I can't imagine why divorce would drop off in bad times.
I mean, if the problem is the evil, cheating man, then the solution is divorce, no? Bearing in mind that the majority (about 70%) of divorces are filed by women, then certainly, if the problems are violence, masculine stubbornness, male ignorance, and the like, and given a divorce system that makes men pay their partner's legal fees, divorce rates should stay the same.
Unless, of course, it isn't about anything but the freaking money.
I've said it before - it's a storm of the spirit - a moral storm, and unfortunately it appears that the majority of women lack a moral compass, and so therefore their partners, the men, are at great risk.
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Showing posts with label Legal Fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal Fees. Show all posts
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
P is for Protect Yourself
Another problem that presents itself to men in divorce and separation is what happens when you lose you job.
You can find yourself building up arrears while your ex collects 65% of your unemployment, and sues you, claiming you aren't searching hard enough for the next job. When you get the next job, she may sue you claiming that this job pays lower than it should have because you didn't do an adequate search. And the odds of being sued in these ways are high, because traditionally, the man (whups, the 'presumed higher wage earner') pays for the lawyers fees. So she's got nothing at stake.
To protect yourself you need to keep a record of who you sent your resumes to, who you spoke to, and what kind of networking and investigations you did in hunting for your job. You also need to track salary information for these jobs (if available), locations you looked in, job titles and the like.
And this isn't a joke - the burden of proof in one of these cases does not fall upon the accuser - the woman - it falls upon the support-payer; the man.
It is up to you to prove that you are doing or did do an adequate search to the court, and show where you searched and how.
I have been there, and I know.
They want to see how many folks you contacted, if you followed up, and where the jobs were located, and are liable to parse this data closely. It's a big deal. And if you fail to prove that your job hunt was sufficient, then you get the joy of 'imputed income', which is where the court pretends, for its calculations that you are making your old income. (i.e. when the facts don't allow you to come up with your insane support numbers, just plug in the pretend facts that will help. Nice.)
BLATANT PLUG:
So to deal with this documentation/job search issue I use a job networking tool that has good job-hunt reporting, called 'The Job Networking Assistant', from Anonymous Developments, who have just rolled out their latest version. The software costs a big $20, and automates your job search and networking efforts in a way few tools can. It autodials, generates professional-looking customizable emails, pulls up maps of job locations, tracks referrals, and a lot more. Upgrades are free, and revisions generally roll out every couple months. If you are a divorced person hunting for a job, this may be the best $20 you ever spent.
The standard version of the software is available for download as a free trial - just follow the link here.
Oh, and I get a big piece of the action, so do buy it and use it - it's good for networking, even if you haven't lost your job or aren't divorced or separated!
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
You can find yourself building up arrears while your ex collects 65% of your unemployment, and sues you, claiming you aren't searching hard enough for the next job. When you get the next job, she may sue you claiming that this job pays lower than it should have because you didn't do an adequate search. And the odds of being sued in these ways are high, because traditionally, the man (whups, the 'presumed higher wage earner') pays for the lawyers fees. So she's got nothing at stake.
To protect yourself you need to keep a record of who you sent your resumes to, who you spoke to, and what kind of networking and investigations you did in hunting for your job. You also need to track salary information for these jobs (if available), locations you looked in, job titles and the like.
And this isn't a joke - the burden of proof in one of these cases does not fall upon the accuser - the woman - it falls upon the support-payer; the man.
It is up to you to prove that you are doing or did do an adequate search to the court, and show where you searched and how.
I have been there, and I know.
They want to see how many folks you contacted, if you followed up, and where the jobs were located, and are liable to parse this data closely. It's a big deal. And if you fail to prove that your job hunt was sufficient, then you get the joy of 'imputed income', which is where the court pretends, for its calculations that you are making your old income. (i.e. when the facts don't allow you to come up with your insane support numbers, just plug in the pretend facts that will help. Nice.)
BLATANT PLUG:
So to deal with this documentation/job search issue I use a job networking tool that has good job-hunt reporting, called 'The Job Networking Assistant', from Anonymous Developments, who have just rolled out their latest version. The software costs a big $20, and automates your job search and networking efforts in a way few tools can. It autodials, generates professional-looking customizable emails, pulls up maps of job locations, tracks referrals, and a lot more. Upgrades are free, and revisions generally roll out every couple months. If you are a divorced person hunting for a job, this may be the best $20 you ever spent.
