Marriage Stike
Question:
Lauri wrote: > On 9 Feb 2005 17:44:39 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> > wrote: >> I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we were >> married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to this.
$100/yr? Holy mackeral! You’ve even got me beat on that one! !!!ROFLMAO!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> My wife filed for divorce because I was complaining she was a poor >> roommate. Mostly, she shopped recreationally and worked a $13/hr job. > At $13 an hour, she only needs to work 8 hours to out-earn your > earnings for an entire year’s earning of $100. > Unless you meant something else? > Lauri in WA > I like my email spamless
Response:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36vssbF56s4riU3@individual.net… > "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> writes: > > I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we were > > married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to this. > How much per hour is $100/year?
Maybe he’s Santa and he only works one night a year.
Response:
Quick responses for $100,000.00 yearly gross approximately error posting. You may expect with an MBA, I would have caught that minor error. Yet the material facts of this situation still hold, so "no women, no cry." Thanks noticing, thanks for posting. Mark
Response:
Bill in Co. wrote: > Lauri wrote: >> On 9 Feb 2005 17:44:39 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> >> wrote: >>> I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we >>> were married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to >>> this. > $100/yr? You’ve even got me beat on that one! > !!!ROFLMAO!!!
Ahh Bill I haven’t heard that phrase for about 5 years… My grandfather used to say, Holy mackeral! and I would get such a kick out of it. Thanks for making me think of him and smile. LoriMc
Response:
what’s a "stike"? if it’s a marital aid, it sounds too pointy.
Response:
DrLith wrote: > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:36vssbF56s4riU3@individual.net… >> "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> writes: >>> I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we were >>> married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to this. >> How much per hour is $100/year? > Maybe he’s Santa and he only works one night a year.
No, he was working as an adjunct.
Response:
On 9 Feb 2005 18:30:45 -0800, Mark <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> wrote: > I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we were > married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to this. > My wife filed for divorce because I was complaining she was a poor > roommate. Mostly, she shopped recreationally and worked a $13/hr job.
So you chose the wrong woman. > I do not blame my wife or feminists for my losing my son and everything > I earned and saved.
Of course not. You chose the wrong woman. > Why are family court, attorneys (mostly white men), and others > Anti-father? At the initial divorce hearing, the county family judge, > after a short discussion, without due process of law, issued a court > order reducing and removing my rights. My parenting replaced by an > "award" to visit two of fourteen days (every other weekend); property > held; 55% monthly income garnished for child support and other support.
You chose the wrong woman and had a baby with her. > To add insult to injury, the Violence Against Women Act Former Pres. > Clinton signed in 1990 made it a crime when my wife became "fearful" of > me. This turned immediately into Order of Protection threatening my > freedom with imprisonment just in case I because at irritated by what > was happening to me.
You chose the wrong woman and didn’t use part of that $100/year to retain an attorney to fight the order or protection. > It is as if the attorney’s on both sides have it all scripted for them > to make an easy $150-$300 per hour. > I thought a read in high school government class that debtor’s prison > is unconstitutional, yet when I visit on other court hearings I see > ordinary men imprisoned for child support debt until they pay it in > full. Attorneys say men are imprisoned for not following a court order, > but tell that to his employer. Who wants to keep employed a jailbird?
Sure, people don’t like men who don’t support their kids (even ones who had children with the wrong woman) > Mark > P.S. I am on a marriage strike until this changes. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike
I betcha that has all the women in the world sobbing. -Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -LoriMc wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: >> Lauri wrote: >>> On 9 Feb 2005 17:44:39 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we >>>> were married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to >>>> this. >> $100/yr? You’ve even got me beat on that one! >> !!!ROFLMAO!!! > Ahh Bill I haven’t heard that phrase for about 5 years… My grandfather > used to say, Holy mackeral! and I would get such a kick out of it. Thanks > for making me think of him and smile. > LoriMc
Sure! I think I’ll take that as a compliment (even if I am dating myself).
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Bill in Co. wrote: > LoriMc wrote: >> Bill in Co. wrote: >>> Lauri wrote: >>>> On 9 Feb 2005 17:44:39 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we >>>>> were married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to >>>>> this. >>> $100/yr? Holy mackeral! You’ve even got me beat on that one! >>> !!!ROFLMAO!!! >> Ahh Bill I haven’t heard that phrase for about 5 years… My >> grandfather used to say, Holy mackeral! and I would get such a >> kick out of it. Thanks for making me think of him and smile. >> LoriMc > Sure! I think I’ll take that as a compliment (even if I am dating > myself).
Was a huge compliment as Gramps was one of the most special people in my life. I really miss him. Lori Mc
Response:
On 9 Feb 2005 18:34:54 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> wrote: >Quick responses for $100,000.00 yearly gross approximately error >posting. You may expect with an MBA, I would have caught that minor >error. Yet the material facts of this situation still hold, so "no >women, no cry."
And yet here you are, boo-hoo-hooing your little heart out. And I’m guessing that we’re supposed to be impressed by the supposed $100k per year and the MBA? Lauri in WA I like my email spamless
Response:
He chose the wrong woman, but men chose the wrong women in 1960 without getting ass-raped by Family Court judges. These women existed in 1960 as they do in 2005, but now the law allows and encourages her to strip her husband of income, property and fatherhood. The problem is women in America, and the American Family Law system. Change the laws and men will marry. >> It is as if the attorney’s on both sides have it all scripted for them >> to make an easy $150-$300 per hour.
Yes. You have figured it out. The plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s attorney make sure to file enought motions to take as much money as you can afford, so as to enrich themselves. They also bring in experts to testify, who also are paid handsomely. It is a game where they draw out the proceedings to take as much of your money as they can. >> I thought a read in high school government class that debtor’s prison >> is unconstitutional, yet when I visit on other court hearings I see >> ordinary men imprisoned for child support debt until they pay it in >> full. Attorneys say men are imprisoned for not following a court order, >> but tell that to his employer. Who wants to keep employed a
jailbird? >Sure, people don’t like men who don’t support their kids…
You are entitled to not like men who cannot pay usurous support judgements, but criminalizing non-payment of debt *is* illegal in the US, and has been for over 100 years. Of course this is end-run by placing the man in contempt of the judges administrative ruling, so he is technically being jailed for non-compliance to a bench order. See how the law can be subverted?
Response:
His post isn’t worded as an attempt to impress, merely a statement of fact.
Response:
Mark <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> wrote: > I do not blame my wife or feminists for my losing my son and everything > I earned and saved.
Wrong group. This is alt.SUPPORT.marraige. You want alt.WHINE.marriage.
Response:
Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote: > You chose the wrong woman and had a baby with her.
The second half being the worse mistake.
Response:
Subverting the penalty for the support order, and all other civil court orders, of jail or a contempt charge is easy. My concern, however, why is the penalty for marriage placed on men and why is there not a warning label for marriage. Theodore Roosevelt, with Keynesian economics, created jobs to bring our country out of the Great Depression. Our government hired and instructed men to dig a hole, but later hired a separate group to fill up the hole – giving them wages and, maybe, a pat on the back for a job well done. Today our government appears to be creating jobs for the fatherless children they are creating in family court: judges, attorneys, GALS, enforcement, support functions by spending both man’s money to attorneys and wife and federal, state, and county tax dollars. One hope, I believe, for family in America is the Mexicans. They may restore what was lost beginning in the ’60’s by the influx of immigration. Their divorce rate is the lowest in the world and they are, to me, more family orientated. The Honorable Judge Spence of Kane County IL gave about $50k of $65k of my non-marital money to local attorney’s and court experts. If one has little ethical concerns, it is easy to be a successful divorce attorney/expert – just focus on the hidden money, ask the judge for experts, not the kid’s relationship with their father. Mark
Response:
"Lee" <leraconteur2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108049001.828901.212870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com… > He chose the wrong woman, but men chose the wrong women in 1960 without > getting ass-raped by Family Court judges. These women existed in 1960 > as they do in 2005, but now the law allows and encourages her to strip > her husband of income, property and fatherhood.
