BTW, these are new errors

I just realized, you may be having a deja vu experience in reading my post about math errors. But this is a new set of errors. The last set of errors were related to manual calculations of home values (down payment, separate contributions, fair market value, outstanding mortgage debt, total equity, separate equity) . these calculations involve simple math. But they were done on a legal pad and miscopyed.

This new set of errors have a root cause of a completely new proposal from opposition. Well that's to be expected right? No. After repeated requests to participate in settlement talks since Sept 2006, the judge ordered the defense counsel to prepare a settlement at my expense and for the Plaintiff to submit objections to it. It was specifically intended that Plaintiff had lost the right to submit a proposal by being non-responsive for 6 months. So my lawyer (defense) submitted the proposal to the court, it went through several rounds of objections, then on the very last day, when supposedly all issues were resolved, she comes walking in with a completely new proposal.

Now you might think that the judge should simply inform Plaintiff that she must have her case files mixed up and this matter was done. Or failing the judge being awake enough to utter the needed words, as defense counsel (affectionately referred to as pussy, or fuckin ball-less pussy for emphasis), you would politely request that the judge re-instruct the Plaintiff. Of course you'd be dead wrong, because you don't think like a judge or a lawyer. And that's probably a good thing, because their thought process is nothing to envy.

One source of new errors were payments made outside the enforcement agency. Now this agency has plenty of trouble keeping track of what they do know, they sure won't handle what they don't know. It wasn't an accident that these payments were made outside the enforcement agency, it was made as a demand by the opposition, the same opposition who "forgot" to include them, the same opposition who got the county prosecutor involved, and who then portrayed me as a deadbeat to the judge as leverage to portray me in her artificially created bad light.

The fact of the mater is that once again, it has been proven, after the fact, that no time, in the two years when I have been repeatedly labeled as a deadbeat did I ever fall behind in child support and in fact overpaid substantially. But the judge was shown a correspondence from the county prosecutor showing I had exceeded the second threshold of deadbeat status, making me eligible for the state deadbeat poster program. So those of you who know my state may be able to see my driver's license photo online.

I complained to my lawyer that this was prejudicial and not accidental either.

Another new source of errors I alluded to is an area that would cause very adverse tax consequences. Another non-accident since her client had a similar transaction and she suggested a 30% offset to cover taxes, however on the same transaction she forgot to suggest that for me.

I will inform the court that both counsel's are mathematical idiots and either he gives me two days to evaluate each substantial change or he appoints a court CPA to deal with all math.

Is this reasonable, twice in one week, they have made $10K errors on a $100K settlement, that's 10%. The court's in a hurry, OK. How about this, stop changing things. Or how about this, I'll go with less checking if each counsel puts up a $30K cash bond and they submit to our state's triple damages statutory penalty for consumer fraud.