Abolish "Lifetime" Alimony

Last statement sent to Sentinel from self-immolation victim

2011-06-25T08:16:00.002-04:00

Man found on fire dies

Police, other emergency personnel and the state medical examiner are seen outside the Cheshire County Superior Courthouse in downtown Keene Wednesday where a man was discovered on fire. The man was pronounced dead at the scene but has yet to be identified.

Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2011

Editor's note: On Thursday morning, June 16, The Sentinel received a "last statement" via mail from a man who insinuated that he planned to set himself on fire in front of the Cheshire County Court House, and an explanation of why he intended to do so. Through further reporting, The Sentinel is confident this is from the victim of Wednesday afternoon's fire, although police have not yet received confirmation of his identity. The 15-page statement is printed in full, except for two redacted items: The names of the man's mother and his three children. Details will be posted as they become available.

Last Statement
by Tom Ball

A man walks up to the main door of the Keene N.H. County Courthouse, douses himself with gasoline and lights a match. And everyone wants to know why.

Apparently the old general was right. Death is not the worst of evil.

I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support. The amount ranges from $2,200. to $3,000. depending on who you ask. Not big money after being separated over ten years and unemployed for the last two. But I do owe it. If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works. And it does not work anything like they taught you in high school history or civics class.

I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.

There are two kinds of bureaucrats you need to know; the ones that say and the ones that do. The bridge between them is something I call The Second Set of Books. I have some figures of the success of their labors. You and I are in these numbers, as well as our spouses and children. But first let me tell you how I ended up in this rabbit hole.

My story starts with the infamous slapping incident of April 2001. While putting my four year old daughter to bed, she began licking my hand. After giving her three verbal warnings I slapped her. She got a cut lip. My wife asked me to leave to calm things down.

When I returned hours later, my wife said the police were by and said I could not stay there that night. The next day the police came by my work and arrested me, booked me, and then returned me to work. Later on Peter, the parts manager, asked me if I and the old lady would be able to work this out. I told him no. I could not figure out why she had called the police. And bail condition prevented me from asking her. So I no longer trusted her judgment.

After six months of me not lifting a finger to save this marriage, she filed for divorce. Almost two years after the incident, I was talking with her on the phone. She told me that night she had called a mental health provider we had for one of the kids. Wendy, the counselor told my then wife that if she did not call the police on me, then she too would be arrested.

Suddenly, everything made sense. She is the type that believes that people in authority actually know what they are talking about. If both she and I were arrested, what would happen to our three children, ages 7,4 and 1? They would end up in State custody. So my wife called the police on her husband to protect the children. And who was she protecting the kids from? Not her husband, the father of these children. She was protecting them from the State of New Hampshire.

This country is run by idiots.

The police sergeant Freyer screwed this up from the get go. When I got the Court Complaint form the box was checked that said Domestic Violence Related. I could not believe that slapping your child was domestic violence. So I looked up the law. Minor custodial children are exempted. Apparently, 93% of American parents still spank, slap or pinch their children. To this day I still wonder if Freyer would have made this arrest if it had been the mother that had slapped the child.

Labeling someone's action as domestic violence in American in the 21st century is akin to labeling someone a Jew in Germany in the 1930's. The entire legal weight of the state is coming down on him. But I consider myself lucky. My family was destroyed. But that poor bastard in Germany had his family literally annihilated.
Arrests are mandatory for the police in New Hampshire for domestic violence. That is not law. That is police department policy. Laws come from the Legislature and the Governor's office together. God only knows where these policies come from. The State's Attorney General also has a mandatory arrest protocol for domestic violence. I call these policies, procedures and protocols The Second Set of Books. You never cover the Second Set of Books your junior year in high school. That because we are not suppose to have a Second Set of Books. This is America-we have the rule of law.

I am a regular guy, a coffee and cheeseburger type of fellow. As remarkable as my life has been, I figure that what happens to me must be happening to others as well. I was 48 years old when I got arrested here for my first time. So I went looking for the arrest numbers for domestic violence, this new group that I had unwilling joined. I could not find anything. So I wrote the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Washington. They wrote back that they did not keep track of domestic violence arrests. The FBI keeps track of all other crimes. How come not domestic violence? I thought some low level clerk was blowing me off.

At the time, I had mailing addresses in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts. So I wrote to all six Congressional offices, the two Senators from each state and the two Congressman. They like doing favors for constituents hoping you will favorably remember their name in the voting booth. All six offices reported back the same thing. They do not know how many arrests for domestic violence have been made. I immediately knew something was wrong. And I also knew this was not going to be good.

Improvise, adapt and overcome. The Army teaches that to every soldier it trains. They say that no battle plan survives the first five minutes of combat. So your people on the ground had better be able to think for themselves. Taking casualties in war is just an occupational hazard. Taking casualties and not accomplishing your mission is a disaster. After 21 years of Army service, I am pretty good at improvising.

The first thing I found was a study not of domestic violence arrests but of domestic violence injuries for 18 unnamed states and the D.C. in the year 2000. In the study 51% of the injuries were 'no injuries'. So I knew I had a study of police reports. Who else but a police officer would record no injuries? I populated that out to the 50 states and came up with 874,000 arrest in the year 2000.

I had originally populated the number back to 1994 when the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted into law. I would later find out these arrests stated with the U.S. Attorney General's Task Force of Domestic Violence ten years earlier in 1984. As individual states data became available for various years and states, I would incorporated in to my informal study. The number I have now in 2011 is 36 million adults have been arrested for domestic violence. I have a gut feeling this number could be as high as 55 million. But I only have data to 36 million. So 36 million it stays. And there is a really cool trick you can do once you have this number. You can find out how many American men. women and children ended up homeless because of these arrests.

Most of the domestic violence statistics I have seen break down with 75% male and 25% female being arrested. So I am going to used the male pronoun for the one arrested spouse and the female pronoun for the victim spouse. That should make the domestic violence feminists ecstatic-man bad, woman good. But that is okay because that is probably the last nice thing I am going to do for them today.

When then a man is arrested for domestic violence, one of two things can happen. If they are only dating and have separate apartments, then he can head home. But if they are living together, then this fellow has a real problem. Bail conditions and then a possible protective or restraining order prevent him from being with her. So he needs to find a new place to live, at least until the charges are resolved. The King of his Castle is no longer allowed into his castle. A feminist name Pence who wrote that was absolutely giddy at that outcome. So he can get his own place if he has enough money. Or he can move in with his mother, his sister or another relative. He might have a girl friend who would let him stay with her. And if none of this is possible, well then I guess he is sleeping in his car down by the river.

If he has minor children, money will soon turn into an issue. Most men I know do not mind paying child support. They want their kids to have food on their plates, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads. But it does stress that man's finances. Child support is usually 33% of the man's gross income. Withholding for taxes, social security and health insurance can range up to 28% of his gross paycheck. So a man making $500 a week gross has only $825 monthly left over after withholding and child support. That is not enough money for an apartment here in Central Massachusetts. That does not include other expenses like heating, electric, gas, groceries, telephone, cable, car payment and car insurance. So he is in a financial hole. Estimates of homeless men run 82% to 94%. I am going to round that down to 80%.

After the King has left his castle, his wife runs into a problem. She was use to getting his whole paycheck for the household. Now she get a third for child support. Figure they both work and made the same money, her budget went from 100% down to 66%. If she was running the house on $3,045. a month when the King was home, now without him she only has $2,220. Most households in America cannot withstand a 27% hit on the household account. She'll juggle the bills but eventually most wives figure out that they can pay all the smaller bills if they just does not pay the big bill. That would be the rent or the mortgage. So six to nine months after the King is out of the castle, the Queen, the Princes and the Princesses are also on the street. Domestic violence feminists state that 50% of victim spouses of domestic violence end up homeless at some time in their lives.

The last group of homeless from these arrests are children. The domestic violence feminists state that 70% of domestic violence couple have children. So 50% female times 70% children equals 35%. But children is plural. So we will double to 70%. (Odd isn't it? They know that 50% of victim spouses end up homeless and that 70% of them have children. How can they know the percentages when they do not know how many total arrests were made? Those people at the U.S. Justice Dept. cannot even pull off a credible cover-up. )
Men are 0.8, women are 0.5, and children are 0.7 for a grand total of 2.0 homeless Americans for every domestic violence arrest. Multiply that by 36 million and you get 72 million men, women and children ending up homeless at some point in their lives over the last 25 years because of these domestic violence arrests.
That is a really large number even by Washington standards. That is almost 25% of the entire population of the U.S. using 2010 census figures. Which begs the question did these homeless people contribute to this latest economic meltdown, or did they cause it? Because if they did cause it then the recovery will not be measure in months or years but in decades.

Some of the boys in the Father's Movement think Congress might have shot themselves in the foot over this one. Personally, I think they shot themselves some place anatomically higher. No wonder the Speaker of the House is always crying. The Dummies on the Potomac.

Twenty-five years ago the federal government start pushing these arrests on state's legal systems. Now, we have an economy on the rope. They have thrown a huge amount of money at banks, big business and local and states government. And we are still in the mud. But no economist either at the Treasury Dept., Federal Reserve, universities or think tanks are even looking at the impact of all these broken families. If that 36 million arrest is correct, then 72 million men and women, have been throw out of the middle class into subsistence living. Or is the number 55 million and 110 million? No one knows and no one is even looking. But why should look? According to the Attorney General, we do not know how many arrests we have made.
And if the Tea Party is any indication, insurrection is brewing in the land. Just a coincident? Not likely. This is what happens when the government wipes out the middle class.

The idea for these arrests came from something called the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) of 1981-82. In the experiment police offices were given pads with one of three words written on them; counsel, send or arrest. Counsel meant the officer was to try to mediate the couple's spat. Send was to send one of the spouses out of the house for eight hours as a cooling off period. Arrest was arrest one of the two spouses. The officer was to do as the top paper on the pad said to do. The experiment was set up by the Police Foundation and Lawrence W. Sherman was the lead researcher. The results show counseling resulted in a future assault in 24% cases, send was 19%, and the arrest option resulted in a future assault in only 10% of the cases. Perhaps a cheap way of cutting down future domestic violence.

In 1984 The U. S. Attorney General's Task Force of Domestic Violence recommended arrest as the primary weapon in domestic violence assault. Lawrence W. Sherman recommend not using the arrests because the MPE was just one study and it could be wrong. They ignored him. And by 1992, 93% of the police departments in the nation had adopted some form of mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases.
But by 1992 five more addition studies similar to the MPE became available. Lawrence W. Sherman reviewed all five studies. Then once again he wrote that the police should not use arrest. In two of the five studies, they found the same result as they did in the MPE, that an arrest cut down the odds of a future assault. But in the other three studies an arrest actually increase the odds of a future assault. So arresting someone in a domestic violence situation to cut down on future assaults did not work any better than just flipping a coin. I do not know if Lawrence W. Sherman is still alive. But fortunately he wrote a book call Policing Domestic Violence that was published in 1992.

So we have 800,000 American police officers arresting one in every six adults in the country and throwing 25% of the men, women and children out on the streets in an effort to enforce a policy that they knew did not work back in1992. And I had always assumed that you needed a man to really screw something up. Oh well, there goes another glass ceiling.

Why would they push an arrest policy that does not work? There are two schools of thought on the reason why. The first comes from Lawrence W. Sherman. He calls it the Law of Just Desserts. Revenge for slights and offenses, real or imagined. I am sure there are some that would argue that women are not vengeful. But what is that old saying? Hell hath no fury.....

The second idea comes from the mother of the second wave of feminism. I do speak of the brilliant Betty Friedan. In the Epilogue Chapter of the 20th Anniversary Edition of her book The Feminine Mystique, Betty relayed why she resigned as the first president of the National Organization of Women in 1970. Betty wrote that she, "was unable to openly fight the man haters and unwilling to front for them any more..." So man hating bigots no only existed 40 years ago, they were also grabbing power. Now Washington is funding them. Makes you wonder what bigots they will fund next. Maybe the Klan?

Feminists had always claimed that when women took over, we would have a kinder, gentler, more nurturing world. After 36 million arrests and 72 million evictions what we got was Joe Stalin.

The third wave of feminists do not like to call themselves feminists. The word feminist could be perceived as gender oppression. These third wave of whatever-we-call-you got that right The treachery of our legal system over the last 25 years may end up giving all feminists a bad name. Which would make us as bigoted as the man-hating feminists who got us into this mess to begin with.

