Real Wolrd Divorce

[survivorParticipant 610]

Here’s a line from Old Bill’s Real World Divorce that’s scarier than any Halloween haunted house:

“No-fault divorce is available in nearly every state, women typically initiate the divorce lawsuit (i.e., are the plaintiffs), women always prevail in these lawsuits in the sense that the divorce will be granted and the vast majority of the time the woman will be awarded the children and, if the man has sufficient income, a revenue stream of child support.”

Watch your money around women, men, be careful of it; they use the heart strings to loosen the purse strings.

"Shot through the heart, and you're to blame, You give love a bad name, I play my part and you play your game, You give love a bad name."--Bon Jovi

[OldBillParticipant]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Nice to know that if she changes her mind I’m “only” on the hook for five years max.

You’d only be on the hook for five years as the laws stand now, BD. Remember and as my lawyer acquaintance took care to point out, the laws in question change constantly. Not via huge sweeping “reforms”, either, but through jots and tittles which can still have big effects on individuals.

Keep this fact firmly in mind, brothers. The website I linked to is a snapshot in time. The information there reflects a specific point in time and, as time passes, that information grows more and more out of date.

While the broad brush strokes contained in the site are fine, you need to research the details particular to your situation.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[aeragoanParticipant 1186]

“Women who want to make money from the system aren’t getting married anymore,” said one lawyer. “The key is recognizing that it is a lot easier to rent a rich guy for one night, especially if he has had a few drinks, than it is to get a rich guy to agree to marriage.” Another disadvantage of marriage, from a plaintiff’s perspective, is that it prevents what attorneys call “forum shopping.” A plaintiff who is married in Texas is stuck with Texas law and $20,000 per year in child support for a single child. A plaintiff who isn’t married and who has a good understanding of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) may be able to sue a Texas defendant under California, Massachusetts, New York, or Wisconsin law and collect millions of dollars.

“If your wife suddenly begins starting arguments or pushing and shoving you at home,” said one litigator, “you should expect that she’s building up evidence for a restraining order and an ultimate divorce lawsuit. You should also expect that she is recording everything that you say, either with a smartphone or a nannycam.” Note that a handful of states require “two-party” consent to record a conversation and play it in court: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

“Military divorce rate at highest level since 1999” (December 13, 2011; USA Today) says that the military divorce rate is slightly higher than the U.S. civilian divorce rate.

Wow….epic way of divorce raping a men

[OldBillParticipant]

aeragoan wrote:

“Women who want to make money from the system aren’t getting married anymore,” said one lawyer. “The key is recognizing that it is a lot easier to rent a rich guy for one night, especially if he has had a few drinks, than it is to get a rich guy to agree to marriage.”

Exactly. With alimony being slowly “reformed”, child support is the best way to hit the larger, more long lasting jackpot. Child support is the reason Scenario #5 – 18 year old free spirit/music lover; no marriage was included.

The size and length of child support awards is also the driving force behind Massachusetts’ $250,000 Abortion. Sufficiently wealthy men face child support costs of more than one million dollars over 22+ years but only after lengthy and costly court proceedings. Accordingly, lawyers representing the c~~~s in question advise their clients “sell” an abortion in return for a lump sum payment of $250,000.

Another disadvantage of marriage, from a plaintiff’s perspective, is that it prevents what attorneys call “forum shopping.”

It’s routinely done in class action lawsuits so it’s use in divorce and child support/custody shouldn’t be a surprise. The site details one example in which the c~~~ sued for divorce in Florida to take advantage of state’s alimony laws and for child custody in New York thanks to take advantage of that state’s laws. She was able to serve her husband in New York for custody/support when he flew to New York to see his children.

“If your wife suddenly begins starting arguments or pushing and shoving you at home,” said one litigator, “you should expect that she’s building up evidence for a restraining order and an ultimate divorce lawsuit. You should also expect that she is recording everything that you say, either with a smartphone or a nannycam.”

