G is for Getting Married?

Getting Married?

Thinking about it?

If so, you should take a moment to read this post.

Did you know that better than 60% of marriages end in divorce?

Did you know that women file the vast majority of those divorces?

Did you know that in the vast majority of divorces, women get your children, and you get to visit them on occasion if you are lucky - and women get better than half the assets, and women usually get the house to live in until things get divided, and women generally get support of some sort?

Ok, with that in mind.... ...look at the picture below.

This is an UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENT CONFIRMATION. This one is for a top earner, who is getting the maximum unemployment possible. He's been out of work for almost 2 years. Take a moment to review it. I'll wait....

Ok, notice anything funny about it?

-Like how the gross is over %1,000 for two weeks, but the actual amount of the check is $280?

Where the heck did all that money go?

Well, see - right there - most of it went to 'Garnishment'. This man, who has his kids, who is out of work for years, loses 65% of his unemployment to his ex-wife.

Want to know what her gross income is?

Would it suprise you to know that she brings home over $100,000?

You may say: Oh, he just needs to go back to court to get that thing adjusted.

Yeah.

Would it suprise you to learn that he had been back to court?

That in fact, his ex-wife SUED him for a 'violation' of her rights - because he wasn't paying the full amount of her 'support'?

Would it suprise you that not only did the court not reduce his payments, but that it increased them?

Well, if any of this suprises you, you just plain don't know how the game is played here in good sweet ol' New Jersey.

So, I ask again...

Are You SURE You're Getting Married?


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.

M is for Missed Anniversary

So here we are in the fall of 2009.

I don’t think that when I started this blog, on August 10th of 2005, that I contemplated that I would be worse off in 2009. I figured that my income would increase, and the court might moderate the level of abuse I was suffering - showing some minor amount of fairness and/or justice. These things didn't happen.

This blog is 4 years old, and although I have spent most of that time unemployed or underemployed according to the courts, the courts have increased my payments and lengthened the term of them – with the most recent order increasing things coming while I was unemployed.

See, once upon a time I made big bucks, and per the court it must be that I still can. This is called 'imputing income'.

Or perhaps called closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and shouting 'THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN! THE POOR SUFFERING WOMAN!' over and over and over.

So 65% of my unemployment goes to the ex, and arrears pile up, because reality cannot impinge upon the family court. I feed and clothe my kids on about $400 every month, with help from the occasional bit of part-time work, and from the part-time work my ‘new’ wife does. We are months behind on our mortgage, and will soon have to figure out what ‘Short Sale’ means.

I missed the anniversary of this blog.

Sorry blog.

Happy Belated Anniversary.

But if it WAS a happy anniversary, there might be less reason for the blog.

Please hit the ‘Donate’ button, if you can.

My Best To You In Your Struggles

-M

W is for “Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe”

Ok, it is old news, but news that has been bothering me. Here we have lovely 28-year-old Victoria Floethe (Pic here) flirting and quite openly sleeping her way up the social/work ladder, most remarkably with Michael Wolff (55 years old).

The loss and destruction Victoria has left in her wake is impressive, but all she did was have affairs with married men rather openly. Imagine if she had been intent on using her wiles to obtain a permanent position as the ‘un-fireable’ female employee, or in becoming the recipient of the payout in a significant sexual harassment lawsuit? Millions of dollars in marital assets are already being sliced and diced as a result of this young sexual butterfly, but think of what she could have cost the firms that they worked for and their investors. And the thing is, this has been and continues to be a route to promotion for young women, not so much available to their male counterparts.

Many men admit to being sexually harassed in the workplace. I have encountered a good number of agressive women in the workplace, some of whom went so far as to expose their more attractive private bits to me (and, I later found out, also to my co-workers). Imagine if I were to do such a thing to a woman. I would, regardless of my age or intent, be creating an uncomfortable sexual atmosphere, and most likely, if the feelings were not mutual, would find myself charged as a sex offender, and certainly would lose my job.

For men, the office is a very dangerous place to find liaisons. For women, not so much. They are free to be as sexual as they want, and leverage it to whatever degree they can, with the assistance of lawyers if the benefits of the liason do not turn out to be lucrative enough. Meanwhile, most men are very shy about ever being alone with a woman at work, and are even careful to avoid women at work for fear of the many penalties they may pay.

I will not judge Victoria, although I do not think that her behavior was the best. What I do judge is the culture that makes male sexuality something to be supressed at all costs – making the office another place where men must live in fear at all times, while women reign supreme.

-M

Oh, never answered my own question. Who is Afraid of Victoria Floethe? We all are, all MEN that is.

H is for Humanity

We are proud of our culture.
We are proud of our Humanity.
We are proud of the way we care for others,
We are proud of our legal system,
And its protection for all.

But where’s the humanity –
In a culture that awards 'support' to eighty percent of its custodial mothers –
- but only thirty percent of its custodial fathers?
In a culture that denies almost forty percent of its fathers any access to their children?
In a culture where almost eighty percent of non-custodial fathers are denied any visitation?
In a culture where two thirds of dads who don’t pay support are unable to –
- but are labeled deadbeats?
- are denied adjustments?
- have their possessions seized?
- have their licenses and passports taken?
- have their unemployment, if they are lucky enough to get it, garnished to 65%?
- are thrown in jail?

Where’s the humanity in a system that claims that
‘unemployment and underemployment are no grounds for a modification in support’?

While The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin’s 1993 study found 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.

Less than six thousand dollars a year.

While our 'humane government' pursues them.
Blackmails their families, and incarcerates them.

Where’s the humanity?

I’m sorry to say it isn’t in the system.
It isn’t in the government,
And it isn’t with the women.

This isn’t humanity. This is slavery.

And it stinks.

-M

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

J is for Juxtaposition

Two things happened recently that are interesting in their juxtaposition;

The first thing was that someone sent me a note with various links pointing out how many women advertising in the singles markets specify that they do not want divorced men, and especially not divorced men who have had kids.

Do you get that? While enjoying the vast powers that the western world lavishes upon women – in this case the right to pauperize and enslave men while simultaneously stripping them of their children – they are not willing to take on men who have become the victims of this power.

They only want the richest fruit, the fresh spoils, oil from the first squeezing – the extra-virgin man, still full of assets, income and energy.

Not for them the men who have been already plundered by women just like themselves.
Did someone protest? Did someone say that I don’t know that these women, who don’t want to date divorced men, are plunderers?

If they are not plunderers, not hoping to find themselves as slave-owners, why are they insisting only on the rich spoils? If they really want a nice man, why insist that he never have been stripped? Clearly, the assets are what they are asking for. And if they are not abusers, not oppressors, where are their voices speaking out against the enslavement of men?

No, every day they step over the unshaved, divorced man who sleeps by their door, who has no place to live because he has been stripped of all his assets, and can no longer work profitably because the government takes the majority of his income. They walk past the single father who is desperately trying to connect with his child on his once-every-two-weeks visitation. They ignore the quiet divorced man in the office, whose shabby suit and threadbare ties reflect the meager subsistence that the courts allow him. They are on the prowl for fresh meat.

Fresh meat! It’s out there!

And they complain that there are no available men – but what they mean is that there are no rich merchant ships to plunder, no fat gazelles nearby to eviscerate. No, these women are plunderers. They might hide behind religion, or family, or concerns about how difficult life might be when you have to balance budgets, and worry about step-children, but the fact is that they are the predators, who stand silently while men are pillaged by others of their clan, while always thirsting for blood, always sniffing the air for the scent of prey, always hunting, hunting, hunting for the next ripe victim.

Of course, as in all ecosystems, there is escalation of tactics on the side of the prey-animal too, and this is where the second thing in my ‘juxtaposition’ comes in:

I also, just recently ran into a small network of my male school chums that I had fallen out of touch with. These people are today pillars of their communities – businessmen, teachers, peace officers… And not one of them has ever been married. One considered it briefly. I raised the issue with them – but they couldn’t really say why they never married when they were young – they saw the girls going out with the bad-boys, and not them. And today, well, today they are looking at their nest-eggs, and looking forward to their retirement, and planning to travel the world, and do some of the other things that they always wanted to do.

They are NOT looking for long-term relationships. They see that as a quick way to find themselves chained to a treadmill until they die – even in ‘successful’ marriages. So here they are, a small group of very happy, attractive, successful men, all looking forward to their retirement, and not willing to get entangled with someone who can at a whim strip them of everything that they have worked for, and their prospects for an enjoyable retirement.

The prey animals have discovered where the predators are lying in wait – in the traditional breeding grounds of the species - marriage. So, naturally, they are avoiding those areas. Instead they go for brief, anonymous relationships, and the institution of marriage dies a slow and horrible death.

And there is your juxtaposition – on the one hand, women insisting on men who have never been married, and on the other, men, wisely insisting that they will never marry.

My best to you in your struggles!
-M

W is for WRITE!

Please write a letter to the Michigan Parole Board

Michigan Parole Board
C/O Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909

Copy to:

William J. Hetherington #186155
Boyer Road Carson City Correctional Facilities
PO Box 5000
Carson City, MI 48811-5000.

Why?

Lots of reasons here at TMOTS but for my money these:

William was convicted of raping his wife, who brought these accusations simultaneously with seeking custody of their children (nothing fishy there) and sentenced to 15-30 years, when Michigan state law specifies 1-10 years. He is seeking parole, but the parole board refuses on the grounds that he will not confess that he actually committed the rape. Key points from TMOTS's post:

• Linda Hetherington is not and has never been a battered wife. She herself, under oath, testified that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage.
  
• Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. As previously stated, this case was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he claims that they had consensual sex, she claims it was rape. The presiding judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
  
• For which if cross examination had been allowed, the fact that Linda had on two other separate occasions, made claims of rape against William only to rescind these claims later. Under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, “a person has a right to face their accuser”. If one cannot question the validity and/or the possibility of serial false accusations, how is one to get a just and fair trial?
  
• No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Only her words were enough for this man to be found guilty of the heinous crime of rape.
  
• The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... His histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
  
• Evidential photographs of the alleged victim were never disclosed to the defense and were incorrectly handled. Specifically, ten years after conviction, Jeff Feldman, under the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of the five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage.
  
• The rape case was coincidentally prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case. This action alone put William in the middle of a ‘rock and a hard place’. Since the divorce court had frozen all his (their) assets, he had no money to hire a lawyer or to even make bond. Yet, because of his listed assets, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent (or poor enough) and refused to provide him with a court appointed lawyer.
  
• A four page report submitted with a sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 by an acclaimed forensics photographer. John Valor, utilizing new and modern techniques, stated that the pictures of Linda showed no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, absolute. Furthermore, he states that marks would have been identifiable and clearly visible if there had been any at all.
  
• This brings to the forefront an additional discrepancy that, under the law, if a witness (in this case a government witness) gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but William Hetherington has yet to receive one. In the least, the witness should be charged with perjury.
  
• The State of Michigan’s sentencing guideline for this new offense at the time was 1 to 10 years yet, without cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years.

William has been in jail for 20 years now, for what looks like a case of spousal revenge and moneygrubbing. Having served the majority of his sentance, he is now being held in jail for the mindcrime of not confessing to what he didn't do. Write that letter.