Gynocentrism Sucks
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The guy on the left is a bit hard to take with his condescending chivalry. He's the type of guy who is going to be paying hefty alimony in 10 years.
I used to be a strong female character... then I took an arrow to the knee.
Now I'm suing the king, the seneschal and the captain of the guards for denying me a safe work environment & exposing me to hostility from my co-characters. It is true that they warned me about the necessity of knee-pads but I perceived that as a sexist allusion -- understandable in the male-dominated environment of the guardroom of the keep. Lady Gloria of Allred will champion my case and I shall have my gold -- and no digging, either; that hurt knee of mine wouldn't allow it.
Single dads are sick and tired of being labeled "deadbeats" when it comes to paying child support. And data suggest they have good reason to be upset.
The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.
Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.
That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.
But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.
DAD +1 Kid +70hr workweek = 44k/yr takehome pay
Mom +2Kids+New Hubby+40hr workweek(total for both) = 42k/yr takehome pay
BUT, if my kids want to sleep over (if i ever see them, they are teens, they have FRIENDS), i must maintain a 3 bedroom(at the minimum) apt/home, so that they have a place to sleep.
Now this is the kicker.. ready...
I was not "RAILROADED" in court. the judge followed the guidelines to a T, my ex doesnt harass me, the judge wasnt malicious.
This was STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. it was a given. a normal day, no big fuckin deal. Thats the part alot of guys dont get.
You think family court is this big production and you have a chance to defend yourself, or at least say SOMETHING... NOPE.. not a chance. this is just how things are. its not looked at as , "YEA, Lets bend this guy over and take his shit."
Its merely looked at as, "Hey, its your responsibility, like paying any other bill. get in line, dont complain, you'll get ur turn to open ur wallet"
So lets re-cap yes.
I make 100k. Without any evil, malicious intent, just me paying my CS debt, i must pay close to $24,000 a year in CASH, AFTER TAXES to my ex.
After all deductions and what not i am in the %18 tax bracket or there-around, which i'll call $15,000/yr
I work 70 hours, i make 100k
i pay the EX 36k
i pay the govt 15k
i KEEP 49k (thats HALF of my GROSS)