The standard version of the software is available for download as a free trial - just follow the link here.
Oh, and I get a big piece of the action, so do buy it and use it - it's good for networking, even if you haven't lost your job or aren't divorced or separated!
My Best To You In Your Struggles
-M
Your comments and thoughts are always welcome, - and do please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
M is for Men, and Millionaires
Saw a news item from The Star Ledger at NJ.Com, and just immediately, immediately felt the hot breath of institutionalized misandry... ... Let's start with the title:
Judge dismisses millionaire's suit against his former wife
Now, in the case in question, we have a severely alienating former wife (how severe? try claiming to your kids that your ex has hired a hit-man to kill you), who has traveled across state and country lines to hide herself and his children in a friendly venue.
What venue did she choose? Three guesses, and the first two don't count:
New Jersey.
New Jersey.
and the one that counts:
New Jersey.
But what is the headline? It is about this RETIREE man's 'millions', not about the kidnapper's flight across borders, her lies, or her choice of venue.
Hello! First of all - it is misandrous to look at a case of kidnapping and alienation, and make the title about the supposedly deep pockets of one of the parties. If the woman had millions (and if we look at the settlement, it seems she does) we wouldn't be mentioning those in the title (and we don't).
Second of all - it is misandrous to look at a retiree, and call him a millionaire. If I were at retirement age, and had a house to my name and the assets necessary to keep me in some form of comfort for the rest of my life (kind of the definition of 'retirement') I would be... ...A MILLIONAIRE... (oooh-aaaah). Houses here in NJ, and also in many parts of Canada easily go for half a million, and that is just for your generic, middle-of-the-road house. So there is half your mil there. Now just look at what our putative millionaire needs to make it through the rest of his life. Imagine he lives 10 years. 50K x 10 years = another half million. And that isn't a rich lifestyle, or even allowing for inflation. And would they be mentioning these 'millions' if we were talking about a woman? No, we'd be talking about the man who stole his children and fled across state and international borders.
Third of all, it is particularly misandrous to look at a man in court, and particularly pick up on his net worth. Men go to work, they earn money. It's what they do. You might as well make a big deal about a seagull flying, or a mole burrowing. But apparently men with money, men earning money, men working to earn money, and men trying to keep the money they earned are all wrong/evil, and so that becomes the headline, not the Canadian kidnapper with the 11-odd million in Canadian Dollars who fled to the US/New Jersey.
The article gives us some background, so the writer (Margaret McHugh) did her homework, thank you very much, and perhaps we can blame the editor for the misandrous title.
But the article also reminds us of how much we have lost:
"New Jersey law simply does not allow recovery for the causes of action Segal asserts," [judge] Rand wrote, citing the 1935 Heart Balm Act that abolished causes of action for alienation of affection.
Nowadays, a man can be divorced without cause, and without recourse, and becomes subject to the theft of his children, half his assets or more, his future income, plus (of course) child support, and he cannot, under any circumstances, raise the behaviors/actions of his ex-wife in court and hope to win compensation.
The bias fairly drips from Judge Rand's pen:
Even if the Heart Balm Act didn't govern, Rand wrote he would have thrown out Segal's civil case anyhow because Segal failed to show Lynch's actions rose to the level of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
"If Segal has become emotionally estranged from E.S. and W.S., it is, to a large degree, the result of his own actions and not because Lynch 'intentionally and maliciously' poisoned their relationship," Rand wrote in the 29-page decision.
[...]
Rand criticized Segal for continuing "to file highly-publicized, vindictive and baseless lawsuits against the children's mother."
Let's see - claiming to your children that their own father hired a hit man to kill you? Running across state and national boundaries to hide so that a private investigator must be paid to even find you and the children you abducted? Nope, no reason to assume anyone was harmed there. No basis, no basis at all.
And part of the article is about how the husband filed the suit in an unusual court - but no wonder:
Last month, Family Court Judge Thomas Weisenbeck dismissed Segal's attempt to cut her spousal support, saying Segal made the same unsuccessful arguments in Canadian courts, and he ordered him to pay her $7,000 legal tab.
The husband already has seen what FAMILY courts in NJ do at some length. You go to court, and pay the wife's tab AND yours, so you can lose.
