Frustrated with our legal system

LuckyDuck · Thursday at 11:40 PM

Howdy Hide,

I'm sure I"m not the first to step on their soapbox here about this topic (nor will I be the last). I also know many folks that participate here are either employed or have been employed in one way or another with the DOJ industry. It's not my intention to cast stones towards those folks (as far as I know I've always avoided the "uniform hanger" and whatever terminology typically found in these type of threads). That said- as the thread title suggests I'm beyond weary of what I see it do to folks that (I at least) perceive to be otherwise normal individuals/citizens/Americans/whatever and just have their lives completely upended once they find themselves sucked into the gravity that is the DOJ 'system'.

I've seen so many examples over the years, as I'm sure many here have, with things like say divorces. An otherwise upstanding guy making the mistake of marrying someone who (for so many reasons that it could be a discussion itself) find themselves in a bitter court battle draining their finances that they spent years/decades often building because their wife got 'bored'/whatever and then have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars in legal fees, lose their house, lose their kids, lose their retirements & lifesavings, and also careers and reputation at the otherwise whim of someone that they trusted and spent all those years supporting.

Another example I've seen firsthand that isn't often discussed is DUI charges. Folks getting their pictures in the news and lengthy proceedings & expenses to challenge the charge afterwards and even if they "win" as not being guilty of the charges, they're out significant money/have fallout for their reputations, lose significant time, etc. It may vary by state but I even know of folks arrested, publicized, and were brought in for some additional testing (typically blood testing in these parts) and come back completely sober as in no alcohol, drugs, etc in their system at all. And the DA just says 'eh' we'll dismiss the charges (which were brought up likely months previously).

And one might think that's a "one off" type of situation but again, it may be regional, but there was an investigation here a few years ago on the frequency of folks being arrested and brought in for further testing after failing whatever roadside test (BAC/roadside sobriety) and it was found that something like 25% never were brought to trial because the testing confirmed that they had no alcohol/drugs in their system and it was a 'mistake'. I could continue on my opinions with that alone but that's not what's driving this post/what makes it relevant here.

I'm often criticized for posting longwinded blocks of text so I'll do a quick <break> and continue in another posting.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Thursday at 11:53 PM

So with all of that above now said (and hopefully providing context and remaining neutral as well), the actual 'meat & potatoes' behind my thoughts of this post...

A devil dog buddy of mine got caught up in the DOJ's gravity well last year and is still having a hell of a time with it. Some of which were poor decisions he made (at least now in hindsight) but not exactly crimes against the state either.

The long and short (and yes I am trying to be concise) is he entered into a relationship with a lady with a kid a number of years ago and initially things went well enough that he thought it was leading into marriage. About... 1.5-2years into the relationship, he sold his townhouse (his only real asset) to purchase a house for him & the other two. Prior to this, he had established (what he believed to be a solid relationship with the woman) but understandably a personal connection with the child (which isn't his if that wasn't clear/he was dating a single mom from the get go).

Well I'm sure you can see where this story is going (although there's a special dash of 'stupid' in it). When he purchased the house, the mortgage was in his name completely because adding the 'then' girlfriend wouldn't have helped as she had negative credit (because she's a brave independent woman/single mom) but where he (really) fucked up is he put her on the deed, I'm guessing as a compromise to her not being on the mortgage at the time(?).

Of course, the relationship went south between him & the woman but the very young child was still attached with my buddy. And so sets the stage as they say...

I'll do another <break> here.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 12:13 AM

So continuing on-

They split up and gets a temporary apartment (thinking the woman will 'cool' down) the whole time because, once again, he thought they were going to get married. So now he's paying a month-to-month apartment, she's living in the house with the kid she had previous to them dating and he's paying for the mortgage too because he's the only name on it.

Well the child (again having an established relationship hence why he purchased the house in the first place) continued to reach out to him and the mother used that as grounds to get what's called a PFI in place against him (mainly for spite over whatever they were separated about). Apparently the threshold for getting a PFI granted is incredibly low as far as evidence so it was granted (while he was thinking this would all blow over and they'd work things out).

