Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
There is a tiny snippet below of something that I posted some time
back, on the subject of why men don't organize adequately to fight back
against a system that is so grotesquely distorted against them. In the
interim, this thread has turned into a big argument between Max and
TeacherMama. I feel like someone who has failed to extinguish his camp
fire properly, and then seen it develop into a huge forest fire!

On the issue of fathers being penalized for speaking out, I have no
statistics, unfortunately. However, I have some experience of seeing
what happens to activist fathers. I'll cite two example that I know of
in recent years. I recognize, of course, that I heard only one side of
the story here, but I still think these episodes indicate what typically
happens. What it amounts to is that mothers' lawyers get hold of this
information, and -- in effect -- get the judges all riled up, because
they tell them that the father is leveling strong criticisms at them
outside the court.

One case was a father who was a deacon in a Baptist church and in every
respect an upright citizen. His wife left him, taking their child. In
the course of subsequent proceedings the father tried to expose what he
saw as improper intervention on his wife's behalf by a local female
police officer who was a member of the church and friendly with his
wife. He told me that he began to encounter serious problems with
getting his visitation rights honored as soon as he started to draw
attention to the police officer's activities on his wife's behalf. We
are talking about a small town, where people in the law enforcement
business all know each other.

The other is a father who, as a result of his treatment in the family
court system, wrote a book on the subject of what fathers should do. In
court, his wife's attorney then began drawing attention to the father's
book, and his other activities on behalf of fathers, with the obvious
intention of stirring up prejudice against him in the mind of the judge.

I doubt whether there are many cases in the U.S. where fathers are
jailed for protesting against the system. However, what frequently
happens, I think, is that fathers who do so are branded as
troublemakers. Judges have all kinds of discretion in these matters,
and they have all kinds of ways of punishing fathers who stand up for
their rights. For several years, I had a leading role in a local
fathers' groups. One reason why I was told I should take this on was
that my children were grown, and there was no longer any way that the
legal system could punish me for speaking out publicly.

Kenneth's examples show how judges are easily influenced into prejudicial
thinking against fathers.

One time I asked my attorney why I lost on every issue. He told me "The
judge doesn't like you for some reason." I asked what we possibility
could
have said or done to have the judge turn against me and favor my ex on
every
issue. His response was judges form opinions about the parties and rule
against the party they don't like. His point was it didn't really matter
about the facts or testimony. It was more a judge picking a winner/loser
and using that premise for decision making.

Unfortunately this is not a one time process. Every time I went back
before
the same judge as the case and the parties were being introduced she would
say, "I remember you." That was a clear sign the screwing was going to
continue.

She couldn't screw you physically (for obvious reasons), so she screwed you
financially. This is known as p _ _ _ _ envy.

"Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

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

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

"Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

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

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4uuKa.82494$%42.14146@fed1read06...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Indyguy1 wrote:

Dave wrote:

snip to

But why do men fail to organize and protest?

I have a theory on this. It's because of the way so many
have
been
raised.
Women have traditionally been the organizers in families.
They
see
to
it
that
the vacations, Dr. appts, home repairs, etc. are booked,
the
family
events are
attended, etc. Boys grow into men that have seen their
mothes
be
the
organizers
and then marry women who continue the pattern.

The best way to stop this is for parents to stop raising
boys
to
expect
this of
women and stop raising girls to accept this as their solo
role
as
women.
Do it
by example and in word.

I'm doing my share.

Mrs Indyguy


I have some theories too, and they're very different from
Mrs.
Indyguy's. I think that very few men are willing to come
out
and
openly
stand up for the interests of men, in situations where those
interests
are entirely the opposite of women -- as is the case in most
domestic
relations matters.

Bear in mind too that men who fight the system are subject to
the
very
real
threat of jail time as well as losing their worldly
possessions
just
because
they are standing up to the system. Women, on the other hand,
at
the
very
worst would simply be told to just "shut the f___ up". Not
much
to
lose
there.

Why do you say that? Why would they go to jail or lose their
worldly
possessions because they protested against the system? Now, if
their
protest was in the form of refusing to pay child support, then I
can
see
where that might be true. But organizing and picketing,
etc--why
would
that
merit jail time? And if women were out there picketing with
them,
why
do
you think the women would get different treatment? Do you have
any
examples
of this happening?

