Seeing beyond the Anger
Ok, so now we are getting into the time period after an event, the time that the pieces start to click into place for me. The way my mind works is by continually playing back over an important event to me until I start to assemble what actually occurred and my thoughts on what occurred, including the parts that I may have missed on a normal conscience level. I think its called, “subliminal recognition”.
I have hardly slept since the hearing and unusually have drunk a fair amount of red wine but I have just got up, taken a shower and have worked out what went on and just why I was so concerned. I forgot to add that I have very, very good people understanding skills, unnervingly so, as many would attest to.
I am beginning to think that I am going to have to deal with a strong element of unfairness throughout these hearings. This hearing was not on an equal basis. I accept my disadvantage legally owing to parting company from my solicitor, which was my choice, however it was the body language, the approach, the veiled threats, the spoken and facial interaction and the familiarity between parties, compared to the perceived distain towards me, at a level to which I did object to. The impression that I now have is that I was a guilty man and was being treated accordingly.
Throughout the hearing my integrity was challenged, my parental priorities were challenged and a further impression that the solicitor tried to create to the judge, is that I was a threat to his client and by implication a violent man. The client shielding did not go unnoticed, either by me or the judge, but of course it was played out entirely for the judge’s benefit.
My concern is that my Ex wife has had a hearing on her story in some way, or that her position has been advanced beyond my own in some way and as a result, views and opinions have been formed on me as a person. This I will not accept and will deal with.
As I have said in a previous post, my father was a very wise man, a man I respected very much and a man who taught me very much. I was taught never to “assume” and never to underestimate a situation or an opponent. I never do. I now know what I am up against and how the game is played, so lets play it out!
I am more than happy to accommodate these people on the same level that they accommodated me at the hearing. I have absolutely no problem with that, in fact I insist on it. On the matter of the “client Shielding” game and the implications, I would urge caution on that game, before it makes the people involved in it look extremely foolish. I would not rush to hang a person until I had the facts of a story, from both parties!
A final thought on this today, if a case can be influenced by a solicitor communicating to a judge or a court, by means of client shielding, implying that the client needs protecting, or by means of challenging integrity, implying dishonesty in an answer or general dishonesty to the person who they are challenging, then surely the law has a duty to hold to account any solicitor who gets it wrong.
The judge and the court should be duty bound not to be influenced by these kind of tactics until the point is proven as a matter of fact. If it is not proven, I would argue that the solicitor has exceeded his position and infringed upon the duty of care that the law should be obliged to afford to all people involved in any case.
More importantly the person on the receiving end and who’s position is being damaged, should have the right to retribution against the solicitor, who without any facts, goes down the road of placing inappropriate tactics before integrity. In effect the solicitor is behaving dishonestly, when he chooses to behave inappropriately to the facts of a case. A solicitor must be fully accountable for all actions, in court or out of court, in the same way as any other person is.
An appropriate “Quote” from a poem penned by Sir Walter Scott
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
