CS Propaganda article of the month

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.

Mel Gamble

frazil wrote:

Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side, it's
up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."

Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is impossible
to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any logic,
science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!

Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed? Couldn't
one
produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent payment
proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
owe/earn/have/spend?

Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic
income
imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a person
has
the inability to pay?

My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay SS."
When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't have?" The
judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how he
shows he can't pay SS.

Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because it
then
would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused to
provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he
actually
earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his divorce
was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect him
to
be able to show a negative.
His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the necessary
financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a
summer
home, a motorcycle and two cars). At the final financial hearing the judge
reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court, and
for
his arrogance. He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month and
that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases her
earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).

His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity in
the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his
exes
lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the second
half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.

So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to show
what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.

Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had to
share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she should
be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his HS
sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.

He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys to
help
her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he should
spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would consider
boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again
we've
always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.

Mrs Indyguy





The Illinois bar must have a very low standard!


Dave ncp-without-rights@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days or
listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.

Getting tough on child support

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articl...s/f74570ad941b
a92286256d4d0079e878.txt
Munster Times

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, because her exhusband is a neanderthal.

As far as the judge is concerned.... He's VERY fair. He was a hell of a lot
fairer with Dh's cousin than others would have been. 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.

Mrs Indyguy

TM wrote:


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.

The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The
judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not
produce that evidence without prior notice.

It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been
at least some advance notice.

Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into the
courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens to
be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of
course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove his
inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via subpoena.

I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.

I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision and
the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.


It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
example,
the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
records.
When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the timeframe
of
the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he would
not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
timeframe,
and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
proper
notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
Order
to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they do,
they are advocating and judging simultaneously.

And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all the
way around.

Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave him
every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there is
no comparrison.




Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going
to
ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
had
undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
really
be
left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the
marriage?

According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage
where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
compensation.
The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes
to
justify past marriage agreements.

But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony
as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the
case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
behavior in court.

My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
because of his behavior.

Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
punishment.

And he must make quite a bit of money to be
required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!

I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.


That's clearly a finding of fault.)

But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
within the marriage.

Correct.


I don't understand
how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a
marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent
and independent simultaneously.

Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?

No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the judges
order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going to be
awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds on
wining and dinning his mistress.



So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding in
no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men and
required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?

To Bob:

You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair.....

This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault
divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets based on
the proven fault.

This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies to the
court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds.

He's ****ed to this day. He felt he should have been able to dump his wife of
30 years, move in with his mistress and take a minimum of 50% of the marital
assests (actually he wanted 70% because he was the wage earner) and not look
back. Similar to the way several men who post on this ng think.

Mrs Indyguy

Oh, geesh, Bob. This question always bothers me. Money is what we all need
to survive in our society. Lack of money condemns one to a life of poverty.
Without money, one does not eat. Without the dishes being washed and the
carpet vacuumed, one can still eat, if one has money. To leave one's spouse
in a dirty house is not nearly as drastic as leaving one's spouse with no
money, and no way to make a liveable wage, with children to support.

I do not support the system the way it is today. But, then, I do not
support replacing one unfair system with another unfair system, either.

So???? ...

TM wrote:


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.

The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The
judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not
produce that evidence without prior notice.

It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been
at least some advance notice.

Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into the
courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens to
be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of
course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove his
inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via subpoena.

I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.

I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision
and
the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.


It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
example,
the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
records.
When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the timeframe
of
the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he would
not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
timeframe,
and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
proper
notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
Order
to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they do,
they are advocating and judging simultaneously.

And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all the
way around.

Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave him
every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there is
no comparrison.




Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going
to
ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
had
undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
really
be
left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the
marriage?

According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage
where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
compensation.
The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes
to
justify past marriage agreements.

But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony
as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the
case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
behavior in court.

My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
because of his behavior.

Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
punishment.

And he must make quite a bit of money to be
required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!

I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.


That's clearly a finding of fault.)

But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
within the marriage.

Correct.


I don't understand
how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a
marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent
and independent simultaneously.

Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?

No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the judges
order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going to
be
awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds on
wining and dinning his mistress.



So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding in
no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men and
required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?

To Bob:

You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair.....

This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault
divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets based
on
the proven fault.

This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies to
the
court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds.

