Judicial Service Officer's role

[kaizen]

gam,

As the days went on, I see that you were right and I was wrong. I apologize if I was offensive and I regret not listening to your advice from the get go.

Just wanted to acknowledge you had it right.

 

[gam]

gam,

As the days went on, I see that you were right and I was wrong. I apologize if I was offensive and I regret not listening to your advice from the get go.

Just wanted to acknowledge you had it right.

I'm sorry that I was right. I didn't think you were offensive though, you try and I know your case is a mess and how frustrating that is. I don't know all, just try and pass along what I have seen that works, specially in this court or the few surrounding it. Lots in your court that is not done well and I've watched it in many cases. 1 case is my daughters, 1 case is my other daughters and 1 case is my nephew's. So while not my cases I do have a huge interest in them as they are people very close to me. I have gone with all 3 of them every time they have had to go to court and my function there has been to observe everything that goes on in their case and all the others being heard while waiting for their's. Don't want to toot my own horn, but one of my best features is I am a fantastic observer and I miss little. Which is very helpful in figuring out next moves, so cases don't get so bad, specially in this court.

Not overly fond of most of the workers of that court, but I have seen worse in neighboring county's. FOC needs to be used and dealt with, with caution, that is just my experience with this court. Cases that are full of issues, will be viewed by all in the court as troubled cases and they don't bother to see who the trouble maker is, both parties are affected by their views. It took 4 long years in my 1 daughter's case to get that court to really help and see who the trouble maker was. Very frustrating as the picture was there from the beginning for them but they choose to go with no help and making you deal with the trouble maker. If you could do that, then you would not be asking them for help, lol. It's a vicious cycle but one that making some better decisions on what to do can change it around.

Ya know where to find me if you need some help, I will try the best I can, but who knows if my suggestions will work either.

 

[kaizen]

The lawyer seems disinterested in helping me with this, so I've found the form "Motion and/or Order to Show Cause." I'm going to fill it out, and I have two questions.

Can I attach a sheet to it that lists the timeline of events to support my allegation? (My attorney once did this in a previous case, stating you never know how much time you'll get to speak in front of the judge and this way it's more likely that he or she will be familiar with your case.)

Second question is about having him served. I know I can hire and pay for a service to do this. But...it also lists a place of the form where an officer of court (sheriff, bailiff, appointed court officer) can sign (w/o it needing to be notarized that he was served. We will be in court on Monday for an unrelated matter (my son's charge). Any chance someone from the court would give him the order and he could be served that way or would they not get involved or would it just depend on who? It just seems so easy to after we're done with my son's business to tell son to step out of the room and ask son's judge to give paper to dad and sign that he did so.

 

[gam]

The lawyer seems disinterested in helping me with this, so I've found the form "Motion and/or Order to Show Cause." I'm going to fill it out, and I have two questions.

Can I attach a sheet to it that lists the timeline of events to support my allegation? (My attorney once did this in a previous case, stating you never know how much time you'll get to speak in front of the judge and this way it's more likely that he or she will be familiar with your case.)

Second question is about having him served. I know I can hire and pay for a service to do this. But...it also lists a place of the form where an officer of court (sheriff, bailiff, appointed court officer) can sign (w/o it needing to be notarized that he was served. We will be in court on Monday for an unrelated matter (my son's charge). Any chance someone from the court would give him the order and he could be served that way or would they not get involved or would it just depend on who? It just seems so easy to after we're done with my son's business to tell son to step out of the room and ask son's judge to give paper to dad and sign that he did so.

Yes you attach it, just put on the motion form to see attachment A, should be a spot where you briefly state reason for show cause and that is where you put see attachment.

Your court does not require to have someone personally served, you just have to mail the motion to them, regular mail, unless your court order says something different. Unless they have changed this requirement since Dec of 2013. It has a spot on the bottom where you sign that a copy was mailed. You mail the copy after you file it, they will stamp it with the hearing date. You go to the clerks window, you need 5 copies of the motion and any attachments, they will then send you to pay filing fee to the cashier. Then back to clerks window and they stamp the hearing date and time on it. You then put his copy in the mail.

If you want him personally served, I would call the county clerks office and see if they have a list of servers. I don't know anyone who has done that in this court, regular mail has always been used. I don't believe a court officer or bailiff serves during their actual working hours. I believe there are ones that do this on the side, I do know the sheriff's office does serve, but again you would have to find out through clerks office who to contact on that. I don't believe a Judge would do this at the other hearing, at least I have never seen that done. I have also not seen it done in the waiting area of the courtrooms either and I have sat out there tons.

Does he have a lawyer? If he does you would serve his lawyer.

 

[kaizen]

So many days later, and many new things have transpired.

Dad has taken son from home again. He hasn't been home in weeks. There is a show cause for contempt scheduled for this Monday (3/31). I have an attorney. He likes to hear other opinions and reactions though - because he's said this isn't brain surgery and you never know how things will be perceived. So....here's my question.

The process server served Dad on 3/21. I don't know if it's different in different places, so I'll just throw out there that my attorney said Dad needs a seven day notice. Dad's attorney has responded by saying that while Dad got parts of the complaint, he did not receive the actual summons to court served. Still waiting for confirmation from the process server that he was served the summons, which I can't imagine him not confirming.

The question my atty. has for me is do I want to go ahead Monday with the risk that they will tell the judge they did not get adequate notice and the judge may throw it out, or do we postpone? My feeling is the judge will say 'look, you obviously knew there was court today. You obviously knew that there was a show cause for contempt this day, because your (Dad's) attorney answered it on 3/25 (six days before) the court date - so stop the insanity and let's continue." *If we are to believe them - which I don't and can prove a history of lies - it basically means (in documentable ways) that they knew about it six days before, not seven (based on the date of Dad's attorney's response).

My question is - would you proceed Monday or put it off for another 3 weeks or so to cover your butt and not leave the loophole that they weren't properly served? I don't understand how they can be served some things, but not the actual notice of court date, but my attorney said there's different papers that were/are served at one time.

Thanks for any input.

 

[single317dad]

Someone will correct me if MI RCPs don't allow this, but I would serve Dad's attorney from here on out. Dad can lie about what he received, and the attorney can plausibly deny that Dad received something. If the attorney is served, as an officer of the court he won't lie about that (if he knows what's good for him).