Yeah- nope. Woman's wrath and all of that being what it is, she files and is given a PFI so now he can't go back to the house he's paying for. Not only that- the sheriff comes and confiscates all of his guns and he's barred from purchasing so much as a Ruger 10/22 to do an Appleseed shoot with because of this PFI.

Now he's deeper in legal fees trying to see what to do about this situation only to learn he can't fight the PFI & gun rights being stripped away AND deal with the legal fees and potential buyout requirements to get his (now) ex-girlfriend off of the deed to his house which he put just about everything he had equity wise from his townhouse and later savings to upgrade.

What little he had left is now going to legal fees and paying for a house and an apartment. And this is all to a woman he was never married to, which had a child he didn't father, who tried to talk to him because they didn't understand why he wasn't with their mother, all because he made a stupid mistake of putting his (then) girlfriend's name on the deed...

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 12:21 AM

It just blows my mind how much his life has been shattered (and I'm intentionally not getting into the emotional toll this is taking) with the house alone.

Then you add in the legal fees (using money he doesn't have because of the crazy increase we saw in housing), the debt he's accruing, essentially his entire 2nd Amendment rights being thrown in the trash bin until the PFI expires (since he can't afford to 'fight' it) the lose of the real estate & existing firearm property, etc. etc.

It's just so overwhelming and it's not even me (although I've seen this story play out over and over with buddies of mine). In this case he has to continue to explain this to his employer (back to the reputation remarks I've made) and his coworkers have some understanding of this because he has to miss meetings at work to deal with this crap.

Oy, so much I can say but I don't want to venture into the crass language for this particular topic.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 12:37 AM

Alrighty-

I'll wrap this up and step down from my pulpit here- but I do hope I was able to voice my frustrations and present the context in a manner that was descriptive while also not being offensive to anyone that operates in that industry or going off on crazy land type of tangents. I'm sure that for every quirk there's an opposite opinion/experience that can be voiced too on where the alternate story shows the same negative outcome.

TL/DR: (Since I know it'll be looked for) A buddy of mine made one stupid mistake and is financially ruined dealing with the legal system trying to correct it while having the same system turned against him for a fraction of the cost and without nearly the evidence or resources necessary for him to defend himself against said accusations.

I've seen this played out time & time again with disastrous ramifications for the folks that get stuck in this web and I'm beyond frustrated tonight continuing to see this nonsense while not having a better alternative to offer to an imperfect system.

Thank you for letting me vent regardless.

-LD

corsairpilot62 · Friday at 4:23 AM

Does anyone remember when this forum was about precision shooting and rifle builds?

supercorndogs · Friday at 4:28 AM

The Bear pit? No.

corsairpilot62 · Friday at 4:29 AM

supercorndogs said:
The Bear pit? No.

Fair enough.

wvfarrier · Friday at 4:36 AM

In the vast majority of cases, the process IS the punishment. The reality is that if your are not convicted, the agency or government entity that brought charges should be required to pay your legal fees. It would seriously cut back on extraneous charges

supercorndogs · Friday at 4:58 AM

It used to be if you if you won your case against the state of Colorado they did have to pay your legal fees, according to an old farmer I worked for that died a few years ago. Thats exactly how it should be. Although it should come from the individual bringing charges not the tax payer.

Matches Malone · Friday at 5:14 AM

Ah. Marines still letting pussy destroy their lives. It must be a Friday.

If your mind is blown about that, you’ll be blown away with the UCMJ and their kangaroo court. I had one kid who had to register as a sex offender because one of the dod contractors “said” he touched her butt. All evidence was based on her word alone; and they made some rule that you could point out the “victims” behavior. Turned out she had been written up for sexual harassment at the same command.

Wildly stupid shit man.

Bigfatcock · Friday at 5:18 AM

Single moms are for banging, not relationships.

DarnYankeeUSMC · Friday at 5:34 AM

Pussy be expensive.
Any more background on the single mom with a negative credit rating? Was she working her way through medical school working as a stripper when the Marine met her? Maybe tending bar in Oceanside? Did she have a side job selling used cars?

Matches Malone · Friday at 5:58 AM

DarnYankeeUSMC said:
Was she working her way through medical school working as a stripper when the Marine met her?Maybe tending bar in Oceanside?

whole division probably went through her before they even met. Marines definitely stormed that beach.

