Public Opinion Feed

"Carol's Comment"

Yesterday I received a comment to my article on Rhode Island Divorce Tips entitled "Inconsistencies III".  I deleted it as a comment but I'm by no means burying it.  I think I makes a significant statement and deserves a blog space of it's own. 

Here is the comment by "Carol":

Complain, complain, whine, whine, whine. For someone who probably (if we buy in to the hype) makes a great deal of money (and is a member of a profession that has, at best, a less-than-stellar reputation), you sure do complain and lay blame (on the judge, on the other lawyer, on the client, on the court system). You never do anything wrong, do you? Maybe you are just not competent in regard to your chosen profession. Maybe you cannot get your points across to the judge, and so you confuse him or her. (Or to your clients. Think about it.) Maybe your clients are paying you too much for below-average representation. Why are you complaining? Just do your job. Why are you spending time on blogging (and you are not even good at writing)? It sounds as though you should be brushing up on your law facts, and maybe looking in the mirror for once.

To say the least the comment is harsh, biased, mentions no facts, doesn't indicate the position it's written from and takes my article in my blog entirely out of context.

There is no complaining or whining in that blog article, nor is there in any of my other articles for that matter.  The articles are instructional and provide for the reader insights that I have as a practitioner that most laypeople and even most lawyers don't consider.

Carol's comment on being in a profession with a less-than-stellar reputation makes me wonder why she is so bitter and what she has based her opinion of lawyers  on.  Is it an instance with a single divorce lawyer, it is from the position of a disgruntled client who didn't get what she wanted and was simply looking for someone to blame?

Carol's comment raises more questions than it answers.  The only clear perspective that comes through Carol is that for whatever reason you are bitter.

I spend my time blogging because I believe people should be informed about divorce and all aspects having to do with family law issues.  If you don't like my writing, you are certainly free to browse to another blog or web page.  I will not be offended.  That's precisely what I do.

Carol's comment on my Rhode Island Divorce Tips Site is, unfortunately, an attack on me as an attorney and blogger personally.  Where this comes from is beyond me but it is clear to me that wherever this bitter comment came from it is not from knowing me or my practice personally or it comes from a client who simply didn't get what he or she wanted in their divorce proceedings due to either, matters outside my control, or unreasonable expectations of the client.

I do hope Carol takes time to read an article or two on this blog.  Pointing out a whole, difficulty, deficiency or a place where the system needs improvement is a way of educating and is a proactive way to advocate for change.  Turning it into complaining and whining relegates it to banter about husbands at the local Dunkin Donuts and does it a disservice.

In closing, I can assure Carol that I look at myself frequently to make changes and improve skills for my clients (though not in the mirror) and I am my harshest critic.  Your blog comment makes assumptions that don't apply to me in the least and close colleagues would tell you that because I'd give a person the shirt off my back I don't make a "stellar" or even "moderate" income.

All in all, I do want to thank you for commenting on my Rhode Island Divorce Blog Carol.  Though it was particularly harsh and critical, it gave me time to reflect once again to insure that my practice and my attitude about educating others remains on point.  And if there is a particular "law fact" that you believe I have written about incorrectly, please call it to my attention and I will gladly update my article.

All My Best to You on Your Journey Through The RI Family Court,
Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall - "The Rhode Island Divorce Coach"™ 

I'm an Affordable Kent County Divorce Lawyer and I am here to help you if you need me.

Call me for your reduced-cost advice session at (401) 632-6976. 

Marriage Was Once Sacred But Have Celebrities Made Divorce the Latest Thing?

Rob Delaney, L.A. Comedian, Wants to Sue Kim Kardashian Over 'Sham' Wedding; Kim, Lawyers Call BS

By Simone Wilson Tue., Nov. 1 2011 at 5:30 PM


Kim Kardashian has finally responded, albeit indirectly, to Los Angeles comedian Rob Delaney's threat to sue her in a viral column for Vice Magazine.

His grounds? Delaney tells the Weekly that L.A.'s Armenian princess defrauded the public, and perhaps E! advertisers as well, by collecting millions of dollars for a marriage that was, in the end, nothing more than a publicity stunt/cash cow.

So yeah -- her response. TMZ reports this afternoon that Kardashian has told "people very close to her" that her marriage to towering NBA star Kris Humphries...

... "was '100% real,' adding that they loved each other very much."

Things only get more heartbreaking from there: "She says when they got engaged ... she truly believed the marriage was 'forever.'"

But Delaney tells us he truly believes, in his "heart of hearts," that the Kardashian-Humphries union -- the closest thing America has ever seen to a Royal Wedding, only to devolve into a Royal Divorce a mere 72 days later -- was one big setup.

Here's an excerpt from yesterday's hit column.