So let us talk about those bureaucrats that do. These are the ones that actually carry out the evil deeds. I like call them the do-bies.

Any one swept up into legal mess is usually astonished at what they see. They cannot believe what the police, prosecutors and judges are doing. It is so blatantly wrong. Well, I can assure you that everything they do is logical and by the book. The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books- the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright. And do not bother trying to argue with me that there is no Second Set of Books. I have my own copies at home. Or at least a good hunk of the important part of it.

I got my Second Set of Books when I sued the Jaffrey NH police department. Under the discovery rule, I write them with the material I wanted and it would arrive in the mail a few weeks later. I got the Police Academy Training Manual. I got the Department's Policy and Procedure Manual. I got the no-drop protocol that the attorney general sent to all his or her prosecutors. I even got the domestic violence protocols for the court system, one hundred pages worth. Once you read it the material, then you will know what the police, prosecutors and judges will do. They are completely predictable once you know what set of books they are using.

The police academy training manual states that an arrest in a domestic violence call is the preferred response. They cite the Minneapolis Police Experiment (MPE) as its justification. But the author of the MPE, Lawrence Sherman, said do not use arrest because five follow up studies show that it did not work. The would be a violation of the 4th Amendment in the First Set of Books against unreasonable search and seizure. Then there is that whole issue of whether the police have the right to arrest for any reason other than they believe a crime was committed.

The Jaffrey Police Department Policy and Procedures Manual states that if a wife says she does not want her husband arrested, the police are to ignore her, arrest the husband, and get with the prosecutor to see what they can work out. In other words, make the arrest and then see if you can Mickey Mouse it. The wife is eligible for spousal immunity. If she invokes it, then no statement she mades, written or oral, are admissible because she cannot be cross examined about it under oath. ( Did you say that? What did you mean when you said that?) With no statements the police have no probable cause in most cases to make an arrest. Also a violation of the 4th amendment in the First Set of Books.

The actor Nickolas Cage was drunk in New Orleans with his wife. Everyone else is drunk in New Orleans, so why should Nick be any different. He and his wife were arguing over which house the rented for their stay. Nick grab his wife's arm and started to lead her to his house. The police arrested Nick for domestic violence. His wife was stunned. That was not domestic violence. "Nothing we can do," the police explained to her. "Just following orders."

That is an accurate explanation for victims, even if they do not think of themselves as victims. The police have a zero tolerance towards any physical contact. Things might get worse in the future is the feminist logical for this present iron fist approach to domestic relations. I would have to agree with them. After all the arrests, poverty, homelessness and misery, I can assure you-things are going to get worse.

But that nothing we can do, just following orders the officers explain always sounds so timid and lame. The police need to punch their explanation up a bit, make it more authoritarian. And there is a quick, low cost way of doing it. The police officers only need to say it in its original German.

The state Constitution in NH said the prosecutors job is to promote justice. The Attorney Generals protocols said that domestic violence case are no-drop cases. (Unless, of course, they take the Deal. Continue the case for a year, go to counseling, and everything falls off the books after the year. They did after all find some way of getting rid of all these cases.)

The Attorney General can hire, fire, layoff, promote, demote, commend or award bonuses. The constitution is some old, quaint, dusty document up in the Statehouse some where. So which one do you think is going to get obeyed?

Prosecutors are funny. Some, maybe most, have egos the size of Cape Cod. But of the three, police, prosecutor and judges, prosecutors have the least protection. Micheal Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, was fired, disbarred, convicted of a crime, and actually jailed for trying to enforce the no-drop prosecution protocol for sexual assault in the Duke case.

The prosecutor in my criminal case fared a little better. I filed a complaint with his boss for summoning my two daughters, ages 7 and 4, to court. I had already conceded that the facts were not in dispute. The trial would be about the law. No witness were need much less a couple of toddlers. He still summoned them. (The Second Set of Books tells the prosecutors to get a sympathetic face in front of the judge or jury. What's more sympathetic than toddlers.) The prosecutor could not refute my allegation because I enclosed a copy of the trial transcript. I had to pay for the transcript. When the prosecutor read it, he gave his two weeks notice and then blew town. That transcript was the best $46 I had ever spent in this life.

There is a name for what happens when a bureaucrat is destroyed by the First Set of Books for attempting to enforce the Second Set of Books. It is called the Abu Ghraib Syndrome. The people within the law enforcement community no longer seem to know the difference between the law, with its checks and balances, and the policies, procedure and protocols that constitute The Second Set of Books. In some cases you do not even know who wrote the policy, procedure or protocol. It could have been the local high school gym teacher for all anyone knows. Many of these bureaucrats are eventually going to learn the different between the First and the Second Set of Books. And my guess is that many of them are going to learn it the hard way. Because the only checks and balances in The Second Set of Books is The First Set of Books.

Judges routinely use our children as bargaining chips. Get the adult into counseling, continue the case for a year, and then drop it. This will open up the docket for the new arrests coming in next week. These judges that use our children are not honorable. Which is why I never use the term 'Your Honor' any more. I just call them judge.

Alex Baldwin, the actor, wrote that you have never seen a coward until you have seen a Los Angeles County judge. I call my judges-Sullivan, Arnold and even Runyon-cowards, too. When I first started observing them, nothing made sense. Arnold was completely infuriated when he was maneuvered into ruling not guilty. He verbally went up and down me so many times I lost count. What was the big deal? If I was not guilty just say and then we could all go home. But that was back in the days before I knew about The Second Set of Books.

I lost visitation with my two daughters when I got arrested. One was the victim-the other was the witness. After a not guilty, I expected to get visitation with my girls. But the divorce judge, Sullivan, decreed that counseling was in order and they would decide when we would reunite. I told the judge that the decision on whether these two girls had a father or a fatherless childhood was not leaving this courthouse. There would be a couple of reason for that decision.

First, by then I knew of the Second Set of Books. As much as I had prayed for the return of my children, I knew that this counseling might get thrown in the way. Judges are addicted to counseling like a meth-head is addict to crystal meth. Sullivan wrote in the divorce decree that he envision only one or two meetings with the counselor. There is no counseling done in the first meeting or two. It is intake-who's the players and what are the issues. But Sullivan was not interested in counseling. He merely wanted to unload the decision out of habit. And if we do not shut them down now, they will be doing it to our kids in twenty years from now when they have little ones running around the house.

Second, just exactly where does the buck stop with our legal system? Police have to make an arrest. The prosecutor has to pursue the case. Judges now also walk a away without rendering a verdict, and passing the buck does not constitute a decision. Can those mental health counselors slide the decision over to someone else? Just where does this end? Who is responsible? Who is accountable?

The mental health crowd is the third reason I said no. Some people think they are geniuses with their Masters and PH D's. Others think they are so wacky that they call them fruit loops. Well, I have a third name for them. Suckers. They did not get hired for their medical ability. They got these because they were willing to take these cases off the judge's hands. Which has done nothing for the credibility for their profession. We are not here to help-we are here to unload. And they created a liability that did not previously existed. If a judge releases a defendant and he goes kills someone, that judge or the judiciary cannot be sued. But a mental health worker, and their employer certainly can be held liable. Our judiciary is now using the mental health field like a ten dollar whore.

I sued Monadnock Family Services to make them go away. I told their lawyer Byron that they were a legitimate target for men. We settled for no money. They would have nothing to do with this reconciliation. The counselor was released. And they would no longer get involved in any domestic violence cases.

Every time we ended back in court over whatever squabbles, I would ask Judge Sullivan for my children back. The decision belong to the counselors he would tell me. But he knew he had screwed up. I could see it in his face. But he would not fix it. He would not step out of that box those domestic violence/sexual assault advocates had built for him. After five years, he retired to a part time position at the Littleton courthouse 120 miles away.

So when guys like Alex Baldwin and I call judges cowards, we have legitimate reasons for doing so. It is not good for judges to be called coward. It is unlikely that it is good for the rest of us.

I do not claim to have all The Second Set of Book. I know of one book that I do not have. And I would have love to read that one. That would be the seminar that the domestic violence and sexual assault advocates put on periodically for legal personnel including judges. These advocates are camped outside every state, not federal, courthouse in America. The U.S. Dept of Justice provides 50-100% of their funding depending on the program. They have three day seminars at resorts where everything is paid for except the liquor. Judges in NH are ordered to attend. Neither Sullivan or Arnold would confirm or deny they had attended. They actually said nothing. It must be like the Masons where they will not say anything about the organization until you show them the secret hand sign.

Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis once wrote that the best description of a judge is the impartial guardian of the rule of law. How does three days of wine, women and song contribute to impartiality? It does not. So it should not have been any surprise that they would not answer me. After all, they were not on trial. I was. But they are going to be. They were suppose to protect to rule of law not collaborate in its demise. They have failed miserably.

A guardian ad litem is an attorney appointed for a child. The attorney solely represents the child. I got one when I was first separated to get a neutral pair of eyes and ears on the family. I was disappointed in his findings.

A few years later, another guardian was appointed for one of the kids. A regular report filed with the Court painted me as some sort violent psychopath. I thought that was uncalled for seeing as we had never met. It start a flurry of nasty letters between until we both came to the conclusion that this was not about us. We ended on a friendly note.

At a Court hearing later on I approached him. I asked him if he had had any domestic violence training. He said yes, that it was required to become certified as a guardian ad litem. Another chapter for The Second Set of Books that I never managed to acquire.. So men, if you were thinking about getting a guardian ad litem for an unbiased assessment, then you should ask for the domestic violence material that certified the guardian. And do not worry that you are not sure what you are looking for. It will stand right out.

There are more sections of The Second Set of Books. Medical personnel are supposed to report suspected domestic violence. The college professor Angela Davis has a story of a Latino couple in California getting in trouble feeding the dog his liver for dinner. Mental health employees are also required. Think of Wendy threatening our kids with foster care. Teachers, day care providers, the list just goes on and on. The East German secret police, the Stazi, had 25% of the population on record as informers. The United States is not that high yet, but we are still growing.

These people-police, prosecutors and judges-are suppose to protect us. They are checks and balances to prevent injustice. That is why we spend so much money of police training. But if the police screw it up, the prosecutor can catch it. If the prosecutor misses it then the judge can step in to fix it. But if all three have been compromised, then what does one need to do to get justice? Go to the appeals court or the Supreme Court? That seem a little ridiculous particularly when the zero tolerance has arrests for something as trivial as touching.

On one hand we have the law. On the other hand we have what we are really going to do-the policies, procedures and protocols. The rule of law is dead. Now we have 50 states with legal systems as good as any third world banana republic. Men are demonized and the women and children end up as suffering as well.
So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. The Second Set of Books originated in Washington. But the dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War. All because they go along to get along. They are an embarrassment, the whole lot of them. And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out.

In the last 25 years they have arrested one in six adults in this country and forced 25% of the men, women and children into homelessness. In 50 years it will be one in three adults arrested and 50% of the men, women and children ending up homeless. Most of our kids will live to the age of 68 years old. As bad as it was for you, your children will have twice the odds of it happening to them.

Some of you will say that 50% homelessness sounds absurd. But 25% is absurd and that is already here. There is no evidence that the police, courts, or government is planning to do anything different in the immediate future. And they will not do anything different until we make it so uncomfortable that they must change. Bureaucracy at its worst. So burn them out. This is too important to be using that touchy-feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!

Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers. But even the sprinklers going off work to our advantage. There is no way they can work in a building with six inches of water. And I am certain we will disrupt their momentum once they start working out of a FEMA trailers. If they still do not get the message, then burn down the trailers.

The easiest way of burning a building is with the Molotov cocktail. It was invented by the Finns when the Soviets invaded in 1939. You fill a bottle with gasoline and stuff a rag in the end for a wick. You light the wick and throw bottle, It shatters on impact spraying gas everywhere and the wick ignites the gas. Simple, readily available, and effective. And only two things to remember.

First, use a glass bottle. Thinner glass is better than thicker glass. You want it to shatter on impact. When I was teaching a kid at the high school on the West Side Worcester, MA. threw a Molotov cocktail into his school. Fortunately, he used a plastic bottle. It burned about three square inches of carpeting. I had to laugh when I said to myself, "Thank God for dumb kids."

Second, you need to tie the rag to the bottle. Nothing worse that throwing a Molotov cocktail, landing where you wanted it, and having it shatter perfectly. Then you noticed the wick had fallen out on the way to the target. No wick-no fire.

