Sunday, December 19, 2010

Your Alimony Horror Story is Wanted

There is a new site that is putting together a book of all your Alimony Nightmare Stories. If you are reading this blog, you probably have a horrible story that needs to be told.

Would you please write out your Alimony Story? The more stories they have that exemplify the consequences of our current laws, the better chance there is of changing these laws. These books are going to be sent to the media: Television, Newspapers, Radio, Magazines, National Programs...every place they think people may listen, and then act.

You may know of other stories that need to be told. The doctor who committed suicide, the stabbing or other violent acts, bankruptcy, etc. They need ALL of the stories to get their point across.

The book won't get published until there are enough stories. Please check out the site to see the stories they already have. The site is still under construction.

Send your stories to




Sunday, July 18, 2010

Alimony Victim #175: Years and marriages later, they still pay

Steve Niro got married in 1981 at age 23 and divorced less than five years later. At the time of the divorce, he and his wife were in their late 20s, and both were working. Niro remarried nearly 15 years ago, but he’s still paying his alimony.
Two years ago, Niro’s youngest son graduated from college, ending child support payments and leaving his former wife with alimony of $65 a week. “The next thing I know, I get summonsed to court for alimony adjustment,’’ he says. A probate court judge increased the alimony to $700 a week even though the couple had divorced nearly a quarter of a century ago — five times longer than they were married.



Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Alimony Victim #174: Another Letter to Bill O'Reilly


I have been watching you since 2001. Without blowing too much sunshine up your butt, let me say I appreciate what you have done for children and especially your efforts to get Jessica's Law passed in many states and putting pressure on the rest.

At 36 years old, I did my part as a father and husband. My wife of 18 years asked for a divorce. In the divorce, I was faced with lifetime alimony. I also had to quit claim the house to my ex-wife and agreed to pay it off.

I was to pay $1100 a month child support. In all, I was paying $5,300 a month. I knew at the time I would not be able to afford this, but i was told by my attorney it would be $50,000 up front to fight this in court.

I have lost everything, Bill. I had to sell what little I had and move to Georgia. I now work at my mechanic shop during the day and for the airlines at night. I send her 80% of what I make but it doesn't cover the whole amount. I am in contempt of court.

Please address lifetime alimony in one of your segments. You just had a debate between two attorneys about a man that was paying alimony to his ex-wife who is now a domestic partner with another woman. One attorney said he should still pay. Why? Why should he be paying in the first place?

We are the new slaves in America. It is legal although unconstitutional. Take a stand Bill. Skip one "body language" segment and help us out. We are men and women who suffer this indentured servitude.

We are not asking you to side with us. Just put out the facts and let your viewers start the ball rolling.


Alimony Victime #173: Letter to Bill O'Reilly

Mr. O'Reilly:

You are getting a goodly amount of emails concerning alimony reform, I assume.

I would like to offer a couple sub-sets of the alimony scheme disaster.

I was placed in servitude by the state of Florida, for life, hers not mine, and since she is litigious to a fault I fear for anyone whom she may perceive will benefit from my estate.  Her alimony is to be paid from my estate after I die.

I have a significant other but don't dare marry for fear of lawsuit for my S.O. from the "X".  The family law mafia have made it illegal to marry with out a license and based on past experience with licensing myself to the state I won't do that again.  So I am living a life of sin. 

My younger son was so appalled by the state authorized treatment his mother gave me in the divorce that he did not marry.  As a result my only namesake is a bastard.

I think these situations were anticipated by our founding fathers and that is why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Alimony and the family law Mafiosi is running contrary to the Constitution and is a travesty.  Expose it!


Sunday, July 4, 2010

Alimony Victim #171: This is Today's Slavery

I have given my ex approx. a quarter of a million dollars in the last 2 and 1/2 years, and still I pay alimony, monthly, for life.

I gave her already half my IRA, she will get 1/2 my retirement when I retire, and I bought her a house which she has sold and made 160,000 dollars on.

In the last 2 years she has been living with her boyfriend working under-employed as a part time secretary at a hospital so as to only get minimum wage and health care benefits.  Prior to divorce she had worked for approx. 20 years a full time medical transcriptionist making almost as much as me.

So, why does a country that demands equality for men and women and now transsexuals as well still hold the archaic principles of expecting the male to carry the female due to her inability to care for herself and threatens them with jail if this is not followed to the letter of the law?

Why do we as a country discourage women from rehabilitating themselves and allowing them to care equitably for themselves?

Why do the dis-service of encouraging them to not work and penalize them (like soc. sec. does) if they do work.

Isn't the goal of the human rights activist to insure fairness and equality for all?  Not just gender bias?

These permanent alimony awards after and equitable division of assets is given is nothing more than making the strong man take care of the poor weak women even after shared equities are made.


If you do the research you will quickly see that you have a huge audience out there that is under this yoke and you would do well to address it as well as make our congressional leaders (and judges) aware of this gender disparity.


Friday, July 2, 2010

Alimony Victim #170: MA Wife No. 2 Paying for Wife No. 1? Join the Club

ABC News (USA)

Wife No. 2 Paying for Wife No. 1? Join the Club
Massachusetts' 2nd Wives Club Lobbies to Change Rules on Alimony Payments
By Alice Gomstyn, ABC NEWS Business Unit

Forget "wife." If Deborah Scanlan knew years agowhat she knows now, she might still hold the title of "girlfriend." Scanlansays her 2005 marriage to Daniel Gingras ultimately allowed a Massachusetts judge to factor in her income when recalculating Gingras' alimony paymentsto his first wife. The judge's ruling, she said, is costing the coupleabout $16,000 more a year than it would have if the alimony decision had been based on Gingras' income alone.

Stress over alimony payments to her husband's ex-wife nearly drove Deborah Scanlan to divorce. Helping her husband make alimony payments to his ex forced Jeanie Hitner to take on a second job. Both Massachusetts women now say they wish they'd never gotten married.

Welcome to the 2nd Wives Club.

The club, which claims 70 members and counting, consists mostly of married women who say that Massachusetts judges' rulings forced them to contribute to alimony payments for their partners' ex-wives. Together with its parent group, Mass Alimony Reform, a branch of theAlliance For Freedom From Alimony, Inc. of Florida, the club is lobbying the state legislature to stop that practice and institute several reforms to alimony law.

Scanlan, the club's chairwoman, says she is paying the price for her husband's divorce. She said that because a judge took into account her $58,000 income as an executive assistant, her husband Daniel Gingras'
alimony payments total $26,000 a year -- about $16,000 more than they would otherwise.

"I was absolutely horrified that I was now responsible for a portion of the support of his first wife," she said. On the day of the judge's alimony ruling in her husband's case, Scanlan said, "I left the court house and
just couldn't believe that such a thing was possible."

Gingras' ex-wife did not return calls from seeking comment.

How often a second wife's (or second husband's) income is factored into alimony payments nationwide is unclear, though Massachusetts doesn't appear to be unique. In Louisiana, for instance, an appellate court ruled in 1994 that a lower court had improperly reduced an alimony award to a first wife because it hadn't considered a second wife's income.

Unlike child support statutes, state laws on alimony are often vague, said Andrea Carroll, a law professor at Louisiana State University. This means, she said, that courts in other states could very well make rulings similar to the one in Louisiana.

How widespread the practice is in Massachusetts, meanwhile, is up for debate.

Denise Squillante, the president-elect of the Massachusetts Bar Association said that, in her experience, judges look to a second spouse's income as a source of alimony only when the alimony payer has been found to be in contempt of a court order to pay up.

