Latest Posts
Showing posts with label divorce benefits women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label divorce benefits women. Show all posts

As the laws are stacked against Fathers in favour of the Privileged Princesses, one does wonder how this mess will ever be corrected and if any political party or politicians, will have the courage to stand up against the vagina voters and actually apply some justice instead of introducing more ways for women to shirk their responsibilities and just keep screwing the Fathers for more and more money. The money they will never be held accountable for and can be spent at her whim on anything she fancies.

It has become a known fact that Fathers, in order to pay child support as well as paying vagina-money do so at the risk of going broke or having to reduce his own standard of living while the PP can just move in a BF and share costs while being paid cash in hand, that is not calculated into any formula..

Divorce for women with children is a win-win situation and in the majority of occasions, she is well aware of that fact as every possible service is made available only to her, while in most cases the Father cannot even afford standard legal representation..

It's Criminal..

Divorce Civil Rights

Joseph E. Cordell





As a society, we find profiling -- painting a group of people with such a broad brush -- to be wholly unacceptable.
Except when it applies to men in family courts.
Quite frankly, men's rights has become a civil rights issue. When you think of the progress we've made in civil rights, men's rights as it pertains to the family have been neglected.
Profiling of different groups based on skin color, age, disabilities, etc., is not permissible. We regard these generalizations as being deplorable in virtually every sphere of civil rights, but for some reason these generalizations and assumptions are permissible as they pertain to men in domestic scenarios.
There is an institutional family court bias, but we can't simply blame judges. Sure, they are human beings and have preconceptions like everyone else, but it goes much further than that.
The family law industry as a whole -- from attorneys to social workers -- makes presumptions about men and fathers.
Historically, women have usually been the primary nurturers. Judges and opposing counsel can quite persuasively argue that statistically moms more often than not are the ones that are the primary caregivers.
Yet the problem with stereotyping, as civil rights leaders pointed out, is that stereotypes are built on probabilities that do not give fair opportunity to others, to the innocent in that group.
Ironically, the feminist movement, which was largely in response to men's cultural and economic dominance, cast aside men whose roles in family courts were already tenuous. Dads were victims of being male at a time when the movement was not sympathetic to their position.
Men generally were less the subject of the civil rights movement than the obstacle, and for that reason there weren't many sympathetic ears turned toward men, particularly in family court.
As a result, a group think has emerged that has unfortunately elevated the interest of women above the interest of men.
A case we are handling at Cordell & Cordell is a classic example of the lopsided fight dads must face: Our client has three kids in elementary school. He and his wife are equal on all common factors.
How equal? They work for the same company in similar positions. They earn the same amount of money and even have essentially the same retirement benefits. They are both involved with their children's extracurricular activities; he coaches soccer, she helps with choir. Prior to the divorce, they often drove together to drop off the kids at school, went to work, picked up the kids together after work and went home for dinner.
If ever there is a textbook example of granting 50-50 shared parenting time, this is it. Yet the case has waged on for almost a year with no resolution because we have had to fight at every turn to overcome the presumption that Mom should have more time with the kids than Dad because, well, she's Mom.
This systematic discrimination happens every day but goes largely unnoticed. The impact of the obscurity of this issue is that there is not the attention, inclination or support necessary in order for men's rights to receive the political, social and economic momentum that is required to correct this prejudice.
The millions of men and fathers who find themselves in family law courtrooms across America feel as though they are in the dark corner of the room.
It's time a light is shone on the injustice and there be the same sort of concern of fair play that is given other individuals.
Joseph Cordell is the Principal Partner of Cordell & Cordell, a nationwide domestic litigation firm focused on men's family law matters.

Society has daddy issues
How to screw hubby by organising a staged situation to benefit the woman..


In the latest bit of news highlighting the disgusting nature of American family law, Christopher Butler, a Californian PI, has come under investigation for using honey traps and DUI setups to give wives the edge in custody disputes. Setups are very common in divorce, and are usually aimed at guileless husbands. Manufacturing domestic violence “incidents” is very common, and quite easy when emotions run high. I’ve spoken with men who have noticed strangers staking out their houses when their wives came over, and I’ve personally been subject to provocation while being taped by third parties (it didn’t work). People get dirty in divorce.
However, in most cases setups are carried out by the individuals involved (and often their friends and family). Where this story is different is that a man was running a business and making good money by setting men up during divorces. Although it sounds shocking, I find it difficult to believe that this is an isolated case. Evidently, Mr. Butler would hire attractive women to ply men with drinks and then encourage them to drive somewhere, upon which he would tip off the police and have the men arrested for DUI.
Butler worked not only with the women, but their attorneys as well. His services proved effective in giving wives the advantages they sought in custody cases, which is where the real money comes into play:
Reporting from Martinez, Calif.— David Dutcher met Sharon on Match.com in late 2008, a few months after separating from his wife. “We had a lot in common,” he recalled. Sharon loved four-wheel-drive trucks and sports.
They met for coffee, then dinner. Sharon was tall, slender, blond and beautiful. She moaned that she had not had sex in a long time. She told him he had large, strong hands and wondered if that portended other things. She described his kisses as “yummy.”
[...]
On their second date, Sharon suggested they join one of her friends “who was partying because she had closed a real estate deal,” Dutcher said. They drove to an Italian restaurant in a suburb near San Francisco. Sharon’s friend, “Tash,” was a loud and raucous brunet who was pounding down shots.
[...]
Sharon had trouble finishing her tequila shots and asked Dutcher to help, he said. When the women went to the bathroom, two men at the other end of the bar peppered Dutcher with questions.
“Are you a celebrity?” they wanted to know.
The women suggested going to a house with a hot tub that Tash was housesitting, Dutcher said. He followed them in his truck. Within a few minutes, a flashing red light appeared in his rearview mirror. The officer said he had been swerving.
Three months later, Dutcher’s wife filed a motion in their divorce case, telling the court that her soon-to-be former husband had been arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and that she feared for their children’s safety. The judge ordered that Dutcher’s visits be supervised.
Yes, it is that easy for a man to lose normal access to his children. One mistake during a night out and he will be ordered to have “supervised custody,” which means the children are not allowed to be alone with their father, who is judged too dangerous to be around his own children.
Fortunately, a man who had previously worked for Butler cried foul and an investigation was opened. The FBI got involved, and it emerged that some cops had been taking bribes to arrest the hapless husbands. The women Butler hired were often prostitutes, so the cops may have been receiving sexual services as well.
Butler was flying high — even Dr. Phil promoted him:
In May, the FBI took over the probe, interviewing Dutcher and other ex-husbands arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. A federal grand jury indicted Butler and two of the officers in August and September. The charges included drug dealing, running a prostitution business and illegal possession of a weapon.
More indictments are expected. A third officer, implicated by Butler in the DUIs, faces state charges of accepting bribes to make arrests.
Stunned prosecutors combed through pending criminal cases and eventually dismissed charges in at least 20 DUI and vice crimes, tainted by the involvement of the accused officers. Two of them had once worked with Butler on the police force of the East Bay city of Antioch.
Butler also apparently hoodwinked reporters. His agency received national attention for employing gumshoe “housewives” who juggled soccer games with undercover spying. People magazine and Dr. Phil did stories. An East Bay magazine reporter who went on a ride-along with Butler later discovered that everything he had witnessed had been staged.
It would be hard to imagine a sleazier line of work than separating children from their fathers, but amazingly, in today’s America one can actually be celebrated for such efforts.
As the evidence is collected in the Butler case, hopefully people will become aware of the deep sickness that has come to characterize American family law.