Some of these building will have brick faces and metal roofs. Just break a window and throw the Molotov cocktail inside. Carpets, furniture, computer plastic, even paint on the walls will burn. It is okay if the sprinkler goes off. I wonder if you can get hip waders over a gun belt?

We had a kid in my hometown that burned down the old junior high school. He walked up to the front door one night with a can of lighter fluid. The applicator on the end squirts the lighter fluid out. He squirted under the door and along the seams and lit a match. The kid took out the entire old part of the building. Why are kids so competent when it is something they should not be doing?

There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.

Now, nobody wants to get killed. But let us look at your life. You are broke after paying child support. She and the kids are not doing any better. None of you are middle class any more. You have no say in the kids education, their health treatment, you may not even have visitation with your sons and daughters. And everything you thought you knew to be true-the rule of law, the sanctity of the of the family, the belief that government was there to nurture your brood-all turned out to be a lie. Face it boys, we are no longer fathers. We are just piggy banks.

So you are not losing anything by picking up the Molotov cocktail. It may be too late for us. But without something changing, your kids will have double the odds of it happening to them. That will knock them out of the middle class again, providing they ever get back in. And their kids, your grandchildren, will end up damaged goods before it is over. So it is okay to run. You just need to turn around and run at them. They are no way as imposing as they seem. They only do what they do for a paycheck.

Television would make us believe that people get arrested because of fingerprints, DNA, facial recognition, and instruments that can tell where a substance was made and here is the local distributors. It is Hollywood crap. Most of the people in prison are there for one key reason. They could not keep their mouths shut. They told someone. That someone told others. The cops hear it and start looking at them for a suspect. That how it works in real life.

This need to confess seems to be primeval. Just human nature. But if you cannot keep a secret, do not expect the one you tell to keep their mouth shut. There is only three people I know for certain they will keep their mouths shut. That would be Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

I only managed to get the main door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, NH. I would appreciate it if some of you boys would finish the job for me. They harmed my children. The place is evil. So take it out
Some where along the line I picked up the crazy notion that it is better to be dead as a free man than to live as a serf. The government needs to be a little more careful about what they teach in our schools.

And bring a can of spray paint to these fires. Paint the word COLLABORATORS ( two L's with an S on the end) on the building before you burn it. Maybe we can shame them back to the rule of law. And we do want the police to know exactly who burned the building. Then the police can start interviewing the usually suspects, all 36 million of us.

We have covered the do-bies. Now let us look at the bureaucrats that say-ers.
The Second Set of Books originated in Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) which is part of the United States Department of Justice. Some of these policies, procedures and protocol were developed locally. But the local results would be sent up to OVW and, if approved, would disperse it out to all 50 states. They are smart, clever, bigoted and able to lie as well as any politician that ever called Washington home. In other words, they have now become Washington insiders.

But what makes them so uniques is their anger towards men, any man. They are so twisted in their hatred of men that they are positively scary. And it is not what they are doing to men that makes them frightening. You would expect that. No, it is what they are doing to the women and children that makes them so twisted.
When the Pentagon drops a bomb on innocent civilians the military calls it Collateral Damage. It sounds better than, "Yeah, we killed a bunch of women and children." Those poor, innocent, stupid civilians have always been caught in the middle since the time we were fighting with rocks.. Your wife and kids are Collateral Damage in the war against you, the man in the family. For 25 years these feminists at OVAW have been willing to sacrifice the women and children to get you. And they cannot claim ignorance about what they are doing. Under the VAWA the federal government is funding at least 1,800 homeless shelters. As long as the Office for Violence Against Women exists in the U.S. Department Justice , no American man, women or child will be safe in their own home.

If you ask these feminists why are the shelters all full, they will not say because of all the arrests. The shelters are full because of men. But they knew from the beginning that this was not man bad-woman good thing. The year was 1976. Two things would happen that year.

First, someone at the U.S. Dept of Justice decided to count the dead bodies. In 1975 there were 1522 women killed in domestic violence. And for men killed in 1975? The dead for men was 1506. Statistically equal a friend tells me so.

If you had asked me before the study, I would have assumed that women were getting the worst of it. But I would be looking at it by genders. What I should have been looking at was species, homo-sapiens, human beings. Men are human-women are human. Being the same species you would expect the same results from both genders. And that is exactly what the dead bodies told us.

The second thing that happened in 1976 was the first domestic violence survey was released. It was so new the time that they called it family violence. Murray Straus of UNH and Richard Gellars from a school in RI were the researchers. They did not find two perpetrators of domestic violence, but three. Men initiated violence 25.7% of the time: women 25.2%, and the other 49.1% was the two going after each at the same time. These two people going after each other at the same time is well recognized in law. The law in NH calls that mutual combat. Men are human. Women are human. And once again we found both genders acting the same manner.

So how did we end up with the theory of man bad-woman good that the government at all levels is using? The feminist writer Susan Brownmiller wrote In Our Time that," the way you get funding and church donations is to talk about the pure victims. If you talk about the impurity of the victim, the sympathy vanishes." If women get to be good then men get what is left-bad. Man bad-woman good was originally a funding raising technique. After 35 years, it has turned into official government dogma at all levels, from the local cop on the beat to the White House. Men need to be punished, restrained and retrained. Your wives and children are, unfortunately, just collateral damage in this effort to punish men. So you were not dreaming it. There really is a government pogrom against men.

When a man batters or kills, there is no excuse. When a woman commits the same act, there is nothing but excuses. Simple though inaccurate. But there is one redeeming aspect to men being demonized. Now we men can act like devils. And we do not even need to apologize for it. Men are going to start acting just like they made us out to be. As an old high school semi-punk I can assure you boys of one thing. This is going to be fun. You guys are going to end up laughing like hyenas.

The money funded under the VAWA is split in two when it leaves the Treasury. Part goes the Health and Human Services for fund these domestic violence homeless shelters. If that 36 million number is correct, and it is all that we have, then the 1.44 million arrests a year will be made producing 2.88 million homeless Americans each year. Women and children constitute 60% of these homeless people, 1.7 million Americans a year. Shutting down these shelters would be cruel. What would these women and children do then? Go live under a bridge. No, we are stuck with these shelters for a while. But there is one thing that Congress needs to fix when they fund them again.

These shelters do not allow men on the property let alone inside the residences. Why is it against the law to use federal money on organizations that discriminate against black, Jews, gays or even women but it is okay to do so against men? Men contributed half that tax money. Eight years ago a man in California fled with his children after the police warned him to get out after they had arrested the wife and mother. None of the shelters would take him and the kids in because he was a man. I wonder if this would survive a legal gender discrimination challenge in a federal court?

A society without men is freakier than a world without blacks or Jews. That is not to say blacks or Jews are any less worthy. It just that there are more men in the world than blacks or Jews even if you combined them. If these feminist had to deal with men on a regular basis, then maybe the country would not be in the pickle we are in now.

There is a third reason to end this discrimination, something of a more practical nature. Apparently, some women like to have sex with men. But men are barred from the property. Suddenly, that 15 year boy two doors down starts looking real good. It might even be fun breaking in this new meat. So this woman driven into insolvency by the push for domestic violence arrests now finds herself charged as a pedophile because someone barred men from her world. With domestic violence advocates as friends, who needs enemies.
This shelters came up with a novel approach to fixing the pedophile problem. Male children over the age of thirteen are barred from staying there. Too troublesome. The family broke up when the father was thrown out of the house. Now a second break up is happening with the teenage boys. Perhaps a relative has one bed available. Maybe the family of a high school friend would take him in their home. If neither option works then that is okay. He can move in with his father. Then they will both be sleeping in the car down by the river.
Children of these parents also suffer. They used to have their own bedroom in a safe town with good schools. First they have a shelter, then Section 8 public housing. An urban school. Maybe good-maybe not. Kids learn how to be tough in an urban environment. The kids might go bad or they could come out just fine. But there will be no clunky car as a teenager. There will be no saving fund for college. There will be no monetary gift to use as a down payment for a starter home. This tradition of the older generation giving the younger generation a financial leg up has been ruin due to the older generation's lack of money. Financially, the older generation is merely treading water. It will take generations after these present two generations to repair the economic damage to these families.

So we are stuck with funding these shelters for a while. These women and children have no place left to go. Some of you guys may think that these feminist caused the problem and then created the solution. But homeless shelters are not a solution. They are just barely a band aid.

The remaining money under VAWA goes to the United States Department of Justice for the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW). As long as OVW exists then the government is at war with men. As long as there is a pogrom against men, then women and children are going to end up as collateral damage. So there is no need for discussion about OVW going. The only thing we need to figure out is which of the two ways we can use to get rid of them-the easy way or the hard way.

And boys, do not try to burn down Washington's Dept. of Justice Building in an effort to get rid of the Office of Violence Against Women. Their offices are over at N Street.

The easy way is using Congress. The VAWA comes up for funding every five to seven years. Next time it comes up, Congress votes no and everyone at the OVW gets a pink slip in late September. Nice and simple except nothing is simple in Washington. We, the people out here in the sticks, do not always know what the dynamics are in Washington. There might be one method of getting Congress on course. Have Congress demand that the Attorney General get, and release the arrests figures. Or have the President order it. He is usually fearless after he makes up his mind. And this is too large and too well known to continue the Washington plausible deniable routine. Then they will know how much trouble they are in because of these arrests.

There are 220 million adults 18 or older in this country of both sexes. If my figure of 36 million is correct, then that is 16.4% of the adults have been arrested. It could be as high as 55 million or 25%. It might be as low as 22 million or 10%. Whatever the number there are two things that Congress should know. First, is the fellow who discovered the arrests in Minneapolis back in 1992 said do not use it because it does not work. And second, the people arrested now constitute a Fifth Column here in the United States. Our loyalty to Washington is gone. But what did these genuises on the Potomac expect? They have harmed our children. If they think Al Qaeda is a pain in the ass, wait to they see what Americans can do once their fuse is lit.
I am certain the Attorney General will sit for months on the request for the number of domestic violence arrests. Then he will explain that they do not readily have the number and that some sort of Manhattan Project effort will be needed in time and money. Nonsense. When Washington started these arrests in 1984 over 6.3 personal computers were sold here in the U.S. That figure does not include all the mini's, midi's and mainframe computers sold that year. There is no way they can pretend that this data does not exist in electronic storage. A request to Ohio for the arrests 1984-2010 would tie up a state clerk for an hour, including their 15 minute coffee break. Time for the truth boys and girls. Because this is not going away.

The hard way is more time consuming, cost more money and is full of headaches. Because the only way of removing a department from the federal government without the consent of Congress is to take out the entire federal government.

The first time I heard that, I said that is ridiculous. We cannot run this country without a federal government. But we will replace the old government with something new and improved. The new government would honor the debts incurred by the old government. There are a lot of useful reasons for starting with a clean slate.
The bipartisan debt commission released their recommendation for cleaning up the $14 trillion we have borrowed over the years. Convention wisdom has it that Congress has no stomach for any of the recommendations.

But a new government could install those recommendation on day one. Three years later, most Americans will not remember that anything is different. The old government laid off its employees when it closed. The new government is hiring. But instead of 65,000 employees at the Dept. of Education, the new government is only hiring 45,000. Instead of an average federal wage of $70,000 a year, the new average will be $52,000. The new government will have to write a tax code. Everyone pays 15% with no deductions. How many IRS employees could you get rid of if there were no more deductions? Any thing is possible with a new government.

Normally over-throwing a elected government is considered treason. Treason is punishable by death here in the United States. But there is one way of over throwing the government. That is through the ballot box. Then it is not treason but democracy. Allegedly, Washington is in favor of democracy, particularly if their candidate wins.

There is no legal mechanism in the Constitution or the Federal code of the United States for dissolving the government of the United States. So that is what we need first. Congress would need to write it. We get them to do it through the ballot initiative.

A ballot initiative is when enough registered voters sign a petition to get a question on the ballot for the next election. The following would be a sample of what the question would look like in New Hampshire.

That all elected representatives from the state of New Hampshire to both houses of the United States Congress are to propose and advance a bill that would set up a legal mechanism to dissolve the United States government should the people decide to do so in a general election by a simple majority.

If this initiative passes in all 50 states then Congress will be stuck. They will have to write the law to dissolve. If they do not I suspect within ten years they will be standing in a stairwell at the British or French embassy with a suitcase in hand waiting to get to a rooftop helicopter. I doubt if they will be thinking about the humiliation of being thrown out of the country. They will be far too busy worrying about what will happen if the mob gets their hands on them.