************************************************** ************************
*****************
He's ****ed to this day. He felt he should have been able to dump his wife of
30 years, move in with his mistress and take a minimum of 50% of the marital
assests (actually he wanted 70% because he was the wage earner) and not look
back. Similar to the way several men who post on this ng think.
************************************************** ************************
****************

That's EXACTLY what the wife would have been able to do if she had been the one
to stray - with a couple of exceptions. She would have ALSO been able to take
what appears to be at least half of his after-tax income with her for
who-knows-how-long. She would ALSO have taken any minor children and another
big chunk of his earnings for the supposed purpose of supporting them.

And Mrs. Gimmeguy would have been right here telling us what ogres we men were
for saying HE got a rotten deal when his wife pulled out and didn't have to
give him anything..........even though she's here NOW telling us that HE
SHOULDN'T be allowed to just pull out.

With Mrs. Gimmeguy, it's only about his money, unless it's the woman doing
it...........in which case it's still all about his money.

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

Oh, geesh, Bob. This question always bothers me. Money is what we all need
to survive in our society. Lack of money condemns one to a life of poverty.
Without money, one does not eat. Without the dishes being washed and the
carpet vacuumed, one can still eat, if one has money. To leave one's spouse
in a dirty house is not nearly as drastic as leaving one's spouse with no
money, and no way to make a liveable wage, with children to support.

I do not support the system the way it is today. But, then, I do not
support replacing one unfair system with another unfair system, either.

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.

because her exhusband is a neanderthal.

But then aren't all of us MEN?

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???

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"...

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.

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
TM wrote:


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.

The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
The
judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
not
produce that evidence without prior notice.

It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
been
at least some advance notice.

Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
the
courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens
to
be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of
course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove
his
inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
subpoena.

Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony?


I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.

I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision
and
the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.

Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on
their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong?



It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
example,
the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
records.
When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the
timeframe
of
the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he
would
not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
timeframe,
and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
proper
notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
Order
to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they
do,
they are advocating and judging simultaneously.

And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all
the
way around.

Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave
him
every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there
is
no comparrison.

So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your state?
I doubt it is increasing alimony and more like being held in contempt of
court with an admonition to never do it again or some kind of minor
sanction. Paying another person huge amounts of money for several years is
not a normal legal sanction.





Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still
going
to
ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
had
undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
really
be
left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end
the
marriage?

According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term
marriage
where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
compensation.
The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future
incomes
to
justify past marriage agreements.

But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at
alimony
as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In
the
case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
behavior in court.

My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
because of his behavior.

Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
punishment.

And he must make quite a bit of money to be
required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!

I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.

Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal
sanction for misbehavior in court. Increasing the SS award to the woman is
not supported by law in most states.



That's clearly a finding of fault.)

But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
within the marriage.

Correct.

That's why the SS increase is so odd. From what has been presented here,
the court increased the alimony award for behavior in court rather than
using normal sanctions outlined in the law for inappropriate behavior in
court.



I don't understand
how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in
a
marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be
dependent
and independent simultaneously.

Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?

No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the
judges
order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going
to be
awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds
on
wining and dinning his mistress.

Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. Men are not allowed to
bring up the dirty laundry regarding their soon to be ex wive's behavior
because that would violate the concept of no-fault divorce. The women who
are advocating this double standard should re-examine what they are saying.
They are asking to have it both ways with one standard for men and a
different standard for women. If men can't show how women have been with
other men, why are women allowed to show men have been with other women?




So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding
in
no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men
and
required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?

To Bob:

You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair.....

This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault
divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets
based on
the proven fault.

This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies
to the
court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds.

He's ****ed to this day. He felt he should have been able to dump his wife
of
30 years, move in with his mistress and take a minimum of 50% of the
marital
assests (actually he wanted 70% because he was the wage earner) and not
look
back. Similar to the way several men who post on this ng think.

He should be ****ed. He also has grounds for an appeal, but I'll bet the
judge screwed him financially just up to the amount it would cost him to
mount a legal appeal. That's how the game is played.

http://www.njsbf.org/njsbf/student/billofrights/8.cfm

"The Fifth Amendment is designed specifically
to protect accused persons from giving
evidence, or testifying, against themselves,
also known as self-incrimination."

ACCUSED:
... of making X amount of dollars
... of hiding it
... of insufficiently suporting the X and children
... of wilfull contemp

EVIDENCE:
... pay stubs
... tax returns
... bank statements
... receipts

TESTIFYING:
... "I make $$ amount per week, Your Honor"
... "Yes, I own a boat, Your Honor"
... "No, I haven't made any payments this month, Your Honor"

So why can't NCP's such as Indy's husband's cousin "take the fifth"
when asked to give evidence against themseves in support matters?? The
burden of proof ought to be on the prosecution. If they can't prove what
you earn, they shouldn't be able to make YOU prove it, and then punish
you for not giving up the info voluntarily.

