A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A reply from a divorce atty to "An Unmarried Husband: Unwelcome Reality"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th 09, 05:50 AM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default A reply from a divorce atty to "An Unmarried Husband: Unwelcome Reality"

Wow, such stinging repartee, such wit, such.. crap. I do hope he doesn't
charge by the hour, this guy could loose to a 2 year old's logic. Anyway,
here's the story and link..

Oh, check out the on-line replys to the drivel below, too.
-----------------------------------------------------

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...4042009/456490

Baskerville bays nonsense on divorce and dads
Date published: 4/4/2009

YOU OUGHT to be ashamed of yourself for publishing Stephen Baskerville's
drivel ["An Unmarried Husband: Unwelcome Reality," March 29 Viewpoints] and
misinformation regarding divorce in America.

Baskerville, an associate professor at a 9-year-old Christian college in
Berryville, is also a member of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, according
to that organization's Web site.

As an attorney who has practiced family law in the Fredericksburg region for
more than 27 years, I would like to correct as many errors as possible of
those contained in Baskerville's commentary.

Divorce does not license government intrusion, "including the power to seize
children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without a trial."

Baskerville is wrong. In most divorce trials you don't receive one trial,
but two.

The first brief trial, known as a pendente lite hearing, usually places in
effect a court order to maintain the status quo as much as possible. It is
designed to assure both parents access to children and the protection of
family savings, so that one parent does not run off with the children and
the family funds. No one is incarcerated without a trial and due process
under the law.

A second full hearing, which sometimes lasts a full day or two, provides
both parents with the ability to present all of their evidence and witnesses
to the court to help it make a fair ruling in this emotion-packed
litigation.

Baskerville is also 75 percent wrong when he states that judges,
psychotherapists, social workers, and lawyers "profit from ensuing
litigation."

Judges, psychotherapists, and social workers don't profit from ensuing
divorce litigation. Judges are paid a salary to be a judge and hear trials
that men and women bring to them. They are not paid on commission.

Most psychotherapists and social workers with whom I've worked over the
years try to avoid litigation. They can't help clients if they, the
psychotherapists and social workers, are sitting in court all day.

Lawyers do profit from litigation. That's what lawyers get paid for doing.
Most of us litigate.

However, most family-law lawyers whom I know urge other means of dispute
resolution first (such as mediation, collaborative law, and agreements
between the parties) before the expensive, stressful, and uncertain option
of litigation.

Baskerville's claim that "child abuse is itself the creation of welfare
bureaucracies" is so absurd that I must comment. One need only sit through a
week or two of family-court trials to see beaten, burned, damaged
children--or to hear stories of murdered children.

Baskerville also claims that fathers suffer "incarceration without trial."

Wrong again. First, fathers are not the only ones who pay child support.
More and more mothers pay child support to fathers; and when the payor
parent (man or woman) fails to pay as ordered by the court, after a full
trial that parent is given another trial before being jailed.

In closing, may I suggest that when The Free Lance-Star publishes irrational
rubbish from such individuals as Stephen Baskerville that you try to balance
it with commentary by someone who is actually from this planet?

Thomas Savage is a Fredericksburg lawyer.

  #2  
Old April 13th 09, 06:29 AM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default A reply from a divorce atty to "An Unmarried Husband: Unwelcome Reality"

Five Letters Support Baskerville Article
By Stephen Baskerville Ph.D. | Apr 11, 2009
The Fredericksburg Free Lance Star has published at least 5 replies to
Thomas Savage, including one from me (below). As you can see, they all
testify to the truth the divorce industry is trying to suppress. This debate
should be taking place in every newspaper in the America and the Western
world.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...4102009/457702
Bravo for Baskerville expose of divorce court
Date published: 4/10/2009

Thank you for publishing Stephen Baskerville's op-ed. It's quite accurate in
describing the injustices that are perpetrated in divorce courts in the U.S.
and many other countries.

I find it strange that even though there are so many divorces, no one seems
to notice how unjust they are, especially to the men.

Sadly, most men--including legislators and judges--believe it is their duty
to protect the poor woman and children at the cost of the men being
divorced.
Perhaps they do not realize they are ruining the lives of these men along
with our society and usually the women and children they are purporting to
protect.
Bringing this information into public view can hopefully create the social
will to change it.

Everyone can see the problems in society. Few are able to correlate the root
cause.

Mr. Baskerville clearly describes how the unilateral divorce-at-will laws
criminalize innocent men.

Norbert Holz
Tampa, Fla.

