POLITICS KNOWS NO HONOR

Disgusted at Kevin Paul DuPont today of the Boston Globe, claiming Tim Thomas did his team, the Boston Bruins of the NHL, a disservice by opting out of the Bruins ceremony with President Barack Obama.

First off, Mr. DuPont, this is a free country. Tim Thomas is EMPLOYED by his EMPLOYER, the Boston Bruins. This meeting was classified as a "Team Event," so whatever he does is between he and his employer. That said, this was a POLITICAL MEETING WITH A POLITICAL PERSON RUNNING FOR THE MOST POWERFUL OFFICE IN THE WORLD THIS YEAR. This would be like your employer, say, IBM, or AT&T, having a meeting with pictures of you and your immediate department, division, etc. with President Obama or Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. THE PHOTO IMPLIES YOUR SUPPORT OF THAT CANDIDATE. Dumbass.

Can your employer compel you, as an employee, to support a political candidate (Obama is running for reelection - that makes him a political candidate)?!?!?!?!

OF COURSE NOT! FOR CHRISSAKE, THIS IS AMERICA! YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUPPORT WHOMEVER YOU CHOOSE!

Furthermore, this little meeting, of Obama's, was setup to favor one person - OBAMA. PRESIDENTS DON'T DO FAVORS TO OTHER PEOPLE FOR NO REASON, SIR.

It was nothing but a photo op with the popular, champion team. Any political strategist would LOVE to get their candidate with a winning team. Remember President Clinton putting Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire in his private box at a State of the Union address? SHAMEFUL! How is this any different!?!?!? ITS NOT!

Moreover, the Bruins won the Stanley cup TEN MONTHS AGO. President Obama was president then. WHY DIDN'T HE MEET WITH THE BRUINS AT THAT TIME!?!?!?

BECAUSE THAT WASN'T AN ELECTION YEAR!!!!! Jesus Christ, USE YOUR HEAD, SIR.

Tim Thomas saw right through this political theater and opted out. GOOD FOR YOU TIM.

Mr. DuPont also claims that Tim Thomas does not love his country because he did not meet with President Obama. He insinuates this by saying that Tim Thomas played for U.S.A. in the Olympics and therefore supports his country on one hand, but not on the other - when it is time to meet the President of the country, for example, he fails to show up and this makes him a bad teammate, a bad person, and a bad American.

Let me help you out with that one, Mr. DuPont: THE PRESIDENT AND THE COUNTRY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

Presidents have agendas. NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT AGENDA. Not everyone VOTES for that agenda, OR EVEN FOR THAT PRESIDENT. In America, we have the freedom of speech - THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE.

Tim Thomas isn't failing to support his country, HE'S FAILING TO SUPPORT A POLITICIAN. WELL DONE, TIM. Most politicians out there are two-faced weasels SELLING THE GODDAMN COUNTRY THAT WE LOVE DOWN THE RIVER.

Fat cat banksters get Trillion dollar bailouts from taxpayers and secret banks (Federal Reserve Board - a PRIVATE bank, backed by taxpayers), the Social Security and Medicare funds are bankrupt - full of IOU's from politicians emptying the accounts, welfare programs such as the crooked, backasswards child-support system enrich one household while BANKRUPTING the other while the state PROFITS from the program, special interest groups buy and sell politicians as if they were commodities, companies offshore millions of workers to China where environmental laws are non-existant, and workers are enslaved.

Politicians don't FIGHT these injustices! THEY ENABLE THEM TO HAPPEN AND TURN A BLIND EYE AT THE REQUEST OF ANYONE WHO PAYS THEM TO!

Wake up, Mr. DuPont. The system is falling apart and EVERYONE IN OFFICE HAS A HAND IN IT. Tim Thomas failed to support one of these people?

THEN I IMPLORE YOU TO FOLLOW HIS GOOD EXAMPLE!!!!

OR AT THE VERY LEAST, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!

The Police are NOT Your Friend

Not even in Canada.

With all due apologies to the good, solid, righteous cops out there, the Police have their own agenda, just like every other hard working man out there: to make money.

All wives bitch for the same things from their husbands: more time and more money. How does a cop make more money? He's just a cop! Not every cop makes sergeant or captain or chief. You can't have an entire force of police captains! Not to mention police captains make nearly $100,000/year and in large cities make well over that! FOR PUSHING PAPER AROUND!

Cops on the bottom of the pile, some of whom really work in the slums with the dregs of society see their boss being political, shaking hands with politicians and raking in 100k a year and what do they do? They look out for themselves with a few "political" deals of their own. Every man knows how politics works; you scratch my back, I scratch yours.

Montreal hired 168 new cops, yet the crime rate has been falling (do you think the "authorities" are going to suggest LAYING OFF officers (which is what should happen when crime is not a problem)? NO! They only have one answer to everything: MORE COPS!

One officer was busted trying to sell police information to the mob. Politicians show up to support cops under fire and cops fail to arrest politicians for corruption and fraud that is uncovered by the press. The same politicians that set the police dept.'s budget every year (the budget that hired 168 more cops). And around it goes.

To wit:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Aubin+police+force+that+does+less+with+more/6016814/story.html

Aubin: A police force that does less with more

By Henry Aubin, The Gazette January 19, 2012

MONTREAL - Police chief Marc Parent is seeking to reassure Montrealers. He said Tuesday that a retired police detective had failed in his attempt to sell to the Mafia a top-secret list of undercover officers and other police informants. As it happens, the ex-detective died the next day.

So, end of story? Hardly.

It’s a relief to hear that no informants lost their lives. But the larger matter – the overall performance by police against organized crime – is not reassuring at all.

Montreal police appear to have been helpless to prevent the Mafia from maintaining a decades-long grip on parts of Montreal Island’s economy. And when intra-Mafia politics produce high-profile slayings, it’s striking how seldom local police make arrests. (Do last month’s arrests of five men linked to the killing of Salvatore Montagna suggest improvement? No. The Sûreté du Québec, not the Montreal force, nailed them.)

I’m perfectly willing to believe the department is full of hard-working officers dedicated to uprooting organized crime. But so far the results aren’t there. And the results will be even harder to obtain now that word is out a Montreal officer who had access to informants’ names had tried to peddle those names as a lucrative retirement project.

The department’s guarantee that informants’ identities enjoy Fort Knox-like security has lost credibility. Recruiting informants won’t get any easier.

It would be reassuring if the investigative prowess of Parent’s department had been largely responsible for preventing the sale of the names, but that’s not the case. The retired detective had approached a criminal lawyer in the hope that he would act as a middleman in the sale of the list to Mafia clients; La Presse reports it is this man who, shocked, alerted police. If not for this conscientious lawyer, brave people could have died.

The department’s record against the Mob reflects a bigger picture: The force rates poorly in fighting crime in general.

In its latest annual study on crime, published last month, Statistics Canada compiles cities’ 2010 “weighted clearance rates.” (A crime is cleared when a suspect is charged or cannot be found or has died. StatsCan’s calculations give greater weight to some crimes, like homicide, than others, like shoplifting.) The little-noted study indicates the Montreal department ranked eighth among police forces in Canada’s 10 largest cities.

That year was no fluke. Montreal consistently ranks low.

And this isn’t because Montreal lacks cops. This same study shows Montreal had the dubious distinction of ranking No. 1 in 2010 for the most officers per number of residents.

Nonetheless, Mayor Gérald Tremblay allowed the force to grow by 168 full-time officers in 2011. Never mind that the island’s crime rate is falling. (This reflects a continent-wide trend caused less by police successes than by an aging population.)

In sum, the island’s taxpayers employ a police force that does less with more.

Oh, here’s one last thing about Tuesday’s news conference: Tremblay himself was there, seated next to Parent, to express confidence in the department. His presence might have been a favour to Parent, but it was disquieting. We don’t see politicians holding a joint event with judges, and we shouldn’t see them doing so with police chiefs, either.

It’s part of an informal separation of powers meant to ensure political neutrality of cops – people with the power to probe municipal government. Elected officials hire police chiefs, determine department budgets and sit on a bipartisan panel that sets department orientation (on, for example, Tasers). Then they get out of the way.