I was held in contempt of court and sanctioned for trying to stand
up
to
the
system on three occasions. One time I was in contempt for
attempting
the
"re-litigate" an issue. Another time I was in contempt for
"dragging
my
ex-spouse back into court." And finally, I was held in contempt
for
"failing to inform the court my ex-spouse was having trouble
transferring
an
asset to her name." In everyone of these examples the judge
ignored
her
own
order in the decree and held me accountable with sanctions for
trying
to
get
the decree implemented as written and signed.


Did you have to spend any time in jail time for contempt or did you
just
have to pay a fine?

Neither. The judge ordered me to deliver the proceeds from a
retirement
account to my ex's attorney within 24 hours and have that attorney
contact
her by phone, or she would issue a bench warrant for my arrest. By
liquidating the retirement account to stay out of jail, I was hit with
a
$21,500 tax liability for taking a premature retirement distribution.
I
had
signed a written release on the account. My ex's attorney had
reported
in
writing to my attorney the asset transfer had been completed and no
further
assistance was needed from me, and there would be no need for the
attorneys
to prepare a QDRO for the court to sign. My perspective is I was
penalized
for following the decree, accepting her statements that the transfer
was
completed, and accepting her attorney's input no QDRO would be
necessary
to
complete the transfer. The judge told me it was all my fault.

I was threatened with jail. I was not fined directly by the court.
But
the
penalty imposed by the court was converting a gross before taxes
amount
to
a
net after taxes amount dollar for dollar. So the penalty was me
paying
the
taxes and premature distribution fees liability for my ex because she
told
the judge she wouldn't accept an IRA to IRA transfer.

In researching the tax laws, with the help of a tax attorney and
several
communications with IRS legal representatives, I found this happens a
lot.
When retirement accounts are awarded in property settlements, the
recipient
can refuse to accept the asset into their own IRA account, and the
original
owner of the account is forced to pay the taxes when the account is
liquidated to comply with state court orders.

I forgot one thing I wanted to say. This hearing was just another
example
of how lawyers lie in court all the time. Their whole case was based on
the
premise I had "hidden" the asset from my ex. I pointed out to the judge
my
ex's attorney and I had a detailed meeting on this asset, how to
transfer
it, and my desire to gain some level of compensation for protecting the
asset, filing all the required tax returns, etc. to maintain the assets
tax
deductibilty. My point was I could have not acted and let the IRS seize
the
asset because of her neglect in getting it transferred inot her name.

The attorney lied and told the judge the meeting I cited had never
occured
after my ex got all huffy because her attorney had not informed her
about
the meeting and our discussions. I was ordered to pay her attorney
fees
and we were supposed to have a follow-up hearing to discuss any
objections
I
might have. The problem for the attorney was the 1 1/2 hour meeting she
denied ever took place was detailed in her client billing records. My
ex
was ****ed her attorney dropped the ball in pursuing the attorney fee
award.
I told my ex her attorney knew I was going to ask for a reversal of the
prior ruling based on the attorney's intentional misrepresentation of
the
facts, for sanctions against her attorney for lying in open court to
gain
an
advantage for her client, and ask for a referral to the state bar for
additional censure action.

My ex went to her attorney and miraculously the attorney was quick to
write-off all the attorney fees.


If I am getting ****ed off as I read your story I could only imagine the
anger and frustration you must have felt. I can believe it as I went
through some similar outrageous stuff from my ex's lawyer in the meetings.
Luckily all this happened and was worked out at the meetings and not in
court, since what they were asking was so completely outrageous including
making claims on money never existed. All this from a 8 month marriage
from
a woman that came into it with nothing.

It was just so outrageous I could not contain myself and let my ex's
lawyer
have it during the meeting. If it would have happened in court with the
Judge going along with it I would have certainly ended up in jail for
contempt. But I made it pretty clear to them that I would disappear,
become a fugitive or end up in jail if they persist taking it into
court. Either way I made it clear they were not going to get away with
screwing me.

