Well, since there was no written agreement...

Mel wrote:

She didn't give it up.....

Mel wrote:

In other words, Indyguy, she got a nice little pension and a huge
retirement
bonus for raising her own kids. About what I'd expect from an judge
crooked
enough to overlook tax fraud. No wonder our courts are screwed up.


What she got was some help in supporting herself after giving up 30 years
of
income, experience and advancement,

... she got it just the same as he did - she just didn't have to leave home
to
get it.

I disagree. His support of her during the marriage was more so payment for
her
SAH duties, and not any compensation for what she gave up.

.... my explanation of the good life she had while married is just as correct as
yours. Why don't you ask HIM what the agreement was between them : )

because her exhusband is a neanderthal.

But then aren't all of us MEN?

LOL. Men that think like DH's cousin certainly are, in my opinion.

Well, if you're talking about his beliefs regarding the **** you're posting
here, there ARE lots of us ... and a lot more running around out there who
DON'T post here and who DON'T want to have anything to do with women like you
or your cousin's ex.

As far as the judge is concerned.... He's VERY fair.

May be your definition of fair. As a taxpayer, I don't like the idea that
an
officer of the court with evidence of tax fraud and no duty of privilege to
a
client would tell the perpetrator he'll allow the fraud to continue as long
as
the woman gets cut in on the deal....

Yes, I'm sure you DO consider that fair. Would you also consider it fair if
the judge allowed him to continue siphoning off federal funds being sent to
a
senior retirement center....as long as the ex-wife got her share???

Actually I would rather have seen the judge turn him into the feds. I'm not
defending the judge looking the other way.

Bull****. You just described him as "fair", and as far as I know, you've based
that judgement entirely on what he did to your h's cousin. You thought it was
fair UNTIL I pointed out that SHE was benefitting from ALL OF US being ripped
off by tax evasion ... then you HAD TO change your opinion. At least, that's
the way it looks as things unfolded - going to be hard to go back and make it
look any different.

He was a hell of a lot
fairer with Dh's cousin than others would have been.

What are the odds that the wife told NO lies in the course of the
proceedings?
Bet she included a couple of whoppers too, and got off without suffering any
"fairness"...

Like what? She showed anything she earned. She showed what her SOL had been.
She showed how her ex spent marital funds on the mistress. She had no reason
to
lie as she had nothing to hide. Her ex hasn't said anything about her telling
lies and that being the reason he was ordered to pay what he has had to pay.
He
on the other hand.......

Dunno - it seems women get away with it all the time in court.

If he turned in every
tax
defrauder that stood in front of his bench he'd only be able to hear half
the
cases he currently does, because he'd be on the phone with the IRS the
other
half of the day.

Well, if there's that much tax fraud going on among your peers, maybe you
should be a good citizen and make the government aware of it. Of course we
always knew that people up at your income level failed to pay their fair
share.....thanks for the admission.

1st of all DH's cousin and his ex aren't what we consider amongst our
*peers*.

Hmm - seem to know them pretty well...

2nd we pay our taxes according to federal and state requirments, every year
and
on time.

Didn't say you didn't, just that you seem to know a lot of people who don't and
then end up in front of this judge. Gotta wonder how many you know that DON'T
end up in front of this judge. If you're spending all your time with people
who aren't your peers.... Actually, that wouldn't surprise me - the way you
write there AREN'T any people who are YOUR peers...

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy