Why I have a problem.

[ebracer05]

This video from Rollo's blog explains why the men's rights movement is critical at this time in the United States:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYb5xSd4PRs&feature=player_embedded

 

[Greasy Pig]

That's some of the scariest shyt I've seen. Worse than any Hollywood horror.
How can it be allowed???

 

[Atom Smasher]

This is why some of us here routinely talk about female behaviors, ideologies and feminism with the knowledge that we are going to be labeled with words like "misogynist", "bitter", etc.

The only hope is education. Enough men need to be sick and tired of the status quo and enfaged enough to effect change.

But what is the missing factor here? It is the rage. We should be rising up and putting a stop to this nonsense no matter what the cost, but we have become so feminized and filled with estrogen from dietary and environmental factors that the fight is gone. We have become a hybrid of man and woman, completely impotent and unable to claim our place of leadership.

 

[Colossus]

That is scary stuff indeed. What got me was that she had the power to incarcerate or release him!!! Unbelievable.

This video was in the sidebar and I watched it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=rlvMAS_20K4&NR=1

It's a bit verbose and ponderous for my tastes but she does hit on some real distillations of Men's rights and WHY we are declining to marry. I recommend it.

 

[guru1000]

I agree, the video's portrayal leaves you with a bitter taste.

Antithetically, though, the real issue here stems from the man's failure to retain effective counsel to submit motions of downward departure in child/spousal support more in relation to his income, and/or his failure to bring this action to an appellate court for reversal upon his contempt of the court's order. Granted, his wife left him without funds to retain effective counsel, but a man should either (1) direct all his resources to effective appellate representation when a court directs an order that is unreasonable while he still has resources; or (2) study local case law so that he can operate pro se to effect a court or appellate motion for relief.

Bad taste in your mouth watching this video? I can cite myriad, and far worse, egregious frauds committed upon men in the business arena who get incarcerated for crimes that they do not even commit.

Feminism is not on trial here; the legal system is.

 

[Tictac]

the real issue here stems from the man's failure to retain effective counsel to submit motions of downward departure in child/spousal support more in relation to his income, and/or his failure to bring this action to an appellate court for reversal upon his contempt of the court's order. Granted, his wife left him without funds to retain effective counsel, but a man should either (1) direct all his resources to effective appellate representation when a court directs an order that is unreasonable while he still has resources; or (2) study local case law so that he can operate pro se to effect a court or appellate motion for relief.

Feminism is not on trial here; the legal system is.

-----

With respect - 'effective counsel', operating under cracked laws, rules of evidence and precedents makes almost no difference at all. Lawyers are supposed to be skilled advocate surrogate warriors in an adversary system.

But when they operate in a legal system that makes no sense, the outcome won't make sense either because its not supposed to make sense. The result is just what's legal, not what is right, just, fair, intelligent or sensible. It is merely and only what is legal.

When the initial decision is crazy yet meets the letter of the law, applelate courts (especially family law courts) almost NEVER overturn the hearing judge's decision (high 90% range).

 

[Tictac]

the real issue here stems from the man's failure to retain effective counsel to submit motions of downward departure in child/spousal support more in relation to his income, and/or his failure to bring this action to an appellate court for reversal upon his contempt of the court's order. Granted, his wife left him without funds to retain effective counsel, but a man should either (1) direct all his resources to effective appellate representation when a court directs an order that is unreasonable while he still has resources; or (2) study local case law so that he can operate pro se to effect a court or appellate motion for relief.

Feminism is not on trial here; the legal system is.

-----

With respect - 'effective counsel', operating under cracked laws, rules of evidence and precedents makes almost no difference at all. Lawyers are supposed to be skilled advocate surrogate warriors in an adversary system.

But when they operate in a legal system that makes no sense, the outcome won't make sense either because its not supposed to make sense. The result is just what's legal, not what is right, just, fair, intelligent or sensible. It is merely and only what is legal.

When the initial decision is crazy yet meets the letter of the law, applelate courts (especially family law courts) almost NEVER overturn the hearing judge's decision (high 90% range).

 

[Tictac]

the real issue here stems from the man's failure to retain effective counsel to submit motions of downward departure in child/spousal support more in relation to his income, and/or his failure to bring this action to an appellate court for reversal upon his contempt of the court's order. Granted, his wife left him without funds to retain effective counsel, but a man should either (1) direct all his resources to effective appellate representation when a court directs an order that is unreasonable while he still has resources; or (2) study local case law so that he can operate pro se to effect a court or appellate motion for relief.

Feminism is not on trial here; the legal system is.

-----

With respect - 'effective counsel', operating under cracked laws, rules of evidence and precedents makes almost no difference at all. Lawyers are supposed to be skilled advocate surrogate warriors in an adversary system.

But when they operate in a legal system that makes no sense, the outcome won't make sense either because it can't make sense and is not supposed to make sense. The result is just what's legal, not what is right, just, fair, intelligent or sensible. It is merely and only what is legal.

When the initial decision is crazy yet meets the letter of the law, applelate courts (especially family law courts) almost NEVER overturn the hearing judge's decision (high 90% range).

Some states are better/worse than others. I was divorced in NJ. The law (no-fault, 'equitable' distribution) here simply turned me into a permanent wage slave to a woman that cheated on me and blew up our family.

Neither the lawyers or the judges or even legislatures have any interest in changing the law. They do just fine under the system.

 

[guru1000]

Tictac, you were railroaded—not incarcerated. You, I, nor SS could likely engender change in the indoctrinated precedence of family law. Diametrically, the man in the foregoing video was incarcerated for his failure to pay spousal/child support that he could not afford, eliciting the suspension of his law license, exacerbating his inability to make future spousal/child support. Accordingly, where there is genuine unconscionability and departure from law precedence; there is play in the appellate court. Your 90% citation of failure in appellate court is correct insofar as most cases brought upstairs are not unconscionable as defined by the law to merit a reversal.

 

[zekko]

But what is the missing factor here? It is the rage. We should be rising up and putting a stop to this nonsense no matter what the cost, but we have become so feminized and filled with estrogen from dietary and environmental factors that the fight is gone. We have become a hybrid of man and woman, completely impotent and unable to claim our place of leadership.

This is no different than any of the other problems facing the US today. The people have become sheep and they will now just sit and take whatever the government does to us. We stand quietly while our rights are taken from us and giant corporations rob of us our money. In fact, not only are we sheep, there will be plenty of those among us that will argue that it is a good idea that our rights are taken and that it is for our own good. People will take the podium and say it is a good thing while we are taken away and slaughtered.

You can't get a consensus today. If a conversative says something, there will be a liberal to stand against him, and vice versa. It's almost a reflex action at this point. The men's rights thing is no different. Too many sheep.

 

[guru1000]

Then when he lost his job, support payment arrears began to pile up.

Weak reasoning, as he could facilely submit an Order to Show Cause to modify the previous support order based on material change in work disposition.

The judge most probably felt he was habitually and consistently underemploying himself in a deliberate effort to avoid making support payments. Therefore, when the guy lost his job or fell on bad times or whatever, the presiding judge did not give a flying f*ck and imputed income at his previous salary.

Keyword is "felt." Such an order by a judge that opposes evidentiary documentation supported by P&Ls for each corporation/LLC/LP or pay stubs of the defendant will supersede the "opinion" of the court; an appellate winner.

 

[ebracer05]

I am not a lawyer but I was going to be one. I turned down acceptances at the College of William and Mary and University of Chicago law schools to pursue a career in medicine. That being said, I am probably more familiar with the practice of law than the average person due to my degree and real wold work experience with real lawyers.

Guru, you are making a very bad assumption - that the courts are rational and just entities with a primary interest in achieving real justice. That is absolute horse sh*t. There are a lot of reasons why it makes me sick to my stomach to think about practicing law for the rest of my life (no offense, Brad) but they are stem from the fact that I wanted to use the occupation of an attorney as a means by which I could begin to reform society. And quite frankly, I don't believe that's possible anymore.

Brad is not giving you a "textbook" explanation of the way things are supposed to work... he's giving you a real life example of how they do work. Obviously, there are many times when justice is served properly in our court system, but there are also many times where it is not - and you could probably say in good faith that there are many times where the interests opposite of justice are served.

You can file all the motions you want to, you can have perfectly sound, logical, legal reasoning based on statutory law. You know what? It doesn't matter how logical your legal theories are, how closely your words match statutory law, all that matters is what the judge thinks. I got a speeding ticket last year and lost my license. I didn't go over my state's point limits. I wasn't impaired and wasn't even evaluated for being impaired. I didn't hit anything. I wasn't swearing, going left of center, and didn't cause or almost cause an accident. I was the only car on a straight road going too fast. According to my state's codified law, not only should I have legally retained my license, but the patrol officer filled out my ticket incorrectly, incorrectly and illegally cited me, the court retroactively cited me in a manner inconsistent with my state's case and statutory law, and the prosecution elected to pursue a criminal conviction against me that was not only beyond the scope of what is explicitly stated in my state's statutory law and explained in a recent case by my state's Supreme Court, but in a way that was prohibited.

From the time the ticket was written until the sentence was issued, nothing was done "legally". And yet it was all "legal".

