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