Feminists introduced the Vaginamony payments when they realised that men were working harder than women and making more money in the process. Cannot have that can we. So they introduced the incomprehensible "pay for life" alimony payments in order to ensure that as much wealth as possible was transferred to women which ofcourse suited them just fine as they could shack up with boyfriend (thug) and bang away to their hearts content knowing that income was going to continue regardless of her obnoxious or demanding behaviour (seeking increases in payments)..

So it become a common ploy that women welcomed with open arms and empty wallets. However, after the continual examples of women receiving multi-million dollar payouts via divorce courts and money they definitely did not deserve, it would appear that that holiday is about to come to an end and the lawyers are already concerned, not for their own incomes ofcourse, perish that thought..

Yes, it's really sad..
The free loading comes to an end. I knew that would happen as way too man rich guys were hit by the biased divorce court system and women walked away with more than half of the ex husband's money( see John Cleese). They got way too greedy. Who would have thought that..


States no longer wedded to idea of alimony for life
Bay State unties knot  
The traditional idea that post-divorce alimony payments should last “until death do us part” may itself be on its deathbed.
By a unanimous vote Thursday of its state Senate, Massachusetts joined a growing number of states that are junking the old model of virtually unlimited support payments to an ex-spouse.
While some divorce attorneys and marriage-law specialists fear the reforms may go too far, there has been a clear trend in states from Rhode Island and Pennsylvania to Texas and Utah to place new caps, time and age limits, and income criteria on alimony payments, reflecting in part social changes over the past few decades and the changing status of women in the workplace.
Just this year, Florida state lawmakers passed a law holding that the divorced spouse responsible for the alimony did not have to pay if the partner’s net income was significantly higher. Tennessee’s stateSupreme Court is also currently weighing a challenge to the idea of lifetime alimony.
The vote in Massachusetts means that the Bay State is catching up to other states regarding alimony laws, said Linda Lea M. Viken, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
“The whole purpose of alimony is to allow a former spouse to maintain their standard of living” from at the time of the marriage, said Ms. Viken, a former judge and lawmaker in South Dakota.
So for years, “alimony used to be, in many states, permanent, like it is in Massachusetts,” she said.
Link.. 

It is always great to witness a little justice now and again, especially when we find another conniving "mother" playing her old tricks just like the rest just to get some revenge and try every which way to try and destroy him both financially and alienate the kids ofcourse just for the sake of it. Kids only have value to these type of women as bargaining tools apart from that they are really just a hindrance as they return to the "dating" scene saga in the hope of nailing another sucker stupid enough to wander down that same path..

A MOTHER in the middle of a custody dispute has been caught boasting on her Facebook page how she thought about ripping her husband off for another $20,000.
“Felt like being a smart arse,” she wrote, signing off “Bwahahaha lol.”
Lawyers are now advising their clients locked in Family Court fights to take down their Facebook pages as the networking site has become both the latest weapon and target for warring spouses.
In one case a woman discovered her husband was a bigamist when she was tipped off to look at wedding photographs of him with another bride on the other woman’s Facebook page.
In another case a husband discovered he had been set up by his wife with a woman he thought he met on an internet site. He discovered the woman was a “friend” on his wife’s Facebook page.
“I tell my clients just don’t bloody do it, don’t be silly” family law expert Michael Taussig QC said.
The woman who boasted she had thought about dragging out the Family Court case to cost her ex-husband an extra $20,000 in legal bills found it backfired on her.
Justice James Barry granted custody of the two children, aged nine and eight, to their father with the mother getting visiting rights.
He then ordered the mother to pay $15,000 of her ex-husband’s estimated $35,000 legal bill, saying the mother’s behaviour had been the “stuff of nightmares”.
She had already strung the case out by falsely claiming her ex-husband had been sexually assaulting their children after one judgment went against her. Then she falsely claimed the father’s new wife had been assaulting them.
“The mother has over the years attempted to manipulate the court system,” Justice Barry said.
http://www.news.com.au/ugly-feud-fought-on-facebook/story-e6freuzi-1225942450541#ixzz13BHkaDt4