January 6, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

We often receive help requests such as that by Lisa and George (not their real names) quoted here.

To Whom it may concern,

My husband and I met 10 years ago. He was briefly married to a women for 1 year and they had a baby boy.

After $30,000 and 3 years later in court fees, my husband finally received joint legal custody.

We have my stepson (now 11) on a one-week-on, one-week-off basis.

The week that we have him we must still pay the ex wife $120.00 and she spends this on herself. (FYI, she has remarried and has 2 more children of her own.)

She wanted my stepson to attend private school and took us to court to pay her more money. Of course she won, and the tuition 5 years ago was $6,500/yr (we pay 60%).

Now that my stepson is going on to highschool (Quebec starts in grade 7) the tuition is $10,500. My husband and I have 2 other boys. This is ridiculous.

Could a judge possible make us pay more? Can my stepson not go to a public school? We have no more money to give and we cannot afford to go back to court unless we are sure we can win this case.

My husband is so distraught.

Is it possible to guide me and my husband to any website, document or even someone we can telephone for more info?

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this.

Lisa

I offer generic advice in such situations and I did so now.

Unfortunately I cannot hold out much hope for you that you or any lawyer can get the injustices against George, against you and against your common children corrected.

The reason for what you experience is not so much a miscarriage of justice that can be corrected than it is a consequence of the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family.

One may argue that if that is so, then such injustices should equally befall men and women.  However, the way this starts is that men and fathers are the weakest link in marriages and are therefore the easiest to be removed (and punished for wanting to be fathers in families).  The idea is to prevent the formation of marriages by scaring men (and women) away from forming marriages.  As that objective was promoted for two-hundred years and more by feminists (male and female - there are more of the former than of the latter), it stands to reason that first wives will not lose as much through the culture of divorce as their husbands do.  However, one of the biggest motivators for the creation of the devastation and privation caused by the divorce industry is no longer so much the goal of the complete and total destruction of the institution of the family as it now is - plain and simple - profit.  (See Stephen Baskerville’s articles on the nature and consequences of the war against fathers and families.)

The only ones who consistently win through divorce are the lawyers and the adjuncts of the divorce industry.  Let there be no mistake, judges are lawyers, too, and they win because the divorce industry has grown into a major sector of the legal industry.  Therefore they have become and continue to become increasingly more powerful and richer.  Be clear on this as well, the financial burdens placed upon you by what you call “court fees” are actually minimal.  The majority of your court costs that you had to pay as time went by were in fact fees that had to be paid by you not to the courts but to the lawyers you hired.  Furthermore, it happens very often that divorcing or divorced husbands are being ordered by the courts to pay their ex-wives’ court costs and lawyer fees as well.

Yes, women who are being financially rewarded for having become divorced cannot and will not in any way be held accountable for how they spend their alimony payments in the disguise of “child support”.

You explained that you have become financially exhausted and can no longer fight court battles.  That is bad news, because it is not very likely  that without a lawyer you can manage to get your court-ordered financial obligations disentangled and adjusted so that they become manageable.

I cannot point you to anyone in particular who can help you, but I can direct you to some organizations in Quebec that can help you with advice.  Check these links:

• Fathers Are Capable Too: Parenting Association  (F.A.C.T.)

Their links page (the links page contains listings for Quebec)

Pick organizations that have regular meetings of their members.  By getting in touch with those members at those meetings you will gain from the experiences of others who are going through troubles like yours or who went through them and got them resolved somehow.

You will not only learn what works and what doesn’t, but you will also be able to determine what your chances are and with which lawyers you can make the best progress.

You will quite likely learn far more from working with such an organization than you can from any lawyer.  Be careful with using a lawyer.

Lawyers generally work primarily for themselves, not for you.  Never forget the nature of your relationship with a lawyer you hire: you are the boss, and he (or she) is the contractor you hired to solve your problem.