Washington has not got a friend in the world. Even the British and Israelis loath them now. Kind of a bad time to be losing domestic support. And what they done over the last 25 years? They have wiped out the middle class pandering to a special interest group of bigots. And in typical Washington fashion, they did not even know they did it.

This Ivy League inbreeding in Washington has produced an elite that knows what best. Everyone else-husbands, wives, police officers, prosecutors, judges, attorney generals and guardian ad litems-are to shut up and do what they are told. The rule of law is gone, replaced by the policies, procedures and protocols of The Second Set of Books. Which means the federal government will be going shortly. For the government being unable to deliver the rule of law is like an auto mechanic who claims he does not know how to change the engine oil. A certain minimum competency is required. So it looks like the parents of the Washington elite were right. One can be too smart for their own good.

Betty Friedan wrote that the feminist revolution, like any revolution, would have its excesses. Losing the rule of law is too great to call it a mere excess. It is a catastrophe. It is the heart, mind and soul between the people and their government. These feelings of betrayal by losing it may be permanent. I have 21 years of Army service going back to the Vietnam War. My loyalty to the government should be a given. It is gone. I am certain it will never return regardless of how long I might have lived.

It was another woman that lead us in to this decision to clean house inside the beltway. Something she taught us fifty years ago. You simply look at those folks in Washington and then ask yourself the old Ann Landers question, "Am I better off with them, or without them? Are my children better off with them, or without them?" They are sinking like stones.

Washington, DC was chose as the capital because it was the geographical center or the old Colonies. Today, the geographical center of the country is just west of St. Louis Missouri. The new government can set the capital anywhere in the United States it wants. Imagine how many rodents, insects and parasites they could lose by moving 1500 miles west.

Whether you replace the federal government or not, men are still going to need a legal defense center for men. Something like the NAACP used to get black people their rights. The only checks and balances in the Second Set of Books is the First Set of Books. Which means lawsuits. Now I know you guys are broke. Some of you have had your wives and kids thrown into homelessness. So I completely understand when you tell me that you are broke. But if everyone who has been arrested throws in $10.00 a year then the legal defense center will have a war chest of $360 million. You can buy a whole bunch of lawsuit with that kind of money.

The Ball family has been supplying sergeants to the Army since at least the Revolutionary War. Elijah served as a sergeant in Cushing's Regiment at the Battle of Bennington. His commanding officer was a general from NH with a name of John Stark. General Start was a clever warrior. He was responsible for the bulk of the heavy casualties the British suffer at their victory at Bunker Hill. His orderly, fighting withdrawal allowed the other units on the hill to not only retreat but collect their wounded on the way out.
General Stark would repeat this performance on three hill tops outside the village of Bennington VT one hot August day in 1777. At the end of the battle, the British lost over 900 men killed or captured. The Colonists suffered 30 dead. Two months later, the depleted British army would surrender at Saratoga. That victory at Saratoga would bring the French into the war. John Stark was the most competent general this country ever produced. For that reason alone his men loved him.

But as brilliant as he was on the battlefield, General Stark would become even more famous for something he said. In 1809 the veterans of Bennington decided to have one last reunion. A delegation called on the General with his invitation. But the General was old and frail. He could not attend. But he did send a message, "You tell the boys I said live free or die. That death is not the worst of evil." Since 1945 the State of New Hampshire has stamped Live Free or Die on every pen, coffee mug, license plate and highway sign that they have gotten their hands on.

I think the General and his sergeant would be please that his words have elevated from the novelties and bric-a-brac to something more dignified like a courthouse door. Neither of them would give a second thought to the mess left over after the fire was extinguished. War has always been a grim business. Civil wars are usually worse.

But they would be trouble by the new enemy. Oh, they understood when a government betrays it people. They took up arms against the super power of their day to get relief for their grievances. But the enemy we face now is the government that these men birthed at places like Bennington, Saratoga and Bunker Hill. Government is no different than the food in a refrigerator. Given enough time both will go bad.
The smartest person I knew in this life was my mother. Perhaps that is true of all of us. Maybe I just got lucky. She was a nurse by trade. She worked in a time when Western medicine made that final transition from butchery to science. But it would not be her nursing skills that made her extraordinary. No, it would be this one incredible knack she had that I had only modest success at mimicking in my life. If she had something important to say to you, she would say and then never mention it again. She would talk about it if you raised the issue. But she never mentioned it twice on her own. And, oddly, you always heard her.
But she did have one favorite saying. I must have heard in a thousand times in the eighteen years I lived under her roof. It always came at the end of the conversation as she peeled away to see if it was time for Perry Mason or Lawrence Welk. She would turn her head to the side, and over her shoulder she would say, "And the only thing you really have in this world is your family." Now, thanks to the United States Government, neither we nor our children have that.

. I have three things to say to my children. First, Daddy loves you. Second, you are my three most favorite people in the world. And last, that you are to stick together no matter how old you get or how far apart you live. Because it is like Grandma always said. The only thing you really have in this world is your family.

###

How Double-Dipping For Alimony Affects Your Retirement Account

2010-03-29T12:48:00.003-04:00

Excerpt from an email discussion on retirement distribution:

..... One of the problems with finding a case that counters the 2005 "Acker v Acker" Supreme Court [in Florida] precedent is that it seems to take about three years for a case to move from county court to the appeals court, and another three years to just get to the Florida Supreme Court, much less be published.   Basically, any case that would do me any good, has probably not even made it to an appeals court, yet.
.
..... I have a problem with Mr. Schultz's analysis of the "Acker v Acker" precedent and his discription of "Double-Dipping" in conjunction with how retirement plans should be counted.   He discusses treating pre-divorce accumulations in retirement plan as being subject to being divided as a marital asset, then treating Post-divorce accumulations as a source of income to be used to calculate alimony.   What he doesn't take into account is when in the initial divorce division of assets, BOTH the pre- as well as post-divorce accumulations are considered.   In Mr. Acker's case, his half of the assets included ALL of his retirement plan.   His Ex received other assets to offset his getting this retirement plan.   I am in a similar boat in that I gave up exactly half of my pre-divorce accumulations in my retirement. I also gave the Ex over 100K in exchange for any future accumulations.   Now a decade later she has spent much of the retirement that was turned over to her, but mine is still intact.   Under "Acker" the ONLY thing that counts in a Modification of Alimony hearing is "Need vs Ability to Pay".   Since she has spent a lot of her retirement assets, and I haven't, guess who the court thinks is in "Need" and who has the "Ability to Pay" ?
.
..... Here is a senerio that more clearly shows how unjust the "Acker" precedent is.
.
..... Mr. & Mr. Smith get divorced simultaneously with his retirement. Under the divorce agreement each party gets half interest in his retirement pension plan. As with many pension plans, there is an option to either take all the benefit as an annuity ..(lifetime monthly payments).. or as a lump-sum, or proportioned between the two.   Mr. Smith chooses to take his half as $2,000/mo. annuity.   the Ex chooses a $1,000/mo. annuity and $150,000 as a lump-sum.   Several years later after the Ex has spent all of her lump-sum, she ask the court for alimony since she is in "Need" by having only $1,000/mo. and Mr. Smith has the "Ability to Pay" from his $2,000/mo. income.   Under the "Acker" decision, the equitable distribution of assets during the initial divorce does not count, only the present difference of income.   Therefore, she would be awarded alimony which could only be paid from his remaining half of his pension.

###

A Sampling of the Arguments for and Against Alimony

2010-03-28T23:38:00.000-04:00

The Women's Argument for Alimony:

If a woman (or the man) has been home caring for the children (whether the couple wanted it that way, or it was a necessity because of a sick or disabled child(ren)) think of what it would take to replace a person for 24/7 child care, do the laundry, do the dishes, keep the house clean, planning and cooking the meals, run everyone's errands including picking up husband's clothes from cleaners and taking the kids shopping for school needs, clothes, shoes, etc, getting gifts for people at his office, entertaining his employers or clients, taking kids to appointments and activities and going to school functions and helping out in the kid's class room, customer service skills, interpersonal skills......If a parent is a stay at home parent, they are usually putting in 18-20 hour days.

The parent that stays home does not get social security disability benefits should s/he become disabled after the divorce. They are losing out on gaining experience, seniority, pension, 401Ks benefits. When they go to work, they are starting from scratch, with usually their age against them already.

And most women still do not get the top jobs or top pay or top benefits....just look at the Fortune 500...how many CEOs are men and how many are women, then compare their compensation and benefits packages.... Why do you think so many women are moving into management positions...because it costs the businesses more money for men than women.

Look at politics...look at the supreme court.....

I don't want to rain on your parade, but women are still discriminated against in the workplace.

I don't think this alimony thing is going to go away until women (or the parent that stays home) are protected with social security, disability, in the workplace, etc.

There are many women who worked while putting there husbands through college, master degrees, and some through PhDs putting aside their education and climbing the career ladder. The women today are starting to say their career is just as important as the man's and they get housekeepers, day care providers, etc. and the husband has to share the expenses But when the woman starts to climb higher or make more than the man, many men today still have ego problems. Now men, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

A Rebuttal Against That Argument:

Here's the problem with that argument. If you work for an employer who has you to do a job that requires a skill set in very low demand, then you do not have the right to a salary after the employer fires you or lays you off. You get six months to a year's unemployment and that's it. The understanding between you and the employer is that you are being paid to do a job that will not advance your career, will not improve your skill set, will not give you seniority and certainly will not provide for you if the employer cuts the relationship. This is the risk the employee assumes when taking that type of job. The employee can decided to stay or find a better arrangement.

And so it is with marriage. If you decide that staying at home is best, then your decision to do so is a risk you assume, including losing out on other possible career moves. If your spouse insists that you stay and home, you are free to find a better arrangement, or assume the risk that comes with staying at home.

Every time I hear this argument it makes my stomach churn. The argument basically says that women (and this argument is always applied to women no matter how gender neutral the law is) are never responsible for themselves or accountable for their actions. Women will never be equal to men as long as this attitude of irresponsibility and unaccountability prevails.

When the women's movement first started and NOW was in it infancy, they group attempted to have alimony laws abolished. Since the early 70's NOW has abandoned that position. But I find it interesting that they admitted early in their quest for equality that women would not be equal to men unless they were willing to assume the same risks as men.

As for women being discriminated at work, I say that's complete hogwash. I work on wall street in the computer side of the business. I have been in positions that required hiring large number of people many times over the past 25 years. Each and every time I ask recruiters for resumes I get an abundance of quality resumes - all men. In 25 years I have seen the resumes of only 3 women, two of which I hired. Again, currently, for whatever reason, women are unwilling to do the same things and assume the same risks as men.

And as for the nonsense of women not being in the top positions, again that's hogwash. After my divorce I had the pleasure of dating a woman who owned her own business, had taken it public and decided to retire, all within five years. She had a net worth of about $30 million. This woman was willing to do what was necessary and willing to take the same risks that many men take. And the rewards were plentiful for her.

Her take on the state of women is the same as mine. Most women are unwilling to take on the same risks as men. In fact, when she was running her business, she was the only woman on board of directors and the only woman in the management team. She did all the hiring. I think that says enough.

###

Domestic Violence in Divorce Proceedings

2010-02-04T17:14:00.004-05:00

It is understood that many women are coached by their lawyers to file domestic violence complaints against their spouse as a tactic to get the upper hand in divorce proceedings. These complaints are very effective and as a result, men need to know what to expect when facing the possibility that it might occur in their divorce.

Even though women are frequently the instigators, the odds are overwhelming that the man will be the one arrested and made to leave the home. Even if the man is defending himself, there is a good possibility that he will suffer that fate.

Veterans are especially vulnerable toDV accusations. If you are not familiar with the impact of a domestic violence conviction or a permanent protection order on a veteran's life, here is a summary of the lifetime penalties.:

* Barred from holding a job,
* Denied a security clearance,
* Unable to rent an apartment,
* Forbidden from obtaining school loans,
* Unable to hold any professional licenses,
* Unable to get or hold a teachers certificate,
* Cannot obtain credit or a financial bond,
* Unable to become police officers or firefighters,
* Cannot hold a commercial drivers license,
* Unable to obtain medical insurance,
* Cannot work with hazardous materials or explosives,
* Often have their children taken from them,
* Subjected to federal felony charges if they are even around a weapon or ammunition,
* Discharged from the service under less than honorable conditions and often lose all benefits, retirement, bonuses, and medical care.