My lawyer told me that this is normal, that my ex wife will be encouraged
by
her lawyer to make false allegations and claims because that usually seals
the financial, child support and custody issues. Always go for more above
and beyond since the Judge will meet some where in the middle. I have
been
to a number of
lawyers since then and they all told me this is the way it goes. That
lawyers will encourage their clients to make up false allegations and
financial claims, etc so they will have the upper hand in court

Back then I was pretty naive and ignorant just like many in this country
about what the system encourages women to do. When I confronted my
ex-wife
about the false allegations and claims privately she said that is what she
had to do to win custody and that is what her lawyer recommended despite
all
of it being false. (too bad I did not have it on tape). She was like come
on didn't your lawyer tell you it would be like this and what women do to
win in divorce proceedings. She said even her parents told her to make
stuff up so she would get the upper hand. (said like I am some fool not
to believe this is all quite normal and I should not let it bother me).
Up
to that point in my life,
I had lived a life right out of Leave it to Beaver and stuff like this
only
happened on TV or on Jerry Springer. So this all was pretty devastating.

I think this is why they are allowed to get away with it since most people
that have not been through it or have had a loved one who has been through
do not believe it. It just seems too outrageous to happen in real life
and
in America. So I think when people do hear about how NCPs are treated
they
believe it is rare
and not an every day occurrence.

I used to be one of those people.


It is bad enough being separated from your children, losing your wife,
losing your income, assetts but false allegations on top of that. It was
absolutely devastating and I will never forgive our government for
creating
laws that encourage it. Some day I hope to join with others and through
legal means of our Constitution make all those mother ****ers
in our government pay for what they do to fathers in this country.

Aside from the obvious (making BIG $$$), the compelling force driving the
actions of these yahoos is to prove they are the stronger creature; this all
to impress women and control other men. Not unlike the animal kingdom where
you see the larger more robust animal bullying the other animals in order to
win over the female. In humans, they do it in order to prove that theirs is
bigger than yours. Bullying is a SURE sign of self-doubt (i.e. inferiority
complex).

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

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

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
There is a tiny snippet below of something that I posted some time
back, on the subject of why men don't organize adequately to fight
back
against a system that is so grotesquely distorted against them. In
the
interim, this thread has turned into a big argument between Max and
TeacherMama. I feel like someone who has failed to extinguish his
camp
fire properly, and then seen it develop into a huge forest fire!

On the issue of fathers being penalized for speaking out, I have no
statistics, unfortunately. However, I have some experience of seeing
what happens to activist fathers. I'll cite two example that I know
of
in recent years. I recognize, of course, that I heard only one side
of
the story here, but I still think these episodes indicate what
typically
happens. What it amounts to is that mothers' lawyers get hold of this
information, and -- in effect -- get the judges all riled up, because
they tell them that the father is leveling strong criticisms at them
outside the court.

One case was a father who was a deacon in a Baptist church and in
every
respect an upright citizen. His wife left him, taking their child.
In
the course of subsequent proceedings the father tried to expose what
he
saw as improper intervention on his wife's behalf by a local female
police officer who was a member of the church and friendly with his
wife. He told me that he began to encounter serious problems with
getting his visitation rights honored as soon as he started to draw
attention to the police officer's activities on his wife's behalf. We
are talking about a small town, where people in the law enforcement
business all know each other.

The other is a father who, as a result of his treatment in the family
court system, wrote a book on the subject of what fathers should do.
In
court, his wife's attorney then began drawing attention to the
father's
book, and his other activities on behalf of fathers, with the obvious
intention of stirring up prejudice against him in the mind of the
judge.

I doubt whether there are many cases in the U.S. where fathers are
jailed for protesting against the system. However, what frequently
happens, I think, is that fathers who do so are branded as
troublemakers. Judges have all kinds of discretion in these matters,
and they have all kinds of ways of punishing fathers who stand up for
their rights. For several years, I had a leading role in a local
fathers' groups. One reason why I was told I should take this on was
that my children were grown, and there was no longer any way that the
legal system could punish me for speaking out publicly.

Kenneth's examples show how judges are easily influenced into
prejudicial
thinking against fathers.

One time I asked my attorney why I lost on every issue. He told me "The
judge doesn't like you for some reason." I asked what we possibility
could
have said or done to have the judge turn against me and favor my ex on
every
issue. His response was judges form opinions about the parties and rule
against the party they don't like. His point was it didn't really
matter
about the facts or testimony. It was more a judge picking a
winner/loser
and using that premise for decision making.