NoDopes · Friday at 6:31 AM

Did were ever get pictures of that teacher that did amateur porn?

Charger442 · Friday at 6:33 AM

so here's my stupid question, he bought the house with mortgage in his name only. did he then fully pay off the mortgage and THEN added her to the deed as an owner?

he can't have a mortgage and have different people on a deed at the same time. he doesn't get the deed until be pays off his mortgage.

so did he refinance and add her to the mortgage note?

it sounds like he got scammed in a honey pot from the outset

Animal357 · Friday at 6:34 AM

We have a criminal justice system. What we need is a victim justice system

DarnYankeeUSMC · Friday at 6:37 AM

NoDopes said:
Did were ever get pictures of that teacher that did amateur porn?

Not even a name to look up. I believe that concern for her privacy was the issue for no pictures or name

BurtG · Friday at 7:02 AM

The whole system is a racket to keep judges defense and states attorneys , prison guards , probation officers , pigs etc employed

Just like how if there isn’t drama in a relationship the female will make some , if there is t enough crime , the state will find some where there isn’t any

Bigfatcock · Friday at 7:08 AM

DarnYankeeUSMC said:
Pussy be expensive.
Any more background on the single mom with a negative credit rating? Was she working her way through medical school working as a stripper when the Marine met her? Maybe tending bar in Oceanside? Did she have a side job selling used cars?

Pussy is cheap.

hankpac · Friday at 7:14 AM

LuckyDuck said:
Howdy Hide,

I'm sure I"m not the first to step on their soapbox here about this topic (nor will I be the last). I also know many folks that participate here are either employed or have been employed in one way or another with the DOJ industry. It's not my intention to cast stones towards those folks (as far as I know I've always avoided the "uniform hanger" and whatever terminology typically found in these type of threads). That said- as the thread title suggests I'm beyond weary of what I see it do to folks that (I at least) perceive to be otherwise normal individuals/citizens/Americans/whatever and just have their lives completely upended once they find themselves sucked into the gravity that is the DOJ 'system'.

I've seen so many examples over the years, as I'm sure many here have, with things like say divorces. An otherwise upstanding guy making the mistake of marrying someone who (for so many reasons that it could be a discussion itself) find themselves in a bitter court battle draining their finances that they spent years/decades often building because their wife got 'bored'/whatever and then have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars in legal fees, lose their house, lose their kids, lose their retirements & lifesavings, and also careers and reputation at the otherwise whim of someone that they trusted and spent all those years supporting.

Another example I've seen firsthand that isn't often discussed is DUI charges. Folks getting their pictures in the news and lengthy proceedings & expenses to challenge the charge afterwards and even if they "win" as not being guilty of the charges, they're out significant money/have fallout for their reputations, lose significant time, etc. It may vary by state but I even know of folks arrested, publicized, and were brought in for some additional testing (typically blood testing in these parts) and come back completely sober as in no alcohol, drugs, etc in their system at all. And the DA just says 'eh' we'll dismiss the charges (which were brought up likely months previously).

And one might think that's a "one off" type of situation but again, it may be regional, but there was an investigation here a few years ago on the frequency of folks being arrested and brought in for further testing after failing whatever roadside test (BAC/roadside sobriety) and it was found that something like 25% never were brought to trial because the testing confirmed that they had no alcohol/drugs in their system and it was a 'mistake'. I could continue on my opinions with that alone but that's not what's driving this post/what makes it relevant here.

I'm often criticized for posting longwinded blocks of text so I'll do a quick <break> and continue in another posting.

-LD

The old saying “Sometimes your sole purpose in life is to serve as an example to others” applies here.
Nobody on this forum can save your buddy. But we can take a lesson often repeated, about “crazy” women, Liberal women, single, empowered mothers, and all the other entanglements. Lots of points at which he could have walked away unscathed.
What else?
“Lawyers are only interested in the billable hours”,
“don’t talk to the police”,
“don’t drink and drive”
“Get a prenup”
“Don’t put your dick in crazy”
“Rent don’t own”
It’s a tale often told, a tale o woe.

diggler1833 · Friday at 7:40 AM

My ex wife hasn't worked a single day since the birth of our first child...and that daughter is now 20 and in college off on her own.