"Judges don't say, 'OK, former husband, your income is x and your new wife's income is y, so we're going to add those incomes together and enter an alimony order.' That doesn't happen," she said.
Founders of the 2nd Wives Club and Mass. Alimony Reform disagree. It's requests for payment modifications by either side that can ultimately ensnare a second spouse into a court's alimony decisions, they said.

Jeanie Hitner, vice president for the 2nd Wives Club and the wife of Mass Alimony Reform President Steve Hitner, said that her husband asked a state court for a reduction in his payments after his printing business began to struggle. It was rejected.

"The reason for the denial was all about ME…and what I should be doing to help my husband," Jeanie Hitner wrote in a message to "The judge in her findings said that 'Your current wife needs to supplement your income so that you can continue to make the alimony payments.'"

Hitner, who works at her husband's business, said she took on tutoring jobs to help make ends meet.

Both the 2nd Wives Club and Mass Alimony Reform are pushing for a bill that would include a number of reforms to state alimony laws, including preventing a judge from considering a second spouse's income and assets when making changes to alimony.

Squillante said the Massachusetts bar opposes the bill, saying it would hamper judges' discretion and could create unintended consequences. State Sen. Cynthia Creem, a family lawyer who has called for a commission to study alimony reform, questions what should happen to alimony recipients if their ex-husbands decide to quit working entirely and rely on their new spouses instead. (Steve Hitner said the bill backed by his group would allow such situations to be judged on a case-by-case basis.)

In the meantime, some women say they're doing what Scanlan and Hitner only wish they had done -- they're not getting married in Massachusetts and avoiding the alimony issue altogether. The 2nd Wives Club said its
membership increasingly includes such women, too.

Elizabeth Benedict is a New Yorker who has dated a divorced Massachusetts man since 1999. A supporter of the 2nd Wives Club, Benedict said she decided against marriage years ago, on the advice of several lawyers.

"I decided that if I was going to get married," she said. "I was not going to then invite a lawsuit as a wedding present."


Thursday, July 1, 2010

Alimony Victim #169: Needs help in Louisiana

If you know of a Louisiana based organization that can help me I would greatly appreciate it.

I just received an order for child support and alimony or spousal support in the total amount of $1,392.00 a month.  I make gross $69,000 a year and take home $54,000.

My ex-spouse makes take home $40,000 a year.  She clears $3,300 a month and now with my $1,392 will be at $4,692 a month.  That will leave me at $1,400 unless I have overtime.

How is this possible?

I can't even support myself with that, and to top it off the alimony is permanent.  Please help or guide me to a person that can help.  I have to start payments immediately so I can't even afford a lawyer to contest the decision.


Monday, June 28, 2010

Victim #168: Retirement Expectations Dashed

.... All of us has our own horror story, and I guess it's all relative. Personally, I turned over $425K in assets, plus half of my retirement to the Ex at the time of the divorce, and have paid her initally $3,500/mo. for the first 5-1/2 years, reduced to $3,200/mo. as per by our mediated settlement for the next five+ years.

Her alimony was exactly twice what I later found out was the maximum of any of my working contempories.

Now that I just retired, she is petitioning the court to have the alimony "RAISED", at the same time as the failure of my former employers pension fund, and subsequent takeover by the federal government.(PBGC). I'll be luck to get 25 cents on the dollar of what I expected my retirement pension to be.

My only bright spot is that I stashed a fair amount away by keeping my lifestyle conservative.... Yeah, she describes me as "Cheap".


Victim #168: Sell Your Clothes to Pay for Alimony

In short, my story was a child support order for 100% of my income due to fraud by the ex, her attorney, and a crooked accountant.

When the wife told the court that I hid income (kinda impossible, I'm a computer consultant for businesses only then, who only paid by check) so the court froze all my business bank accounts to "flush" out the hidden money.  Because there wasn't any, I got to starve and survived only on borrowing from family and taking handouts from a charitable organization.

After losing my attorney, and doing it myself for about 3 years, I fought back hard, figuring if I was going to keep getting beat up, I'd at least give a few people bloody noses.  It worked and they eventually left me alone.

In the process, I was found indigent for 18 appeals, yet no orders of incarceration were ever overturned in the 4DCA, which is why I was reviewing Bowen v. Bowen.  I have a transcript excerpt where, not being able to find any assets for a contempt finding, the judge ruled I could have sold the clothes I was wearing for at least a penny, and therefore was in contempt for not doing so.


Monday, June 21, 2010

Victim #167: Even Lawyers Aren't Immune From Attack

Updated: In a new incident among a spate of case-related violent attacks on lawyers in recent weeks, a Minnesota man has been charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing his ex-wife's attorney a dozen times in her law office Friday.

Terri Ann Melcher, 54, was alone in her Fridley, Minn., office at the time and called 911 after the suspect, Sheikh Nyane, departed, KARE 11 reports. She is in critical but stable condition and is expected to survive.




Friday, June 18, 2010

Toronto woman to get $110,000 a month in spousal support

The following is a quote from the lawyer representing a woman who just made history by taking her hubby to the cleaners with not only millions in assets but the biggest alimony settlement in Canada ever of $110,000.00 per month. Yes that is per month. Oh to be a kept woman and have to deal with expenses of over $88,000 per month.

Can you imagine a person who is not generating any economic activity to support herself has expenses of over $1,000,000.00 per year. It is this kind of decision by judicial activist social engineers that causes women's privileged rights to come under such severe scrutiny and criticism. It is nothing more than judicially imposed welfare and she becomes a judicial welfare bum.

This is gold digging on a massive scale. It is not something a judge is required to do because of legislation. The social engineering activist judge did it because she could. I hope he appeals because these judgments of the uber-rich have a habit of becoming precedents impacting those of us at the low end of the income scale on a proportionate basis.

The trickle down approach to males keeping females from their own victimhood all through choices they made themselves. Take note of the comment the woman was not employable. Her choice and no one elses.



How Marriage Today Is Slavery For Men

In “On The Subjugation of Women”, John Stewart Mill compared the institution of marriage to the institution of slavery. Mill argued that wives were like slaves because the laws at that time made them subject to the whims of their husbands. According to Mill, the laws at the time forced women to obey. In fact, Mill argued that women were worse off than slaves because women weren’t even free from their servitude even when they went to bed at night.

One hundred and forty years have passed since Mill wrote his essay, and many things have changed in this country around marriage laws. Most of these changes have been indisputably positive. If the pendulum was too far to the “men’s” side during Mill’s time, many of these laws have moved the pendulum towards the middle, where it should be. However, while it is politically incorrect to say so, I would argue that the the pendulum has swung over to the “woman’s” side so much so that the institution of marriage today is a form of slavery for men.



Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Victim #166: Ex is paid $46,000 to sit on her ass

My former husband was also a victim of Florida's unfair alimony practices.  I found him hanging in the garage six years ago.  Once again, our District Courts handed out a lifetime sentence of alimony.  He wasn't even the one that wanted the divorce.  His ex did.

At the time of his death his children were 16 and 14.  They have been fatherless for six years now all because of the unfair alimony practices that are affecting thousands of families in this State.

I am now remarried to a wonderful man.  He is also in this same predicament.  Paying permanent lifetime alimony, plus child support.  His credit was destroyed, while his ex's credit became increasingly better because of her "new" yearly salary.  She receives over $46,000.00 a year for sitting on her ass. 

Our Courts are giving incentives to these receivers of alimony not to work, not to financially support their children, and become non-productive entities in our society.  Our Family Court system is broken and is destroying lives, literally.  The Court System is extremely bias toward men, and this has to change.


