Fine Points of Law

[Cheese]

Dumb and Dumber?

(1) In October, a judge freed Tammy Skinner, 22, of Suffolk, Va., who had been charged with killing her unborn, third-trimester child by shooting herself in the abdomen. The judge said Virginia's anti-abortion law, like those of other states, makes criminals of doctors and others who abort third-trimester fetuses (absent special medical circumstances) but exempt the mother herself.

(2) Lawrence Roach of Seminole, Fla., complained in October that the $1,200 monthly alimony payments he has been making to his ex-wife should end, now that she has undergone a sex-change. Said Roach, "I'm a man, and I don't want to be paying alimony to a man." (Legal experts were pessimistic about his chances.)

[ABC News, 10-19-06] [BayNews9.com (Tampa-St. Petersburg), 10-4-06]

[Looger]

ah, the legal system.

ensuring that no one actually solves their own problems, and look to a higher authority.

'please help me - im useless'.

yeah, advanced society indeed...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Looger

ah, the legal system.

ensuring that no one actually solves their own problems, and look to a higher authority.

'please help me - im useless'.

yeah, advanced society indeed...

So, in your version of utopia (anarchy) promises are not enforced, and the weak are taken advantage of?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by troutman

So, in your version of utopia (anarchy) promises are not enforced, and the weak are taken advantage of?

nice leap there, but no.

we should as individuals, in my opinion, try and solve problems on our own and NOT phone our lawyers for everything.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Looger

nice leap there, but no.

we should as individuals, in my opinion, try and solve problems on our own and NOT phone our lawyers for everything.

I agree litigation should be a last resort, and recommend mediation and collaboration in most cases. Sometimes though you need the court.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Looger

nice leap there, but no.

we should as individuals, in my opinion, try and solve problems on our own and NOT phone our lawyers for everything.

I agree with you Looger. People now adays are unwilling to try and solve the problem themselves. They are two quick in calling someone else to fix it ieolice, condo association, lawyer, courts.

People.....work things out on your own first. If both parties are reasonable things should work out.

[ken0042]

How do you figure these people should have "worked it out on their own?" In the first example, she did.

In the second example, the person wanted a change to a previous court ruling. If a person wants to change the terms of a court order; he can't just decide to do that on his own.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How do you figure these people should have "worked it out on their own?" In the first example, she did.

In the second example, the person wanted a change to a previous court ruling. If a person wants to change the terms of a court order; he can't just decide to do that on his own.

I was speaking in general terms.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by ken0042

How do you figure these people should have "worked it out on their own?" In the first example, she did.

In the second example, the person wanted a change to a previous court ruling. If a person wants to change the terms of a court order; he can't just decide to do that on his own.

i think that it's a total joke that we depend on the legal system to solve our marital problems.

we're looking at symptoms and you're asking me how to fix some exact example, but without the legal system as it is the symptom would not be as widespread.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Looger

i think that it's a total joke that we depend on the legal system to solve our marital problems.

we're looking at symptoms and you're asking me how to fix some exact example, but without the legal system as it is the symptom would not be as widespread.

Most family lawyers recommend collaborative family law/mediation. The adversarial litigation system is a poor venue usually, because family law litigants often have to maintain relationships when the trial is over.

The legal system is not the cause of marital or other problems. It is the effect. The legal system is not telling people to break their promises and behave badly.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Looger

i think that it's a total joke that we depend on the legal system to solve our marital problems.

we're looking at symptoms and you're asking me how to fix some exact example, but without the legal system as it is the symptom would not be as widespread.

Come on. The legal system in this case is in place to protect spouses, who may be left destitue by a divorce. Should a rich dude who's wife stayed home with the kids, be forced to live in poverty when her husband decides he wants a younger wife? What recourse would the wife have if not for the legal system saying she is entitled to her share of the home etc? Should she have to rely on the husbands generosity? Do you honestly think things would go more smoothly, or that people (in most cases the wives) would be better off if they didn't have some resource to ensure that they receive their fair share of shared assets?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by troutman

Most family lawyers recommend collaborative family law/mediation. The adversarial litigation system is a poor venue usually, because family law litigants often have to maintain relationships when the trial is over.

The legal system is not the cause of marital or other problems. It is the effect. The legal system is not telling people to break their promises and behave badly.

mediation is good but i see a lot of unnecessary litigation in marriages i've witnessed implode.

i disagree with your second statement, i think that the tantalizing idea of divorce makes it an easy option for women, they know it's slanted in their favour so excuses come easy.

television / music tells us to lead interesting lives, up in north BC you can tell who's on night shift by going to the bar and seeing whose wives are out looking at their options. we're all on melrose place now! all right! temptation island, here we come!

don't forget, you're a victim! you're a victim! you're a victim!

personally i think that a 5-year marriage contract, requiring re-affirmation (say until kids are involved), is a good idea, what everyone forgets aboot the marriages of old is that women died in childbirth and men on the battlefield and marriages rarely lasted 20 years.

prenuptual agreements folks. it's a good idea. especially when your ex becomes a man, and you're paying them alimony - yikes!

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Come on. The legal system in this case is in place to protect spouses, who may be left destitue by a divorce. Should a rich dude who's wife stayed home with the kids, be forced to live in poverty when her husband decides he wants a younger wife? What recourse would the wife have if not for the legal system saying she is entitled to her share of the home etc? Should she have to rely on the husbands generosity? Do you honestly think things would go more smoothly, or that people (in most cases the wives) would be better off if they didn't have some resource to ensure that they receive their fair share of shared assets?

i've seen too many examples of divorce for personal gain, i just think that the current system needs a serious retune.

kids do really change everything.

but that sex change case is alimony, NOT child support.

this isn't a <click> shut off the legal system solution. but come on, do you really believe that a 4 year marriage not involving kids should reward the wife with support for the rest of her life?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Looger

i've seen too many examples of divorce for personal gain, i just think that the current system needs a serious retune.

kids do really change everything.

but that sex change case is alimony, NOT child support.

this isn't a <click> shut off the legal system solution. but come on, do you really believe that a 4 year marriage not involving kids should reward the wife with support for the rest of her life?

Nope.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Looger

this isn't a <click> shut off the legal system solution. but come on, do you really believe that a 4 year marriage not involving kids should reward the wife with support for the rest of her life?

A court in Canada is very unlikely to award spousal support on those facts. If they did, it would only be for 1-2 years.

[Looger]

well whatever.

my original point is that our legal system is a joke BECAUSE people depend on it so ridiculously.

how that makes me throwing poor single mothers out onto the cold cold streets, i leave to the imagination of others, i mean how can i defend what i didn't even claim?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Nope.

thus demonstrating straw man logic.

i state a belief, someone else assigns a belief to me based on what he believes i would believe.

joke, definition of.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Looger

i think that the tantalizing idea of divorce makes it an easy option for women, they know it's slanted in their favour so excuses come easy.

The tantalizing idea of divorce? Is that anything like the alluring thought of cancer?

[troutman]

old joke:

Why does divorce cost so much?

Because it is worth it.

[Cube Inmate]

Jeeebus Looger...nice work taking the "funny" out of a ridiculous news item