We were married 8.5 years while I was in the Corps. She skimmed my bank account to the point that I had to stay deployed in order to stay out of the red financially. When I divorced her, she got my house that she never made a payment on, and eventually ended up with 18.5% of my retirement...plus child support.

Our youngest will be 18 in a couple more years, but until then I'm still shelling out $1,500 monthly to a woman who was utterly worthless as a spouse. She is such a worthless bitch that my oldest daughter caught my ex taking money from her (the daughter's) bank account. Their relationship sucks too for obvious reasons.

It is inappropriate of me to wish misfortune upon someone, so I won't. But that doesn't mean I won't crack a smile if I heard about it happening.

Nik H · Friday at 7:55 AM

Charger442 said:
he can't have a mortgage and have different people on a deed at the same time. he doesn't get the deed until be pays off his mortgage.

That is incorrect. The mortgage can be entirely the obligation of one person. Often, it is necessary if one person has poor credit.

The deed can be in both names. If you're married, the deed is usually written as a Joint Tenancy (JT). Marriage is not a prerequisite for this. The deed for ownership has nothing to do with the mortgage other than it names the financial institution that holds the claim on the property

Rthur · Friday at 8:00 AM

wvfarrier said:
In the vast majority of cases, the process IS the punishment. The reality is that if your are not convicted, the agency or government entity that brought charges should be required to pay your legal fees. It would seriously cut back on extraneous charges

Don't know if I agree with this ^^^.
If it came out of their retirements, yes.
Tax payer, like they give a fuck...
See blue line payouts.

R

NoDopes · Friday at 8:00 AM

When we bought our house, the bank wouldn't allow it. They don't want a competing entity against the title that they don't via the mortgage.

Charger442 · Friday at 8:08 AM

Nik H said:
That is incorrect. The mortgage can be entirely the obligation of one person. Often, it is necessary if one person has poor credit.

The deed can be in both names. If you're married, the deed is usually written as a Joint Tenancy (JT). Marriage is not a prerequisite for this. The deed for ownership has nothing to do with the mortgage other than it names the financial institution that holds the claim on the property

im in to learn something.

if i do not have claim to the property, IE i still have an outstanding mortgage with lien, how am i able to modify the deed?

Nik H · Friday at 8:17 AM

Charger442 said:
im in to learn something.

if i do not have claim to the property, IE i still have an outstanding mortgage with lien, how am i able to modify the deed?

Not sure I understand your question.

If you're the mortgagor and not named on the deed, you're not the brightest person. I have never heard of that happening. Don't think your attorney would advise such an outcome. I don't believe that a bank would write such a mortgage contract.

whatsupdoc · Friday at 8:52 AM

Most men were, are and continue to be stupid. Zero reasons to get married to a single mom with bad
finances. As soon as she gets her claws into your money you are doomed. That is what they do!!!!

Someone dumped her before she met you, sometimes you can find good stuff in the trash but mostly its garbage.

Charger442 · Friday at 9:02 AM

Nik H said:
Not sure I understand your question.

If you're the mortgagor and not named on the deed, you're not the brightest person. I have never heard of that happening. Don't think your attorney would advise such an outcome. I don't believe that a bank would write such a mortgage contract.

i guess my question breaks down to this: how can someone be listed on the deed and not be listed on the mortgage? im sure there are scenarios, but i have never been a party to this.

i bought my house with a mortgage before me and my wife got married. there was no need to put her on the mortgage because since we were married, she was entitled to half my shit anyway.

Bigfatcock · Friday at 9:03 AM

Pre-nuptial agreements for the win for pre-marital assets.

Nik H · Friday at 9:13 AM

Charger442 said:
i guess my question breaks down to this: how can someone be listed on the deed and not be listed on the mortgage? im sure there are scenarios, but i have never been a party to this.

i bought my house with a mortgage before me and my wife got married. there was no need to put her on the mortgage because since we were married, she was entitled to half my shit anyway.

The mortgage is a legal construct for a secured loan. The collateral is the property. The lender has a legal lein to that collateral should you not meet the terms of the contract. When you write a mortgage contract, there has to be a legal connection of ownership back to the mortgagor. If you were not on the deed, there is no such connection. The lender cannot attach a lien to the property since you are not a legal owner, effectivey making it an unsecured loan. If you walk away, they are left holding the bag. They would never approve of such a scenario.

The deed is a legal construct that provides proof of ownership. The number of owners is irrelevant. In your case, you are joint tenants of the collateral, the property, even though your wife is not listed as such on the deed. Her claim to ownership is that she is your lawfully wedded wife. The lender still has the primary right to foreclose should YOU, the mortgagor, not meet the terms of the obligation. Your wife is second in line.

If you are not married and you add someone to the deed as a co-owner, it is your prerogative. Nothing I would recommend. From the lender's perspective, it doesn't matter. They have the primary lien should something run afoul. They always come first. The other owners stand in line.

LuckyDuck · Friday at 7:35 PM

wvfarrier said:
In the vast majority of cases, the process IS the punishment. The reality is that if your are not convicted, the agency or government entity that brought charges should be required to pay your legal fees. It would seriously cut back on extraneous charges

I would be lying if I said that exact same thought hadn't crossed my own mind a time or two. I can see how that would create new issues though as well.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 7:38 PM

supercorndogs said:
It used to be if you if you won your case against the state of Colorado they did have to pay your legal fees, according to an old farmer I worked for that died a few years ago. Thats exactly how it should be. Although it should come from the individual bringing charges not the tax payer.

Now that's interesting- I haven't heard that myself but you piqued my curiosity and I might have to look into that this weekend. As I just mentioned in a previous reply I could see how that'd make new problems in itself but I'd be very interested to learn that if that system did exist what the macro results of it was.

Appreciate you sharing that comment.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 7:44 PM

Matches Malone said:
Ah. Marines still letting pussy destroy their lives. It must be a Friday.

If your mind is blown about that, you’ll be blown away with the UCMJ and their kangaroo court. I had one kid who had to register as a sex offender because one of the dod contractors “said” he touched her butt. All evidence was based on her word alone; and they made some rule that you could point out the “victims” behavior. Turned out she had been written up for sexual harassment at the same command.

Wildly stupid shit man.

You aren't kidding there but he's been out long enough to know better by this point. I'll just say he has a 'type' of women he's attracted to/pursues and yep- still going after the same demographic. He assures me that the 'X' version of this one is the "good kind" in his words.

As for the 2nd part of your comment- yeah I've seen similar things there too to the point I don't doubt your story one iota but I likely wouldn't be able to remain as neutral in my opinions for this thread as I was attempting to be here when it comes to that particular... I'll say topic. But if he had to register as a sex offender on top of that... that's, well just some next level type of shit and incredibly life ruining.

-LD

Im2bent · Friday at 7:45 PM

I stopped reading at " he was dating a single mom" and " he put her on the deed". WTF.

LuckyDuck · Friday at 7:52 PM

Bigfatcock said:
Single moms are for banging, not relationships.

I've always felt that way too (at least when I was younger and single) but mainly because I just knew that a relationship with a single mom meant the ex was always going to be part of that deal and I personally don't have it in me to deal with that kinda of drama while dating let alone making a lifetime commitment to it.

This though was the first situation I (at least personally) know of where the kid really fucked the guy over from dating. To be clear though- the mom is the vindictive one, the buddy I'm talking about actually still cares very much for the child but apparently the child trying to still communicate with the guy was leveraged against him. It's just something else.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 7:58 PM

DarnYankeeUSMC said:
Pussy be expensive.
Any more background on the single mom with a negative credit rating? Was she working her way through medical school working as a stripper when the Marine met her? Maybe tending bar in Oceanside? Did she have a side job selling used cars?

That genuinely made me laugh cause I catch what you're throwing there.

To answer your question though- just some random pussy (this time with a kid) that happened to be his type and he fell for her & the kid. She wasn't a waitress from Applebee's either (think you missed mentioning that particular one) but as I said in a previous response, this jarhead was out long enough to know better.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 7:59 PM

Matches Malone said:
whole division probably went through her before they even met. Marines definitely stormed that beach.

Not a barracks ho (although I have an unrelated story or so on that type of critter).

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 8:00 PM

NoDopes said:
Did were ever get pictures of that teacher that did amateur porn?

I was wondering that myself about 2 weeks ago when I noticed the hot wife/gf thread hasn't seen any life.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 8:21 PM

Charger442 said:
so here's my stupid question, he bought the house with mortgage in his name only. did he then fully pay off the mortgage and THEN added her to the deed as an owner?

he can't have a mortgage and have different people on a deed at the same time. he doesn't get the deed until be pays off his mortgage.

so did he refinance and add her to the mortgage note?

it sounds like he got scammed in a honey pot from the outset

In all honesty- I don't know enough about the process to answer your question accurately and as such I'd prefer not to try to come across as an expert (because I'm not).

I just went through the mortgage process for the 1st time myself last year so what he said sounds accurate to me but I very likely may be giving the right information but using the incorrect terminology which is causing the confusion.

If you'll allow me to rephrase/restate what he did and use more neutral terms perhaps that'll make more sense or at least allow someone more knowledgeable than myself to fill in the blanks I can't.

Prior to meeting this woman- he owned a townhouse for a handful of years (ballpark- say 3-4) and the reason he purchased said house was for the woman & the kid to live together (with the intention of them marrying shortly afterwards). Now this part was incredibly stupid and there's plenty of evidence as to why available here with 20/20 vision but if I'm being fair, I should also point out that this would have been during COVID times... say within a year of when the 'Delta' (I think I have that right) variant flipped everything upside down again when it looked like things would be easing up and also was around the time when the "vaccine's" were starting to come into the 24/7 news cycle (not hijacking my own thread here, just trying to provide some context that might be of value to say that it was a slightly more complicated time to just go out & "get hitched" first). Only other thing I'll add (again for a time reference point only) is this would be when the debate focused around 'vaccine passports' and all that. Given the type that my buddy pursues, this type tends to have traditional families so that "may" have been a factor.

That all said and for whatever reasons he had, they pursued the house first. The way the paperwork was structured is he alone was contractually set up as responsible for making the monthly installment loans to the bank that provided the mortgage (due to the reason that including her would have jacked up things because of her credit) but both of their names are on whatever document establishes ownership of the property.

I mentioned I just went through this and (while not an expert) from what little I do know, I suspect this would be 'doable' here. When we purchased our house, the loan itself was based off of my information alone. Not because my wife's credit/finances were jacked up, but only because for the amount of house we were looking to purchase/borrow would be covered by my information alone so it was easier to get through the process omitting hers. That said we're both on the loan amount.

Maybe that's because we're married, maybe that's because the loan officer and we were able to work it out that way (there was an awful lot going on with this process so my memory is hazy) but we're both on the loan and both on the... maybe the correct word is 'title' instead of 'deed'? Fuck if I know.

Hopefully that answered your question or at least shows an attempt to. Point being, the way the paperwork is set up is he had to pay but both are listed as the owners.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 8:22 PM

Animal357 said:
We have a criminal justice system. What we need is a victim justice system

Agreed, at least it feels that way sometimes when you look "behind the curtain" of the justice system.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 8:35 PM

BurtG said:
The whole system is a racket to keep judges defense and states attorneys , prison guards , probation officers , pigs etc employed

Just like how if there isn’t drama in a relationship the female will make some , if there is t enough crime , the state will find some where there isn’t any

I can agree with a lot of your statement. Truth be told- had I not seen it for myself I would have doubted you and likely would still be wearing my 'rose colored glasses'.

But I keep seeing examples of lives being completely jacked up by the system because they dated/married the wrong woman or were driving home from a bar with a brake light that was out, things of that nature.

What I find to be rather shocking is how it seems to resemble a conveyer belt type of operation. I don't personally see it this way, but maybe some do, but it may be argued as the process being made 'efficient' and streamlined. From my narrow field of view at least, it strikes me as a machine that needs to be fed, and it's a machine that doesn't go hungry either and the 'food' exists because the 'machine' exists rather than the original intention of/purpose for what the machine was built to address.

The "Part II" of my personal opinion/observation is yet another comment- I feel like once we went to that... framework, we completely lost our way on the intentionally set basic principles the said process was built upon. Concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable man standard" come to my mind with the last opinion I shared as being the causalties of what we now have.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 8:36 PM

Bigfatcock said:
Pussy is cheap.