He chose poorly, but then again, same can be said for women. > The problem is women in America, and the American Family Law system. > Change the laws and men will marry. >>> It is as if the attorney’s on both sides have it all scripted for > them >>> to make an easy $150-$300 per hour. > Yes. You have figured it out. The plaintiff’s attorney and the > defendant’s attorney make sure to file enought motions to take as much > money as you can afford, so as to enrich themselves. They also bring > in experts to testify, who also are paid handsomely. It is a game > where they draw out the proceedings to take as much of your money as > they can.
I don’t fully agree with this. I think you are in control of what your lawyer does / does not do. I guess where it gets twisted is when the other spouse/lawyer fights it out in court, and you have no alternative but fight back. While women may hold an upper hand when it comes down to custody issues, and protective orders, I do not think a judge should, or would, screw the man in splitting of the assets unless there is good reason to do so. A Man – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> I thought a read in high school government class that debtor’s > prison >>> is unconstitutional, yet when I visit on other court hearings I see >>> ordinary men imprisoned for child support debt until they pay it in >>> full. Attorneys say men are imprisoned for not following a court > order, >>> but tell that to his employer. Who wants to keep employed a > jailbird? >>Sure, people don’t like men who don’t support their kids… > You are entitled to not like men who cannot pay usurous support > judgements, but criminalizing non-payment of debt *is* illegal in the > US, and has been for over 100 years. Of course this is end-run by > placing the man in contempt of the judges administrative ruling, so he > is technically being jailed for non-compliance to a bench order. See > how the law can be subverted?
Response:
>Why are family court, attorneys (mostly white men), and others >Anti-father? At the initial divorce hearing, the county family judge,
Women will usually not elect women as lawmakers, because women know that only men will be the ones who consistently pass pro-female laws. Men run for elected office to gain status, which in turn will make them more attractive to other women, thereby increasing the ‘possibility’ of more sex partners. Therefore, it all comes down to sex. ——————————————————————– On 9 Feb 2005 17:44:39 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we were >married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to this. >My wife filed for divorce because I was complaining she was a poor >roommate. Mostly, she shopped recreationally and worked a $13/hr job. >I do not blame my wife or feminists for my losing my son and everything >I earned and saved. >Why are family court, attorneys (mostly white men), and others >Anti-father? At the initial divorce hearing, the county family judge, >after a short discussion, without due process of law, issued a court >order reducing and removing my rights. My parenting replaced by an >"award" to visit two of fourteen days (every other weekend); property >held; 55% monthly income garnished for child support and other support. >To add insult to injury, the Violence Against Women Act Former Pres. >Clinton signed in 1990 made it a crime when my wife became "fearful" of >me. This turned immediately into Order of Protection threatening my >freedom with imprisonment just in case I because at irritated by what >was happening to me. >It is as if the attorney’s on both sides have it all scripted for them >to make an easy $150-$300 per hour. >I thought a read in high school government class that debtor’s prison >is unconstitutional, yet when I visit on other court hearings I see >ordinary men imprisoned for child support debt until they pay it in >full. Attorneys say men are imprisoned for not following a court order, >but tell that to his employer. Who wants to keep employed a jailbird? >Mark >P.S. I am on a marriage strike until this changes. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike
Response:
"Lauri" <res0r…@spamlessverizon.net> wrote in message
news:1mum0197risig0t42fehjcjnvjuvi2a5b7@4ax.com… > On 9 Feb 2005 18:34:54 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> > wrote: > >Quick responses for $100,000.00 yearly gross approximately error > >posting. You may expect with an MBA, I would have caught that minor > >error. Yet the material facts of this situation still hold, so "no > >women, no cry." > And yet here you are, boo-hoo-hooing your little heart out. And I’m > guessing that we’re supposed to be impressed by the supposed $100k per > year and the MBA?
Well, now, you’ll just *never* find yourself a man with an attitude like that, Little Missy! 
Response:
A Man, Your wrong. If you have an email address I can forward the family court orders for your inspection. Mark
Response:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:56:54 GMT, Emma Anne <emma_a…@mac.com> wrote: > Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> wrote: >> You chose the wrong woman and had a baby with her. > The second half being the worse mistake.
Agreed -Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Response:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:19:06 -0500, "DrLith" <drl…@hotmail.com> wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->"Lauri" <res0r…@spamlessverizon.net> wrote in message >news:1mum0197risig0t42fehjcjnvjuvi2a5b7@4ax.com… >> On 9 Feb 2005 18:34:54 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> >> wrote: >> >Quick responses for $100,000.00 yearly gross approximately error >> >posting. You may expect with an MBA, I would have caught that minor >> >error. Yet the material facts of this situation still hold, so "no >> >women, no cry." >> And yet here you are, boo-hoo-hooing your little heart out. And I’m >> guessing that we’re supposed to be impressed by the supposed $100k per >> year and the MBA? >Well, now, you’ll just *never* find yourself a man with an attitude like >that, Little Missy!
If this guy is representative of what’s out there, I’ll stick with the status quo. Lauri in WA I like my email spamless
Response:
I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we were married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to this. My wife filed for divorce because I was complaining she was a poor roommate. Mostly, she shopped recreationally and worked a $13/hr job. I do not blame my wife or feminists for my losing my son and everything I earned and saved. Why are family court, attorneys (mostly white men), and others Anti-father? At the initial divorce hearing, the county family judge, after a short discussion, without due process of law, issued a court order reducing and removing my rights. My parenting replaced by an "award" to visit two of fourteen days (every other weekend); property held; 55% monthly income garnished for child support and other support. To add insult to injury, the Violence Against Women Act Former Pres. Clinton signed in 1990 made it a crime when my wife became "fearful" of me. This turned immediately into Order of Protection threatening my freedom with imprisonment just in case I because at irritated by what was happening to me. It is as if the attorney’s on both sides have it all scripted for them to make an easy $150-$300 per hour. I thought a read in high school government class that debtor’s prison is unconstitutional, yet when I visit on other court hearings I see ordinary men imprisoned for child support debt until they pay it in full. Attorneys say men are imprisoned for not following a court order, but tell that to his employer. Who wants to keep employed a jailbird? Mark P.S. I am on a marriage strike until this changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike
Response:
On 9 Feb 2005 17:44:39 -0800, "Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> wrote: >I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we were >married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to this. >My wife filed for divorce because I was complaining she was a poor >roommate. Mostly, she shopped recreationally and worked a $13/hr job.
At $13 an hour, she only needs to work 8 hours to out-earn your earnings for an entire year’s earning of $100. Unless you meant something else? Lauri in WA I like my email spamless
Response:
"Mark" <m-ruff…@northwestern.edu> writes: > I made $100/yr before we were married and for the three years we were > married I made a $100/yr. She did nothing to contribute to this.
How much per hour is $100/year? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My wife filed for divorce because I was complaining she was a poor > roommate. Mostly, she shopped recreationally and worked a $13/hr job. > I do not blame my wife or feminists for my losing my son and everything > I earned and saved. > Why are family court, attorneys (mostly white men), and others > Anti-father? At the initial divorce hearing, the county family judge, > after a short discussion, without due process of law, issued a court > order reducing and removing my rights. My parenting replaced by an > "award" to visit two of fourteen days (every other weekend); property > held; 55% monthly income garnished for child support and other support. > To add insult to injury, the Violence Against Women Act Former Pres. > Clinton signed in 1990 made it a crime when my wife became "fearful" of > me. This turned immediately into Order of Protection threatening my > freedom with imprisonment just in case I because at irritated by what > was happening to me. > It is as if the attorney’s on both sides have it all scripted for them > to make an easy $150-$300 per hour. > I thought a read in high school government class that debtor’s prison > is unconstitutional, yet when I visit on other court hearings I see > ordinary men imprisoned for child support debt until they pay it in > full. Attorneys say men are imprisoned for not following a court order, > but tell that to his employer. Who wants to keep employed a jailbird? > Mark > P.S. I am on a marriage strike until this changes.
I’m curious about this. Are you thinking that people are going to be so anxious to marry you that they’ll change the statutes so that you can end your strike? Usually strikes involve withholding something that people actually _want_ in order to effect change.
