Originally Posted by sibleyd Originally Posted by

Sometimes, a man is so far ahead of his time that it is hard for his contemporaries to understand him. Judge Adams is such a man. As a judge, he is light years ahead of his time.



His genius may not be understood for many years. It may not be apparent to us mere mortals. His work will be the subject of scholarly legal articles and study for many years.



Some of his pearls of judicial wisdom follow:



1) Family law often concerns itself with the amorphous concept of "best interests of the child." Some have complained that this term is too undefined to provide reasonable guidance in judicial proceedings. Well, Judge William Adams has come to the rescue. We still do not know all the contours of the best interests of the child but we do know thanks to Judge William Adams the mental health of the primary child care provider is not relevant to "best interests." Thus, it doesn't matter with respect to the best interests of the child, if the child care provider is homicidal, psychotic, suicidal, and hullucinatory, among other things. In other words, a homicidal, hullucinatory, psychotic psychotic is just as good as someone who is not.



2) Naturally, from principle no. 1, it therefor follows that any discovery into the mental health history of a primary health care provider is irrelevant and should not be allowed.



3) Children should never be believed. This includes a child who everybody describes as bright and honest. If a child says he was abused, he should be ignored. If a parent doesn't ignore the child, the parent should be sanctioned (and her lawyer).



4) Similarly, if child says he has been abused, the alleged abuser should be asked whether he abused the child. If the alleged abuser denies the abuse, the issue should be dropped.



5) If the child says various people were present during the abuse, then those people have no relevance as witnesses. If the child's parents attempts to question them, she should be sanctioned (and her lawyer also).



6) If the child says he was abused at a restaurant, but people who abused the child deny having been at the restaurant at the relevant time, it is irrelevant that two waiters at the restaurant say they were there.



7) All children are fantasizers all the time; thus, anyone, who believes a child is frivolous and must be sanctioned.



8) If there is no videotape of something, it should not be presented in Court. No videotape, then it didn't happen.



9) Written communication don't count; only phone calls.



10) If a witness he doesn't have a clue what the charts he present mean or how they were created, then this means the charts are conclusive proof.



These are just a few "Judge William Adams" pearls of judicial wisdom. His wisdom is too vast to be learned in just one lesson.