A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Family Kourts, Legal Parasites



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 11th 09, 02:00 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil"
wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all
to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she
went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It
was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't
go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose
of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds
to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at
stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some
form of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to
walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to
provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done,
considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage
litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had
become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to
remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives
over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.


My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which
conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up
something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix"
it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again,
thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to
reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but
it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool
proof since the government is the fool.
Phil #3


The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The
only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the
behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that
anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new people
to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want
nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts.


Very much so. That was me until recently when I realized that by not
partaking in the voting process, I was not being heard at all. By
casting a vote against the status quo, I at least do not support the
status quo. In my home state of Oklahoma, the incumbent politicians
decide if Independent party candidates will be allowed on the
presidential election ballot. (They, being democrat and republican
typically do not). So when the only choice I had for president was
McCain or Obama, I didn't vote for either of them, which was a "no" vote
for the only two candidates allowed on the ballot. Very small, to be
sure and I highly doubt anyone, anywhere noticed but at least I voiced
my displeasure with the status quo.
On state measures and elections, I pay close attention and if nothing
else, vote against continuing the same old, same old. In one state race,
there were three candidates: a dem, a rep and an independent who was a
bit of a crackpot. Since the dem and rep candidate both represented the
same old B.S., I voted for the crackpot because I figured, what the
hell, he is unlikely to make things any worse than they already are.
I also notify my representatives in city, county, state and federal
government that I am tired of this game and want either a new game or
new rules.
Phil #3


  #12  
Old June 11th 09, 02:16 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil"
wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
m...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for
all to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she
went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on.
It was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't
go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose
of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds
to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at
stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some
form of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to
walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or
actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to
provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects
a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the
U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done,
considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage
litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had
become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to
remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives
over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property
laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.

My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws
which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw
up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to
"fix" it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again,
thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to
reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures
but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not
fool proof since the government is the fool.
Phil #3


The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged.
The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is
for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely
that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new
people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by
nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts.


Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a
nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and
them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off
soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment
rights by flexing our Second.

But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American
political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads)
to keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more.
This is subtle but observable in the local and national news and
astoundingly obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist
propaganda machines. This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows
like King of Queens, Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical
fool and the smart, level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By
continuing to show this type of behavior, people actually start
believing it is "normal", therefore, in their thinking, husbands/fathers
are subconsciously seen as fools and mothers/wives are seen as heroines.

Phil #3


  #13  
Old June 11th 09, 05:00 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
m...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It
was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form
of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.

My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which
conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up
something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix"
it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby
hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire.
It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the
best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the
government is the fool.
Phil #3


The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The
only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the
behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone
within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join the
group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to do
with government. A dilemma of sorts.


Very much so. That was me until recently when I realized that by not
partaking in the voting process, I was not being heard at all. By casting
a vote against the status quo, I at least do not support the status quo.
In my home state of Oklahoma, the incumbent politicians decide if
Independent party candidates will be allowed on the presidential election
ballot. (They, being democrat and republican typically do not). So when
the only choice I had for president was McCain or Obama, I didn't vote for
either of them, which was a "no" vote for the only two candidates allowed
on the ballot. Very small, to be sure and I highly doubt anyone, anywhere
noticed but at least I voiced my displeasure with the status quo.
On state measures and elections, I pay close attention and if nothing
else, vote against continuing the same old, same old. In one state race,
there were three candidates: a dem, a rep and an independent who was a bit
of a crackpot. Since the dem and rep candidate both represented the same
old B.S., I voted for the crackpot because I figured, what the hell, he is
unlikely to make things any worse than they already are.


Not to mention, even if he was actually far worse than the other choices,
you won't have to be concerned since he will not win anyways. A double edge
sword.

I also notify my representatives in city, county, state and federal
government that I am tired of this game and want either a new game or new
rules.
Phil #3



  #14  
Old June 11th 09, 05:32 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:34:05 -0500, "Phil"
wrote:


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all
to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It
was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form
of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.