In effect the veteran is a dead man walking after a conviction or court order in one of these cases.

Below is a good site with a lot of information for which you should be familiar so that you will be prepared for this possible occurrence:
http://www.dvmen.org/
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-134.htm#pgfId-1000404
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-127.htm#pgfId-998197

###

Watch Out For The Dirty Dog Law

2010-02-04T11:40:00.001-05:00

Frustrated by a Deadbeat Parent? Try Invoking the Dog Law
by Judge O.H. Eaton, Jr.

Family practitioners occasionally run into the deadbeat parent who simply refuses to obey the order directing payment of support. These cases are frustrating for several reasons.

True deadbeats have no money or assets. They live off of the income of others, usually day by day, or they rely upon the generosity of friends for assistance through the hard times.

Deadbeats believe they have nothing to lose. They have no job. They have no status. They have no property. They perceive themselves to be creatures deserving of sympathy due to their pathetic state which was caused by the custodial parent who now is to blame for the whole thing.

The usual civil remedies such as income deduction orders and writs of execution or sequestration do not produce needed monetary support. To add to the frustration, the custodial parent is usually destitute, or nearly so, and cannot afford counsel.

Sometimes the court files in these cases are voluminous because the deadbeat is pro se and is making a career out of dragging the custodial parent to court over trivial matters, thus jeopardizing employment and putting the custodial parent even more at the mercy of the deadbeat. How should the family law practitioner and the courts approach these cases?

One approach is to apply “dog law.” Now, I do not claim this concept to be original with me. I learned the concept during a lecture by Professor Calvin Woodard of the University of Virginia College of Law several years ago.

According to Professor Woodard, there are two kinds of law: “human law” and “dog law.”

[READ MORE...]

###

Women's Role in the Changing Workplace

2009-12-31T13:20:00.000-05:00

With the roles of women switching places with men in the workplace, you can be sure that they will increasingly be affected by permanent lifetime alimony in upcoming divorce cases. The eventual and logical outcome of it will be a growing demand from the women to reform the outmoded alimony laws that will put them at risk of supporting someone for the rest of their lives.

As long as they are on the receiving end, little will be done towards this end. Their tune will change when they are on the giving end of permanent lifetime alimony and finally see the injustice that prevails.

Statistics showing this role-changing phenomena can be seen in such articles as the ones below:

Women gain as men lose jobs
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Women are on the verge of outnumbering men in the workforce for the first time, a historic reversal caused by long-term changes in women's roles and massive job losses for men during this recession.

Women held 49.83% of the nation's 132 million jobs in June and they're gaining the vast majority of jobs in the few sectors of the economy that are growing, according to the most recent numbers available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That's a record high for a measure that's been growing steadily for decades and accelerating during the recession. At the current pace, women will become a majority of workers in October or November. The data for July will be released Friday.

"It was a long historical slog to get to this point," says labor economist Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

The change reflects the growing importance of women as wage earners, but it doesn't show full equality, Hartmann says. On average, women work fewer hours than men, hold more part-time jobs and earn 77% of what men make, she says. Men also still dominate higher-paying executive ranks.
[READ ARTICLE...]

Combine the above article with the facts of how more men are being hurt by the current recession and you can extrapolate the consequences of this as relates to men in their major role of paying alimony and continued ability to do so.

Older white males hurt more by this recession
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Dean Canaris, 56, a quality engineer for a Honda automotive supplier, was laid off in April and out the door in 30 minutes with no severance.

Harry Jackson, 55, an airline pilot and supervisor, lost his job in 2007 and, to his surprise, has found it nearly impossible to get another job.

Mark Montgomery, 53, was let go from an Owens Corning insulation factory in April and can't afford his $575 monthly mortgage payment.

These men from the Columbus, Ohio, area are the unusual new faces of joblessness in this groundbreaking recession: older men cut loose from employment at the peak of their earning power and work experience.

In previous recessions, veteran workers were largely spared the pain of widespread job cutbacks, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Layoffs tended to be concentrated among younger workers: The younger you were, the more likely you were to get fired. Traditional, bread-winning older males — especially white men — were the least vulnerable.

Not so today. Aging Baby Boomers are suffering a harsh employment bust.
[READ MORE....]

###

The "Final Solution" to the Alimony Problem

2009-09-27T23:41:00.001-04:00

James S. Irwin called it a "death sentence."

The 73-year-old international businessman and philanthropist would have to pay his wife alimony and attorney fees totaling more than $2 million, as part of their ongoing divorce proceedings.

That decision, Irwin wrote in a letter mailed to the Sun, would be his undoing.

And he wanted the judge who signed the order to know it.

Irwin, chairman of Integrated Control Systems Inc. and IMPAC University in Punta Gorda, shot and killed himself Monday at his Litchfield, Conn., farm.

Earlier that day, a two-page letter with Irwin's name and Connecticut address was sent to 20th Judicial Circuit Judge John Dommerich, cursing his handling of Irwin's divorce. A copy was forwarded to the Sun.

In the letter, Irwin blames Dommerich and his wife, Linda Scott-Irwin, for his "financial destruction."
[READ MORE...]

###

The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion

2009-08-24T10:40:00.002-04:00

Below is an article written by John F. Molloy who was elected to the Arizona Court of Appeals, where he served as chief justice and authored more than 300 appellate opinions. Molloy wrote the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court.

This is an insider's observation of his profession. This should confirm what you have suspected all along about the legal industry.

The Fraternity:
Lawyers and Judges in Collusion
....Law loses its way
By John F. Molloy

When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls.

In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.

I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.

Looking back

The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.

The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena,
with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs.

That was just the beginning.

By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona's largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.

I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action
for legal reform.

Disturbing evolution

Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law.

Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It's called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.

This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies Constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.

Lawyer domination

When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a
judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are
lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other
area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of
interest.

When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling
class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima
counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers,
along with concerned citizens.How can they be expected not to be
beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?

When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms
that leverage their names and relationships.

Business of law

The concept of "time" has been converted into enormous revenue for
lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are
billed for a lawyer's time in six-minute increments. The paralegal
profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an
additional tracking and revenue center. High-powered firms have
departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate
and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.

The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a
bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and
wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected
Congress and state legislatures.

Bureaucratic design

Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often
determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools
are there to obscure and confound. The system's process of discovery and
the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to
jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and
judges understand them.

The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.

The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.

Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low- to middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?

This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it's engrained in our legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.

It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers.

By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly.

It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.

Surely it's time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.

###

We Need New Leadership! Our Democratic System Is Failing

2009-08-08T23:16:00.004-04:00

This is a YouTube video that you need to watch to find out what is our main problem in righting the wrongs that exist in our society today.

“This source of corruption, alas, is inherent in the democratic system itself, and it can only be controlled, if at all, by finding ways to encourage legislators to subordinate ambition to principle.” –James L. Buckley

All along we have wondered why the yoke of servitude and peonage could have been placed on innocent American under the color of law. These are laws that are facially unconstitutional and violate the most basic of citizens rights….The Right To Privacy in decisions relating to marriage.

Innocent citizens are criminalized by the imposition of laws that are lacking adequate guidelines and are so vague and unclear, judges are unable to rule with any degree of consistency. They are
criminalized by imposing laws under which no two judges are able to arrive at the same conclusion given the same facts of a case. They are criminalized by imposing laws by which the participants are subject to the whims and prejudices of the individual judges.

When the laws are unclear and uncertain, as are those of Florida Statute 61.08, which govern the alimony statutes, the only way the judge can rule on the case is by, in effect, clearly creating a new law (ruling) governing in each case and that follows no rigid guideline as required to do equity between the parties.

Creating laws by the judiciary is a violation of the Separation of Powers between the Judiciary (who administer the laws) and the Legislature (who make the laws) as mandated by the Constitution

Did this happen by accident or was it well planned out by a group of self-serving people who swore am oath of office to uphold the constitutional rights of those whom they purport to represent?

The alimony burdens that have been imposed upon unsuspecting spouses in direct violation of their constitutional right can be traced back to our legislatures and the legislators who pass these
self-serving laws that primarily benefit the state, the legal industry and all the parasites that feed off it to the tune of multi-billions of dollars each year..

Ask yourself: “for what other reason would laws support the lifetime strangle-hold on spouses by retaining jurisdiction over them in the final judgment of dissolution?”

In two separate Florida judicial jurisdictions, the circuit courts, the district court of appeals, and the Florida Supreme Court abrogated their duty to provide a citizen with a declaratory judgment on whether or not the Florida alimony statute 61.08 violated the state constitution.

The cowardly act of the courts refusal to rule on a constitutional issue was simply because the far reaching effect of such a ruling would not only destroy the legal industry’s multi-billion dollar

cash cow but would invalidate, ab initio (back to the beginning), the statute that was unconstitutional as of it’s date of enactment. Follow the filed cases by clicking here.

In reading the following article, it was felt that it accurately reflects where the blame should be placed for such inequitable laws. Even though the article references the U.S. Congress, we can equally apply it to a state congress.

Charley Reese, a writer with the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper has offered a rather fresh look at the national leaders who are responsible for most of the mess we find our nation in. Might mention that Charley is a bonafide "southerner".

THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICA'S WOES!!

By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does.You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court Justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton- picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a SPEAKER, who stood up and criticized G.W. BUSH for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom theygive the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.

National Organization of Women Supports Alimony Reform

2009-07-27T00:03:00.002-04:00

For those of you who think that alimony reform is just a men's issue brought on by a bunch of whining, alimony paying spouses, please be aware that the National Organization of Women [NOW] "Statement of Purpose" endorsed the cause for alimony reform as far back as 1966. In it, they stated:

"We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.....

.....WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility -- hers, to dominate -- his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity" between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes."

As you can see, even though NOW agrees with the position that lifetime alimony is unwarranted, the judges, lawyers and the rest of the legal industry are determined to degrade women by granting awards of alimony that make the statement that women are unable to care for themselves. These rulings are declaring that women are not the equal of men. The principles that NOW has fought for over 50 years are ignored by the courts, and by NOW itself.

You have to ask yourself why, with this statement of purpose displayed so boldly on the NOW site, they aren't fighting with more zeal to demand that lifetime alimony be abolished as they did in seeking equality in the first place. Could it be that as long as women are allowed to collect alimony welfare through some sort of imagined "entitlement" for being married that they are justified in violating their advocacy of equality.

Maybe they should change their statement of purpose from that of "seeking true equality for all women......exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men" to a more realistic one that includes the comment from George Orwell's 1984 where it stated that: "some people are created more equal than others."

To compound things, when you look at the realities of the situation in the light of a profit motive for the legal industry, adversarial divorces are simply a way of transferring the bulk of the family assets to the legal industry in the form of exorbitant fees, costs and a myriad of other court mandated requirements such as mediation, counseling, expert testimony, etc. in order to obtain a divorce.

Is this justice or just a way to fund a multi-billion dollar industry that builds it's success on the destruction of spouses and families in the name of equity and under color of law?

Where will it all end?? Project the statistics and the answer will be self-evident. The end effect of this apparent hypocrisy is the contribution to the destruction of the institution of marriage and families in this country [Read about the Marriage Strike]. Added to that is the creation of a spousal class of alimony welfare recipients who are no longer useful and self-sufficient members of society.

###

Family Law Reform Necessity Recognized by Ohio

2009-07-20T08:12:00.004-04:00

The fact that "lifetime" alimony does not work and is an injustice wreaked upon spouses and families to the detriment of society has also been recognized and reported by the State of Ohio.

In October of 1997, a thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Judicial Studies in Trial Court Judge Major by Judge Leslie Herndon Spillane titled "Spousal Support: The Other Ohio Lottery."

Then in January of 1999, an Ohio Task Force on Family Law and Children consisting of twenty-four individuals from nine different disciplines were selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, Governors Voinovich and Taft, the Ohio Association of Domestic Relations Judges, the Ohio Association of Juvenile and Family Judges, the Ohio State Bar Association, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate to research the state of family law in Ohio and make recommendations for enhancements to processes that will put children first, ensure that families have choices during the divorce and dissolution process, minimize conflict, and emphasize problem solving.

