Wife in family law case viewed husband’s and his attorney’s emails for a yea
| chilmata | 07/19/25 | | enigmas | 07/19/25 | | chilmata | 07/19/25 | | .- .-. . .-. . .--. - .. .-.. . | 07/19/25 | | enigmas | 07/19/25 | | chilmata | 07/19/25 | | chilmata | 07/19/25 | | enigmas | 07/19/25 | | scholarship | 07/19/25 | | Emperor CRISPR Chad von Neumann III | 07/19/25 | | enigmas | 07/19/25 | | Emperor CRISPR Chad von Neumann III | 07/19/25 | | Kenneth Play | 07/19/25 | | ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 07/19/25 | | Kenneth Play | 07/19/25 | | habeas penem | 07/19/25 | | chilmata | 07/19/25 | | ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,, | 07/19/25 | | chilmata | 07/19/25 | | a Tall man wit a hoodie | 07/19/25 | | Penis Six Nine | 07/19/25 | | chilmata | 07/19/25 | | enigmas | 07/19/25 | | sealclubber | 07/19/25 | | '''''"'"''"' | 07/19/25 | | hank_scorpio | 07/19/25 | | chilmata | 07/19/25 | | hank_scorpio | 07/19/25 | | Josh_Allen | 07/19/25 | | Diane Rehm talking dirty | 07/19/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 19th, 2025 10:14 AM Author: chilmata
Well, almost a year. She kept the family tablet after separation and my client was still logged into his google account. He would draft an email, not send it, and the next day his wife would address the issues in his draft email.
He didn’t want to sound paranoid so he didn’t say anything and then when he’s changing his password he took a screenshot showing the family tablet had accessed his Gmail 28 minutes ago.
I have been sitting on this information since the end of May because I was waiting until I could secure my client one overnight with his kids. Once we have that it will be difficult stopping our momentum towards 50/50 custody.
Now that our overnight is secure and we have a custody review hearing coming up at which point I’ll keep up pressure for an additional overnight, it was time to send my Evidence Preservation Letter.
Of course I sent that on a Friday. Just in case no one left the office early, I sent it in the morning. Why not ruin both a Friday morning and the weekend?
I gave them until Monday morning at 9:00 am to pick one of the two computer forensic experts I found, and turn over the tablet.
Opposing counsel’s office reached out hours later in the afternoon saying that the attorney was going to be in court all day Monday and they need time to talk to the wife, it will probably be early next week . . .
I said no.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2...id.#49114091) |
Date: July 19th, 2025 10:16 AM Author: enigmas
I presume this violates the initial orders?
I also presume this is incredibly common?
What kind of sanctions will this result in and how mad will be the judge?
How does this help with custody? Just demonstrates that the mom is a lying cunt?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2...id.#49114093) |
 |
Date: July 19th, 2025 10:44 AM Author: chilmata
It doesn’t violate any initial family law orders or I would have filed for contempt and asked the judge to put her in jail.
Not a criminal lawmo but I believe it’s a violation of federal and state law. Invasion of privacy or something blah blah.
Not common. Extremely rare. Once I had a client snooping on his wife’s and attorney’s emails because wife was using her Microsoft email and it was under his account or something.
I sent him a CYA email telling him it’s a federal crime, I want nothing to do with it and to stop immediately, but other than that I don’t see this happening.
I’m asking for $10,000 in punitive sanctions plus attorney fees.
The judge will feign mild concern.
It might unintentionally result in my guy getting to 50/50 faster.
I actually had to have a Come to Jesus talk with my client telling him this was going to cost maybe $10-20k to see through with the most likely outcome being zero punishment for her.
It demonstrates more than just dishonesty. She breached her fiduciary duty for one. Violated her husband’s attorney client privilege. Breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. You know, really bad shit like that.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2...id.#49114133)
|
 |
Date: July 19th, 2025 10:53 AM Author: enigmas
LMFAO, oh what a profession!
I'm so glad my divorce was amicable (and I got bored of reading her texts and e-mails).
Btw, it MIGHT be a federal crime, but she'll claim she had implied permission for authorized access. Zero chance feds get involved in this fact pattern. Also if you and your client were sitting on your rights this may be the rare case of correctly arguing the doctrine of laches.
tyvmf that last paragraph. Starting my day with a good laff.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2...id.#49114146) |
 |
Date: July 19th, 2025 11:51 AM
Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
i like hearing the stories but have no interest in getting closer than that.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2...id.#49114203) |
Date: July 19th, 2025 11:47 AM Author: habeas penem
> He didn’t want to sound paranoid so he didn’t say anything and then when he’s changing his password he took a screenshot showing the family tablet had accessed his Gmail 28 minutes ago.
A mail app or the gmail app will simply check in to his account in the background, whether or not anyone else is looking at his emails.
Judge: "The only violation that I can see here is your client's poor opsec, Counselor."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2...id.#49114198) |
Date: July 19th, 2025 12:13 PM
Author: ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,
Who cares?
This woman, who isn't a lawyer and has no ethical duty, is fighting for custody of her children - and people are mad she opened up emails that were beeping on a device in her living room in order to address the husband's concerns?
"Why can't I live with mommy"
"Because she technically violated the digital records act of 2002."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2...id.#49114219) |
 |
Date: July 19th, 2025 3:30 PM Author: sealclubber
what state? example?
"In Illinois, when a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation or Declaration of Invalidity of Marriage is filed, and either party is served with the summons and petition or files an appearance, certain prohibitions automatically go into effect for both parties and their agents. This is often referred to as a "dissolution action stay" or automatic orders.
These orders generally prohibit physically abusing, harassing, intimidating, striking, or interfering with the personal liberty of the other party or their children, and concealing a minor child from the other parent. These automatic stays are in effect until a judgment is entered, the case is dismissed, or a further order from the court is issued. "
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5752282&forum_id=2...id.#49114598) |
|
|