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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
CS Propaganda article of the month
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Bob wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... TM wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message arthlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob. The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point, knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not produce that evidence without prior notice. It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been at least some advance notice. Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into the courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens to be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove his inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via subpoena. Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony? Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set at based on his income and her lack of income. I'll accept your explanation because of your personal knowledge of this case. However, when you wrote: "His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity in the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his exes lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the second half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years." ....I assumed that meant the judge in awarding her additional equity in the family home, and half of her attorney fees, that REDUCED her need for alimony. When the court did not take into consideration the additional cash amounts she received, it had the affect of inflating the alimony award even though the need for it had been further reduced by the up-front cash transfers. I consider not reducing the alimony to be part of the sanction. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
CS Propaganda article of the month
Well, since there was no written agreement...
Mel wrote: She didn't give it up..... Mel wrote: In other words, Indyguy, she got a nice little pension and a huge retirement bonus for raising her own kids. About what I'd expect from an judge crooked enough to overlook tax fraud. No wonder our courts are screwed up. What she got was some help in supporting herself after giving up 30 years of income, experience and advancement, ... she got it just the same as he did - she just didn't have to leave home to get it. I disagree. His support of her during the marriage was more so payment for her SAH duties, and not any compensation for what she gave up. .... my explanation of the good life she had while married is just as correct as yours. Why don't you ask HIM what the agreement was between them : ) because her exhusband is a neanderthal. But then aren't all of us MEN? LOL. Men that think like DH's cousin certainly are, in my opinion. Well, if you're talking about his beliefs regarding the **** you're posting here, there ARE lots of us ... and a lot more running around out there who DON'T post here and who DON'T want to have anything to do with women like you or your cousin's ex. As far as the judge is concerned.... He's VERY fair. May be your definition of fair. As a taxpayer, I don't like the idea that an officer of the court with evidence of tax fraud and no duty of privilege to a client would tell the perpetrator he'll allow the fraud to continue as long as the woman gets cut in on the deal.... Yes, I'm sure you DO consider that fair. Would you also consider it fair if the judge allowed him to continue siphoning off federal funds being sent to a senior retirement center....as long as the ex-wife got her share??? Actually I would rather have seen the judge turn him into the feds. I'm not defending the judge looking the other way. Bull****. You just described him as "fair", and as far as I know, you've based that judgement entirely on what he did to your h's cousin. You thought it was fair UNTIL I pointed out that SHE was benefitting from ALL OF US being ripped off by tax evasion ... then you HAD TO change your opinion. At least, that's the way it looks as things unfolded - going to be hard to go back and make it look any different. He was a hell of a lot fairer with Dh's cousin than others would have been. What are the odds that the wife told NO lies in the course of the proceedings? Bet she included a couple of whoppers too, and got off without suffering any "fairness"... Like what? She showed anything she earned. She showed what her SOL had been. She showed how her ex spent marital funds on the mistress. She had no reason to lie as she had nothing to hide. Her ex hasn't said anything about her telling lies and that being the reason he was ordered to pay what he has had to pay. He on the other hand....... Dunno - it seems women get away with it all the time in court. If he turned in every tax defrauder that stood in front of his bench he'd only be able to hear half the cases he currently does, because he'd be on the phone with the IRS the other half of the day. Well, if there's that much tax fraud going on among your peers, maybe you should be a good citizen and make the government aware of it. Of course we always knew that people up at your income level failed to pay their fair share.....thanks for the admission. 1st of all DH's cousin and his ex aren't what we consider amongst our *peers*. Hmm - seem to know them pretty well... 2nd we pay our taxes according to federal and state requirments, every year and on time. Didn't say you didn't, just that you seem to know a lot of people who don't and then end up in front of this judge. Gotta wonder how many you know that DON'T end up in front of this judge. If you're spending all your time with people who aren't your peers.... Actually, that wouldn't surprise me - the way you write there AREN'T any people who are YOUR peers... Mel Gamble Mrs Indyguy Mel Gamble Mrs Indyguy |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
CS Propaganda article of the month
Good catch, Bob. Bet you're the only one who saw that little twist : )
Mel Gamble "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Bob wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... TM wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message arthlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob. The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point, knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not produce that evidence without prior notice. It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been at least some advance notice. Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into the courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens to be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove his inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via subpoena. Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony? Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set at based on his income and her lack of income. I'll accept your explanation because of your personal knowledge of this case. However, when you wrote: "His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity in the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his exes lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the second half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years." ...I assumed that meant the judge in awarding her additional equity in the family home, and half of her attorney fees, that REDUCED her need for alimony. When the court did not take into consideration the additional cash amounts she received, it had the affect of inflating the alimony award even though the need for it had been further reduced by the up-front cash transfers. I consider not reducing the alimony to be part of the sanction. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
CS Propaganda article of the month
So you don't have any problem...
