Not sure where you get "Dave" from. You must be confusing me with
someone else.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

>
>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".

>>
> 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. Her credibility should have been ZERO. I showed with
financial records that she had $10,000 - half of which should have
been mine. The Judge was not interested in coming to any decision
which involved laying any sense of blame or responsibility on my ex.

If the judge was truly making a decision as you describe, then such
decision would have been outlined in his "reason for judgement". There
was no such justification for his decision.

>Had I found myself unemployed, then the judge would have "imputed" my
>former income upon me, and upheld the order -forcing meinto jail until
>I could pay! But wait! How can I pay what I don't have??? How could I
>get a job from jail???? Oh yeah, that's my problem> for being a man!
>
>I don't see the problem, Dave;  while in jail you can contemplate and
>when you'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?

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.

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.

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!

>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. 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. If I had my head together, I would have ditched the witch right
then and there. There was, unfortunately, still part of me that
believed 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?

>
>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!

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 she
pleads poverty and gets a free legal-aid lawyer???

You just don't have a clue, do you.

> 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.

>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 the
>home, or they marry women who end up doing the unpaid work at home.
>Either way, the courts are going to address the benefit of the marriage
>bargain, looking at marriage as a partnership where one party should
>not be unjustly enriched at the cost of the sacrifice of career of the
>other.  It's just that simple.

I uderstand the concepts you describe. They are irrelevant in my case.

>>
>> >If a woman chooses to leave the arrangement known as
>> >marriage then she should lose all the benefits that
>> >went with that arrangement.
>
>So, if one partner wants to leave the partnership does that mean that
>all contracts are off?  :-)  I'm sure glad you're not a judge, Dave.
>

Well if you want to talk "contract", then marriage is a bad deal from
the get-go!

A contract "consideration". IF a woman provides domestic services for
the family, and enjoys a better lifestyle by being married, then why
should her partner be forced to pay for services which are no longer
rendered after the split???

To offer a woman "support" simply because she was married absolves her
of all responsibility. It gives her "entitlement" which is not earned.
IF there was sacrifice for the sake of the marriage, then she may
indeed have earned the entitlement, but not for simply having been
married.

A man simply does not get such consideration in a marital split. The
courts yell "jump", and any man that does not respond with
"how high?"
is punished. A woman goes "poor me, I am a victim of the big bad man",
and the courts say "How much would you like???".

At least this is what happened to me - despite all evidence that her
pleadings in court were made by a liar, whose sole purpose what NOT to
get on with her life, but to inflict suffering as a form of revenge.
My ex used the system to her own ends and for her own purposes. But
deep down, I blame the system. They refused to believe the truth, even
when it was handed to them on a silver platter in the form of
objective evidence. They allowed themselves to be used. They are every
bit as guilty as she is.

But alas, they did not suffer as a result of their decisions, I did.
There is no mechanism in place to hold them accountable. Fortunately,
there is karma, so in the end these "judges" shall receive their just
rewards.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 5:35:05 PM ---