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
  #1  
Old June 9th 09, 02:41 AM posted to alt.child-support
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites

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."


  #2  
Old June 9th 09, 05:14 AM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites

"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.

  #3  
Old June 9th 09, 06:26 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"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?



  #4  
Old June 9th 09, 02:33 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"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


  #5  
Old June 9th 09, 04:54 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

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.
  #6  
Old June 10th 09, 01:34 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"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


  #7  
Old June 11th 09, 01:19 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

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.

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.

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. )


  #8  
Old June 11th 09, 03:11 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
DB[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default Family Kourts, Legal Parasites


"Kenneth S." wrote in

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.


It's also absurd for the government to be involved in the regulation of two
individuals when they separate!
The only thing government should have the authority to regulate is the
collection of taxes, stay the **** out of our personal live and private
business.


  #9  
Old June 11th 09, 03:21 AM 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
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.




  #10  
Old June 11th 09, 07:05 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
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.


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.

 




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 12:10 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.