Victim #165: Media Attention Needed

I think one of the most important things for us to stress if we get some media attention is the fact that this is not just a problem for "rich" people.  I think there is a misconception by most people that alimony is only paid to rich women by their rich ex-husbands.  NOT TRUE!  My boyfriend's salary is in the mid 60's (BEFORE taxes) and he pays $25K per year in alimony - plus child support (which is, of course, A LOT LESS than what he pays in alimony). 

I also think we should reiterate the fact that our financial obligations end when our kids are 18 or out of high school, but alimony is given to GROWN adults who should be able to take of themselves!!

Finally, even though the legislators in Florida passed the "cohabitation" clause, it is almost impossible to meet the standards/criteria set to prove that a supportive relationship exists with another person, and the judges are not enforcing it even after positive proof is presented!  (Judge Gary Farmer wrote an excellent dissent on this subject - See Linstroth v. Dorgan, Fourth District Court of Appeal)

I could go on and on - this whole subject just infuriates me more and more every day.  I see the anguish on my boyfriend's face every time we discuss our future. 

Because of his financial obligation to his EX-wife, we will never be able to buy a home together (he had to file bankruptcy because of his alimony obligation).  And, get this - the judge ordered his ex to put their home up for sale, but to continue to make the house payment until such time that the home sold.  That was last October.  She has not put the home on the market and she has not made a house payment since October 2008.  She still lives in the house and it hasn't been foreclosed on because of the backlog of foreclosures in Florida right now!!!!

So, she is getting all this alimony for her supposed "living expenses", but she has only been paying for utilities for the past year. We can't take her to court for contempt on this because even though she agreed in writing to keep their child under her insurance plan at work - which is cheaper and better insurance - the judge still ordered him to pay for health insurance for the minor child - this on top of alimony and child support! 

He feels that if he pushes her on the house payment issue, she will say that he isn't paying for the health insurance, which he was ordered to do and the judge would not grant a rehearing re: the insurance issue!!!

He even has to make HER car payment even though she now brings home twice as much money each month as he does!  I have never witnessed something so unfair.  I feel for everyone who has to live with this burden. 


The New Art of Alimony


Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston's public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony."

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.



Victim #164: CBS sportscaster Jim Nantz to pay his ex-wife $916,000 a year in alimony and child support.


A Connecticut judge has ordered CBS sportscaster Jim Nantz to pay his ex-wife $916,000 a year in alimony and child support.

Monday's ruling comes after Nantz and his ex-wife, Lorrie, testified about the breakdown of their 26-year marriage. Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Howard Owens concluded neither was at fault.

Nantz must pay $72,000 monthly in alimony until he dies or his ex-wife remarries, and another $1,000 weekly in child support for their 15-year-old daughter, Caroline, for the next two years. Lorrie Nantz will get their six-bedroom home in Westport.

Court documents cited Jim Nantz's $3.2 million salary from CBS and other yearly assets.



Victim #163: Army docks soldier's pay for alimony with no warning

by Stuart Watson / NewsChannel 36
NewsChannel 36
Posted on November 13, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Updated Friday, Nov 13 at 5:02 PM

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Soldiers in the U.S. Army fight to uphold the Constitution.But do they get those same Constitutional rights when they get divorced in a foreign court? The I-team follows the story of a soldier who lost his son and half his pay with no chance to fight.

September 11th compelled Patrick Riley to join the U.S. Army.

"I was 27 - in decent shape - figured I'd go do something for my country," he says.

Between two tours in Iraq, he was stationed in Germany where he met Daniela. Riley and the German woman had a baby boy. Before he left again for Iraq, he married her. "I wouldn't have got married if it hadn't been for my son. I wanted to make sure he was going to be taken care of if anything should happen to me my second tour," he says

But shortly after the family moved stateside - to Shelby, North Carolina - where he was stationed as a recruiter, Riley says, "She left and my whole world turned upside down."

His wife took their son and flew out of Charlotte Douglas Airport back to Germany.  "I can't even explain to you some thoughts - it's just so hard - cause you know two years of not having your son. It's hard," Riley says.

Then - with no notice - no court hearing - no way to contest it, the Army docked more than half of Sergeant Riley's pay. He says it leaves him with about 13-hundred dollars a month. Most of the garnishment was not child support - but alimony.



Victim #162: At a loss in TX

The short version is... that at the time of my recent divorce, I was a resident and working in a permanent full-time position in Texas. My ex continued to live in Nebraska. We jointly signed a contract to build a home in Texas, but subsequently both filed for divorce. She filed in Nebraska and I filed in Texas. She filed first (I did not know it and had not been served) and I filed a few days later with the intention of serving her.

I was counseled to move forward in Nebraska due to property settlement issues there, but leave the action pending in Texas. The decree in Nebraska now requires that I pay $60K per year for 12 years... which is well past my normal retirement age and a significant hardship for me. The judge in Nebraska also ordered that the action in Texas be terminated.

I appealed in Nebraska, to no avail, and was ordered to pay additional legal fees to her. My legal expense now totals approximately $60K (for her and me). 

This is keeping me awake at night, I don't understand how this could happen. I willingly agreed to a property settlement that left her with over 50% of our estate (she received approx $700K in property, cash, and retirement accounts).

Please help me find a way to deal with the unfair court system in Nebraska. I am at a complete loss. Thank you for any direction that you may be able to provide.


Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Victime #161: A Woman's Point of View

Guys I am right there with you. I know I'm a woman but I am absolutely against alimony in this day and age. It's barbaric and there is no reason for it.

I myself am a divorced mother of 2 kids. I get no childsupport (my choice) and no alimony . Matter of fact I was origanilly ordered to pay childsupport and alimony because I educated myself and made more money. So I kinda understand what it is to get screwed.

On the other hand, I am remarried to a wonderful man who is in the same boat as all of you. He pays his ex close to $2000.00 a month to sit on her ass and do nothing. They were married 9 years and he has permanent alimony.

We have a 2 year old together that he barely sees because he has to work an offshore job inorder to pay his alimony and help out with our family that we have created.

You're right it isnt fair. It needs to stop. There is no reason for it.

And as a woman I can say, for all the lasy ass women out there who need to get off their ass and get a job,  Piss off and go back to work. There is plenty of help out there for education, daycare and such because I have used it.


Monday, April 5, 2010

Victim #160: Screwed, Blued and Tattooed

I have been waiting since Oct.2008 to get back into court for modification of alimony and child support.

I have been found disabled  by a Federal judge since June of 2008 and yet I was told by a magistrate in court that I quit my second job at that time on purpose ,despite all the medical proof  I presented at the hearing.

I was forced to pay alimony and child support at a higher rate and made to pay arrears. All of this and with all the medical proof my attorney and I presented, it all fell on deft ears. I have lost my drivers license ,vehicle registration, passport-hold  and they said they would turn in my arrears on alimony and any child support  arrears to the credit reporting agencies.

Not only did I get screwed, blued and tattooed but they took 1/2 of my 401k and are trying to suck the rest of me dry.

Isn't there any justice in this world, all I ever wanted was a divorce and be rid of a blood sucking woman, non-caring,non-loving Bitch. All I ever did was work two and sometimes three jobs to make life a lot easier for my children and my former wife, then when you are tired and fed up with being treated like a piece of the furniture with less compassion and love, who you think should be grateful for all the things that have been provided for her well being and the children not having to want for anything.

I do not understand, she has turned my daughter against me from what was a loving relationship since birth to a once in awhile phone call with little so say,not even a card on my birthday. I am hurting and sad beyond words could ever say, and the ex stills wants more! It is no wonder why so many people snap! I can see it and I can understand it now.

