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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 11:41 PM |
Children are useless parasites !!! | Sam Prune | Foster Parents | 5 | December 27th 05 01:50 AM |
Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts... | Dusty | Child Support | 41 | December 14th 05 07:21 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 09:07 PM |