Good morning!
I just heard that I'm in the middle of a great big bunch of tornadoes. I haven't seen one yet, just some rain and thunder. I was lying in bed listening to the news and then I thought that I should come here and post this before I lose power or cable. If something stupid is going to happen, it WILL happen to me so I wanted to get this out just in case.
Thank God we've not had any of the awful weather that has claimed so many lives already. I heard about a college in Tennessee...Union University. They only have about 20% of their resident halls intact and maybe as many classrooms. That is the very first cause that I feel like donating to. I don't know why...I guess some things hit some people harder than they hit other people.
Anyway, according to the radar maps, there's a huge storm about two centimeters from me and it's heading this way. So, if I'm not here, you'll know that I've lost power or my roof.
YIKES!
More thunder...let me post this and then finish it...if I never come back it's because I can't. But, as long as lightening doesn't hit another transformer, I'll be back soon.
Meg
Oh...for no reason whatsoever, except for the fact that this woman is still making life difficult for my friend, I'd like to post this again:
Lorraine Coyle Koppell...
...is an attorney representing a man who cheated on his wife. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, even cheaters deserve a lawyer in a divorce. But the behavior of this woman is, in my opinion, the reason that 2,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is nothing more than a good start.
Attorney's are officers of the court and although I'm not sure exactly what that means, I'm pretty sure that officers of the court are supposed to know the law. Even if this woman was absent from law school the day that they gave the lecture about not speaking directly to an adversary who has an attorney, you would think that she would have enough class to simply honor a letter from another attorney requesting that she stop harrassing his client and that she contact the law office directly.
Instead, Mrs. Koppell wrote a letter to the woman threatening her with a restraining order after one of the husband's co-workers ran into the wife on the street. The wife was waiting to meet someone about a rental property when one of her husband's co-workers walked up to her and began a conversation. The co-worker badgered the wife for an answer to the following question:
"Why do you insist that your husband is sleeping with Colleen Lombardi?"
Apparently the husband and his mistress have totally thrown their personal lives into their work environment. When I think of Colleen Lombardi and the women that my husband worked with and screwed, I have to wonder if there's anyone watching to see if these people work at all. I want one of those jobs.
Anyway, the co-worker went back to the mistress to tell her about running into the wife. Then, the mistress told the husband who told his attorney who threatened the wife with a restraining order. That attorney is Lorraine Coyle Koppell. Mrs. Koppell knows that her client had no basis for a restraining order based upon those facts but she sent the wife a letter threatening just that very thing. And...she sent the letter to the wife's home address threatening to have her served at work where "one of your co-worker's might interecept the complaint".
Who's harrassing whom here?
You can't get a person in front of a judge without some sort of probable cause. Unfortunately, Mrs. Koppell realizes that there is no such law protecting us from crazed attorneys who like to accuse people of crimes without any reason whatsoever. When the woman's attorney called Mrs. Koppell to complain about her behavior, Mrs. Koppell told the attorney to "take a Valium". She must be one helluva swell dinner date, wouldn't you think?
And then, just to be a bitch (I can't think of any other reason) Mrs. Koppell sent the letter to the wife under her maiden name, even though Mrs. Koppell knows the woman's married/legal name.
Let's see...another attorney asked her not to do that, nothing that she accused the wife of would have a legal basis for any of the threats that the nut made against the wife and she got the wife's name wrong on purpose to be hurtful. How professional is this?
That's not all. This nut lady "was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Boston." But don't read too much into that...according to democratic pundit Andrew Wolf of the New York Sun, "The process that put her in her seat illuminates much that is wrong with the Party."
And, she ran for a seat in the New York State Legislature, prompting the following comment from democratic party member Mike Bendetto, "When I first heard that Lorraine Coyle Koppell was running, I was pretty annoyed about it." Benedetto was so upset by Mrs. Koppell's candidacy that he ran for the seat himself. He charged that Mrs. Koppell may be running as a way of getting "revenge" on Roberto Ramirez for what he claimed was "two earlier failed efforts on her part to obtain a judgeship." He continued on to say that, "I couldn't take the chance that lightning would hit, and Lorraine Coyle Koppell could actually win. That's when I inserted myself into the race."
Luckliy for the state of New York, this woman didn't win that campaign, losing (according to an email from a consituent of Mrs. Koppell) to a felon. But, unfortunately for a New York woman going through a divorce, she is still practicing law. But, she is also still calling that woman at home, bullying her while she has an attorney that she should be speaking to.
Hopefully, with the help of opposing attorneys and a well written letter to the New York State Bar Association, Mrs. Koppell won't be allowed to do these things for much longer.
This was written in 2006
I just heard that I'm in the middle of a great big bunch of tornadoes. I haven't seen one yet, just some rain and thunder. I was lying in bed listening to the news and then I thought that I should come here and post this before I lose power or cable. If something stupid is going to happen, it WILL happen to me so I wanted to get this out just in case.
Thank God we've not had any of the awful weather that has claimed so many lives already. I heard about a college in Tennessee...Union University. They only have about 20% of their resident halls intact and maybe as many classrooms. That is the very first cause that I feel like donating to. I don't know why...I guess some things hit some people harder than they hit other people.
Anyway, according to the radar maps, there's a huge storm about two centimeters from me and it's heading this way. So, if I'm not here, you'll know that I've lost power or my roof.
YIKES!
