[markobr] Stupid or smart? Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - October 2009 » [markobr] Stupid or smart? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 20
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 7:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

He read the text and thought: "What a stupid person". His colleague read it and thought: "What a smart person".
Gourami (Gourami)
New member
Username: Gourami

Post Number: 433
Registered: 2-2008
Posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 4:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Text= Book? Chapter? Scholarly article? Website? School essay? Pamphlet?

Are he and his colleague in the exact same profession? Similar professions? Do they work in academia? business? advertising? government?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 6:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Text= Book? Chapter? Scholarly article? Website? School essay? Pamphlet? No to all.

Are he and his colleague in the exact same profession? Yes. Similar professions? Do they work in academia? business? advertising? government? This is closest.
Anneja (Anneja)
New member
Username: Anneja

Post Number: 2
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 8:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

was one right, or is it an opinion?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 29
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 8:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

was one right, This. or is it an opinion?
Anneja (Anneja)
New member
Username: Anneja

Post Number: 4
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 12:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

was the right one the man who said it was stupid,Or the one who said it was smart
Absinthe (Absinthe)
New member
Username: Absinthe

Post Number: 178
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 3:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's call "he" Bob, and "his colleague" Sam.

So one was right, but were either of them actually aware of this? That is, did both or one of them think they were expressing opinions, but happened by coincidence to be correct/incorrect? If yes, and it was only one of them, then which one?

Is the stupid person either Sam or Bob? Is the smart person either Sam or Bob? Did either of them write the text? If no, is the author of the text the stupid/smart person?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 33
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 7:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

was the right one the man who said it was stupid, Or the one who said it was smart This one.

Let's call "he" Bob, and "his colleague" Sam. OK.

So one was right, but were either of them actually aware of this? Yes. At least the one who was right. That is, did both or one of them think they were expressing opinions, but happened by coincidence to be correct/incorrect? Noish. If yes, and it was only one of them, then which one? Sam.

Is the stupid person either Sam or Bob? No. Is the smart person either Sam or Bob? No. Did either of them write the text? No. If no, is the author of the text the stupid/smart person? Yes.
Yabblesmacker (Yabblesmacker)
New member
Username: Yabblesmacker

Post Number: 42
Registered: 4-2009
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 10:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

text=message sent by mobile phone/cellphone?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 34
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 11:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

text=message sent by mobile phone/cellphone? No.
Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator
Username: Gourami

Post Number: 249
Registered: 10-2008
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 3:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was the text intended for them to read? Did Sam detect something smart in the words themselves that Bob missed? If so, some sort of strategy? A hidden message? A trick?

Do they work in politics? Law? Are they police officers? Soldiers? Is the text a speech?
Kalira (Kalira)
New member
Username: Kalira

Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2009
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 4:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

the text = it?

Is the text at least vaguely a work of fiction? nonfiction? Is it a textbook? closed captioning? subtitles?

Were he and his colleague thinking their respective thoughts about the same person?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 37
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 12:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was the text intended for them to read? Yes. Did Sam detect something smart in the words themselves that Bob missed? Yope. If so, some sort of strategy? Yes. A hidden message? No. A trick? Yes.

Do they work in politics? No. Law? Yes. Are they police officers? No. Soldiers? No. Is the text a speech? No.
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 39
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

the text = it? Yes.

Is the text at least vaguely a work of fiction? No. nonfiction? Not fiction, not a book. Is it a textbook? No. closed captioning? No. subtitles? No.

Were he and his colleague thinking their respective thoughts about the same person? Yes.
Anneja (Anneja)
New member
Username: Anneja

Post Number: 8
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 1:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

are they lawyers looking at a stratagy to defend or prosecute somebody, and one sees the smartness in the stratagy?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 10:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

are they lawyers Not lawyers, another legal profession looking at a stratagy Yope. The text is part of a strategy. to defend or prosecute somebody Noish., and one sees the smartness in the stratagy? Yesish. He actually sees there is a strategy at all.
Anneja (Anneja)
New member
Username: Anneja

Post Number: 9
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 10:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is it judicial or ledgislative?
is it government sponsered?
Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator
Username: Gourami

Post Number: 252
Registered: 10-2008
Posted on Saturday, May 16, 2009 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do they work in a law firm? Attourney general's office? Are they judges? Court workers, like baliffs?

