Sunday, July 30, 2006

Second Wives Suffer Too!

It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing,
and to talk by the hour. -- Thomas Jefferson

The following is a post from the viewpoint of a “Second Wife” of a spouse who pays alimony. It points out that there is no “closure” to a divorce and that the family law system’s tentacles have a grip on you for the rest of your life.

It makes you wonder if legal system’s creation of the alimony statutes with their awards of “lifetime alimony” were instituted for the sole purpose of creating “job security” and a “guaranteed income” for those representing the parties in adversarial relationships.

One of the purported reasons the family law system uses to justify alimony for a lifetime is ostensibly to keep a spouse off the public welfare rolls. However, they do not seem to have the same regard when they place the other spouse on the welfare rolls by burdening them with paying the lifetime alimony. The Florida government works in strange ways.


Second Wives Suffer Too!

As a second wife, I can attest to the fact that second wives suffer as a result of the unjust alimony "scheme." My husband if forced to pay 10K a year to his ex-wife, who left him and was unfaithful to him for over 15 years (with their accountant for whom she was 'working').

When his ex tripled her salary in two years' time, my husband filed for a downward modification. The ex-wife had told my husband that she only needed alimony for 1 - 11/2 years. True to her word, she did indeed let him out of alimony for almost a year...THEN, we went on a vacation about the same time her married boyfriend decided to stay with his wife.

The rest is history...we lost $70,000 in legal fees (on both sides) husband simply wanted a reduction and eventual termination. His ex has a good job and is vested by the FRS (Florida). She has literally blown her division of assets and argued that she must support her two daughters, even though they are emancipated (almost 24 and 27).

All of my financial business was entered as "evidence" -that we live an "extravagant" lifestyle. For the record, the courts know what I earn, what I paid for MY home (purchased before I even met my husband). They even asked about the square footage, etc. The Court completely overlooked the fact that the ex-wife now lives in a home (she rents because she squandered her assets on her girls' live-in boyfriends...this is IN the court documents) that is much larger than our home and the home in which she and my husband used to reside.

The magistrate ruled against us...we had a rehearing with a judge...ditto...even though the judge stated that the former wife had substantially increased her income. She also said that the case is not a child support case.

Our opinion is this...the Florida Bar and the lawyers are making a mint off of average income earners in our state. Their "agenda" is a very liberal one...take from Party A and give to Party B so there will be equity.

Didn't anyone ever read Orwell's Animal Farm? If this isn't a Communist type threat, we don't know what is.

Band together, Floridians, and tell your legislators that enough is enough...this type of slavery must end!

Ginger S., Wellington, FL

Be sure to visit these sites: and

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Compensation For Loss Of Spouses Services

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”
—Thomas Jefferson

With alimony, the courts attempt to make one spouse support the other to live in the style to which they were accustomed to during their marriage. To do this, the courts then grant them the alimony, child support, your retirement benefits, and apportion the joint assets among other things. They’ll even grant them an injunction to your spouse to keep you away from the family if they present their argument to the court correctly.

This allows them to live in relative peace and enjoying the same style of living that you were able to provide them before the divorce. In a marriage of modest assets and income with only one spouse having income, it would be absurd to think the paying spouse could maintain two households at the same standard of living after the dissolution. Dividing a standard of living on a $50,000 annual income into two new households does not result in the two halves each remaining at the $50,000 level.

Now that the other spouse has been set up and enjoying the same style of living that they had, what about you and your style of living that you had come to expect? Did the court take your style of living into consideration? You have been made to pay your spouse for the loss of support and services you use to provide. Why doesn’t the court provide a reciprocal compensation for the support and services your spouse use to provide?

Shouldn’t there be a reciprocal arrangement? The courts are supposed to operate in “chancery” (equity) so why aren’t you given an equal consideration for what you have lost? Think about this. You are entitled to it aren’t you?

Typically, the man provides the alimony. In a reciprocal arrangement, which is only equitable since the courts are just trying balance the divorce between the spouses, the wife would do something to compensate the man for the loss services his wife would normally provide.

