The act of filing for divorce set off a chain reaction. The women’s advocacy group assigned a pro bono attorney to Narciss, Mr. Dolos Iniquitous Nomos, Esq. Unknown to me until much later, discovered after the divorce was final, Mr. Nomos had two separate pro bono contracts, one with the women’s advocacy group and another with Narciss.
I figured pro bono meant serving a client without charge, but I didn’t think that meant he expected the husband to pay the fees. Silly me.
Nomos fully planned to extract attorney fees from me, through a court order, and per contract half of the theft was to go to the women’s advocacy group who sponsored him. It’s the way the System is set-up, and the court facilitates it, despite the fact that it’s not provided in Alaska Statute. In other words, the practice has no basis in legislative law, but despite that it’s done anyway, and furthermore the practice is supported by the Alaska Supreme Court. It’s called “Broad Discretionary Powers” of the lower court, thus not limiting the discretion to mean within the law, but to include decisions supported only by prior case decisions, and it may be applied with variations subsequently. Previously, I was under the presumption that the courts had to at least pretend to be within the law. But this issue is outside those bounds, which leads me to wonder where are the court’s limitations, if not the law?
Mr. Nomos had no previous experience with divorces. This was his first case with the women’s advocacy group and his first divorce case.
The fight had only just begun.
Narciss’ attorney: Mr. Dolos Iniquitous Nomos, Esquire. In ancient Greek mythology Dolos was the deity or spirit of trickery and guile. Nomos was the deity or spirit of law.