Is the strategy to convince a certain person of something? To convince the general public of something? To gain something physical? To gain an advantage of any kind?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 8:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

is it judicial or ledgislative? Judicial.
is it government sponsered? Insofar as the juiciary is government sponsored.
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 8:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Do they work in a law firm? Attourney general's office? Are they judges? This... Court workers, like baliffs? ...but it would work with this, as long as they work at a court and have some legal knowledge.

Is the strategy to convince a certain person of something? Noish. To convince the general public of something? No. To gain something physical? Not directly. To gain an advantage of any kind? Yes.
Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator
Username: Gourami

Post Number: 255
Registered: 10-2008
Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 4:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Are they looking at something written by a lawyer? If so, prosecution? Defense? Or something written by the defendant? An accusing party? A witness?

Is a specific trial involved? If so, is it criminal? Civil?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 50
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 - 7:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Are they looking at something written by a lawyer? Yes. If so, prosecution? No, it's not about criminal law. Defense? No. Or something written by the defendant? No. An accusing party? No. A witness? No. It is actually written by a lawyer in order to start some kind of court proceedings.

Is a specific trial involved? Not one of the well-known trials of history, but a real trial is involved (with some bits FMOI). The kind of trial is actually relevant.} If so, is it criminal? No. Civil? Yes.
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 92
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 8:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As no-one seems to be keen to figure out the details of a legal trick, let me clarify something: I don't expect you to find out exactly how the trick works (in fact it is based on some quite arcane aspects of a certain jurisdiction). Just try to find out why the lawyer's activity looks stupid at first glance.
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 121
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 10:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hint: The text itself didn't look so stupid but quite ordinary with the exception of a small part of it.
Davesnothere (Davesnothere)
New member
Username: Davesnothere

Post Number: 278
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Sunday, July 05, 2009 - 4:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't even know where to start on this one but I'll lob out some general questions:

Is appearing to be stupid part of a ploy? Is the attorney setting a trap? Setting up grounds for an appeal?

Is the attorney for the plaintiff? Or for the other side (is this called the defense in a civil action)?

The attorney is trying to start some kind of court proceeding -- is it a lawsuit? An appeal? A deposition?

Can this be solved by someone with very little knowledge of legal theory and the practice of law?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 160
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Sunday, July 05, 2009 - 9:18 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is appearing to be stupid part of a ploy? Noish. The lawyer doesn't want to look stupid. But he knows he will look stupid at first glance. Is the attorney setting a trap? No. Setting up grounds for an appeal? No.

Is the attorney for the plaintiff? Yes. Or for the other side (is this called the defense in a civil action)?

The attorney is trying to start some kind of court proceeding -- is it a lawsuit? An appeal? A deposition? Divorce proceedings (technically a lawsuit in the country where this takes place).

Can this be solved by someone with very little knowledge of legal theory and the practice of law? As I only expect you to solve the "stupid" part and not working out the legal trick behind it: Yes. Almost everyone would recognise something really strange about the divorce application. And especially if you have no legal knowledge you would assume the lawyer has done some really stupid thing.
Ohlala8 (Ohlala8)
New member
Username: Ohlala8

Post Number: 79
Registered: 6-2009
Posted on Tuesday, July 07, 2009 - 7:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

General aspects of the application: it is for a man and a woman? both alive? both willing to get divorced? married at the time the application is filed? Does it matter if they have children?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 170
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, July 08, 2009 - 8:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

General aspects of the application: it is for a man and a woman? The marriage is between a man and a woman, yes. both alive? Yes. both willing to get divorced? Possibly. married at the time the application is filed? Yes. Does it matter if they have children? Yes. Exploring this, however, would lead into the "smart" part (which you are free to explore, of course.
Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member
Username: Alhucema

Post Number: 533
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 12:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the reason of the "apparently stupid" part of the text to make the other party do/say something which would be of advantage to the author's client?

