Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Case ID: FFL087021 - SHEEHAN, PATRICK VS. CINDY [Caveat lector: “dissolution without kids”]
dangifiknow.com ^

Posted on 08/14/2005 1:43:26 AM PDT by dangifiknow

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: hellinahandcart

The website appears legit. I went to the Solano County Superior Court website and clicked on the link used to search for court cases filed. A clerk may have used "kids" for any number of reasons.


61 posted on 08/14/2005 12:54:10 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Dissolution without children.

This is normal in a case like this were the children are adults and no issue of custody or support is involved.
62 posted on 08/14/2005 12:55:54 PM PDT by gpapa (Voice of reason from the left coast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NathanR

I took another route:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/trial/courtlist.htm

Notice, it is a .gov site. Scroll down to Solano County & click on Web site. This looks legit to me.


63 posted on 08/14/2005 12:58:26 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

The oddity is use of the word "kids" rather than "children".


64 posted on 08/14/2005 12:59:56 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
I wonder how she'll react when the papers are served. Somehow I don't think she'll care

This woman is pretty well impervious to outside influence now. She has sunk into an entrenched paranoid delusional disorder and, as is usually the case with such disordered people, is closed to any information or data which does not directly support her tunnel vision of the world.

Between her hate and her cadre of colluders, she can hold off the world to protect her pathology.

To have such a deranged hater stalking our President is a dangerous state of affairs.

65 posted on 08/14/2005 1:02:36 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

Could have been a newbie clerk.


66 posted on 08/14/2005 1:03:16 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
I'm divorced & I can't remember whether I was formally served by a Sheriff or if my ex served me.

I was served by the sherriff which is usually the norm but could vary from state-to-state.

If this filing is legit, and it appears to be so, I don't know how she will be served papers in Texas. It's too soon to tell, and I don't know what the procedure would be when one party is temporarily away from their usual domicile.

Maybe they will coordinate it with Texas law enforcement in some way, depending on how long this is going to continue.

67 posted on 08/14/2005 1:04:04 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Bureaucrats don't have to be new to be lazy or incompetent. LOL


68 posted on 08/14/2005 1:05:05 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

Isn't this just a schedule for the docket? It is not a legal document. Whoever keeps the site up probably just uses the shortest terms possible.


69 posted on 08/14/2005 1:05:34 PM PDT by libsl (I'm just sayin'....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

Now that you mention it, a newbie would probably take the job seriously. It takes years of doing the bare minimum to be an experienced clerk.


70 posted on 08/14/2005 1:06:58 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps; hellinahandcart; All
Could have been a newbie clerk.

That's one possibility, in which case he's in for some razzing.

Another -- I have no idea how likely -- is a bogus filing or hack.

71 posted on 08/14/2005 1:15:26 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: dighton

I tried search for a different case number and turned up this:

---Report Selection Criteria

Case ID: FFL087011
Docket Start Date:
Docket Ending Date:


Case Description

Case ID: FFL087011 - CADDELL, LAURA J. VS. HAATVEIT, JOHN R.
Filing Date: Friday , August 12th, 2005
Type: DW - Dissolution with kids
Status: OSCNF - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (NO FEE)


Related Cases

No related cases were found.

Case Event Schedule ---

http://courtconnect.solanocourts.com/pls/bprod_cc/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?case_id=FFL087011

Evidently "kids" has entered the California legal lexicon.


72 posted on 08/14/2005 1:15:54 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: libsl
Isn't this just a schedule for the docket? It is not a legal document. Whoever keeps the site up probably just uses the shortest terms possible.

You are correct on all counts. Odds are, low man on the totem pole gets stuck doing the task of posting info to meet the newer open records provisions of states' laws.

73 posted on 08/14/2005 1:16:00 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: dighton

... and then of course, it could be genuine, but at this stage I wouldn't put money on it.


74 posted on 08/14/2005 1:17:42 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Aliska

You raise a good question. Could part of her reason for staying in Texas be to avoid getting formally served? I think for cases where someone can not be located, there's usually a provision to advertise the suit in newspapers.


75 posted on 08/14/2005 1:20:45 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

This woman is really beginning to scare me.
I worry about our President's safety every day.
I think those with psyche backgrounds ought to contact the Secret Service and share their views.


76 posted on 08/14/2005 1:22:39 PM PDT by pugmama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

Cindy's actions only serve to prolong the effort by encouraging Iran and Syria to continue fighting the USA.

Cindy's actions will lead to more mothers losing their sons and daughters.


77 posted on 08/14/2005 1:27:03 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
Evidently "kids" has entered the California legal lexicon.

Hmmmm, now two from Solana, both filed 8/12/05.

We're regarded by some as laid back in this state, but really . . .

78 posted on 08/14/2005 1:27:08 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: dighton

They probably just hire these people straight out of high school, well maybe college... :^)


79 posted on 08/14/2005 1:31:37 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: dighton

We'll know that the California legal system has become really relaxed when legal documents begin referring to parties as "dude" and "dudette".


80 posted on 08/14/2005 1:32:42 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson