Comments on: IUC Travel: Toronto Making Huge Comeback; Best Way To Get There is By VIA Rail

By: ffxiv gil

ffxiv gil — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:53:09 +0000

Good! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

By: Keane

Keane — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:24:20 +0000

@ AFM – yes I think there are a few highly questionable ones, you can always spot them when they start flipping from one side to another and contradicting themselves but I’m not going to point them out for fear of inciting them or being accused of thinking everyone else is too stupid to see it! And you’re absolutely right about info that could be easily found on google. A very questionable poster called Zippety Doo Dah gave me a tutorial on how to be a journalist a few threads back. Her first point was the very first thing I learnt in a journalism course when I was 18! I was obviously grateful to her for reminding me of it though. Next proceeded a list of about 20 questions which all dilligant journalists should ask themselves when judgung the validity of a source, you know the type of thing you get taught in history class when you’re about 13. I was like wow thanks so much for that info, did you get that from the online guide about how to be a journalist from Mr and Mrs Top Journo Esquire??? It was hysterical. I was like that list of questions is pure gold, I’m getting on the phone to my reported friend now to make sure the next time he’s in Sierra Leone reporting on the trade in blood diamonds or whatever he will be sure to ask that list of questions at every available opportunity. I can just imagine him talking to a bunch of machine gun toting bandits asking them “How reliabe is the information you are giving me? Is it backed up by other sources you are reading online? etc etc” – hilarious! I’ll give Ange something, her and her team of clueless dimwits have given me some of the best laughs I’ve had in ages!

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:15:41 +0000

@Liz E.: I actually agree on this, IAN has heard they are in the middle of the paper work, but I don't think for one second he was getting any legal papers were signed on the set, nor getting permission to take the kids to Canada. You do not need to do that unless you are divorced and as far the world knows they are still intact. Maybe it was just some other type of paper, regarding something they own together, the J-P Foundation, could be anything. Plus it made Just Jared happy. lol so it worked.

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:13:07 +0000

@Angie’s Fax Machine:
I am perplexed by that as well, not sure what is going on, some just don’t have the stamina we have I think. and there are always the ones who pretend to be friendly, but they give themselves away quickly ,don’t they?

By: Angie's Fax Machine

Angie's Fax Machine — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:25:17 +0000

@Kate:
Many friendly posters commenting as “clueless” posters. Beware. Don’t be set up to answer questions with answers easily found on google (or any other search engine).

Am I being paranoid? Noticed many changes on “friendly” posters. Ian, SR, Ms9C, et al what do you think?

By: Liz E.

Liz E. — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:04:25 +0000

Different Guest said on April 26th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
@Liz E.: Not in family law in my state. In one county even took file by mail, if it’s all agreed. How would the writer know he was serving papers, he could have been delivering papers to her – big difference. Or as justhelping has pointed out getting her signature on the document to take the children to Canada. I’ve had to do that when when taking my nieces across the border.

==========

My point was simply that the article said Brad was serving papers normally served by a process server as if Brad was serving divorce papers on her. That was the clear implication. If that were true then Brad could not be the one serving the papers. That’s all. Also if as stated here there is a battle over custody, etc. then I doubt one of the parties would be so willing to make it this informal. People win cases – civil and criminal on technicalities. I’m sure Ian could explain that to his readers. Yes, parties can agree to accept service by mail or other methos allowed by court rules but we have been told this is not an amicable parting, not amicable about any issue so why would they be so amicable about this. It’s just too contradictory.

By: Different Guest

Different Guest — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:32:08 +0000

@Liz E.:Not in family law in my state. In one county even took file by mail, if it's all agreed. How would the writer know he was serving papers, he could have been delivering papers to her - big difference. Or as justhelping has pointed out getting her signature on the document to take the children to Canada. I've had to do that when when taking my nieces across the border.

By: justhelping

justhelping — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:22:28 +0000

maybe they already split and he needed papers to take the boys to niagara falls

By: Liz E.

Liz E. — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:53:54 +0000

All motions or proposed orders that are filed with the court in connection with a case must be formally served on all opposing parties. That is uniform process of service throughout the United States. You must attach a Certificate of Service to all pleadings attesting to the service including the names, dates and manner in which service was accomplished. The article here said that Pitt was serving papers himself rather than using a formal process server (using Canadian terms it seems). That suggested that these were papers/filings that a process server would normally serve. If that were so then one cannot serve outside the court rules. If all he allegedly had were documents to sign, i.e., ageements. etc., then you would still need required witnesses as well as the confidentiality that a working film set does not normally allow. I stand by my argument that the article’s pronouncement that Pitt was playing process server and/or bringing the type of documents as was suggested to sign is hardly believable. It strains credulity that people with these resources and counsel would behave so amateurish and careless with any matter of importance.

By: Different Guest

Different Guest — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:22:09 +0000

@Liz E.:It is only the petition that must be served on the other party. Once service has been effected, you can deliver any other documents for signature any way you want to - and those documents are not witnessed, just signed by the parties and the Judge. He could also have been delivering something he'd signed such as a quit claim deed to a property.