Does it relate to the children? If so, to child custody? Alimony? Number of children relevant?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 176
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 10:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sorry, I didn't really expect to ask questions to this anytime soon and have been on holyday without looking at it...

Is the reason of the "apparently stupid" part of the text to make the other party do/say something which would be of advantage to the author's client? No.

Does it relate to the children? If so, to child custody? Alimony? Number of children relevant? Nothing of that.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 5:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The apparent 'stupidity' for Bob comes from: (1) inaccurate wording? (2) perceived lack of basic knowledge related to legal proceedings and/or ways of conducting trials of this kind? (such as not mentioning children when it is clear that they are at stake)

Is Sam realizing that the apparent 'stupidity' was intentional?

The event is happening in a (1) US jurisdiction? (2) English? (3) Other? Is it relevant?

Bob and Sam are hearing the same trial? Together? In different moments? (e.g., lower court and appellate court). If so, are there intervening factors between the two moments which are relevant?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 299
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 - 5:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The apparent 'stupidity' for Bob comes from: (1) inaccurate wording? (2) perceived lack of basic knowledge related to legal proceedings and/or ways of conducting trials of this kind? This. (such as not mentioning children when it is clear that they are at stake) But not this. Even more basic.

Is Sam realizing that the apparent 'stupidity' was intentional? Yes,

The event is happening in a (1) US jurisdiction? (2) English? (3) Other? This. German. Is it relevant? Yes for the 'smart' part (the trick wouln't work in most countries). Noish for the 'stupid' part. In most countries one could do similar things, although some details differ from country to country.

Bob and Sam are hearing the same trial? Together? In different moments? (e.g., lower court and appellate court). Irrelevant. Think of Bob as being responsible for the case. He notices that the plaintiff or lawyer apparantly did something really stupid and shows it to Sam. If so, are there intervening factors between the two moments which are relevant? So, no.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 8:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You said earlier that 'The text itself didn't look so stupid but quite ordinary with the exception of a small part of it'

So, was that small part one of the following: (1) other parties nominated than the ones at trial? (2) different cause of action? (e.g., instead of asking for divorce, asking for something else from the court / defendant) (3) seemingly irrelevant proposed proof(s)? no proof(s) at all?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 303
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 11:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You said earlier that 'The text itself didn't look so stupid but quite ordinary with the exception of a small part of it'

So, was that small part one of the following: (1) other parties nominated than the ones at trial? No, but OTRT. (2) different cause of action? (e.g., instead of asking for divorce, asking for something else from the court / defendant) No, but also OTRT. (3) seemingly irrelevant proposed proof(s)? no proof(s) at all? No.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 1:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, the lawyer asked for something apparently stupid given the circumstances, but which concealed a hidden trick (parties correctly nominated, cause of action correct, proofs relevant / not needed, etc)

Some wild guesses: did the lawyer based his action on a law/ordinance/other normative text which apparently is not connected with the cause?
did he grossly misstated the relevant facts / one outstanding relevant fact? did he invoke some sort of supernatural power(s)?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 306
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, the lawyer asked for something apparently stupid given the circumstances, Yope. It's not what he asks for, but... but which concealed a hidden trick Yes. (parties correctly nominated, Yes. cause of action correct, Yes. proofs relevant / not needed, Yes. etc)

Some wild guesses: did the lawyer based his action on a law/ordinance/other normative text which apparently is not connected with the cause? No.
did he grossly misstated the relevant facts / one outstanding relevant fact? No. did he invoke some sort of supernatural power(s)? No.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 12:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's try to break this down to pieces, 'cause I don't have any clue on the particular legal trick involved...

In his text, the lawyer 'stupidly':

- asked for something that might be seen stupid in the context of that particular trial?
- not asked anything at all?
- based his asking / claiming on erroneous facts? erroneous / inappropriate legal texts? did not cite facts? was he supposed to do this? did not cite statutory support? precedents? was he supposed to do this?

Was the court competent under the relevant legislation to hear the case? decide on the case? Was it working in the course of its normal proceedings, i.e. normally hearing cases of a similar type?

