InsanePeopleFacebook

My only experience with one wasn't all that bad, but still kind of funny.

Client was charged with resisting/obstructing and disorderly conduct. Basically, the cops had closed a road because of an accident. Client was on his bike, and the officer told him the road was closed and he had to go a different way. Client flipped his shit, started yelling that the officer had no right to tell him where to go (yes they do), and no right to ask for identification (yes, they do).

Client finally started going an alternate route, and the officer was going to just let it go. But then he doubled back and tried to blow past the officer. Got arrested. Hired us.

I called the prosecutor to see what kind of reduction they'd be willing to do (standard procedure), and they were willing to drop one charge and reduce the other to an ordinance violation (pay a small fine).

Told the client this, who then flipped out on me for talking to the prosecutor without his consent (???) and without him there (which is, y'know, what he hired us to do). Fired our firm and demanded a refund. We all had a good laugh, and he did not get a refund.

Ah but they do not identify as a household, it is a domicile containing non-incorporated individuals, so your rules don't apply.

Yep, this is a common expression, and I fully endorse it.

The Wisconsin Journal of Family Law published an article about them a couple months back, their October 2023 issue. I'm not sure exactly how public that is, might only be for members. And for some reason I can't upload the pictures I just took to this comment. I'm probably doing something wrong, haven't shared pictures in a Lemmy comment before. I'll try something else in a bit maybe, or if anyone wants to walk me through it I'd appreciate it, but I can't spend too much time trying to figure this out right now. Work and all that.

But I kind of said it wrong for simplicity's sake. It's not that 1 in 100 filings has something (well, maybe it is, but...), it's that one of their strategies is to file a pleading with 100 points of nonsense, and then in that nonsense, they bury something that cites a real law which says a response is required. If you don't respond, you lose.

The article said don't engage them in face to face arguments because they're insane and that's a waste of time, but make sure to read their filings carefully.