My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which
conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up
something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix"
it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby
hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire.
It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the
best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the
government is the fool.
Phil #3


On the assumption that your tongue is not in your cheek now,
I'm with you.

Ultimately, I think the solution is to privatize marriage, and
make it a matter of individual premarital contracts between two
competent adults. The government role should be confined to enforcing
the terms of these contracts. The contracts should include detailed
provisions about such matters as divorce, child custody, and spousal
support.

It's absurd for government to be involved in the regulation of
the relationship between a husband and wife -- particularly when, as
has been happening for decades, state legislatures change divorce law
and retrospectively apply the changes to existing marriages,
regardless of when they took place, or the jurisdiction in which they
took place. Marriage has become meaningless as a legal contract with
predictable conditions.


That's just it though. It's not regulating of marriage that's taking place,
rather the regulation of men AFTER the woman files for divorce.


Alas, we're a long way off privatizing marriage. However, if
the homosexual rights movement continues to push for same-sex
marriage, then I suspect some may begin to ask why the government is
so involved in the business of regulating heterosexual relationships
and families.


The silver lining to same sex "marriage" is that when it comes time for
divorce, at least there will no longer be gender discrimination. No doubt
will drive the feminazi judges crazy.


Let people "marry" whoever and whatever they want, but just
insist that they must have detailed premarital contracts spelling out
the obligations of each party! (When all this happens, I plan to
marry my cat, with whom I have been living for many years. And I don't
want to hear any felinophobic comments from anyone. )


I'm already married to my dog. Even though the government discriminates
against us, that doesn't matter because we are still in love with each other
and married in our hearts. As a matter of fact, I even have our lil'
homemade "dog"ument to prove it.




  #15  
Old June 11th 09, 09:10 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:34:05 -0500, "Phil"
wrote:


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all
to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It
was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form
of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.


My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which
conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up
something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix"
it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again, thereby
hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to reacquire.
It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but it is the
best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof since the
government is the fool.
Phil #3


On the assumption that your tongue is not in your cheek now,
I'm with you.

Ultimately, I think the solution is to privatize marriage, and
make it a matter of individual premarital contracts between two
competent adults. The government role should be confined to enforcing
the terms of these contracts. The contracts should include detailed
provisions about such matters as divorce, child custody, and spousal
support.

It's absurd for government to be involved in the regulation of
the relationship between a husband and wife -- particularly when, as
has been happening for decades, state legislatures change divorce law
and retrospectively apply the changes to existing marriages,
regardless of when they took place, or the jurisdiction in which they
took place. Marriage has become meaningless as a legal contract with
predictable conditions.


That's just it though. It's not regulating of marriage that's taking place,
rather the regulation of men AFTER the woman files for divorce.


Alas, we're a long way off privatizing marriage. However, if
the homosexual rights movement continues to push for same-sex
marriage, then I suspect some may begin to ask why the government is
so involved in the business of regulating heterosexual relationships
and families.


The silver lining to same sex "marriage" is that when it comes time for
divorce, at least there will no longer be gender discrimination. No doubt
will drive the feminazi judges crazy.


Let people "marry" whoever and whatever they want, but just
insist that they must have detailed premarital contracts spelling out
the obligations of each party! (When all this happens, I plan to
marry my cat, with whom I have been living for many years. And I don't
want to hear any felinophobic comments from anyone. )


I'm already married to my dog. Even though the government discriminates
against us, that doesn't matter because we are still in love with each other
and married in our hearts. As a matter of fact, I even have our lil'
homemade "dog"ument to prove it.




  #16  
Old June 11th 09, 09:14 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
om...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all
to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It
was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form
of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.

My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which
conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up
something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix"
it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again,
thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to
reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but
it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof
since the government is the fool.
Phil #3

The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The
only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the
behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone
within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join
the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to
do with government. A dilemma of sorts.


Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a
nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and
them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off
soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment rights
by flexing our Second.

But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American
political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads) to
keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more. This is
subtle but observable in the local and national news and astoundingly
obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist propaganda machines.
This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows like King of Queens,
Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical fool and the smart,
level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By continuing to show this type
of behavior, people actually start believing it is "normal", therefore, in
their thinking, husbands/fathers are subconsciously seen as fools and
mothers/wives are seen as heroines.