Was the same 'trick' used previously in similar cases? Thereafter?

Did the lawyer, in any form, recorded in the text false information? Made seemingly gross material mistakes (such as not recording all the information required by the applicable law, not signing it, etc)? Made subtle mistakes in recording the same?

What can best define the different attitudes of Bob and Sam towards the same legal action: was Bob professionally lacking skills to see the 'trick'? Is the 'trick' the sort of legal technicality that would require a vast degree of experience to track down?
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 16
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 1:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's try to break this down to pieces, 'cause I don't have any clue on the particular legal trick involved...

In his text, the lawyer 'stupidly':

- asked for something that might be seen stupid in the context of that particular trial?
- not asked anything at all?
- based his asking / claiming on erroneous facts? erroneous / inappropriate legal texts? did not cite facts? was he supposed to do this? did not cite statutory support? precedents? was he supposed to do this?

Was the court competent under the relevant legislation to hear the case? decide on the case? Was it working in the course of its normal proceedings, i.e. normally hearing cases of a similar type?

Was the same 'trick' used previously in similar cases? Thereafter?

Did the lawyer, in any form, recorded in the text false information? Made seemingly gross material mistakes (such as not recording all the information required by the applicable law, not signing it, etc)? Made subtle mistakes in recording the same?

What can best define the different attitudes of Bob and Sam towards the same legal action: was Bob professionally lacking skills to see the 'trick'? Is the 'trick' the sort of legal technicality that would require a vast degree of experience to track down?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 316
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 1:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's try to break this down to pieces, 'cause I don't have any clue on the particular legal trick involved... Well, I don't expect anybody to figure out the 'smart' part in detail.

In his text, the lawyer 'stupidly':

- asked for something that might be seen stupid in the context of that particular trial? Noish.
- not asked anything at all? Wrong.
- based his asking / claiming on erroneous facts? No. erroneous / inappropriate legal texts? No. did not cite facts? Wrong. was he supposed to do this? Yes, irrelevant. did not cite statutory support? Wrong or irrelevant. precedents? He doesn't cite precedents for his trick. For other precedents, it's irrelevant. was he supposed to do this? Not more than he did. Note this is not in a common law country.

Was the court competent under the relevant legislation to hear the case? NO. decide on the case? {Noish or Yope. There is only one possible decision the court is competent for.} Was it working in the course of its normal proceedings, i.e. normally hearing cases of a similar type? NO.

Was the same 'trick' used previously in similar cases? Yes, although seldom. Thereafter? Possibly.

Did the lawyer, in any form, recorded in the text false information? No. Made seemingly gross material mistakes (such as not recording all the information required by the applicable law, not signing it, etc)? See above, no other gross mistakes. Made subtle mistakes in recording the same? No.

What can best define the different attitudes of Bob and Sam towards the same legal action: was Bob professionally lacking skills to see the 'trick'? Is the 'trick' the sort of legal technicality that would require a vast degree of experience to track down?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 317
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 1:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sorry, I missed your last block of questions...

What can best define the different attitudes of Bob and Sam towards the same legal action: was Bob professionally lacking skills to see the 'trick'? No. Is the 'trick' the sort of legal technicality that would require a vast degree of experience to track down? Yes. Or rather, the right kind of experience. Assume Sam has by chance heared of the trick.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think / hope we are approaching the truth. So:

-- summary: the court was not competent to hear the case / not ordinarily hearing cases like this one. Correct?

Was the incompetence of the court the quality / attribute that the lawyer used to play its trick?
Was anything 'stupid' in his text that does not relate to the court being incompetent?

Was the (lack of) competence territorial in nature, material or personal?

the court was: a military court? the constitutional court? civil court? criminal court? some sort of a supreme court? a specialized court? (such as only for minors, for work conflicts, for commercial conflicts)

The only possible decision the court could be competent in this case is to dismiss the case? Send it to another (presumably) competent court?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 320
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 2:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think / hope we are approaching the truth. So:

-- summary: the court was not competent to hear the case / not ordinarily hearing cases like this one. Correct? Yes to both.

