• The Opposing Party continued to act as though I was breaking a contractual agreement by asking that The Court to enter a Marital Property Settlement Agreement in accordance with Missouri Law, even though it would be directed by The Parties Post-Nuptial Agreement. As stated in my counter-motion filed in December 2021 in response to their Motion For Judgement, Mr. Cavanagh and Mr. Voytas weren’t even asserting a legal claim. The terms of The Parties’ Post-Nuptial Agreement directed The Court to defer to me as to whether the former marital home sale would be delayed post-dissolution, since I would be responsible for the maintenance if it was, and strike terms that were no longer valid follow- ing a statutory review prior to The Court entering the final judgement. • Mr. Voytas did not want The Court to execute a Marital Property Settlement Agree- ment that was legally enforceable and congruent with Missouri Law. They continued to try and contort the simplicity of the issue when I would not consent to The Court sim- ply entering a divorce decree, and agreeing that The Parties had already su ffi ciently divided their liabilities and assets because they entered into a post-nuptial agreement . A pre- or post-nuptial agreement does not replace The Court’s Marital Property Settlement Agree- ment in a divorce which contains terms that provide for a complete severance of ties and other criteria prescribed by Missouri Law. • Mr. Voytas, an attorney himself, wanted to prevent the finality and enforceability that a Marital Property Settlement Agreement entered in accordance with Missouri Law possess. This would have prevented his ability to weaponize legal proceedings in order to obstruct me from liquidating my stake in our most significant marital asset, the marital home, upon its sale. Mr. Voytas was attempting to use St. Louis County Court, and his network of legal colleagues within it, as a means to prevent me, and the two sons who I am the sole custodian and financial provider for, from regaining our financial inde- pendence post-divorce. September 6, 2022 • Attorney Jack Cavanagh’s Paralegal emailed me a copy of a notice of a settlement confer- ence, filed by Mr. Cavanagh in Judge Green’s Division (Div.36) related to the motion that he originally filed in Judge Ghasedi’s Division two weeks prior (see 8/23/22). The matter was transferred back to Judge Green’s Division after Judge Ghasedi noted in her Transfer Order that the motion Mr. Cavanagh filed on 8/23/22 indicated that The Parties were not ready to proceed with a trial related to the identification and division of their marital liabilities and assets (see 8/23/22 and 8/24/22). • Mr. Voytas scheduled the phone settlement conference with Judge Green for 11/03/22. September 9, 2022 • I filed a second Motion To Disqualify Judge Green For Cause , since the first one I filed on 4/15/22 was denied a hearing and/or a formal response by The Head of Family Court, Judge Jason D. Dodson. Despite The Parties consenting to the case being reas-
13
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online