This department has a blemished record on neutrality. In a disturbing email to employees, the previous chief, Yvan Delorme, all but endorsed Tremblay’s Union Montréal party weeks before the last city election.

The department also has been remarkably inattentive to the growth of corruption and other grime within city government during the Tremblay years. It took journalists, not cops, to diagnose that cancer.

No, there’s nothing reassuring about this week’s news that the department narrowly escaped a disastrous security breach. It was due largely to luck. And it points to far broader problems in a department that is as oversized as it is underperforming.

Abby Not So Dear

The response to this man's letter (below) should've been "run for your fricking life; thanks to twisted, feminazi-bought laws, if you so much as breathe wrong on this woman, she can have you arrested and thrown in jail for DV no matter HOW MANY TIMES she's beat you up." Instead, dear friend "Abby," the conscience of America, gives some pathetic "move on" advice and says nothing of the ASSAULT AND BATTERY being committed on him, nor that he is not to blame for it or that his girlfriend is batshit insane. Instead, Abby gives him the bare minimum response: "you're being setup, run for it." That's it. Sweet and tender, eh?

DEAR ABBY: I have been dating "Carmen" for a few years, but in the last year she has started becoming violent when we are having an argument. I think this is domestic abuse, but she claims it isn't because I'm a man.

I'm not someone who can take abuse without repercussions. I'm like a mirror. If someone brings violence into my life, I reflect it back on them. So far, I have restrained my instincts — but eventually I know Carmen will cross the line and I'm going to snap. I have the potential to hurt her badly.

I have tried everything to make Carmen understand how I feel, but she continues to insist it doesn't matter because I'm so much bigger and stronger than she is. When she hits me, it doesn't hurt physically, but the anger I feel is indescribable. I'm at the end of my rope and considering breaking up with her before I hurt her.

I don't want to end the relationship, but I think it's the only way to make her see things from my perspective. Or should I call the cops the next time she hits me? — BRUISED AND ABUSED BOYFRIEND

DEAR BRUISED AND ABUSED: You may not want to, but it's time to end the relationship before something happens you both regret. Your relationship with Carmen isn't a healthy one. You will land in jail if you respond the way it appears she wants you to.

Please think ahead — if Carmen resorts to violence when she becomes upset with you, then she very likely will with any children you would have together. She may think her abusive behavior is normal because this was the environment in which she was raised. But we both know it's not — it's a huge red flag. Run!

The comments offered by readers - non-biased, normal citizens - are a bit more appropriate. They basically state "This is a crime, this woman is insane, run for your life and call the police and have her arrested for assault and battery." DUH!

DIS-POS-ABLE MALE

Kids Gone Wild: Society's Sad State of Affairs

Police: Mother asks officers to arrest her squabbling children

By Alan Burke Staff Writer

SALEM — A fight between brother and sister ended in a summons for one of them after their mother asked police to "Arrest them both — I can't take this anymore."

Officers were called to Lafayette Street at approximately 6:30 p.m. Monday, when a mother lamented that her five children were fighting all day. Her story, according to the log, raised concerns on the part of police because she admitted leaving the youngsters in the midst of these difficulties and going "out for a while to run a few errands," according to the police report.

When her decision to leave was questioned, police say she changed her story, stating, "They only started fighting while I was out."

Meanwhile, in her absence, her oldest son, 15, engaged in a physical altercation with his 8-year-old sister, punching her in the arm, according to the report. That brought an intervention from the 16-year-old daughter, trying to protect her sister.

In his statement, the son told police "this is when he 'pushed her' just to keep her from hurting him."

The 16-year-old told police she'd been pushed to the ground.

Asked "what she felt we as a Police Department could do to assist her with the issues she's having as a parent," the mother replied, "I want them both out of here," according to the report. She then asked to have the brother and sister arrested.

The son will be summonsed to court instead for hitting the 8-year-old. Meanwhile, police have notified the state Department of Children and Families of the situation in the home.

None of the children's fathers seemed to be involved, according to police.

What do I even do with this? I wring my hands, to be honest. This could be addressed a thousand different ways. #1, WHERE THE BLEEP ARE THE DAD(s)?

"None of the children's fathers seemed to be involved, according to police."

Gee, can you blame them? Mom sounds totally insane: she blames the children for basically being children, wants them ARRESTED because she feels overwhelmed, leaves them at home alone, with no supervision and does not put any of them in charge (the 16 and 15 year old are old enough and mature enough to govern the house in her absence, please.) Do you really think a 16 and 15 year-old belong in JAIL WITH HARD ADULT CRIMINALS, LADY?

And do you really think, dear reader, that one if not ALL of these kids have SERIOUS emotional problems stemming from a CRAZY mom and not knowing their respective fathers!?!?! The boys in the house have NO STABLE MALE ROLE MODEL AT ALL, and are outnumbered by the women in the house - including the sole parent, who due to gender, WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE A BOY GROWING INTO A MAN!

Who do you blame MORE, the dads for not being there, or the INSANE woman having kids with multiple men and raising them to be as crazy as she is!?!?!?!

Here's a hint, madame - DON'T HAVE CHILDREN WITH MEN YOU'RE NOT MARRIED OR ENGAGED TO AND DON'T LEAVE THE MAN, NO MATTER WHAT. You kind of, you know, NEED A HUSBAND AROUND!!!!

No Virginia, There is Not a Santa Claus

Governments of the world’s leading economies have more than $7.6 trillion of debt maturing this year, with most facing a rise in borrowing costs.

Led by Japan’s $3 trillion and the U.S.’s $2.8 trillion, the amount coming due for the Group of Seven nations and Brazil, Russia, India and China is up from $7.4 trillion at this time last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Ten-year bond yields will be higher by year-end for at least seven of the countries, forecasts show.

That, from Bloomberg.com. What does it really say? It says WE'RE FOOKED. That's what. Why? Because the world's "strongest" economies, that is, those that are not part of the dirt-floored, malaria invested, man-eat-man, drug-dealing 3rd world, are in BIG FRICKING TROUBLE. You see debt can't be IGNORED as we are doing now. It must be not only paid back - that you can take your time doing - but paid DOWN, as you must SERVICE your debt. What does "service" mean? It means PAYING INTEREST on the debt. When you borrow money, whether you're a person or a government, or a bank, you do it AT INTEREST, i.e. by paying back MORE than you borrowed and that interest is due at regular intervals. The U.S., and most of Europe have borrowed so much they will soon have trouble EVEN PAYING THE INTEREST on their debt. Interest compounds on itself - it is an EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION. And over time it looks like this:



Greece already had this problem. Next up is Spain and Italy. Spain is in a depression and Italy is half-way into one. So while their economies are SHRINKING and the government is taking in LESS money, their debt costs (interest payments) are climbing as everyone realizes the countries CAN'T EVEN SERVICE THEIR DEBT. So what you say? What does that matter? Well, thanks to the international banking cartel, when a handful of banks loan Italy and Greece a few hundred billion, when they lose that money (its already lost, trust me), their losses spill over to the people they owe money to - including the Asian and American banks. This spillover effect is being called a "financial crises." The only crisis is too many people doing the same thing - lending to each other and lending to the bankrupt, whether it be bankrupt people for a mortgage or bankrupt countries who want to piss the money away on programs or giveaways to the wealthy. EITHER WAY its someone spending LOTS of money that is BORROWED AT INTEREST. How does this end?

Well, historically, after the banks all fail (ours are insolvent, but not yet out of business), the governments all bail them out and then borrow and print money to "stimulate" the economy. Then the value of the currencies (dollar, yen, etc.) they are printing all fall (when you make more of something it is thereby worth less... until it is worthless) until the cost of goods - oil, gold, silver, etc. soars in value and no one can afford to buy half of what they once did because their money is worth so much less, so sales of everything are cut in half and entire continental economies collapse, followed shortly by world war.

Governments aren't "stimulating" anything. They are trying to cover up the fraud that poured billions into the economy and bailout the fraudsters who are trying to cover up their debts and stay in business (banks and insurance companies mainly). When people question this obvious duplicity and criminal behavior, the politicians demand "YOU will all starve if we DON'T do this!" We won't. Its an empty threat. The stock market will crash badly and the government will no longer be able to afford to pay themselves lavish salaries or be so enormous we need another 3 economies to support it, and the price of things would fall, perhaps even your salary, but life would go on with a SUSTAINABLE economic foundation. Instead, they maintain the farce that is our economy and print money and pray things will "magically get better."

There is no Santa Claus. Not for little kids and not for the U.S. Government. Europe and the U.S. cannot afford to pay its debts back and will both default or print money until the money is worthless. Period. Eventually the government will ban all wire transfers of money overseas and they will ban the ownership of gold in a desperate attempt to keep the ponzi scheme alive. They did this during the Great Depression as well. It failed then, it will fail now.

We, ahem, THEY, are fixing nothing, doing nothing, preventing nothing. They are simply engaged in one coverup after another. They couldn't care less about you, me, or baby Jesus. They are here to blow out the country, the taxpayers and help themselves and their friends in the process. They don't care how much it costs or who pays for it just so long as they get their money and get out. America has been turned into one big scam. The children pay for it, the crooked adults run it and in the end everything falls apart. Its called the id. It brings everything down.

Again we, THE PEOPLE, will clean it all up and start all over, hopefully after hanging some of these criminals on the court house steps.

Strong Women? And What of Strong Men?

Strong Women, Strong Girls program grows at Northeastern

(photo by By Kristina Finn)

By Kristina Finn, Globe Correspondent

Northeastern University student Jennifer Glynn has seen her university chapter of Strong Women Strong Girls mushroom in four years -- from 21 mentors at five program sites, to 60 mentors at 14 sites.

“I think the types of women that are attracted to joining this program are just unreal,” said Glynn, from Wappingers Falls, NY. “I mean so incredibly talented, they inspire me to do more and be more.”

The Strong Women Strong Girls program matches college-age mentors with groups of girls, ages 7 to 10, from city elementary schools. The program, which meets on a weekly basis, helps at-risk youth develop skills to succeed.

But Glynn and other volunteers say the interactions are as beneficial to them as to those they serve. They say the program has attracted more mentors in recent years because of the rewards it offers college students looking to make a real-world difference in the lives of young girls.

Glynn, 22, said she enjoys being able to instill confidence in girls who face obstacles, both internal and external. She recalled reuniting at the annual SWSG fieldtrip with one student she had met in the program when the girl was 7 years old. She remembered the girl being “always on a sugar rush” and not being able to hold a conversation with her.

“When I saw her at the fieldtrip last year, she was a completely different child,” Glynn explained. The once out-of-control girl was now helping her peers to keep their focus and behave well.

“It was just amazing to see how much she had matured and how she had really come into her own as someone that the girls looked up to,” Glynn said.

Glynn said the girls are offered strong female role models through both the mentors and successful women they learn about, in various fields. For instance, to boost confidence in the girls as strong competitors, they are told about Shree Bose, a Texas high school student who recently was named the grand prize winner of the Google Science Fair for work in cancer research. Her hard work and dedication were balanced by a friendly disposition with her competitors, the SWSG mentors explained.

“We were able to explain to the girls how these things were really unique and would help them find themselves,” said Glynn.

SWSG was founded in 2000 by Lindsay Hyde, then a student at Harvard University. The program stemmed from a project Hyde did for school and was first established in the Boston area. The program thrived and was later replicated in Pittsburgh, PA, and South Florida.

When the program started in Boston, there were only two sites and six volunteer staff. Now, there are 55 sites and 155 volunteer mentors in the Boston area.

This year, Hyde is launching an experiment with the Northeastern University chapter to expand the number of mentors and program sites. Usually, colleges that participate produce 20 to 30 mentors. But Hyde hopes to increase that to 50 to 75 at every college involved. The pilot expansion at Northeastern will help Hyde determine whether the increase is beneficial or too massive an undertaking.

“I have to say it’s been really fantastic (so far),” Hyde said.

SWSG consults with school counselors, social workers and teachers to decide which youth would benefit from the program, Hyde said. Each meeting begins with the girls sharing events from their week with the group. They are able to vent, get advice or share their achievements.

Because the program is gender specific, Glynn sees a strong sense of community develop among the girls. They learn about different cultures, neighborhoods, schools and backgrounds, she said.

At a recent meeting at the Yawkey Boys and Girls Club in Roxbury, staffed by three mentors, seven elementary school girls cheered as their peers competed in a rock, paper, scissors tournament. The tournament was intended as a way to teach the girls how to compete. That lesson is part of a research-based curriculum offered to the girls, who participate in the program for 90 minutes a week during the school year, said Hyde.

After the activities concluded, the girls were handed personal journals and asked to reflect on what they had learned. The mentors helped them to develop a story that used the characteristics they had learned about that day. As the meeting ended, the girls gathered to recite the closing cheer:

“I am strong! I am proud! I’m not afraid to shout out loud! Strong Women Strong Girls, Strong Women Strong Girls, Strong Women Strong Girls!”

"Bad Joke" is Being Kind

Dissenting judge rips this thing to shreds, but it doesn't matter, dad is blown away from his son and HIS SON IS TAKEN FROM HIS FATHER. Of course, no one gives a shit about that. Sons count even less than dads.

Iraq War Veteran, Fit Father Has Parental Rights Terminated

December 19th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

A veteran of the Iraq war has had his parental rights terminated despite having in no way wronged his child or the mother. Read about it here (Booneville Democrat, 12/8/11).

The facts of the case are straightforward. Edward Glover served in the U.S. armed services. He was deployed to Iraq. His wife, Michelle, gave birth to a child, E.G., in November of 2008. While Edward was serving abroad, Michelle took up with one Maliki Raheem, who had a history of domestic violence. In April, 2009, it came to the attention of the Arkansas Department of Human Services that E.G. had been severely abused by Raheem. Here is how one Arkansas Court of Appeals judge described the child’s injuries:

The abuse was severe: E.G. had scalding on his chest and abdomen, bruising, blood inside his eyes, head injuries, perforation of his stomach, a liver contusion, three rib fractures, bilateral retinal hemorrhages, bruising around the eyes and scalp consistent with trauma, a possible lung contusion, and burns to the abdomen, shoulder, right thigh, and left scrotum.

Edward Glover obtained emergency leave and returned home, but was sent back to Iraq 10 days later. Glover remained deployed oversees while legal proceedings played out. The ADHS of course took E.G. into foster care and eventually succeeded in terminating Michelle’s parental rights. At all but two hearings, Glover was neither present in person nor represented by counsel.

Irrespective of the fact that Glover had done nothing wrong and was never even accused of any form of wrongdoing toward anyone, the trial court, at the request of ADHS, terminated Glover’s parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. Indeed, if there was a claim by anyone at any time that Glover had ever in his life done anything to indicate unfitness as a parent, neither the trial nor the appellate court mentioned it.

So how is it possible for a father without a single black mark to entirely lose his rights to a child, born during his marriage and therefore presumptively his? Apparently the reason the trial judge terminated Glover’s rights is that he didn’t follow the court’s orders to avail himself of certain ADHS “services.”

Now, remember, that ADHS is an agency of the State of Arkansas, but during most of the court proceedings, Glover was nowhere near Arkansas and therefore could not be ”served” by ADHS. More importantly, the “services” ordered were clearly aimed at a parent who has abused his/her child. Here they are:

-provide complete medical history for juvenile
-parenting classes
-anger management classes
-forensic psychological evaluation – follow recommendations
-random drug screens
-remain drug free
-remain alcohol free
-provide vital info for fetal alcohol syndrome assessment
-drug and alcohol assessment – follow recommendations
-medication assessment and follow recommendations
-maintain stable and suitable housing
-attend staffings at DHS
-cooperate with Department
-maintain contact with Department
-attend visitation with juvenile
-demonstrate improved parenting
-maintain reliable transportation or seek reasonable assistance from DHS
-complete affidavit of Financial Means
-refrain from criminal or illegal activity

So what we have is a state agency and four separate judges who couldn’t quite grasp the fact that, although there was an abused child and although there was a father in court, the father hadn’t abused the child. Glover didn’t need any of the “services” ADHS said he needed.

Likewise, the fact that he was out of the country most of the time and in the hospital part of the time when he returned from abroad (after being honorably discharged from military service), and therefore unable to avail himself of the “services,” never seemed to make an impression on the judges or ADHS.

