Abolish "Lifetime" Alimony

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-

There Is A Huge Difference Between Marriage vs. Holy Matrimony

2008-09-22T21:39:00.000-04:00

This topic is very detail and not based on conjecture, theory, or opinion but rather it is based on truth, law and facts. This topic is specific in nature but is generally related and associated with many other similar areas. There is nothing in the legal or financial arenas that happens by accident or mistaken but rather by a cleverly, pre-ordained, pre-conceived, pre-mediated agenda. There is an intellectual deceptive and enslaving purpose that was designed specifically for the so-called "marriage license" which underlying purpose is for conquest, taxation and jurisdiction. Just remember, open your mind to assume nothing especially on issues that you have previously been taught or heard. There is a huge difference in reading about a topic verses researching about a topic. Let's begin.. [Read more...]

-30-

An Attorney's "First" Duty is to the Courts

2008-09-22T21:35:00.001-04:00

"Corpus Juris Secundum" which means "The Body of Law" or Legal encyclopedia,

Volume 7, Section 4: "Attorney & client:

An Attorney's "first" duty is to the Courts (1) and the public (2) and not to the client (3), and wherever the duties to an attorney's client "conflict" with those interests that he/she owes his allegiance to, as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.".

The biggest problem today is that People do not know their own rights.

-30-

Did You Know? Alimony Videos

2008-09-15T23:10:00.002-04:00

Alimony: A lottery

Alimony: A Wedding Scene

Lifetime Alimony Was Never Intended To Be That Way

2008-08-17T07:42:00.000-04:00

In Florida, as early as in 1955, there was a court case of KAHN v. KAHN, 78 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1955) where the Florida Supreme Court held that alimony was not supposed to last forever.

In Kahn, it states that:

"Since its original enactment in 1828, our statute has authorized the Chancellor to make such allowance for alimony to the wife "as from the circumstances of the parties and nature of the case may be fit, equitable and just; * * *." Section 65.08, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The wife's need and the husband's ability to pay was at an early date established as the criterion by which to determine what alimony, if any, was to be awarded the wife. See Jacobs v. Jacobs, Fla. 1951, 50 So.2d 169, and cases there cited. Thus, there was no need for alimony on the part of the wife if she had a separate estate "adequate to her comfortable support." Chaires v. Chaires, 1864, 10 Fla. 308, 315, citing Bright, on Husband and Wife, p. 359.

Ordinarily, however, in those days the husband was the "only hope of support" of an "unfortunate wife, who may have been abandoned by a dissolute husband and doomed to drag out a weary existence in married widowhood. * * *" Chaires v. Chaires, supra. And, indeed, until recent years, a divorced wife had little prospect of being able to work and earn a livelihood, and it was essential to a well-ordered society that she be appropriately maintained by her estranged husband so that she would not become a charge on the community.

Times have now changed. The broad, practically unlimited opportunities for women in the business world of today are a matter of common knowledge. Thus, in an era where the opportunities for self-support by the wife are so abundant, the fact that the marriage has been brought to an end because of the fault of the husband does not necessarily entitle the wife to be forever supported by a former husband who has little, if any, more economic advantages than she has.

We do not construe the marriage status, once achieved, as conferring on the former wife of a ship-wrecked marriage the right to live a life of veritable ease with no effort and little incentive on her part to apply such talent as she may possess to making her own way."

Justice Farmer, of the Idaho Supreme Court, carried this theme forward back in 1976, in the case of OLSEN v. OLSEN, 98 Idaho 10 (1976), when, in his dissent, he stated:

"Secondly, I believe that the facts of the instant case emphasize the need for re-examination of the entire concept of alimony and the continuing viability of that concept in contemporary society. Put in different words, the question facing the Court is whether a judicially imposed system of involuntary servitude is to be continued wherein one human being is placed in bondage to another for what is effectively the remainder of his natural life." [Emphasis added]

[Both entire case citations can be found by clicking here.]

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

Learn how you can change your alimony payments by clicking here.

###

Where is the "Need" Established in Alimony?

2008-08-11T09:59:00.009-04:00

First, ask yourself, why does the court have to establish a "Need" by your spouse in order to award them alimony?

Consider this: When you went to get your marriage license, did the state demand that you produce a financial affidavit and proof of being able to support your spouse during the course of your marriage before you were issued a license? Why wasn't it important to them then when you wanted to get married?

When you get divorced, the state then looks to your ability to pay and your to your spouse's NEEDS at that time. Again the question arises: "Why would they be interested in determining any need now?" What is the difference between entering or exiting marriage as far as the state is concerned? If you are any reasonable type of individual, you would reply NONE.

However, if you consider the fact that if the state, lawyers and the rest of the legal industry can interject themselves into a facet of your life with any degree of legality, then they stand to make a tidy sum of money from both parties and thereby create a transfer of wealth from your family to theirs. Neat isn't it. Just follow the money trail to find the culprits.

What your ex contributed to the marriage, and thereby allowed the asset base of the family to grow in proportion to the efforts of both of you, is a matter that is addressed in the final dissolution. At that time, the court divides up the marital estate in an equitable distribution or splitting up of community property.

Some spouses request compensation for lost opportunities while married. If you really look at the reality, that spouse is requesting to be compensated for making a bad decision in entering the marriage contract for a business that has gone bad. And that's what a marriage is....a contract. The same as any other contract you would enter in the business world.

When one spouse enters the marriage contract, they do so knowing they will be giving up future opportunities because they feel the benefits they will derive [with their efforts contributed to the marriage] from this union will outweigh the possibility of any lost opportunities. That is a choice they determined of their own free will and not as a result of coercion. They knew it going in.

If the marriage goes bad or if the spouse determines that there are enough financial incentives to terminate the marriage, then there will be a splitting of the marital estate and the spouse will be able to extract their share [and maybe a part of their spouse's share] as a reward for exiting the marriage.

If you will notice in most conversation about someone not getting their alimony and being shortchanged by some "deadbeat dad," they will never mention anything about what they got in the divorce settlement that compensated them for their part in the marriage.

They concentrate on what they feel is an entitlement to a lifetime of alimony welfare payments to compensate them for what they think they somehow lost. In what business that you know of that terminates operation, does one of the partners agree to not only split the business assets but in addition support the other partner for the rest of their life????

In my opinion, there is a large element of greed associated with some spouses wanting of lifetime alimony welfare as if they somehow are entitled to it for the "sacrifice" they made in marrying someone. They not only want the share of what represents their contribution of their efforts to the marriage, they now want a lifetime of support to follow so they can live a life of ease without any responsibility to maintain themselves as useful and productive members of society.

Where else can someone have their cake and eat it too? Divorce is one way they can do that. Hence you have a great financial incentive for them to initiate divorce actions.

So where does this need come from? In the case of Hillier v. Iglesias, 901 So.2d 947 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 2005), the courts have ruled as follows:

In Florida the purpose for permanent, periodic alimony is to provide a
former spouse with the necessities of life. As the court explained in Canakaris
v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201-02 (Fla. 1980)

“Permanent periodic alimony is used to provide the needs and
the necessities of life to a former spouse as they have been
established by the marriage of the parties. The two primary
elements to be considered when determining permanent periodic
alimony are the needs of one spouse for the funds and the ability
of the other spouse to provide the necessary funds. The criteria to
be used in establishing this need include the parties’ earning
ability, age, health, education, the duration of the marriage, the
standard of living enjoyed during its course, and the value of the
parties’ estates."

However, you need to read the FARMER, C.J., concurring specially portion of the ruling starting on page 3 in which NEED is more accurately framed. [Read the whole case cite....]

After receiving their share of the marital estate for their efforts and contributions to the marriage, how are they now in jeopardy of not being able to get the necessities of life or live at bare subsistence levels? They are not entitled to have someone else be obligated to subsidize their extravagances and lack of frugality.

Feminists like to quickly rebut any effort of a man who complains about the burdens of alimony with the saying....."Be a Man."

To me, being a man implies accepting responsibility for oneself, making ones way in the world and being a useful and productive member of society. Then I can only say to those women who demand equality for both sexes and yet who demand alimony welfare...."Be a Man!!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find out how assets can be hidden or how you can find them: A Spouse's Guide To Hiding Assets.

-30-

Question: When is a Debt Not a Debt?

2008-08-10T11:23:00.004-04:00

Answer: When it is an obligation to society!

Look up "debt" in a dictionary and find the definition. You will see it can be considered an obligation. Therefore, an "obligation" can be a "debt."

Somehow in their infinite wisdom, the judges have found a way to redefine the meanings of words as understood by the common person, in such a way so as to justify being able to circumvent the law in order to incarcerate you in the outlawed and abolished "DEBTOR'S PRISON" in defiance of your constitutional rights.

The framers of the Constitution declared that it be written in a language understood by the common person and not embellished and subverted in the obfuscation of legalese.

You can read how the judges perpetrate this deception in the following case cite that shows their perverted logic.

GIBSON v. BENNETT, 561 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1990)

Starting on page 570

"Gibson next argues that enforcement of a judgment for support by contempt violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt found in article I, section 11 of the Florida Constitution.

Initially, we note that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the obligation to pay support may be enforced by imprisonment for contempt without violating a constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U.S. 575, 21 S.Ct. 735, 45 L.Ed. 1009 (1901) (quoting Barclay v. Barclay, 184 Ill. 375, 56 N.E. 636 (1900)); Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 25 S.Ct. 172, 49 L.Ed. 390 (1904).

Although both of these cases involved bankruptcy proceedings, the question before the Court in each instance was whether an order for support constituted a debt that could be discharged in bankruptcy. In determining that a support decree was not such a debt, the Court distinguished an obligation to pay support from a debt arising from a business transaction or a contractual obligation stating:

[A] decree awarding alimony to the wife or children, or both, is not a debt which has been put into the form of a judgment, but is rather a legal means of enforcing the obligation of the husband and father to support and maintain his wife and children. He owes this duty, not because of any contractual obligation, or as a debt due to the wife, but because of the policy of the law which imposes the obligation upon the husband. The law interferes when the husband neglects or refuses to discharge this duty, and enforces it against him by means of legal proceedings. Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. at 74, 25 S.Ct. at 174.

In Florida, imprisonment for debt is specifically prohibited by the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 11, Fla. Const. However, it is well settled that the obligation to pay spousal or child support does not constitute a debt within the meaning of article I, section 11. State ex rel. Krueger v. Stone, 137 Fla. 498, 188 So. 575 (1939). Rather, a support obligation is viewed as a personal duty, not only to a former spouse or child, but to society generally. Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 31 So. 248(1901). Thus, because the courts are enforcing a duty not a debt, enforcement of spousal or child support by contempt, under both federal and state law, is not a violation of Florida's constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

It must be understood, however, that enforcement of support payments by contempt is not absolute. Contempt for failure to pay support is civil contempt because its purpose is to obtain compliance from the person subject to an order of the court. In Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274, 1278 (Fla. 1985), this Court emphasized that civil contempt is appropriate only upon demonstration that the party in default has the present ability to comply with the purge provisions of the court order and avoid imprisonment. Because the original order or judgment directing a party to pay support is based on a finding that the party has the ability to pay, that order or judgment creates the presumption in subsequent proceedings that the party can pay. Id. The burden rests upon the defaulting party to produce evidence to dispel the presumption of ability to pay due to circumstances beyond his or her control and to prove there was no willful disobedience of the court order. Incarceration for civil contempt for nonpayment of a support obligation cannot be imposed absent a separate, affirmative finding by the trial court appearing on the record that the defaulting
Page 571
party has the ability to comply with the purge conditions of the contempt order.[fn3] Id. at 1279. Thus, an individual's ability to pay from some available asset[fn4] is the "key to his cell." Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1977). A nonpaying party who has the financial ability to pay can discharge the sentence imposed by doing what he or she has previously refused to do."
----------------------------------------

Why do they do this? Again, if you will follow the money, you will find the answer. The legal industry makes money from adversarial relationships. They create ways to extort money from the adversarial spouses in a divorce proceeding. Essentially, they have found a way to transfer wealth from the spouse's wallets into their coffers by redefining the plain meaning of words to suit their nefarious purposes.

Find out how to modify your alimony payments by clicking here.

-30-