Of particular significance are the comments at the end of the study:

"We have relinquished to the Child Support Advisory Council all matters relating to financial child support, but several of these issues deserve our attention. For example, as noted by Ohio Appellate Court Judge Gwinn (1999), at the upper levels of income, child support awards clearly represent thinly disguised alimony in that amounts awarded are far in excess of what is required for reasonable child support, and no accountability for the expenditure of funds is required. Issues of exorbitant or extended spousal support and unreasonably high child support payments are predicated on the assumption that a spouse (almost always the wife) or a child is entitled to be kept in the style to which they have become accustomed. This deep pockets orientation provides a windfall for the recipient with no obligation to provide anything in return.

Child support obligations are determined according to tables that are seriously flawed in their underlying loose-estimate assumptions, and based on averages that obscure different costs of child rearing according to age of the child or location of residence. Moreover, it is difficult for recipients of court-ordered awards to respond to the donor with gratitude, or respect on the part of children, when they have accepted the notion that these monies are their entitlement. The frequently found alienation of children from their non-resident fathers is exacerbated by this condition, in that this support continues regardless of behavioral compliance with parental rules, child's work ethic, or reciprocity of caring in the father-child relationship. From a child development point of view, more money is not correlated with better child adjustment.

In the case of spousal support, there is a prevailing assumption that a due bill is owed by the breadwinner at the culmination of marriage, regardless of who initiated the divorce, the cause of the divorce, or the degree to which the parties provided benefits to each other during the marriage. Only good providers are penalized in these cases, since those without the means to pay have little or no continuing financial obligation to ex-spouses, and only minimal and often insufficient support payments to children. Our group has also avoided discussion of spousal support even though the Ohio Bar Association is currently addressing that issue in committee. At the very least, I believe we should have examined the existing problems independently and offered our perspectives to the legislature. The major purpose underlying our appointments to this Task Force was to broaden the legislative advisory group. There are profound problems in spousal support and it is debatable whether the only voices heard by the legislature should be those of Ohio attorneys.

We had neither the time nor the collective willingness to resolve most of these problems, but I had hoped we could give guidance to the legislature on some of the more blatant injustices that have gone on for so long that they are perceived as legitimate. From an optimistic posture, if we could have agreed on some of the financial issues that impede cooperative parenting, our proposed legislation might have incorporated language that had the potential to remedy longstanding grievances at the root of bitter post-divorce relationships.

My third conclusion is that we gave no attention to the issue of prenuptial contracts. Yet, judicial respect for the decision-making authority of marital aspirants would seem to be a core requirement for resolution of financial and child rearing matters in the event of divorce. Rather than basing decisions on the adversarial and often irrational conditions prevailing at the time of divorce, fairer adjudication of both financial and child rearing matters could be accomplished by honoring agreements made at the onset of the marriage when commitments are defined cooperatively and with due regard for the rights of the other party. Attempts to undermine prior contractual agreements through legal manipulations should be deterred by judicial policy that protects the integrity of these agreements and implements them as intended. It is likely to believe that couples may increase their propensity to marry if they were provided assurances at the outset that their contractual obligations, mutually agreed upon, would be the foundation for problem resolution if needed in the future."

[Read the full report...]

###

Cohabiting Spouses Can Be Liable For Alimony Received By Them During The Cohabitation Period

2009-07-20T00:56:00.006-04:00

For all you cohabiting spouses who are still collecting alimony and reading this post, it is time to realize that the tide is turning and that your misadventures might cost you a tidy sum in the near future.

Until now the courts in Florida have been very lenient in declaring that miscreants who were cohabiting were in a supportive relationship. This past leniency has permitted them to flaunt their association and get away with it. But now the courts are tightening up their decisions as to what constitutes a supportive relationship and in the below case, requiring the alimony recipient to repay their ill gotten gains.

Do you still want to gamble and stand to face a situation like that depicted in the below article???

Palm Beach County judge's ex-wife ordered to repay $151,000 in alimony.

WEST PALM BEACH — Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge David French not only won his long-running battle to get out of paying his ex-wife alimony. A judge also ordered her to repay him $151,000.

In a decision this month, Broward Circuit Judge Arthur M. Birken ruled that French should not be required to pay his ex-wife $3,400-a-month alimony because she has been living with another man for nearly 20 years. [Read more...]

###

Till Death Do Us Pay

2009-07-19T11:42:00.001-04:00

The poster child for progressive marriage laws, Massachusetts is also a singularly nightmarish place to get a divorce—especially for the better-off spouse. Now a brewing reform movement is pushing to rewrite the state's outdated alimony rules, led by one very fed-up ex-husband....

.....Despite these dire straits—Hitner relies on his second wife, Jeanie, to pay most of the household expenses plus the part of the monthly alimony bill he can't cover—he isn't optimistic that Judge Kaplan will be moved. Four years ago, he'd sought a modification from this same judge. "I told her, 'I really need help here, because I'm running out of credit cards to borrow on to pay this alimony,'" says Hitner. "The judge's response was, like, 'Lemme know when you run out of credit cards and I'll put you in jail.'"

He ended up filing for bankruptcy in December 2006. A separate court battle with Joan (who declined to be interviewed for this article) over stock in his company has dragged on for 10 years. Hitner estimates that he's spent, at minimum, $200,000 in legal costs just to get where he is today. Which is to say, exactly where he was in 1999.

[Read more...]

Video interview on Fox News

Note: Steve Hitner is part of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Alliance for Freedom From Alimony, Inc.
www.alimonyreform.org

###

Do You Have a Grievance Against the Judge in Your Case?

2009-07-19T10:56:00.004-04:00

Do you feel that the judge in your case was biased against you, ruled unfairly, ignored the law, treated you with hostility, etc.? Do you think that you have a chance to appeal to a higher authority to seek relief?

THINK AGAIN!!!

One of the several things you will discover in your battle against judicial or legal wrongdoing, is that it can be almost impossible to find a lawyer who will help you file lawsuits and complaints against judges, or against other lawyers.

One reason for this is because the judges generally control the Bar in your state, which means they have total instant control over whether a lawyer is even allowed to continue working as a lawyer.
[Read more...]

Check out the other FAQ's in this blog.

Going after a judge can be an exercise in futility. If you have to appeal to a higher court or even the do so in the federal courts, your ability to do so, even if you do this on your own [Pro Se] is a monumental task wrought with traps and pitfalls created by those you are going after and control the system.

It is a daunting task to try to follow the laws and procedures necessary to appeal to higher courts and they are extremely resistant to your efforts. Even if you were able to master the requirements of filing a case, the odds of you winning are extremely small.

The closest analogy comes to mind is that of a barnyard rooster arguing with the foxes over their right to guard the henhouse. GOOD LUCK!!!

###

Fourteen Years in Jail on Alimony Contempt Charges

2009-07-13T10:15:00.002-04:00

If you weren't aware, due process of law does not apply in family law cases.

In due process for criminal cases you get the following:
1. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
2. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. You are entitled to a trial by jury.
4. You are given a sentence with a definite time period of incarceration.

In family law, you get the following if you are held in contempt [such as when you are unable to pay your alimony and the court thinks you can.]
1. If you cannot afford an attorney, you are out of luck. Not only that, but the court will asses you with the fees and costs incurred by your ex-spouse.
2. You have the burden of proving that you were unable to pay your ex-spouse.
3. You are not entitled to a trial by jury.
4. The courts will assign you a purge amount that you have to pay in order to be kept out of jail. If you are unable to pay, and can't prove it to the courts satisfaction, you will be kept in jail until you cough up the purge amount as the court considers that you have the "keys to your cell" and can get out whenever you decide to pay the extortion amount.

Apparently, the courts consider the inability to pay alimony as a more serious crime than murder, rape, robbery, etc. for which your constitutional rights are able to be suspended.

----------------------

Saturday, July 11, 2009

By Mari A. Schaefer, Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -- H. Beatty Chadwick, imprisoned in Delaware County for the last 14 years, was in the jail library yesterday giving legal advice to female inmates when a prison official walked up and gave him the news.

He was a free man.

Minutes earlier a Delaware County Common Pleas judge issued an order granting Mr. Chadwick's petition for freedom, thus ending his incarceration for contempt of court -- a U.S. record for the charge.

"We want you out of here right away," Mr. Chadwick, 73, said the official told him.

In 1995 -- the year "Apollo 13" was a box-office hit, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and 169 people were killed in the bombing of an Oklahoma federal building -- Mr. Chadwick was a corporate lawyer who grew up in Bryn Mawr and became embroiled in a nasty divorce. In April that year, he was arrested by two sheriff's deputies at his dentist's dowtown Philadelphia office and landed in jail.

A Delaware County judge issued an order to jail Mr. Chadwick for failing to deposit $2.5 million in a court-controlled account that would be used to pay alimony to his ex-wife, Barbara "Bobbie" Applegate.

Mr. Chadwick contended he no longer had the money, saying he lost it in a bad overseas investment. The judge believed he hid the money after divorce proceedings were started. Court-ordered investigations after he was jailed turned up no money.

The couple were married for 15 years. Mr. Chadwick called their marriage happy; she said he was stubborn and controlled her every move.

Efforts to reach Ms. Applegate's attorney, Albert Momjian, yesterday were unsuccessful.

In yesterday's ruling, Judge Joseph P. Cronin said Mr. Chadwick had the ability to comply with the 1995 court order to make the bank deposit and willfully refused to do so. But, after 14 years, Judge Cronin said, the contempt order had lost its coercive effect and instead had become punitive.

At the prison yesterday, when Mr. Chadwick's attorney, Michael J. Malloy, arrived to pick him up, about 50 people -- prison staff, correction officers and inmates -- were gathered inside and out to see him off.

"It was pretty remarkable scene," said Mr. Malloy. He added people were crying, shaking hands and hugging Mr. Chadwick. When he walked out into the brilliant, blue sky day, Mr. Malloy said everyone applauded.

The two packed 14 years of clothes, books, magazines -- including Bon Appetit -- and boxes of legal filings into the backseat and trunk of Mr. Malloy's Honda Accord, and then they drove off.

"I really missed being free and being able to have interactions with other people," said Mr. Chadwick, who was dressed in a dapper green suit and maroon tie for the occasion. "Jail is really a very artificial society."

Later in Mr. Malloy's office, Mr. Chadwick talked about his legal battles, the judicial system, his life in prison and his future.

He said he held no anger about the imprisonment or toward his ex-wife, to whom he has not spoken in more than a decade.

"The dark moments always came when I had a turndown from some court," said Mr. Chadwick, who had repeatedly sought release over the years. He said he kept his spirits up helping others with their legal issues.

For more than six years, Mr. Malloy worked pro bono on the case.

"I always thought if I could take this to a jury, he would have been home in a week," said Mr. Malloy.

When Mr. Chadwick's son, William, 41, walked into the office, the two embraced.

"It was so tough to keep up hopes at these hearings," said William Chadwick.

"We were concentrating so much on getting him out, we haven't thought what we'd do immediately afterward."

Beatty Chadwick will stay at his son's house in King of Prussia until he can set up his own apartment. He has no firm plans beyond that.

"I have to get out and make a living," said Mr. Chadwick, who has no income other than Social Security.

He is considering possibly teaching, trying to see what he can do in a corporate advisory role, and he will try to get his law license reinstated.

"I'm really thinking about what I'm going to do with the rest of my life," Mr. Chadwick said.

He would like to use his "skills and talent and time" to benefit others.

As Mr. Chadwick walked outside to transfer his belongings into his son's Prius, a man driving a car along Veteran's Square in Media honked, cheered and gave the thumbs-up sign, all while hanging out the car window.

"Good job, buddy," said the former fellow inmate, who declined to give his name. "You deserve to be out." [Read the article]

###

Why You Can't Get Help With Court Injustices

2009-07-13T00:23:00.003-04:00

Did you ever want a lawyer to take up your defense in what you thought was an unjust way you were treated in court? Then read this article and check out some of the other FAQ's in this blog article:

FAQ on US Judicial and Legal Corruption :

It's true that there are lots of bogus, malicious, and perverted lawsuits filed in America, for all sorts of trivial and dishonest reasons. And it's true that some of these lawsuits even win money, where somebody gets a big pile of money for some silly complaint.

But that doesn't mean you will be able to get legal help to fight a crooked lawyer or judge, even though you have massive proof of misconduct and felony crime by the lawyers and the judges.

The legal profession likes the media to tell all those general lawsuit stories. They like the way these stories create terror among people and small businesses, and help induce people to pay more money for lawyers. [Read More.....]

###

More Feminist Backlash

2009-06-21T22:10:00.006-04:00

A recent article by Phyllis Schlafly supports our previous article: "A Feminist's Daughter's Views on the Feminist Approach" that the feminist movement has not really benefited women in the long run as regards their married and family life.

Why Women Are Unhappy

The National Bureau of Economic Research released a study to be published soon in the American Economic Journal that shows women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. It's no surprise that this has stimulated much comment.

This study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation or feminist movement. The correlation demands an explanation. You can read the entire study at www.eagleforum.org/links.

One theory advanced by the authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, is that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. A second theory is that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming. [Read the entire article.]

###

A Feminist's Daughter's Views on the Feminist Approach

2009-06-11T20:13:00.002-04:00

This insider article says it all and represents the backlash that the feminist movement has created.

Rebecca Walker, daughter of trail-blazing feminist author Alice Walker tells her story of life with her mother and the resulting fallout that feminism is generating in our society.
[Read the article here....]

###

Have the People Lost Control of Their Government??

2009-04-23T23:41:00.004-04:00

There is an interesting article that reflects our sentiments about the marriage situation in today's society with the government's intervention in areas of personal privacy where they have no right to be intruding:

Nevada Democrats vote to Establish a New Civil Religion

"We need to outlaw marriage all together. Marriage is a religious act. Why is the government allowed to license a religious act? Did you know that in Nevada the minister has to get a license to marry people too? What garbage. That is why Patrick Henry fought against England. Marriage licenses started to allow inter-racial marriage because it was against the law to inter-racial marry. Why are we still promoting a racist licensing system?

Why not license baptisms or a Temple recommends or First Holy Communions or a briss or tree hugging?

We need to get the government out of marriage and the way to do it is to end government benefits for marriage. No more government benefits for married people. SIMPLE. Gays get no rights (chains) they want because there aren’t any and they don’t have to pay for so-called good Christians government benefits they get from marriage." [READ MORE....]

Even more disturbing is the link at the top of the page that says "Martial Law is on its way?" Take a few minutes and view the video. It kind of makes you wonder what direction our government is heading.

Have the people lost control?? You decide.

###

Family Law is Big Business

2009-04-17T17:59:00.001-04:00

Dear Professor Cross:

I have been reading Barbara von Hauzen’s recent article in The Reformer concerning whether permanent alimony should be eliminated. As you know, she cites you as a major contributor to this work so, I felt it appropriate to write you with my thoughts on this subject.

The article is quite thorough in its examination of how the courts treat alimony awards but, in my opinion, it completely misses an important underlying defect in the basic premise of alimony law. That being the constitutionality of the law.

While reading this article I was struck by the way the legal community can scrutinize the minutiae of the law and its application but, completely miss the fact that the constitutional violations it perpetuates are broad and deep. In fact, it parallels the historical course that slavery took in this country.

When slavery was legal, there were volumes of law and case law surrounding the practice of slavery. Similarly, scrutinizing the minutiae. For example:

* What is a slave?
* Who can own a slave. Can a slave own a slave?
* Who can sell a slave? Can a slave be sold in another state?
* Can a slave be freed by its owner?
* Are children born to slaves automatically slaves?
* etc, etc, etc.

As you can see the differing arguments, litigated endlessly in the courts, missed the fundamental argument that slavery was unconstitutional. The uneducated slaves out in the fields had no problem knowing in their person, in their gut, that what was being done to them was wrong. Yet those whose job it was to write laws that comport with the constitution and those that litigate those laws in the courts were more than willing to turn a blind eye to the fundamental problem of the basic premise of slavery.

Why did they do this? One easy answer was that slavery was a business. People were getting rich from slavery. So it is with alimony laws and family law in general.

As Americans, we pride ourselves in the fact that we are free to choose our course in life and we boast of it to the rest of the world. We are free to associate with who we please, free to make endless choices in our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness without governmental interference or intrusion. It is our private life and it has been reinforced over and over again by the USC. Whether it’s abortion, sodomy, conceptual rights, or the protection of personal information, the right to privacy i.e. liberty has been protected over and over again.

However, in family law, there is absolutely no protection from the state in regards to privacy or liberty. Why? Why can the state use a marriage license to create a position of entitlement based on a private relationship to strip an individual of their most fundamental rights and bind them financially, with threat of imprisonment, to another private citizen and the judiciary for the rest of their lives? The answer appears to be the same reason as the justification for slavery. It’s big business.

Married couples are free to conduct themselves and their finances as they see fit during the course of their marriage. We would be outraged if the state intruded in this private relationship by forcing the parties to provide for one another a certain way or to maintain a certain standard of living. In fact, in my home state of Florida, statute 708.8 guarantees that married women are financially independent from their husbands and the “doctrine of necessaries,” that makes husbands responsible for the welfare of their wives, was abolished.

But, let a married couple enter family court to dissolve their marital relationship and those laws are thrown out the window along with any other fundamental constitutional rights that they may have thought they had. In the end, they will lose a large portion of their assets to the legal process and one of them will be enslaved to the other for the rest of their lives. This will all be based on the choices they made while they thought they were having a private marital relationship.

Just like the legal battles over slavery, those who profit from family law fight fervently to ward off any change to the status quo. They keep their focus on the minutia of the law.

* How long should a marriage be for permanent alimony?
* What percentage of income should it be?
* What are the conditions needed to modify it?
* What kinds of alimony are appropriate?

All the while, the fundamental premise for alimony is flawed and unconstitutional because it violates fundamental constitutional rights to liberty and to conduct our private lives without state interference. No court that I am aware of has addressed the fundamental flaw. Because if they did. They would find that permanent alimony clearly falls within the definitions of peonage and involuntary servitude. Both civil rights violations.

A judicial ruling confirming this would collapse the multi-billion dollar industry called “family law” and the overabundance of law school graduates, family court judges, sociologists , and endless parade of others who profit from family law would have to find some other way to get easy access to Americans’ lifelong assets. It’s big business and it’s morally wrong.

True morality by government is whether those in government can keep their pledge to protect the citizenry from government. In regards to family law, they have failed miserably. The only “overarching” fact that seems to have escaped a proper discussion of alimony is the flaw in its basic premise that it has any constitutional foundation.

Sincerely,

Robert Sell
The Alliance For Freedom From Alimony

###

The Case Against Alimony

2009-04-13T17:34:00.000-04:00

By Allan Cole and Adam H

Before I begin, let me state outright that it would be better to see alimony abolished outright and not some pseudo-equality effort involving equal numbers, for the simple reason that if a woman can withdraw her labour effect from a relationship at any given time with no penalty, then the same should go for the nearest man, as if the roles were reversed you can be sure that this double standard would not be acceptable.

Permanent and Periodic Alimony are monthly payments given from one ex spouse to the other in an attempt to equalize lifestyle, this is no different from socialism and in theory it can continue forever or until a significant change takes place. This is a practice which is sanctioned in numerous States. Rehabilitative Alimony is more frequently practiced and its purpose is to assist an ex spouse in acquiring a marketable skill so that they can become self sufficient. The characteristics of this form of Alimony are that it is limited in duration to typically 2 years. This essay will primarily focus on the rules and processes followed in the State of Florida dealing with Alimony, and advocate reasons why Alimony in general is illegal and should be abolished.

When a divorce reaches a final judgment, the court must distribute in an equitable manner the accumulated assets that the couple has acquired. These assets in effect are the financial “fruit” that the family works hard to acquire to improve the quality of life, and to achieve their financial goals, examples of these assets are; cars, boats, homes, furniture, savings, pensions, cash & stocks, etc. Thus one could conclude that these assets were the financial reward that both party’s worked for during the marriage.

It would be nice and simple if it would end there, however the state of Florida and other states, permit the courts to also award Permanent and Periodic Alimony, which is based on the following four criteria:

1.Length of Marriage, the marriage must be “of duration” to be awarded Alimony.
2.Significant difference in income producing capabilities of the two spouses.
3.Spouse needs additional support to maintain a lifestyle accustomed to.
4.Ability of the other spouse to pay.

This form of Alimony is permanent; however it can be increased or decreased if either ex spouse can demonstrate a significant change, these changes can be; Retirement, Permanent Change in Earnings, Increased need for support, etc.

To illustrate the inequity; if the ex spouse earnings increase over 20% the other spouse can get the court to increase her Alimony. In addition there are no financial controls or oversight placed on the spouse that receives the alimony.

By illustration, if she decides to spend lavishly and go beyond her means, she can ask the court for more alimony.

The arguments against Alimony Alimony should be banned on two grounds:

Legal (violates the US & Florida Constitutions) Alimony is involuntary servitude and is more often awarded to women.

a.US Constitution, Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

b.Florida Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

Moral and Social reasons:

a.Alimony is forced work under the threat of prison and exists at the nearest man’s expense.

Alimony is involuntary servitude. Alimony is forced labor for the benefit of another, and also obligations without rights or goods or services.

Alimony assessed by courts, on the wife's behalf and taken against a man's wages for his work performed, fits ALL of the criteria of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, under Title 18, USC., Sec.1584 and PEONAGE, under Title 18, USC., Sec. 1581 Hence: the concept of Alimony is illegal and violates anti-slavery laws in America.

From Title 18 USC Sec 1584

Peonage: Not withstanding its early acknowledgement in the Slaughter-House Cases that peonage was comprehended within the slavery and involuntary servitude proscribed by the Thirteenth Amendment,25 the Court has had frequent occasion to determine whether state legislation or the conduct of individuals has contributed to reestablishment of that prohibited status. Defined as a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is compelled to labor against his will in liquidation of some debt or obligation, either real or pretended, peonage was found to have been unconstitutionally sanctioned by an Alabama statute, directed at defaulting sharecroppers, which imposed a criminal liability and subjected to imprisonment farm workers or tenants who abandoned their employment, breached their contracts, and exercised their legal right to enter into employment of a similar nature with another person.

The clear purpose of such a statute was declared to be the coercion of payment, by means of criminal proceedings, of a purely civil liability arising from breach of contract.26 Several years later, in Bailey v. Alabama,27 the Court voided another Alabama statue which made the refusal without just cause to perform the labor called for in a written contract of employment, or to refund the money or pay for the property advanced thereunder, prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud and punishable as a criminal offense, and which was enforced subject to a local rule of evidence which prevented the accused, for the purpose of rebutting the statutory presumption, from testifying as to his ''uncommunicated motives, purpose, or intention.''

In as much as a state ''may not compel one man to labor for another in payment of a debt by punishing him as a criminal if he does not perform the service or pay the debt,'' the Court refused to permit it ''to accomplish the same result [indirectly] by creating a statutory presumption which, upon proof of no other fact, exposes him to conviction.''28 Pursuant to its Sec. 2 enforcement powers, Congress enacted a statute by which it abolished peonage and prohibited anyone from holding, arresting, or returning, or causing or aiding in the arresting or returning, of a person to peonage.32

The Court looked to the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment in interpreting two enforcement statutes, one prohibiting conspiracy to interfere with exercise or enjoyment of constitutional rights,33 the other prohibiting the holding of a person in a condition of involuntary servitude.34 For purposes of prosecution under these authorities, the Court held, ''the term 'involuntary servitude' necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process.''35

Reference: The U.S. Constitution:

Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Thus the only way that Alimony could therefore be legally justified is as punishment! But, punishment for what? What is the crime? The only event that can trigger Alimony is Divorce. Thus it would appear that Divorce is a crime punishable by Alimony. Yet Divorce is not a criminal matter it is a civil action, thus the dilemma and the basis for a constitutional challenge.

The International Labour Organization's Forced Labour Convention of 1930 defines forced labour as "all work or service, which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily."

From the Florida Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

From the Florida Civil Rights Act ss.760.01 – 760.11 760.01 Purposes; construction; title.-- (1) Sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092 shall be cited as the "Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992." (2) The general purposes of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 are to secure for all individuals within the state freedom from discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status and thereby to protect their interest in personal dignity, to make available to the state their full productive capacities, to secure the state against domestic strife and unrest, to preserve the public safety, health, and general welfare, and to promote the interests, rights, and privileges of individuals within the state. (3) The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 shall be construed according to the fair import of its terms and shall be liberally construed to further the general purposes stated in this section and the special purposes of the particular provision involved.

Conclusion #1

Alimony which was court mandated after a divorce violates the United States Constitution Amendment XIII.

