IT IS OFTEN SAID DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
Well I am going to feed it anyway.
To: Terry Hall (Thall303) or whomever you really are.
You stated
I normally charge for my legal advice and have long ago found out that many people ignore the advice given.
You have thus purported yourself to be a lawyer since you claim that you normally charge for your legal advice. (Oh by the way the state of Texas does not have you listed as a member of the Bar, past or present, so maybe you misrepresented yourself as to your name or profession. Terry Hall
My experience with cases like this give me reason to question if we have all of the information or just what the plaintiffs self serving narrative has provided.
I don't know whom you think is the plaintiff here. If you had read the thread you would understand that SA does not currently have a solicitor, he is not representing himself pro se either. That is because in this legal proceeding the State is the one who has filed against the defendant and taken them to a court proceeding. SA is not the Plaintiff in this case.
Yes, once upon a time there was a civil suit. Yes there was a judgement. That is in years past. Now is now and there is a criminal charge as I understand it. The judge is trying to give the lady an out from the criminal charge
IF she deals with the prior years civil court finding and judgement.
It is now a criminal issue and that is why there have been multiple references to the prosecuting attorney's office not to the plaintiff's attorney.
SA goes to court to observe the goings on. The State is the charging body.
Many solicitors charge their clients for work and have made no effort at being fully up to speed. Others do shoddy work and log "billable hours" for improper written documents then log more "billable hours" not only for the original but then for the corrections that they negligently failed to do correctly the first time.
If you are indeed as you have purported yourself to be (by your own statement), I would have hated to be the client that paid for work that you performed as it would have been a multi-corrected document/work product to get it correct and would have cost many more billable hours than it should have.
You clearly have not read the information that is in the thread. While it does not include the lady's (who is criminally charged) version, you have demonstrated that you have no grasp, of even the basics of the story, so what difference would that make even if it was presented. You would not have read that either.
Now I would say "
walk away" but this is the internet so how about "
mouse away", "
track-ball away" or "
stylus-away." JUST GO AWAY.
If you are not interested in the thread look elsewhere and stop trolling for conflict.
Have a good day just have it elsewhere.
