Should I end my relationship because of a psycho ex?

[ironpony]

But I was there with her for the whole thing in court.  It was all done online because of covid.  But the judge did tell her that she cannot remain silent legally and has to answer all the questions.  So she had to, according to the judge.

[basil67]

52 minutes ago, ironpony said:

And another thing that bothers me is the idea of people changing their minds all the time. How is a partner supposed to be reliable in a relationship if she cannot stick to her guns when she makes a decision to herself not to do something.  It wreaks of unreliability if people just change their minds without being able to commit to a decision.

This is completely unrealistic.  You'd better get used to the idea of people changing their minds if you're wanting a relationship.  It's 100% normal for people to make a decision, plan or goal and and then reconsider it.  Either because they are no longer comfortable with the plan they made or the situation has changed.   

The ability to change one's mind indicates flexibility in thought.   And a partner who cannot change their mind completely lacks the ability to come to a compromise or admit they were wrong in the case of a dispute.  

 

[ironpony]

3 minutes ago, basil67 said:

This is completely unrealistic.  You'd better get used to the idea of people changing their minds if you're wanting a relationship.  It's 100% normal for people to make a decision, plan or goal and and then reconsider it.  Either because they are no longer comfortable with the plan they made or the situation has changed.   

The ability to change one's mind indicates flexibility in thought.   And a partner who cannot change their mind completely lacks the ability to come to a compromise or admit they were wrong in the case of a dispute.  

 

But if people are allowed to change their minds at any point, then what is the point of her saying I am not going to give him anything and not going to let him in win and if he wants a trial, I'll do a trial.  What's the point of her being so sure and sticking to that, if she wasn't sure at all?  What's the point of admanance and determination,  and commitment if there is no such thing since people can change their minds at any point.  If there was a 'but' in that situation, then she never said there was going to be any 'buts'.

The point of committing to a goal, is you don't change your mind.  Otherwise it's a not a goal.

Edited February 18, 2022 by ironpony

[Wiseman2]

1 minute ago, ironpony said:

 what is the point of her saying I am not going to give him anything and not going to let him in win and if he wants a trial, I'll do a trial.  

Is she making this story up? Why would there be a trial when there was a judgement against her and the court ordered her to pay it back?  

[basil67]

@ironpony She was sure when she made the idea and then gave it second thought as time went on.  This is completely and utterly normal.

My biggest change of mind was that I was never going to have kids....then I met my partner and changed my mind.   Today I changed my mind about taking a parking ticket to court (I believe the ticket was unfair) because if I lose, then I have to pay local council and court costs...because the risk of losing is higher than the cost of the ticket.

Let's use sexual consent as an example.  Do you believe a person can end up in bed with someone else and then change their mind about wanting to have sex?  If yes, then this is a perfect example of being sure and then having second thoughts.

Edited February 18, 2022 by basil67

[ironpony]

Just now, Wiseman2 said:

Is she making this story up? Why would there be a trial when there was a judgement against her and the court ordered her to pay it back?  

The court didn't order her to pay it back, she is just afraid they will if going to trial and the judge already told her she will likely have to pay some of it back.

[ironpony]

1 minute ago, basil67 said:

She was sure when she made the idea and then gave it second thought as time went on.  This is completely and utterly normal.

My biggest change of mind was that I was never going to have kids....then I met my partner and changed my mind.   Today I changed my mind about taking a parking ticket to court (I believe the ticket was unfair) because if I lose, then I have to pay local council and court costs...because the risk of losing is higher than the cost of the ticket.

Well it's just the change of mind was so sudden.  She goes from confident and determined to the complete opposite in like a minute.  This feels like a red flag, because what other people would she cave to who pressured her into money.  Would she give other people money just so they would leave her alone, if they knew she was suspectible?  This feels like it can make her unreliable as a partner, since I cannot know what she will do with big decisions, if she acts on impulse and and cannot stick to goals if that makes sense?  How do you find someone reliable who cannot stick to commitments?

[basil67]

You can't find someone who never changes their mind because it's human nature.  

What other people are going to pressure her to give them money? 

[ironpony]

7 minutes ago, basil67 said:

You can't find someone who never changes their mind because it's human nature.  

What other people are going to pressure her to give them money? 

Other people do not have a reason, but thing that concerns me is that she is always being a doormat to people.  There was a thread I posted before, about her boss constantly makes her work overtime and doesn't pay her the overtime hours for it and work and just takes it all the time for example.  I don't like her allowing herself to be used a doormat all the time, because that makes her unreliable in life, and that can hurt a relationship therefore if she cannot stand up for herself in situations, doesn't it?

I love her and care about her but I cannot pretend that she doesnt' let people bully her and she gives into the submission.

Edited February 18, 2022 by ironpony

[ExpatInItaly]

1 hour ago, ironpony said:

But I was there with her for the whole thing in court.  It was all done online because of covid.  But the judge did tell her that she cannot remain silent legally and has to answer all the questions.  So she had to, according to the judge.

So?

That doesn't mean she's being entirely honest with anyone about the details of this story. 

[ironpony]

1 minute ago, ExpatInItaly said:

So?

That doesn't mean she's being entirely honest with anyone about the details of this story. 

Well everything she told the judge matched everything she told me long prior to it and she didn't change anything in her story, compared to what she told me, prior.  So if you say she is leaving something out, I cannot find anything she left out, because she didn't tell the judge anything less than what she told me or anything more.

But her ex is a mastermind manipulator because he was able to manipulate his way into the police not being able to do anything after going into her place and threatening her twice, and he was able to manipulate the restraining order his advantage, and so far the lawsuit to his advantage.  So what's the plan now.... He is going to manipulate the system into bending over for him in other ways in the future.  So why she we expect to stop at this lawsuit therefore?

Edited February 18, 2022 by ironpony

[ExpatInItaly]

3 minutes ago, ironpony said:

He is going to manipulate the system into bending over for him in other ways in the future. 

No, he isn't. 

You need to come back down to earth here, IP. 

[ironpony]

5 minutes ago, ExpatInItaly said:

No, he isn't. 

You need to come back down to earth here, IP. 

He's done it three times now. Why do you think he won't do it again, when he has done it three times, if the third one counts in the sense that the judge told her she will likely loose the lawsuit now as well.

Maybe I am dramatizing it, but the guy keeps winning and getting his way though, so how we stop him from doing that...  I just want him to leave her alone.

Edited February 18, 2022 by ironpony

[Wiseman2]

32 minutes ago, ironpony said:

 her ex is a mastermind manipulator 

Sounds more like she is if you are believing her stories and she's dragging you into this drama. Stop giving her advice. Focus on your mental health first and if she wants to play games, toss around legal terms that make no sense,etc., let her.

Her debts her stories about her ex whatever criminal activity, etc is to egg you on. Faux restraining orders, now faux debt?

[basil67]

1 hour ago, ironpony said:

Other people do not have a reason, but thing that concerns me is that she is always being a doormat to people.  There was a thread I posted before, about her boss constantly makes her work overtime and doesn't pay her the overtime hours for it and work and just takes it all the time for example.  I don't like her allowing herself to be used a doormat all the time, because that makes her unreliable in life, and that can hurt a relationship therefore if she cannot stand up for herself in situations, doesn't it?

I love her and care about her but I cannot pretend that she doesnt' let people bully her and she gives into the submission.

So break up with her

[basil67]

1 hour ago, ironpony said:

He's done it three times now. Why do you think he won't do it again, when he has done it three times, if the third one counts in the sense that the judge told her she will likely loose the lawsuit now as well.

Maybe I am dramatizing it, but the guy keeps winning and getting his way though, so how we stop him from doing that...  I just want him to leave her alone.

And she wants him to leave her alone too. Hence her making a financial deal with him.

 

[poppyfields]

5 hours ago, ironpony said:

But I was there with her for the whole thing in court.  It was all done online because of covid.  But the judge did tell her that she cannot remain silent legally and has to answer all the questions.  So she had to, according to the judge.

So you were in court with her (on line) for both the TRO hearing and the loan hearing?

@ironpony are you okay?  Serious question because again none of this makes sense. 

I can't tell if it's your girlfriend lying to you or you are just confused because your story keeps changing and neither story (the TRO or the loan story) make any sense whatsoever. 

Even IF your girlfriend admitted to judge that her ex did in fact loan her the money, which would be massively stupid since her ex had NO proof or evidence, I still don't believe the judge would find in his favor and order her to pay it back. 

Again, he needs proof, evidence to present FIRST before the judge begins asking her questions.

That's how it works, he would present his case first with proof and evidence and then she as the defendant presents her case and the judge asks her questions.

No plaintiff (him) has a leg to stand on in a court of law without proof or evidence, he'd be tossed out on his arse! 

Before your girlfriend was ever asked any questions!

And his lawsuit wouid be deemed just anorher frivolous lawsuit, he might even be scolded by judge for wasting his/her time. 

I worked in legal for ten years, I've been to court where the plaintiff (in this case him) had no proof or evidence and they got scolded for wasting the judge's time and the whole thing  was tossed out.

The defendant (in this case her) was never asked questions because the case was tossed out first for lack of evidence. 

Honestly, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone reading this thread.

Makes no sense including where you NOW say you were in court with her during the loan hearing. 

Sorry, not jiving.

I hope you can get some help ironpony, you seem massively confused and in turn are confusing us. 

Good luck. 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by poppyfields

[poppyfields]

6 hours ago, ironpony said:

However, my gf said she had to tell the truth though, and in a civil case, you are not allowed to take the fifth and therefore you have to answer all the questions the judge asked, and therefore she could not remain silent

Bolded, firstly that is patently FALSE.

The 5th amendment applies to both criminal AND civil trials/hearings. 

The only place it does not apply is a deposition where her boyfriend's lawyer asks her questions but there is no judge present. 

This takes place prior to trial. 

And second, you are referring to the fifth amendment to the U.S Constitution?

Aren't you in Canada? 

How would the 5th amendment even apply? 

At first you said the judge ordered her to pay some money back, then you switch to no that's not what the judge said because there will be trial which makes no sense.

Please seek help.

[jspice]

6 hours ago, ironpony said:

But I was there with her for the whole thing in court.  It was all done online because of covid.  But the judge did tell her that she cannot remain silent legally and has to answer all the questions.  So she had to, according to the judge.

Yes, that’s right. You live in Canada.

The fifth amendment guarantees the rights of American citizens in America. 
A cursory glance shows that a Canadian judge can compel you to answer questions in court. 
 

please stop asking for legal and medical ( including psychological) advice here. 
You’re not taking the advice you are given  and it’s clear you don’t have a basic understanding of the issues you are in fact asking about. 

 

[ExpatInItaly]

5 hours ago, ironpony said:

Why do you think he won't do it again,

Because I don't think your girlfriend is telling you the whole story. 

At all. 

[BaileyB]

Healthy relationships don’t involve this kind of drama. 

[Alpacalia]

1 hour ago, poppyfields said:

Bolded, firstly that is patently FALSE.

The 5th amendment applies to both criminal AND civil trials/hearings. 

The only place it does not apply is a deposition where her boyfriend's lawyer asks her questions but there is no judge present. 

This takes place prior to trial. 

And second, you are referring to the fifth amendment to the U.S Constitution?

Aren't you in Canada? 

How would the 5th amendment even apply? 

At first you said the judge ordered her to pay some money back, then you switch to no that's not what the judge said because there will be trial which makes no sense.

Please seek help.

I assume the OP meant that, unlike in the United States, she must answer the questions asked.

I'm not sure.

Do you think she made up him sexually assaulting her to avoid having to pay back the money?

As much as it pains me to say it, accusing someone who has been sexually abused of lying about it is about the worst thing you can do, however it doesn't mean that she's being truthful.

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Alpaca

[ironpony]

1 hour ago, poppyfields said:

Bolded, firstly that is patently FALSE.

The 5th amendment applies to both criminal AND civil trials/hearings. 

The only place it does not apply is a deposition where her boyfriend's lawyer asks her questions but there is no judge present. 

This takes place prior to trial. 

And second, you are referring to the fifth amendment to the U.S Constitution?

Aren't you in Canada? 

How would the 5th amendment even apply? 

At first you said the judge ordered her to pay some money back, then you switch to no that's not what the judge said because there will be trial which makes no sense.

Please seek help.

"The fifth" is a term we use in Canada as slang for not having to answer any questions.  The actual technical legal term is 'section 11' in the law, but we just say 'the fifth' as a layman's slang terminology.  Sorry for the confusion.  What happened was the judge said we can go to trial but she will likely be ordered to pay the money back.  Sorry for the confusion and not explaining enough.

[ironpony]

2 hours ago, poppyfields said:

So you were in court with her (on line) for both the TRO hearing and the loan hearing?

@ironpony are you okay?  Serious question because again none of this makes sense. 

I can't tell if it's your girlfriend lying to you or you are just confused because your story keeps changing and neither story (the TRO or the loan story) make any sense whatsoever. 

Even IF your girlfriend admitted to judge that her ex did in fact loan her the money, which would be massively stupid since her ex had NO proof or evidence, I still don't believe the judge would find in his favor and order her to pay it back. 

Again, he needs proof, evidence to present FIRST before the judge begins asking her questions.

That's how it works, he would present his case first with proof and evidence and then she as the defendant presents her case and the judge asks her questions.

No plaintiff (him) has a leg to stand on in a court of law without proof or evidence, he'd be tossed out on his arse! 

Before your girlfriend was ever asked any questions!

And his lawsuit wouid be deemed just anorher frivolous lawsuit, he might even be scolded by judge for wasting his/her time. 

I worked in legal for ten years, I've been to court where the plaintiff (in this case him) had no proof or evidence and they got scolded for wasting the judge's time and the whole thing  was tossed out.

The defendant (in this case her) was never asked questions because the case was tossed out first for lack of evidence. 

Honestly, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone reading this thread.

Makes no sense including where you NOW say you were in court with her during the loan hearing. 

Sorry, not jiving.

I hope you can get some help ironpony, you seem massively confused and in turn are confusing us. 

Good luck. 

 

 

Yes I was in for both at different times, sorry for not explaining enough.  Did the judge misinform her then in the lawsuit of her being able to remain silent, in which case we ask for a whole new hearing where she can remain silent this time then, and not use the old record, if the judge misenformed her if this is not the legal case?  But also the judge did tell her that she will likely have to pay some of it, based on the plaintiff's evidence.  Is the judge just being cynical then if the plaintiff doesn't have anything?  The judge also told my gf that she still agreed into a verbal contract and legally that still counts.  Does the judge have a point?

Edited February 18, 2022 by ironpony

[ironpony]

5 hours ago, basil67 said:

And she wants him to leave her alone too. Hence her making a financial deal with him.

 

But why do you think that this she should given into her ex sociopathic bf, who raped her?  Why do you think she should submit to a guy who did that?  Why are you endorsing weakness over strength when it comes to standing up to a rapist stalker?

Edited February 18, 2022 by ironpony