Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. 2003
All Rights Reserved
to the
MoBar Solo and Small Firm Internet Group

OCTOBER 24, 2003
Greets and Huggers.  Posted the evening of October 24, 2003.  I remain perplexed, dumbfounded, by lawyers that choose to argue their clients position to me, while "bad mouthing" my client.  Given  ....  I only do "loves aftermath" ......  however, learned a long time ago .... the "truth" lies somewhere in between what both parties believe.  Viewpoints differ as a function of "bias".  "Bias" by definition is the way the world is viewed as a function of past life experiences. "Bias" about the other party, by definition,  is how one of the parties will judge the behaviors of the other party, based upon past experiences with the other party.  While each party has a bias about the other and while each party is trying to learn how to deal with that inherent bias  .... both are trying to learn how to deal with "the other" in their new role as  .....  "the EX  .....  as Mom and Dad".  As a result, children suffer: stuck between the two people they love most. Are they put in that position by their parents or the "court system"?  Both.  Share with me, how any rational person could ask these children "the" unspeakable question:  "Who would you like to live with?  How could any rational person ask a child to choose between the two people they love most?  Under the present system, children ARE asked this question!  Course, you also have one or both parents using their children to build "a case" against the other parent.  Build a case?  Where did the parties get the idea that our "court system" can determine what is in a given child's best interests?  Resolve the conflict.  It can not. How could a system based on "finger pointing" ....  where the parties point out every mistake the other has made ... and then,  based on this "evidence" ...  ask the court to determine what is in that child's best interests   .... possibly BE in the child's best interests?  It isn't.  Is it really in a child's best interests to be placed with that parent who is less likely to screw up in the future ...  or  .... with that parent who is more "child centered"  .... whether Mom or Dad? The present system does not ensure that every child can enjoy their God given RIGHT to have a Mom and Dad active in their lives. It is time for a change.  We have 440 of Missouri's best legal minds in this "family".   Share with me what to change ...... we CAN get it done.

"Divorce" doesn't exist in Missouri anymore.  "Divorce" was "fault based" ....  you would go to Court and adduce evidence that no reasonable person could be expected to live with the rotten &^&^%  you were married to.  There was a "wronged" party.  Not anymore.   Since 1967, we have had  "Dissolution" ..... a dissolving of the marital estate, ("there is no reasonable likelihood the marriage can be preserved and is therefore irretrievably broken").  Keep in mind, the female/married female of our species only became a "person" under the law, in the various States between 1839, (go figure  ....  in Mississippi)   -   1895   ... by virtue of  "Married Women's Acts", 
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_056700_marriedwomen.htm  (the female of our species couldn't vote until 1920)  .....   historically, the female of our species was the "property" of her father, brother or husband. She could not own property, sue or be sued, inherit property, vote or enter into contracts.  The "Industrial Revolution" changed all that. How could a husband/father/brother collect the wages of a wife/daughter/sister working in some sweat shop if she was not a "person"?  Funny how "the Law" evolves to deal with changing economic circumstance :)   The court now, has two obligations:  determine the nature of and divide the marital estate ....  property and debts, (non-marital v.  marital) and determine what is in a child's best interests on custody and Co-Parenting issues, (who do the children live with on a day to day basis).   I would respectfully submit that a Court can effectively address property and debt issues:  those are questions of fact.  A Court,  an adversarial system/process, however, is the worst possible mechanism/means of addressing "kid" issues.  'Nuff said.

I was surprised to learn that Lawyers have 5 Patron Saints: St Ivo of Kermartin, 
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainti08.htm , Catherine of Alexandria : http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc01.htm ,  Genesius:   http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintgai.htm , Mark the Evangelist: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintm08.htm
Raymond of Penyafort:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintr05.htm and Thomas More:  http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintt04.htm .  Don't know why I was surprised.  There is a Patron Saint for over sleeping:  Vitus, http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintv07.htm .  Against spousal abuse, (physical): Rita of Cacsia, http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintr01.htm  ....   3 against spousal abuse, (verbal):  Anne Marie Taigi, http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainta0n.htm ,  Godelieve:  http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg33.htm , Monica: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintm04.htm , Native Americans, Anthony of Padua:  http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainta01.htm ,  and two that apply to me:  unattractive people, Drogo: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintd17.htm and Germaine Cousin:  http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg12.htm   Interesting:  there are over 4,650 Saints covering 1,638 topics/things.  And "Yes", Les .... there is a St. Markiewicz: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintb3j.htm  and "No" Les, he is not the Patron Saint of Gefilte Fish, (much to my surprise ..... there isn't one).

Went to the Solo and Small Firm Practice Committee, Conference Planning Committee meeting today.  Had the pleasure of sharing a ride with Lyle Gregory: 
http://www.karltimmerman.com/sfige-g.html ..... (geez .... what a great young lawyer!!).  Was really great to spend time and give a "warm brotherly hug" to some of our  "family" members.  I really missed seeing my dear friends, Paul Henry and Alan Gallas there.  (My dear Lady friend Zina Cruse was there .....  don't tell her husband ...... I did give her a "Warm Brotherly Hug!!!  :)    .....   [Penny Umstattd-Cope has to be one of the most strikingly photogenic Ladies I have seen in quite awhile .... didn't get a chance to introduce myself ... nor take her picture :(  ]    The next "family reunion" will be on June 10 -12, 2004 at the Lodge of the Four Seasons. Register early, ($209.00).  There may not be room for you if you wait! (Sorry .... no programs on getting your weight under control .... <sigh> ..... not eligible for CLE credit  ....   there will, however, be some really great "Quality of Life" programs).   Question:  What would you like to see for the Friday Night program .... hehehe ... other than our "family" gathering, BBB and a nice supper?

We lost three more men in Iraq today. I will pray for the families of the 3 men ..... seems I'm spending a bunch more time praying for the families of our lost men. I'm not seeing a light at the end of this tunnel.  'Nuff said for now ...... for now.

Sitting here at FT. Timmerman editing these Ramblings and sipping a BBB.  <Smiling> ..... wore a 38 x 32 set of dress pants, (loose fitting and bulky).  Thinking about what Lyle and I talked about today, (as one of the "old" guys  .... after chatting with Lyle  ....   our Profession is in good hands!!!)  Been a long day, (at lunch today .... I tasted a spoon full of "mashed potato" ....... Damn!!! ...... every bit as good as I remember!!!)  Look forward to curling up next to the most beautiful woman I know and drifting off to sleep. Will say a prayer for Susan and I, our men and women in uniform .... our America ..... and you.  Be and sleep well tonight knowing the best there is, is on watch, so you can.  If my post offends, I apologize ..... that is not my intent.

Karl  (the dumb ole country lawyer from Holden, Missouri)