More thunder...let me post this and then finish it...if I never come back it's because I can't. But, as long as lightening doesn't hit another transformer, I'll be back soon.
Meg
Oh...for no reason whatsoever, except for the fact that this woman is still making life difficult for my friend, I'd like to post this again:
Lorraine Coyle Koppell...
...is an attorney representing a man who cheated on his wife. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, even cheaters deserve a lawyer in a divorce. But the behavior of this woman is, in my opinion, the reason that 2,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is nothing more than a good start.
Attorney's are officers of the court and although I'm not sure exactly what that means, I'm pretty sure that officers of the court are supposed to know the law. Even if this woman was absent from law school the day that they gave the lecture about not speaking directly to an adversary who has an attorney, you would think that she would have enough class to simply honor a letter from another attorney requesting that she stop harrassing his client and that she contact the law office directly.
Instead, Mrs. Koppell wrote a letter to the woman threatening her with a restraining order after one of the husband's co-workers ran into the wife on the street. The wife was waiting to meet someone about a rental property when one of her husband's co-workers walked up to her and began a conversation. The co-worker badgered the wife for an answer to the following question:
"Why do you insist that your husband is sleeping with Colleen Lombardi?"
Apparently the husband and his mistress have totally thrown their personal lives into their work environment. When I think of Colleen Lombardi and the women that my husband worked with and screwed, I have to wonder if there's anyone watching to see if these people work at all. I want one of those jobs.
Anyway, the co-worker went back to the mistress to tell her about running into the wife. Then, the mistress told the husband who told his attorney who threatened the wife with a restraining order. That attorney is Lorraine Coyle Koppell. Mrs. Koppell knows that her client had no basis for a restraining order based upon those facts but she sent the wife a letter threatening just that very thing. And...she sent the letter to the wife's home address threatening to have her served at work where "one of your co-worker's might interecept the complaint".
Who's harrassing whom here?
You can't get a person in front of a judge without some sort of probable cause. Unfortunately, Mrs. Koppell realizes that there is no such law protecting us from crazed attorneys who like to accuse people of crimes without any reason whatsoever. When the woman's attorney called Mrs. Koppell to complain about her behavior, Mrs. Koppell told the attorney to "take a Valium". She must be one helluva swell dinner date, wouldn't you think?
And then, just to be a bitch (I can't think of any other reason) Mrs. Koppell sent the letter to the wife under her maiden name, even though Mrs. Koppell knows the woman's married/legal name.
Let's see...another attorney asked her not to do that, nothing that she accused the wife of would have a legal basis for any of the threats that the nut made against the wife and she got the wife's name wrong on purpose to be hurtful. How professional is this?
That's not all. This nut lady "was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Boston." But don't read too much into that...according to democratic pundit Andrew Wolf of the New York Sun, "The process that put her in her seat illuminates much that is wrong with the Party."
And, she ran for a seat in the New York State Legislature, prompting the following comment from democratic party member Mike Bendetto, "When I first heard that Lorraine Coyle Koppell was running, I was pretty annoyed about it." Benedetto was so upset by Mrs. Koppell's candidacy that he ran for the seat himself. He charged that Mrs. Koppell may be running as a way of getting "revenge" on Roberto Ramirez for what he claimed was "two earlier failed efforts on her part to obtain a judgeship." He continued on to say that, "I couldn't take the chance that lightning would hit, and Lorraine Coyle Koppell could actually win. That's when I inserted myself into the race."
Luckliy for the state of New York, this woman didn't win that campaign, losing (according to an email from a consituent of Mrs. Koppell) to a felon. But, unfortunately for a New York woman going through a divorce, she is still practicing law. But, she is also still calling that woman at home, bullying her while she has an attorney that she should be speaking to.
Hopefully, with the help of opposing attorneys and a well written letter to the New York State Bar Association, Mrs. Koppell won't be allowed to do these things for much longer.
This was written in 2006
posted by Meg Kelso | 6:59 AM
1 Comments:
I'm not here to defend Lorraine Coyle Koppell. But using a phony and a slug such as Mike Benedetto to criticize her is counter-productive.
Benedetto is a long-time Bronx Democratic Party hack.
In 2000, Koppell ran against Bronx Republican State Senator Guy Velella. The Bronx County Democrats, who had a long, mutally-beneficial with Velella, didn't want her to run. So they asked Benedetto to challenge her in a primary. If Benedetto won the primary, he wouldn't have made any effort against Velella in the general election.
When asked by the local press why he was running, Benedetto said he had long kept his eye on Velella' seat and expressed an interest in running for it. He accused Koppell of being disloyal to the Democratic Party by using to carry petitions for one candidate. That candidate was Guy Velella! He had the Democratic endorsement in 1996 and 1998. If Benedetto was willing to carry Guy's petitions, then why did he suddenly want to run against him?
Democratic voters in the district saw right through Benedetto, and he lost the primary by a landslide. In the general election, Velella won.
In 2002, Velella got indicted on corruption charges. You'd think this was a good opportunity for Benedetto, who claimed he wanted the seat. But Benedetto didn't run.
In 2004, Velella pleaded guilty to corruption charges and resigned. Benedetto didn't run for the seat again. Instead he ran for an open seat in the Assembly, which he won. His sycophantic loyalty to the Bronx Democratic machine was finally rewarded--after several decades.
Again, I'm not defending Mrs. Koppell. But don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone who is against her has noble, pure intentions when they clearly don't.
Post a Comment
<< Home