has spoken of a time when he was violent towards her before they were married 6 years ago. He hit and dented a refrigerator right after she told him that she had been sleeping with a buddy of his. This incident occurred before they were married and the circumstance surrounding this reaction was never brought up by his now fired previously hired attorney last summer at the initial hearing to get a restraining order in place.
This ONE incident has been paraded around as "domestic abuse" and supposedly just cause for her leaving him. As a side note, she has since moved in with a few guys for weeks at a time with the 2 and 3 year old kids. Mike, on the other hand, a Christian of a couple years, has continued working and is obviously distraught at the coming judgement of divorce that just might include a domestic violence issue on top of losing the kids to this wife.
Here is the question. Is a divorce case something that can have a jury trial? The divorce is inevitable. It is where the kids go that is hanging in the balance. A reasonable person who is not biased with hearsay, would give the mother visiting rights, but nothing more because of her continued endangerment. Numerous witnesses can testify to that with no end in sight! She has really no witnesses that are competent, has done NONE of the required paperwork even after being asked numerous times, and is simply signing paperwork the grant-paid, "Family Advocate" tells her to.
Should he resend a memorandum demanding a jury trial or am I on the wrong tree here?
thanks,
scottinalaska

Actually, for Mike, the answer is most scriptural.

Tell him to read First Corinthians and pay particular attention to two points written by Paul:

1. that disciples are not to be taking each other to "their" court; and,

2. married couples, where one partner doesnt believe and the other does, then the believer is supposed to allow the unbelieving one depart in peace because our covenants are not by force or manipulation.

What Mike should do is is tell is wife to leave (license complicates this as she might want stuff)

[gldskr]

scott

idknow is correct, however advocating such is easier said than done.

While one always wishes to retain the right to a jury trial - I'm surprised he's even given the choice - juries can be a fickle bunch, particularly in an emotionally charged case like divorce. Another consideration would be, what is the controlling law in the case - the statutes and codes administered by the state or the common law and the terms of the marriage contract? If the answer is the former it won't make any difference but the jury will be more expensive. In the latter the jury may be a detriment in that the personalities of individual jurors may affect the judgments of other jurors in their determination of the contract, the essense of which is not up for debate or interpretation. The marriage contract, while implied, is cut and dried; it's a 50/50 proposition.

From the sound of things your friend has options not available to the rest of us. Is the divorce, rather than a dissolution, based upon a breach i.e. domestic abuse? If it occured prior to the marriage it would be irrellevant, whereas her promiscuity would be cause for your friend.

I have my suscpisions however, that your friend is being set up by the niceties of his ex's attorney. As long as the state is a party to the contract he loses, no matter that the judgment comes from the arbitrariness of the robe or the ignorance of the jury. A jury's decision will be directed by the robe.

Bottomline, have your friend challenge SMJ and rebutt all presumptions of any contracts with the state, you know what they are. No Fault Divorce is unconstitutional and he is being baited to aquiese to the fraud. Put the burden of proof upon them and as Jersee says, "don't argue".

gldskr

[scottinalaska]

Mike is very enlightened NOW about how he really did "invite" the State to become a third party to his marriage contract. I have been discipling him in the Word, but what do you know, I "disciple" him in these other truths too.
gldskr, you may be right that the jury, no matter how convinced, is likely to do what the judge tells them to do. But folks out here don't take kindly to being told what to do either! We have said, "Up yours" more than once when someone wants to come in and tax us. We have NO taxes where I live. No property, sales, state, and a lot of us, federal too! But all of this means nothing if he loses his kids due to some crazy evaluation by a state paid person.
She is now on every welfare program around, which shows that the State certainly doesn't want to get her off the dole. Mike still works for a living and is willing to let her go. She moved in with some guy 2 days after he left for a job(construction)6 hours away for a couple of weeks last spring. She never called the cops in all the time they were married or together. They have a nice cozy home he built for them and their two kids. But in that time, she was able to get a restraining order served to him at his jobsite. He did want to reconcile despite this unfaithfulness, but now, he is done(a few guys later too[small town]).
Thus we come to what increases the odds that he could get the kids. Jury trial? She has loads of evidence and testimony by local people of her unfitness and endangerment to her kids, while he has quite the opposite with great testimony.
Hmmm, does a divorce proceeding dealing with custody allow outside testimony? Subpeona time?
thanks for all of those somewhat familiar with this territory!
scottinalaska

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

Mike is very enlightened NOW about how he really did "invite" the State to become a third party to his marriage contract. I have been discipling him in the Word, but what do you know, I "disciple" him in these other truths too.
gldskr, you may be right that the jury, no matter how convinced, is likely to do what the judge tells them to do. But folks out here don't take kindly to being told what to do either! We have said, "Up yours" more than once when someone wants to come in and tax us. We have NO taxes where I live. No property, sales, state, and a lot of us, federal too! But all of this means nothing if he loses his kids due to some crazy evaluation by a state paid person.
She is now on every welfare program around, which shows that the State certainly doesn't want to get her off the dole. Mike still works for a living and is willing to let her go. She moved in with some guy 2 days after he left for a job(construction)6 hours away for a couple of weeks last spring. She never called the cops in all the time they were married or together. They have a nice cozy home he built for them and their two kids. But in that time, she was able to get a restraining order served to him at his jobsite. He did want to reconcile despite this unfaithfulness, but now, he is done(a few guys later too[small town]).
Thus we come to what increases the odds that he could get the kids. Jury trial? She has loads of evidence and testimony by local people of her unfitness and endangerment to her kids, while he has quite the opposite with great testimony.
Hmmm, does a divorce proceeding dealing with custody allow outside testimony? Subpeona time?
thanks for all of those somewhat familiar with this territory!
scottinalaska

Well, since it is her unfaithfulness to the marriage, that is all evidence that he could use (did he?) to abate, mitigate or eliminate the action against him: He's not the one who materially breached the marriage-convenant!

