On 28 Feb 2005 21:01:12 -0800, "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

>>
>> On 28 Feb 2005 12:01:02 -0800, "Hyerdahl"
 wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Cloaked wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 03:16:13 GMT, suckmysav 
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:50:37 -0800, Hyerdahl wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> My ex wanted to begin a career "at home" after
years of working at
>>a"real" job. Since my ex was abusive, there is no
possible way for me
>>to say "No, keep your f&cking day job!"
>> >
>> >Not true at all.  If you didn't want to stay with her, you
>could>divorce her, much like Deni Loubert divorced Dave Sim.  She did
>not>remain in a marriage where she acquiesed.
>> >
>> >and win that arguement. Believe me, I tried. We could ill aford
>her>starting a home based business when she did - especially one with
>>doubious chance of success.
>> >
>> >Then you had the option (at that time) of divorcing.
>> >
>> I was not at a point in my life where I felt I could just trash the
>marriage because I did not agree with this decision.
>
>Then you acquiesced, pure and simple.  You decided to abide by her
>decisions, and that this was better than ending a contract.

You seem to view things in a very startk "black and white" manner.
Based on my experience in life, few things - if any - are in reality
this simple. When there is a complex system of "marriage", including
deep emotions involved, how could one simply say - "Well, I don't
agree with your decision, so I guess the marriage is over. I'll be
moving out next week, and you'll hear from my lawyer shortly after
that."

It is even more complicated if you throw the abuse that my ex wife was
perpetrating upon me into the equation.

>>
>> And it was NOT a decision I truly acquiesced on. I said
"NO". I told
>the ex that I did not think it was a good idea, and she said she was
>doing it anyways.
>
>Again, by not ending a contract you did not agree to you acquiesced.

See above.

>>
>> But again, that did not matter to the courts - even though it was
>used as a basis for awarding her spousal support - the basis was
>flawed,> and so the decision was just as flawed.
>>
>Not from where I stand.  Married couples are regarded, for legal
>purposes, as being ONE.  If you are partnerd with someone you can't
>trust, then you are contracting on a flawed basis and the only way to
>end that is to end the contract.
>
>> >The courts determined that I "acquiesced" in
allowing her to do
>this.> >And then used this little gem to punish me by ordering
"spousal
>>support"!
>> >>
>>Right.  What a couple does, either in the best intersts of children or
>>family unit, reflects the agreement or aquiescence of the parties, and
>>spousal support will be possible based on that agreement.  So, how
>many >years did Deni stay home?
>>
>> Who is Deni? Never heard of him/her.
>
>Whatever.
>
>The courts did not give a flying fig that she purgered herself, that
>>she stole money and tried to hide it, or that she was abusive and
>her>abuse had escelated to physical abuse of me.
>> >
>>In a no-fault jurisdiction, the courts would not have reason to look
>at >the issues you mention above.  Where did Deni file?
>> >
>> >What the courts DID care about was making sure that she got my
>money!
>> >
>The courts may well have wished to compensate her for her loss of
>>career.  So how many years were you married?
>> >
> We were married just over 12. And as I said, she worked and had her
>"career". She sacrificed NOTHING. And I did all, and I mean ALL, the
>"housework".
>
>The courts aren't going to 'buy' your 'he said' debate any more than I
>did.  :-)  They simply want to know who gave up a career based on the
>marriage.
>

I'll say it again, one more time - with feeling...

I proved with objective evidence that my ex wife maintiained a career
of ever increasing position, authority, AND increaing pay throughout
the marriage. The ONLY time that this was not true was during the last
8 months of the marriage when she began a home based business.

Now follow along carefully...

MY EX DID NOT SACRIFICE FOR THE MARRIAGE! PERIOD! Even in her home
based business, she calimed it as a career. Ergo, at no time did she
sacrifice career as a result of the marriage. It is THAT simple.

>>She had had to work for the entire duration of the marriage -
>except>for approximately the last year of the marriage. And we had no
>>children.
>> >
>>Dave Sim and Deni didn't have kids either.  :-) Now, let's see, Dave
>>and Deni married in 1978 and divorced around 1983-84?  So there,
>one>fifth of the marriage was spent with Deni working inside the home.
>> >
>> So why didn't the courts order her to get off her fat a$$ and get
>a>job??? Because it is not politically correct to do so!
>> >
>> >Again, how many years were you married? Now, let's see, Dave Sim and
>>Deni married in 1978 and divorced around 1983?
>> >
>> >I, on> the other had, was ordered to pay. I was enlisted in a
>>>government sponsored program to make sure that I paid. I was
>threatened >with legal action, garnishment, the ruination of my credit
>rating, and >jail if I did not.
>> >
>> >So what?  Judges are able to look at funds and to decide who is
>hiding >what, no?
>> >
>You missed the point. I proved with HARD EVIDENCE that my ex committed
>wilful purgry.
>
>You mean perjury?  Perjury on extrinsic matters isn't particular
>relevant in a no-fault jurisdiction.  IOW, if you prove that she lied
>about having an affair, it doesn't matter if no fault is required.
>

I see your point. Do the lies still not throw her credibility into
question? In terms of punative damages the lies may not be relevant,
but in terms of credibility it should have made a difference.

>Her credibility should have been ZERO. I showed with
>financial records that she had $10,000 - half of which should have
>beenmine. The Judge was not interested in coming to any decision which
>involved laying any sense of blame or responsibility on my ex.
>
>Indeed.  No fault divorce isn't about BLAME; it's about dividing up the
>property and issuing orders of alimony and/or CS where needed.
>

And how would my rex qualify for alimony when she is fully qualified
to be employed at a level equal or greater than that of my own, yet
choses to sit at home???

>> If the judge was truly making a decision as you describe, then such>
>decision would have been outlined in his "reason for judgement".
>
>What "reason" is required in your jurisdiction?  In no-fault
>jurisdictions none is needed.
>

No reason is required to award alimony????? What kind of crap is
that???

> There> was no such justification for his decision.
>>
>Were you or were you not in a no-fault jurisdiction?
>

Actually, you can proceed either way here. There are provisions for
both "sueing" for divorce (fault) and for no fault. I believe ours was
"no fault".

>> >Had I found myself unemployed, then the judge would have
"imputed"
>my>former income upon me, and upheld the order -forcing meinto jail
>until  could pay!
>
>Sure.  That makes sense.
>

Why??? The way the job market is, lots of people are displaced against
their wishes. I am not talking about quitting just to spite the ex.
Who the heck wins if I would have done that? I am talking about a
scenario where the company goes out of business and the man finds
himself unemployed! There are many places where you can't find work in
your field for a year or more. So the judge should overlook the
circumstances and ram a support order down your throat??? even in
those circumstances???

That makes no sense at all.

> But wait! How can I pay what I don't have???
>
>You can pay as you go.  I have used the illustration of the famous
>brain surgeon who has worked for 12 years as a surgeon, goes thru a
>divorce, and decides to sell balloons instead. :-)
>

Pay WHAT as you go??? If you have no income, you can't pay.

> How could I>get a job from jail????
>
>It wasn't her fault you chose jail instead of paying the debts the
>court decided you owed.  Jail provides time for contemplation on these
>issues.  :-)
>

Wrong again. These men do not "chose" jail. The courts chose to
wrongfully ignor their circumstances, and then issue orders which they
cannot possibly comply with. When they "fail" to comply, then they are
branded as criminals. I have observed that murderers have more rights
than these men.

>Oh yeah, that's my problem> for being a man!
>> >
>I don't see the problem, Dave;  while in jail you can contemplate and
>whenyou're free you can repay all that money owed.  After all, if
>you>hide $$$$ from the court, jail is a good way to have you
>contemplate.
>> >:-)  Look at Martha; she's just about out and she's had all that
>time
>> >to formulate a new TV show plan.
>>
>> You don't see the problem because you were not handed the short end
>of the stick. Are you always so narrow minded and obtuse?
>>
>When did you stop blaming your wife?   :-)
>

????

I never said I blamed the ex for the divorce - although it was she who
filed for it.

The reality - again not black and white - is that there were elements
of discord on both sides. In retrospect, we probably never should have
been married. History has proven that we were not suitable for each
other. So I don't see it as a matter of blame.

>> Martha Stewart is a bad example for more than one reason. Firstly, I
>think it was a joke she was put in "jail" to start with. She gets
>"jail" for something that men in her position get away with all the>
>time? What crap.
>
>Indeed, but unlike you she's a good sport about it.
>

She can aford to be a "good sport", she is rolling in money. Her life
can go on largely unaffected after her little stint in jail.

>> But "jail" it was nonetheless. Having said that, as far
as I am>
>concerned, she went to "play" jail. If she had been any man,
it would>
>have been a penetentary, not some high-end weekend retreat. I wonder>
>if her prision digs had a 4 star Best Western rating.
>
>Apparently not.  And I don't buy the women get off easier thing either.
>Sorry.

No surprize there.

>>
>I thought justice was supposed to be blind. So why all the special
>treatment for Martha? I truly believe that almost any other woman might
>have even gone "to the big house". So it lookis like a double standard
>within a double standard!
>
>Then how do you explain all the other women at camp cupcake?
>:-)
>
>>Lovely system. We may as well bring back debtor's prisons. At least no
>>one lied about what they were!
>> >
>>No one is lying here either;  there are paid workers and unpaid
>workers> >and those who work on a career and those who work at home,
>sacrificing >a career.
>>
> Yes, and as I said, my ex NEVER sacrificed for the marraige.
>
>Apparently, the judge didn't agree with you.  Either that, or, as I
>already suggested ...fault was irrelevant.
>
>Not only was she encouraged to work, she HAD TO in order to help
>support the> lavish lifestyle which we could barely aford on two
>salaries.
>>
>> >  Acquiescence is not good, Dave.
>>
>>This is the only thing you have said so far that I have to agree with
>100%. What the courts defined as my acquiescence was indeed a bad
>thing.
>
>Yup.  And now you've come away a wiser man.
>

Indeed, I will say that the entire process of both the marriage and
the divorce was an education and a half! So perhaps if I look at it
from that perspective, there is no college or university that teaches
this stuff, so I paid for an education which could not be obtained
elsewhere.

>
> If I had my head together, I would have ditched the witch right
> then and there.
>
>Sure.  That was a choice.
>

When people are in a place where they cannot see or acknowledge a
"choice" as you put it, then how can you hold them accountable for not
making a choice that was not seen???

At that time in my life, it was not an option.

>There was, unfortunately, still part of me that elieved the marriage
>might still be saved. After all, if you take
>> marraige serisouly, you don't just throw it away over a disagreement
>- do you?
>>
>That depends on the nature of the disagreement.  I personally find
>marriage an untenable institution.  It attempts to combine two lives
>into one, making each party responsible for or to the other.  And many
>countries apply unequal civil rights to women and men in marriage,
>making it even more untenable for women.
>

Well I am inclined to agree with you on this point as well.
Traditional "marriage" as embodied in the law does indeed appear to be
an untennable situation. I guess this is par for the course when the
government gets involved in anything. :(

>>This new "justice" that we have is just> a way to sugar-coat the
>>back-stabbing of men. Nothing less.
>> >
>>Making sure the sacrifices of marriage are paid, is not in need of
>>sugar coating since the court addresses the UNJUST ENRICHMENT of
>the>other party.
>> >
>
>> Being responsible for my life, making my own money, paying my bills,>
>and having so little left after basic necessities that I cannot aford a
>car represents UNJUST ENRICHMENT??? You have GOT to be joking!
>>
>No, I'm dead serious.  Your account indicates that you allegedly
>acquiesced to a bad deal.
>

So my ex was coldly looking at this as strictly a situation she could
maniplulate to her advantage? To gain at the expense of the one she
supposedly loved???

Is THIS what you are suggesting?

If it is, then such women are truly cold-hearted bitches. But it DOES
prove my point! My ex NEVER sacrificed for the marriage. NO SACRIFICE,
NO BASIS FOR SUPPORT!

>> You want to talk about unjust enrichment??? How about my poor hard>
>done-by ex driving around in a spanking new car while I can barely
>aford a bus pass?? How about my ex spending $500 per month on clothes
>while I had pretty much the clothes on my back? All the while shepleads
>poverty and gets a free legal-aid lawyer???
>>
>> You just don't have a clue, do you.
>
>Are you suggesting that she was better at getting legal aid than you?
>

I am not suggesting anything, it is a fact. You see where we lived,
anyone who brought home more than $1000 per month does NOT qualify for
legal aid, period, end of story. So she lied to legal aid. Rather than
declare her net business income, or even the fact that she "owned" a
business, she only declared the income that she allowed her business
to pay her as a salary! (which she was completely in control of).

So she lies and gets legal aid, and because I have a "real" job, I get
screwed. My rent was over $600 per month, and with ongoing legal
costs, bus passes, and food, believe me when I say that literally
every penny counted.

All while she sat back and scammed the system and used it to rape my
wallet while she drove around in a new car.

>> > Don't even try to argue with me on this one. This is my first hand
>> >experience.
>> >
>> >But I do "argue" in explaining why you ended up
paying for your
>unjust>enrichment at the loss of Deni's career.
>> >>
>> Still have no idea who you are talking about.
>>
>Yes, I do.  I know how the courts see it.
>
>> >It DID happen, and I suspect it happens way more often
>> >> than anyone would care to admit.
>> >
>> >Yes, indeed...frequently men marry women who don't work outside

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100