Unfortunately this is not a one time process. Every time I went back
before
the same judge as the case and the parties were being introduced she
would
say, "I remember you." That was a clear sign the screwing was going to
continue.

And that is so unfortunate and wrong, Bob! I do not think the laws, in
and
of themselves, are written that way. Judges just have far too much
latitude
in making their decisions. And, unfortunately, I do not think that more
laws for fathers or against mothers are going to change that--judges will
still have the opportunity for latitude and attitude.

At the risk of sounding like a victim, the system is even worse. The judges
in the county where I was divorced have a reputation for their ultra-liberal
points of view favoring women. That county is the liberal epicenter of
Oregon. The adjoining county where I live is split between conservatives
and liberals but has a reputation for much more aggressive CS enforcement
tactics against fathers than the other county.

So what happened was, under Oregon law, the support case was transferred to
the more aggressive county for CS enforcement while motions to modify CS
were filed back in the more liberal original county. State law allows
fathers to get whip-sawed by the system by allowing mothers to shop
jurisdictions based on what they want to accomplish.


The most troubling thing to me in this whole adversarial father vs mother
system is that the children are being hurt--because they are just chips on
the table--not even looked at as people involved in the same process--just
bargaining chips! In all of what you have described happening to you, I
don't see the judge mentioning the children--just the money. How sick is
that? The children are the excuse to transfer the money!!

Every time I raised the issue of child preferences I was told what the
children wanted was only one of 13 factors a judge should consider in making
their decisions. IOW - the judge was going to find a way to not consider
child preferences if it meant ruling in my favor.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

So are these small counties in Oregon? Or the larger counties? I knd of
had the impression that ALL of Oregon was quite liberal!!

Large counties. Multnomah County, where Portland is located, is the largest
county in the state and has a population of about 666,000. That is the
ultra-liberal county. Washington County (where I live) has a population of
about 461,000 and is split between the parties. And Clackamas County has a
populations of about 347,000. Those three counties make up the Portland
metropolitan area and they represent over 42% of the state's total
population. With the exception of the Eugene area, which is very liberal,
the balance of the state is conservative. The state's reputation as being
liberal comes from the fact the population in the Portland and Eugene
metropolitan areas is so large it dominates state-wide issues.
Congressional districts have been drawn to include large blocks of Multnomah
County for three congressional districts so these districts are designed to
get liberals elected to Congress.

The judiciary in Oregon is ultra-liberal. We have a system that allows for
judicial vacancies to be filled by governor appointments. We have had
democrat governors for 20 consecutive years (including the incumbent's
term). That means for nearly 20 years, one party has appointed our judges.
My ex's first attorney is now the Presiding Circuit Court Judge in Multnomah
County and his former law partner is a Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge.
The good news is both of those judges recused themselves from hearing my
case issues. The bad news was the only other Circuit Court Judge left to
hear my case was married to the democrat governor's chief of staff. Believe
me, I am relieved to no longer have to have my life dictated by the baboons
in black robes.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

So are these small counties in Oregon? Or the larger counties? I knd
of
had the impression that ALL of Oregon was quite liberal!!


heck no! There's too many fishermen, loggers, and old timer farmers around
for that! Loggers are not tree huggers. ;-)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:sZ3Na.32053$fG.16593@sccrnsc01...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

So are these small counties in Oregon? Or the larger counties? I knd
of
had the impression that ALL of Oregon was quite liberal!!


heck no! There's too many fishermen, loggers, and old timer farmers
around
for that! Loggers are not tree huggers. ;-)

There are lots of tree huggers though. I had a kid from the Sierra Club
ring my doorbell two nights ago. He was out to save the "Tillamook Rain
Forest." First of all, I have never, ever heard of anyone calling the
Tillamook Forest, a Rain Forest. And second, I told him we needed to use
our natural resources in the forests to stimulate state economic group. I
made it clear I was for increasing logging to put loggers and mill workers
back to work, and then use the lumber to put construction workers back to
work too. He didn't stay too long on my doorstep. :-))

you have shared best information
it is very valuable information
i like this