"I know! We'll have Kim get married! It'll be a ratings bonanza! We'll bludgeon the populace with billboards and commercials, build it up across our 14 execrable spinoffs, hire some psychologists to help Kim and Kompany approximate the appearance of human emotion as they navigate the wedding preparation, split the actual wedding over two interminable episodes--even accompany them on the honeymoon! And the best part is, it doesn't even have to be real! We'll have Kris (Humphries, not Kris Jenner, Kim's mom (though having her marry her own mom once ratings start to slide IS a great idea!!!)) sign a pre-nup that is also a non-disclosure agreement AND a waiver stating that if he even talks in his sleep about the "marriage's" details, he'll be beaten, drugged, and given a facelift from the same doctor who did Bruce Jenner, and then forced to walk the Earth terrifying children and animals for eternity.

... It is alleged that Kim Kardshian was paid $18 million to participate in her own wedding. I feel like schools could use that money. Or health clinics in areas hit hardest by the recession. Or Pizza Hut. Or Bernie Madoff. Or my uncle Mitchell, who is a convicted sex offender making a living selling Percocet to the elderly in Rhode Island.

​And more of Kardashian's response today, via shadowy TMZ sources: "Sometimes marriages end ... rapidly. Just because it's short doesn't mean it's fake."

Delaney's still not buying it. In his lawsuit, which has not yet been filed, he says he plans to demand that she stay married to Humphries. (Or if not, that E! producer Ryan Seacrest, and parent company Comcast, at least issue a statement to the public admitting that "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" is fiction.)

"I'm not some weird conservative defender of the concept of marriage," he tells the Weekly. "But if you do get married, give it a shot."

If you plaster your wedding invite on every billboard and supermarket aisle in this godforsaken city, to the point that we unavoidably care about your marriage, "then goddammit, you're going to stay married until I say you can stop being married," says Delaney. (He also spoke at length with the Village Voice, our sister paper.)

So the lawsuit needs some fleshing out.

Still, we called a handful of L.A. attorneys -- a contract negotiator, a family lawyer and an entertainment litigator -- to see if Delaney's great American fight might have the slightest glimmer of hope in the courtroom. Because if nothing else, it's damn interesting.

Brian Murphy, who draws up entertainment contracts for stars in West L.A., says that if Kardashian's marriage was somehow proven to be a sham, there's a (very, very remote) possibility it could violate a "good faith and fair dealing" bit in her contract for the show.

​Assuming there are morals clauses in the contract -- "whether she had enough strength to get them out, who knows," says the attorney -- advertisers might be able to ask for their money back, saying she violated their agreement.

However, Murphy believes that "most of her ads probably like the extra attention" anyway. As a mere observer of the show, Delaney is owed nothing by Kardashian, he says. (Plus, the indignant Vice columnist is alleging Kardashian's producers knew about the sham, too, which would make their reality-show contract with the bride kind of a moot point.)

Mary Catherine Bohen, a family lawyer in Los Angeles, is more skeptical still.

"That's just crazy talk," she says.

Bohen explains that accusations of fraud can only be made by one married party of the other. A third party like Delaney would have absolutely no standing to intervene in their relationship.

"You know what?" says Bohen. "Shame on all of us, for watching it."

Century City entertainment lawyer Barry Rothman clears up any remaining doubt.

"So he's just a member of the public?" Rothman laughs. "You have to have damages. What, he deserves something because he was emotionally harmed? Because he cried at the wedding when he should have been laughing?"

Yep -- Delaney's case does kind of come down to that. Seems simple as this: A well-meaning guy, pissed he got emotionally invested in trivial Valley-girl drama and worried about what that might mean for his kids -- and hell, for the rest of America -- decided it was time he held a mandatory tween idol responsible for her intolerableness. And dust up some publicity for his own gig, to boot.

In order for him to win, though, he'll have to prove Kardashian didn't love nor wish to marry Humphries in the months leading up to their wedding. "It's very difficult for third parties to assess the emotional dynamic between two people," says Rothman. And even if you do prove "it's a sham and not effective, that doesn't make it not solemnized. It's still a marriage."

But Delaney maintains that his accusations will stick -- even if he doesn't wind up being the plaintiff opposite Kardashian. He says "thousands of people on the Internet" have told him they'd get behind a suit.

Personally, he's more interested in the marriage itself.

"I would like them to stay married," Delaney tells us, quite passionately. "[Even] arranged marriages probably have a happiness factor. Marriage is so difficult, and so weird, and unnatural in some ways that I don't think your odds improve by picking your own spouse."

So whadya say, Kim: Time to suck it up and make babies with your ill-chosen teddy bear of a B-ball neanderthal? If not for your own pleasures, at least for the mental stability of the unwilling Kardashian observer that you (and goddamn Ryan Seacrest) have made of us all.

See the Complete Article, Pictures, and Commentary here at