Was the incompetence of the court the quality / attribute that the lawyer used to play its trick? No.
Was anything 'stupid' in his text that does not relate to the court being incompetent? No.

Was the (lack of) competence territorial in nature, material or personal? Material.

the court was: a military court? the constitutional court? civil court? criminal court? some sort of a supreme court? a specialized court? This. He brought a divorce suit to an administrative court. (such as only for minors, for work conflicts, for commercial conflicts)

The only possible decision the court could be competent in this case is to dismiss the case? No. Send it to another (presumably) competent court? Yes.

Now you have found out about the 'stupid' part, and, as I already wrote, I don't expect anyone to find out in detail how the 'smart' part works. Your last questions, however, seem to show that you are interested in exploring something of the 'smart' part. So I will be happy to answer further questions, but will spoil the puzzle when I have the impression there is no further interest in finding out more.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 2:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's give it a try.

By bringing the case to a administrative court, he intended to: delay it? gain some other advantage for the party he was representing?

The advantage to be obtained was related to: money? (alimony?); personal property? (such as house, land, car, etc); children? (custody?) other?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 321
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 2:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Let's give it a try.

By bringing the case to a administrative court, he intended to: delay it? Not at all. gain some other advantage for the party he was representing? Yes.

The advantage to be obtained was related to: money? Indirectly. (alimony? No. His client won't be adjudged money because of the trick.); personal property? No. (such as house, land, car, etc); children? No. (custody?) other? Yes.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 3:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Trying to figure out the advantage. The lawyer was trying to: reduce the cost of the process in itself? circumvent some procedural regulation that would have been applied in the 'normal' court? (such as preliminary hearings, different set of proofs, etc)

The redirection of the case to the competent court was done by the administrative court by itself (sending the file to the proper court) or the parties were just informed that they reached the wrong court and that they should address elsewhere?

If by the court itself, cases coming in this way are treated differently that the ones arriving normally? If true, that particular treatment was what the lawyer was trying to accomplish by using the trick?

The competent court was in another country? In the same, but subject to a different (territorial) jurisdiction? The competent court in the first place (without playing the trick) would have been the same the administrative court chose / was obliged to choose after the trick?

Are any international aspects relevant?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 323
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 3:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Trying to figure out the advantage. The lawyer was trying to: reduce the cost of the process in itself? Yope. circumvent some procedural regulation that would have been applied in the 'normal' court? Yes. (such as preliminary hearings, different set of proofs, etc) But not this.

The redirection of the case to the competent court was done by the administrative court by itself (sending the file to the proper court) This, after hearing the parties and, in this case, one more decision to be made by the plaintiff. or the parties were just informed that they reached the wrong court and that they should address elsewhere? No.

If by the court itself, cases coming in this way are treated differently that the ones arriving normally? This is at least close. If true, that particular treatment was what the lawyer was trying to accomplish by using the trick? Yes.

The competent court was in another country? No. In the same, but subject to a different (territorial) jurisdiction? No. The competent court in the first place (without playing the trick) would have been the same the administrative court chose / was obliged to choose after the trick? NO. Well, in theory it might have been, but for some strange reason the plaintiff would have been unable to effectively file the lawsuit there.

Are any international aspects relevant? No.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 22
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 3:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the reason for which plaintiff was unable to file in the 'normal' court of relevance here?

Could he file directly to the court that he was redirected to by the administrative court, or he was obliged to work out the redirection (a.k.a. trick) to get there?

Was the procedural regulation being circumvented the one that established that the final court can only be reached through redirection from another court?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 324
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 4:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

#####BLOOPER ALERT#####

To your question


[The competent court was] In the same, but subject to a different (territorial) jurisdiction?

I answered *No*, while I should have answered *Yope*.



Is the reason for which plaintiff was unable to file in the 'normal' court of relevance here? Yes. Technically he would have been able to file, but with a different, unwanted result.

Could he file directly to the court that he was redirected to by the administrative court, or he was obliged to work out the redirection (a.k.a. trick) to get there? See last question.