Why shouldn’t she pay him for having to get his meals elsewhere?. How about housekeeping? How about the laundry? How about all the other services? And don’t forget about the ones provided in the bedroom. Professional services of this type are expensive depending upon the frequency provided during the marriage (and before the talk of divorce.)

This is something you might want to consider next time you are in negotiations during divorce proceedings.

MARRIAGE STRIKE: Evidence that alimony laws are destroying the very fabric and building blocks of our society and nation.
* Who killed off marriage in Britain? It’s happening in America as well. Melanie Phillips is a British journalist and author. She is best known for her controversial column about political and social issues which currently appears in the Daily Mail. Awarded the Orwell Prize for journalism in 1996, she is the author of All Must Have Prizes, an acclaimed study of Britain's educational and moral crisis, which provoked the fury of educationists and the delight and relief of parents. Her ideas have influenced politicians in both government and opposition, who follow her battles in the culture wars with fascination. Styled a conservative by her opponents, she prefers to think of herself as defending authentic liberal values against the attempt to destroy western culture from within.

* Trail Of Accusations Uncovered Against Local Judge
* Pinellas Judge Admits Viewing Porn In Court Chambers
* Commission suggests public reprimand for Covington judge

* More Than $80,000 In Child Support Paid To Child That Wasn't His

LEGAL INFORMATION AND RESEARCH CORNER:* Free Public Record Sites: Renowned public records publisher BRB Publications, Inc. provides a list of free sources of federal, state, local and Canadian public records information. Find sex offenders, trademarks, corporations, UCCs, death records, civil and criminal court matters, incarcerations and other public information.

* Courts overwhelmed by immigration cases

Be sure to visit these sites: and

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Government Wants To Promote Marriage While Facilitating Divorce

The legal process, because of its unbridled growth, has become a cancer which threatens the vitality of our forms of capitalism and democracy. --Lawrence Silberman, U.S. Attorney General

The government apparently feels that there are advantages to couples staying married and that society as a whole benefits. Are you aware that the Federal Government planned on spending $1.5 Billion dollars (yes $1,500,000,000 of your tax dollars) to promote marriage? If not read this article.

Marriage is not an institution that needs the government to promote and protect it. It has been ongoing since time began without anyone’s intervention. Years ago, we had our parents as role models and who taught us to know right from wrong. They showed us how to live in a family environment. They gave us the values we needed to make our way in life. Back then, the government didn’t intrude into our family life. There were few divorces as families worked to stay together. Divorce was not easy.

Now, the government has intruded into our lives. Instead of protecting marriages, they make it easier then ever to get divorced. Divorce can even be had without the other party there. As a result, today, with the growing number of single parent families (most often without the influence of one of the spouses) to help stabilize the family, what can we expect from future generations?

Both parents are needed. Statistics prove this. However, there are those who feel there should be more government intervention in our lives in this area. Read more…

American society is struggling with the fallout from decades of change in traditional family structure. In 1970, the divorce rate was less than one-third, 13 percent of children lived in single-parent families, and 11 percent of all births were non-marital. Today, about 50 percent of marriages are expected to dissolve, half of all children can expect to live
some time with a single parent, and 33 percent of all births are to unmarried women. Marriage as a permanent arrangement is no longer widely presumed, nor is it the only culturally accepted arrangement in which to raise children. Read more…

You have to ask yourself why this is happening in this country. Might it be that the past government policies of making divorce easier that could be contributing to it? Could it be that by making laws that keeps one spouse out of the family and away from their children, it is exacerbating the situation? Since in this day and age, both parents are needed to work to support a family, could it be that by forcing one spouse support the other, and at the same time trying to support themselves, it might be adding to the problem?

What it appears to be happening is that the governments ineptitude in trying to “protect the marriage” has in fact created the problem that exists and they are now trying to cover it up by spending a lot of money to cover their tush? In my opinion, there’s not enough money to ever do that.

The cancer is growing and will continue to destroy this society. The government needs to cure the cancer….not put a $$$ Band-Aid on it. Will they do that? Probably not. Do they have the courage to do that? Ask yourself, what have they done and what are they now doing and it should answer that question…bupkis, nada, zilch!!! So what do they do? They sweep it under the table and the media helps them in this area by not revealing the true extent of the problem. The individual destruction of families doesn’t sell papers or interest TV viewers. But put them all together and you can see the handwriting on the wall for society.

Why do we need the government to do what parents should be doing and have done for years? Where has it been shown that government can do anything that the family can do with any degree of efficiency? It seems all they are able to do is to throw millions and billions of our dollars at something in hopes it will buy a solution. Government spends over $20 billion a year in cash welfare and over $100 billion in other income support and the problem remains as prevalent as ever with no solution in sight.

And you feel they should intrude further in your lives? Well, whether or not you want it, the government will do it unless we can elect legislators who can prevent it and stand up for the people whom they purport to represent. Legislators are supposed to represent the will of the people aren’t they? Do they?

The results of their past efforts are readily apparent. The trail of tragedies resulting from their handiwork that has destroyed people and families across this nation can readily be seen. And, they did it under the guise of “protecting” your marriage. What gives the governments the right to invade the Right to Privacy protected area of the decisions related to marriage?

If you think about it, more realistically, there has to be some sort of financial benefit that accrues to a certain class of professional people involved in family law that makes this all worthwhile. Just follow the money that is generated from the court’s burdened caseload and adversarial nature of the proceedings and you will see the light.

The government can’t even agree whether or not a man and a woman, a man and a man, or woman and woman constitute a married couple. And you want them to be the new role model for your children? Through your inaction, you are letting them take over your job as a parent.

If the government is so desirous of promoting and protecting marriage, then why on earth are they doing all the things necessary to facilitate dissolutions of marriage? How does the advent of the NO FAULT divorce promote or protect a marriage?? How does burdening one spouse by forcing them to provide a lifetime meal ticket to the other spouse protect a marriage? It only gives the one spouse no incentive to support themselves and at the same time often impoverishing the spouse required to pay the support? Government logic in doing so is an oxymoron.

The Governments wants our military men to lay down their lives to protect our way of life and to protect families in America. What do they do to show their appreciation? How do you explain injustices like this example? What did they do to protect this marriage?

While the Federal Government does not regulate marriage, the states do it through statutes. If the Federal Governments wants to promote and protect marriage, why do they give the states grant money that is tied directly to the number of cases and dollar amount they supervise involving alimony and child support.

If you haven’t noticed, most of the alimony and child support payments are funneled through the SDU or State Distribution Unit. The amount of grant money the state receives is based on the amount of money and people encompassed in the state’s family support system. The more they handle, the more the grant money.

Florida is budgeted to get $196,000,000 in 2006. Go here and look up the following table Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families: Table 8-18. Child Support Enforcement--Federal Share of State and Local Administrative Costs and Incentives (93.563)

With this incentive, states are encouraged to do those things that will generate large caseloads and put the payments and people under their supervision and control. To get these larger numbers, the states have to break-up families through court actions designed not to keep families together but to facilitate divorce and maintain an adversarial relationship between the parties. Not to mention what happens to the children.

If you were ever divorced, look at your final dissolution and you will probably see that the court retains jurisdiction over the dissolution as long as there is alimony or child support you have to pay. And in some cases it is for a lifetime. Their tentacles never let go and there is never any closure to your misfortunate family break-up. It follows you for the rest of your life even into your next marriage and usually manages to impede that one also.

On the other side, you have family law attorneys who derive their income from the adversarial relationship of the parties in dissolution proceedings. What incentive do they have to promoting marriage and keeping it together? Remember, it is the legislators who, by and large are attorneys, who make the laws that facilitate the dissolution of marriages.

How do you think they will look upon legislation that will result in a reduction in their income? Do you think they will back legislation that will make dissolutions more difficult or protect the marriages? You’ve heard of the term “featherbedding” or “feathering ones own nest?” It’s appropriate here. Present legislation provides “job security” and income for them. Why would they want to kill the golden goose?

Follow the money and you see what chance this grand sounding proposition of promoting and protecting marriages has of succeeding in its goals. It is too profitable and lucrative for the participants in the family law system to ever give it up.

As a further injustice, to promote the governments proposals, they find a need to hire public relations firms and spend our tax money to syndicated columnists or “trusted sources” to convince us their program is good for us. Read more… If it was good for us, I’d like to think it would be self-evident and they wouldn’t have to waste our tax money in order to convince us.