Bob wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... TM wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message arthlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob. The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point, knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not produce that evidence without prior notice. It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been at least some advance notice. Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into the courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens to be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove his inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via subpoena. Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony? Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set at based on his income and her lack of income. .... with the judge taking what should have been a punishment in the form of a fine to the court/state and turning it into more benefit for the woeman? You don't see a problem with using an act which might normally have resulted in a sanction of a few hundred dollars at most to extract thousands extra out of the husband? Guess you see this as just as "fair" as letting the guy get away with tax fraud, so long as it benefits the woman... I guess I'm reading it differently from you. But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from. I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision and the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views. Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong? Do they? Maybe. But if they do they shouldn't be doing it. It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an example, the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment records. When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the timeframe of the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he would not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded timeframe, and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of proper notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the Order to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they do, they are advocating and judging simultaneously. And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all the way around. Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave him every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there is no comparrison. So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your state? I honestly don't know. But I would say making him pay a portion of her attorney fees was appropriate. You know the old adage... Tell one lie in court and the judge will have a hard time believing anything you say. I doubt it is increasing alimony and more like being held in contempt of court with an admonition to never do it again or some kind of minor sanction. Paying another person huge amounts of money for several years is not a normal legal sanction. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The SS was set based on his income not as a punishment. Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going to ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but had undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she really be left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the marriage? According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as compensation. The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes to justify past marriage agreements. But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's behavior in court. My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house because of his behavior. Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as punishment. And he must make quite a bit of money to be required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award! I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range. Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal sanction for misbehavior in court. That did happen. Increasing the SS award to the woman is not supported by law in most states. That didn't happen. That's clearly a finding of fault.) But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault within the marriage. Correct. That's why the SS increase is so odd. Why do you insist that happened when I never said it did and it never did? From what has been presented here, the court increased the alimony award for behavior in court rather than using normal sanctions outlined in the law for inappropriate behavior in court. Nope. I don't understand how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent and independent simultaneously. Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage? No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the judges order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going to be awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds on wining and dinning his mistress. Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. WRONG!!! He had to pay his ex back for misuse of marital funds. The judge didn't award her more of the equity because he had an affiar. He paid her back the marital monies her ex had no right to spend on an other woamn. BULL****!!! IF there is no fault, then having another woman on the side is NOT disallowed in the marriage. HE can spend what HE earns on any damn thing he pleases, as long as it isn't illegal. Are you saying that if he'd bought his aging mother a home to retire in it would have met the same standard of "misuse"? Men are not allowed to bring up the dirty laundry regarding their soon to be ex wive's behavior because that would violate the concept of no-fault divorce. His ex wasn't allowed to bring up the affiar either, with the exception of the missuse of marital funds. That is allowed to be brought up in this state, by either spouse. Would it have been misuse to spend the same cash on gambling? How about on boy toys? How about donating it to a religion she didn't approve of? Was he under some obligation to get her to co-sign on every cent of HIS money he spent? RUBBISH. The women who are advocating this double standard should re-examine what they are saying. They are asking to have it both ways with one standard for men and a different standard for women. If men can't show how women have been with other men, why are women allowed to show men have been with other women? He had the same abilty to show missuse of marital funds as his ex did. He had nothing to show, but she did. His attorney probably told him the law only stretches THAT far if it benefits a woman... Mel Gamble Mrs Indyguy So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding in no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men and required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce? To Bob: You want to talk unfair? Here's unfair..... This divorce was filed on the grounds of infidelity. It was not a no-fault divorce. Yet the judge was not allowed, by state law, to divide assets based on the proven fault. This guy got ZERO punishment for his fault. He was punished for his lies to the court. He lost some of the equity due to his missuse of marital funds. He's ****ed to this day. He felt he should have been able to dump his wife of 30 years, move in with his mistress and take a minimum of 50% of the marital assests (actually he wanted 70% because he was the wage earner) and not look back. Similar to the way several men who post on this ng think. He should be ****ed. He also has grounds for an appeal, but I'll bet the judge screwed him financially just up to the amount it would cost him to mount a legal appeal. That's how the game is played. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
