I know by now I shouldn't be, but I am.....constantly amazed by what all exactly is completely public information if you just take the time, care and know where and how to get it.
I'm holding the Plaintiff's Original Petition, original Respondent's (MB's) Proposal for Temporary Orders hand-scribbled changed to Rule 11 Agreement with the changes made by the Petitioners among MANY other motions and documents.
This proposal....(click to enlarge)
became this....
Cause NO. 2006-2220-4
IT IS ORDERED that MB enroll his children KB and GB in counseling no later than July 7th, 2006. IT IS ORDERED that MB notify LD and JD when each session has occurred. IT IS ORDERED that MB require the counselor to provide written confirmation as session is attended by the children the subject of this suit. IT IS ORDERED that MB provide said written confirmation by the counselor to LD and JD within three (3) days of each session.
It's all pretty clear. It does appear that he had to be ordered to have the girls in counseling. What EXACTLY did the commentor mean that wasn't as the Dulins have claimed?
A recent comment:
Anonymous said...
Go to the courthouse, read the court documents, open records, and see what the actual document said regarding visitation and counseling. Not exactally the way the Dulins are claiming.
January 7, 2008 3:31 PM
I'm holding the Plaintiff's Original Petition, original Respondent's (MB's) Proposal for Temporary Orders hand-scribbled changed to Rule 11 Agreement with the changes made by the Petitioners among MANY other motions and documents.
This proposal....(click to enlarge)
became this....Cause NO. 2006-2220-4
IT IS ORDERED that MB enroll his children KB and GB in counseling no later than July 7th, 2006. IT IS ORDERED that MB notify LD and JD when each session has occurred. IT IS ORDERED that MB require the counselor to provide written confirmation as session is attended by the children the subject of this suit. IT IS ORDERED that MB provide said written confirmation by the counselor to LD and JD within three (3) days of each session.
It's all pretty clear. It does appear that he had to be ordered to have the girls in counseling. What EXACTLY did the commentor mean that wasn't as the Dulins have claimed?
For the record: I would not have made a big deal out of the counseling orders were it not for the fact that a commentor here on this blog called me out on it. And called the Dulins liars. That's the only reason I'm making this a headline post.
Copy of receipt added because 'someone' didn't believe I actually went. @@
20 comments:
so, do you think MB has lied about other things? You go with your bad self, Shannon! LOL
Not just that.......I think the dear commentor has lied as well. Wait. Was that redundant?
Yes, it appears that LD did provide you with a copy of the ORIGINAL temporary order for visitation back in July 2006, but did you actually go to the courthouse and read further and find the latest orders? Think not. Maybe you could ask LD for a copy of those as well. But they will be worded differently. If she wants to revert back to the original orders then reading those one will find that the Dulins had two weekends of visitation, but no overnights. Then early 2007 they took it back to court and got it changed to one weekend each month with overnight. Maybe you can get LD to show you that copy also, Shannon, or you could actually go to the courthouse. Whatever is easier. I have been to the courthouse and know how they read.
Why do you continue to think the commentor is Matt? I have his word that he has not ever posted anything, and I do believe him, regardless of your continuing to call him a liar.
Chocolate chips.
Want milk?
"Shannon" actually did go to the courthouse today. I'm not a liar. The fact that you think I am just lets me know that that is the usual route you go.
Ask me any questions one would know that has actually gone to the 3rd floor of the courthouse, done the maze to the annex and requested files by cause number....not because they were given them....but because they have paid online accounts for their information. How many files are there? Want a copy of signatures? I haven't let on to half the info I have out of respect. So bite me. I may have been rushed by my own schedule and sitting at that stupid tiny desk with limited paper clips to use on the pages I wanted copied.....but dammit I was there...for over an hour. And I have the copies. And everything I read confirmed what I knew already.
Besides, Mr. 9:41, the point of this post is the ordering of counseling. And one would naturally look to where it was initially ordered to see, well, that it HAD to be ordered. I wouldn't look for the latest documents to find where it was ORIGINALLY ordered. We're not arguing about visitation, original or otherwise. Why change the subject?
Shannon
P.S. I added the receipt to the post in case you still don't believe I personally went.
Sorry, but we can't let this pass...Who DOESN'T think Matt is the main contributor to the glowing comments about him? Who else has such a vested interest in trying to scrub up his image? Unfortunately, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as my granny used to say. Thank you, Shannon, for searching out the truth and debunking the liars. You are a champion--and a braveheart.
Can any one actually believe MB would be stupid enough to write anything on any blog? Certainly not.
Thanks to 7:16....but I'm no champion. I just care and I can't stand lies.
Shannon
To 9:43/1-9
You have "his word"???????? Gee, that is all you need because we know his word is rooted in the truth (NOT NOT NOT).
Right on....Kari had his word too...remember, "til death do us part" and he sure took care of that didn't he.
hmmmmm
Interesting that all the people accusing Matt of being the one doing all the posting in his behalf are anonymous!!!!
The anonymous comments come from both sides. In fact, one "anonymous" commentor left 6 or so comments last night....anonymously....some of which I let through and some of which were ugly. And to that commentor, nice try. I will not post the malicious, unpertinent stuff you tried to post elsewhere. You should know better.
Shannon
Funny that you say they come from both sides because you seem to post more anonymous ones from your side!! Why not let it be equal?
For the exact reason I stated above. I'm not going to post malicious, unpertinent stuff from the defense's camp against Kari. First, it's ugly. Second, when these people realize the truth, they'll want to suck those words right back in. Third, there are one or two people hell bent on trashing the memory of Kari with lies. Lies. And more lies. I'm not going to give them a forum for that trash.
your absolutely right! There is another forum out there that does that regularly! However why let anyone BASH anyone here. Just doesnt seem like a very Christian thing to do. And if I'm not mistaken you declare yourself to be just that, a Christian. If so limit the bashing all together irregardless of who it is at! And yes Shannon, I left a very simular comment on the site that allows as much bashing about Kari as you do about Matt!
Oh, anonymous above.....are you the "...then damn her....damn her...." Christian? Classy.
Post a Comment