Was the procedural regulation being circumvented the one that established that the final court can only be reached through redirection from another court? No. Most lawsuits at the final court are filed there directly.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 23
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 8:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

First, let me see if I've got everything correctly so far. Assuming 'court competent beforehand (without playing the trick)' = court A && 'court being redirected to by the administrative court' = court B, is it true that A is different from B?

Assuming yes above, and taking into consideration the 'Yope' about jurisdiction above:

-- B court offered better procedural / material regulations than A?

-- if yes, was that due to different jurisdiction / laws being obeyed?

Is the following, while not correct, at least OTRT (taken as an example) : normally, the competent court was the civil court in (say) Bayern, but that offered worse procedural / material requirements; if, however, the case was to be filled with the administrative court from (say) Berlin, the regulations would direct that the court should decline competence and send the case to the (materially) competent authority in Berlin, which has regulations less restrictive / more beneficial to the client, compared to the Bayern one. ?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 325
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 11:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

First, let me see if I've got everything correctly so far. Assuming 'court competent beforehand (without playing the trick)' = court A && 'court being redirected to by the administrative court' = court B, is it true that A is different from B? Yesish. It is true that the process would have finally taken place before court A without the trick. However, court B would have technically been a competent court at the time when the lawyer filed the suit at the administrative court.

Assuming yes above, and taking into consideration the 'Yope' about jurisdiction above:

-- B court offered better procedural / material regulations than A? No.

-- if yes, was that due to different jurisdiction / laws being obeyed? FA.

Is the following, while not correct, at least OTRT (taken as an example) : normally, the competent court was the civil court in (say) Bayern, but that offered worse procedural / material requirements; if, however, the case was to be filled with the administrative court from (say) Berlin, the regulations would direct that the court should decline competence and send the case to the (materially) competent authority in Berlin, which has regulations less restrictive / more beneficial to the client, compared to the Bayern one. ? Both courts (A and B) would apply exactly the same law as far as it is relevant for the decision where to file.
Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member
Username: Sundowner

Post Number: 535
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 8:23 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the plaintiff for some reason prefer to have the case decided by court B? Was court A far away to travel? Did the plaintiff's lawyer suggest this trick? because he did not have an accredition for court A?
Relevant that lawsuits before an administrative court become pending immediately? Did the plaintiff want that the case becomes pending before something else happens? Did he think court A, after realizing the circumstances, could play on time and wait until they are not competent any more?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 328
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 11:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did the plaintiff for some reason prefer to have the case decided by court B? Yes... Was court A far away to travel? ...and this is the reason. Did the plaintiff's lawyer suggest this trick? Very probably. because he did not have an accredition for court A? No. Saving travelling cost and time is the only motive for plaintiff and lawyer.
Relevant that lawsuits before an administrative court become pending immediately? YES. Did the plaintiff want that the case becomes pending before something else happens? Yes. Did he think court A, after realizing the circumstances, could play on time and wait until they are not competent any more? You mean court B? (Court A is where the suit would have ended without the trick). But even then: Noish or maybe Yope.
Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member
Username: Sundowner

Post Number: 536
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 11:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So the plaintiff (can we assume that he is male?) and his wife plan to divorce? and he suddenly realizes that the legally competent court would be in the far away town A? except he manages to have the case pending before date X?
Is B the place where they used to live? and now the wife lives in A?
Is the date X related to a change in legislation?
You mentioned before their child is relevant? Was there some relevant change in the child's life to be expected for date X? Is the child going to move out? (so that the home would no longer count as "family home"?)
Is the child going to start a job? an education? military service?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 331
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 - 12:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So the plaintiff (can we assume that he is male? Yes. It was a woman in the case I have in mind, but that doesn't make a difference.) and his wife plan to divorce? Yes. and he suddenly realizes that the legally competent court would be in the far away town A? Yes. except he manages to have the case pending before date X? Yes.
Is B the place where they used to live? Yes. and now the wife lives in A? Yes.
Is the date X related to a change in legislation? No.
You mentioned before their child is relevant? Yes. Was there some relevant change in the child's life to be expected for date X? Yope. Is the child going to move out? No. (so that the home would no longer count as "family home"?)
Is the child going to start a job? an education? military service? No or irrelevant to all.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Friday, October 02, 2009 - 10:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So... Child relevant and also 'quickness' relevant... Are the child relevancy and the rush connected?

