Since my petition for conciliation was denied, and I really want to address some of my wife's concerns and accusations as expressed in her response to my interrogatory, I am trying to think of what else I can do.<P>I am considering a deposition. I don't know what all the rules are (I'll have to talk to my lawyer about that), but I imagine that my lawyer would be able to present my position, and ask my wife whether she disputes any of my claims.<P>Since I doubt that my wife would be very enthusiastic about the deposition, scheduling one might provide some leverage to negotiate for my preferred alternative: having a session with a counselor to actually discuss the issues.<P>Doing any of this is likely to be seen as combative and controlling, and would probably further alienate me from my in-laws. On the other hand, I am not sure that further alienation would be possible.<P>So, what to do? Sit tight, doing nothing but hoping, praying, and sending letters into the silence? Or take this more aggressive approach?<P>Any advice?<BR><P>------------------<BR><I>So what's the glory in living?<BR>Doesn't anybody ever stay together any more?<BR>And if love doesn't last forever, tell me<BR>What's forever for?</I> - Rafe Van Hoy

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GnomeDePlume:<BR><B>I am considering a deposition. I don't know what all the rules are (I'll have to talk to my lawyer about that), but I imagine that my lawyer would be able to present my position, and ask my wife whether she disputes any of my claims.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, a deposition is asked for <I>by the other side</I> so that they can ask you questions all day, and keep asking the same ones over and over in slightly different ways trying to get the answer they want. Then they have it all typed up into a book, and if they ever get to trial, no matter what important question you answer, they can look in the book and find a quote that makes you look like you said something different before. <P>If they can't find something like that, they just say "he says the same things over and over again, like he's been well-rehearsed." You can't win. <P><B> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So, what to do? Sit tight, doing nothing but hoping, praying, and sending letters into the silence? Or take this more aggressive approach?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Make sure your attorney understands your goals, and is willing to work toward them. If not, find another attorney. Many attorneys view reconciliation as <I>impossible</I>, and won't complicate their lives or yours "pretending" otherwise. That may be a pretty good approach, but you may want something different.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B>No, a deposition is asked for by the other side so that they can ask you questions all day, and keep asking the same ones over and over in slightly different ways trying to get the answer they want.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I know that that’s what a deposition is <I>supposed</I> to be for. But it’s already become very clear to me that the way the system actually works has little to do with how the law <I>says</I> it’s supposed to work. What I need to find out is whether I too can manipulate the system into doing something for which it was not intended.<P>I understand that all my lawyer is allowed to do is ask questions, and that I am not allowed to speak at all. But what questions are actually permitted? For example, can my lawyer say “In your interrogatory, you said X. My client claims the facts to be Y. Do you dispute any of Y?”? While I am interested in the answer, my primary goal would be to plant Y in my wife’s mind, where it might eventually have the chance to germinate into doubt about X.<P>Another option I am considering would be to file a follow-up interrogatory using the same approach. I suspect that the rules for an interrogatory may be more stringent, however, and the number of questions more limited. And with a deposition, I think my wife’s lawyer has to wait for my wife to hear the question before he can object to it, whereas am afraid that with an interrogatory he may be able to object to the question before my wife even has a chance to see it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Make sure your attorney understands your goals, and is willing to work toward them. If not, find another attorney. Many attorneys view reconciliation as impossible, and won't complicate their lives or yours "pretending" otherwise. That may be a pretty good approach, but you may want something different.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I was pretty careful in picking my attorneys, and my experiences with them so far have made me confident that they understand my goals, and are both willing and able to work toward them.<BR>

