Friday, July 16, 2010

Mel Gibson

I don't really like Mel Gibson. Well, I don't really know him either. But he seems ok. Aside from obviously bad-mouthing every religion but his own and boozing up before driving. But then that could make him a congressmen or priest and those people are supposed to be a-ok too.

But Mel is getting shafted here so I must speak up. He may have left a very nasty phone call with his ex-girlfriend. Well guess what, folks? Mel was probably just told by his lawyer what his ex has demanded for payments and settlement - first FULL CUSTODY of their 9-month old, million dollar homes, cash settlement - the works. Perhaps a ploy? I don't know. But trust me, if someone whom you accused of "shaking your baby so violently you allegedly tried to make her stop by accosting her" tried to take the baby, shake you down for millions, and accused you of being everything but a white man, you would have some pretty choice remarks. In fact, most men do - you see swearing at her is all we can really do. The law and the lawyers say your f-cked so guess what? YOU'RE F-CKED. Its like being metaphorically sodomized by someone in a business suite who is chuckling the whole time. Trust me, when you hear your ex's lawyer depict you as being a slovenly, violent scoundrel when you are anything but, you'll have a few words in mind as well. And not the sort you use at church.

Mel is accused of being bi-polar. Maybe, maybe not. He was married for 28 years, which in Hollywood is like winning the Olympics 4 times in a row. He has 7 children. He's 54 years old. Why EXACTLY should he not see his daughter, whom he adores? Is there HARD EVIDENCE of physical violence? His former wife says he's not violent. She would know. She's known him over 30 years. There is no evidence, police reports, hospital reports, ANYTHING PEOPLE - NOTHING to suggest he attacks his family or others. If he did savagely attack her, that's a different story. But the man has 7 children people. SEVEN. He gives to charities, including those for children. Even being a Hollywood superhero, he knows a few things about kids and his track record for evil is drunk driving and a drunken tirade along with religious views I don't agree with but views he nonetheless has EVERY RIGHT to harbor in a FREE COUNTRY.

He has a temper? Maybe, but so what, a lot of people do. And by 54 years old I should think most people can control it enough not to attack others. He made a nasty phone call. Yeah? So wouldn't you or I if someone was trying to blow you out and take your child from you and slap you with restraining orders. Making a nasty phone call is just a bunch of words. That's what you do INSTEAD OF PHYSICALLY ATTACKING SOMEONE. What, did he hurt her feelings? Imagine how he feels. He's about to get taken to the cleaners. The law is all on her side. She dated him for 9 months, had his baby and now wants out. Is it for a good reason or any reason? We really don't know. ALL states use "no-fault" divorce. So she can just walk at any time with baby and his money. Its like he never existed to them after that. Oksana is going to walk away smelling like a rose no matter what. So she's not yelling. Mel is getting gutted no matter what.
He's yelling.

If she wants joint custody and no money, then fine. But the whole kaboodle? For what? Nine months of dating? How much of hard-work marriage did his ex-wife endure? Lots. She deserved at least a portion of his earnings. I would say no more than $100 million because I think even celebrity divorces should be capped and that $100 million is an obscene number anyway that makes anyone set for life. After all, Mel was jumping out of planes and doing stunts and taking the risks. He should keep most of what he earned. I didn't see his wife out there risking her life. She and her kids would be MORE than flush with 100 mil. Instead she will more likely get at least 5-600 million worth of estates and property. For what? Sleeping with her husband? She had his kids, yeah, and she wanted them too, that's a wash. The guy is obviously no picnic, but guess what? LOTS OF HUSBANDS ARE NO PICNIC. And their wives don't live like kept heiresses like his did (and does).

So now Oksana wants to play kept heiress. Kept heiress - after 9 months. Listen closely to Mel's call. He calls her a Gold Digger. Um, no offense, but SHE IS A GOLD DIGGER. Baby comes, they hit a rough patch and POOF, she's gone. In the OLD days the judge (her mother first) would say, What? Every couple with babies has rough patches. You're not going to blow the guy out lady. Leave with what you have or stick it out. No get out of my court - there are people here with real grievances.