Child = 0-12 months? 1-7 years? 8-18? 19-25? 25+?

Unborn child?

Wills relevant, or any post mortem procedures relevant?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 346
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Friday, October 02, 2009 - 11:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So... Child relevant and also 'quickness' relevant... Are the child relevancy and the rush connected? Yes.

Child = 0-12 months? 1-7 years? 8-18? This. 19-25? 25+?

Unborn child? No.

Wills relevant, or any post mortem procedures relevant? No.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 26
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 3:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The rush is due to the fact that the divorce in itself should be pronounced before date 'X' or some other collateral decision (such as property distribution, child care, etc) is needed before date 'X', for whatever reason?

Date 'X' is the birthday of the child (in the sense that he will be 'y' years old in that moment)?

Had the lawyer been unable to speed up the things, would the child suffer / be deprived of something in any way? If yes, that would have been: money? other material benefit? (property, etc).?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 365
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 4:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The rush is due to the fact that the divorce in itself should be pronounced before date 'X' or some other collateral decision (such as property distribution, child care, etc) is needed before date 'X', for whatever reason? No, except for the decision which court is competent.

Date 'X' is the birthday of the child (in the sense that he will be 'y' years old in that moment)? YESISH. The birthday is crucial, however, no decision needs to be made until then.

Had the lawyer been unable to speed up the things, would the child suffer / be deprived of something in any way? If yes, that would have been: money? other material benefit? (property, etc).? No. The motive is already out: bring the lawsuit to a court at the plaintiff's home to save him travel time and cost.
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 27
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 5:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, we can assume that the part still to be solved is determining why the Plaintiff needed the case pending immediately (before 'X', i.e. before the clild becoming of a certain age), even though no decision is immediately necessary?

At X the child will be 14? 18? Other? Is it relevant the exact age (mentioned in law, for example)?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 367
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 6:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, we can assume that the part still to be solved is determining why the Plaintiff needed the case pending immediately (before 'X', i.e. before the clild becoming of a certain age), even though no decision is immediately necessary? Well, there is one more aspect to the case which hasn't been mentioned yet at all. It explains why the plaintiff got away with the trick (it would usually be considered an "abuse of rights"). It also would have delayed the case becoming pending by filing in court B. Of course, you don't have to explore this.

At X the child will be 14? 18? Yes. Other? Is it relevant the exact age Yes. (mentioned in law, for example Exactly.)?
Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member
Username: Rbruma

Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Monday, October 05, 2009 - 10:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was the administrative court competent in any of the request made in front of her? Did it make any decision other than sending the case to court B? Was it asked to do so?

In the situation the case would have gone directly to court B, this court would have need a preliminary decision from another court? The administrative court? Other court? A jurisdctional court? Another public body (such as the city hall / mayor's office, local or federal government?) Is this similar to the case in which, in a criminal case, a decision is needed before settling the civil claims?
The fact that the decision to have a case pending before the child is 18 is related to his maturity age? Is that law providing that if the divorce doesn't become pending before that moment, he will be denied some benefits? Subsidy for studies? Other financial benefits?
Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member
Username: Sundowner

Post Number: 547
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Wednesday, October 07, 2009 - 12:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If he would have gone directly to court B, they would have prepared the documents, sent them to the respondent (not sure whether this is the right word in a divorce proceeding .. maybe just call them "the other party"), and the case becomes pending when the documents arrive there?
in the meanwhile the child would be 18 and the competence for this case would go to court A?
but as he filed the case at the administrative court it became pending immediately? and was directed to court B as the competent one? and would stay there even after the child's 18. birthday?

So, is the rule that court B is competent if there is a child below 18 in the family at the moment when the case becomes pending? and court A otherwise?

(sounds strange, somehow ..)
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 376
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Was the administrative court competent in any of the request made in front of her? No, except of referring it to a competent court. Did it make any decision other than sending the case to court B? No. Was it asked to do so? No.

