CS Propaganda article of the month

[Dave]

Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days or
listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.

Getting tough on child support
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/06/23/news/top_news/f74570ad941ba92286256d4d0079e878.txt
Munster Times

[Phil #3]

Well, the article did get one thing right... that ACES is full of poopy.
Phil #3

"Dave" <ncp-without-rights@freedoms-door> wrote in message
...
> Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days or
> listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.
>
> Getting tough on child support
>
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/06/23/news/top_news/f74570ad941b
a92286256d4d0079e878.txt
> Munster Times
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

frazil wrote:

>Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
>prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side, it's
>up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."
>
>Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is impossible
>to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any logic,
>science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
>philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs Indyguy




>
>The Illinois bar must have a very low standard!
>
>
>Dave <ncp-without-rights@freedoms-door> wrote in message
...
>> Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days or
>> listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.
>>
>> Getting tough on child support
>>
>http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/06/23/news/top_news/f74570ad941b
>a92286256d4d0079e878.txt
>> Munster Times
>>
>>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> frazil wrote:
>
> >Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
> >prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side,
it's
> >up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."
> >
> >Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is
impossible
> >to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any
logic,
> >science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
> >philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!
>
> Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed?
Couldn't one
> produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent payment
> proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
> owe/earn/have/spend?
>
> Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic
income
> imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a person
has
> the inability to pay?
>
> My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay
SS."
> When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't have?"
The
> judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how he
> shows he can't pay SS.
>
> Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because it
then
> would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused
to
> provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he
actually
> earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his
divorce
> was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect
him to
> be able to show a negative.
> His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the
necessary
> financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a
summer
> home, a motorcycle and two cars). At the final financial hearing the judge
> reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court,
and for
> his arrogance. He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month
and
> that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases
her
> earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).
>
> His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity
in
> the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his
exes
> lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
> payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the
second
> half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.
>
> So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to
show
> what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.
>
> Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had to
> share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she
should
> be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his HS
> sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.
>
> He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys to
help
> her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he
should
> spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would
consider
> boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
> children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again
we've
> always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.

After reading your story I have to point out the obvious.

The judge was a better advocate for the ex-wife than her own attorney. The
judge did the legal representation and advocacy for the woman. This story
points out the way the system tilts in favor of women with everyone working
in concert to go after the men. This judge was not a fact finder or neutral
decision maker. He overstepped and abused his judicial authority to
personally go after one of the parties.

[TeacherMama]

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

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > frazil wrote:
> >
> > >Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
> > >prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side,
> it's
> > >up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."
> > >
> > >Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is
> impossible
> > >to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any
> logic,
> > >science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
> > >philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!
> >
> > Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed?
> Couldn't one
> > produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent
payment
> > proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
> > owe/earn/have/spend?
> >
> > Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic
> income
> > imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a
person
> has
> > the inability to pay?
> >
> > My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay
> SS."
> > When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't
have?"
> The
> > judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how
he
> > shows he can't pay SS.
> >
> > Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because
it
> then
> > would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused
> to
> > provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he
> actually
> > earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his
> divorce
> > was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect
> him to
> > be able to show a negative.

> >****** His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the
> necessary
> > financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a
> summer
> > home, a motorcycle and two cars).******

__________________________________________________ ___________________
It looks like her attorney demanded all the relevant records, Bob.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

At the final financial hearing the judge
> > reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court,
> and for
> > his arrogance.

__________________________________________________ _______________________
The judge got on him after viewing the records that her attorney demanded
__________________________________________________ _____________________


He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month
> and
> > that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases
> her
> > earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).
> >
> > His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the
equity
> in
> > the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of
his
> exes
> > lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
> > payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the
> second
> > half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.

__________________________________________________ __________________
Or is this the part you are referring to, where the judge gives a
consequence for the guy's actions?
__________________________________________________ _________________________

> >
> > So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to
> show
> > what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.
> >
> > Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had
to
> > share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she
> should
> > be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his
HS
> > sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.
> >
> > He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys
to
> help
> > her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he
> should
> > spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would
> consider
> > boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
> > children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again
> we've
> > always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.
>
> After reading your story I have to point out the obvious.
>
> The judge was a better advocate for the ex-wife than her own attorney.
The
> judge did the legal representation and advocacy for the woman. This story
> points out the way the system tilts in favor of women with everyone
working
> in concert to go after the men. This judge was not a fact finder or
neutral
> decision maker. He overstepped and abused his judicial authority to
> personally go after one of the parties.

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

[The Dave©]

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
> The judge was a better advocate for the ex-wife than
> her own attorney. The judge did the legal representation
> and advocacy for the woman. This story points out the
> way the system tilts in favor of women with everyone working
> in concert to go after the men. This judge was not a fact
> finder or neutral decision maker. He overstepped and
> abused his judicial authority to personally go after one of
> the parties.

In this particular case, I read something entirely different. It was her
attorney that did all the work (subpoena, etc), and he lied, apparently.
The judge merely reacted to both actions. If the man had not lied, would
the judge have made the same decision, only to give the appearance of
fairness? Very possible. While I agree with you in principle, I can't
defend lying or hiding the truth. I'm working on the assumption that what
was told was accurate.

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:

>In this particular case, I read something entirely different. It was her
>attorney that did all the work (subpoena, etc),

Yep.

and he lied, apparently.

He did and talked openly about it outside of the courtroom.

>The judge merely reacted to both actions.

Pretty much. BTW the judge even warned him that there would be consequences if
he didn't come clean.

If the man had not lied, would
>the judge have made the same decision, only to give the appearance of
>fairness? Very possible.

Not according to what the judge told him and his exs lawyer (he was pro se)
prior to his refusal to produce proof he was incapable of paying SS. The judge
gave his initial view that SS should be awarded, the proceeds from the marital
home would be split 60/40 (in favor of the wife) and they woudl each be liable
for their own attorney fees. His arrogance lost him half of his portion of
equity and about 4K in lawyer fees he had to pay on behalf of his ex.

While I agree with you in principle, I can't
>defend lying or hiding the truth. I'm working on the assumption that what
>was told was accurate.

I was in the cat bird postion on this one. While the man is related to us by
blood, his ex is a long time friend of ours. We got to hear both sides.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony
as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the
case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
behavior in court. That's clearly a finding of fault.) I don't understand
how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a
marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent
and independent simultaneously.

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

[frazil]

Indyguy1 > wrote in message
...
> frazil wrote:
>
> >Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
> >prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side,
it's
> >up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."
> >
> >Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is
impossible
> >to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any
logic,
> >science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
> >philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!
>
> Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed?
Couldn't one
> produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent payment
> proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
> owe/earn/have/spend?

Sure they can. But in what you describe above, what they are really proving
by providing paystubs, bank statements, credit card reciepts, etc, is the
positive proposition of what the records say they earn and spend. First, it
says nothing about their ability to pay CS. Second, if the negative
proposition is to be proven, they must show that they don't earn anything
under the table working for company X. And if not company X, then Company
Y, if not Y, then Z, and is not Z then Q, and so on, and so on. The person
must prove that they don't make any money under the table for the infinite
number of ways one can earn money under the table. Third, the would also
have to show that every penny they spend was absolutely necessary, and if
one penny was spent without absolute necessity they fail in proving they can
pay. IOW, proving a negative proposition requires one to show that every
possibility isn't true, and since there are an infinite number of
possibilities, you can do it. Because there will always be another
possibility the must be shown not to be true.

>
> Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic
income
> imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a person
has
> the inability to pay?
>
> My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay
SS."
> When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't have?"
The
> judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how he
> shows he can't pay SS.
>
> Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because it
then
> would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused
to
> provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he
actually
> earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his
divorce
> was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect
him to
> be able to show a negative.
> His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the
necessary
> financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a
summer
> home, a motorcycle and two cars). At the final financial hearing the judge
> reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court,
and for
> his arrogance. He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month
and
> that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases
her
> earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).
>
> His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity
in
> the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his
exes
> lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
> payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the
second
> half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.
>
> So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to
show
> what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.
>
> Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had to
> share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she
should
> be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his HS
> sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.
>
> He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys to
help
> her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he
should
> spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would
consider
> boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
> children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again
we've
> always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.
>
> Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
> >
> >The Illinois bar must have a very low standard!
> >
> >
> >Dave <ncp-without-rights@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> ...
> >> Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days
or
> >> listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.
> >>
> >> Getting tough on child support
> >>
>
>http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/06/23/news/top_news/f74570ad941
b
> >a92286256d4d0079e878.txt
> >> Munster Times
> >>
> >>
>
>

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
>
> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The
> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not
> produce that evidence without prior notice.

It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been
at least some advance notice. I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.

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

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

>
> >
> > Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going
to
> > ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
had
> > undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
really
> be
> > left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the
> > marriage?
>
> According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage
> where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
compensation.
> The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes
to
> justify past marriage agreements.
>
> But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony
> as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the
> case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
> behavior in court.

My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
because of his behavior. And he must make quite a bit of money to be
required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!

That's clearly a finding of fault.)

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

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

Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?

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

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

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

[Mel Gamble]

In other words, Indyguy, she got a nice little pension and a huge retirement
bonus for raising her own kids. About what I'd expect from an judge crooked
enough to overlook tax fraud. No wonder our courts are screwed up.

Mel Gamble

>frazil wrote:
>
>>Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
>>prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side, it's
>>up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."
>>
>>Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is impossible
>>to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any logic,
>>science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
>>philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!
>
>Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed? Couldn't
>one
>produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent payment
>proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
>owe/earn/have/spend?
>
>Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic
>income
>imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a person
>has
>the inability to pay?
>
>My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay SS."
>When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't have?" The
>judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how he
>shows he can't pay SS.
>
>Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because it
>then
>would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused to
>provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he
>actually
>earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his divorce
>was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect him
>to
>be able to show a negative.
>His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the necessary
>financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a
>summer
>home, a motorcycle and two cars). At the final financial hearing the judge
>reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court, and
>for
>his arrogance. He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month and
>that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases her
>earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).
>
>His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity in
>the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his
>exes
>lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
>payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the second
>half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.
>
>So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to show
>what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.
>
>Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had to
>share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she should
>be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his HS
>sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.
>
> He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys to
>help
>her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he should
>spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would consider
>boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
>children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again
>we've
>always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.
>
>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>>
>>The Illinois bar must have a very low standard!
>>
>>
>>Dave <ncp-without-rights@freedoms-door> wrote in message
...
>>> Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days or
>>> listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.
>>>
>>> Getting tough on child support
>>>
>>http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/06/23/news/top_news/f74570ad941b
>>a92286256d4d0079e878.txt
>>> Munster Times

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>In other words, Indyguy, she got a nice little pension and a huge retirement
>bonus for raising her own kids. About what I'd expect from an judge crooked
>enough to overlook tax fraud. No wonder our courts are screwed up.
>

What she got was some help in supporting herself after giving up 30 years of
income, experience and advancement, because her exhusband is a neanderthal.

As far as the judge is concerned.... He's VERY fair. He was a hell of a lot
fairer with Dh's cousin than others would have been. If he turned in every tax
defrauder that stood in front of his bench he'd only be able to hear half the
cases he currently does, because he'd be on the phone with the IRS the other
half of the day.

Mrs Indyguy

[Indyguy1]

TM wrote:

>
>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>
>> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
>>
>> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
>> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The
>> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not
>> produce that evidence without prior notice.
>
>It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been
>at least some advance notice.

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

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

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

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

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

>
>>
>> >
>> > Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going
>to
>> > ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
>had
>> > undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
>really
>> be
>> > left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the
>> > marriage?
>>
>> According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage
>> where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
>compensation.
>> The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes
>to
>> justify past marriage agreements.
>>
>> But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony
>> as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the
>> case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
>> behavior in court.
>
>My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
>because of his behavior.

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

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

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

>
>That's clearly a finding of fault.)
>
>But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
>within the marriage.

Correct.

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

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

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

To Bob:

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mel Gamble]

So???? ...

>TM wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
>>>
>>> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
>>> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The
>>> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not
>>> produce that evidence without prior notice.
>>
>>It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been
>>at least some advance notice.
>
>Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
>continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into the
>courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens to
>be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of
>course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove his
>inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via subpoena.
>
> I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
>>But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
>>experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.
>
>I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision
>and
>the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.
>
>>
>>> It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
>>example,
>>> the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
>>> scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
>>records.
>>> When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the timeframe
>>of
>>> the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he would
>>> not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
>>timeframe,
>>> and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
>>> provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
>>proper
>>> notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
>>Order
>>> to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they do,
>>> they are advocating and judging simultaneously.
>>
>>And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all the
>>way around.
>
>Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave him
>every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there is
>no comparrison.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going
>>to
>>> > ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
>>had
>>> > undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
>>really
>>> be
>>> > left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the
>>> > marriage?
>>>
>>> According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage
>>> where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
>>compensation.
>>> The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes
>>to
>>> justify past marriage agreements.
>>>
>>> But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony
>>> as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the
>>> case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
>>> behavior in court.
>>
>>My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
>>because of his behavior.
>
>Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
>punishment.
>
> And he must make quite a bit of money to be
>>required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!
>
>I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.
>
>>
>>That's clearly a finding of fault.)
>>
>>But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
>>within the marriage.
>
>Correct.
>
>>
>>I don't understand
>>> how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
>>> advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a
>>> marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
>>> no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent
>>> and independent simultaneously.
>>
>>Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?
>
>No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the judges
>order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going to
>be
>awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
>uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds on
>wining and dinning his mistress.
>
>>
>>>
>>> So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding in
>>> no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men and
>>> required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?
>
>To Bob:
>
>You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair.....
>
>This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault
>divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets based
>on
>the proven fault.
>
>This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies to
>the
>court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds.

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

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

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

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

Mel Gamble

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

[Mel Gamble]

She didn't give it up.....

>Mel wrote:
>
>>In other words, Indyguy, she got a nice little pension and a huge retirement
>>bonus for raising her own kids. About what I'd expect from an judge crooked
>>enough to overlook tax fraud. No wonder our courts are screwed up.
>>
>
>What she got was some help in supporting herself after giving up 30 years of
>income, experience and advancement,

.... she got it just the same as he did - she just didn't have to leave home to
get it.

>because her exhusband is a neanderthal.

But then aren't all of us MEN?

>As far as the judge is concerned.... He's VERY fair.

May be your definition of fair. As a taxpayer, I don't like the idea that an
officer of the court with evidence of tax fraud and no duty of privilege to a
client would tell the perpetrator he'll allow the fraud to continue as long as
the woman gets cut in on the deal....

Yes, I'm sure you DO consider that fair. Would you also consider it fair if
the judge allowed him to continue siphoning off federal funds being sent to a
senior retirement center....as long as the ex-wife got her share???

>He was a hell of a lot
>fairer with Dh's cousin than others would have been.

What are the odds that the wife told NO lies in the course of the proceedings?
Bet she included a couple of whoppers too, and got off without suffering any
"fairness"...

>If he turned in every
>tax
>defrauder that stood in front of his bench he'd only be able to hear half the
>cases he currently does, because he'd be on the phone with the IRS the other
>half of the day.

Well, if there's that much tax fraud going on among your peers, maybe you
should be a good citizen and make the government aware of it. Of course we
always knew that people up at your income level failed to pay their fair
share.....thanks for the admission.

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> TM wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >>
> >> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
> >>
> >> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
> >> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
The
> >> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
not
> >> produce that evidence without prior notice.
> >
> >It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
been
> >at least some advance notice.
>
> Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
> continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
the
> courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens
to
> be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of
> course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove
his
> inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
subpoena.

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

>
> I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
> >But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
> >experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.
>
> I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision
and
> the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.

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

>
> >
> >> It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
> >example,
> >> the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
> >> scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
> >records.
> >> When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the
timeframe
> >of
> >> the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he
would
> >> not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
> >timeframe,
> >> and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
> >> provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
> >proper
> >> notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
> >Order
> >> to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they
do,
> >> they are advocating and judging simultaneously.
> >
> >And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all
the
> >way around.
>
> Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave
him
> every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there
is
> no comparrison.

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

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still
going
> >to
> >> > ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
> >had
> >> > undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
> >really
> >> be
> >> > left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end
the
> >> > marriage?
> >>
> >> According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term
marriage
> >> where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
> >compensation.
> >> The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future
incomes
> >to
> >> justify past marriage agreements.
> >>
> >> But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at
alimony
> >> as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In
the
> >> case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
> >> behavior in court.
> >
> >My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
> >because of his behavior.
>
> Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
> punishment.
>
> And he must make quite a bit of money to be
> >required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!
>
> I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.

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

>
> >
> >That's clearly a finding of fault.)
> >
> >But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
> >within the marriage.
>
> Correct.

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

>
> >
> >I don't understand
> >> how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
> >> advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in
a
> >> marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
> >> no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be
dependent
> >> and independent simultaneously.
> >
> >Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?
>
> No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the
judges
> order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going
to be
> awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
> uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds
on
> wining and dinning his mistress.

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

>
> >
> >>
> >> So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding
in
> >> no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men
and
> >> required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?
>
> To Bob:
>
> You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair.....
>
> This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault
> divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets
based on
> the proven fault.
>
> This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies
to the
> court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds.
>
> He's ****ed to this day. He felt he should have been able to dump his wife
of
> 30 years, move in with his mistress and take a minimum of 50% of the
marital
> assests (actually he wanted 70% because he was the wage earner) and not
look
> back. Similar to the way several men who post on this ng think.

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

[Her Bank]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SS

[Indyguy1]

Her Bank wrote:

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

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

Mrs Indyguy

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>She didn't give it up.....
>
>>Mel wrote:
>>
>>>In other words, Indyguy, she got a nice little pension and a huge
>retirement
>>>bonus for raising her own kids. About what I'd expect from an judge
>crooked
>>>enough to overlook tax fraud. No wonder our courts are screwed up.
>>>
>>
>>What she got was some help in supporting herself after giving up 30 years of
>>income, experience and advancement,
>
>... she got it just the same as he did - she just didn't have to leave home
>to
>get it.

I disagree. His support of her during the marriage was more so payment for her
SAH duties, and not any compensation for what she gave up.

>
>>because her exhusband is a neanderthal.
>
>But then aren't all of us MEN?

LOL. Men that think like DH's cousin certainly are, in my opinion.

>
>>As far as the judge is concerned.... He's VERY fair.
>
>May be your definition of fair. As a taxpayer, I don't like the idea that an
>officer of the court with evidence of tax fraud and no duty of privilege to a
>client would tell the perpetrator he'll allow the fraud to continue as long
>as
>the woman gets cut in on the deal....
>
>Yes, I'm sure you DO consider that fair. Would you also consider it fair if
>the judge allowed him to continue siphoning off federal funds being sent to a
>senior retirement center....as long as the ex-wife got her share???

Actually I would rather have seen the judge turn him into the feds. I'm not
defending the judge looking the other way.

>
>>He was a hell of a lot
>>fairer with Dh's cousin than others would have been.
>
>What are the odds that the wife told NO lies in the course of the
>proceedings?
>Bet she included a couple of whoppers too, and got off without suffering any
>"fairness"...

Like what? She showed anything she earned. She showed what her SOL had been.
She showed how her ex spent marital funds on the mistress. She had no reason to
lie as she had nothing to hide. Her ex hasn't said anything about her telling
lies and that being the reason he was ordered to pay what he has had to pay. He
on the other hand.......

>
>>If he turned in every
>>tax
>>defrauder that stood in front of his bench he'd only be able to hear half
>the
>>cases he currently does, because he'd be on the phone with the IRS the other
>>half of the day.
>
>Well, if there's that much tax fraud going on among your peers, maybe you
>should be a good citizen and make the government aware of it. Of course we
>always knew that people up at your income level failed to pay their fair
>share.....thanks for the admission.

1st of all DH's cousin and his ex aren't what we consider amongst our *peers*.
2nd we pay our taxes according to federal and state requirments, every year and
on time.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Bob wrote:

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> TM wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> rthlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
>> >>
>> >> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
>> >> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
>The
>> >> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
>not
>> >> produce that evidence without prior notice.
>> >
>> >It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
>been
>> >at least some advance notice.
>>
>> Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
>> continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
>the
>> courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens
>to
>> be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of
>> course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove
>his
>> inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
>subpoena.
>
>Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
>subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony?

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


>
>>
>> I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
>> >But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
>> >experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.
>>
>> I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision
>and
>> the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.
>
>Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on
>their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong?

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

>
>>
>> >
>> >> It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
>> >example,
>> >> the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
>> >> scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
>> >records.
>> >> When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the
>timeframe
>> >of
>> >> the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he
>would
>> >> not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
>> >timeframe,
>> >> and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
>> >> provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
>> >proper
>> >> notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
>> >Order
>> >> to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they
>do,
>> >> they are advocating and judging simultaneously.
>> >
>> >And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all
>the
>> >way around.
>>
>> Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave
>him
>> every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there
>is
>> no comparrison.
>
>So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your state?

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

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

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The SS was set based on his income not as a punishment.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still
>going
>> >to
>> >> > ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
>> >had
>> >> > undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
>> >really
>> >> be
>> >> > left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end
>the
>> >> > marriage?
>> >>
>> >> According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term
>marriage
>> >> where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
>> >compensation.
>> >> The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future
>incomes
>> >to
>> >> justify past marriage agreements.
>> >>
>> >> But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at
>alimony
>> >> as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In
>the
>> >> case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
>> >> behavior in court.
>> >
>> >My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
>> >because of his behavior.
>>
>> Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
>> punishment.
>>
>> And he must make quite a bit of money to be
>> >required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!
>>
>> I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.
>
>Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal
>sanction for misbehavior in court.

That did happen.

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

That didn't happen.
>
>>
>> >
>> >That's clearly a finding of fault.)
>> >
>> >But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
>> >within the marriage.
>>
>> Correct.
>
>That's why the SS increase is so odd.

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

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

Nope.

>
>>
>> >
>> >I don't understand
>> >> how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
>> >> advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in
>a
>> >> marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
>> >> no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be
>dependent
>> >> and independent simultaneously.
>> >
>> >Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?
>>
>> No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the
>judges
>> order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going
>to be
>> awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
>> uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds
>on
>> wining and dinning his mistress.
>
>Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era.

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs Indyguy
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding
>in
>> >> no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men
>and
>> >> required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?
>>
>> To Bob:
>>
>> You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair.....
>>
>> This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault
>> divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets
>based on
>> the proven fault.
>>
>> This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies
>to the
>> court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds.
>>
>> He's ****ed to this day. He felt he should have been able to dump his wife
>of
>> 30 years, move in with his mistress and take a minimum of 50% of the
>marital
>> assests (actually he wanted 70% because he was the wage earner) and not
>look
>> back. Similar to the way several men who post on this ng think.
>
>He should be ****ed. He also has grounds for an appeal, but I'll bet the
>judge screwed him financially just up to the amount it would cost him to
>mount a legal appeal. That's how the game is played.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Bob wrote:
>
> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> TM wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> >> rthlink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
> >> >>
> >> >> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his
point,
> >> >> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
> >The
> >> >> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
> >not
> >> >> produce that evidence without prior notice.
> >> >
> >> >It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
> >been
> >> >at least some advance notice.
> >>
> >> Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
> >> continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
> >the
> >> courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who
happens
> >to
> >> be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury.
Of
> >> course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him
prove
> >his
> >> inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
> >subpoena.
> >
> >Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
> >subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing
alimony?
>
> Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set
at
> based on his income and her lack of income.

I'll accept your explanation because of your personal knowledge of this
case.

However, when you wrote:

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

....I assumed that meant the judge in awarding her additional equity in the
family home, and half of her attorney fees, that REDUCED her need for
alimony. When the court did not take into consideration the additional cash
amounts she received, it had the affect of inflating the alimony award even
though the need for it had been further reduced by the up-front cash
transfers. I consider not reducing the alimony to be part of the sanction.

[Mel Gamble]

Well, since there was no written agreement...

>Mel wrote:
>
>>She didn't give it up.....
>>
>>>Mel wrote:
>>>
>>>>In other words, Indyguy, she got a nice little pension and a huge
>>retirement
>>>>bonus for raising her own kids. About what I'd expect from an judge
>>crooked
>>>>enough to overlook tax fraud. No wonder our courts are screwed up.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What she got was some help in supporting herself after giving up 30 years
>of
>>>income, experience and advancement,
>>
>>... she got it just the same as he did - she just didn't have to leave home
>>to
>>get it.
>
>I disagree. His support of her during the marriage was more so payment for
>her
>SAH duties, and not any compensation for what she gave up.

.... my explanation of the good life she had while married is just as correct as
yours. Why don't you ask HIM what the agreement was between them : )

>>>because her exhusband is a neanderthal.
>>
>>But then aren't all of us MEN?
>
>LOL. Men that think like DH's cousin certainly are, in my opinion.

Well, if you're talking about his beliefs regarding the **** you're posting
here, there ARE lots of us ... and a lot more running around out there who
DON'T post here and who DON'T want to have anything to do with women like you
or your cousin's ex.

>>>As far as the judge is concerned.... He's VERY fair.
>>
>>May be your definition of fair. As a taxpayer, I don't like the idea that
>an
>>officer of the court with evidence of tax fraud and no duty of privilege to
>a
>>client would tell the perpetrator he'll allow the fraud to continue as long
>>as
>>the woman gets cut in on the deal....
>>
>>Yes, I'm sure you DO consider that fair. Would you also consider it fair if
>>the judge allowed him to continue siphoning off federal funds being sent to
>a
>>senior retirement center....as long as the ex-wife got her share???
>
>Actually I would rather have seen the judge turn him into the feds. I'm not
>defending the judge looking the other way.