Mel made a bad choice in women, fine. And he took some bad actions, fine. But what is the punishment? Millions and the loss of his daughter?

People, think.

The punishment doesn't fit the "crime." There was no crime. Just mistakes by two people.

Kids aren't cash crops. Their not mutual funds, they're not annuities. They're not meal tickets and using them as such is degrading and inhumane. Pick husbands you intend to keep ladies and only have babies you intend to keep in a nuclear family. That alone would save a lot of pain and money.

Now you'll love what's next. She'll get a little less than the fortune she wants (and be "devastated" by it), move to Milan with custody and marry a fashion mogul. But not after the lawyers get at least a million of Mel's money and turn this into a bleeping circus.

Ah, American values. Now everyone make sure to repeat what the smart people in Hollywood do.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Its Simple: Theft.... end of statement.

The states are BROKE people. Period. The country is in an unrecognized Depression and pretending it doesn't exist with "extend and pretend schemes" including borrowing more and rolling over debt, compounding us with more debt does NOTHING to fix the problem. States are broke due to massive pension promises they can't fund and overpaid state employees who pay as little as $5/month for their healthcare and retire at 55 on 80% of their peak earnings. Arizona, which is full of old people and immigrants - immigrants they are throwing out - is more bankrupt than most states. They need money. How can they get it?

The Feds give the states reimbursement payments for every dollar they collect in "child support." THIS is why the states "claim" it suddenly costs every man $1,500/month to raise one child. States collectively profit HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS off child support collection (see shakedown). Nothing is as easy to manipulate as ACCOUNTING, people. Two different accounting models based on "assumptions" can make a can of soda seem to cost 30 cents or 3 dollars (as my mother says, there are liars, damn liars, and accountants). The states found accountants singing the right tune and murdered unpopular, culturally-denigrated citizens - divorced and unwed fathers - for millions of dollars in "support," and made themselves a fortune in the process. The child support collection "program" the Feds run costs the federal taxpayers a cool $1 BILLION dollars. The states want as much of that as possible for slush funds, fat pensions, kickbacks, dead-end programs, non-productive, overpaying jobs and giveaways to rich businesses and the well-connected. Such a policy bankrupts millions of men that struggle to support 1 and many times 2 families, but the states don't give one flying fig - they need their money. And like a busted junkie or gambler, they're desperate.

Now, they're squeezing the vice a little harder because it doesn't matter - divorced and unwed men are too broke to fight it and the public is convinced every divorced guy is a womanizing playboy and/or thug anyway, thanks to groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) who espouse lies and mistruths nearly every time they open their mouths.



Arizona Poised to Radically Increase Child Support Payments

July 8th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The State of Arizona is poised to implement radical changes to its child support guidelines. The result will be sharp increases in levels of child support most dads are required to pay. The result will also be further inducement for mothers to file for divorce, thus increasing the divorce rate. Put simply, it is the intention of the new guidelines to ignore the actual cost of raising children and focus on transferring income from the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent.

Because the new guidelines would mean such steep new obligations and because they frankly aim to transfer income from one parent to the other irrespective of the needs of the child, the process of amending the guidelines has been very hush-hush. There have been only two poorly publicized public hearings on the guidelines in the four years they’ve been under consideration. Although the state was poised to implement them, word leaked out, a challenge was made and a four-month grace period allowed in which to raise challenges to the new rules. That period will end this October.

I’ve received a lot of email traffic about this, and, because the good folks in Arizona know more about the issue than I do, I’ve decided to publish one of the emails as the blog post below. It’s written by a woman who prefers that her name not be used, but whose new husband stands to see his payments to his ex increase by over 76%.

{In the middle of a pseudo-depression no less - what guile}

Here’s what she told me.

The premise of the new guidelines, which they are calling Child Outcome Based Support (COBS), is that the child should have a roughly equal standard of living in both the custodial parent and non custodial parent households. Sounds good, right?

