7 replies to this topic

[stocks]

"Before the last 40 years, who ever heard of a lower level civil court judge having complete control over a person's life till they died - in America ? What makes it all the more unbelievable, to the point of being silly, is that it's over a broken state marriage license." -- James Darden

Divorce and family law is based on an antiquated social custom that it is a man's responsibility to support women because they are weaker, incapable of being equal to men, and better equipped to raise children. This is simply not the case in today's society and our laws need to be changed to reflect this fact.

In many cases, some help is justified and necessary to provide rehabilitative support to deserving spouses. But not for a "lifetime." That is unreasonable in this day and age. The way things stand with today’s laws, there is abuse, invasion of your private right to determine your marital relations, the creation of a state of peonage and enslavement for the rest of your life. Read the "Right to Privacy" written by Brandeis and Warren in 1890

The goal of this site is to reveal the underlying inequity in family law. That the family laws supposedly created to provide spouses with an equitable way to dissolve their marriage are, in reality, multi-billion dollar business that benefit the family law attorneys that represent each side.

http://www.abolish-alimony.org/


Kevin Federline,
in contradiction to his prenup with Britney Spears,
will receive $20K per month -- for life. Judges do
whatever they want. Judges legislate from the bench.
NEVER forget that!

When women, who are too cheap to buy drinks in bars
for men, realize that they, too, have to send big
alimony checks to their ex-husbands, they will lobby
their legislators to abolish alimony. Equality has
its price, and most women will NOT pay that price.

I guess K-Fed is our accidental, unsuspecting hero.

http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com

Edited by stocks, 17 September 2007 - 01:43 PM.

[Guru Dudette]

When women, who are too cheap to buy drinks in bars
for men, realize that they, too, have to send big
alimony checks to their ex-husbands, they will lobby
their legislators to abolish alimony. Equality has
its price, and most women will NOT pay that price.

I guess K-Fed is our accidental, unsuspecting hero.

Be REAL careful here. Although I do not agree to alimony in any form, your comments smack of *Boy do I hate my ex-wife* and hence most women. You don't want to go there.

[vitaminm]

Child Support Worksheet

http://www.divorcehe...et/cswrksht.htm

[stocks]

Got a rise out of somebody.


Despicable Deadbeat Dad Tries to Scam His Way Out of His Financial Obligations by Citing His Ex-Wife's Murder of Their Son

Since we've been discussing the Mary Winkler case and the general subject of women getting away with anything and everything, this story from last year--Alimony Upheld For Mom Who Kicked Son To Death--fits in well. The woman's attorney's arguments are particularly beautiful:

"Linda Calbi admitted she kicked her 14-year-old son, causing injuries that led to his death. But a judge has ruled that she's still entitled to alimony payments from her ex-husband.

"Christopher Calbi had sought to end the payments, claiming his ex-wife violated her moral obligation to provide a safe home for their two children after the couple divorced.

"Superior Court Judge Eugene Austin refused. He suspended the $3,183 monthly payments while Linda Calbi spends 30 months in jail; however, the judge said that when she gets out, she can apply to have them resumed.

"Her ex-husband also must continue to make $400 monthly payments toward the $50,000 back alimony debt that he had amassed.

"'I am not going to terminate the contract,' Austin said. 'It's a valid obligation negotiated between the parties. Mrs. Calbi has pleaded guilty. She will do her time. But for the next 30 or 40 years, you two are parents of the same child and you both are going to have to deal with that.'

"During a court hearing in Bergen County, the Teaneck man said he has a 'huge hole' in his heart and has become 'financially destitute' since the Aug. 2003 death of his elder son, Matthew.

"Linda Calbi was originally charged with murder, but was allowed to plead guilty to aggravated assault after admitting that she kicked Matthew in her Old Tappan home, causing injuries that led to his death.

"'That someone like me should have to support the woman who did this to my child is beyond comprehension,' Christopher Calbi said after the court hearing.

"His ex-wife's attorney, Ian Hirsch, called the ruling fair, arguing that the woman's crime cannot be used as a legal reason to end alimony payments.

"'Mr. Calbi is using his son's death to take away any obligations he has,' Hirsch said. 'I think he's trying to take advantage of a tragedy and turn it around to his economic benefit.'"

You gotta love this attorney--dad not wanting to pay money to the woman who killed his son is "taking advantage of a tragedy and turning it around to his economic benefit." Bad dad--how could he be so rotten?

