Posted on 06/14/2006 4:23:59 AM PDT by ProCivitas
Do you mean the original incident this thread is based on? Shooting a judge? I agree - that's idiotic.
So, according to you, everyone knows, 100% for sure, what is in the heart and mind of the person they are marrying.
One can know for sure, by observing one's future spouse's behavior, what they prioritize in life.
People don't change all that much unless they get hooked on drugs or suffer a head injury.
Now why don't you start calling women who marry cads fools and idiots, and blame them for their dumb choices?
If a woman started a thread complaining about how the courts don't have sympathy on her because she married a loser, then I would inform that woman that it is her own fault for marrying a loser and that she was stupid to do so.
OOHHH, because he was a cad, and she was an idiot and married him, now suddenly, it STILL HIS FAULT!
If a guy stands up in a church and takes a vow before God that he is not going to cheat on his wife and he does anyway, he is morally responsible for breaking his vow. Plain and simple.
There is no vow that a woman takes not to be a nag, not to be annoying, etc. or most of the other reasons guys give for wanting a divorce.
Adultery is not a personality quirk.
Women, more often than men, marry a bad choice. That's because women have this damnable flaw of always thinking, "I can change him".
I say it's about even. Guys often marry women who are profligates, who are up to their ears in credit card debt, etc. thinking: "Well, when we're married, she'll be more financially responsible." That's a personality trait which is usually obvious way before vows are exchanged and which never changes.
It's sad that a normal, stable, lifelong marriage - a situation that millions and millions of Americans enjoy - is a "little never never land bubble" in your mind.
Do you really believe that there are almost no happy marriages in the world at all? That a happy marriage is truly an unattainable fantasy?
It's facinating to see how much people read into posts, assigning meanings to them that are completely unjustifiable given the actual comments posted.
"Person of interest", though, means exactly nothing.
I went through a long bitter divorce with accusations and and a lot of harm to my kids. I am glad it is over, it is difficult to adequately describe to emotional strain of this process, and I can not say a single good thing about the many lawyers and court characters that were involved. I recently came across a picture of myself at the worst part of the case, and I looked like a concentration camp victim, I weighed seventy pounds less than I do now. People thought I had cancer or something. It was just day-to-day emotion stress.
You would be foolish to underestimate what people go through during this process, especially if there are false accusations involved.
I am happy to be single and free now, and work hard on my relationship with my kids. Yes, the truth came out eventually, but not until after a lot of irreversible damage had been done.
Oddly, I am doing so well now that I can say in retrospect, it was the best thing that ever happened to me. My children suffered, though, and continue to suffer as a result of the process. I have no sympathy for family court lawyers, judges, therapists, and the whole rest of the crew of leeches that lives by sucking the life blood, the very souls, out of our children.
Hmmm... I suppose posting this might make me, too, a "person of interest" in this case. Seems silly, though, I am just stating what about 5 million other people know to be a fact.
What do people expect the courts to do when one or both parties choose to be hateful rather than work a settlement out for the sake of the children. Courts encourage parties to come up with a parenting agreement that will work for both parties. But if the parents refuse to work with each other, then there is little the courts can do but decide one way or another, often based on relatively little evidence other than the testimony of the parties.
As far as false allegations, judges walk a fine line. If the allegations of domestic violence or child abuse are false but are believed by a judge, he or she is blamed. If the allegations are true but not believed by a judge, and later a child is killed by the abusive parent, guess who also gets the blame. No one wants a dead child on their conscience, so they follow up on allegations if they are even semi-believable. Clearing up takes time and money, but lawyers, courts, psychiatrists, etc. all have to eat just like anyone else.
Family law trials almost always result in one or both parents being angry at the division. That's why most judges hate handling these cases, and prefer that the parties work something out themselves.
Having had experience in a family matters court case with a judge who made his ruling after the opposing party presented their witnesses but before my attorney was allowed to present our evidence and witnesses, I'd agree.
Judges get to act as gods and consequently start thinking themselves as gods. Once on that slippery slope, the descent to judicial arrogance and incompetence justified by whatever, follows.
I'm surprised we don't hear more about judicial victims or other aggrieved parties targeting abusive, incompetent, etc judges.
And somewhat disappointed I might add.
$10,000 a month for the ex-wife to spend? Geez! Here in high cost of living Calif, our family lives on about $2,000 a month quite nicely. We may not drive limos and charter flights to Vegas every weekend, but we do well anyway.
What's the ex-wife need $10k/month for? A cocaine habit?
"...it seems typical that such individuals would blame anyone other than their own pathetic selves."
I've been married to the same woman for 37 years; never been divorced and raised three kids. However, I do know people who have been wrongly accused AND ABUSED by Family Court Judges; their lives and families totally destroyed. Just as has been the case by hundreds of lesbian and queer, male CPS workers who've never had children and don't know the first thing about being a parent themselves.
BOTTOM LINE: If you wouldn't make statements like the one you made, PEOPLE WOULD NOT KNOW JUST HOW IGNORANT YOU ARE.
Thanks for letting me know that in your assessment: "ignorant" means "unsusceptible to whacked-out conspiracy theories."
Just for reference: Judges don't accuse people of abuse in these matters, spouses do.
Right.
I know a woman who is a divorced lesbian, does "goddess worship", never had kids, etc.
What does she do?
She's a shrink specializing in family theraphy.
Talk about a square peg in a round hole!
But seems she's not uncommon.
"I must say i'm surprised two or three of them aren't gunned down every week."I agree.Men get the short end of the stick in divorce court.The system is biased against men.What about men who are forced to pay child support for children that aren't even their biological children?No wonder some men go off the deep end.
Mack is/was a pawn shop owner. Not sure about his financial means.
"Wealthy enough to have a home that cost a million dollars back 10 years ago"
You mean the home he will be able to drive by and see from the street.
divorce is the only legal method I know of where someone can take half of what you own (and your kids) with absolutely no provocation or cause whatsoever.
IOW, "no-fault" was the beginning of the end of the family.
Anyone who doesn't get that is whistling past the chapel.
As the second wife watching my entire salary (and then some) go to the ex wife who CHOOSES not to work and for whom the likelyhood of finding a man attracted to her is slim, I can tell you that if a judge has a burr under his saddle about the husband, he is screwed. The amount of alimony is not tied to what the husband needs to live. Not pretty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.