The courts have allowed this to happen and this should be a eye opening to all, even those planning to get married!! The state makes it so very easy to get married without ever preventing the pitfalls that can go along with marriage. Why else would they ever want to take the bread and butter off of their table? Is that what we as a nation have come too, if this is the case we are all it a bit of trouble, we are allowing this to occur.

There has to be reform, other wise they transform us into whatever they want and will continue to do so.You know , you can knock me down all you want, but I will always get back up and in your face.

Remember this saying, If you don't stand  for something, you"ll fall for anything.


Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Victim #159: Former Wife Cyberstalking Ex's Significant Other

I am currently dealing with my fiance's ex wife who has just gone overboard. She is cyberstalking me, stalking me at my work, and socially scarring my name.

Just to answer some questions before I go on. They divorced because he caught her cheating on him five different times in thier own bed! There are no children involved. However because she is so money hungry and he was just mentally tired he allowed her to receive alimony (also its the state of Indiana's law). She makes weekly claims that she is due more money.

She has taken to contacting his company and sending emails posing as a (he does real estate) buyer to send him emails demanding money. She has all the information on contacting him but yet continues to try to tarnish his name. I know for a fact he is up to date on payments due to her.

Did I mention that she uses her big sister to email him and try to mentally shame him? My group I started is to help people voice their frustration about their ex's in a safe way. Also to discuss the injustice that is placed upon them by just loving whom they love.

I realized that I can not discuss this to my friends because they just don't understand. It gets frustrating and yes I could opt out and just break up with him. However I am very much in love with him and will not back down.

I needed a support group and I have found one and made another. I have dealt with her cyberbulling me on myspace and via emails. Everything I do to stop it is rejected by the courts because of my relationship with him. I am tired of the lying, selfish woman.

The worse part is seeing her post pictures of her and her new boyfriend in Rome and various European places and hearing that she is demanding more money. What can I do to stop her!


Victim #158: Dislikes Having to Work Extra 13 Hour Weekend Shift For Rest of His LIfe

And just how many ex spouses can we be ordered to support?

I would still like to see a list of how much money everyone pays to support an ex spouse.  What is an, "ex spouse," really worth?  Might there be some injustice in the differing dollar amounts we pay?

Was it illegal for the female judge to order me to liquidate my 401(k) retirement account to pay for my ex's attorney bills?  When her attorney found I didn't have enough money to cover his bill, he was kind enough to let me make additional payments over two years, interest free!  What a guy!

Maybe the female judge figured that since I was a Registered Nurse, I might enjoy helping strangers going through a period of illness in their lives, so I wouldn't mind working an extra 13 hour weekend shift every week for the rest of my life, to support an abusive, and at times, mentally ill ex, that set a fire in the house, and frequently threatened to kill me, for stupid things like making eye contact with someone, or walking into a neighbors home.

The judge, most likely thought I enjoyed it when my ex accused me of having affairs with her friends, her daughter's friends, my sister, my Mother, and, what brought me to the breaking point, our two Long coat Chihuahua's.

God help me Bill.  I pay $1395.00 a month.  I know Doctors and Attorneys that pay less, or nothing at all!  How much to Judges pay in alimony cases to their exs?

Have we come out with new bumper stickers yet?  A bumper sticker that can be read from more than two car lengths away?  We need bigger, more legible, more aggressive bumper stickers.  How about one that shows, Permanent Alimony Equals Prison, Paid Or NOT !!!   Or, in place of the "Paid Or NOT", have a picture of a person behind Prison Bars.  And make it large enough to be read by the average persons eye sight at five car lengths away.  How much would we have to pay in dues to get our message on billboards!  We have to put an end to Alimony!


Monday, March 29, 2010

Victim #157: How Double-Dipping For Alimony Affects Your Retirement Account

Excerpt from an email discussion on retirement accounts

..... One of the problems with finding a case that counters the 2005 "Acker v Acker" Supreme Court [in Florida] precedent is that it seems to take about three years for a case to move from county court to the appeals court, and another three years to just get to the Florida Supreme Court, much less be published.   Basically, any case that would do me any good, has probably not even made it to an appeals court, yet. 
..... I have a problem with Mr. Schultz's analysis of the "Acker v Acker" precedent and his discription of "Double-Dipping" in conjunction with how retirement plans should be counted.   He discusses treating pre-divorce accumulations in retirement plan as being subject to being divided as a marital asset, then treating Post-divorce accumulations as a source of income to be used to calculate alimony.   What he doesn't take into account is when in the initial divorce division of assets, BOTH the pre- as well as post-divorce accumulations are considered.  

In Mr. Acker's case, his half of the assets included ALL of his retirement plan.   His Ex received other assets to offset his getting this retirement plan.   I am in a similar boat in that I gave up exactly half of my pre-divorce accumulations in my retirement.  I also gave the Ex over 100K in exchange for any future accumulations.  

Now a decade later she has spent much of the retirement that was turned over to her, but mine is still intact.   Under "Acker" the ONLY thing that counts in a Modification of Alimony hearing is "Need vs Ability to Pay".   Since she has spent a lot of her retirement assets, and I haven't, guess who the court thinks is in "Need" and who has the "Ability to Pay" ? 
..... Here is a senerio that more clearly shows how unjust the "Acker" precedent is.
..... Mr. & Mr. Smith get divorced simultaneously with his retirement.  Under the divorce agreement each party gets half interest in his retirement pension plan.  As with many pension plans, there is an option to either take all the benefit as an annuity ..(lifetime monthly payments).. or as a lump-sum, or proportioned between the two.  

Mr. Smith chooses to take his half as $2,000/mo. annuity.   the Ex chooses a $1,000/mo. annuity and $150,000 as a lump-sum.   Several years later after the Ex has spent all of her lump-sum, she ask the court for alimony since she is in "Need" by having only $1,000/mo. and Mr. Smith has the "Ability to Pay" from his $2,000/mo. income.  

Under the "Acker" decision, the equitable distribution of assets during the initial divorce does not count, only the present difference of income.   Therefore, she would be awarded alimony  which could only be paid from his remaining half of his pension.


Sunday, March 28, 2010

Victim #156: Ex Takes a Ten Year Paid Vacation

I am presently involved in a Modification of Alimony hearing.   I filed for the modification based on my mandatory retirement in March.   Because my employer threw the company pension to the PBGC,
..(the government agency that take over failed retirement plans).. I have yet to receive a pension check and I don't expect to for several months.   In the meantime, the judge has ordered an extended delay in the proceedings until we can find out how much my pension benefit will be and also to get the results from a Vocational Evaluation he ordered me to get.
..... My Ex filed for divorce in May 1996, after 28 years of marriage.   In the mediated settlement she got not only half of all our assets, including our home,and half of all retirement benefits I had accrued up till that time.   Also, she got over $100K in exchange for my future retirement accumulations.
..... So when I came up on my mandatory retirement date, ..(I was an airline pilot, and federal regulations prohibit me from working at the job that has been my only source of income for 37 years on or after my 60th birthday).. I filed for the termination of alimony, because my Ex already had gotten half my assets and half of ALL of my retirement benefits.   I thought that paying alimony out of my remain half, to enhance her half would be ridiculous.  Well, not according to Florida family law!
..... It seems that the judge wants me to go out and start a new career to provide an income stream to provide my Ex with continuing alimony, even though I am prohibited by federal regulation from using my previous, aviation related, job experience and training.  Obviously, he also wants to use my pension check, when they ever start, to provide a source of alimony, even though my Ex already got half a decade ago.
..... Now that I have my Ex's Financial Affidavit, I understand why she is opposing this termination.   It seems that she started her pension benefits soon after the divorce and now those monthly payments are only half what they should have been had she waited to start them when I retired.   Also, she has spent a considerable portion of the "cash" assets that were turned over to her or at the time of the initial divorce, ten years ago.   There is no evidence of her saving anything.   Nor, did she try to improve her financial position by using her teaching degree or her nurses training or any other job. 