Be sure and scroll down to the "Due process" section. Fair and impartial
judges in the family courts??

Oh, and Indy, I am wondering... How on earth can you AND your husband
both be blood-relatives to his cousin?? Wouldn't that make you and your
husband blood relatives as well?

SS

Her Bank wrote:

Oh, and Indy, I am wondering... How on earth can you AND your husband
both be blood-relatives to his cousin?? Wouldn't that make you and your
husband blood relatives as well?


Did I say we were both blood relatives to DH's cousin? I don't think I said
that. But if I did, I apologize. Of course we aren't both blood related to
him, just DH is. We are both still friends with his ex, but neither of us is
blood related to her.

Mrs Indyguy

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.


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.


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.


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.......


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

Mrs Indyguy

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

Bob wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
TM wrote:


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.

The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
The
judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
not
produce that evidence without prior notice.

It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
been
at least some advance notice.

Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
the
courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens
to
be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of
course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove
his
inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
subpoena.

Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony?

Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set at
based on his income and her lack of income.




I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.

I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision
and
the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.

Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on
their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong?

Do they? Maybe. But if they do they shouldn't be doing it.




It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
example,
the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
records.
When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the
timeframe
of
the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he
would
not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
timeframe,
and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
proper
notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
Order
to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they
do,
they are advocating and judging simultaneously.

And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all
the
way around.

Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave
him
every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there
is
no comparrison.

So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your state?

I honestly don't know. But I would say making him pay a portion of her attorney
fees was appropriate. You know the old adage... Tell one lie in court and the
judge will have a hard time believing anything you say.

I doubt it is increasing alimony and more like being held in contempt of
court with an admonition to never do it again or some kind of minor
sanction. Paying another person huge amounts of money for several years is
not a normal legal sanction.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The SS was set based on his income not as a punishment.





Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still
going
to
ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
had
undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
really
be
left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end
the
marriage?

According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term
marriage
where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
compensation.
The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future
incomes
to
justify past marriage agreements.

But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at
alimony
as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In
the
case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
behavior in court.

My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
because of his behavior.

Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
punishment.

And he must make quite a bit of money to be
required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!

I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.

Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal
sanction for misbehavior in court.

That did happen.

Increasing the SS award to the woman is
not supported by law in most states.

That didn't happen.



That's clearly a finding of fault.)

But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
within the marriage.

Correct.

That's why the SS increase is so odd.

Why do you insist that happened when I never said it did and it never did?

From what has been presented here,
the court increased the alimony award for behavior in court rather than
using normal sanctions outlined in the law for inappropriate behavior in
court.

Nope.




I don't understand
how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in
a
marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be
dependent
and independent simultaneously.

Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?

No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the
judges
order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going
to be
awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds
on
wining and dinning his mistress.

Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era.

WRONG!!! He had to pay his ex back for misuse of marital funds. The judge
didn't award her more of the equity because he had an affiar. He paid her back
the marital monies her ex had no right to spend on an other woamn.

Men are not allowed to
bring up the dirty laundry regarding their soon to be ex wive's behavior
because that would violate the concept of no-fault divorce.

His ex wasn't allowed to bring up the affiar either, with the exception of the
missuse of marital funds. That is allowed to be brought up in this state, by
either spouse.

The women who
are advocating this double standard should re-examine what they are saying.
They are asking to have it both ways with one standard for men and a
different standard for women. If men can't show how women have been with
other men, why are women allowed to show men have been with other women?

He had the same abilty to show missuse of marital funds as his ex did. He had
nothing to show, but she did.

Mrs Indyguy




So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding
in
no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men
and
required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?

To Bob:

You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair.....

This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault
divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets
based on
the proven fault.

This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies
to the
court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds.

He's ****ed to this day. He felt he should have been able to dump his wife
of
30 years, move in with his mistress and take a minimum of 50% of the
marital
assests (actually he wanted 70% because he was the wage earner) and not
look
back. Similar to the way several men who post on this ng think.

He should be ****ed. He also has grounds for an appeal, but I'll bet the
judge screwed him financially just up to the amount it would cost him to
mount a legal appeal. That's how the game is played.