Bull****. You just described him as "fair", and as far as I know, you've based
that judgement entirely on what he did to your h's cousin. You thought it was
fair UNTIL I pointed out that SHE was benefitting from ALL OF US being ripped
off by tax evasion ... then you HAD TO change your opinion. At least, that's
the way it looks as things unfolded - going to be hard to go back and make it
look any different.

>>>He was a hell of a lot
>>>fairer with Dh's cousin than others would have been.
>>
>>What are the odds that the wife told NO lies in the course of the
>>proceedings?
>>Bet she included a couple of whoppers too, and got off without suffering any
>>"fairness"...
>
>Like what? She showed anything she earned. She showed what her SOL had been.
>She showed how her ex spent marital funds on the mistress. She had no reason
>to
>lie as she had nothing to hide. Her ex hasn't said anything about her telling
>lies and that being the reason he was ordered to pay what he has had to pay.
>He
>on the other hand.......

Dunno - it seems women get away with it all the time in court.

>>>If he turned in every
>>>tax
>>>defrauder that stood in front of his bench he'd only be able to hear half
>>the
>>>cases he currently does, because he'd be on the phone with the IRS the
>other
>>>half of the day.
>>
>>Well, if there's that much tax fraud going on among your peers, maybe you
>>should be a good citizen and make the government aware of it. Of course we
>>always knew that people up at your income level failed to pay their fair
>>share.....thanks for the admission.
>
>1st of all DH's cousin and his ex aren't what we consider amongst our
>*peers*.

Hmm - seem to know them pretty well...

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

Didn't say you didn't, just that you seem to know a lot of people who don't and
then end up in front of this judge. Gotta wonder how many you know that DON'T
end up in front of this judge. If you're spending all your time with people
who aren't your peers.... Actually, that wouldn't surprise me - the way you
write there AREN'T any people who are YOUR peers...

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>Mel Gamble
>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy

[Mel Gamble]

Good catch, Bob. Bet you're the only one who saw that little twist : )

Mel Gamble

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> TM wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> >> rthlink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his
>point,
>> >> >> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
>> >The
>> >> >> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
>> >not
>> >> >> produce that evidence without prior notice.
>> >> >
>> >> >It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
>> >been
>> >> >at least some advance notice.
>> >>
>> >> Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
>> >> continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
>> >the
>> >> courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who
>happens
>> >to
>> >> be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury.
>Of
>> >> course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him
>prove
>> >his
>> >> inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
>> >subpoena.
>> >
>> >Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
>> >subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing
>alimony?
>>
>> Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set
>at
>> based on his income and her lack of income.
>
>I'll accept your explanation because of your personal knowledge of this
>case.
>
>However, when you wrote:
>
>"His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity
>in
>the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his
>exes
>lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
>payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the second
>half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years."
>
>...I assumed that meant the judge in awarding her additional equity in the
>family home, and half of her attorney fees, that REDUCED her need for
>alimony. When the court did not take into consideration the additional cash
>amounts she received, it had the affect of inflating the alimony award even
>though the need for it had been further reduced by the up-front cash
>transfers. I consider not reducing the alimony to be part of the sanction.

[Mel Gamble]

So you don't have any problem...

>Bob wrote:
>
>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>> TM wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>>> rthlink.net...
>>> >>
>>> >> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >>
>>> >> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
>>> >>
>>> >> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
>>> >> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
>>The
>>> >> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
>>not
>>> >> produce that evidence without prior notice.
>>> >
>>> >It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
>>been
>>> >at least some advance notice.
>>>
>>> Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
>>> continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
>>the
>>> courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens
>>to
>>> be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of
>>> course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove
>>his
>>> inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
>>subpoena.
>>
>>Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
>>subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony?
>
>Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set at
>based on his income and her lack of income.

.... with the judge taking what should have been a punishment in the form of a
fine to the court/state and turning it into more benefit for the woeman? You
don't see a problem with using an act which might normally have resulted in a
sanction of a few hundred dollars at most to extract thousands extra out of the
husband? Guess you see this as just as "fair" as letting the guy get away with
tax fraud, so long as it benefits the woman...

>>> I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
>>> >But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
>>> >experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.
>>>
>>> I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision
>>and
>>> the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.
>>
>>Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on
>>their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong?
>
>Do they? Maybe. But if they do they shouldn't be doing it.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
>>> >example,
>>> >> the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
>>> >> scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
>>> >records.
>>> >> When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the
>>timeframe
>>> >of
>>> >> the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he
>>would
>>> >> not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
>>> >timeframe,
>>> >> and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
>>> >> provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
>>> >proper
>>> >> notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
>>> >Order
>>> >> to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they
>>do,
>>> >> they are advocating and judging simultaneously.
>>> >
>>> >And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all
>>the
>>> >way around.
>>>
>>> Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave
>>him
>>> every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there
>>is
>>> no comparrison.
>>
>>So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your state?
>
>I honestly don't know. But I would say making him pay a portion of her
>attorney
>fees was appropriate. You know the old adage... Tell one lie in court and the
>judge will have a hard time believing anything you say.
>
>>I doubt it is increasing alimony and more like being held in contempt of
>>court with an admonition to never do it again or some kind of minor
>>sanction. Paying another person huge amounts of money for several years is
>>not a normal legal sanction.
>
>THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The SS was set based on his income not as a punishment.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still
>>going
>>> >to
>>> >> > ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but
>>> >had
>>> >> > undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
>>> >really
>>> >> be
>>> >> > left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end
>>the
>>> >> > marriage?
>>> >>
>>> >> According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term
>>marriage
>>> >> where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
>>> >compensation.
>>> >> The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future
>>incomes
>>> >to
>>> >> justify past marriage agreements.
>>> >>
>>> >> But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at
>>alimony
>>> >> as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In
>>the
>>> >> case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
>>> >> behavior in court.
>>> >
>>> >My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
>>> >because of his behavior.
>>>
>>> Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
>>> punishment.
>>>
>>> And he must make quite a bit of money to be
>>> >required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!
>>>
>>> I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.
>>
>>Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal
>>sanction for misbehavior in court.
>
>That did happen.
>
> Increasing the SS award to the woman is
>>not supported by law in most states.
>
>That didn't happen.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >That's clearly a finding of fault.)
>>> >
>>> >But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
>>> >within the marriage.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>
>>That's why the SS increase is so odd.
>
>Why do you insist that happened when I never said it did and it never did?
>
>From what has been presented here,
>>the court increased the alimony award for behavior in court rather than
>>using normal sanctions outlined in the law for inappropriate behavior in
>>court.
>
>Nope.
>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >I don't understand
>>> >> how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
>>> >> advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in
>>a
>>> >> marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
>>> >> no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be
>>dependent
>>> >> and independent simultaneously.
>>> >
>>> >Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?
>>>
>>> No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the
>>judges
>>> order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going
>>to be
>>> awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
>>> uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds
>>on
>>> wining and dinning his mistress.
>>
>>Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era.
>
>WRONG!!! He had to pay his ex back for misuse of marital funds. The judge
>didn't award her more of the equity because he had an affiar. He paid her
>back
>the marital monies her ex had no right to spend on an other woamn.

BULL****!!! IF there is no fault, then having another woman on the side is NOT
disallowed in the marriage. HE can spend what HE earns on any damn thing he
pleases, as long as it isn't illegal. Are you saying that if he'd bought his
aging mother a home to retire in it would have met the same standard of
"misuse"?

> Men are not allowed to
>>bring up the dirty laundry regarding their soon to be ex wive's behavior
>>because that would violate the concept of no-fault divorce.
>
>His ex wasn't allowed to bring up the affiar either, with the exception of
>the
>missuse of marital funds. That is allowed to be brought up in this state, by
>either spouse.

Would it have been misuse to spend the same cash on gambling? How about on boy
toys? How about donating it to a religion she didn't approve of? Was he under
some obligation to get her to co-sign on every cent of HIS money he spent?
RUBBISH.

> The women who
>>are advocating this double standard should re-examine what they are saying.
>>They are asking to have it both ways with one standard for men and a
>>different standard for women. If men can't show how women have been with
>>other men, why are women allowed to show men have been with other women?
>
>He had the same abilty to show missuse of marital funds as his ex did. He had
>nothing to show, but she did.

His attorney probably told him the law only stretches THAT far if it benefits a
woman...

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding
>>in
>>> >> no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men
>>and
>>> >> required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?
>>>
>>> To Bob:
>>>
>>> You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair.....
>>>
>>> This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault
>>> divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets
>>based on
>>> the proven fault.
>>>
>>> This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies
>>to the
>>> court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds.
>>>
>>> He's ****ed to this day. He felt he should have been able to dump his wife
>>of
>>> 30 years, move in with his mistress and take a minimum of 50% of the
>>marital
>>> assests (actually he wanted 70% because he was the wage earner) and not
>>look
>>> back. Similar to the way several men who post on this ng think.
>>
>>He should be ****ed. He also has grounds for an appeal, but I'll bet the
>>judge screwed him financially just up to the amount it would cost him to
>>mount a legal appeal. That's how the game is played.

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>So you don't have any problem...
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>> TM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>>>> rthlink.net...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
>>>> >> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
>>>The
>>>> >> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
>>>not
>>>> >> produce that evidence without prior notice.
>>>> >
>>>> >It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
>>>been
>>>> >at least some advance notice.
>>>>
>>>> Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
>>>> continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
>>>the
>>>> courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who
>happens
>>>to
>>>> be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury.
>Of
>>>> course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove
>>>his
>>>> inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
>>>subpoena.
>>>
>>>Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
>>>subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony?
>>
>>Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set
>at
>>based on his income and her lack of income.
>
>... with the judge taking what should have been a punishment in the form of a
>fine to the court/state and turning it into more benefit for the woeman?

When the guy was lying to the courts with the intent of cheating his W out of
support based on his lies, no I don't have a problem with the punishment
benefiting the person he was trying to defraud.

You
>don't see a problem with using an act which might normally have resulted in a
>sanction of a few hundred dollars at most to extract thousands extra out of
>the
>husband?

His punishment was right around $5000. Small in comparrison to what he was
trying to cheat her out of.

Guess you see this as just as "fair" as letting the guy get away
>with
>tax fraud, so long as it benefits the woman...

Ok, Mel you win. I'll call the tax fraud hot line and report him. ;)

>
>>>> I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
>>>> >But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
>>>> >experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel
>vision
>>>and
>>>> the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.
>>>
>>>Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on
>>>their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong?
>>
>>Do they? Maybe. But if they do they shouldn't be doing it.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >> It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
>>>> >example,
>>>> >> the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of
>the
>>>> >> scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
>>>> >records.
>>>> >> When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the
>>>timeframe
>>>> >of
>>>> >> the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he
>>>would
>>>> >> not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
>>>> >timeframe,
>>>> >> and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
>>>> >> provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
>>>> >proper
>>>> >> notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
>>>> >Order
>>>> >> to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they
>>>do,
>>>> >> they are advocating and judging simultaneously.
>>>> >
>>>> >And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all
>>>the
>>>> >way around.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave
>>>him
>>>> every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so
>there
>>>is
>>>> no comparrison.
>>>
>>>So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your state?
>>
>>I honestly don't know. But I would say making him pay a portion of her
>>attorney
>>fees was appropriate. You know the old adage... Tell one lie in court and
>the
>>judge will have a hard time believing anything you say.
>>
>>>I doubt it is increasing alimony and more like being held in contempt of
>>>court with an admonition to never do it again or some kind of minor
>>>sanction. Paying another person huge amounts of money for several years is
>>>not a normal legal sanction.
>>
>>THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The SS was set based on his income not as a punishment.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still
>>>going
>>>> >to
>>>> >> > ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years,
>but
>>>> >had
>>>> >> > undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
>>>> >really
>>>> >> be
>>>> >> > left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end
>>>the
>>>> >> > marriage?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term
>>>marriage
>>>> >> where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
>>>> >compensation.
>>>> >> The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future
>>>incomes
>>>> >to
>>>> >> justify past marriage agreements.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at
>>>alimony
>>>> >> as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In
>>>the
>>>> >> case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the
>man's
>>>> >> behavior in court.
>>>> >
>>>> >My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
>>>> >because of his behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
>>>> punishment.
>>>>
>>>> And he must make quite a bit of money to be
>>>> >required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!
>>>>
>>>> I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.
>>>
>>>Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal
>>>sanction for misbehavior in court.
>>
>>That did happen.
>>
>> Increasing the SS award to the woman is
>>>not supported by law in most states.
>>
>>That didn't happen.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >That's clearly a finding of fault.)
>>>> >
>>>> >But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
>>>> >within the marriage.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>That's why the SS increase is so odd.
>>
>>Why do you insist that happened when I never said it did and it never did?
>>
>>From what has been presented here,
>>>the court increased the alimony award for behavior in court rather than
>>>using normal sanctions outlined in the law for inappropriate behavior in
>>>court.
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >I don't understand
>>>> >> how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
>>>> >> advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics
>in
>>>a
>>>> >> marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
>>>> >> no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be
>>>dependent
>>>> >> and independent simultaneously.
>>>> >
>>>> >Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?
>>>>
>>>> No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the
>>>judges
>>>> order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going
>>>to be
>>>> awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the
>>>> uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds
>>>on
>>>> wining and dinning his mistress.
>>>
>>>Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era.
>>
>>WRONG!!! He had to pay his ex back for misuse of marital funds. The judge
>>didn't award her more of the equity because he had an affiar. He paid her
>>back
>>the marital monies her ex had no right to spend on an other woamn.
>
>BULL****!!! IF there is no fault, then having another woman on the side is
>NOT
>disallowed in the marriage.

He wasn't punished for having a woman on the side.

HE can spend what HE earns on any damn thing he
>pleases, as long as it isn't illegal.

Not in Illinois. Here ALL money earned by either spouse during a marriage
belongs to BOTH spouses.

Are you saying that if he'd bought his
>aging mother a home to retire in it would have met the same standard of
>"misuse"?

In that case the additional home can be sold, the guy could buy out his wife's
portion, etc.

When one spends money on an other person, there is no way to split that money
as it is gone, so the courts take half of what was spent on the third party out
of other sources.

>
>> Men are not allowed to
>>>bring up the dirty laundry regarding their soon to be ex wive's behavior
>>>because that would violate the concept of no-fault divorce.
>>
>>His ex wasn't allowed to bring up the affiar either, with the exception of
>>the
>>missuse of marital funds. That is allowed to be brought up in this state, by
>>either spouse.
>
>Would it have been misuse to spend the same cash on gambling?

I don't know.

How about on
>boy
>toys?

They can be sold, split or otherwise handled to make sure BOTH get an equal
share of the toys.

How about donating it to a religion she didn't approve of?

Good question, and I have no idea how this is looked at in our state.

Was he
>under
>some obligation to get her to co-sign on every cent of HIS money he spent?

1) It isn't HIS money it is THEIR money.

2) If anyone uses MARITAL money to benefit a third party that has no benefit
for the family then yes they are responsible for making sure their stbx gets
their share of those dollars. That is the law here.


>RUBBISH.

In your opinion.

>
>> The women who
>>>are advocating this double standard should re-examine what they are saying.
>>>They are asking to have it both ways with one standard for men and a
>>>different standard for women. If men can't show how women have been with
>>>other men, why are women allowed to show men have been with other women?
>>
>>He had the same abilty to show missuse of marital funds as his ex did. He
>had
>>nothing to show, but she did.
>
>His attorney probably told him the law only stretches THAT far if it benefits
>a
>woman...

Who said he had an attorney?

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

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...

>
> His punishment was right around $5000. Small in comparrison to what he was
> trying to cheat her out of.

That's $5,000 net after taxes. And since the issues were centered around
alimony her attorney fees related to those discussions and the resultant
litigation would be tax deductible so she got tax deductions instead of tax
liability on some portion of the money. Judges pull this game all the
time - allowing one party after tax assets and the other party per-tax
assets and calling it equal. If one party gets $50,000 in home equity and
the other party gets their $50,000 retirement account that is NOT equal.

If that additional $5,000 had been an alimony payment, and assuming she had
a modest 25% tax liability for federal and state taxes combined, that's a
gain of $6,667 in pre-tax dollars. From the husband's perspective that
equals an increase of alimony of over $111 per month over the first 5 years
of the alimony requirement, but none of that increase was tax deductible for
him which meant he was forced to give up additional money without being able
to shelter a portion of it through tax deductibility.

[Mel Gamble]

I figured as much...funny,

>Mel wrote:
>
>>So you don't have any problem...
>>
>>>Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> TM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>>>>> rthlink.net...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
>>>>> >> ...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> > I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
>>>>> >> knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria.
>>>>The
>>>>> >> judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could
>>>>not
>>>>> >> produce that evidence without prior notice.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have
>>>>been
>>>>> >at least some advance notice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing
>>>>> continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into
>>>>the
>>>>> courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who
>>happens
>>>>to
>>>>> be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury.
>>Of
>>>>> course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove
>>>>his
>>>>> inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via
>>>>subpoena.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a
>>>>subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony?
>>>
>>>Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set
>>at
>>>based on his income and her lack of income.
>>
>>... with the judge taking what should have been a punishment in the form of
>a
>>fine to the court/state and turning it into more benefit for the woeman?
>
>When the guy was lying to the courts with the intent of cheating his W out of
>support based on his lies, no I don't have a problem with the punishment
>benefiting the person he was trying to defraud.

.... it doesn't work that way in ANY other area of law. So maybe the ex should
keep the court apprised of any changes in her address, just in case the guy
gets a speeding ticket or something, that way they'll know where to send his
fine. You offend me. Fines that should go to the state should go to the
state. First, you say it's OK for the judge to conspire to defraud the
government by turning a blind eye to tax fraud...now you say it's OK to take
what should be going to the court and send it to a woman, just as long as it's
another way for her to beat the guy over the head. Your morals stink.

> You
>>don't see a problem with using an act which might normally have resulted in
>a
>>sanction of a few hundred dollars at most to extract thousands extra out of
>>the
>>husband?
>
>His punishment was right around $5000. Small in comparrison to what he was
>trying to cheat her out of.

And your point??? Any other person lieing to the court or withholding
information from the court IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF CASE (and in LEGAL divorce
cases) ends up paying with time served or a check payable to the state court
system. Your morals stink.

> Guess you see this as just as "fair" as letting the guy get away
>>with
>>tax fraud, so long as it benefits the woman...
>
>Ok, Mel you win. I'll call the tax fraud hot line and report him. ;)

I'd say "thank you", if I believed you but you seem at least as dishonest as
the guy and the judge... Again, your morals stink.

>>>>> I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
>>>>> >But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
>>>>> >experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel
>>vision
>>>>and
>>>>> the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views.
>>>>
>>>>Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on
>>>>their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong?
>>>
>>>Do they? Maybe. But if they do they shouldn't be doing it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an
>>>>> >example,
>>>>> >> the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of
>>the
>>>>> >> scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment
>>>>> >records.
>>>>> >> When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the
>>>>timeframe
>>>>> >of
>>>>> >> the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he
>>>>would
>>>>> >> not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded
>>>>> >timeframe,
>>>>> >> and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance
>to
>>>>> >> provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of
>>>>> >proper
>>>>> >> notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the
>>>>> >Order
>>>>> >> to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they
>>>>do,
>>>>> >> they are advocating and judging simultaneously.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all
>>>>the
>>>>> >way around.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave
>>>>him
>>>>> every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so
>>there
>>>>is
>>>>> no comparrison.
>>>>
>>>>So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your
>state?
>>>
>>>I honestly don't know. But I would say making him pay a portion of her
>>>attorney
>>>fees was appropriate. You know the old adage... Tell one lie in court and
>>the
>>>judge will have a hard time believing anything you say.
>>>
>>>>I doubt it is increasing alimony and more like being held in contempt of
>>>>court with an admonition to never do it again or some kind of minor
>>>>sanction. Paying another person huge amounts of money for several years
>is
>>>>not a normal legal sanction.
>>>
>>>THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The SS was set based on his income not as a punishment.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still
>>>>going
>>>>> >to
>>>>> >> > ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years,
>>but
>>>>> >had
>>>>> >> > undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she
>>>>> >really
>>>>> >> be
>>>>> >> > left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end
>>>>the
>>>>> >> > marriage?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term
>>>>marriage
>>>>> >> where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as
>>>>> >compensation.
>>>>> >> The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future
>>>>incomes
>>>>> >to
>>>>> >> justify past marriage agreements.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at
>>>>alimony
>>>>> >> as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era.
>(In
>>>>the
>>>>> >> case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the
>>man's
>>>>> >> behavior in court.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
>>>>> >because of his behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as
>>>>> punishment.
>>>>>
>>>>> And he must make quite a bit of money to be
>>>>> >required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range.
>>>>
>>>>Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal
>>>>sanction for misbehavior in court.
>>>
>>>That did happen.
>>>
>>> Increasing the SS award to the woman is
>>>>not supported by law in most states.
>>>
>>>That didn't happen.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >That's clearly a finding of fault.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a
>fault
>>>>> >within the marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.
>>>>
>>>>That's why the SS increase is so odd.
>>>
>>>Why do you insist that happened when I never said it did and it never did?
>>>
>>>From what has been presented here,
>>>>the court increased the alimony award for behavior in court rather than
>>>>using normal sanctions outlined in the law for inappropriate behavior in
>>>>court.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I don't understand
>>>>> >> how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and
>still
>>>>> >> advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics
>>in
>>>>a
>>>>> >> marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
>>>>> >> no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be
>>>>dependent
>>>>> >> and independent simultaneously.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?
>>>>>
>>>>> No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the
>>>>judges
>>>>> order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going
>>>>to be
>>>>> awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to
>the
>>>>> uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds
>>>>on
>>>>> wining and dinning his mistress.
>>>>
>>>>Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era.
>>>
>>>WRONG!!! He had to pay his ex back for misuse of marital funds. The judge
>>>didn't award her more of the equity because he had an affiar. He paid her
>>>back
>>>the marital monies her ex had no right to spend on an other woamn.
>>
>>BULL****!!! IF there is no fault, then having another woman on the side is
>>NOT
>>disallowed in the marriage.
>
>He wasn't punished for having a woman on the side.

It quacked - it was a duck.

> HE can spend what HE earns on any damn thing he
>>pleases, as long as it isn't illegal.
>
>Not in Illinois. Here ALL money earned by either spouse during a marriage
>belongs to BOTH spouses.

So she needed his permission to go buy a new purse? Or did he have to
accompany her, provide I.D. and co-sign?

> Are you saying that if he'd bought his
>>aging mother a home to retire in it would have met the same standard of
>>"misuse"?
>
>In that case the additional home can be sold, the guy could buy out his
>wife's
>portion, etc.

Avoiding the question....

>When one spends money on an other person, there is no way to split that money
>as it is gone, so the courts take half of what was spent on the third party
>out
>of other sources.

So if he sent his mother on a cruise, it would have been grounds for divorce?
Your moral stink, and apparently, so do those of your state.

>>> Men are not allowed to
>>>>bring up the dirty laundry regarding their soon to be ex wive's behavior
>>>>because that would violate the concept of no-fault divorce.
>>>
>>>His ex wasn't allowed to bring up the affiar either, with the exception of
>>>the
>>>missuse of marital funds. That is allowed to be brought up in this state,
>by
>>>either spouse.
>>
>>Would it have been misuse to spend the same cash on gambling?
>
>I don't know.
>
> How about on
>>boy
>>toys?
>
>They can be sold, split or otherwise handled to make sure BOTH get an equal
>share of the toys.
>
> How about donating it to a religion she didn't approve of?
>
>Good question, and I have no idea how this is looked at in our state.
>
> Was he
>>under
>>some obligation to get her to co-sign on every cent of HIS money he spent?
>
>1) It isn't HIS money it is THEIR money.
>
>2) If anyone uses MARITAL money to benefit a third party that has no benefit
>for the family

Such as the guy who runs the amusement park when the husband takes the scout
troop and leaves the wife at home...... Your morals stink.

>then yes they are responsible for making sure their stbx gets
>their share of those dollars. That is the law here.

"Well, let's see, dear. I think I spent $256 on the underpriveleged kids.
Here's a check for $256 for you." What a crock of ****. Your morals stink.

>>RUBBISH.
>
>In your opinion.

It's a universal truth.

>>> The women who
>>>>are advocating this double standard should re-examine what they are
>saying.
>>>>They are asking to have it both ways with one standard for men and a
>>>>different standard for women. If men can't show how women have been with
>>>>other men, why are women allowed to show men have been with other women?
>>>
>>>He had the same abilty to show missuse of marital funds as his ex did. He
>>had
>>>nothing to show, but she did.
>>
>>His attorney probably told him the law only stretches THAT far if it
>benefits
>>a
>>woman...
>
>Who said he had an attorney?

Oh, HER attorney told him that was the way it works.... Her morals also stink.

Mel Gamble

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

[Mel Gamble]

Right, Bob...

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> His punishment was right around $5000. Small in comparrison to what he was
>> trying to cheat her out of.
>
>That's $5,000 net after taxes. And since the issues were centered around
>alimony her attorney fees related to those discussions and the resultant
>litigation would be tax deductible so she got tax deductions instead of tax
>liability on some portion of the money. Judges pull this game all the
>time - allowing one party after tax assets and the other party per-tax
>assets and calling it equal. If one party gets $50,000 in home equity and
>the other party gets their $50,000 retirement account that is NOT equal.
>
>If that additional $5,000 had been an alimony payment, and assuming she had
>a modest 25% tax liability for federal and state taxes combined, that's a
>gain of $6,667 in pre-tax dollars. From the husband's perspective that
>equals an increase of alimony of over $111 per month over the first 5 years
>of the alimony requirement, but none of that increase was tax deductible for
>him which meant he was forced to give up additional money without being able
>to shelter a portion of it through tax deductibility.

.... and Gimmeguy considers that a fair comparison to a $75 contempt-of-court
fine. AND that it's OK for the judge to transfer the taxpayors' rightful due -
the fine - to the woeman. Her morals stink.

Mel Gamble