One more question--can you imagine a judge ordering a woman to pay alimony to the ex-husband who murdered her child? In fact, in California has a recent law which created a presumption that a victim of domestic violence should not be required to pay support to a violent spouse.


http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1134

[vitaminm]

http://forums.single...aspx?ForumID=13

[stocks]

A few months ago, within the span of one week, a pantyless Britney Spears exposed her bare genitals four times to the paparazzi. In doing so, she violated California Penal Code, Section 314.1, which labels indecent exposure a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in the county jail, not exceeding one year.

Why did the authorities not arrest or charge Ms. Spears for these willful, lewd acts? Because women, who disingenuously complain about inequality, actually have more privileges and rights than men. Had Kevin Federline, Britney’s ex-husband, behaved in the same manner as the out-of-control mother of his children, does anyone question the severity of prosecution he would have faced? This double standard exists not only in criminal courts but in family courts as well.

Mothers are raising most of the children in this country -- the average divorce rate is 50% and average out-of-wedlock birthrate is 37%. According to ABC’s John Stossel, mothers get physical custody 90% of the time. As a result, mothers dictate the attitudes, biases, feelings, morals, behaviors, and lives of American children. Consequently, the influence of their fathers is either anemic or negligible.

Not only do children learn to hate and disrespect their fathers at home, they learn it from TV as well. I’ve written extensively about the pejorative portrayal of men on TV -- in sitcoms and countless commercials. The latest offender is Sony Electronics, and its ad agency BBDO, which is promoting its Cyber-Shot camera through a new commercial called “Your dad is not a horse’s behind” (CLICK HERE to view the Sony commercial). Writes AdWeek:

Indeed, it’s a clever and attention-getting way to sell “face detection,” a Sony digital camera feature that ensures faces (not background images) stay in focus. If “face detection” is the brief, we get it, with both a carrot and a stick. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you. It’s not subtle, but it sells.

Clever. It sells. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you. Unbelievable! Is anybody in America awake? Do people not grasp what’s going on here? The marketing execs at Sony and the creative chiefs at BBDO greenlighted this commercial. They had to say, This is good stuff! And, why do they think it is socially acceptable and “funny” to disrespect fathers? Because the viewers feel that way, too. Most divorced fathers, and many married ones, watching this perverse Sony commercial know that it reflects American attitudes towards them.

Can you imagine, in your wildest of dreams, seeing a spot like this on TV with a mother shown, literally, as a horse’s @ss? Don Imus was kicked off radio and TV for offending one team of female college basketball players. Who will pay a similar price for offending tens of millions of fathers?

http://thenononsense...nal-alienation/

[stocks]

VAWA -- Violence against women act
DV -- Domestic violence

GS: The biggest misconception is the woman-as-victim/man-as-perp model. Research clearly establishes that women are frequently the aggressors in domestic combat, often employing the element of surprise and weapons to compensate for men’s strength. Yet the domestic violence industry—funded partly by VAWA—does everything it can to suppress this reality.

Even when women are arrested for DV, the DV advocates pretend that she’s really the victim, and the police just misunderstood the situation. The DV industry calls female abusers “victim-defendants,” and advocates on their behalf. It’s a total perversion of what the battered women’s movement once stood for. And, in its early days, that was a very heroic movement.

HS: What are Predominant Aggressor Laws and how do they affect men?

GS: Under Predominant Aggressor Laws, when police officers respond to a domestic disturbance call, they are instructed not to focus on who attacked whom and who inflicted the injuries, but instead consider different factors which will almost always weigh against men. These factors include: comparable size; comparable strength; the person allegedly least likely to be afraid; who has access to or control of family resources (i.e., who makes more money); and others. Given these factors, it is very difficult for officers to arrest female offenders.

The stakes here are high. Because many states also have mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence cases, the predominant aggressor doctrine leads to the arrests of many innocent men. Since family courts usually must consider evidence of domestic violence in determining child custody, an officer’s decision on who to arrest can often determine who will get custody of the couple’s children after the couple divorces or separates.

http://pajamasmedia...._dr_helen_5.php

[OEXCHAOS]

A long time ago, I read a study that pretty well established that domestic violence was initiated by women (in heterosexual relationships) about 42% of the time. Sometimes, it's pretty dramatic, but it's rarely considered serious. Women are almost never held accountable for violent behavior in a domestic context. Even when men are seriously injured, they are more often laughed at. That's no way to fix a problem (a real one). I would like more domestic violence looked at as not just a victim/abuser situation but rather two screwed up people feeding into each other's dysfunctions. I think you'd save the courts a lot of money and maybe a few relationships, too.