I don't think dragging her through a depo is going to make her feel good about you, even if your attorney can ask questions that plant more questions in her mind. That's not the purpose, and I have a feeling those questions would not go to relevant factual issue anyway. <P>You see, courts aren't involved in the question of love or not. By the time of divorce, one party appears to have decided that question (perhaps not--the divorce may be to protect safety, or sanity, or solvency, love now being beside the point). Courts are interested in the children and the property only--except in states where you have to make some kind of showing in order to get a divorce--then you've just got to make that showing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B>I don't think dragging her through a depo is going to make her feel good about you, even if your attorney can ask questions that plant more questions in her mind.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, of course going through a deposition isn't going to make her feel good about me. That's why I used the word "lovebusting" in the topic title. The question in my mind isn't how she will feel about it <I>now</I>, but rather how she will feel about it <I>later</I>. Am I doing <I>everything</I> I can to stop her from doing something she will regret for the rest of her life? Will she feel some day that I let her go too easily?<P>We stand together at the top of a precipice. Nothing I do can prevent her from casting herself off. But if I have hold of her hand and I am all that keeps her from falling, what should I do when she demands that I let go?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>That's not the purpose, and I have a feeling those questions would not go to relevant factual issue anyway.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I don't <I>care</I> what the purpose is, and I don't care about "relevant factual issue", whatever that is. Near as I can tell, the courts don't give a **** about <I>any</I> facts in the case. Not even the financial facts. They're happy to just plug some arbitrary numbers into an arbitrary algorithm and push you out the door. <I>After</I> lining the pockets of a few lawyers, of course. The pretense of paying any attention to the law is so thin that I really don't know why they even bother.<P>Still, as long as the law requires my wife to show grounds for divorce, then it seems to me that questions about the grounds are "relevant". But I don't expect that situation to last. First, a settlement is possible, although it seems more and more unlikely. (Why would my wife's lawyer be sitting on her settlement proposal for weeks if he had any intention of settling?) And second, after June rolls around, I am afraid that my wife might amend her divorce complaint to remove her claimed grounds, replacing them with the single ground of having been separated for a year. If this happens, then I will have lost my chance to address the <I>real</I> issues, since they will no longer be "relevant". (I am also bitterly aware that my wife will have been permitted to libel me to get the divorce going, forced me to pay for the privilege of being libeled, and then deprived me of any opportunity to defend myself. The fact that this kind of thing happens all the time, in all kinds of venues, as a legal means of financially destroying individuals and corporations, does not make me feel any better about it.) <P>Er, pardon me, I seem to have gone off on a rant...<BR><p>[This message has been edited by GnomeDePlume (edited February 19, 2001).]

Just write the questions she should be asking herself in a letter to her. <P>And remember that the judicial system is simply the <I>least bad</I> system we can come up with to solve disputes when two people can't get it together on their own. It doesn't claim to be fun, or 100% correct in every case, just final, and with the gol of providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B>Just write the questions she should be asking herself in a letter to her.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oh, I've done some of that and am planning to do more. However, I suspect that she isn't doing anything with those letters except turning them over to her lawyer. She told me last July that she wasn't going to read my letters, so I don't <I>feel</I> much hope in sending them.<P>Still, I can never know if or when she might change her mind. And so, since there's not much else I <I>can</I> do, I plan to keep sending stuff to her until I get slapped with a restraining order preventing me from doing so, or at least until I am explicitly requested not to do so.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>And remember that the judicial system is simply the <I>least bad</I> system we can come up with to solve disputes when two people can't get it together on their own. It doesn't claim to be fun, or 100% correct in every case, just final, and with the gol of providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I wish I could buy all that, but I can't. I agree that our judicial system doesn't claim to be fun or to get it right every time, and I even agree that it <I>claims</I> to have the <I>goal</I> of providing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I just believe that the claim to have that goal is largely vacuous.<P>It's the same kind of problem as Martin Luther had to contend with. As the story goes, he went to Rome all idealistic, only to find that the priests there were competing with each other to see who could get through a mass in the least amount of time. However noble the written rules may be, when more effort is devoted to circumventing them than to using them in the spirit they were intended, the original purpose becomes meaningless.<BR>

Movements for judicial reform are a constant. Every reform brings cries of foul from some entrenched interest, and perhaps later a counter-reform. Everybody does the best they can, individually if not collectively.