Wednesday, April 26, 2006

O is for Over the Edge

Broken Bread directs us to yet another man (Herbert Chalmers) driven mad by the hopelessly abusive family-destroying court system.

We must all say we don't condone his behavior (he murdered 4 and raped a woman in his rampage), but we cannot forget that he was without hope in a system that gives no quarter. A 'clerical error' caused 50% of his paycheck to be withheld since his monthly support number was increased by 540% in what is being called a 'clerical error' .

This article indicates that the amount of arrears that Chalmers had in 1977 was entered as his monthly support number in 1998. He normally had to pay $133, and this was increased to $724.92 . Apparently that error went uncorrected from 1998 on.

Hm. More of mine is withheld than that... Guess his state is not as cruel as NJ. Happily, I don't feel any urge to freak out, but then, I haven't been abused by the state since 1998, like Chalmers was.

Broken Bread comments: "[...] try living on 50% of your after-tax salary sometime. I had to do it for three months, eating rice and beans and charging groceries on my credit card while I watched my daughter go with her mother to Paris for two weeks. To live like that is to live in a constant state of rage. Chalmers obviously couldn't make ends meet, had no way of reaching child support enforcement officials, and couldn't see any way out. "

This is the thing that drives so many men to suicide, murder and worse. You are put in an untenable situation, and the state keeps taking more, and more. You automatically become a felon if you flee to another state, and of course you lose your kids. Your passport is likely revoked, so leaving the country is hard too, assuming you have any assets to do that with. It is almost exactly like being a black slave in the Antibellum US South.

Some knuckle down under the pressure, and scrape along, and somehow, some way, make it work.

Some fail at that and spend months in jail as a deadbeat dad, until some family member or friend pays the state-sponsored blackmail to get them out.

Others spin out of control or eventually snap, and it is no suprise that the behaviors, violence and criminal acts that follow are not rational.

How do you expect anything to behave when you back it into a corner and give it no way out. You may start with a rational, moral, normal person, but you can end up with a desparate animal.

Was what Herbert did ok? No.

Was it the right thing to do? No.

Do we understand how he got there? Yes. It is very, sadly, very clear how he got there.

Some will claim that this man was just a criminal and nothing more. Probably people saying this have never been enslaved. Not everyone can take it.

No matter how you view this case, one must admit that without state-enforced slavery to ex-spouses, Herbert Chalmers would likely still be alive, along with the four people he murdered,
-and one woman would not be suffering from the trauma of rape.


Update 26-Apr-06: MensActivism.Org points us to This Article - which tells us that Chalmer's kids WERE ALL GROWN AND EMANCIPATED. Which just goes to show what I have been told so many times - there is no escape, ever. Here his kids were all grown, and he is still a slave, with his payments increasing yearly, living on $200 every two weeks.

Update 26-Apr-06: I see the following from the St Louis Post-Dispatch that strikes me as interesting to men:

Citing confidentiality concerns, the Department of Social Services has blocked reporters’ requests for information about Chalmers’ case, though a St. Louis judge opened a narrow window Thursday by agreeing to unseal part of the court record.
State records obtained by the Post-Dispatch indicate that a payment of $600 in back child support was received on his account with the state on March 30, with a $75 payment on March 7 and a $10 payment on Jan. 10.

Haynes was due to receive all of that money. A $600 check was cut or sent March 31, and a $10 check was dated Jan. 11. State records showed one more check, for $75, dated April 24, 2006 — six days after Haynes’ death.

So the portion of the record released shows a very good correspondence between what Chambers paid, and what Haynes recieved. So for the brief period that the court has let us see, there is no fraud in the payment system. Men have often complained that payments made to child support services do not reach their ex-wives.

Another thought has occurred to me though - here we have a man who has claimed that some of the children that he was being charged support for, and had been charged support for for many years, were not his. And here we have payments inappropriately being taken from him, and made to the mother of these children, long after the children have reached majority.

Sooo, what does the ethical person do when they recieve payments that they do not deserve, especially payments that they know come from someone who can ill afford it? Yes, I am blaming one of the victims: Chamber's ex-partner who was content to accept the enslavement of her ex-partner well beyond even what our misandrous courts had ruled. Did she deserve to die? I cannot bring myself to say that, but I do expect that she is in hell now, and well deserving of it.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

T is for Two-Hundred-Twenty-Six-Thousand Children

An estimated 1,000,000 children's parents divorce every year.

