Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807
Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"DB" wrote in message
... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"DB" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote:
"DB" wrote in message . .. "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message .. . "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:34:05 -0500, "Phil"
wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. . On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message . .. "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 On the assumption that your tongue is not in your cheek now, I'm with you. Ultimately, I think the solution is to privatize marriage, and make it a matter of individual premarital contracts between two competent adults. The government role should be confined to enforcing the terms of these contracts. The contracts should include detailed provisions about such matters as divorce, child custody, and spousal support. It's absurd for government to be involved in the regulation of the relationship between a husband and wife -- particularly when, as has been happening for decades, state legislatures change divorce law and retrospectively apply the changes to existing marriages, regardless of when they took place, or the jurisdiction in which they took place. Marriage has become meaningless as a legal contract with predictable conditions. Alas, we're a long way off privatizing marriage. However, if the homosexual rights movement continues to push for same-sex marriage, then I suspect some may begin to ask why the government is so involved in the business of regulating heterosexual relationships and families. Let people "marry" whoever and whatever they want, but just insist that they must have detailed premarital contracts spelling out the obligations of each party! (When all this happens, I plan to marry my cat, with whom I have been living for many years. And I don't want to hear any felinophobic comments from anyone. ) |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Kenneth S." wrote in It's absurd for government to be involved in the regulation of the relationship between a husband and wife -- particularly when, as has been happening for decades, state legislatures change divorce law and retrospectively apply the changes to existing marriages, regardless of when they took place, or the jurisdiction in which they took place. Marriage has become meaningless as a legal contract with predictable conditions. It's also absurd for the government to be involved in the regulation of two individuals when they separate! The only thing government should have the authority to regulate is the collection of taxes, stay the **** out of our personal live and private business. |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Phil" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message . .. "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts. |
Family Kourts, Legal Parasites
"Chris" wrote in message
... "Phil" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote: "DB" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "DB" wrote in message ... http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807 Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to be concerned about. When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there. "On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions, extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It was all there and ripe for the picking." What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable. It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake, why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form of cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches! Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk that tight rope of financial destitution? Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal representation? Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually play fair, which would stop some of the gouging. Phil #3 Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials. In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S. for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation. I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal assistance were widely available in the U.S. I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly. My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix" it. In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the government is the fool. Phil #3 The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts. Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment rights by flexing our Second. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com