Why I have a problem.

[Burroughs]

Burroughs, I don’t know how it came to this. How men who care for their children can be treated like this, and thrown into jail largely on the whim of an evil woman who would actually grin and be happy to see the father of her children get hit by a bus. Maybe it was a soft spot we men had in our hearts for women, a momentary lapse of judgment in which we thought that women should and actually could be our equal partners?

I don’t know if men are ever going to band together to change things. But I know one thing’s for sure: the family law system as it currently stands is only going to get worse. The court system will only find new and more efficient ways of persecuting men for their decision to care for a woman and have children with her.

Things are indeed sliding downward rapidly...

I am a firm believer that in 20 years time standardized chemical castration will be the norm for boys starting in grammar school...in short aside from a few wealthy elites it will be illegal to be male.

Those few 'alpha's from ruling families Rothchilds, Astor, Dupont will fvck who they choose leaving the rest of humanity as chattel slaves...and the chains will be slipped on softly with hollywood entertainment subtly guiding us in this direction...brad you know this the courts are corrupt serving the interests of big money at every turn...big money wanted feminism to halve the wages and lessen the cost of labor...that was done...now labor is no longer needed to create wealth...men have become expendable.

 

[Tictac]

Since you missed it before guru, I re-post it for you here.

"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."

I was not, as you say, 'railroaded'. Neither did I have poor counsel. I was 'processed' as part of an antiquated legal system that could produce no other result.

Saying the same thing more loudly, more rudely or repeatedly will not change the fact that you've no idea what you're talking about.

 

[guru1000]

Tictac, I’ll use simpler language, boldface, and underline for emphasis, as it appears that you are misdirected. You were not incarcerated as you could afford the support order. Bruce was incarcerated as he could not afford the support order. Understand the material difference? Outside the exception of constructive fraud committed by Bruce (Brad thinks fraud relates to the judge), it is a fair extrapolation to state that Bruce had ineffectual representation as his support order was clearly not financially sustainable, and thus unconscionable. Notwithstanding the fact that each side of the case could be cogently argued, even with cited case law, in most jurisdictions, effective, not expensive, counsel could have likely modified Bruce’s support order within reachable limits if the initial support order was unsustainable or a financial change had occurred.

Effective counsel cannot guarantee favorable results, but they could maximize the upshot. Assuming Bruce did not commit constructive fraud, and his incarceration was engendered by his inadvertent failure to pay support outside the legal limits, he would likely succeed on the merits in a modification request, or in an appellate court, if necessary.

 

[guru1000]

Excellent red herrings; you demonstrate weak argumentation. Your arguments are full of invalid premises intended to mislead in order to effect irrelevant or false inferences to elicit false arguments and specious conclusions, to evade the relevant the matter at hand. All your statements are conclusory, and you still have not cited any statutory or case law as none exists.

Although the thread is mirrored with dozens, here is one example of your poor argumentation acumen:

[E]ffective, not expensive, counsel could have likely modified Bruce’s support order.

[Guru] seems to believe that an expensive lawyer may have saved Charles Bruce ...

It's evident why your stay in family law was fleeting. While I know it burns you to get abused in this capacity, I'll leave you with ability to provide frivolous legal advice to some SS members, as most have already observed your fatuousness.

 

[guru1000]

Here is some New Jersey case law for you bozo; this is how you cite to strengthen your argumentation without conclusory drivel:

Until Lepis, a support order was no different than any other contract. “Modification” required a showing of unconscionability, fraud or other well-precedented grounds. Schiff v. Schiff, 116 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 1993), certif. den. 60 N.J.139 (1972). Under Schiff, a matrimonial litigant had to demonstrate only by convincing the court “that to enforce the order would be unconscionable.” Schiff, 116 N. J. Super. at 561.​

 

[guru1000]

Brad, you edit your post so many times that every time I try to respond, your post changes. Haha. Buddy, relax; it's just the internet.

But I can empathize with your frustration; for an internet lawyer to get massacred by a non-lawyer is ego shattering. The title of the thread is now yours, "Why I have a problem." Don't feel so bad; I eat most lawyers for lunch.

It's been fun; thank you. Until our next rendezvous ...