The site also gives examples of advice given by lawyers to c~~~s to purposely “inflate” their lifestyles and the lifestyles of their children in the year or two leading up to the divorce. They’re advised to take once-in-a-lifetime vacations, enroll in private schools, begin music and athletic lessons, buy expensive clothes, eat in expensive restaurants, and spend in other ways to create a false and inflated picture of what their pre-divorce lifestyle was like. The husband will then be on the hook to continue supporting for this phony lifestyle.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[BadgerParticipant 2277]

This can only lead to a large MGTOW membership in the future.

[Jim01Participant 6678]

“Roughly the first 100,000 pounds [$170,000] that I earn every year goes to pay my ex-wife and for my costs in traveling to see my daughter.” What’s the interaction with the now-15-year-old like? “She is busy with her friends and her life so sometimes when I visit there is only about 15 minutes per day of real interaction. If she wants me to buy her something, like a replacement mobile [phone], then she pays attention.””

Thought I would quote and comment on this from the UK before I go through everyone’s posts on this thread.

Seems to me she has brought up and brainwashed his own daughter into believing men are walking ATMs. Found that point about if you buy her expensive stuff then it sets a lifestyle precedent and you get ripped off even more. Crazy stuff

[ShinyParticipant 2307]

I’m just making my way through the website OldBill linked – it’s fascinating and terrifying – and I came across this bit.

Why are divorces handled in courts by lawyers? Why aren’t they handled in an administrative process like getting a marriage license, determining the correct income tax, etc.? “It is a holdover from the old days when marriage was primarily a property contract,” said one lawyer. “You also had ‘amatory torts’ in those days where you could sue someone for ‘alienation of affection’ or ‘breach of promise to marry’. Read Jane Austen. People didn’t want to marry someone that they hated but they also didn’t want to marry without financial advantage. We’ve gotten rid of the amatory torts in most states and with no-fault we’ve gotten rid of the idea that marriage is a contract but somehow we still have courts handling divorces.”

This is interesting. It reminds us that not that long ago, much less than 2 centuries, when people generally got married as a partnership (often arranged) to struggle to survive together, both parties brought something financial to the table. The man brought land, or earning power, or forthcoming inheritance, while the woman brought a dowry. There was dickering in some cases to make sure the outcome was fair.

Nowadays, only one party generally brings anything. If it’s the woman – remember Kaley Cuoco? – you better believe she’ll protect it with a prenup and everything else.

If it’s the man, he’s fair game under no-fault divorce.

The times have changed, and what used to be about a legal division of assets has become a blood sport for lawyers to profit off. Further down the same page, we read,

in the mid-1980s women’s groups began citing statistics that women who’d been victorious in custody lawsuits were suffering a reduction in standard of living compared to when they had been married. “It should be obvious that when the same income into two households rather than one, the result is going to be that both new households can’t be as nice as the former single one,” said an attorney, “but a lot of newspaper articles were written as though this were a major discovery.” Professor Allen told us that “The current child support system was designed in response to a media-driven popular perception that no-fault divorce had feminized poverty. Therefore the system maximizes the amount of money that can be transferred from a man to a woman. It has become more of a Welfare system for women rather than something that is related to children.” Aside from leaving the father with just enough money to afford a studio apartment, what is a characteristic of a system that maximizes money transfer? “The Wisconsin-style systems that don’t consider the income of both parents are especially generous in an age where women do often work,” said Professor Allen.

[RockmaninoffParticipant 1641]

My dad was ass-raped in a divorce. In a few weeks, he’ll be marrying again.

I feel at this point, any attempt to persuade him will be a waste of words.

". . . elle, suivant l’usage des femmes et des chats qui ne viennent pas quand on les appelle et qui viennent quand on ne les appelle pas, s’arrêta devant moi et m’adressa la parole"—Prosper Mérimée

[OldBillParticipant]

Rockmaninoff wrote:

I feel at this point, any attempt to persuade him will be a waste of words.

Sorry to read that, Rocky. I guess sometimes all we can do is hope.

What’s the famous Bismarck quote? “God watches over children, fools, and the United States of America?” I’m not a religious man, but here’s hoping God or something else is watching over for your father.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[RockmaninoffParticipant 1641]

OldBill wrote:

You’ll spit pure bile after reading about Massachusetts’ $250,000 Abortion which is commonplace thanks to that state’s insane child support laws,

The man paid the $250,000, which was tax-free to the woman.

Wait, wait, wait, back the f~~~ up for a second.

I can totally understand why it’s not illegal to threaten to have a baby. I can totally understand why that’s not considered extortion. I can totally understand why the father gets no say in the matter. (I don’t agree, but I understand the justifications behind it.)

But why the s~~~ting f~~~ is it TAX-FREE?

What possible statute could there be for making tax-free income gained by agreeing to have an abortion? What possible statute could be interpreted to be bent for that?

brain not working

". . . elle, suivant l’usage des femmes et des chats qui ne viennent pas quand on les appelle et qui viennent quand on ne les appelle pas, s’arrêta devant moi et m’adressa la parole"—Prosper Mérimée

[OldBillParticipant]

Rockmaninoff wrote:

What possible statute could there be for making tax-free income gained by agreeing to have an abortion? What possible statute could be interpreted to be bent for that?

One word: Lawyers.

Edit: Here’s the section that blew Rocky’s mind:

Due to the $40,144 number at the top of the guidelines, the 23 years over which child support is payable, and the convention whereby a defendant must pay a plaintiff’s legal fees, Massachusetts is one of the most lucrative states for the marketing of abortions. In our interviews we learned about a 40-year-old entrepreneur who was dating a seemingly carefree 25-year-old. Two months later, the young woman presented the man with a positive pregnancy test result, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet showing the $923,312 in child support that he would owe over 23 years, plus a likely $300,000 college budget and additional amounts for health insurance, day care, etc. Her attorney offered to sell her abortion for $250,000 plus legal fees and the cost of the abortion itself. The man paid the $250,000, which was tax-free to the woman. Could that be considered extortion? “It is not extortion nor illegal to threaten to have a baby,” responded Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk, when asked to consider the facts of this incident. Asked to comment on the prevalence of abortion transactions in Massachusetts, another attorney said “This is a good state in which to work your mind and education, but it is a great state in which to work your body and child.”

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[ShinyParticipant 2307]

“…but for $250000 I’ll abort?”

That’ll do me. Someone stop the planet, I’m getting off.

[OldBillParticipant]

Shiny wrote:

Someone stop the planet, I’m getting off.

You only want to step off? Dig through the site for even a short period of time and you’ll want to parachute off!

Try this gem on for size:

Divorce laws are primarily developed by people whose income depends on litigation

A Maryland legislator explained to us that the divorce laws in Maryland were driven by legislators who are themselves successful divorce litigators and represent wealthy litigants. Delegate Kathleen Dumais was cited as an example of a legislator who both makes the laws and profits from them via fees charged to private litigants. She was a member of a 2014 Commission on Child Custody Decision Making considering possible changes to Maryland’s statutes. Delegate Dumais declined our requests for an interview.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[RealityBitesParticipant 2198]

OldBill wrote:

ile the answers to those scenarios varies from state to state, the common thread in them all is that the man gets screwed.

I thought I knew just how bad divorce laws and family courts w

The Stats from the Census Bureau bears that out. In 90% of all custody cases: the woman is invariably awarded physical custody and the man has to pay Child Support.

Divorce laws and judges favor the lower earning spouse; and since the vast majority of women practice HYPERGAMY..it is little wonder that “Marriage” is HER Idea; and filing for Divorce is also HER DOING.

These are the Stats: and the Stats do NOT lie. Not from such a large sample population!!!!

Boys we are being ASS RAPED in Divorce Courts by Women.
NEVER EVER MARRY OR COHABITATE!!!!! PERIOD!!!

GET A VASECTOMY so she can’t do Paternity FRAUD!!!

Safest method is just to go full MONK. However if you NEED PUSSY like I do; well…either get a Vasectomy or bang women who simply cannot get pregnant. BUT NEVER MARRY OR COHABITATE! YOU WILL GET BUTT-F~~~ED hard by the system if you go that route!

[Author]

Posts