The new guidelines are based on a paper, published by Professor Ira Ellman, who is a voting member of the Child Support review committe. He and his wife published this some years back. It is a direct application of the American Law Institute child support principles. Professor Ellman was a member of ALI back when this theory was first put out, in 1998.

The new COBS has nothing at all to do with the actual cost of the child; that is not even considered. All that is considered is the income of dad, the income of mom, and the disparity between the two. If Dad makes more, he is obligated to give a higher amount to mom so that the two earn closer to the same.

{Like many divorcees and EX-GIRLFRIENDS (when did that become a "kept" status in society?) my ex - a scholarship high school student and private college school graduate - quit her white collar job with benefits in the 55k-60k range and went back to school to become....ready? A part-time masseuse. She's basically a stay-at-home mom. She works about 10 hours a week or "whenever she has clients" according to my son. The judge learned this, frowned and docked her - ready? - $200 dollars per month - from $1,200 down to $1,000/month for me to pay in "support." Big, bad judge! What a meanie!}
They accomplish this by taking the gross income of the non custodial parent, and the gross income of the custodial parent. In situations where the custodial parent makes more than the noncustodial parent, support levels would go down, albeit slightly, but that is a small number of cases. In MOST cases, the noncustodial father is making more money than the custodial mother. That is true in every state but particularly ominous under these new guidelines.

You must be kidding. Didn't you read my story above? What woman wouldn't make DAMN sure she didn't make more than her ex-husband? Newsflash: WOMEN AREN'T STUPID AND THEY'RE NOT CHILDREN. Good grief.
Under the new guidelines, in situations where Dad makes more ( 80% of all cases in Az), a larger portion of dad’s income will be taken to move the income in both homes toward the middle. The more money dad makes and the less money mom makes , the higher the percentage of after-tax income will be required in support.

This is directly in opposition to the current “Income Shares” system, used by many states, in which support is based on the marginal cost to add the child to the household. In Income Shares, the amount of support required as a percentage of income, goes DOWN, as the person paying support increases his income. The fact is, the more money someone makes, the lower the percentage of it that’s required to provide for children.

The theory is that the children suffer by having less in the custodial parent’s home, and so the noncustodial parent should give her enough so that there is rough parity in both homes. Of course, by doing so, every person in the custodial home benefits, and every person in the noncustodial parent home suffers. The guidelines assume that every custodial parent is a single parent and the only income available is her earnings, and that the noncustodial is also single and not supporting anyone else.

Isn't Arizona the "conservative state that elects Republicans? Old people with "values" who believe you deserve what you work to get? This is a socialist, nay, COMMUNIST agenda! My ex-girlfriend of 9 months that I was with years ago has a claim on my income (for 20+ years!) as long as she keeps her grip on my son nice and tight? What am I, a Hollywood playboy impregnating every starving actress for 500 miles??!?! NO. I'M NOT. And neither are a lot of other men WHO DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO GET DIVORCED TO BEGIN WITH!

Arizona law does NOT allow the income of a new spouse to be added. They are considering a “may” clause, in which a new spouses contribution to living expenses can be added, but that’s a “may” not a “shall,” and open to interpretation by the judge. Also, adding in a spouse’s contribution to rent , etc, only reduces the required payment by about 50 dollars for every 20k of income added - if you can even get the judge to agree to it.

In situations in which there is a large disparity between dad’s income and mom’s, the new amounts are so large that they are obviously alimony in disguise. In fact, the Committee doesn't even attempt to sugar coat the fact that this amount will benefit everyone in mom’s home and detract from everyone in dads. It’s alimony without even the tax benefit of alimony. Its not deductible because it is supposedly child support.

The following examples are directly from the current guidelines and from the new COBS calculator. I left parenting days out, since there is an adjustment in both systems (Income Shares and COBS) for that. However, as well as increasing support awards dramatically. COBS also cuts the credit for parenting days by about one third.

For example, in a situation where mom is making $2,000 per month and dad is making $10,000, under the current Income Shares, the support payment would be 1215, divided 82/18. The support payment would be $996 per month (82% of 1215). For two children the payment would be $1500.

Under the new COBS guidelines, the support payment would be $2,125 dollars (FOR ONE CHILD!).

For two children, it would be $2,425.

This is a link to the new Calculator, although all of this information and the theory behind it, are found at the Arizona Child Support review committee website. This site contains the methodology behind this new system, which dates back to the suggested reforms of the American Law institute, from over a decade ago. They were rejected at that time because equalizing standards of living was presumed to be against the intent of child support.

The link to the Arizona Child support review committee page is

The link to the new calculator is

As for the legality:

The COBS was designed by Professor Ira Ellman, who is a member of the ALI and was one of the formulators years ago, of the standard of living equalization method of child support, which every state has rejected. His wife wrote the economic program. Both are voting members of the board who approved this. I am not sure if it is fully legal for someone to be able to vote on a system they designed.

Professor Ellman is also personally benefiting by this; having been the keynote speaker for the Divorce Lawyers of America conference in May of 2010, in which the topic of his speech was the new AZ guidelines to equalize standards of living. (Keep in mind that these haven’t had final approval and he is already being paid to speak of them.)

There has only been one public hearing, for two hours, a week before it was due for final approval. It had been taken to the judiciary before anyone had even heard of it. It was approved by the AZ judiciary on March 25th, before anyone was informed, and then on June 4, they had another public hearing. It was then sent to the AZ judiciary for final approval on June 25th. People who found out about it after March 25, lobbied to have it delayed, and a final approval has now been delayed until October, since the court agreed that not enough public input had been received. The entire thing was under the table and very sneaky. If you look at the original work of the committee, it appeared they were going to just update the Income Shares model. They made a drastic tack in the direction of COBS after the updated Income shares was presented.

No papers in AZ have picked up the story, despite repeated attempts. The governor’s office is not returning any communication, nor is the judiciary. This still must be finally approved by the Supreme Court, but NO ONE out there knows about it, except for a very few. I can assure you, the average support-paying father here has no idea. Its been kept very hush hush. This will keep the courts in Arizona busy, and the lawyers employed for a very long time, since it will come as a shock to most fathers on January 1.

The few that do know about it, have been trying to make a statement, but with only one public meeting before the Judicial final approval meeting, they have been blindsided. I was not present at the meeting on June 24 for final approval at the court, but from what has been told to me, the few that showed up were denigrated as being “fathers rights radicals”, as if no sensible person would oppose this.

I am not a member of a fathers rights group and I am horrified by the implications of this. I suspect most of the other fathers out there, going about their daily business, will also be shocked and appalled when this hits the fan.

It has been a long-standing aim of the American Law Institute, to help solve the problem of poverty after divorce, for women and children, to take large amounts from the former husband to balance the income in both homes. They feel that is the best way to reduce child poverty etc. So far, they have been rejected in every state. It looks as if Arizona is going to be the first to follow their ideals, and if they succeed here, I suspect other states will follow. Fathers everywhere will find themselves punished for making more than their ex, and marginalized in the lives of their kids by financial disaster.

Thank you for helping to find a way to wake people up before it is too late. If this happens here, its a matter of time before it happens elsewhere.

Fraud by Another Name

Allow me to translate - all of the banksters were greedy, alpha-aspiring, lustful lunatics who chased money and returns on their stock with fraud, greed and intentional ignorance of the facts at hand.

There, now listen to how some fancy accounting (which eventually will blow up in their face), made the banks appear to "make" money again this quarter.

From analyst Dick Bove, who along with Meredith Whitney, Nouriel Roubini, Charles Nennar and a few others, is among the most widely respected analysts on the banking "industry:"

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

A Top To Bottom Joke

From the illustrious Cleveland "Plain Dealer" of Ohio:

Making sense of child support in Ohio: editorial

Published: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 4:26 AM

Most dads in Cuyahoga County are responsible men who take care of their children.