CS Propaganda article of the month
Mel wrote:
So you don't have any problem... Bob wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... TM wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message arthlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob. The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point, knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not produce that evidence without prior notice. It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been at least some advance notice. Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into the courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens to be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove his inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via subpoena. Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony? Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set at based on his income and her lack of income. ... with the judge taking what should have been a punishment in the form of a fine to the court/state and turning it into more benefit for the woeman? When the guy was lying to the courts with the intent of cheating his W out of support based on his lies, no I don't have a problem with the punishment benefiting the person he was trying to defraud. You don't see a problem with using an act which might normally have resulted in a sanction of a few hundred dollars at most to extract thousands extra out of the husband? His punishment was right around $5000. Small in comparrison to what he was trying to cheat her out of. Guess you see this as just as "fair" as letting the guy get away with tax fraud, so long as it benefits the woman... Ok, Mel you win. I'll call the tax fraud hot line and report him. I guess I'm reading it differently from you. But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from. I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision and the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views. Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong? Do they? Maybe. But if they do they shouldn't be doing it. It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an example, the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment records. When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the timeframe of the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he would not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded timeframe, and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of proper notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the Order to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they do, they are advocating and judging simultaneously. And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all the way around. Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave him every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there is no comparrison. So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your state? I honestly don't know. But I would say making him pay a portion of her attorney fees was appropriate. You know the old adage... Tell one lie in court and the judge will have a hard time believing anything you say. I doubt it is increasing alimony and more like being held in contempt of court with an admonition to never do it again or some kind of minor sanction. Paying another person huge amounts of money for several years is not a normal legal sanction. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The SS was set based on his income not as a punishment. Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going to ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but had undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she really be left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the marriage? According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as compensation. The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes to justify past marriage agreements. But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's behavior in court. My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house because of his behavior. Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as punishment. And he must make quite a bit of money to be required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award! I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range. Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal sanction for misbehavior in court. That did happen. Increasing the SS award to the woman is not supported by law in most states. That didn't happen. That's clearly a finding of fault.) But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault within the marriage. Correct. That's why the SS increase is so odd. Why do you insist that happened when I never said it did and it never did? From what has been presented here, the court increased the alimony award for behavior in court rather than using normal sanctions outlined in the law for inappropriate behavior in court. Nope. I don't understand how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent and independent simultaneously. Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage? No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the judges order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going to be awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds on wining and dinning his mistress. Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. WRONG!!! He had to pay his ex back for misuse of marital funds. The judge didn't award her more of the equity because he had an affiar. He paid her back the marital monies her ex had no right to spend on an other woamn. BULL****!!! IF there is no fault, then having another woman on the side is NOT disallowed in the marriage. He wasn't punished for having a woman on the side. HE can spend what HE earns on any damn thing he pleases, as long as it isn't illegal. Not in Illinois. Here ALL money earned by either spouse during a marriage belongs to BOTH spouses. Are you saying that if he'd bought his aging mother a home to retire in it would have met the same standard of "misuse"? In that case the additional home can be sold, the guy could buy out his wife's portion, etc. When one spends money on an other person, there is no way to split that money as it is gone, so the courts take half of what was spent on the third party out of other sources. Men are not allowed to bring up the dirty laundry regarding their soon to be ex wive's behavior because that would violate the concept of no-fault divorce. His ex wasn't allowed to bring up the affiar either, with the exception of the missuse of marital funds. That is allowed to be brought up in this state, by either spouse. Would it have been misuse to spend the same cash on gambling? I don't know. How about on boy toys? They can be sold, split or otherwise handled to make sure BOTH get an equal share of the toys. How about donating it to a religion she didn't approve of? Good question, and I have no idea how this is looked at in our state. Was he under some obligation to get her to co-sign on every cent of HIS money he spent? 1) It isn't HIS money it is THEIR money. 2) If anyone uses MARITAL money to benefit a third party that has no benefit for the family then yes they are responsible for making sure their stbx gets their share of those dollars. That is the law here. RUBBISH. In your opinion. The women who are advocating this double standard should re-examine what they are saying. They are asking to have it both ways with one standard for men and a different standard for women. If men can't show how women have been with other men, why are women allowed to show men have been with other women? He had the same abilty to show missuse of marital funds as his ex did. He had nothing to show, but she did. His attorney probably told him the law only stretches THAT far if it benefits a woman... Who said he had an attorney? Mrs Indguy Mel Gamble Mrs Indyguy So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding in no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men and required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce? To Bob: |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