This all occured at the same time she was receiving the largest amount of alimony my employer, with 85,000 employees, had ever paid out in payroll deduction.  (And, I was far from being the highest paid employee).   Bottom line....She has been on a decade long paid vacation, spending money like it grew on trees!
..... Add to this the fact that the judge has ordered me to pay a significant proportion of my Ex's legal fees....($5,800 thus far).... as well as the costs of the Vocation Evaluation in addition to my own legal fees that will be difficult to keep under $30,000 before its all over with. 

In his order justifying the payment of the Former wife's legal fees, the judge used a comparison of our checking and general savings accounts.  He justified his order because me and my new wife's JOINT accounts contained more than my Ex's, even though my present wife, ..(since 2001).. doesn't have any rights in this type of hearing.   It seems that she, too, can be penalized, but can't even protest the action.
..... In addition, since loosing half of all I had a decade ago, I have lived a fairly conservative lifestyle to maximize my post-divorce savings.  As an example, I'm still driving the same vehicle I drove to the courthouse in 1996.   I didn't realize that by denying myself all these years, I was just providing the court with a source of money, so that the judge can replace what my Ex has already spent.

It seems that all that counts now is "Need vs Ability to Pay".   The fact that she caused her "Need" by spending a lot of her assets since the divorce, doesn't count in this state.   Only my "Ability to Pay" !
.....If anyone out there knows of anything that would help me defend myself in court, I will appreciate any input.


Victim #155: Wants to End Forced Labor!

I would like to get more involved in ending Forced Labor.  I''ve been paying, paying, paying, for over five years.  
I gave up a Palm Beach Garden home and $1,400.00 a month to get away from a 15 year marriage to a Bipolar spouse, that treatened my life, and started the house on fire.She was taken away by the Police, and volunteered to spend two weeks in a mental institution.  
The female judge gave me two days to move out of the house, declared her totally disabled, even though she regularly walked two miles to the grocery store, at her choice, or rode her bike.  I feel like getting on the Montel show, to tell my, our, stories.
Permanent Alimony is Forced Labor in America, which to me amounts to Slavery, which even China just Banned.  There must be an end to this injustice.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Victim #154: In Tennessee Fighting For Survival

Here is my story, In Oct. 2008 I filed for a modification for alimony and child support. Since then it has been one delay after another, one contempt charge after another.

Still no trial date for modification hearing, but in November 16, 2009 I had to appear to show cause for the contempt and I was able to get out of most of the six contempt charges with a $300 attorney fee from my ex's attorney for her time towards contempt charges.

Also the new judge(a male judge) ordered new financial statements since it has been so long since filing the original modification and ordered mediation before a trial could be brought forth.

This all took place in November 16, 2009 and it is now March 22, 2010 and I am not any closer to a modification hearing than I was since I first filed in OCT,2008.

My ex's attorney wrote my attorney a letter and stated my ex wants money, and she will settle for $20,000., $10,000 before March 15, 2010 and another $10,000 in September, 2010 and sign over my half of the house. My attorney thought this was a generous offer if I only had $20,000.

I am now 100% disabled and unable to work since June 2008. I am out here in Tennessee fighting for my survival and she is now trying to get my disability money.

In my way of thinking, she is still in the house I paid for and my son got to stay with her. She got all of the contents of the house and half of my 401K and now she is going after my blood.

I will not give up and I will not cave in, GOD give me the strength to carry on. Best wishes to all and may GOD be with you.


Friday, March 26, 2010

Victim #153: Need to End Alimony Welfare in St. Louis

My Husband and I have been married for almost 8 years and in that time we have received full custody of his 2 children, that are now already out of college, the other still in. But both are in their 20's.

I have shared legal custody of my 2 sons but full physical. And now we have a 2 year old together.

We are truly blessed and have been very lucky but his ex refuses to work and says it is beneath her and we have already taken her back to court twice and won, once for the children's custody issues and alimony, the second just for alimony.

As, I said we won and her maintenance has been lowered twice. As, I also stated, we are very lucky and my husband is a very successful man. But we are done with providing any longer for a woman who in the end did not even finish raising her children and has a degree and refuses to work.

So he tried to talk it out and provide some way at ending this without the courts, because as we all know the lawyers are the only ones who truly win.

Anyway, she would not respond so we had her served. She has now hired an atty. and answered the filing with a counter suit, in which she states, she now needs MORE alimony, and also states that her ex married me...a much younger woman that could provide to HER support...I could go on and on...

there is a settlement hearing on July 3 and we are in St. Louis, MO is there any way, without racking up a huge bill with our atty. to find out what the current trends are in rulings on this matter in our area?


Saturday, March 20, 2010

Victim #152: Love and Marriage in the New Millennium

They started dating in high school and married on September 3, 2000. A child soon followed and another a couple of years later. As with most young couples with children, times were tough although they managed to purchase a house.

She was in charge of family finances, but didn't do well at it. In 2005 they were hit with foreclosure on their home. After 5 years of marriage they separated in June 2005 at her request, supposedly because she felt bad about the foreclosure. She was then 24 and Jason was 27.

She complained that she had never been on her own she needed some time, and wanted to force herself to learn to mange money. She assured Jason it was a temporary situation and he reluctantly agreed, all the while asking that they go to marriage counseling. She refused.

But there was more to the story. She had gone back to school in September 2003 and Jason was the parent taking care of the children from the time he picked them up from daycare until they went to bed. Then she decided nightlife was more exciting than her family.

It started as just once a week, but soon grew into every night in the local bars while, after Jason got the kids to bed, he'd lie awake waiting for her to come home drunk around 3 AM. He'd try to talk to her about the problem, to no avail, and then he'd have to get up at 5:30 AM to go to work. That went on from December 2004 until their separation in June 2005. All the while their debts were mounting.

Even through this Jason never gave up on his children or family. He found a place to live, took care of the house foreclosure, and began to gain control over his life again. Her response was to treat him worse and worse with every new day.

Jason was naturally confused about what was going on but was trying hard to make things work for the sake of his family. After their separation he was paying for half the children's daycare and lent her money for the damage deposit on her apartment, and other things she needed. She wanted nothing to do with him unless she needed money. Needless to say, the relationship was getting worse, not better, and they both knew it.

Enter the DV and divorce industry.

On August 21, 2005, after being separated for 2 months, Jason picked up their two boys (then 2 and 5) with the intent of going to Horsetooth Reservoir with his brother for a day of Sunday boating. However, the weather was windy and his brother decided not to get the boat out. Instead, they all went to Jason's mother's house to swim in her pool.

Jason took the kids back to their mother at 7:30 PM but when she found out they had gone swimming instead of boating she became irrationally angry. She insisted Jason should have called her and threatened to never let him see the kids again. He apologized for not calling but hadn't thought that it was a big deal that they went to his mother's home and not to the lake. Certainly the kids were safer playing in the pool with dad than in a small boat on a lake on a blustery day.

After she had vented her spleen, Jason tried to give her a hug as he was leaving, as he customarily did. She got angry again and kicked him out. He went home, upset and sad as he had countless times before, but not thinking anything more of it.

Jason had the kids again the next day and took them back to their mother around 9 PM without further incident.

Then he had them again on Wednesday, August 24, 2005. This time when he took them back to their mother at 7:30 PM the Loveland police were waiting for him. They informed him that his wife had filed a domestic violence charge against me claiming he had grabbed her and tried to sexually assault her on Sunday when he'd brought the children home.*1 Note that the police were not responding to an incident in progress but he was arrested without a warrant, underwent a full body-cavity search, and spent 26 hours in the Larimer County Detention Center before being released on a personal-recognizance bond with the required mandatory restraining order that stated he could not see his kids.

In the two months prior to his arrest, Jason had been hospitalized for depression, tried to convince wife to go to marriage counseling, which she refused to do despite her insistence she didn't want a divorce, let her move out because she said she needed some time to sort things out and learn to manage finances on her own. And now, because of the domestic violence charge, Jason lost his job. Neither one had yet filed for divorce.

Jason later learned, through conversations and emails that friends and his brother's fiancé shared with him, that his wife had been planning this for several months. When they separated she moved into an apartment for which she had been on a wait list for 6 months. She also took every single piece of furniture and possession that they had worked for throughout the marriage. She left him with the credit card bills and the delinquent mortgage.

Finding the right lawyer

On September 1, 2005, Jason met with a highly-recommended domestic violence lawyer in Loveland. This attorney advised Jason from the beginning not to take his case to trial. He claimed that Loveland was such a conservative town that the majority of domestic violence cases that went before a jury resulted in a conviction simply because of the nature of the crime.

Her word against his was nearly all it took in most cases. Because the prosecutor claimed there were pictures of bruises, Jason was told he had little to no chance of winning even before he saw the "evidence." He also told Jason that if he was convicted it would be on his record permanently. But this incompetent shyster didn't mention that a plea bargain is a conviction and would remain on Jason's record permanently as well. Nor was Jason told that a guilty plea would prevent him from being the custodial parent of his sons.

It took this attorney nearly 7 months after requesting copies of the pictures prosecutors claimed showed bruises on his wife to finally obtain them. In the interim Jason still hadn't been arraigned, and thus his right to a speedy trial was circumvented. Once they did receive the pictures, no bruises were visible except one very light mark on her forearm. Of course there are any number of explanations as to why someone might have a mark on their arm and the pictures were apparently not taken until 3 days after she claimed she was assaulted.

Any reasonably competent criminal defense attorney should have been able to discredit such "evidence."
Despite the weakness of the evidence against him, the attorney told Jason again that his best option was to plead guilty and plea bargain for a deferred sentence. Jason was told that if he had no further incidents the DV charge would be dropped and, for a fee, his record could be sealed. This attorney's misrepresentation is typical of unscrupulous attorneys who take clients retainers and then sell them down the river with a plea bargain.

Lacking the zealous representation of a competent attorney, and without prior knowledge or experience with the legal system, Jason then took the plea bargain.

She files for divorce

Any veteran of the DV and divorce industry knows the next step in the game is for the wife to file for divorce now that she has custody of the kids and a restraining order. Following the script, Jason was served divorce papers on September 28, 2005, demanding full custody of their two boys.

About 3 weeks after filing the DV charge, she had her father give Jason a letter telling him the only way he could see the kids was if he paid her for some of her expenses and met several other demands. She dictated how and when his time with the kids was to be spent. Withholding parenting time for money is against Colorado state law and even the female judge called the letter a ransom note. But no penalties attached to her unlawful demands.

The divorce was naturally a bitter one and legal fees for a divorce attorney alone were $4,000. The DV lawyer cost an additional $1,000 to do nothing but destroy Jason's life. A lot of money for someone who had next to nothing and a mountain of debt to start with.

With a DV charges, and later conviction, the family court was against Jason from the outset. No matter how much Jason wanted to be a father for his boys, he became simply a paycheck.

Both during the temporary orders hearing on November 15, 2005, and the final orders hearing on February 22, 2006, she was caught lying, but nothing was done. Ultimately, because she had controlled the parenting time for so long, and with a restraining and no contact order in place so he could not contact her or see his boys unless she allowed it, she was given full custody. The boys now can only see their father four times a month, every other weekend and on alternating weeks every other Monday.

However, because of hard evidence that his wife was incapable of managing her finances, which had resulted in the boys jumping from one daycare to another, child support payments are made directly to daycare providers instead of to her. So neither parent wins, the kids lose, and the DV and divorce industry grows richer.

The ongoing vendetta

Since Jason's domestic violence charge, three additional formal complaints have been made that demonstrate how Jason's ex-wife tries to use the legal system to secure control over situations she wants changed, and to ensure Jason and his family have minimal contact with his boys.

Two weeks after the temporary orders hearing, on November 30, 2005, Jason's wife called the Larimer County sheriff, case #05-771, on Jason's father, with whom Jason is living, to investigate an unsafe house. She claimed the drinking water was brown, the house was unclean, there were no beds for the children to sleep on and that they were being made to sleep on the floor, etc. Jason was not home the day the sheriff came, and Jason's dad wisely refused to let the sheriff inspect the house without a warrant.

Following that complaint, on December 27, 2005, social services caseworker Mykel Flory came to Jason's father's house to investigate a report of the house being unsafe. This time Jason was home and let her in. In Jason's words the social worker was stunned after inspecting the house and finding nothing. She asked why Jason thought someone would do that and he explained the divorce situation. Ms. Flory's comment was that she would advise the caller about the difference between a legitimate concern and a false report.

Their divorce was final March 1, 2006, but that was hardly the end of her vindictiveness.

On March 9, 2006, Jason's now ex-wife again filed a complaint with the Loveland Police Department, incident # 06-13008, against Daniel Peterson (Jason's stepfather) for making threats against her when she came to pick up the boys from his mother and stepfather's house (Jason's parents and Jason's former in-laws provide drop off and pick up locations for the boys).

Jason's divorce lawyer also received a call from his wife's attorney saying that Daniel threatened her and she "feared for her life."

Daniel's son was at home and heard the conversation. No threat was ever made. What did happen was Daniel asked her if she was getting married because one of the little boys had been very upset that night and told Jason he got in trouble for having a black crayon in his pocket that ruined her wedding dress that she had washed the night before. Daniel offered advice and expressed concern about what she said around the boys to avoid upsetting them. The conversation was friendly and at its end, she and Daniel agreed if there was anything else like this that ever came up to call each other or exchange emails. The following night Daniel was taken completely off guard by the phone call from the police.

Then in late July of 2006 she filed another false report with the Loveland Police Department that Jason didn't have car seats in his jeep when he had the boys. Jason did notice police cars being around the drop off point for the next few weeks, wasting resources better used elsewhere for public safety.

After completing domestic violence treatment, obtaining unsupervised probation status, and numerous emails back and forth between Jason and his ex-wife regarding issues about their boys, Jason told his ex-wife he planned on attending the boys' yearly doctor exams on March 16, 2007. Jason had only ever missed one of his boys doctor appointments prior to separating.

When his ex-wife realized the restraining order/no contact order was no longer in effect, she immediately filed another temporary restraining order based solely on the previous (almost 2 year old) DV charge. A hearing on her request to impose a permanent restraining order on Jason was held Wednesday, March 28, 2007. Her request was denied and the temporary order was lifted.

However, there is absolutely no reason she can't go "judge shopping" and find one more sympathetic to her fears that the boy's father might actually want to be informed about their medical condition. Or she can make up any other excuse with the help of a publicly-funded "victim advocate" or shelter worker since there are no penalties for making false allegations of abuse and subornation of perjury is not a crime in Colorado.

Such games can, and do go on for years while the children's lives are destroyed and the DV and divorce industry grow rich from the public purse.

The saddest thing about this story is that it is so typical.


Friday, March 19, 2010

Victim #151: Family Law System Destroys the American Family

It's the same old same old. I lost everything and the "X" vacations in Europe.  But what is unique is that I was sentenced to pay lifetime alimony.  The "X" is to receive the court ordered  alimony from my estate after I die.  This is part of the divorce settlement. 