The same cannot be said of the 40 percent of the Cuyahoga Child Support Enforcement Agency's 147,000-parent caseload who refuse to pay despite, officials say, having the means to do so.

147,000 parents? Are you out of your mind? For Cuyahoga county alone? How many people even live in that county? How many people does it take to manage that massive caseload? How much does it cost THE TAXPAYERS - YOU AND ME to pay the people managing that caseload? (Don't forget that if your county, city and/or state is running a large deficit - and it probably is - you are, in part, BORROWING MONEY in the debt markets to pay those people.)

Furthermore, why are 58,800 people refusing to pay? That's quite a number, if its correct. Hmmmm. I'm curious. Let's speculate, shall we? Are they asked to pay $50 dollars per week? $100? $500? $1,000? (Guess what, its probably closes to the last amount). How much would you, dear reader, refuse to pay? Why else might one refuse to pay? Hmmmmm. Maybe because ITS STATE-SPONSORED EXTORTION? Maybe because your ex makes more than you do? Maybe because she or he got remarried and lives in a great big home that they claim on court documents they pay for single-handedly when in reality, they pay half of the mortgage? Maybe your ex got a false restraining order applied to you (very simple and very commonly done - just google "false restraining order divorce"). Maybe because you were not even married to your ex and the child support award is nearly half your income, crippling you financially while making her rich? Maybe your ex lied, cheated, AND stole from you before taking you to court to get "what she is 'entitled' to?" Just maybe?

Or maybe there are 58,800 jerks in Cuyahoga county. Right.

For them -- especially for the 70 deadbeat parents, mostly dads, facing felony charges for stiffing their children -- jail time may well be appropriate.
Timeout. Felony? Jail time? What the hell is appropriate about that? Do you know what A FELONY is people? RAPE, MURDER, ARSON. Those are felonies. Why? THEY'RE BRUTAL, VIOLENT CRIMES. Failure to pay one's ex, a person who may be a lying, cheating, stealing asshole? Sorry. Not a felony. Not the same as burning a building down and killing people inside. Call me a sympathetic jerk, but I don't see the connection. In fact, even the expression "apples and oranges" doesn't cut it.

Now, JAIL? No. we are a free country. Sorry, its not always convenient. But we don't throw regular people in jail with violent murderers because they didn't give their ex tens of thousands of dollars. Anyone enforcing such a 'law' has got to feel infinitely foolish. Further, these dads are not "STIFFING THEIR CHILDREN." How do I know? Ask these guys if they want custody of their kids and to pay for their expenses while their kids live with them. Nearly all will say Yes. I guarantee it. All except the trashy, irresponsible men, of course. No one can do anything about those guys, so don't even try.

And no, putting taxpaying citizens in jail for not making their ex rich, and turning them into a drain on the system instead of paying into the system doesn't sound too smart to me. Putting men who are working out of a job and into jail with a felony conviction so that they can no longer make money or get another job doesn't really help him, his kids, or his ex. Call me crazy.

Further, you have to love how these guys are portrayed as screwing their kids over. Um, ever consider, dear Editorial Board, that these guys are barred from seeing their kids? That these kids are being USED by women and lawyers as pawns in an extortion racket to fleece the man of every dime he has? Why don't you find out how many women QUIT THEIR JOBS OR TAKE LESS SALARY WORKING PART TIME because they have TENS OF THOUSANDS in "child support" coming in every month? Why don't you state that a man's "first family" lives on TWICE the disposable income of his 'second' family (a fact)?

Fathers'-rights groups adamantly disagree, saying that only a fraction of deadbeat dads deserve jail and that the majority of those hounded by officials are too poor to support their children.

Yet even writing a modest check could help a child in need.

They don't ask for a modest check, you morons. They demand full remittance and if you don't pay, they claim you're lying or "hiding it." By the way, how does one 'hide' one's own money?!?!? Further, a guy making minimum wage can't write much of a check, can he? Not when his missed "child support" is compounding WITH INTEREST. What a brilliant idea that was.
In Cuyahoga County, where 77 percent of those seeking child support are poor, single mothers, that matters.