Alimony and Common Law Duty

The Supreme Court of the State of Florida states in Gilbert v. Gilbert, 447 So 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) “Alimony evolved from the common law duty of a husband to support his wife. The duty to support survives the dissolution of marriage for equitable and policy reasons.” Hence Alimony is a permanent duty of the Husband regardless of the legal status of the marriage. Alimony based on the "common law" right of a wife to be supported by her husband, but there is no equal law for a husband to be supported by his wife. This interpretation by the Florida Supreme Court is an explicit declaration of sexual discrimination.

Men should not consent to being economically marginalized. Alimony then, is a marriage tax usually for men only; a subsidy for women only, if you will. In an age of “equality” and "partnerships" it does not deserve to exist. Otherwise, in the eyes of the law, Men will always be working to economically marginalize themselves by being responsible, in short: Men should not be punished for being responsible.

The State assigns it’s obligations to its citizens on the former spouse:

The Supreme Court of the State of Florida again states in Killian v. Lawson, 387 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1980); Brackin v. Brackin, 182 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1966), “The purpose of Alimony is to prevent a dependent party from becoming a public charge or an object of charity.” It is incredible that Florida can assign it’s responsibilities that it has toward one of its residents and require a former spouse to assume those responsibilities. By this ruling Florida has also transferred Federal responsibilities to the spouse. This violates the basic obligation of Government’s responsibilities to its citizens which is broadly spelled out in The U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 which is reproduced as follows:

Reference The US Constitution: Article I.Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Comparison between Alimony(Support for an ex spouse) and Welfare (Government support for indigent citizens).

Alimony/Welfare:

Can Amount Change due to ability to pay Yes
Can Amount Change due to greater need Yes
Are there incentives to become self sufficient No

Marital Debt:

Alimony is supposed to pay the "marital debt" that women are "owed" he's forced to pay and support a woman who does nothing for him, and if he fails to pay, he risks prison and contempt of court. The only official law remaining in the justice system where imprisonment happens for non-payment of "debt" Except, that this is a "debt" which the man had never started. Fred Hayward once wrote "A wife's control over her husband's body is so extreme that we Invented "alimony." (Alimony is the requirement that a man's body continue to serve the needs of the woman even after their marital contract has officially ended and she no longer has an expectation, let alone a requirement, to lift a finger for him for the rest of her life.)"

For a Spouse to claim she compromised her career because she chose to parent her kids full time is a choice she made and should not have it both ways. All benefits that she enjoyed and accrued during the marriage are equally distributed by the Court at dissolution; this would include all property, investments, cash, etc. In this way the spouse that compromised her career is repaid in 3 ways;

1: All the economic benefits acquired during the marriage are distributed, and she receives half of what the husband acquired during the marriage.

2: The Husband has supported her during the marriage in a manner that was comfortable to her and she did not have to go outside the home to earn this, this was a benefit to her.

3: In many cases the wife chooses to stay home and does not want to return to a high pressured work world, thus she accomplishes her objective during the marriage and thus must accept the consequences.

The reality of the situation is that the ex-wife becomes little better than a extortsionist, living in the family home in a good life style. Whereas the ex-husband has to down size his life style to meet the Alimony obligations. The crucial mistake in the concept of Alimony is thinking that a woman staying at home to take care of the children is the only one making a sacrifice. If her leaving her career is to be considered a sacrifice, then his evaporating options (having no choice but to work full time for the time his wife is home) and his added distance from the family must be considered an equal sacrifice.

To be honestly brief, the amount and duration of alimony that a woman receives after divorce is determined by only two factors: the net worth of her ex-husband ("the style to which she has become accustomed"), and her inability to find a job that will support her in that style. basically, the less promising her career before marriage, the longer she will collect afterward.

US Constitution Article XIV. Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From the Florida Constitution Article 1, SECTION 11. Imprisonment for debt.--No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud. From the Florida Constitution Article 1, 1SECTION 17. Excessive punishments.--Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the Legislature. The prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, shall be construed in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court which interpret the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the Legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. This section shall apply retroactively.

History.--Am. H.J.R. 3505, 1998; adopted 1998. 1Note.--The changes made by 1998 Constitutional Amendment No. 2, adopted in November 1998 and which are reflected in this section were held unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court. Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2000). In accordance with the final judgment in Armstrong v. Harris, No. 98-5826 (Fla. 2nd Cir. Ct. Feb. 2, 2001), s. 17, Art. I, State Constitution, as it appeared prior to November 3, 1998, is the law that is in full force and effect. Prior to November 3, 1998, s. 17 read as follows: SECTION 17. Excessive punishments.--Excessive fines, cruel or unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden.

Justification for the abolition of Alimony:

Equality of the sexes which is an established doctrine in this country and has been the Law of the Land since 1865. Thus there is no justification for Alimony.

Alimony undermines and discourages the willpower to become self-sufficient and self-reliant, such a thing is hardly good for a grown adult and society. Recent changes in our welfare system are clearly and specifically focused on becoming self sufficient. Consider that Alimony is almost entirely designed to protect women's interests at the nearest man's expense. A woman who "sacrifices" her career or helps him gain a degree to support her is entitled to alimony, for example, but a man who marries a woman and supports her for 20 years gets no compensation. This de-humanizes the nearest man to be little better than a walking wallet. The question here is, why is acceptable for the nearest woman to own her life and labour while the nearest man does not?

It is an out-dated concept that does not apply in today’s society, should a spouse need training to become self sufficient a rehabilitative program should be crafted with State participation ( the state should provide the same benefits and services it would normally afford to it’s residents that were unemployed) this should be enough to get them started.

It can serve as an incentive to break up a marriage; this is completely contrary to our social objectives, it's unacceptable for any state to provide economic incentives for divorce, and economically marginalize a spouse in the process.

Alimony is out-dated and incompatible with the idea of autonomous responsible individuals; it is not compatible with the concept of marriage as an partnership (since alimony is one way) or contract between equals. How is it acceptable that one set of obligations remain indefinitely when the other (whatever they may be) has ended? Since women are not bound to the same agreements after a divorce, the same should go for the nearest man as well. If a man is to be forced to do unpaid work for the nearest woman, then it should be a two way thing.

Lastly, consider a man who marries down and financially supports a woman which improves her life immensely. To use the sacrifice argument, she should be forced to compensate him on divorce for the “the lifestyle she was accustomed to” that he provided at his expense.

To finish, I leave you with this quote from E. Belfort Bax. It was written near the start Of the 19th century, but little has changed:

"A wife is now at full liberty to leave her husband, while she retains her right to get her husband sent to gaol if he refuses to maintain her--to put the matter shortly, the law imposes upon the wife no legally enforceable duties what-ever towards her husband. The one thing which it will enforce with iron vigour is the wife's right of maintenance against her husband. In the case of a man of the well-to-do classes, the man's property is confiscated by the law in favour of his wife. In the case of a working man the law compels her husband to do corvee [i.e. unpaid work] for her, as the the feudal serf had to do for his lord. The wife, on the other hand, however wealthy, is not compelled to give a farthing towards the support of her husband...."

###

Help For The Self-Represented Person In Court

2009-03-16T09:31:00.001-04:00

Would you go into combat unarmed? Are you intimidated with the legal processes in family law courts?

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a way for a person who can't afford a lawyer and has no other option but to represent themselves pro se [without legal assistance] to have some sort of roadmap as to how they can face the courts with some degree of confidence.

Let's face it, legal proceedures and the law is not rocket science. Every day approximately three quaters of the people who show up in family law courts cannot afford a lawyer. Quite often they are left to their own resources to handle their own case. These people keep reinventing the wheel each time.

Now, for the first time, there are books available to help you understand the system. They were written by someone who had to learn in the school of hard knocks what was required and how to handle to proceedings. Some of the lessons are those you don't find in any other books.

Since child support is regulated by state guidelines and is fairly inflexible, these books concern themselves only with alimony. With alimony, you will eventually be faced with the prospect of wanting to reduce or eliminate it. Or, your ability to make payments will be curtailed and you will be faced with a contempt of court order mandating that you either pay up, convince the court that you are unable to pay, or, you will be incarcerated.

In those situations, your best bet is to get the following books to guide your way as to what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. The are written in layman's language that is easily understood. The purpose of the book is to teach you not only how to understand what is going on, but how to learn what you need to know.

If you are faced with the above situations, you will definitely want to get these books:

How To Modify Your Alimony Payments

How To Defend Yourself In Contempt Of Court Hearings

How To Appeal In State Court Of Appeals

Check these books out today. You'll be glad you did. It will increase your chances of success in court.

###

Hope in Massachusetts for Lifetime Alimony Reform

2009-02-04T18:08:00.005-05:00

The Alliance For Freedom From Alimony, Inc. whose efforts originated in Florida has been leading the fight for the reform of the lifetime alimony laws around the country. Local chapters are being established in various cities to bring awareness to the public of the injustices of the family law system.

The Alliance has encouraged, supported and assisted many people who have been abused by the system. Stories of some of these victims can be found in a related blog "Alimony Slaves in America."

They have challenged the constitutionality of the states statues that govern the granting of alimony on the premise that they violate the Right of Privacy in matters relating to marriage and the Separation of Powers that arise from the judges having so much discretion to grant alimony owing from the lack of guidelines from which to make equitable rulings that they are, in effect, creating the law from the bench. Law-making is the realm of the legislature and not the judiciary.

More about the above arguments used in the legal filings can be found in the earlier archives of this blog approx. February. 2007

Progress by the Alliance's Chapter in Massachusetts is being made with their legislative efforts to reform the alimony laws.

Below is a copy of an email relating the encouraging news:

Hello My Fellow Alimony Victims,

There is hope! Many of you know that Massachusetts has an active Alimony Reform Group. We were successful in getting new Legislation filed for the 2009 session and unbelievably, our lobbying efforts has resulted in almost 40 co-sponsors. We have been told that obtaining this many co-sponsors if unprecedented and gives the legislation much more weight. A few of the major points of the legislation is NO lifetime, the alimony, alimony recipient MUST make efforts to be self supportive or lose their alimony, co-habitation stops alimony and second spouses income is excluded.

When Massachusetts is successful in getting this legislation passed (hopefully within the year) it will be a national precedent which should put pressure on the FL and all legislative bodies to at least take alimony issues seriously.

Keep the MA effort in your thoughts and I will keep you updated on our progress.

Deb Scanlan
Second Wife's Club
Massachusetts Alimony Reform

###

The High Cost of Litigated Divorces

2009-01-20T14:31:00.002-05:00

In light of the high cost of divorces and alimony litigation, it makes good financial sense to avoid it whenever possible. Recently I came across an excellent article on how a family's assets are depleted in family law proceedings. It was written by Ronald. B. Standler, Aug. 29, 2008 and titled "Litigated Divorce in the USA As a Waste of Assets."

He starts off by saying:
"In states with so-called "equitable distribution" of marital assets, it is well known among attorneys familiar with divorce law that the final division of marital assets is usually close to half to each party. It is unusual for one party at a divorce to receive more than 60% of marital assets.

Given that the total legal fees for a litigated divorce often exceed $160,000 total for both parties, and assuming that a skilled litigator might be able to ge an extra 2% of marital assets awarded to his/her client, a litigated divorce makes economic sense only if the total marital assets are more then four million dollars. Because few families have multi-million dollars in marital assets, it makes good economic sense for nearly all divorces to reach a private settlement, thereby avoiding litigation....." [READ MORE]

###

What the Judge does NOT want you to know

2008-09-22T22:40:00.003-04:00

What is happening in today's Courts ["Family Law" Courts included] is very simple, and several people here have hit the nail on the head. It's all commerce ! It's all about "contract law".

The "United States" is a Federal corporation [see 28 USC 3002(15)(A)]. It is nothing more than a fictitious corporate business entity doing business for profit through the use of contracts. All 50 "States" in the "United States" are founding members of the Federal corporation known as the "United States". This makes all 50 "States" corporate agents for the "United States". The "States" are all fictitious business entities, as well. For example, the "State of California" cannot answer questions, or perform any other physical action to prove its presence. Hence, it is a "fictitious entity" because it does not exist to the sovereign man. It is a fictitious "person", doing business for profit (as is evidenced by the fact that every "State" has a "Treasury") through contracts (Where there is no contract, there is no obligation. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 364 U.S. 64). [Read more...]

Be sure to read down the page to Hooded50's other posts. Quite enlightening.

-30-