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.
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)
"What if every time American women went into pharmacies to get our prescriptions for birth control pills refilled, pharmacists required us to reveal our marital status, and then further required all married, female patients to bring our husbands into the store to sign a consent form before the prescribed contraceptives would be handed over?"
But would it surprise you to learn that apparently, many doctors in this country REALLY DO require men who come to them seeking vasectomies to 'fess up to marital status, and to then get their wives' written consent before the physician will perform the procedure? In some cases, doctors require a face to face meeting with a man's wife - in addition to the signed consent from her - before a vasectomy will be performed.
How did I discover this? Well, without getting all up in my husband's business by offering too many details, suffice it to say that he and I can now credibly report that this inexplicably retro violation of men's rights to privacy and medical autonomy actually does take place.
"EVERY night for the last year, Kathy Ruttenberg has been taking a bath, putting on pajamas, turning on CNN and getting into bed with a little pig named Trixie.
Randy Harris for The New York Times
Kathy Ruttenberg with her potbellied pig, Trixie.
"She's a great cuddler if you lie still," said Ms. Ruttenberg, a 53-year-old artist who lives near Woodstock, N.Y. "But if you're restless, she gets annoyed, and her hooves are very sharp." "
"Most gentlemen callers don't even make it to the bedroom. One bolted when Ms. Ruttenberg, who has a total of 160 animals on her sprawling mountainside property, let a baby goat into the living room after Trixie, the pig, had already joined the visit.
"I thought he would find a little goat charming," she said. "But after the pig, it was too much for him. Especially as the goat, Iris, was leaving droppings on the floor."
Another date fled, after some wine and a soak in the hot tub under the stars, when Oola, one of the resident pigs (black, 150 pounds) charged and tried to bite him.
"And then, the last guy I had in the bed was freaked out by the rabbit," Ms. Ruttenberg said. "He's huge, and he got territorial seeing this guy in the room, so he started thumping and picking up his dish in his mouth and tossing it in our direction." "
"Nathaniel, was a California teenager who became a father in 1995. The mother of Nathaniel's child was named Ricci, and at the time of conception, she was thirty-four years old. Nathaniel, however, was merely fifteen. Although Nathaniel admitted to having sex with Ricci voluntarily about five times, the fact that he was under sixteen years of age at the time made it legally impossible for him to consent to sexual intercourse. In other words, under California law, Nathaniel was not only a new father, but was also a victim of statutory rape. Nonetheless, in a subsequent action for child support, the court held that Nathaniel was liable for the support of the child who was born as a result of his rape. According to the court, "Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.""
"We're both so busy with our girls. I didn't realize how much you really have to be on your toes with teenagers," said Letourneau.
£56m lottery winner ordered to pay £2m to ex-wife who left him for another man TEN YEARS ago
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:04 PM on 22nd November 2010
* Comments (547)
* Add to My Stories
* Former wife is thought to have wanted £8million
* First lottery winner successfully sued by an ex-partner
A £56million lottery winner has been ordered to pay £2million to his ex-wife who walked out on him ten years ago.
Nigel Page, 44, was sued by his former wife Wendy shortly after his massive Euromillions windfall earlier this year even though she left him for another man.
The human resources director, 43, who is the mother of his 13-year-old daughter, is thought to have wanted £8million.
She received a lump sum of £2million in an out-of-court settlement, which she celebrated yesterday when she was spotted with a bottle of Champagne as she left her luxury Gloucestershire home with a mystery man.
Mr Page is believed to be the first lottery winner to be successfully sued by an ex-partner for a percentage of their winnings.
Despite his heartbreak when his wife walked out with his then-three-year-old daughter, Mr Page had decided to offer his ex £1million following his jackpot win in February.
But Wendy is believed to have instructed her lawyers to fight for up to £8million.
'Nigel feels very hurt,' a source told The Sun. 'The last seven months have been horrendous for him. What Wendy has done has ruined everything...
'Nigel has always provided for their daughter. Even when he was out of work he made sure she was all right. And right from the start Wendy was going to get a big gift.' Wendy is also thought to have won a huge increase in maintenance payments for their daughter, up from £150 to £2,000 per month.
Legal experts today said it is likely the couple failed to include a legally-binding 'clean break' arrangement in their divorce settlement.
Should the clause have been included, Wendy would have been highly unlikely to have won her out-of-court settlement.
Following his £56million win, Mr Page, from Barnsley, Gloucestershire, wed his girlfriend Justine Laycock. The pair, who are both divorcees, are understood to have married at a register office over Easter with staff standing in as witnesses.
They then whisked Mr Page's daughter Ella and Mrs Page's children Georgia and Jacob and other relatives away for a luxury holiday in Dubai.
The bill for the party, at the exclusive Atlantis The Palm resort, is said to have reached £70,000.
On their return they moved into a £4million environmentally-friendly mansion - leaving their old £400,000 home to their cleaner, Denise Kelso.