Where is an example that a lawyer referred by a wife is a trustworthy lawyer?
Rejoinder: There are thousands of decided Mutual Consent Divorce cases from Judgment list of District Court websites where for 'practical' reasons only one advocate appeared as 'common' advocate of parties. It is not a norm, it is not binding, it is just a choice based on TRUST made by parties.
XXX Or why a man, who is not in a mental asylum, should ask his wife to refer a lawyer when he needs to divorce her?
Rejoinder: Here in this brief both parties decided that they need divorce VIA MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ROUTE and not that only he (i.e. queriest) needs a divorce. Read carefully brief then argue further with me.
XXXXIf this is the same kind of behaviour u exhibit in the courtroom, ur client will hang on the next available noose.
Rejoinder: So far it has never happened as 'first' replies are rock solid based on 'first cut i.e. first statement of a queriest' reading a brief in FREE LEGAL PORTALS. For more replies the moment a queriest opens up with more facts one should pay FEES. Hence 'last reply' is norm in providing FREE service which I have adopted and anyone else is free to go on giving further replies. Let me educate you further, in case you are not aware that 'free legal advice' is given for free only upto certain time limit based on reading down 'first cut' statement - question of a queriest and post that it ought to get converted into 'paid' reply. That free service time limit in free forums such as this by me is copyrighted as I often mention after reply in bold 'last reply', if you or any queriest have problem or like to hear more wisdom then PAY and hear them out. I'm aware of giving 'first cut' reply without seeking more facts i.e. my reply may be construed as probably wrong but if one pays attention to "what initially" as first brief is asked and what I replied then till that point the reply is correct and the moment a queriest puts 'more facts' and readers start re-reading my 'first cut reply' then may be my reply may not sound correct but whose mistake is it? It is queriest as he ought to have given all facts when posting first time knowing full that this is a 'free' reply forum. Understand the replies made by me against this backdrop then you will take back your above quote - XXXXIf this is the same kind of behaviour u exhibit in the courtroom, ur client will hang on the next available noose unquote
u have yet to produce a one shred of evidence to support ur argument. U asked me to help u gather the evidence and ur request was denied without consideration.
Rejoinder: Read various decided Judgments from District Court websites you will find thousands of cases of parties where for 'practical' reasons only one advocate appeared as 'common' advocate of parties and these judgments are not of HC or SC. Whereas I didnot seek your help, instead I asked you to produce those cases where separate - independent Advocate of one among two spouses 'colluded' which brings out ‘natural justice’ difference in what you say as ‘insanity’ comment Vs. TRUST said by other replier. Unless Trust not there when both have decided to opt for mutual consent divorce even with having separate advocates it may FAIL, mostly, due to ‘collusion’ is what I am grilling you in case you donot know art of crossing ‘last mile’ journey.
Rejoinder: I didnot ask you to boost your employability or un-employability status, save those in your pockets for sunshine or rainy days.
U said ‘law is not humor’. Sir, law becomes humor when u often talk of ‘last reply.’ I always say to myself, “last reply? He doesn’t seem that old; I hope he lives and posts another reply.”
Rejoinder: General public like you when pop up in FREE legal forums of Advocate's interaction with General Public then as FREE service 'last reply' is option and I do take up several next post of several new queriest and give FREE 'last reply' respectively instead of romancing only one post till eternity and have been replying as per my FREE time. If you being general public has problem with my 'last reply' then move ahead to PAID service and empty your pockets you will get case lifetime paid service. Don't take free service as your birth rights by poking faulty challenges.
I was looking for a worthy fight so I could deliver a knock-out punch. To my dismay, u did not bring any fight in u. Next time: make sense. The argument u presented here is no different than ur last reply: so what do u want me to reply to?
Rejoinder: I want you to 'differentiate' 'sanity' vs. 'trust' when both spouses wants divorce via mutual consent route and may have one common advocate (provided by either spouse to other) if not possible to have two separate once due to practical reasons. When common advocate appeared in mutual consent divorce cases those cases didnot end up in 'insanity' route. It is a choice not norm nor is binding and simply rejecting it does not hold waters since it is happening in thousands of MCD cases even today.
I didnot die or was dying OR asked you to read my various 'last replies' in the Free Legal Forum, it is you who sent me PM commenting my replies are 'humorous' and you said in your own PM you are informing www.498a.org to refer to my various alleged to be 'last replies' posting whereas I donot even needed to go to such Forums. Thanks but no thanks for free publicity which does not even interest me.
Problem here is general public becoming over smart especially NRI's and commenting about Indian Advocate(s) replies in this forum as if general public knows Laws better than Indian Advocates and funny part is they themselves cannot even reply legally mentioning procedures, acts, codes, sections etc. after an advocate's reply, yet have tenacity to comment Indian Advocates are 'fools' or give 'bad replies' or 'donot know law' yet their tail itself is caught by their Indian wives or is struck – slow moving in some or the other Indian Court. You generic public are good at making fun of law or legal replies nothing more as you have no iota of knowledge or practice of procedures, acts, codes, sections etc. had it not been so you could have found yourself reading decided citations where one common advocate provided his services for mutual consent divorce instead of asking me to give them as evidence on a platter.
Now, let me tell you a last eGyan; even if separate advocate hired there are number of cases post decree in mutual consent divorce where wife has re-opened cases and after decree in MCD court gave further relief to divorced wife. So what happened to what intern Shonee hinted about 'Trust' and your faulty comment on Indian advocate's 'insanity' in such re-opened cases where separate advocates were hired? This much you may not know but poke up here challenging Advocates wisdom and calling Advocates replies as 'humor'!
Keep talking more I have patience to hear all sorts of general public's like you unlike your faulty quote 'denying request without consideration'. I give earful of 'consideration' as I want to remain within Law and not above Law as over smart public like you aspire to with faulty engagements.