Late in the game, the court appointed counsel to “represent” Glover. I use quotation marks around the word “represent” because the dissenting justice at the appellate court described that representation this way:

The quality of the appointed counsel’s representation at this late stage of the case supports an inference that the purpose of the appointment was not to assist Mr. Glover in negotiating his way through the juvenile courts to gain custody of E.G., but rather to facilitate his exit by terminating his parental rights.

The dissent’s description is given considerably more weight by the fact that Glover’s lawyer made no effort to assert at trial any of the very obvious legal issues presented by the termination of a fit father’s parental rights. Having failed to assert them at trial, they couldn’t be asserted on appeal. To make her malpractice still more obvious, Glover’s attorney filed his appeal but under a “no-merit” procedure. That’s one in which the lawyer files the appeal because her client demands it, but tells the court it has no merit. This was “zealous representation” by an attorney? It’s more like a bad joke.

In short, the lawyer worked hand-in-glove with ADHS and the judges to cut the father out of his child’s life. My strong belief is that ADHS wanted that all along. That’s why its counsel convinced the judges to order the long list of “services” for Glover to comply with. ADHS hoped that Glover wouldn’t comply due to his deployment overseas and failure to comply would lose him his parental rights. And that’s just what happened. Some people may call that justice. I call it a conspiracy.

Not surprisingly, Glover lost his appeal. The appellate majority said he hadn’t raised any of his issues on appeal, so there was no way he could win. Fair enough. Or was it?

On the contrary, the dissenting judge, Josephine Hart, completely destroyed the majority’s summary dismissal of Glover’s appeal. She points out that, due to a case decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court (the Mahone case) during the pendency of Glover’s case, the state cannot interfere with the parenting rights of a fit parent.

The Mahone court overruled Judkins and held that custody of a child taken from a custodial parent should result in first shifting custody to the nonoffending, noncustodial parent.

Importantly, the Mahone court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in so ruling.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that it is a fundamental right to parent a child without interference by the state. Accordingly, there first must be a showing of unfitness before the state may intervene. The fact that one parent is unfit does not alter the state’s burden to prove that the other parent is also unable to care for the child before it may interfere in the family… Without a finding of unfitness, the state has no constitutional authority to exercise that power. Under current Supreme Court authority, the existence of a single fit parent, regardless of the acts of the other parent, negates the state’s ability to interfere in the family unit.

Those are, once again, Judge Josephine Hart’s. She was writing at the appellate level in Mahone and, when the case got to it, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed.

More importantly still, the trial court in Glover’s case had no jurisdiction. In order to exercise any authority over his rights, it had to first find that he was unfit. It didn’t because he wasn’t. Therefore, the matter could be raised for the first time on appeal.

It can therefore be raised before the Arkansas Supreme Court. From here, it looks like a slam-dunk win.

To date, however, the lesson Edward Glover’s case teaches us is just how determined child welfare agencies are to cut fathers out of the lives of their children and how willing courts are to comply.

Cracked

That's what the "family law" folks are. Cracked. Without a legitimate care for reason, justice, rights, or families. They support mom #1, try to all but kill mom #2 and throw dad from the frying pan into the fire. Then pat themselves on the back for making things "right." Their ideas of who is right and who is wrong ARE PRECONCEIVED FROM THE START. A child could figure that out by now.

Give me a break.

Read a hundred of these - MAKE IT A THOUSAND - or more and tell me I'm exaggerating:

New Hamshire Family courts are a joke:

You notice she’s unequivocal. To her, it’s the most important decision divorcing parents can make. Strong words, but she knows from experience.

Apart from her experience as a child of divorced parents, it turns out Haas has some hard-learned lessons about the parental side of divorce court. It seems her husband is a non-custodial father whose ex-wife has refused to allow him to see or contact his children for two years. Has he received any help whatsoever from the New Hampshire courts in dealing with that flagrant violation of his and his children’s rights? He has not.

Into the bargain, the state child support agency screwed up the billing on his account. So he’s ended up paying far more than he should have, and is still behind. Has he received any help whatsoever from the New Hampshire courts in dealing with that flagrant abuse of his rights? He has not.

I’ll let Samantha Haas tell it. Here’s her letter to the Honorable Ed Kelly, judge of the court that should be doing something about her husband’s outrageous case, but apparently hasn’t.

Honorable Ed Kelly;

My name is Samantha Haas. I am a wife and mother from Hooksett, New Hampshire.

Mr. Kelly, your Courts are destroying my family.

We have suffered severe emotional distress, financial hardship and estrangement from my two stepdaughters.

My husband was denied his right to Due Process as his Constitutional Rights have been violated and the essential base on the concept “fundamental fairness”.

A mathematical error in the Court on November 20th 2006 has followed my family ever since, with my husband always being held in contempt on an inability to pay.

Ignored or denied pleadings, a Guardian ad litem who withheld evidence of abuse on my husband and children by his ex-wife, turning into not seeing his two daughters since September 26th, 2009.

My husband has paid over $120,000 in child support in the last four years [JB: $30,000 a year!?!? For 2 kids? That's $2,500/month!!!! WHO THE FUCK CAN POSSIBLY JUSTIFY THAT NUMBER?!?!], has a $250,000 life insurance policy on his two daughters naming his ex-wife as the beneficiary, pays for the children’s medical and dental insurance, and pays for half of all uninsured medical and dental expenses.

Yet, he has not seen his daughters in two years.

Every attempt to see them has been blocked by his ex-wife, who has perjured your very Courts since 2006.

My husband and I have been damaged financially because of the ongoing litigation. We have been getting food at our local food pantry and are on the verge of bankruptcy.

I am a full time student and my husband works in fund accounting for towns and schools, and is also a Hooksett Town Official as a member of the Budget Committee.

On June 17th 2011, my husband was falsely incarcerated at Manchester Family Division on his inability to comply with paying for the mathematical error from 2006.

Mr. Kelly, I felt like I lost my life that day. It was Father’s day weekend and my son (Nicholas’ stepson) and our daughter were without their dad because he was in jail.

It became my responsibility to find $10,000 cash bail to have him released. It became my responsibility to fight for my husband’s freedom and his right to be a father and not be faulted for an error the court made.

We have filed with the Supreme Court. We continue to file with Manchester Family Division with no response.

Why? Why are we being denied our rights? Our rights as people and our rights as parents?

Our family desperately needs relief, Mr. Kelly.

The longer this is allowed to continue, the older the children are getting and they already have a two year old sister they have never met.

Please show us what to do.

Respectfully;

Samantha & Nicholas Haas

That’s about as good a summary of family law in the United States as I know of. It’s almost all there. The screw-up by the child support system resulting in payments he can’t make. The ever-increasing penalties. The inability to get the judge to care or pay attention. Impending bankruptcy. An ex-wife who perjures herself, a pro-mother guardian ad litem who withheld evidence. Refusal to enforce the visitation order. Depriving the children of their father indefinitely. And what must be counted the crowning achievement of the whole sorry affair, the father’s arrest on Fathers Day due to the court’s mistake.

About the only thing missing is for the dad to learn he’s not the actual father and to be made to keep paying anyway.

I hate to tell Ms. Haas, but she and her husband are far from alone in this. Similar things are happening to fathers all across America; it’s as common as dirt.

Film Star Ryan Gosling

Gee, DO YOU THINK HE NEEDED A FATHER?

From Wikipedia:

His parents divorced when he was a child and he and his older sister, Mandi, were raised by their mother,^[6] an experience Gosling has credited with programming him "to think like a girl."^[7]

He was bullied in elementary school^[8] and had "no pals"^[9] – "not in a sad, ‘poor me’ way. I didn’t want any. I liked being alone. It was only when I was 14, 15 I got friends."^[10] "I hated being a kid. I didn't like being told what to do, I didn't like my body, I didn't like any of it."^[5][11] In Grade 1, having been heavily influenced by the film Rambo: First Blood, he brought steak knives to school and threw them at other children during recess. This incident lead to a suspension.^[12] While attending Cornwall Collegiate and Vocational School, he was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), prescribed Ritalin, and placed in a class for special needs students. He was unable to read which he found "pretty frustrating. I couldn't absorb any of the information, so I caused trouble."^[13] Consequently, his mother quit her job and homeschooled him for a year.^[14] Gosling has said that homeschooling gave him "a sense of autonomy that I've never really lost".^[5]

"I Never Wanted To Do What I'm Doing"

I'm at a loss for words here. In summary, they are all just a big, fat mess. Where is the accountability? Where is the responsibility? No one's perfect. Including me. Feelings are strange things. But people, when you start getting married and having kids, ITS TIME TO GROW THE FUCK UP. DON'T LIE, DON'T CHEAT, DON'T STEAL. DON'T TELL PEOPLE THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE, DON'T GET INVOLVED WITH ANYONE YOU DON'T INTEND TO LOVE AND COMMIT TO FOREVER. UNDERSTAND!?!?!?!?