*****************************

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...4102009/457709
Divorce regime ignores kids' 'best interest'
Date published: 4/10/2009

I have seen the lack of justice firsthand relative to family law, and I am
incensed that anyone--let alone a lawyer--would say otherwise.

I totally agree with Stephen Baskerville and am shocked by the comments of
Thomas Savage. What planet is Mr. Savage from?

Let's face it. The deck is stacked in favor of the mothers. There is no such
thing as equal parenting or doing what is in the "best interest of the
children."

I congratulate Mr. Baskerville for a very well-written and accurate op-ed.

John Marois
Ontario, Canada

*****************************

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...4102009/457466
Many profit from unfair 'divorce industry'
Date published: 4/10/2009

Thank you for printing the March 29 op-ed by Stephen Baskerville about the
divorce industry.

If ever good intentions paved the way to hell, this is the case.

This is a moneymaker for government, lawyers, social workers the list goes
on and on, at the ultimate expense of children.

Truly we have painted ourselves into a corner, and few see a way out.

Robert Thomas
Arlington

********************************

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...4102009/457711
Kangaroos preside in divorce-custody cases
Date published: 4/10/2009

It was with some amusement that I read Thomas Savage's feeble attempt to
rebut Stephen Baskerville's fine op-ed ["An unmarried husband: Unwelcome
reality," Viewpoints, March 29].

Then I realized that some people actually believe lawyers.

Mr. Savage's main point is that people receive trials in divorce-custody
court. The truth is, they are not trials, they are kangaroo courts.

In Virginia, they will not grant a jury trial in divorce-custody cases.
Also, the proceedings cannot be recorded or videotaped. Why?

Most of what the lawyer said is not true. I do agree with Mr. Savage that
everyone should spend time observing what goes on in divorce-custody court
to see the complete disregard of the Constitution, the law, common sense,
and fairness.

I sat through three years of divorce-custody proceedings, and throughout I
kept saying to myself, "They can't do that," but they did, and they still
do.

Don Delaney
St. Petersburg, Fla.

*****************************

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...4102009/458017
Penalties are endless for 'crime' of being divorced
Date published: 4/10/2009

Thomas Savage's sneer at my college and my alleged political affiliations
(and the inaccuracy of his facts) offers a small glimpse of the kind of
personal attacks and unscrupulous methods used by his profession against
parents in family court ["Baskerville bays nonsense on divorce and dads,"
April 4].

According to Mr. Savage, family court is so fair that defendants receive not
one trial but two. And before being incarcerated over child support, parents
are apparently tried twice more.

Surely Mr. Savage understates his case. In family court, parents can get
dozens, even hundreds, of "trials," if we count, as he does, every time an
innocent parent is hauled into court without having committed any legal
infraction and issued with some "order" about how he must conduct his
private life if he wants to stay out of jail.

Many parents are forced to appear in court on a regular basis, each time
ordered to open their wallets to attorneys like Mr. Savage, even if they
have not hired them, and pay other exorbitant "debts" they have done nothing
to incur.
Indeed, family court has so many ways to criminalize parents that they can
just keep "trying" them until they are found guilty of something.

Do any of these numerous trials involve a jury? Is there ever a formal
charge? Are parents ever declared innocent and left in peace?

Or are these quickly improvised hearings, in which parents are barely
permitted to speak before the judge takes away their children, confiscates
their savings, seizes their homes, attaches their wages, and jails them
without any semblance of what most Americans consider a fair trial or due
process of law?

America's family courts are ideologically driven kangaroo courts. These
feminist tribunals are the shame of American justice.

They are creating a police state that will only expand along with the
federal funding that drives them until other media follow The Free
Lance-Star and expose this appalling abuse of government power.

Stephen Baskerville
Purcellville

The author is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND: UNWELCOME REALITY Dusty Child Support 2 April 9th 09 06:22 AM
From the "You gotta be kidding" Department - Divorce rates drop because of cost Dusty Child Support 3 January 5th 09 05:02 PM
FOX Plans Reality-TV "Bad Dads" Colosseum "Lynching" of Poor Men Dusty[_2_] Child Support 4 April 29th 08 03:55 AM
"Juro" is a newer series that resembles the "Museum," but features asmaller face and more subtle diamond inlays. The men's "Esperanza" model isthe most complex luxury model with the three minute, second andtenth-of-a-sec wholesale2 Spanking 0 April 26th 08 11:52 AM
The foster mother of a 16-month-old girl who died less than a monthafter she was placed in the home spoke to her husband at work "seven or eighttimes" before calling 911 on the morning the girl collapsed, a detectivetestified Tuesday fx Foster Parents 0 April 18th 07 03:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.