Finally, way, way down in the article we see:
In 2005, a Canadian court awarded Lynch $11.1 million (estimated at $10.3 million in U.S. dollars) in spousal and child support. She received two properties that Segal contends grew in value and are worth far more than her award.
Interesting. We call the husband a 'millionaire' in the title of the article, but did we bother to look at the (stolen) net worth of the wife?
Finally, it might be worth noting that Segal never married Lynch.
That's right.
She stole his children, and 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus legal fees, all for being a 'Common Law Wife'. Segal lived with Lynch for five years in Toronto.
That's right: five years of 'unmarried life' = 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus the right to steal your children.
And here is what far too many men try to deny - not marrying your partner does not protect you from anythnig. The state has made any kind of long, middle, and even short term relationship with a woman a very dangerous proposition for men.
No wonder the marriage rate is in the can, and older women might as well try and piss up a rope as try and get hitched. No man with an ounce of fiscal sense is likely to gamble that this wife might not change her mind on a whim, and turn his 'golden years' into years of slavery, while stealing his kids.
And a big shout out of 'Congrats' to New Jersey for being the international venue of choice for alienating moms.
Well Done, Well Done Slytherin, I mean, New Jersey!
My best to you in your struggles.
-M
Judge dismisses millionaire's suit against his former wife
Now, in the case in question, we have a severely alienating former wife (how severe? try claiming to your kids that your ex has hired a hit-man to kill you), who has traveled across state and country lines to hide herself and his children in a friendly venue.
What venue did she choose? Three guesses, and the first two don't count:
New Jersey.
New Jersey.
and the one that counts:
New Jersey.
But what is the headline? It is about this RETIREE man's 'millions', not about the kidnapper's flight across borders, her lies, or her choice of venue.
Hello! First of all - it is misandrous to look at a case of kidnapping and alienation, and make the title about the supposedly deep pockets of one of the parties. If the woman had millions (and if we look at the settlement, it seems she does) we wouldn't be mentioning those in the title (and we don't).
Second of all - it is misandrous to look at a retiree, and call him a millionaire. If I were at retirement age, and had a house to my name and the assets necessary to keep me in some form of comfort for the rest of my life (kind of the definition of 'retirement') I would be... ...A MILLIONAIRE... (oooh-aaaah). Houses here in NJ, and also in many parts of Canada easily go for half a million, and that is just for your generic, middle-of-the-road house. So there is half your mil there. Now just look at what our putative millionaire needs to make it through the rest of his life. Imagine he lives 10 years. 50K x 10 years = another half million. And that isn't a rich lifestyle, or even allowing for inflation. And would they be mentioning these 'millions' if we were talking about a woman? No, we'd be talking about the man who stole his children and fled across state and international borders.
Third of all, it is particularly misandrous to look at a man in court, and particularly pick up on his net worth. Men go to work, they earn money. It's what they do. You might as well make a big deal about a seagull flying, or a mole burrowing. But apparently men with money, men earning money, men working to earn money, and men trying to keep the money they earned are all wrong/evil, and so that becomes the headline, not the Canadian kidnapper with the 11-odd million in Canadian Dollars who fled to the US/New Jersey.
The article gives us some background, so the writer (Margaret McHugh) did her homework, thank you very much, and perhaps we can blame the editor for the misandrous title.
But the article also reminds us of how much we have lost:
"New Jersey law simply does not allow recovery for the causes of action Segal asserts," [judge] Rand wrote, citing the 1935 Heart Balm Act that abolished causes of action for alienation of affection.
Nowadays, a man can be divorced without cause, and without recourse, and becomes subject to the theft of his children, half his assets or more, his future income, plus (of course) child support, and he cannot, under any circumstances, raise the behaviors/actions of his ex-wife in court and hope to win compensation.
The bias fairly drips from Judge Rand's pen:
Even if the Heart Balm Act didn't govern, Rand wrote he would have thrown out Segal's civil case anyhow because Segal failed to show Lynch's actions rose to the level of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
"If Segal has become emotionally estranged from E.S. and W.S., it is, to a large degree, the result of his own actions and not because Lynch 'intentionally and maliciously' poisoned their relationship," Rand wrote in the 29-page decision.
[...]
Rand criticized Segal for continuing "to file highly-publicized, vindictive and baseless lawsuits against the children's mother."