Want your kids to end up in a mental institution, or in pornography?!?!?!

Its not easy. It can be quite scary. You're really scared? Take marital arts - then you can defend yourself if attacked. Now you'll be just fine. Be a big boy or girl and stand up and tell someone what you want and how you feel OR WIND UP IN BIG, STEAMING PILES OF CRAP LIKE THIS!


I never wanted to get married
Comments (692) Posted by Meredith Goldstein December 9, 2011 08:55 AM

This one's messy. Remember to give constructive advice. :)

Q: Dear Meredith,

I have been married for almost a year, together with my now-husband for almost a decade. We moved in after a year of dating and were happy for a couple of years before he started pressing the issue of marriage. I never wanted to be married and I made this clear when we first met -- no marriage, no kids. He said he was OK with that but apparently he wanted to "have" me, and being happy with me in our relationship wasn't enough.

Fast forward four years and I caved. We signed the papers and I hoped for the best. Over the past nine months I have tried to work on myself and have come to realize how controlling and manipulative he can be. Friends and family say I've changed for the worst over the years and I am starting to think they might be right. From gaining weight and losing interest in the things I used to love, to losing touch with close friends and family. We became each other's only friend/hobby and I know that's not healthy. He is a great guy and I've loved him dearly (otherwise I wouldn't have made him my whole world for so many years). The problem is, the moment I want to do anything myself -- shopping, talking on the phone, anything that doesn't include him -- he throws a fit and I'm tired of it. I know part of this is my fault ... I've allowed this to happen for a long time.

Now on to the next issue (because the marriage isn't bad enough?!). Six months ago I reconnected with an old crush and we began a friendship that has turned physical over the last two months. We have so much in common. Back when we met I wasn't married, though I later found out he was. Though we lost touch, I never forgot about the what-if. When we reconnected it started with talking, which turned into coffee, which turned into talking on the phone, and now here we are. Now, ready for the worst part?

A month ago he found out his wife is pregnant. The wife he claims to be so unhappy with. Which of course has left me wondering if his home life is as unhappy as he has led me to believe. Before he found out the news, he told me he never wanted kids, but every now and then I question whether or not he was just lying to me all along. Then when I'm with him, all of my fears and doubts instantly slip away and it feels right.

He says it feels like she’s having the baby to try to save the marriage and he wants a divorce regardless -- that he can be a father without being with her. He sees a future with me. In the meantime, what about me? What if he watches her growing belly and can't leave? Then, even if he does, I've never wanted kids, and regardless of how amazing we are together and our feelings for each other, I’m just not sure I can stay with him with a kid in the picture.

Where do I go from here? Divorce? Wait and see if HE gets a divorce? Work on my marriage? Break it off with everyone and be alone?

– Lost in Love, Boston

Suspending Due Process

All based on "suspicion"

We'll Investigate Ourselves! What Could Go Wrong?

Since 1999, there have been 339 investigations of police misconduct in Quebec.

But only in three cases did police officers subsequently face charges.

Bill 46 states that when a person perishes during a police operation or detention as the result of a serious injury or a gunshot wound from a police weapon, the police force informs the minister.

The minister then names another police force "to ensure impartiality" to conduct "an independent inquiry."

And another thing - WHY THE BLEEP DON'T YOU SEE U.S. NEWSPAPERS DISCUSSING WHY POLICE DEPARTMENTS INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES?!!?!??!

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+bill+would+civilian+panel+oversee+police+investigating+police/5802119/story.html#ixzz1fP9AbFad

Domestic Vioence: Its Plain

This won't go over well because Kris Humphries is 6'9", 235 lbs and Kim Kardashian is MUCH SMALLER than that. But facts are facts. Hauling off and hitting someone (even though YOU estimate they are "too big to really feel it") doesn't matter. Hitting someone like you mean it is all there is to it. It is domestic violence. Man on woman. Woman on man. It doesn't matter. She could've stomped on the guys toes or missed and punched him in the stomach or groin or hand, for all I know. It doesn't matter. Let's suppose Kris, or even a guy much smaller than him, thew a punch at Kim - what would you all say? THROW HIS ASS IN JAIL! There is no mulligan for women. I don't care how big you are. Taking a swing, is taking a swing, no matter how "tough" you figure your man is. My ex used to bite and scratch. It was funny for 5 seconds - then she REALLY starting biting and scratching me. It hurt like Hell. I pushed her back - had she called the cops, they would've arrested ME for violence despite the marks all over my hands and arms. This is BULLSHIT, plain and simple. Women have learned, it does not matter - they can do whatever they like and no one will even MENTION the fact that they are PHYSICALLY ATTACKING someone they profess to care about and this is NOT ALRIGHT. IT IS IN FACT WRONG AND THEY SHOULD IMAGINE IT BEING DONE TO THEM. Many women don't give it a second thought because they simply don't think its any big deal. No one expresses surprise or outrage at their actions. So why not? they think. Wind up. Slug him in the arm or the stomach. If it goes further? Hey, no one said anything the first time!

Its unacceptable. Period. At present its simply another milestone in the land of our absurd double-standard system.

Its Not Real

You lose. Here's how:


How The Banks, President And Congress Steal From You


Read carefully folks, as you're about to get an economics lesson.....

Nonfarm business sector labor productivity increased at a 2.3 percent annual rate during the third quarter of 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today, with output and hours worked rising 3.2 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively. (All quarterly percent changes in this release are seasonally adjusted annual rates.) From the third quarter of 2010 to the third quarter of 2011, output increased 2.4 percent as hours rose 1.4 percent, resulting in a 0.9 percent increase in productivity. (See tables A and 2.) Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index of real output by an index of hours worked of all persons, including employees, proprietors, and unpaid family workers.

The productivity measures released today are based on more recent and more complete data than were available for the preliminary report issued November 3. (See Revised measures.)

Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 2.5 percent in the third quarter of 2011, reflecting the 2.3 percent increase in output per hour combined with a 0.2 percent decline in hourly compensation. Unit labor costs rose 0.4 percent over the last four quarters. (See tables A and 2.) BLS defines unit labor costs as the ratio of hourly compensation to labor productivity; increases in hourly compensation tend to increase unit labor costs and increases in output per hour tend to reduce them.

This is deflation in the economic sense. That is, you produce much more with your labor and are paid slightly less -- on balance you receive more per unit of labor output.

In this case you produced on a wage-hour adjusted basis, 2.3% more (annualized) than you used to. Note very carefully that this output improvement per-unit-of-labor-cost comes as a consequence of your efforts, and thus it belongs to you.

What this means to you, the common man, is that you should be seeing an approximately 2.3% deflation in prices overall. That is, the CPI, to be neutral on an economic balance basis, should be reflecting a 2.3% decrease in the cost of everything bought, because everything bought has to be made, and thus labor always is the source of economic output.

Well, how's that been working out for you folks?

If you want to know why you have continually seen your standard of living destroyed over the last 30 years, here's your answer in bright white-hot lights. Your productivity increase has been stolen by the banks and governments of the world -- it is taken from you by compounded inflation!

Let's assume a 2% productivity increase per year over 30 years. Let's also assume a 2% inflation rate over 30 years. This is what it looks like, starting with a baseline of "10,000":



Your cost of living has gone up by 78% in notional dollar terms but it should have gone down by 44%!

The spread between those two lines was literally stolen by the banks and government acting intentionally as a group. They defrauded you, stealing your economic output and improvement in productivity, using it to hide the impossibility of continual deficit spending. Summed, the line is flat -- but it should not be; that improvement in standard of living belongs to you, not them.

