With service finally restored after the not-all-that-recent hurricane, I shall resume with a short post today, including doing the format backwards and poking at Monday after the Thursday letters, which shall all be Quick Takes.
L1: The obvious person/people to cross-examine is/are MIL1's diagnosing doctor/s. LW1 seems to be making enough leaps of presumptive dislike to convince a Jury to find MIL1 Not Guilty because of LW1's overreaching. Did the doctor(s) make it abundantly clear that this was information to which other family members potentially at risk of procreation NEEDED (in capital letters) to have? Then again, this might only be useful in reducing LW1's anger. From a practical point of view, LW1 needs to decide what to do now. That her problem is largely that her husband isn't angry enough for her is telling. His mother faces a gruesome death, he has about an even shot of the same fate, and yet he's supposed to Yes, Dear his wife's rage and fury. I suspect that nothing short of his going over and murdering MIL1 in person would satisfy LW1, who is overplaying justifiable anger (although, when her son is tricked into parenting, perhaps she will extend to him the same sympathy she now seeks).
My advice to LW1, since her husband apparently does not intend to do him mother the kindness of sparing her from a gruesome death by murdering her himself, is to do so. As stated, it will be doing MIL1 a kindness to spare her such an end, and doing a kindness to those who have wronged us is one way to acquire an incredibly high level of self-satisfaction. Additionally, it would have the benefit of ending a doomed marriage (it would give me SUCH satisfaction if LW1 were the same woman who complained on Monday that her husband wasn't having an appropriate response to the 9/11 anniversary). However, most important of all, LW1 murdering MIL1 would eventually provide employment for one of the more deserving members of the legal profession, who might at the time be very much in want of a case that will provide him the opportunity to show off his masterful courtroom skills by securing an Acquittal (not to mention the much needed Daily Refreshers).
L2: I long to cross-examine W2 about exactly how many outside trysts she enjoyed before the engagement, or if indeed the couple were even exclusive. I advocate (and selflessly, in this instance, as I rarely do divorces, not having much innate fondness for the Family Division) immediate separation from this gaslighting spouse. And, with a conscience like his/hers (after all, there is absolutely no gender specification in L2), LW2 would be of the utmost service to us all in a profession where such a conscience is desperately needed - politics. LW2 should run for Congress immediately. This will have the side benefit of being the one thing that ought to, if anything will, flush PMF2 out of the woodwork. If PMF2 does not emerge while LW2 is running for office, he can remarry with hardly any fear of being exposed.
L3: When did you ever know what you wanted to do with your life, LW3? It appears that all you ever wanted was to please your parents with an endless pile of accomplishments that was never big enough for them. You have two choices. The first choice is to realize that a First in Law never made anyone a better cross-examiner, nor did a Fourth prevent one from excellence in the field, and draw the appropriate lesson. The second would be to give your parents what they most deserve in the world and indulge in suicide. Which course holds more appeal (no bets here)?
L4: You could always reply that you'd hoped you'd wiped your predecessor from the memories of your complimenters by your superiour performance. Or you could eliminate the compliments by impersonating her inferiour performance.
Now for Monday and a pair of letters. First, in the case of the BISEXUAL ex-boyfriend newly engaged to a sweet little Bible-blogger, it is incredibly tempting to suggest that SLBB not only deserves what she gets but also in all probability already knows exactly what she's getting, and that any interference will only serve to strengthen SLBB's determination to marry him, deliver him from his perceived deviance and in so doing prove her superiour womanhood in relation to that of her ungodly predecessor. But I am displeased with the LW over the incorrect use of mutual, too displeased to ask the obvious question: How on earth does the common friend know what the ex is doing (unless, of course, CF is the famed stereotypical Gay Best Friend, so beloved of television and film writers, who can give the most firsthand of testimony)? I smell Danish.
Then we have the LW bride suffering at the hand of Familial Guestzillas. LW, if you have the good taste to select a lesbian as your attendant, it seems hardly likely that you really want the bigots at the wedding in the first place. With or without advance warning that this will be done, simply remove anyone who objects to the selection of the wedding party or the composition of the guest list from that list. It's not that hard.