The Onion Man and Chong Chong guy are having a slapfight over ethics in reading and posting

[Chongqing]

I noticed the document with the plea offer for Kayla referenced her as Ms. Kayla instead of Mrs. Kayla, which is curious because the court knows she got married.

Is there any significance to this, or is this how they address every woman married or not?

 

[East_Clintwood]

I noticed the document with the plea offer for Kayla referenced her as Ms. Kayla instead of Mrs. Kayla, which is curious because the court knows she got married.

Is there any significance to this, or is this how they address every woman married or not?

My nigga in Christ it's already been discussed. Literally the post above yours is talking about it ffs.

 

[Chongqing]

My nigga in Christ it's already been discussed. Literally the post above yours is talking about it ffs.

I want to discuss it too.

I find it hard to believe that a court document, like an indictment for marital family violence, for example, would tell a story about a victim and offender and refer to them as Mr. and Ms. Samelastname.

Regardless of the norm, if I was close to the courthouse and more autistic, I would try to find a document from another case of a woman being charged with her husband, while being referred to as Ms. Just to see.

Calling it now, I think divorce is a foregone conclusion. She may not even inititiate it herself, but it is coming. She'll be a Miss again soon.

Edit to add: this post is not dumb for two reasons.

1. This marriage will not last. They will get a divorce. They will not both get clean, turn their lives around, and find love between them. Divorce is coming.

2. The two posters who are certain of how this naming convention works are certain because of their experiences in the professional and business world, but not from ever seeing any documents in any other Minnesota court cases. Who knows? Guessing correctly isn't the same as knowing.

 

[AnOminous]

2. The two posters who are certain of how this naming convention works are certain because of their experiences in the professional and business world, but not from ever seeing any documents in any other Minnesota court cases. Who knows? Guessing correctly isn't the same as knowing.

Dude it's even in a manual from *1993* on the court system website.

https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/scao_library/CEJ/Judges-Guide-to-Gender-Fair-Court-Proceedings-1993.pdf

It's been this way for literally decades.

 

[Chongqing]

Dude it's even in a manual from *1993* on the court system website.

https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/scao_library/CEJ/Judges-Guide-to-Gender-Fair-Court-Proceedings-1993.pdf

View attachment 6284599
It's been this way for literally decades.

I see.

This is proof.

My speculation has been corrected.

I will say, it's not wrong or even bad to question assertions you've seen no proof of. I didn't know about this document prior to now and I would have never known about it until I had some crazy court case one day.

 

[Oliver Onions]

I find it hard to believe that a court document, like an indictment for marital family violence, for example, would tell a story about a victim and offender and refer to them as Mr. and Ms. Samelastname.

I would imagine the people typing up these documents don't have intimate knowledge of every case they handle and are pumping them out all day, so it's infinitely more efficient to use the universally applicable 'Ms' than to have to double-check the actual marital status of every woman you write a letter to, especially in legal matters where an unscrupulous lawyer could use such a mistake to say a plea deal was never offered to their client ("Mrs Rekieta doesn't exist, my client is Miss Rekieta").

The two posters who are certain of how this naming convention works are certain because of their experiences in the professional and business world, but not from ever seeing any documents in any other Minnesota court cases. Who knows? Guessing correctly isn't the same as knowing.

I can appreciate being inquisitive, but to assume the Minnesota courts operate in a way completely unique to convention everywhere else is just contrarian. If you doubt the word of other posters on the site, who clearly have experience in these matters, to this extent then you should go look it up for yourself.

I don't want to come across all Tumblr, but it really isn't their job to educate you.

 

[Chongqing]

I can appreciate being inquisitive, but to assume the Minnesota courts operate in a way completely unique to convention everywhere else is just contrarian. If you doubt the word of other posters on the site, who clearly have experience in these matters, to this extent then you should go look it up for yourself.

This was just settled two posts above.

At the time of my question, I had no established understanding that all courts in the US had this rule, that was revealed to me later.

Edit to add: I cut this down before I could see it was quoted.

 

[Oliver Onions]

I am happy to now know the source of what was being asserted, instead of just assuming like a dumby.

So look it up yourself instead of demanding other posters explain themselves to you because you're too retarded to spend five seconds on Google.

 

[Chongqing]

So look it up yourself instead of demanding other posters explain themselves

That never happened and I don't understand why me not knowing this weird thing is a big deal.

 

[Oliver Onions]

That never happened

Exhibit A:

The two posters who are certain of how this naming convention works are certain because of their experiences in the professional and business world, but not from ever seeing any documents in any other Minnesota court cases. Who knows? Guessing correctly isn't the same as knowing.

The clear inference in this statement is that the two posters --although there were actually three who explained this to me, lurk moar-- don't know what they're talking about, entirely based on your assumptions about them and their experience. You wouldn't have made the accusation if you didn't expect them to respond.

I don't understand why me not knowing this weird thing is a big deal.

Not knowing is fine, acting like a sperg and shitting up the thread with autistic screeds after you've been corrected because you couldn't be bothered to look it up yourself --while refusing to believe other, clearly more knowledgeable posters-- is not. You're acting like you only asked the question, but your first post clearly demonstrated you hadn't bothered reading the thread after coming here from the community highlight, because if you had you'd have seen me ask the exact same question as you.

Anyway, I don't want to shit up the thread with pointless arguments, so I'll leave it at giving you puzzle pieces from now on.

ETA: lol nigga you mad

 

[Chongqing]

The clear inference in this statement

An inference isn't a demand.

Like, not even close.

Not knowing is fine, acting like a sperg and shitting up the thread with autistic screeds after you've been corrected because you couldn't be bothered to look it up yourself

Me saying I don't understand why you're making a big deal out of this isn't an autistic screed.

Anyway, I don't want to shit up the thread with pointless arguments, so I'll leave it at giving you puzzle pieces from now on.

This is like Rekieta ending his recent Reddit posts to Null with "-Peace"