Let's see - claiming to your children that their own father hired a hit man to kill you? Running across state and national boundaries to hide so that a private investigator must be paid to even find you and the children you abducted? Nope, no reason to assume anyone was harmed there. No basis, no basis at all.
And part of the article is about how the husband filed the suit in an unusual court - but no wonder:
Last month, Family Court Judge Thomas Weisenbeck dismissed Segal's attempt to cut her spousal support, saying Segal made the same unsuccessful arguments in Canadian courts, and he ordered him to pay her $7,000 legal tab.
The husband already has seen what FAMILY courts in NJ do at some length. You go to court, and pay the wife's tab AND yours, so you can lose.
Finally, way, way down in the article we see:
In 2005, a Canadian court awarded Lynch $11.1 million (estimated at $10.3 million in U.S. dollars) in spousal and child support. She received two properties that Segal contends grew in value and are worth far more than her award.
Interesting. We call the husband a 'millionaire' in the title of the article, but did we bother to look at the (stolen) net worth of the wife?
Finally, it might be worth noting that Segal never married Lynch.
That's right.
She stole his children, and 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus legal fees, all for being a 'Common Law Wife'. Segal lived with Lynch for five years in Toronto.
That's right: five years of 'unmarried life' = 11.1 Million Canadian Dollars, plus the right to steal your children.
And here is what far too many men try to deny - not marrying your partner does not protect you from anythnig. The state has made any kind of long, middle, and even short term relationship with a woman a very dangerous proposition for men.
No wonder the marriage rate is in the can, and older women might as well try and piss up a rope as try and get hitched. No man with an ounce of fiscal sense is likely to gamble that this wife might not change her mind on a whim, and turn his 'golden years' into years of slavery, while stealing his kids.
And a big shout out of 'Congrats' to New Jersey for being the international venue of choice for alienating moms.
Well Done, Well Done Slytherin, I mean, New Jersey!
My best to you in your struggles.
-M
Friday, August 31, 2007
F is for Fees
...And Federline....
Kevin, you see, is making news because he is asking Britt to pick up part of his legal fees. This shouldn't be news. Britt makes about 737,868/month. Kevin claims to have no real income besides spousal support. (Yeah, he should get a job, but never mind that.) And our legal system has a long standing tradition of sticking the man with legal fees, and claiming that it's really just about distributing the fees to the person with the money.
In actuality, this is just another way that our misandrous legal system puts yet another finger on the woman's side of the scales, and applies pressure. With women taking time out for kids and wanting to be housewives, men naturally make more. - And what woman is going to settle a case, if she knows that the judge is going to make the man pay her legal fees? And why not bring action after action once the divorce is finally filed? The man's payin! Pony up to the bar!
Well, now the justice system is in a bind. Sure K-Fed is kind of a tick, et cetera, but we are in a brave new no-fault world here. Doesn't matter. Britt makes the money, and if Justice lives down to its own misguided standards, she should pay. It might even happen, with so many eyes on this one.
But it shouldn't.
My best to you in your struggles,
M
Kevin, you see, is making news because he is asking Britt to pick up part of his legal fees. This shouldn't be news. Britt makes about 737,868/month. Kevin claims to have no real income besides spousal support. (Yeah, he should get a job, but never mind that.) And our legal system has a long standing tradition of sticking the man with legal fees, and claiming that it's really just about distributing the fees to the person with the money.
In actuality, this is just another way that our misandrous legal system puts yet another finger on the woman's side of the scales, and applies pressure. With women taking time out for kids and wanting to be housewives, men naturally make more. - And what woman is going to settle a case, if she knows that the judge is going to make the man pay her legal fees? And why not bring action after action once the divorce is finally filed? The man's payin! Pony up to the bar!
Well, now the justice system is in a bind. Sure K-Fed is kind of a tick, et cetera, but we are in a brave new no-fault world here. Doesn't matter. Britt makes the money, and if Justice lives down to its own misguided standards, she should pay. It might even happen, with so many eyes on this one.
But it shouldn't.
My best to you in your struggles,
M
Thursday, August 18, 2005
More About This Blog
We are having many more visitors than I expected for a brand new blog, and one that I do not dare publicize among my own friends, as it would indubitably would show up in court, (demonstrating for the court my bad faith, bad attitude, and general male-ness) like so many other things that one might normally consider private have. (I am contemplating a special post, called 'P is for Privacy', but that is for another day.) As such, I think it is appropriate for me to lay down some standards of behavior, that you can expect from me, and which I will expect from you all, disclaim what I should disclaim, and also provide some advice.
- Nothing is Real: Everything that I personally put here is my best understanding of the subject, but likely won't stand up in a court of law for one millisecond, or will be vehemently denied, and then done anyway. I am not responsible for what other people post, or for what happens on external websites linked to from this page. It is even possible that malicious hackers might modify this page without my permission, and that misleading information might be posted. Therefore nothing here should be taken as guidance for your actions. DON'T DO THIS AT HOME. LAWYERS ARE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS WHO CAN HELP YOU WITH THIS PROCESS. YOU SHOULD CONSULT A LAWYER BEFORE TAKING ANY SIGNIFICANT ACTION IN YOUR SEPARATION/DIVORCE, AND BE WILLING TO DISCHARGE HIM OR HER AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE. IT IS PROBABLY BEST TO HAVE SEVERAL LAWYERS WHO WILL ADVISE YOU ON YOUR MATTER, IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. I AM NOT A LAWYER, AND THIS WEB-SITE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. Instead, and at best it will hopefully show you what can and might happen. Please consult your best, and most trusted advisors, preferably people who will never, ever speak to your wife, ex, or potential ex, or their friends, and act accordingly.
DISCLAIMER TO DISCLAIMER #1: Although I still advocate legal advice if you can get it, extensive experience has shown me that for anyone other than perhaps the very rich, using legal representation means that you pay two lawyers to lose your case, while spending more than you are arguing about. -For what it is worth. Perhaps best to consult with lawyers and represent yourself. Perhaps. - Reality Changes: What is presented here as things that will likely happen is generally based on the past performance of the legal system. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Divorce law is kind of like the wild west, especially in New Jersey, and likely in your state, too. As much of divorce processes depend on the discretion and prejudices of the judge(s) and the various lawyers involved, both as your mouthpieces, and as members of settlement panels, and as much of divorce law is in actual conflict with normal human rights, your results may vary, and in fact, portions of the legal environment may, and hopefully will, get turned on their ear at any point. Don't hold your breath, but stay on your toes, and don't hold everything written here to be forever true.
- My posts here may change: Individual posts made by me will be adjusted here over time. I will notice grammatical and other mostly minor things in the first day or so following my creation of a new post and tweak them. I will mostly not call this to your attention. If you call my attention to an item needing change (via a post or email) I will change it (unless I disagree) and give you credit. If major changes are required or facts are clearly wrong, I will find some way to mark up the original text, and give credit again to my correctors.
- Protect Yourselves: Don't post anything here under your real name, and please don't post anything here that is so specific that it identifies you. For now you can post anonymously, but I would suggest that you get an email (or better, a chain of emails that forward to each other) that protect your identity (see sneakemail.com for one alternative) and register here under one of these identities. Web-sites can and have been forced to identify posters. The courts also have in the past and may again in the future decide that it is 'likely' that you posted something due to your IP address, which they may be able to obtain. Please be advised and act accordingly.
- Selection is Good: I don't give you the right to post pointless or troll-like comments, or deranged blather, nor am I required to preserve your comments. Abuse, racism, and the like will not be tolerated, and save your dirty words for some other venue. I will try to be generous in judging posts, but mostly, if your post is not quickly wiped out, it will be because I think it is truly great, and adds to or substantiates our discussion in some real way.
- Be Brave: All of this should not discourage you from posting, nor should it make you think that I am unhappy to have received a post that I end up removing. My standards will inevitably not be yours, and that is life, and if lots of people say something that I think is deranged, I am more liable to let one of those posts stand, and note that whereas I disagree, this is apparently a common line of thinking. Don't try and overwhelm me with a deranged viewpoint though, I can see IPs and the like, and I will just turn on registration, and ban you.
- Change is Work: Also, with regard to any fear I have generated by pointing out the privacy/legal issues above, life is short, and if you never speak out, you will never be heard. And there is no shame in anonymity, it stands in the great lineage of the fathers of the American Revolution, most notably Thomas Paine, whose words of encouragement to the colonials were also anonymous. Truly, these ARE the times that try men's souls.
All my best to all of you in your struggles.
-M
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)