Phil #3


Well said. The BIGGEST political propoganda machines are the so-called news
stations such as MSNBC, ABC, and my favorite, the Communist News Network
(CNN). It is a rare moment indeed that they actually report events without
injected emotions or opinions about it. Pretty scarry how so many people
follow their lead. Well, society gets just what it orders.




  #17  
Old June 12th 09, 02:02 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Kenneth S.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites

I'm going to top-post because the comments below are getting
lengthy.

I agree with your comments, Phil, about the instilling of
prejudice against men via the media. I stopped watching the TV
sitcoms, and most other TV shows, quite some time back. However,
when my daughter was living with me (and watching these shows) I was
reminded of all the dreary, politically correct drek that they pump
out. No wonder they're losing viewers at a great rate!

However, I disagree with your analysis of the reasons for this
situation. I don't think there's any big, organized government
propaganda effort here. There's no U.S. equivalent of Goebbels.
Instead, we have TV scriptwriters who -- in addition to lacking talent
and creativity -- are intimidated by every special interest group that
they think is out there.

Why are women, homosexuals, Latinos, or blacks handled with
kid gloves in TV shows -- and in the TV commercials? Because the
writers and the directors know there will be a prompt and vociferous
reaction from the relevant special interest group if they aren't.

Conversely, why are husbands/fathers/men depicted as fools
who need to be rescued by the heroic women with whom they are
associated? Because there's no special interest group representing
heterosexual men that will make a big stink about such a depiction.

Several years ago a group called the National Council of Free
Men was successful in protesting to Hallmark about some egregriously
anti-male greeting cards that they were selling. However, I haven't
heard of any similar successes recently.





On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:16:48 -0500, "Phil"
wrote:


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil"
wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
om...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for
all to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she
went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on.
It was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't
go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose
of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds
to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at
stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some
form of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to
walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or
actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to
provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects
a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the
U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done,
considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage
litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had
become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to
remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives
over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property
laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.

My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws
which conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw
up something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to
"fix" it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again,
thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to
reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures
but it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not
fool proof since the government is the fool.
Phil #3

The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged.
The only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is
for the behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely
that anyone within it will change, the only alternative is for new
people to join the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by
nature, want nothing to do with government. A dilemma of sorts.


Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a
nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and
them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off
soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment
rights by flexing our Second.

But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American
political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads)
to keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more.
This is subtle but observable in the local and national news and
astoundingly obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist
propaganda machines. This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows
like King of Queens, Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical
fool and the smart, level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By
continuing to show this type of behavior, people actually start
believing it is "normal", therefore, in their thinking, husbands/fathers
are subconsciously seen as fools and mothers/wives are seen as heroines.

Phil #3

  #18  
Old June 12th 09, 06:29 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
I'm going to top-post because the comments below are getting
lengthy.

I agree with your comments, Phil, about the instilling of
prejudice against men via the media. I stopped watching the TV
sitcoms, and most other TV shows, quite some time back. However,
when my daughter was living with me (and watching these shows) I was
reminded of all the dreary, politically correct drek that they pump
out. No wonder they're losing viewers at a great rate!

However, I disagree with your analysis of the reasons for this
situation. I don't think there's any big, organized government
propaganda effort here. There's no U.S. equivalent of Goebbels.
Instead, we have TV scriptwriters who -- in addition to lacking talent
and creativity -- are intimidated by every special interest group that
they think is out there.

Why are women, homosexuals, Latinos, or blacks handled with
kid gloves in TV shows -- and in the TV commercials? Because the
writers and the directors know there will be a prompt and vociferous
reaction from the relevant special interest group if they aren't.

Conversely, why are husbands/fathers/men depicted as fools
who need to be rescued by the heroic women with whom they are
associated? Because there's no special interest group representing
heterosexual men that will make a big stink about such a depiction.

Several years ago a group called the National Council of Free
Men was successful in protesting to Hallmark about some egregriously
anti-male greeting cards that they were selling. However, I haven't
heard of any similar successes recently.


I'm of a mind where I can agree, at least partially with the both of you.
There may not be any obvious government intervention in the form of some
agency or single political talking-head that's behind all of the
anti-male/father garbage we're constantly seeing on the boob-tube. Though
there are several highly organized groups out there that swing their
political clubs at our elected officials and get their phony-baloney
anti-father/men laws pushed through with relative ease. And that's because
our elected officials are afraid of loosing their votes. In this case,
women's votes. So they pander to these dirt-bags and get them to stand
behind them come election time and keep their jobs, in turn these
back-stabbing politicians hand these groups/people the keys to our lives.

And the worst part about it - we do nothing to stop them! Oh, we bitch,
moan and stomp our feet at it, but in the end, very little, if anything is
accomplished. Men need to get organized. It's that simple.

The next step is to find our own Teflon protected politician (or several of
them) to run for office, put out family friendly bills and fight to have
them passed. He must also work tirelessly to have the anti-family laws
overturned.

But we don't have one. And at this rate never will.

They way I see it, we need someone who's got balls made of solid rock who
can take a barrage of shots from the Left and come away pretty much
unscathed. Some one with an impeccable back ground, of sterling character
and unheard of experience. He's got to be a conservative, very family
friendly, knows our plight because he's been there, has undeniable
leadership qualities, isn't afraid to fight, isn't afraid to get dirty,
wields the truth like a sword, and actually has a backbone.

In a word, we need a divorced military man. It would be really great if
such a person was interracially married with kids from both relationships..
He'd be the perfect candidate.

  #19  
Old June 12th 09, 12:07 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Kenneth S.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


Chris says below that "society gets just what it orders" in
regard to the blatant political bias of news stations such as MSNBC,
ABC, and CNN. I don't think this is correct. However, I do agree
that most TV viewers in the U.S. show little awareness of the bias, in
part because they have become conditioned to it over the years.

The fact of the matter is that, as survey after survey has
shown, the personal political views of reporters and editors who
produce these programs are VERY different from those of the U.S.
public at large. For more detailed information on these surveys, see
http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx. Nearly all reporters and
editors acknowledge, when questioned, that their own political views
are very much at the liberal end of the spectrum.

In the specific context of family issues, such as "child
support," this liberal bias produces coverage that is reflexively
skewed towards the feminist point of view.

Fathers' Day is coming up soon, and I can pretty much
guarantee that you'll be able to see the bias at work in the media
coverage of the event. I predict much attention will be devoted to the
terrible problem of American fathers walking away from their children.
However, anyone familiar with the facts knows that most fatherless
families have been created by mothers -- either by expelling their
husbands from their families or by deciding to have children by men to
whom they are not married. The media will agree that only in a
minority of situations do American fathers have any major role in
regard to their children. But they won't ask why this is so.





On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:14:41 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
news
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:33:24 -0500, "Phil" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
. com...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3807


Forget taxes and the price of gas, this is the top issue for all
to
be concerned about.

When Paulette McDonald and her husband were splitting up, she went
to a divorce lawyer, and describes the smorgasbord she found
there.
"On the menu was child support, spousal support, pensions,
extraordinary expenses, education costs and the list went on. It
was
all there and ripe for the picking."

What DB isn't letting on about is the fact that McDonald didn't go
for the jugular. She, unlike many, many vengeful, spiteful and
revenge crazed former spouses, kept things amicable.

It's not just the ex spouses that use the system for the purpose of
ultimate retribution, but they are encouraged by the legal hounds to
suck as much blood as possible. With Futures and Careers at stake,
why is this not a huge political issue? Their has to be some form
of
cap put in place to limit control on these legal leeches!

Perhaps it's just better for men not to get married and have to walk
that tight rope of financial destitution?


Instead of socialized medicine, why not socialized legal
representation?
Everyone would have the same chance to be assigned a good or bad
lawyer
AND the lawyer gets paid the same whether they win, lose or actually
play fair, which would stop some of the gouging.
Phil #3

Socialized legal representation is almost certain to be VERY
costly to the taxpayer. In the U.S. it already costs a lot to provide
legal assistance to the indigent in criminal trials.