In 1/3 of those cases, allegations of violence have been made in the case.

An estimated 80% of those alegations are false - meaning that out of 1,000,000 children of
divorce each year, over 260,000 of them have a parent who makes a false accusation of divorce.

In 85% of cases, custody is awarded to the mother.

So at a minimim, the custody of 226,666 children per year is awarded to women who brought false charges of violence against the father of the children.

Note that it is far more likely that the 1/3 of cases where a restraining order or other allegation of violence has been made lead to a custody award to the mother. So in fact, the 226,666 number is low.

Either way, over Two-Hundred-Twenty-Six-Thousand children have their custody awarded to a parent who lies about domestic violence every year.

That's over six hundred every day.

That's about twenty-six every hour - near one every two minutes. (Well, probably one EVERY minute during the day, as family-destruction courts don't run in the wee hours of the night.)

But you may say 'well, some of those restraining orders may be issued against women at the request of men' - true enough, but it is a vanishingly small number: Consider the following from Media Radar's: Without Restraint: The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders - few men are foolish enough, in this day and age, to call police, or expect any support from the judiciary in a domestic violence matter [emphasis mine]:

Gender Bias in the Issuance of Restraining Orders

If a man has been assaulted by his intimate partner, he should be able to obtain an order of protection. But a double standard may thwart this request.

This is borne out by research. In Massachusetts, one analysis examined all domestic ex-parte hearings held in the Gardner District Court in 1997. The analysis found that 34% of requests from men were deferred or turned down, compared to only 10% of requests from women.

According to Oregon attorney Ron Johnston, “I believe many general practice attorneys who don’t specialize in domestic relations would hesitate before trying to get a restraining order for a man, whereas there would be no hesitation at all for a woman under the same set of circumstances.”

Mr. Johnston’s statement is based on the fact that in Portland, the protective orders once featured the following gender-biased language: The respondent in this order is the natural/legal father of the below named minor children” [emphasis added].

A father suffered repeated assaults by his wife, on one occasion requiring medical treatment for his injuries at the local emergency room. Afraid for his children and for himself, he sought a restraining order. At the time of court hearing, he brought photographs of his injuries, medical documentation of his emergency room visit, and a copy of the police report. The judge’s explanation for denying the man’s request was: “Well, you have to expect one knock-down drag-out fight per divorce.”

When Abuse Victims Themselves Are Accused of Being Perpetrators

Legal bias is not the only reason that male victims are often reluctant to seek restraining orders. There have been reports of abused men who, upon requesting help from law enforcement officials, found themselves accused of being the perpetrator.

In one case, a woman severely bit her husband on the shoulder and chest. After showing the judge pictures of his injuries, the man was granted a restraining order. The next day the woman went before the same judge and, even though she had suffered no injuries, she claimed to be in “fear” for her life, saying that the man was the real abuser. On the basis of that unsubstantiated allegation, the judge reversed the original order against the wife and issued an order against the husband.

As family violence expert Murray Straus put it, “There are a growing number of complaints that attempts by men to obtain police protection may result in the man being arrested.”

A Washington State attorney gives this disturbing advice with regard to domestic violence: “Don’t call 911 unless you are bleeding and she still has a weapon in her hand. Too many men who have called 911 for help have ended up being arrested for DV.”

When government programs ignore the actions of perpetrators and encourage the arrest of victims, that’s a sure sign of a justice system turned upside down.

None of this is news to us, but is an appropriate lead-in to ask you all to respond to RADAR's call for action to defang the venomous snake that is the restraining order, removing at least this one weapon from the anti-family and anti-male forces that seem to control the judiciary to the great suffering of our children and our brothers.

Print out their resolution, and write a brief note on the top and fax it to your representatives in congress. Get the world out that this is hurting real people, real children, real men, NOW.

Hat tip to the ever-vigilant Men's Activism.Org


Technorati Tags:

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

D is for Decompression

Dis of the DivorcedMen blog posted this past Easter Sunday about 'The Wonder'.

You should take a moment to read it, it is a strange place to be in, and only one who has left a horrible marriage can relate to.

People write about all the terrible things about divorce, how it harms children, and the like - all true. But they forget how very hate-full people become, and how great a positive force the ability to leave a hate-full spouse can be.