The "X" is litigious to a fault and has  already threatened my daughter in law with a law suit should I leave my grand daughter money for her education.  So we know she will sue any beneficiary  of my estate such as a future wife.  This means I really can't get married and expose a second wife to this kind of litigation. 

I have been in a  relationship since 1992 and we did try to get married by our pastor but that avenue is blocked with statues that make it unlawful to marry without a license.  They enforce this statute by jailing the pastor on a misdemeanor charge.  The point I am trying to make is that the family law system has destroyed the American family.

I think what bothers me most of all is that my son did not marry after seeing how his mother worked me over in the courts.  This makes my only grandson and name sake illegitimate.   


Thursday, March 18, 2010

Victim #150: Is Alimony a Form of Punishment??

I am married to a wonderful man who had the unfortunate luck to be married to a money grubbing bloodsucker. Based on your message I see you have the same experience.

I, like you, don't understand how, in this day and age, a judge can give a woman alimony for the rest of her life. This is not 1950. Women are fully capable of taking care of themselves financially. Is alimony supposed to be some sort of punishment?

What gets me is she is had an affair, stole the kids, took them out of state and my husband got stuck paying...HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN!

I told him he had a crappy lawyer. We've talked to lawyers to have it terminated. They said there has to be a change in circumstances. I guess her inheriting $100,000 and working isn't a change in circumstances.

Meanwhile, we paid the child support (for 2 children), bought the cars, now putting the kids through college.  Needless to say, she will not give one dime of her alimony to her own kids.  And what kills me is every-time she sees us she acts like we are all buddies and I just want to rip her face off. My husband won't go anywhere near her.

What can we do to change these laws? Something has to be done. Please tell me what I can do.


Sunday, March 14, 2010

Victim #149: Another Slave's Lament

My own story is, in my view, an egregious one. I married in my 40's to a woman also in her 40's. She had a house and I had a job. We were married only 10 years though the marriage was, for all intents and purposes, over after only 5 years. During the last 5 years of the marriage she made my life miserable at best and sometimes horrible.

-She filed for divorce after years of threats, waiting for the 10-year anniversary to do so (that is the benchmark here for a "long-term" marriage)

-I owed her EXACTLY nothing at the time of the divorce. In fact, it is easy to argue that SHE owed ME since I left her in a palpably better financial position than when we began living together. It can also NOT be argued that I owed her for any "intangible" things she might have done for me during the marriage. I did everything for myself from laundry to shopping.

-When we separated I had the same job as when we first met. She was unemployed, as she was when we first started living together.

-Her cost of living is, in NO way, any greater today as a result of our having lived together.

Despite these facts I am ordered to pay her lifetime alimony, for what? And this alimony has kept me from paying down my enormous credit card debt, debt that grew as large as it is because she never worked while we were together.


Saturday, March 13, 2010

Victime #148: The Evils of First Divorce are Visited on Second Wife

I've seen very unfair things happening due to the laws and systems. I'm not sure if people that are getting a divorce are the ones looking for "revenge" or if it's just lawyers that need these nasty endings to fill up their pockets. I hate legislation that let lazy, irresponsible spouses to get away with such abuse. I want to prevent it from happening to me.

Here's my story if you're interested....
I was married for a very short time to a guy that had been sentenced with 24k alimony a year for 10 years (this is just to sum up...). It not only affected our relationship financially and emotionally, but now that WE are close to a divorce (we've been separated for 7 months), I'm afraid that he would "take revenge" out on me, just because he's had it soooo bad with the first wife.

I just want a divorce, no money, no complications (is this possible), just a divorce. We don't have any assets together, nothing whatsoever, and thank God for that!! He owns property and has a trust from his mom, and I couldn't care less!! The only thing in common is an almost 2 year old, the even though we have agreed to get share custody, I do not trust him. I'm scared he may want to take him away from me!!!

My ex and I were never compatible, it didn't work and it would never work. It's been very sad for me, but oh well...I would like to maintain a friendly relationship for our son, but my ex is really tricky. He lives with a woman, he had an affair with her after we had been married for 6 months, he said he wanted to move on with his life with her (that he was in love...) and asked me to move out. He was a complete asshole at the time, and a month after he wanted to "make up" with me. Crazy, crazy, crazy.

Now, I want a divorce and he manipulates me with little and big stuff, which is frustrating. If I'm not friendly to him, he won't pick up the phone when I want to call my son. For him, in order to be friendly I have to accept his flirting and "invitations" to have sex (don't forget, he's living with his ex affair buddy, she moved in almost the same day I left).

I've always been sorry for how he's first marriage ended. I have never depended financially on him, NEVER. I do not care, he even made me sign a prenup and I had no problem with that, I've always have a clean conscience. I just want a divorce (no money, nothing, not even child support...I can't even move too far from where he lives!!!) and I'm afraid that he will try to fault it on me, say that I abandoned the house and that all he has is a "roommate" to alleviate his expenses!!!

He just started with a business and he's not making a lot of money. I make less that 30K a year right now, can you imagine if he finds his way out to say that I should pay him!!!

Sorry, that I vented all this, I'm desperate!!! He's done so many wrong things to me that I'm afraid this is not the end.



Thursday, March 11, 2010

Victim #147: Fifty-Four Year Old Baby

I don't think child support should have anything to do with alimony.Child support is separate ..that is for taking care of the children, which a man should.

Alimony in our case is for the ex to live the life of riley. My husbands children have families of their own and the ex is still receiving alimony. After all it is her money. How is that? She got the house and half of everything else and still gets part of what he makes.

Being the new wife this REALLY bothers me. We can't make plans because we have to make sure she gets HER money...because it is HER money. She didn't  have to rehabilitate herself to support herself either. She worked during the marriage and I might add makes good money....but part of my husbands income is still HER money.

I think three years is plenty of time to pay alimony. After my husband retired on disability, we went to court to try to get it modified...well the attorney told my husband to settle with what she was willing to take no matter what because the ex has put on a little weight and the judge would feel sorry  for her and be for her anyway. I'm not sure who's attorney he was. I thought he was ours.

He has been paying alimony for nearly 10 years. As far as I can see we have a 54 year old baby.


Victim #146: Georgia Man Rather Fight Than Pay

BRUNSWICK, Ga. - The high sheriff in the old westerns used to ask his prey "to come along quietly and there won't be any trouble.''

Between Christmas and New Year's Day, Joe Iannicelli went to jail quietly, but is trying to raise a fuss on the outside.

Iannicelli was jailed on the order of Superior Court Judge E.M. Wilkes III of Hazlehurst for not paying about $68,000 in alimony to Joyce Head, his ex-wife.

He may be wearing the flip-flops and jumpsuit like everyone else, but Iannicelli is not a Joe Six Pack.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, Iannicelli holds more than 100 patents. He is also the scientist at Aquafine Corp., a water purification company he owns. He also owns New Hope Plantation Mobile Home Park, Culligan of Georgia and Aero-Instant. He was a member of the Glynn County Board of Education from 1999 through 2002, serving part of his term as chairman.



Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Victim #145: Virginia: Alimony for Life State

Like many states, Virginia is an alimony for life state and I have fallen victim, now worse than ever. I have written every representative from local to the capitol and have not had any positive response. I do not know where to turn next. Any Suggestions?

When I was first divorced, I paid $600 per month indefinitely. When I retired from the Navy, she received $300 of my retirement and alimony was reduced to $300. Now, 10 years later, I am doing well and she is continuing to run a business at a lost(x 14yrs). She took me back to court and was awarded $1200 per month and still receives part of my retirement. Can you believe that!!! She gets $1,530 per month. That's over $18,000 annually, Is what that means to me is: The legal system encourages her to not excel by allowing her to have my money.

