Mark Sobolewski wrote:

> In article ,
>  S.Taylor  wrote:
>
>
>>Clause #1:
>>At any time the employer can dismiss the employee without cause. The
>>employee will forfeit all assets to the employeer, including pensions,
>>cash-in-bank, or stocks/bonds. The employee will vacate his residence
>>and immediately transfer title to the employer.
>>
>>Nobody would sign such a document, right?
>>
>>Wrong!
>>
>>Change employer to wife. Change employee to husband. This is exactly
>>what the law governing marriage will do to a man. He is entering into a
>>contract that is so one-sided that he is essentially a slave.
>>
>>That men continue to sign it demonstrates how manipulative feminists
>>are.
>
>
> Good question.
>
> Note that we live in a country where the S.C. can make up
> whatever the "constitution" says and deprive us of rights
> and liberties that way too.
>
> The man takes the risk because the potential benefits,
> for him, outweigh the risks.  Also, a lot of men
> are brainwashed into not looking at the fine print
> because such women don't take to such men in the first
> place.


This is not true.

In the last few tens of seconds before I agreed
to marry I was pondering all the rumours about
the way the judges behave in divorce. But all
the information I had was biased. Put simply LIES.

In school we were taught that in the English
legal system we have the right to be innocent
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The lawyers tell us that in the English legal
system we have the right to be innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The cops tell us that in the English legal
system we have the right to be innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The politicians tell us that in the English
legal system we have the right to be innocent
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.The media tell us that in the English
legal system we have the right to be innocent
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

All the way down the line all these supposedly
reliable sources (they-that-be no less) tell us
about the rights we are supposed to have. On the
other hand, we were also told that those men who
complained were just poor losers.

Could I have known better. The answer is:
probably NOT. I have already cited the string of
*authorities* that re-assure us about our rights
in the english legal system. But, if you want to
go looking for yourself you will find it
difficult to establish the truth before entering
the divorce court for your own execution.

If you read the law books they appear to be
reasonable and balanced. Many men in UK have no
beef with what the law is; the problem is the
way it is interpreted and applied by the judges.
If you wish to attend court and observe what
happens in reality you can't: family matters are
closed to the public (heard in chambers). If you
wished to carry out an objective study from the
court records you can't: the documents on family
matters are confidential.

In fact, it is really quite difficult to find
out just how barbaric the family courts are
until it is too late.

I have maintained for over a quarter of a
century that I was LIED to and that I would
never have considered marriage had I been told
the truth. I know this to be an entirely
legitemate statement because I was considering
precisely these matters in those last few tens
of seconds before finally agreeing to marry.

Moreover, I have also maintained that the entire
capitalist establishment has to LIE to men from
start to finish because if men were told the
truth they would simply not do this crazy thing.

D.
> regards,
> Mark Sobolewski


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 12:59:00 AM ---