This morning Obama's lap-dog spewing spokesperson was on CNBC telling us that we must have higher taxes on "rich people." This is just another sop to attempt to extend the ponzi scheme a bit further in an attempt to deflect attention from the above chart -- the truth of how your wealth has been serially and intentionally stolen by taking from you that which is rightly yours -- the natural mild deflation that comes from improvements that you generate through increased labor productivity.

That which you generate through your labor is your property and it has been stolen from you.

You're being screwed by the politicians and banksters through an active and intentional series of confiscations of your labor engendered through manipulation of the nation's currency, enabling trade, tax and government spending policies that cannot work in the long term. Over the last 30 years you should have seen your purchasing power increase by nearly 100%. Instead your purchasing power has been robbed from you through intentional inflationary policies, depriving you of the fruits of that productivity improvement.

Wake up America.

Dissecting Idiocy

Sorry, this one I have to go through line by line because the author is one of those morons who makes so many assumptions so fast, the effect is to hustle you into agreeing with him before you are even shown his logic.

In new alimony bill, wealthy, cheating men could pay less

Is that really your article title? Seriously? What HORDES of wealthy cheating men are you referring to? Tiger Woods is one guy last I checked. And pray tell, how the Hell did you interview every single wealthy man AND HIS WIFE, in Florida to discover that he cheats on her? This title is like something from "The Onion." Also, if cheating men could pay less, what about cheating women? What do they pay? Why is that not even addressed? Are you foolish and naive enough to think women don't cheat? HAHAHAHAHHAHA.

November 19, 2011|Scott Maxwell, TAKING NAMES

If a Brevard County legislator gets his way, Florida will completely overhaul its alimony laws.

Why do you have alimony laws at all? Its the year 2011. Every available statistic shows more women in college, grad school, med school and law school than men; women's earnings have skyrocketed over the past two decades - a fact. What is alimony for? For men to support women? What data do you have that shows women have some legitimate, massive need for support at all? Besides, don't people move on with their lives after divorce... remarry, move, get a new job, etc.? What is one person doing financially shackled to the other for life?

And some of the biggest winners could be wealthy men who cheat on their wives.

Huh? That is your angle? That we need to really worry about wealthy men who cheat, a.k.a. Tiger Woods? First off, how many of these so called, society-ruining, rich (which it seems is a crime here as well), and CHEATING men, are there running around amongst us? Because ALL I READ AND HEAR day-in and day-out are stories from women that they can't find any guys who fit your description! Wealthy men are FEW and FAR BETWEEN! And of that tiny percentage we have to worry about the portion of those who cheat on their wives! And how many can that be? 10, 20, 30%? More? I have no stats on how many rich guys cheat on their wives. I do know that the ones with kids have probably heard of the HORROR stories of getting RAPED in family court if they were to ever get divorced - forced to give up 50% of their income or more. So I'm sure they are all just DYING to cheat over and over again and then get divorced and be poor. That's why they worked so hard for their money to begin with.

The bill would forbid judges from considering adultery when determining alimony. More significantly, it would limit both the amount and length of time it is paid.

Again - WHY do you we have alimony AT ALL. Women are broadly educated these days. They can work. If they want to sit at home that is THEIR choice. If they get divorced and need to transition back into working, then their ex-spouse, IF WEALTHY, can pay something to help transition them back into full-time employment. But why on earth would he pay her LOADS of alimony FOR LIFE? Further, is adultery any reason to pay someone thousands upon thousands every month FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE?!?!? The punishment doesn't fit the crime. That's usurious. Further, if there is an EPIDEMIC of rich men dumping their wives, find me some figures buddy (not published or sponsored by N.O.W.), because you sound so alarmed about something and I have no idea what it is.

The bill aims to so radically reshape Florida's alimony laws that I asked three recognized divorce attorneys to study it.

You did what? Asked 3 lions to describe the steak? This isn't about how good the law is for attorneys. Attorneys will tell you how good the law is FOR THEM. Do you think they're fucking stupid? Do you think they'll tell you the change is GOOD? If its not GOOD FOR THEM, they'll tell you ITS BAD FOR YOU. But unless you were born yesterday, you know that lawyers don't get rich MAKING THINGS EASIER AND BETTER FOR YOU. Lawyers get rich off CONFLICT and MAKE-OR-BREAK-YOU laws that cause you to go for broke and fight legal battles that take years and then appeal and go broke in the process. WAKE UP MR. MAXWELL.

All three represent both men and women. And all three described the bill as seriously flawed and poorly thought out — an increasing and troubling trend in this state.

"Flawed and poorly thought out." Whoa. Sounds serious. Who's going to be killed when this big, mean law passes?!?!? It doesn't even abolish alimony (again - no one can show why we even need alimony to start). It simply limits alimony because our alimony laws dictate men go broke supporting their ex-wife based on the 1800s idea that women don't work, can't work, have no education, and will starve without money. Anyone alive today WHO CAN READ, ought to know we're damn far from that these days.

"My initial take is that it's basically anti-woman and anti-alimony," said Richard West, a past president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "More importantly, the bill was not very well thought out."

The bill was filed by Ritch Workman, a Melbourne Republican, on Nov. 2 — precisely eight days after Workman finalized his own divorce.

Several other local legislators are also divorced or currently going through one.

So legislators have some frigging experience with divorce. DO YOU, MR. MAXWELL? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you did not put your whole life into working hard, making money for your family, and wake up one day to find a judge telling you that half your assets and 20% of your income would be going to your ex-wife, who is the one who asked for the divorce in the first place and that this would render you unable to retire, veritably a working slave UNTIL YOU DIE. And legislators decided, oh, I don't know, that this was ABSOLUTELY FREAKING ABSURD IN THE YEAR 2011?!?!?!?!

Imagine that.

House Bill 549 would allow previous divorce agreements to be reopened and renegotiated — meaning its impact could be massive. West described it as "a lawyers' relief act."

Workman said Friday that he wouldn't personally be affected because he isn't paying any alimony. And he said he hadn't filed the bill on behalf of any of his legislative peers.

The guy filing the bill isn't even getting raped with alimony but he sees how absurd it is.

Instead, he said he wanted to address inequities in the current system.

"All I'm trying to do is make alimony a bit more fair," Workman said. "The thought of short-term marriage ending in a long-term alimony is a mistake."

A good friend of mine has a cousin - a man - who married young and came home one day to hear his young wife say "I don't feel like being married anymore." He now pays her health insurance and alimony for life. FOR A 25 YEAR OLD COLLEGE EDUCATED WOMAN!?!??! DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT TO YOU!?!?!?

The three divorce attorneys I talked with agreed with Workman that some reform is needed. But the general consensus was that his bill was sloppy, went too far and was potentially unconstitutional.

That's bad. The three people who are supposed to shoot down the bill agree that the current law is so terrible it still needs to be changed. Wow, that's strong. But, but, but.... they go on to say the current law is potentially unconstitutional!?!?!? HAHAHAHAHA. Really? WHICH PART? Oh, and pray tell, WHAT PART OF THE CURRENT LAW OF GIVING A PRIVATE CITIZEN'S ASSETS TO ANOTHER CITIZEN PLUS FUTURE EARNINGS IS CONSTITUTIONAL!?!?! We have NO FAULT divorce in this country. So your future earnings can be given to another person based on no wrong doing on your part - HOW THE FUCK IS THAT CONSTITUTIONAL!?!??! DO YOU UNDERSTAND HALF THE POINT OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY!?!??!

"Draconian" was the word used by Terry Young, who once represented Tiger Woods' ex-wife, Elin.

Are you really serious?!?!? They interviewed TIGER WOODS' LAWYER!?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA. The guy that made millions off of helping Tiger's ex shake him down for everything he's got, has an opinion on this law - a law which would have cut into his take on Tiger's divorce. Gee, I wonder what he's going to say.

Among Young's biggest concerns was that it tries to set very specific caps — such as one that says no award can be more than "20 percent of the payor's monthly net income … averaged over the last three years."

"This is designed to handcuff judges," Young said.