I remember suddenly, being able to keep my coats and boots and other personal posessions somewhere besides the small converted bedroom that I lived in for years.

I remember suddenly not having to remove garbage from my space that my hate-filled ex dumped in it every day.

I remember suddenly starting to think about how to decorate my space, what kind of art I wanted, if I wanted some kind of pet for my children to enjoy when they were with me.

I remember suddenly not having stress when I came home, but instead thinking 'what new thing will I cook myself tonight?' or 'maybe I will go out and try that new place'.

I remember suddenly having my children with me peacefully coloring, drawing, painting, playing, without an undertone of hatred constantly directed at me by my ex.

I remember my children consulting with me on setting up my new place.

I remember blooming again, living again.

I know what gets written in this blog is often dark, and unhappy as I protest the bias against men that is so prevalent in our culture and courts. It is good to remember that I complain about the bias in an existence where I have my kids, where I have a beloved new spouse, and in spite of being enslaved, very poor, and frequently sued, I am also much, much happier and more fulfilled.

My best to you in your struggles.

Technorati Tags:

Monday, April 17, 2006

P is for Picketing

Saw this the other day on the web: Men’s groups picketing ‘family’ lawyers’ homes in Auckland, NZ.

According to Simon Maude, the Law Society's family law section chairman, the protests ‘intimidated the lawyers, their families and neighbors’.

Jim Bailey, of the Hands On Equal Parent Trust said: “I think it's good -- that's the whole idea. They've destroyed so many families, and intimidated us."

From the article:

Mr Maude said although the protest might appear to be "harmless fun", the reality for the lawyers on the receiving end was different. "They've been subjected to insulting and abusive attacks, much of which has been amplified through a loudspeaker system," Mr Maude said. The protests had shaken the lawyers involved, he told NZPA, and had been intimidating for their families and neighbours. "Their children have, in some cases, been frightened and quite disturbed by the experience."
He said the protesters seemed to have misunderstood the role of lawyers in the Family Court, particularly the role of lawyers appointed to represent children. "They may have assumed that lawyers for the children have much greater power and influence than is in fact the case. "Children's lawyers don't make the decisions about the children, the court does."

Mr Maude is both right, and wrong. Almost any man who has been through a divorce can testify as to the destructive nature of the legal community, and it’s unfortunate influence on the nature of divorce and child custody. For a lawyer to claim that he is not responsible for his actions in the court, is kind of like a killer-bee claiming that he is not himself to blame, but instead the Queen of the hive (the judges) is at fault. And the judges blame the legislators, and so on, and so on.

I am an advocate of putting blame where it belongs, and not shifting it about. Certainly greedy spouses, mostly (by a vast majority) women, are the first party to blame in the fiasco of child-theft and slavery that is the family court. It is their choice to kidnap the children and enslave the man. -But picketing a woman who is divorcing her husband is targeting an individual and taking a position in a particular case, the facts of which are probably not public. Picketing the lawyers who perpetrate this evil, and who live off of it seems entirely legitimate to me. I am sorry that the lawyers’ children and family are disturbed.

Imagine how much more disturbing it is to have your father ripped away from you, and have him rendered penniless and homeless –turned into a slave by a gender-biased court.

The lawyers’ children are lucky to merely have the discomfort of picketers, rather than live the hell that their parents create for other children.

Is this an idea for the USA? For New Jersey? Worth considering, I think.

My best to you in your struggles.


Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

H is for How-To

Welcome to vistors from Dr Helen (whose blog I admit reading). Please note that the reason for the below advice lies in other posts, which you should cast an eye upon, namely here, and here, and how about here, and while you are reading, try here, and here. This is about protecting some small smidgen of a man's livelihood and future from a legal system that thinks that all men should be reduced to slavery. Which is entirely different than managing your husband or wife.

Another common search bringing people to my site is 'How to get out of paying alimony', or 'Escaping Alimony' or 'How to Escape Alimony' or the like. How would someone do something like that? The following are my thoughts, and probably not the very best advice, but the best I have. (If you wonder why anyone would want to do such a thing, or how it could possibly be moral, I would suggest reviewing the posts on the NJ Divorce Process Post and Why Alimony Is Wrong)

The first step is to not jump into a divorce. Once the gears of the divorce machine are moving, it is really too late.

First, (assuming you have been married for a few years) you must rig your marriage to last for a couple more years. Tokens of love, romantic vacations, gifts.