CS Propaganda article of the month
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... His punishment was right around $5000. Small in comparrison to what he was trying to cheat her out of. That's $5,000 net after taxes. And since the issues were centered around alimony her attorney fees related to those discussions and the resultant litigation would be tax deductible so she got tax deductions instead of tax liability on some portion of the money. Judges pull this game all the time - allowing one party after tax assets and the other party per-tax assets and calling it equal. If one party gets $50,000 in home equity and the other party gets their $50,000 retirement account that is NOT equal. If that additional $5,000 had been an alimony payment, and assuming she had a modest 25% tax liability for federal and state taxes combined, that's a gain of $6,667 in pre-tax dollars. From the husband's perspective that equals an increase of alimony of over $111 per month over the first 5 years of the alimony requirement, but none of that increase was tax deductible for him which meant he was forced to give up additional money without being able to shelter a portion of it through tax deductibility. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
CS Propaganda article of the month
I figured as much...funny,
Mel wrote: So you don't have any problem... Bob wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... TM wrote: "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message arthlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob. The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point, knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not produce that evidence without prior notice. It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been at least some advance notice. Actually he had months to produce, as he kept asking for and recieveing continuances. The last continuance he recieved was when he hobbled into the courtroom leaning on a cane, with a letter from his physician, who happens to be his best friend, stating he can no longer work due to a knee injury. Of course he brought not one document the judge had tried to help him prove his inability to pay SS. That is when his exs attorney got the info via subpoena. Isn't there a legal remedy in your state for failing to comply with a subpoena that involves the court would use rather than increasing alimony? Bob, the judge didn't increase SS as a punishmewnt. It was what it was set at based on his income and her lack of income. ... with the judge taking what should have been a punishment in the form of a fine to the court/state and turning it into more benefit for the woeman? When the guy was lying to the courts with the intent of cheating his W out of support based on his lies, no I don't have a problem with the punishment benefiting the person he was trying to defraud. .... it doesn't work that way in ANY other area of law. So maybe the ex should keep the court apprised of any changes in her address, just in case the guy gets a speeding ticket or something, that way they'll know where to send his fine. You offend me. Fines that should go to the state should go to the state. First, you say it's OK for the judge to conspire to defraud the government by turning a blind eye to tax fraud...now you say it's OK to take what should be going to the court and send it to a woman, just as long as it's another way for her to beat the guy over the head. Your morals stink. You don't see a problem with using an act which might normally have resulted in a sanction of a few hundred dollars at most to extract thousands extra out of the husband? His punishment was right around $5000. Small in comparrison to what he was trying to cheat her out of. And your point??? Any other person lieing to the court or withholding information from the court IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF CASE (and in LEGAL divorce cases) ends up paying with time served or a check payable to the state court system. Your morals stink. Guess you see this as just as "fair" as letting the guy get away with tax fraud, so long as it benefits the woman... Ok, Mel you win. I'll call the tax fraud hot line and report him. I'd say "thank you", if I believed you but you seem at least as dishonest as the guy and the judge... Again, your morals stink. I guess I'm reading it differently from you. But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from. I agree. But that is a dangerous thing to do, as it leads to tunnel vision and the inabilty to ever see things other than with ones own narrow views. Oh come on! Do you really believe judges don't rule every day based on their personal tunnel vision about what is right and wrong? Do they? Maybe. But if they do they shouldn't be doing it. It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an example, the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment records. When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the timeframe of the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he would not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded timeframe, and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of proper notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the Order to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they do, they are advocating and judging simultaneously. And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all the way around. Yes, what happened to Bob was wrong. The judge in H's cousins case gave him every opportunity to produce and was clear as to what to produce, so there is no comparrison. So what is the legal remedy for failing to produce discovery in your state? I honestly don't know. But I would say making him pay a portion of her attorney fees was appropriate. You know the old adage... Tell one lie in court and the judge will have a hard time believing anything you say. I doubt it is increasing alimony and more like being held in contempt of court with an admonition to never do it again or some kind of minor sanction. Paying another person huge amounts of money for several years is not a normal legal sanction. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. The SS was set based on his income not as a punishment. Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going to ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but had undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she really be left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the marriage? According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as compensation. The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes to justify past marriage agreements. But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's behavior in court. My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house because of his behavior. Correct and he was ordered to pay half of his exes attorney fees also as punishment. And he must make quite a bit of money to be required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award! I believe he earns somewhere in the 70-80K range. Now paying half of the other person's legal fees is an appropriate legal sanction for misbehavior in court. That did happen. Increasing the SS award to the woman is not supported by law in most states. That didn't happen. That's clearly a finding of fault.) But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault within the marriage. Correct. That's why the SS increase is so odd. Why do you insist that happened when I never said it did and it never did? From what has been presented here, the court increased the alimony award for behavior in court rather than using normal sanctions outlined in the law for inappropriate behavior in court. Nope. I don't understand how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent and independent simultaneously. Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage? No he did not. What he did comment on was how he lied and ignored the judges order to produce. But to be 100% honest and fair *I* think she was going to be awarded 60% of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home, prior to the uncovering of the lies, because she had proof he had spent marital funds on wining and dinning his mistress. Another finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. WRONG!!! He had to pay his ex back for misuse of marital funds. The judge didn't award her more of the equity because he had an affiar. He paid her back the marital monies her ex had no right to spend on an other woamn. BULL****!!! IF there is no fault, then having another woman on the side is NOT disallowed in the marriage. He wasn't punished for having a woman on the side. It quacked - it was a duck. HE can spend what HE earns on any damn thing he pleases, as long as it isn't illegal. Not in Illinois. Here ALL money earned by either spouse during a marriage belongs to BOTH spouses. So she needed his permission to go buy a new purse? Or did he have to accompany her, provide I.D. and co-sign? Are you saying that if he'd bought his aging mother a home to retire in it would have met the same standard of "misuse"? In that case the additional home can be sold, the guy could buy out his wife's portion, etc. Avoiding the question.... When one spends money on an other person, there is no way to split that money as it is gone, so the courts take half of what was spent on the third party out of other sources. So if he sent his mother on a cruise, it would have been grounds for divorce? Your moral stink, and apparently, so do those of your state. Men are not allowed to bring up the dirty laundry regarding their soon to be ex wive's behavior because that would violate the concept of no-fault divorce. His ex wasn't allowed to bring up the affiar either, with the exception of the missuse of marital funds. That is allowed to be brought up in this state, by either spouse. Would it have been misuse to spend the same cash on gambling? I don't know. How about on boy toys? They can be sold, split or otherwise handled to make sure BOTH get an equal share of the toys. How about donating it to a religion she didn't approve of? Good question, and I have no idea how this is looked at in our state. Was he under some obligation to get her to co-sign on every cent of HIS money he spent? 1) It isn't HIS money it is THEIR money. 2) If anyone uses MARITAL money to benefit a third party that has no benefit for the family Such as the guy who runs the amusement park when the husband takes the scout troop and leaves the wife at home...... Your morals stink. then yes they are responsible for making sure their stbx gets their share of those dollars. That is the law here. "Well, let's see, dear. I think I spent $256 on the underpriveleged kids. Here's a check for $256 for you." What a crock of ****. Your morals stink. RUBBISH. In your opinion. It's a universal truth. The women who are advocating this double standard should re-examine what they are saying. They are asking to have it both ways with one standard for men and a different standard for women. If men can't show how women have been with other men, why are women allowed to show men have been with other women? He had the same abilty to show missuse of marital funds as his ex did. He had nothing to show, but she did. His attorney probably told him the law only stretches THAT far if it benefits a woman... Who said he had an attorney? Oh, HER attorney told him that was the way it works.... Her morals also stink. Mel Gamble Mrs Indguy Mel Gamble Mrs Indyguy So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding in no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men and required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce? To Bob: |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
CS Propaganda article of the month
Right, Bob...
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... His punishment was right around $5000. Small in comparrison to what he was trying to cheat her out of. That's $5,000 net after taxes. And since the issues were centered around alimony her attorney fees related to those discussions and the resultant litigation would be tax deductible so she got tax deductions instead of tax liability on some portion of the money. Judges pull this game all the time - allowing one party after tax assets and the other party per-tax assets and calling it equal. If one party gets $50,000 in home equity and the other party gets their $50,000 retirement account that is NOT equal. If that additional $5,000 had been an alimony payment, and assuming she had a modest 25% tax liability for federal and state taxes combined, that's a gain of $6,667 in pre-tax dollars. From the husband's perspective that equals an increase of alimony of over $111 per month over the first 5 years of the alimony requirement, but none of that increase was tax deductible for him which meant he was forced to give up additional money without being able to shelter a portion of it through tax deductibility. .... and Gimmeguy considers that a fair comparison to a $75 contempt-of-court fine. AND that it's OK for the judge to transfer the taxpayors' rightful due - the fine - to the woeman. Her morals stink. Mel Gamble |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Webcast – Foster Our Futu National Foster Care Month 2004 | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 1 | March 4th 04 07:55 PM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Spanking | 33 | December 10th 03 08:05 PM |
CyberNews article: THE NEW PHONICS methodology and its history | Tracy Sherwood | General | 2 | September 4th 03 03:39 AM |
Food Recalls (x-posted) | Ali's Daddie | General | 0 | August 28th 03 06:12 PM |
DCF CT monitor finds kids *worsen* while in state custody | Kane | General | 8 | August 13th 03 07:43 AM |