I got an attorney. Since I had been getting paid to do legal research for another lawyer (I didn't hire him because his practice was a few counties away and I wanted a guy who had experience with the judge), I figured I would just go ahead and get most of the work done to save on fees. This guy was supposed to be the best. I got to his office, showed him my motions, showed him all of the references to case law and statutory law in my briefs... he looked at me when I was done and said

"Ebracer, you're a smart guy aren't you. I can really tell you know your sh*t. You put together a better case than a lot of old timers would have. But you know what? It doesn't f*cking matter".

As far as that judge was concerned, the law meant whatever she said.

Unfortunately, that's the way it works with most judges. Most judges also happen to be a byproduct of the liberal/hippie/feminist/1960s philosophical movement and adjudicate according to how they feel their impressions of the case (not the facts of the case) match their preexisting schemas about the world.

 

[guru1000]

if that judge has come to the conclusion that you are deliberately avoiding making money in order to avoid paying child support.

Although judges have blanket discretionary authority, imputation of income is based on a myriad non-conclusory factors, not the abstract opinion of a judge. Evasive fraud in any matter of law will certainly void pre-existing precedence, so that rebuttal relates not to the tax lawyer or my contention.

 

[guru1000]

Brad, I understand your pessimism. Your rebuttals which support my point may be the reason for your failed motion practice in family court.

 

[guru1000]

Guru you don't even know what my motion practice succes rate was.

I used to break those all the time easy as pie

Keywords, "was" and "used to." Is my assumption faulty?

 

[guru1000]

Yes. You assumption was just as faulty as your "knowledge" of basic family law.

Let me guess, you no longer practice family law, as you have stumbled into a more profitable arena, although divorce is one of the most lucrative practices occurring at historical highs.

Haha! Checkmate.

 

[ebracer05]

This is not a thread about Brad and whether or not he was/is a good family law attorney

 

[Tictac]

Although judges have blanket discretionary authority, imputation of income is based on a myriad non-conclusory factors, not the abstract opinion of a judge. Evasive fraud in any matter of law will certainly void pre-existing precedence, so that rebuttal relates not to the tax lawyer or my contention.

----------
So long as you discuss the content of law, you will fail to describe what actually happens in family courts. It is context that matters. Inside a debauched context, nothing sensible can happen.

My divorce decree is literally full of impressions, conclusions and perspective by a judge that have nothing to do with the law or justice. They are a description of his feelings on the case, ignoring facts, 'interpreting' evidence, testimony and nearly everything else. It is a work of impressionism.

To be fair to family court judges, they attempt to manage ridiculous case loads. If they wanted to think, they don't have time.

Defending this is beneath anyone with a knowlege of law. Both men and women (mostly men) are savaged by a legal system devoid of recognizing current state of families and family law.

 

[Burroughs]

----------
So long as you discuss the content of law, you will fail to describe what actually happens in family courts. It is context that matters. Inside a debauched context, nothing sensible can happen.

My divorce decree is literally full of impressions, conclusions and perspective by a judge that have nothing to do with the law or justice. They are a description of his feelings on the case, ignoring facts, 'interpreting' evidence, testimony and nearly everything else. It is a work of impressionism.

To be fair to family court judges, they attempt to manage ridiculous case loads. If they wanted to think, they don't have time.

This is the legacy of no fault divorce....an absurd reality in which only the system profits at the expense of destroying men

Men would be wise to STUDY THE FAMILY LAW JUDGES...BEFORE ENTERING INTO A MARRIAGE CONTRACT (should you be so insane in the first place)...because effectively when you marry you marry the state...and the state doesn't like men for the most part...then your girl should she ever be pissed at you for a prolonged period will use the state to beat you with like a baseball bat.

The fundamental question men need to ask is "What's in it for me?"

Because if the answer is "sex", you're a loser. There's an infinite amount of free (or paid) sex in this world that is far cheaper than marriage.
If the answer is "love", well you don't need marriage for that.

Marriage is a legal agreement to be financially bound to a woman, who makes no similar promises in return. Love has *nothing* to do with the legal concept of marriage. If you want love, love each other. What on earth does a contract have to do with that?

Marriage is a terrible deal for men. Only one party is giving something up, The man. He gives up freedom. A woman gains many of the man's worldly goods and cash prizes

 

[synergy1]

Maybe one of the real lawyers can briefly address this tidbit I have heard:

Is it true that if you live with ( cohabitation) a girlfriend for a long enough time, that she is entitled to a part of the mens worth? Does this vary state by state? Is there any way to avoid this situation?

I won't pretend to have read and understood most of the lawyer speak on this thread, but I got one thing - the system is predatory. It would seem advantageous as an individual to avoid any ways that it can invade your life e.g by not getting married.