Time out. You mean a judge can award alimony - based on even a 1 year marriage - that exceeds 20 percent of your MONTHLY INCOME!?!?!? FOR LIFE. That is literally a life-time tax to your ex. For a relationship that lasted as little as a year or two? Are you fucking kidding? And Mr. Maxwell's position is that this income cap is... bad!?!?!? HOW? You want it to be UNLIMITED? So the judge can order you pay 30, 40, or 50% or your income for life and basically go from upper or middle class to LIVING IN SQUALOR!?!?!?

Wow. You really hate men, Mr. Maxwell and are dying to see them punished. Did your dad leave your mom and cause you to blame him for her poverty or something? I mean, how the Hell can you justify an unlimited amount of alimony for life?

Orlando attorney Amy Goodblatt also expressed concerns about Workman's proposal to automatically terminate alimony payments when the payer reaches retirement age.

Oh my God, the horror. You mean after paying alimony to the tune of thousands a year for 10, 20, 30 years or more, you finally see it end ONLY AT RETIREMENT AGE!?!?!? And this is THE PROPOSED LAW!?!?!? The existing law demands it continue UNTIL YOU'RE DEAD!?!?!? Thank God we're going to try to stop this new, women-hating legislation!

"It's clear this legislation has an agenda," she said. "This statute is very, very much aimed at protecting men."

Did you know due to insane laws like our current child support and alimony system, divorced men kill themselves at a rate TEN TIMES that of divorced women? BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T PASS LAWS DESIGNED TO RAPE MEN SLIGHTLY LESS THAN YOU DO NOW!?!?! OH MY GOD, THE HORROR!

The statutes are, of course, gender-neutral. But the reality is that men account for more than 90 percent of alimony payers, according to census stats. That's largely because men generally make more money. And more wives than husbands stay at home.

Men are barely ahead of women when it comes to making money and yes, that's because most women stay home, BUT NOT BECAUSE WOMEN ARE NOT EDUCATED, SKILLED OR ABLE TO WORK - STATS SHOW THEY ARE.

Young noted this bill would particularly penalize women who never worked during their marriage, sometimes because husbands didn't want them to.

Extra dose of stupid here - WHAT DATA DO YOU HAVE THAT SHOWS ALL HUSBANDS ARE TELLING THEIR WIVES NOT TO WORK?!?!?! EVERY MIDDLE CLASS AND MANY UPPER MIDDLE CLASS GUYS I KNOW HAVE WIVES THAT WORK. STATS SHOW MOST WOMEN WORK THESE DAYS. WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WOMEN BEING "FORCED" TO STAY AT HOME!??!?! FURTHER, EVERY WOMAN I KNOW IS DREAMING OF THE DAY HER HUSBAND MAKES ENOUGH FOR HER TO STAY AT HOME WITH THE KIDS AND NOT PAY $1K A MONTH IN DAY CARE COSTS.

But please keep talking. Because it seems you know 1) That "some" women stay home (how many?) 2) Why they stay home (because the big, mean man tells them to) and 3) That there is some large amount of women somewhere who have NEVER worked (where the bleep do you live?)

All three attorneys agreed that striking the adultery statute wouldn't have widespread effect, as courts didn't often rely on it as a primary factor.

Didn't you just get Tiger Woods' ex-wife's lawyer to call this new law horrific? Now you're saying the adultery part of the law doesn't even matter as courts DON'T EVEN CONSIDER IT - which means, that if a wife commits adultery THAT ALSO DOES NOT AFFECT THE COURT'S DECISION, SO A DIVORCED MAN WHO WAS CHEATED ON WILL PAY HIS CHEATING EX-WIFE UNTIL HE DIES?!?!?!?

Why don't you point that out?

But they also thought the cap was a bad idea — arbitrary and possibly unconstitutional.

Reached Friday, Workman said he agreed in part — and that he had already decided to remove portions of his bill.

He had not done so when we spoke but said he would soon.

"A cap is a bad idea," he conceded. "If I had thought through it, I would have realized that."

And that's one of the most troubling parts about all this.

He should have thought it through.

Did you all take your stupid pill!?!? There is no LEGITIMATE reason for any alimony AT ALL except in severe cases where a woman hasn't worked for decades AND has no education or poor education and her husband makes a very large income, in which case he can help transition her into working. But this idea that every divorced woman be a KEPT woman is INSANE. It assumes every man is rich and every woman is a kept, uneducated, unskilled idiot, which is the biggest insult you can give to women. Alimony needs to be ALL BUT PHASED OUT for most of the population. Period. ITS THE YEAR 2011. WAKE UP. There are so many more women in college than men, colleges are WEIGHTING boy's applications in an attempt to close the gap and claw back to a 50-50 gender split on campus AND EVEN THOSE ATTEMPTS ARE FAILING.

WAKE-THE-FUCK-UP.

Too often nowadays, legislators are filing bills that clearly don't pass constitutional muster — only to say, "Oops, it was only a draft," when called out on it.

(Don't forget freshman Jason Brodeur's first-draft attempt to imprison doctors — and fine them up to $5 million — for asking patients, including potentially homicidal ones, about guns.)

These aren't first drafts of book reports, for Pete's sake. They're state laws.

I guess we can at least give Workman credit for agreeing to make needed changes, assuming he does. Some bull-headed lawmakers won't even do that.

Still, if Workman didn't think it completely through, that may be because the legislation wasn't completely his own. He said it was modeled after similar legislation that recently passed in Massachusetts, part of a growing alimony-reform movement.

There, alimony reformers highlighted "horror stories" of people who got a divorce and were forced to pay much more alimony than seemed reasonable.

NO ALIMONY IS REASONABLE FOR WOMEN WHO CAN WORK AND HAVE EDUCATION AND THAT IS 98% OF WOMEN THESE DAYS. ALIMONY WAS BUILT FOR SOCIETY AS IT EXISTED 100 YEARS AGO. COME OUT OF YOUR DEEP SLEEP YOU BLITHERING IDIOT.

Would you espouse lifetime alimony to the tune of thousands a year for an educated, skilled man? OF COURSE NOT. And guess what - your CONSTITUTION demands men and women ARE EQUAL, YOU BONEHEAD. WHAT APPLIES TO ONE, EQUALLY APPLES TO THE OTHER!

"I'm kind of a reformer," said Workman, who also filed bills to lift the ban on unmarried cohabitation and "dwarf-tossing" competitions. "And in a lot of cases, the alimony is just too punitive."

The attorneys agreed that some horror stories are out there and that some reforms are needed. But they also stressed that the horror stories aren't the norm — and that Workman's bill could impact all kinds of routine settlements, even in ways he didn't intend, and mostly at the expense of women.

OH MY GOD. His bill would impact "routine settlements." DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THAT MEANS, DEAR READER? That the ordinary rape of divorced men would be affected! OH MY GOD! NOT THAT! We couldn't have 25 year old college-educated women not receive money from their ex-husband FOR LIFE! All for being married a grand total of 30 months!

As a result, not a one of them believed the bill should pass — even though they could personally profit if it did.

Explaining his "lawyers'-relief act" line, West said: "Listen, if this thing passes, you get to go back and retry everything. The first thing I could do is go through my closed files for the last 12 years and say: 'Hey, I have a good chance of getting you out of this now.' "

You would have to CORRECT PRIOR INJUSTICES?!?! OH NO! NOT THAT! YOU MEAN THE MONEY WOULD STOP ARBITRARILY FLOWING FROM ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER FOR LIFE!?!?!? Are you fricking kidding me?

Consider this scenario that plays out every day: a man and woman meet in college. Both graduate. They get married. 3-5 years later, they get divorced. Turns out they married too young, didn't know what they wanted, changed careers, decided to have/not have kids, whatever. In a free, equal country, they split everything they made WHILE THEY WERE TOGETHER ONLY, and move on with their lives. He remarries, she remarries, older, wiser, and they live their life.

NOPE. DOESN'T HAPPEN HERE! You see, because a man has a penis - AND FOR NO OTHER REASON THAT CAN BE FACTUALLY PROVEN - he pays her a portion of his income UNTIL HE'S DEAD!

WHY?

Custody Battle Update

Turns out my ex is having a pretty good month. Or that's my guess. She has no appetite for my court drama and vitriol it seems. Not too surprised actually as it is Hell on earth and the judge somehow fucks you both over anyway.

My son tells me she's actively considering some kind of shared parenting arrangement. Joint physical custody. You see, now that she's fleeced me for roughly $100,000 ($1k/month x 12 months x 8 years), and settled down with (but not married) a new guy who has since started making good money I hear ($70kish I'm guessing), she doesn't need so much of my cash and has plenty of her own and would now like time to spend it and live the good life - I'm just praying to pay off some of my huge debts. Nice comparison, eh? Considering it was my ex who CHEATED ON ME.

Plus, my son is 10 and no longer the little sweet baby who adores his mother. A friend with grown kids tells me that when boys hit 13, mom is pretty much old news - sports and video games are bigger and they start to notice girls at that age. So my ex is preparing to jettison my son a bit now that she's no longer the center of his universe.

Let's all act surprised.

The big question is money. If she's not prepared to live on less "child support" (for a child I'll be raising half the time?), then it could get ugly. Clearly she wants more time to herself (hey, she works nearly THREE DAYS A WEEK!) and with her live-in boyfriend, so she's ready to "allow me" to have time with my own son. Mea Culpa. I've informed my son that he can spend every other week with me and that the court would readily permit this. His response: "Really!?!? You can do that?!?!" Yeah, dear reader, you can bet his mom has been REALLY HONEST with him regarding all of his living options. She told him that because I had to work every day I would not be able to take him for long period of time - why? I don't know. As if work would prevent me from picking him up from after school care at 5:30 when it doesn't now.

In truth, if and when joint custody is agreed to, you can bet my ex will somehow demand and receive extra money than is standard in such cases, even if its less than she gets now; and you can bet paying for my son half the time will double my grocery bill as well as gas necessary to pick him up and drop him every day at school. So I'll be lucky to come out even - that is, paying as much as I do now in child support, which is absurd. But hey, my college-graduate-with-a-3.8-GPA-ex can't expect to make any money, can she? I mean COME ON! She's only a woman! Right?

And let's not forget the Massachusetts Dept. of Revenue is a "party" in my case, so they may somehow object to a private agreement between two citizens and make their own demands - thankfully I think the judge would tell them to go fuck themselves, but who knows. Its the state and they want to sodomize anything with money, they're so broke from overspending for the past 10 years.

In short, I may not be totally crushed as THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED FOR 8 YEARS, so I haven't much left to lose and my ex has clearly figured out that pulling shit like denying my son a trip to Disney world with his father and grandparents might be looked upon, oh, less than positively by any human being, including the judge, who biologically speaking, must have a heart that beats. So my ex is looking at escape routes now, before the judge decides she's an absolute fucking menace and punishes her for it. She also doesn't want anyone asking questions about the radical diets she puts my son on. The latest is a "blood-type diet," a whacked out diet that contends your diet should vary greatly according to your blood-type. There is no verifiable evidence OF ANY KIND to suggest this theory has merit. The author calls himself a Doctor but is a homeopathic expert only, not a licensed physician as you and I go to. The research he has promised in the book hasn't materialized for 5 years. Book here. Read the criticisms and decide for yourself. He actually contends some foods will harm you - literally attack your body, based on your blood type. Yeah, I'm sure that's the case and the entire modern western medical community hasn't noticed this for the past 200 years. Its par for the course for my ex, who is radical and extremist in all her actions and views. She herself eats a vegan diet - fine and healthy for some, perhaps not quite so good for a 10 year old growing boy.

And the beat goes on.

"F-U, YOU'RE DEAD" JUDGEMENT: YOUR MONEY IS NOW GONE

This former Marine earns 125k a year working his ass of as a software consultant (not a common or easy job, and one I'm sure he's worked for years to qualify for) and the court ALLOWS HIM TO KEEP 26K or 1/5th OF HIS OWN MONEY.

He's "allowed" to keep 20% of what he makes after the IRS, ex-wife, and ex-wife's lawyer strip out what they claim to be "theirs." Keep it simple people. The IRS, ex-wife and ex-wife's lawyer DO NOT PERFORM HIS JOB. THEY DON'T EARN HIS MONEY - ITS NOT THEIRS. THEY DID NOT EARN IT. A 2ND GRADER WOULD KNOW THIS. WHY ARE THEY BEING ALLOWED TO TAKE (STEAL) WHAT IS NOT RIGHTFULLY THEIRS?

You will tell me that his money belongs to his poor, fragile ex-wife and her needs with the children - ah, but who decided to dissolve the marriage? And for what reason? Was it Mr. Case? Did he leave her? Did he savagely beat her? Did he give her GENUINE cause to leave him?

We don't know!

And in THE LAW TODAY, it doesn't even matter! Let me repeat that - a man can be stripped of 80% of his money and the reason why (the cause of the divorce) IS NOT RELEVANT IN OUR SYSTEM OF LAW. He could come home every night with flowers or he could do crack off a hooker's ass every night and the result would be the same - 80% poorer. And NO, the fact that she divorced him does not make him a bad husband or a monster or anything else - THERE IS NO DISCOVERY OF FAULT. The fact is YOU CAN NOT KNOW who or what dissolved this marriage and also CAN NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AS TO THE REASON WHY THEY BROKE UP.

This man's wife can access his money all she wants - AS HIS WIFE. Being a wife is not easy but there is a big reward - A HUSBAND AND HIS MONEY! If you and your husband are no longer together, WHY WOULD YOU KEEP HIS MONEY?!?!?! A small, pathetic case can be made that she needs some portion of his money (until she gets another husband, that is), but to take half of it? $3,500/month? That leaves this man with ALL of the expenses of a family, BUT NO FAMILY! This is financial rape. He's stripped of what he's earned due to the decision OF ANOTHER PERSON. No cause, no justification, nothing. And this is done in a country that calls itself free?

If that doesn't stun you out of your coma, nothing will.

The Chris Gregory Case–an Outrageous but Common Injustice

Former Marine Chris Gregory, recipient of the Combat Action Ribbon, told the Committee, 'We need shared parenting.'

F & F’s Chris Gregory, the father of three girls who adore their dad, had a standard child custody order forced upon him—an order which granted his ex-wife “exclusive care, custody, and control of the parties’ minor children,” and allows Gregory’s girls only a few days a month with their father.

For the past three years, Gregory has fought in court to get more time with his girls, ages 11, 9, and 6. He has racked up large legal bills, as he was forced to pay for his ex-wife’s attorney—an attorney whose focus has been to minimize Gregory’s role in his children’s lives. He explains:

The court has denied all of my motions to modify custody or seek an equitable outcome.

Financial Plunder

Gregory, who was asked by Representative McCullough to share his experiences with the divorce system, is a good example of the way fathers are plundered financially.

The financial orders in Gregory’s case are more or less garden variety in a divorce, yet while Gregory earns $7,500 a month after taxes, by court orders he is to be left with merely $2,200 a month to live on. That’s correct–family court leaves Gregory less with less than 30% of his post-tax income. The breakdown is as follows:

Gregory’s monthly earnings after taxes: $7,518
Gregory’s child support: $2,568
Gregory’s alimony: $1,000
Gregory’s garnishment to pay his ex-wife’s attorneys’ fees: $1,726
Total left to Gregory post-family court and taxes: $2,224*

According to the family court, Gregory, a successful Senior Consultant at a major software company who earns a $125K a year salary, should be left with a mere $26,688 a year to support himself and his three girls.

After divorce-related garnishments and further obligations, Chris Gregory is left with less than 30% of his post-tax income. For details, click on the image above.

The child support and the attorneys’ fees are garnisheed directly from Gregory’s check. The $1,000 a month alimony is not, Gregory has not been paying it lately, and faces a contempt charge for it. As in many divorce cases, the attorneys’ fees Gregory owes grew out of his fight to be allowed to play a meaningful role in his children’s lives.

Gregory also got stuck with paying 90% of the $69,000 in marital debt. Gregory asked:

If this is a no fault divorce, why have I had to I assume all the fault?

As is the case with many divorced and separated fathers, Gregory’s daughters’ schools have been generally uncooperative, refusing to send him his daughters’ report cards and notices of parent-teacher conferences and other upcoming events, despite his repeated requests that they do so.

*In the original post we inadvertently omitted a few hundred dollars a month of expenses not related to family court. The figure has now been corrected.