You have to understand that everything that you have, your money, your investments, your home, is really going to be divided and destroyed by the divorce. Your lawyers, her lawyers, and your ex are going to get much of what you have. And anything you have left may be attached to to provide the alimony and child support you will be paying. So spend it now.

Set up trusts or accounts for your kids' educations, but set them up so neither you nor your current wife can withdraw them - only the kids should be able to get at them. 529 plans are one way.

Perhaps take your investments, split them exactly down the middle, and buy two annuities, one for her, and one for you - likely she doesn't have to know about this until the divorce phase starts. You retain ownership of both, she is the beneficiary of hers, you of yours. In the divorce, you just sign over the one with her as beneficiary to her.

Do not let anyone talk you into filing for divorce yet.

Get a Post Office Box. Keep it secret. Use it if you need to communicate with lawyers, or divorce resources.

Be good. No affairs, if you can at all help it, until the divorce is complete. Sorry, it's inhumane, but so is Divorce.

Now, lose your job. Find something that pays less than your wife is making. And keep that job. Make it work. Something close to home. You should be at that job for 3 years before seeking a divorce.

Consider moving to a 'man friendly' state, or better, a 'man friendly' country. Your need for a new job might be a good motivation for this. You need to live there long enough to be sure that your old state/country cannot claim jurisdiction. If you move, don't buy, rent. Sell and divide the return from the house.

In the last year, consider giving gifts of $150 per month to friends, asking them to hold it and give it back when you are in need. It isn't much, and you might just lose it if your friends fail you, but you are probably going to lose it anyway. Remember, these are gifts, so if your friends blow it, you aren't out anything. Forgive them. You will need their support in this process, even if it is only emotional support.

Line up child care and other personal support systems for your upcoming divorce. Make sure you have lots of people to help, places to escape to to blow of steam or relax.

Then, finally, you file for divorce, and custody. File Pro-se (representing yourself). This makes it difficult for your ex to pile her legal fees on you.

Do not move out of your residence. Ask her to move (but not the kids, they stay). Be very nice to her.

Shut her out of the bedroom - put a new lock on the bedroom door and put her stuff outside the room - or move it into another room. Do not get into arguments with her, or raise your voice. Do not raise your hand to her, no matter what she does. Retreat to your lockable room with the kids if she gets crazy.

Be generous dividing things. Give her what she wants if you can, but track costs. Make sure that she is demonstrably somewhat ahead of you in the division. Don't try to hide assets or money.

After the divorce, continue to stick with your easier, lower-paying job for the next 3 years or so. You want her to have moved on with her life before you start to accumulate any assets or start earning any more money.

Keep your earnings and assets a secret and live modestly. Women have taken men back to court many years after their divorce, and won new alimony and support arrangements that have kept men on the hook past retirement. You don't want this to be you.

You may still lose your house, and may even lose custody and pay some child support. But you will have given yourself as much freedom as possible. Alimony is unlikely, with your ex making more than you, and having pre-divided your assets, the legal fees should be reasonable.

Is it worth it? If you look at the time, money, and effort that goes into a 'by the books' divorce, and weigh your potential for being enslaved for the rest of your life, it seems very worth it. Your by-the-books divorce will likely drag out more than a year, and eat up a very significant chunk of your assets. Following the above plan, you will have little or no undivided assets, and little or no debt servitude to your ex.

By-the-books divorce features:
  • Over a year of divorce struggles
  • Years and years of ongoing legal wranglings (as her lawyers get to charge you their fees, there is no motivation for them to be reasonable, and every motivation for them to sue you frequently)
  • Frozen assets
  • Loss of house
  • Loss of kids
  • Loss of >50% of assets
  • Paying alimony for the rest of your life?
  • Child support for much of your remaining life?
  • College costs? (Commonly tacked into divorce settlements by activist lawyers/judges)

Doing it this alternate way:

  • Moving to a foreign country if you can
  • Sale of house
  • 3 years or so of prep work at a simple job close to your new home
  • 3 years or so of post-divorce wind-down in new job
  • Assets liqudated, gifted and divided
  • Divorce is quicker, as little to fight over
  • No motivation for your ex to sue you as you don't have much, and she will be paying her own legal fees
  • Chance of keeping kids
  • You pay for your kids college and support as you are able to and want to.
My best to you in your struggles

Technorati Tags: