T TomH1 Guest Nov 24, 2020 #21 acanonlawyer said: (myself excepted, of course) Click to expand... But, of course, only other lawyers get it wrong. That’s why people should come to you and not consult with others.
acanonlawyer said: (myself excepted, of course) Click to expand... But, of course, only other lawyers get it wrong. That’s why people should come to you and not consult with others.
R runningdude Guest Nov 24, 2020 #22 “Annulment” is not a canonical term either, so I think precision is moot.
1 1ke Guest Nov 24, 2020 #23 runningdude said: “Annulment” is not a canonical term either, so I think precision is moot. Click to expand... I didn’t say it was a canonical term. In fact, I said it WASN’T “an annulment”.
runningdude said: “Annulment” is not a canonical term either, so I think precision is moot. Click to expand... I didn’t say it was a canonical term. In fact, I said it WASN’T “an annulment”.
R runningdude Guest Nov 24, 2020 #24 https://www.archbalt.org/marriage-tribunal/types-of-annulments-lack-or-defect-of-form/
1 1ke Guest Nov 24, 2020 #25 runningdude said: Click to expand... Lack of form and defect of form are two completely different things. Lack of form does not result in a decree of nullity. It’s poor wording on the part of whoever is in charge of the website content. It’s appalling actually.
runningdude said: Click to expand... Lack of form and defect of form are two completely different things. Lack of form does not result in a decree of nullity. It’s poor wording on the part of whoever is in charge of the website content. It’s appalling actually.
A acanonlawyer Guest Nov 24, 2020 #26 1ke said: It’s poor wording on the part of whoever is in charge of the website content. It’s appalling actually. Click to expand... Example #1,456 supporting my earlier post. Dan
1ke said: It’s poor wording on the part of whoever is in charge of the website content. It’s appalling actually. Click to expand... Example #1,456 supporting my earlier post. Dan