So did ALL of those women marry a deadbeat? Or did all of those women have no education and no job and then married said deadbeat and have 5 kids? Did any quit their jobs? Did any do all that they could to STAY MARRIED? Or stay together with ex-boyfriends? How many of those women petitioned for divorce themselves or left their ex? Helping poor women is easy - mate them with a man that makes money to support them and then make sure THEY STAY PUT. Otherwise, they'll be welfare queens for decades. Making a poor ex-father slightly poorer? He'll starve to death. Great solution.

Which is not to say that some reforms aren't needed. The courts should consider shared parenting when possible. Stronger bonds between fathers and children would encourage prompter payments. The General Assembly also needs to update Ohio's ossified child-support laws.

WoweeZowee, stronger bonds would encourage "prompter" payments. That's sweet of you to consider. If I loved my child more, I'd pay more and make sure it was 'on-time'? What else can I do for you with the money that I make from working at my job?

How about stronger bonds for the sake of stronger bonds and healthier children, dumbass? Remember those kids you were trying to help a few paragraphs ago? The point isn't to make mom rich and hope she lavishes it on the kids (as well as forget to mention the money came from dad). The point is to make sure the kids don't starve and have clothing and shelter. Remember? And by the way, that doesn't cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. It can be done for much less and can be - easily, considering so many women make salaries EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN their ex-husbands and boyfriends.
The Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency Directors' Association and other advocates have recommended that courts be required to consider lowering payments when a child stays with a noncustodial parent 40 percent or more of the time -- an adjustment that rarely happens now -- and that payments be tied to the child rather than to a custodial parent.

Wait, WHAT? They 'recommend' the payments be tied to .... THE CHILD? HERESY! You swine! How do you dare! If they're not tied to the child now, then who are they tied to? Lemme guess.... MOM? Want to talk about why 58,800 people don't want to pay that 4 figure child support bill again? What a radical 'suggestion.' Dad's money going to his children and not his ex. How cruel.

The 40 percent idea is a stupid one. Mom will merely ensure the kids spent 39.9 percent of the time with dad and take more vacations with the pile of money she gets. And she can do that easily. Dads have practically no say in how much time they get. Charge dads extra to see their kids less and what do they do? They spend more time with their kids, enriching their children's lives - remember those KIDS again? The SUBJECT of this article? Forget that any parent has a right to see their own kids, regardless or money. Make the law 50-50 custody period unless the guy is a murderous, drunken thug. There, years of court time and millions of taxpayer dollars saved. That was tough. Parents get two chances to make a schedule, otherwise the judge sets it. One parent keeps screwing up the schedule? They lose custody and go to visitation. Period. More money and time saved.
Mary Denihan, a spokeswoman for Cuyahoga CSEA, says the county would need money to monitor such reforms. It should get it.

No Mary. No more money. LESS money. You see taxpayers are broke. Get it? You don't work for RJR Nabisco. You don't get unlimited funds for your little pet projects. Its called being an adult. Let people takes responsibility for their actions. People may divorce for no reason - but if they do, they get nothing. Otherwise, if they want a divorce, they must show cause. If there is no grounds for the divorce, they may have it - but without any money or assets from their spouse. At all. Ever. No 'monitoring' No welfare state. No wasted jobs and taxpayer money. ZERO. Want your husband's money? Or wife's? Stay married. I know. Its no picnic. Get over it. Don't want to be married? Fine. Walk. But you will not get one cent out of it. We don't encourage or reward divorce here... that would result in a massive increase in divorce and split apart the nuclear family, causing dysfunctional children and a non-functioning society. Oh wait, that's what they've already done.

The changes might not be popular with some grown-ups, but they sound right for kids. Ohio legislators should rally around these recommendations.

Ohio should rally around the family. What do families need? A good family makes good children into good adults. What the family needs is incentive to stay together and disincentive to split up.


The result? Obscene divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, fractured families, bankrupt families, bankrupt men and rich lawyers; the dissolution of the foundation of society. Get a clue people.