* Suicide attempt probed in NYC collapse

* The Ties That Bind! You have to read the final paragraph in this article to understand what they are driving at. Something that this blog is all about.

Legal Research Guide: How To Do Research

* Couple's Disability Benefits Can't Be Garnisheed
* Defense Of Marriage Act Information Website

Be sure to visit these sites: and

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Who is a Third Party to Your Marriage?

“A lawyer is a learned gentleman who rescues your estate from your enemies and keeps it for himself." - Lord Brougham

Did you know the State of Florida's interest in your marriage is greater than you or your wife's?

When you were married, you probably assumed that the only parties to your marriage were you and your wife. You are correct. But if you go to get a divorce, you will be pleased to know that the state joins your little family and has made themself a third party without your consent. Not only that, the state ‘s interest takes precedence over both spouse's interest.

How is it that governments can make a self-appointed intrusion into what is supposed to be an area of your right to privacy? Decisions relating to marriage are included under the umbrella of the rights to privacy. Divorce is one of those decisions you make in your marriage which is covered under this umbrella, yet the state feels their interest outweighs yours and then they take over.

Somehow this seems to defy the image the government gives us that they are representing the will of the people. Unless, by popular demand, the people (meaning you) have requested their assistance in their private affairs. Since when has the government ever represented the will of the people?? The will of the lobbyist…of course! The will of the people…well. that is questionable.

Here is the way the State of Florida feels they have a right to this intrusion and justifies it:

Posner v. Posner 233 So.2d 381 (Fla. 1970) states:
“Since marriage is of vital interest to society and the state, it has frequently been said that in every divorce suit the state is a third party whose interests take precedence over the private interests of the spouses. See Underwood v. Underwood, 1868, 12 Fla. 434; Light v. Meginniss, 1945, 156 Fla. 61, 22 So.2d 455; Pickston v. Dougherty, Fla.App. 1959, 109 So.2d 577; Wall v. Wall, Fla.App. 1961, 134 So.2d 288.”
In Wall v. Wall, 134 So.2d 288 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1961), it states:
“In the interest of public welfare, the state becomes a third party to any divorce proceeding. From the objective position of the state and its concern for stability of marriage and family, a court's power to dissolve a marriage carries the responsibility for close scrutiny before so serious a matter as divorce and custody should be resolved. See Martin v. Martin, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So.2d 837.”
In a contract with participating parties, each party normally makes promises to do something and has obligations along with responsibilities to the other parties. It would appear that here’s a situation where the state makes no promises, has no obligations and no responsibilities other than to interfere with your divorce under the pretext of being concerned with the stability of your marriage and in the interest of the public welfare.

The state had no such concern when you got marriage. All they wanted out of the deal was the fee for the marriage license. They could have cared less whether or not you were compatible and “stable.” If they were, there would have been more qualifications required to get married other than just having the price of the license and being of age.

Of course, if you look at it from a financial standpoint and follow the money, the governments know that a lot of money can be made from the breakup of your marriage and that if they make themselves a party and control it, somehow they and/or their associates in the legal field will financially benefit from it. Could that really be the real interest the state has in becoming a party to your divorce?

It reminds me of the following quote:
“A lawyer is a learned gentleman who rescues your estate from your enemies and keeps it for himself.” -- Lord Brougham
In the traditional, adversarial divorce, in which you and your spouse go at it toe to toe (with the aid of an attorney of course), the goal is for one person to win, and for the other to lose. The strategy is to assign as much blame as possible to the other person. The tactics include costly legal battles. Hence, the attorneys win no matter what the outcome and you end up all the poorer.

By facilitating divorce through lenient no-fault divorce laws, it is hard to understand the rationale of the state being concerned with the stability of your marriage. In essence, by making divorce easier, they are only promoting or creating more business for the family law legal profession. Job security if you will.

* Cade Speaks Out About October Attack

* Court: Queens Judge Abused Contempt Power
* Trail Of Accusations Uncovered Against Local Judge

Legal Research Guide: Starting Points

Be sure to visit these sites: and