I am now re-married, have a daughter and should be able to give 100% toward my family and my home. Unfortunately I can only give 75%. My wife is not taking it well at all and at times it causes friction.

It is definitely time to move up to the current times. They are now allowing gay marriages in Washington, DC. I wonder: If a gay marriage ends in divorce, which person will get alimony for life. Personally, I don't think they will.


Thursday, February 4, 2010

Watch Out For The Dirty Dog Law

Frustrated by a Deadbeat Parent? Try Invoking the Dog Law
by Judge O.H. Eaton, Jr.

Family practitioners occasionally run into the deadbeat parent who simply refuses to obey the order directing payment of support. These cases are frustrating for several reasons.

True deadbeats have no money or assets. They live off of the income of others, usually day by day, or they rely upon the generosity of friends for assistance through the hard times.

Deadbeats believe they have nothing to lose. They have no job. They have no status. They have no property. They perceive themselves to be creatures deserving of sympathy due to their pathetic state which was caused by the custodial parent who now is to blame for the whole thing.

The usual civil remedies such as income deduction orders and writs of execution or sequestration do not produce needed monetary support. To add to the frustration, the custodial parent is usually destitute, or nearly so, and cannot afford counsel.

Sometimes the court files in these cases are voluminous because the deadbeat is pro se and is making a career out of dragging the custodial parent to court over trivial matters, thus jeopardizing employment and putting the custodial parent even more at the mercy of the deadbeat. How should the family law practitioner and the courts approach these cases?

One approach is to apply “dog law.” Now, I do not claim this concept to be original with me. I learned the concept during a lecture by Professor Calvin Woodard of the University of Virginia College of Law several years ago.

According to Professor Woodard, there are two kinds of law: “human law” and “dog law.”


Sunday, January 31, 2010

Victim #144: Attorney is Victim of the Family Law Injustice System

I am a licensed attorney in Virginia and Washington D.C. where I represented property owners in eminent domain cases.  I currently have a case, my own case, pending in Tennessee that I would like to speak with you about.  This case represents everything wrong with our legal system and the outrageous use of alimony.  I have always been aware of government abuse—and fought this abuse in my own practice—but I never knew how corrupt and morally bankrupt our family courts are.

When my wife became pregnant I gave up my legal practice in Virginia, where I had a nice salary and a comfortable living, so that I could relocate to Tennessee and work at a small family business that our family has had for years.  The new job gave me time for family and the ability to truly be a father (not just a wallet) to my daughter.  However, unbeknownst to me, my wife had been planning to leave me and to move our daughter to Pennsylvania where her family lives.  She planned well.  I will spare you the details for now, but the facts are something of which movies are made.

Anyway, with regard to alimony, my wife is a licensed attorney and former prosecutor.  Her credentials are impeccable.  She graduated second in her law school class, was on law review and participated in moot court, and obtained a federal clerkship with the United States District Court.  Aside from her clerkship and her work as a prosecutor, she also held positions with 2 of Virginia’s largest law firms.  She clearly has at least equal earning capacity to me—but likely much greater given her resume.  My wife worked 5 of the 6 years we were married.  She refused to work the year after our daughter was born, despite my repeated requests for her to get a job.  I later learned that she was working—she was working with several attorneys to plan her case to leave me.  She planned her case in an effort to somehow obtain primary custody of our daughter, which would give her a good chance at moving our daughter to Pennsylvania.  My wife executed her plan and left for good in Dec. 2006.

Anyway, despite her credentials, earning capacity, and obvious ability to work, she has refused to get a full-time job since leaving me.  She is living with family members where she has no rent, utilities, etc.  Nevertheless, the court has awarded her alimony—substantial alimony.  I am paying 100% of all marital debts and expenses, plus child support and alimony—all to a woman that left me.  Who wouldn’t get married and leave if they could achieve such an arrangement—no bills, full custody of any children, and a substantial monthly paycheck, all without having to work.  That arrangement is a windfall for one and slavery for the other.  This case illuminates all that is wrong with our court system and the alimony fraud that courts continue to perpetrate.

I have just scratched the tip of the iceberg about the outrageous facts of my case.  Just to give you a glimpse, the judge originally assigned to the case got in trouble and had to resign from the bench.  My wife’s lawyer has committed outright fraud on the court, and my wife perjured herself.  Yet, I cannot get the courts to do anything.  The case has gone on for almost 16 months (despite local court rules stating that all divorce cases “shall” be completed in 12 months), and no trial is set.  I have reached the point where my salary (which is a decent salary) can no longer pay the bills (not even considering my personal expenses since my wife left) and the child support and alimony ordered by the court.  If they can do this to me—someone who is familiar with the legal system, has fought, and has presented the appropriate evidence—what can they do to an unsuspecting layman? 

Finally, I should note that I am not holding back any bad facts about myself.  I am a fit and loving parent.  My wife raised false allegations of domestic abuse (she claimed that 1 time during our 6 yr. marriage I threw a Christmas present that hit her in the leg and left a bruise), but the charges were dismissed and expunged.  She initiated 4 legal proceedings against me in 2 states and 3 different courts.  I was able to get all 4 legal proceedings dismissed.  I am now left mired in a divorce that is destroying our daughter and has ruined our finances.

I have been a faculty member for the American Bar Association, have successfully litigated a case in the state Supreme Court, and have experience fighting government abuse.  Unfortunately, I was never aware of the outrageous abuses of the family courts until I was exposed to it myself.  I never wanted to be a divorce lawyer (I’ll withhold my opinion about most divorce lawyers) because I believe in preserving family, not destroying it.  I am also a strong advocate for limited government, and family courts are a prime example of the tyranny that exists when government exceeds its bounds.  Thank you for all your efforts in fighting this unjust system.


How Did Gov't Get Involved in "Marriage?

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."  --Bishop Desmond Tutu

The following is a post I came across in one of the various forums that I monitor. The post gives a good insight behind the scenes of how the state views their position with regard to your marriage and children. It is a real eye opener and dispels the myths you have believed for years regarding your family and children. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

"How Did Gov't Get Involved in "Marriage", a Matter of Religious Tradition?
From: "Virgil Cooper"

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26-1/2 years, filed for divorce. We had seven children, five daughters and two sons. Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five years old.

At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court. I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. 

The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25. I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license. She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona. He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states -- but there are differences. One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states. The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of
Lousiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract. He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular

Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and not officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a "dotted line" they will have to add in their own minds. The state's marriage license is "strictly secular," he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a "dotted line" meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless. In his
description of the marriage license contract, the related one other "dotted line." He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one.

This is not the case in the secular realm of the state's marriage license contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each other by another "dotted line." The picture he was trying to "paint" was that of a triangle with the
State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a "dotted line" merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrrelevant to the State.

He further mentioned that this "religious overtone" is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been "deputized" by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State. Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictily secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a
"privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law decends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish jurisconsults. In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in
operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau's administrative Assistant. He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself -- the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is "the privilege to be regulated by statute." He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all
related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along - even though the husband and wife didn't realize that. My thought on this is can it really be
considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions.

A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract. Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract." Such a contract with the State is said to be a "specific
performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this. He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are
considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -- meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis. 

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and
maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -- the parents are only conditional caretakers.

He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by
the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property throughout its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value. Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence.

The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage. 

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a
dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in
amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract
is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the States has
on people.

At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions. He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State. His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, "You have to understand that people who come in here to get a
marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license." (Laughter)

I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the marriage license. The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or
usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."