In the U.K. some years back the law was changed to allow
lawyers to charge contingent fees (under which the lawyer collects a
proportion of the damages) -- something that had been prohibited
before, although the contingent fee system has been used in the U.S.
for many years. I was very surprised that this was done, considering
the U.S. experience that contingent fees greatly encourage litigation.
I found out that the reason for the change in Britain was that the
cost of providing taxpayer-funded legal aid to poor people had become
astronomical. The same would happen if publicly funded legal
assistance were widely available in the U.S.

I take the point Phil is making about gouging. However, in my
view, the way to reduce the amount of divorce litigation is to remove
the present incentives for wives to divorce their husbands. In the
U.S. today, the vast majority of divorces are instigated by wives over
their husbands' objections. To counter this, community property laws
should be changed so that assets belong to the spouse who created
them. In addition, an end to the glass ceiling on paternal custody
and reform of the "child support" system would help greatly.

My suggestion was actually tongue-in-cheek as I want LESS government
involvement into everything instead of more. The situation we have
created is we have elected lawyers to the position to make laws which
conveniently promote legal disputes. The surest way to screw up
something is to let the state, or worse yet, 'feddle gummit' to "fix"
it.
In regard to the property laws, I simply refused to marry again,
thereby hopefully protecting what has taken decades after divorce to
reacquire. It's stupid to have to resort to such drastic measures but
it is the best way to protect myself and even then, it's not fool proof
since the government is the fool.
Phil #3

The government group is an unstoppable force not to be challenged. The
only way to stop the evil deeds of this most powerful group is for the
behavior of its participants to change. Since it is unlikely that anyone
within it will change, the only alternative is for new people to join
the group. Only problem is, righteous folks, by nature, want nothing to
do with government. A dilemma of sorts.

Unstoppable? Hardly. The political lawyering we have going on have a
nasty little document still fully in effect that stands between us and
them - the Constitution. If the politicians don't start backing off
soon, we always have the option of exercising our First Amendment rights
by flexing our Second.

But just like Hitler and Goebbels did in the 30's and 40's, the American
political system is using entertainment (TV, movies and talking heads) to
keep people entertained with prejudice while instilling even more. This is
subtle but observable in the local and national news and astoundingly
obvious in shows like Oprah and other sexist/racist propaganda machines.
This propaganda is even more pronounced in shows like King of Queens,
Raymond, etc., where the husband is the typical fool and the smart,
level-headed wife fixes all his mistakes. By continuing to show this type
of behavior, people actually start believing it is "normal", therefore, in
their thinking, husbands/fathers are subconsciously seen as fools and
mothers/wives are seen as heroines.

Phil #3


Well said. The BIGGEST political propoganda machines are the so-called news
stations such as MSNBC, ABC, and my favorite, the Communist News Network
(CNN). It is a rare moment indeed that they actually report events without
injected emotions or opinions about it. Pretty scarry how so many people
follow their lead. Well, society gets just what it orders.



  #20  
Old June 12th 09, 05:13 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"Chris" wrote in

I'm already married to my dog. Even though the government discriminates
against us, that doesn't matter because we are still in love with each
other and married in our hearts. As a matter of fact, I even have our lil'
homemade "dog"ument to prove it.



Yes but the government will be too glad to seize your income if you have any
puppies with your bitch! LOL


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Worms are parasites that live in human intestines ... Ilena Rose Kids Health 0 December 25th 07 10:41 PM
Children are useless parasites !!! Sam Prune Foster Parents 5 December 27th 05 12:50 AM
Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts... Dusty Child Support 41 December 14th 05 06:21 PM
Kane has never claimed that CP isn't "legal." was Kane admits spanking legal. Just as I've written. Kane Spanking 6 September 4th 04 07:08 PM
Family Continuity Programs, Inc. to turn over contract to Sarasota Family YMCA, Inc. wexwimpy Foster Parents 0 March 4th 04 08:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.