DANNY SLAYTER COMMITS MORE ERRORS

On February 1, 2012, Danny Slayter, publisher of CenLaBriarPatch and LaDads websites, sent me an email requesting that become associated with his LaDads group. ("E-MAIL FROM DANNY SLAYTER"). Of course, I turned him down.

Then on February 5, 2012, Slayter wrote that I was "An incompetent attorney who does not practice law with no knowledge of family law". ("Greg Aymond: Stay Out Of Legal Matters You Do Not Understand"). Keep in mind that Slayter, who is not a lawyer and has had his own child support problems in the past, should have no valid opinion on who is a competent attorney because he does not know enough to make that determination.

I then, on February 5, 2007, I came back and published a 2007 case that I won. ( "THE MOST RECENT FAMILY LAW APPEAL THAT I WON"). Anyone with any reading comprehension whatsoever can clearly see from that case that I won it. If you doubt it, skip to the end and read the "Disposition" and it should even give a moron a clue that I won that case.

Slayter came right back with his post of February 5, 2012 entitled "He Won What? LOL!").  In that post, Slayter wrote that " This is an example of an appeal an attorney takes when you don’t have a clue as to what you are doing" and  "It looks more like a lucky pro se appeal". id.

It was the non-legally educated Danny Slayter who didn't have a clue and had Slayter actually known something about this case he would have know that it was not a pro se (meaning someone who represents himself) case.

Slayter, who apparently cannot read, says that I lost the case because the court ruled against me on my sole assignment of error. id. But Slayter didn't even read my brief to see the five (5) assignments of error that I did raise. I won on the first 4 and only lost on the last one where I asked that Mr. Barnes' ex-wife be held in contempt of court. (See at pages 2-3 below):



Brief Beginning -

Slayter also wrote that "Wow Greg, you brought a Mom to court because you wanted her held in contempt for not repaying $252.00 in daycare expenses quickly enough" and "Wow! LaDads would have laughed at anyone coming to our site complaining about this". id.

Well for the idiot Slayter, and any morons that follow his bull crap, had he read the facts in that opinion, or at least been aware of them, when I brought the lawsuit on the other matters I also included Paul's claim for the $250 that his ex-wife owed to him under the judgment. I would have committed malpractice if I neglected to bring that claim. That is why I won the $250 at trial and the Court of Appeals simply refused to hold her in contempt of court for not paying it. I certainly hope that LaDads would favor the enforcement of a judgment rendered in favor of a fellow dad.

Slayter wrote that "A simple call to the Assistant District Attorney (or even the case worker) would have caused them to rescind the IAO…..it is done routinely". id.

Once again Slayter is talking about matters that he knows nothing of. The Avoyelles D.A.'s office got a illegal ex-parte income assignment order against Paul and I did call them once Paul received notice of it, but my call was to no avail.

Some time later, while we were awaiting the Court of Appeal's decision, I sent this letter to Ms. Ann Williamson who was then the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Social Services with her apology back to me.



DSS Correspondence -

For those of you that are too dense to understand what the Barnes vs. Barnes decision says:

(Click on photo to Enlarge)

So when it comes to writting on legal matters, would you rather read what is written by a real lawyer with almost 26 years of experience, or read the dribble written by an egotistical moron like Danny Slayter who is not a lawyer?

And Slayter can keep on impressing his rude and crude frequent commenters such as "Aymond's Anus. I personally do not want people that are as ignorant as Danny Slayter on this blog.