[scottinalaska]

I don't know, idknow. This action against him seems irrelevant(alleged domestic abuse), but she has learned or been trained to play the role by the "advocate" in the first court hearing to decide on kid kustody last summer.
She cries, shakes, and announces her terror of him for all to see to which the woman judge says, "That will be all, you poor thing, when you are ready you can continue."
How does one prove unfaithfulness? Her:"I just moved in with this single guy and this single guy and this single guy because they were friends, really, just friends."
And how does that prove that dad ought to get the kids in the end?
I can easily get one of the guys to come in and testify that he was getting a piece the time Mike was away on the job. She drove this guy crazy and he kicked her out after a few weeks.
Does unfaithfulness eliminate her getting half the stuff or is that plain inevitable?
She is drinking and smoking and the kids bounce around the minivan from the dashboard to the back of the van while she is on the road(small town), so the longer the time until trial, the greater chance she could get her first ticket!
I hate this stupid stuff. If there were any chance my wife and I weren't getting along, I'd rescind our marriage license today.
scottinalaska

[idknow]

Originally Posted by scottinalaska

I don't know, idknow. This action against him seems irrelevant(alleged domestic abuse), but she has learned or been trained to play the role by the "advocate" in the first court hearing to decide on kid kustody last summer.
She cries, shakes, and announces her terror of him for all to see to which the woman judge says, "That will be all, you poor thing, when you are ready you can continue."
How does one prove unfaithfulness? Her:"I just moved in with this single guy and this single guy and this single guy because they were friends, really, just friends."
And how does that prove that dad ought to get the kids in the end?
I can easily get one of the guys to come in and testify that he was getting a piece the time Mike was away on the job. She drove this guy crazy and he kicked her out after a few weeks.
Does unfaithfulness eliminate her getting half the stuff or is that plain inevitable?
She is drinking and smoking and the kids bounce around the minivan from the dashboard to the back of the van while she is on the road(small town), so the longer the time until trial, the greater chance she could get her first ticket!
I hate this stupid stuff. If there were any chance my wife and I weren't getting along, I'd rescind our marriage license today.
scottinalaska

You prove it with witnesses who saw her going about town, in stores, video tape from stores, etc.

imaginate.

[scottinalaska]

Yes, it can be proven with competent witnesses, BUT what does it result in?
Divorce certainly, but does anything rise to the occassion of kids or kash?

[planetmark]

I say absolutely, positively, with no reservation whatesoever - GET A JURY IF POSSIBLE!!! Period.

The reason is that we really do have the right to instruct the jury properly - research it on the web. You have every right to tell them exactly what their rights and responsibilities are, even if it ticks off the judge and everyone else. It is the job of the soverign to exercise this right to educate that jury. The reason our founding fathers protected the right to a jury trial is for this very reason - to protect us from the opinions and dominion of a crooked judge! No sane and rational body of common-folks are gonna look at a wacky bimbo who is sleeping around, and take her accusation of "domestic abuse" seriously! The public today is VERY aware of the plight of fathers losing their children. The opportunity to have a jury in a divorce is GOLD!! Here in washington a jury trial is prohibited by statute in dissolution cases, this way the judge can rob you and steal everything under the guidance of the G.A.L.'s thieving trickery.

NEVER leave the fate of your children in the hands of a black-robed thug! Your peers and fellow community dwellers are your absolute last line of defence from the insanity that rules the so-called "family court" tyrany! Do NOT let him surrender this RIGHT. That's my 2 cents worth.

[gldskr]

scott

After careful reconsideration, I would concur with planetmark - go with the jury. However, you will need to find out exactly the question(s) they will be deciding. Will the only question be whether to grant the divorce? If so, nothing was gained as a judge will gladly do so. Will they be able to decide custody and support issues? This is where I have my doubts, becuase the marriage contract is the law and the jury has no power to change the law, whether it is a common law divorce or a statutory dissolution, the terms are fixed in each case.

Keep in mind that divorce is a legal proceeding between two parties that can only be granted for cause. Dissolutuon, on the other hand, is a statutory proceeding, where a third party now enters the fray and commands obedience to an outcome that has been predetermined.

Will your friend be conducting the trial himself or with an attorney? Count on a minimum of 10k for an attorney.

Until you have the answers to some pertinent questions will you then be able to gauge the utility of the jury. If they are to sit as window dressing to a forgone conclusion their utility would be minimal at best, but at a high cost. If, on the other hand, they were allowed to have teeth, their utility becomes more valuable in relation to cost and outcome.

Also keep in mind that if you eliminate the state from the marriage contract the only thing they can compel is the performance of that contract in its 50/50 context. If the state is a party, years of renegotiation can take place. Dissolution is a renegotiation where divorce is compelled performance.

gldskr