In the situation the case would have gone directly to court B, this court would have need a preliminary decision from another court? No. The administrative court? Other court? A jurisdctional court? Another public body (such as the city hall / mayor's office, local or federal government?) Is this similar to the case in which, in a criminal case, a decision is needed before settling the civil claims? No to all.
The fact that the decision to have a case pending before the child is 18 is related to his maturity age? Yes. Is that law providing that if the divorce doesn't become pending before that moment, he will be denied some benefits? Who is "he"? The child? No. The plaintiff? Yes. Subsidy for studies? Other financial benefits? Not to rest.
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 377
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 3:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If he would have gone directly to court B, they would have prepared the documents, sent them to the respondent (not sure whether this is the right word in a divorce proceeding .. maybe just call them "the other party"), and the case becomes pending when the documents arrive there? Usually yes. In the case I have in mind something else would also have to happen (this is the aspect not yet mentioned at all).
in the meanwhile the child would be 18 and the competence for this case would go to court A? Yes.
but as he filed the case at the administrative court it became pending immediately? Yes. and was directed to court B as the competent one? Yesish. See below. and would stay there even after the child's 18. birthday? Yes.

So, is the rule that court B is competent if there is a child below 18 in the family at the moment when the case becomes pending? and court A otherwise? YES. You solved this part.

(sounds strange, somehow ..) In German divorce proceedings, the court at the domicile of the plaintiff is competent if the plaintiff lives with a common child below 18 (the same would be the case for a defendant living with a common child). The legislator's consideration probably was that it is more difficult to travel to a distant court if you have a child to look after and that the other party is also a parent and has a certain responsibility.
Fuhad (Fuhad)
New member
Username: Fuhad

Post Number: 4
Registered: 10-2009
Posted on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 9:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Did one person write the message about the other?
Greatbrit (Greatbrit)
New member
Username: Greatbrit

Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2009
Posted on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 - 3:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By filing in the administrative court even though this was the incorrect court, the filing has been deemed to have taken place and the child would stay in custody of the Plaintiff (the filer) until such time as ordered otherwise by the competent court. The child was nearing his 18th birthday and therefore would probably become so by the time the case was heard. The court would not therefore order him to live with his mother. Anything like this?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 397
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 10:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

@Fuhad + Greatbrit: I think your questions are about aspects of the puzzle which are already solved. As nobody is trying to ask about the (small) rest I think it is time for a

===== SPOILER =====

This is the complicated story of a woman who lives with her 17-year-old daughter in the town of Schleswig in Northern Germany where she lived since her separation from her husband who now lives somewhere far away. This woman wants a divorce and learns (about 10 days before her daughter's 18th birthday) that the competent court will be in Schleswig if the divorce proceedings are pending before the 18th birthday of her daughter but at the domicile of her husband if it is filed later.

Procedural rules for civil courts in Germany say that a lawsuit is considered pending from the moment the complaint is served to the defendant. 10 days would usually be enough time - but (this is the aspect not yet mentioned) the woman in Schleswig is a poor woman who can't pay the usual advance on the legal costs. So she has to apply for legal aid, and the complaint will not be served before this application is granted. This would take more than 10 days.

Now she (or rather her lawyer) has a smart idea: bring the divorce lawsuit to an administrative court - the procedural rules for administrative courts say a lawsuit is pending as soon as the complaint reaches the court. The administrative court would then refer it to the competent court (the woman would have to pay the cost, but this is cheap - not much work for the judge).

Civil courts have considered this trick an "abuse of rights" before and declined their competence in such cases. But in this case, the woman was sucessful. On July, 24th 2008, the Appellate Court of Schleswig ruled that the trick is allowed in legal aid cases for the reason that the purpose of legal aid is to give poor parties equal chances at court and the trick only resulted in what a wealthy party would have achieved by simply filing in the correct court and paying the cost advance.

Sorry - I see this puzzle was too complicated, so I'm really impressed with your almost complete solution.

BTW: The court decision is online under http://lrsh.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=sh&nr=1158

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: