Canada: Dangerous case study in the perils of same-sex marriage

[giblets]

If legal representation was inefficient at serving their clients, then they would be out of a job. It's in their interest to ensure that the majority of those who file are paid off for doing so.

Uh, you realize it's not your lawyer who decides the case?

[Flubber]

If legal representation was inefficient at serving their clients, then they would be out of a job. It's in their interest to ensure that the majority of those who file are paid off for doing so.

So you are asserting that anyone can bring any bogus claim and get a payout--- I want to understand what you are asserting here since on your logic, merits appear to be completely irrelevant

[Flubber]

Uh, you realize it's not the attorney who decides the case?

Well most of us wouid decide not to take this one unless they could pay a big up front retainer (and understand we will not assist in a perjury) -- after a couple of questions the lawyer would know the claim was bogus-- and no matter what Ben thinks, lawyers are not going to risk their licence by being part of perjury for that big roommate spousal support claim

Interesting little fact-- Most people that have roomates are

1. not really wealthy or have a really high income
2. if they room with someone for 3 years or more, become friends so they wouldnèt screw them with a bogus claim

But I know that facts are merely inconvenient to Ben so please carry on

[Asher]

Classic thread.

Thanks Flubber

[Flubber]

Classic thread.

Thanks Flubber

Wife is at work and the kids were playing.

I did find it amusing when Ben tries to tell me about the law-- especially when he hits someone with a "Hello" and then spouts a one liner that is precisely and demonstrably provably wrong

[Ben Kenobi]

So you are asserting that anyone can bring any bogus claim and get a payout--- I want to understand what you are asserting here since on your logic, merits appear to be completely irrelevant

I'm arguing that the court of family law works really simply. Chances are if you are the one filing you will get your payout. More often then not. If you're the one on the other end you're going to get steamrolled.

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh, you realize it's not your lawyer who decides the case?

Flubber just admitted that the law doesn't matter. Holding unpopular opinions means you lose.

[Ben Kenobi]

I did find it amusing when Ben tries to tell me about the law-- especially when he hits someone with a "Hello" and then spouts a one liner that is precisely and demonstrably provably wrong

You feel that I'm going to be more convinced by you saying this? Quite the opposite. You've convinced me just the opposite. Rather then arguing that spousal support is not there, you've entirely conceded the issue and are not trying to win by saying that I meant something else. That's a terrible way to convince anyone of the rightness of your position.

As far as I'm concerned, your citation is fatal to your own case. Common law enforces support. Unless you're willing to argue otherwise.

[Asher]

Truly hopeless and an intellectual simpleton.

[DaShi]

Ben, you still owe me an apology.

[MrFun]

Truly hopeless and a closed-minded simpleton.

fixed - never, ever use the word "intellectual" when insulting BK - he's not even worth that

[giblets]

Flubber just admitted that the law doesn't matter. Holding unpopular opinions means you lose.

He never said the law doesn't matter. However in a democracy laws are often written based on popular opinion.

[giblets]

You feel that I'm going to be more convinced by you saying this? Quite the opposite. You've convinced me just the opposite. Rather then arguing that spousal support is not there, you've entirely conceded the issue and are not trying to win by saying that I meant something else. That's a terrible way to convince anyone of the rightness of your position.

As far as I'm concerned, your citation is fatal to your own case. Common law enforces support. Unless you're willing to argue otherwise.

Where did Flubber concede that if you have a roommate the courts might force you to send him a check? He was very clear that this is not the case. Moron.

[Flubber]

Flubber just admitted that the law doesn't matter. Holding unpopular opinions means you lose.

I never said anything like this.

I did say and will repeat that when someone, such as yourself, holds fairly extreme views, I am not surprised that you disagree with or find unreasonable , many court decisions. When a court deteremines what is reasonable, they don't assess it based on what the extreme viewpoints want.--


and Ben-- please refrain from telling people what you think I said. IN 90% of the time it appears to be the exact opposite of what I meant (which is also the meaning that every other reader but you took from what I said).

If you think its relevant, please quote me. I suspect you won't quote me though since the quotes will not support your assertion of what I said

[Flubber]

You feel that I'm going to be more convinced by you saying this? Quite the opposite. You've convinced me just the opposite. Rather then arguing that spousal support is not there, you've entirely conceded the issue and are not trying to win by saying that I meant something else. That's a terrible way to convince anyone of the rightness of your position.

As far as I'm concerned, your citation is fatal to your own case. Common law enforces support. Unless you're willing to argue otherwise.

Ben

you labour under the delusion that I am trying to convince you of anything. In this thread you made fun of a poster with your "hello " part of your post. I took that as mocking as if you were stating something self evident. You then made a one sentence statement that was obviously, demonstrably completely WRONG. Yet you will never ever admit that, and I find that amuses me. At times I ponder whether you are an Asher (or other posters ) DL designed to make a mockery of many of the righties viewpoints.

Oh and Ben-- please quote one post where I ever argued that support was not possible in common law relations-- why would I assert such a thing when I am instead capable of explaining to you the differences in the statutes involved and the courts that make the decisions (this was merely the argument ytou started making after I started mocking you and tried to place me on the other side of it-- not before ) -- I should start asking if you are planning to continue to assert that priests should have an unfettered right to sodomize any child under the age of 12-- thats as relevant .

Oh and Ben in another newsflash-- child support can be sought even if you have never had any relationship with the other birth parent (other than conception-- better put that in or Ben will be saying I am arguing -- I don't know-- something weird and obtuse)-- gay marriage is a fact in canada and I love my wife no less as a result of it

Ben you are pedantic, obtuse and unwilling to admit when you are WRONG-- I never really try to convince you of anything . ..