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..
![]() |
Society has daddy issues |
Private Investigator Under Investigation for Setting Up Men to Help Wives in Divorce Cases
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.
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.
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.. |
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.Link..
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.
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