Therefore, you need to know how lawyers work, what standards they use, what you want them to do for you, where, when and how and - most of all - how well it all needs to be done.

Just as with any other contractor (e. g.: a construction company for building a house), you need to be careful about how to select a lawyer:

1. Have a “blueprint”;
2. Present that to more than one contractor;
3. Ask for an estimate of the costs and of the probability of success;
4. Ask for references as to similar jobs done;
5. Compare the answers you get, and
6. Make your selection.

Things don’t end there.  You need to monitor:

7. Start dates and locations of court actions and be certain that the lawyer is prepared and will be there;
8. That your intentions are properly translated into legal actions, and
9. You need to have included in a court order for visitation or custody that the police will be required to enforce the provisions of the court order issued if the mother of the child obstructs the court order in any way or manner.

Here is another recommendation that I give to all men who come to me with problems similar to yours.  As crazy as that may seem to you, you must have a paternity test done before you do anything else (or as soon as possible and concurrently with anything else that you feel needs to be done right now).  The reasons for that are explained in the following:

• Paternity
• Paternity Fraud
• The Henry-Report on Paternity Fraud (2007)

Hope that helps (but write if you need more pointers).

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Divorce, Men and Women Work, Shared Parenting, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

January 6, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Everyone must borrow money now or then.  If so, he should use a mortgage and loan calculator to help him make the right decisions.

Here is a link to the FOXbusiness mortgage calculator.

The FOXBusiness mortgage calculator requires Java to be enabled on your PC, but is very easy to use.

Amongst the things it can do for you, the FOXBusiness mortgage calculator lets you calculate by how much the term of your mortgage or loan will be reduced if you make an extra payment of any desired amount at any given time, or if you wish to increase the amount of your monthly loan payment.

Of course, none of that will matter if you like contributing to the record profits our banks are making each year, or if you don’t mind if your government is squandering the taxes you pay.

Isn’t it odd that many people complain about the ever-increasing taxes they must pay to the government, but that very few people ever mention the far higher interest payments they make to the banks?

I suppose that if governments were as adept at public relations work as the banks are, we could even get to like paying taxes.

Some people quit working or don’t work overtime because they wrongly feel that paying the taxes for that makes that work unprofitable.  The reality of that is that as long as one pays taxes he is making it worth-while for him to go to work.

On the other hand, few people will quit working because they must make interest payments to the banks.  I suppose that is because the possession of personal things (that are in reality owned by the banks for the duration of the loans the banks provided for them) is deemed to be more important than to enjoy the goods and services provided through the government out of our tax contributions — goods and services that we ostensibly own and get to share equitably.

–Walter

Posted in Men and Women Work, Education | Print | No Comments »

January 6, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Accuracy in Media (AIM)

AIM Report: New Evidence of Liberal Media Bias - November A

AIM Report | By AIM Report | November 6, 2006

NEW EVIDENCE OF LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS

By Andrew G. Selepak*

(Editor’s Note: This study found evidence that conservatives were more likely to perceive media bias than liberals, but that both conservatives and liberals detected bias in media outlets that leaned against their political perspectives. In the end, however, because conservatives were more critical of the media both in general and in response to specific outlets, the results seem most consistent with the claim that a liberal political bias exists in the mainstream news media.)

Conservative claims of a liberal media bias are having an impact upon public perceptions of news coverage.

Claims of media bias are not new, but increasing claims of bias, especially a perceived liberal media bias, have led to diminishing credibility ratings among news outlets, and an increased level of skepticism of all news coverage.

A 2004 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed that 53% of Americans agreed with the statement, “I often don’t trust what news organizations are saying,” and 48% believe that the people who decide on news content are “out of touch,” and those numbers are rising. In 1987, 62% of the public believed election coverage was free of partisan bias, down to 53% in 1996, 48% in 2000, and 38% by 2004….(Full Story)

Posted in Media Bias | Print | 1 Comment »