Asking for a friend, my single friends that is- PM me with details for where this cheap pussy is

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 8:43 PM

hankpac said:
The old saying “Sometimes your sole purpose in life is to serve as an example to others” applies here.
Nobody on this forum can save your buddy. But we can take a lesson often repeated, about “crazy” women, Liberal women, single, empowered mothers, and all the other entanglements. Lots of points at which he could have walked away unscathed.
What else?
“Lawyers are only interested in the billable hours”,
“don’t talk to the police”,
“don’t drink and drive”
“Get a prenup”
“Don’t put your dick in crazy”
“Rent don’t own”
It’s a tale often told, a tale o woe.

No argument from me.

Ronws · Friday at 8:48 PM

My brother got married to his first wife in New Hampshire and they lived there. First in Seabrook and then in Exeter.

She turned out to be crazy after they had a child, a daughter. One time, she hauled off and hit him and he could have knocked her out. By that time, he had his black belt in karate for a number of years. But he kept his cool and called the police and she got charges of domestic battery.

Which still did not get her custody rights taken away. When they divorced, he specifically requested the state garnish his wages for the child support. This means they took money from his check and then the government wrote her a check. That way, she could not say that he didn't and then get him thrown in jail.

Later, she was suspected of arson when a fire burned down the house she was living in.

Eventuallly, my brother got full custody and raised his daughter to adulthood and now she is grown and has a kid.

So, in that case, my brother was smart and used the legal system to keep himself out of trouble.

LuckyDuck · Friday at 8:51 PM

diggler1833 said:
My ex wife hasn't worked a single day since the birth of our first child...and that daughter is now 20 and in college off on her own.

We were married 8.5 years while I was in the Corps. She skimmed my bank account to the point that I had to stay deployed in order to stay out of the red financially. When I divorced her, she got my house that she never made a payment on, and eventually ended up with 18.5% of my retirement...plus child support.

Our youngest will be 18 in a couple more years, but until then I'm still shelling out $1,500 monthly to a woman who was utterly worthless as a spouse. She is such a worthless bitch that my oldest daughter caught my ex taking money from her (the daughter's) bank account. Their relationship sucks too for obvious reasons.

It is inappropriate of me to wish misfortune upon someone, so I won't. But that doesn't mean I won't crack a smile if I heard about it happening.

I'm sorry to hear that (sincerely),

I doubt it's of any consolation to you but I'd "bet my hat" plenty here can personally relate to your post. The system isn't right (I know it's plain language but it's easier to say it fucking blows and is but a caricature of what it is supposed to be, a system about justice, real justice not an arm to 'fix' perceived social injustices).

All I can add to your remarks is at least one stranger out there in internet-land at least understands what you've been dealing with and hopes you're able to buy the most bad ass car/gun/whatever blows your skirt up when you finally can recoup that monthly payment. If for no other reason than for spite and give yourself something to smile about.

Hang in there sir.

-LD

LuckyDuck · Friday at 8:52 PM

Nik H said:
That is incorrect. The mortgage can be entirely the obligation of one person. Often, it is necessary if one person has poor credit.

The deed can be in both names. If you're married, the deed is usually written as a Joint Tenancy (JT). Marriage is not a prerequisite for this. The deed for ownership has nothing to do with the mortgage other than it names the financial institution that holds the claim on the property

Appreciate the clarification- you most certainly (and much more succinctly) addressed the comment than I was able to. Thanks for that.

-LD

Nik H · Friday at 8:57 PM

LD

There are many times I do agree with your opinions/perspective, but this isn't one of them.

Your friend made some poor decisions. Perhaps he had a poor attorney who didn't explain the possible consequences of his action to add her to the deed before being married.

This isn't a fault of the system, it is a fault of the individual. Accountability is important.

Sorry if that is hard to hear.

myronman3 · Friday at 8:57 PM

BurtG said:
The whole system is a racket to keep judges defense and states attorneys , prison guards , probation officers , pigs etc employed

Just like how if there isn’t drama in a relationship the female will make some , if there is t enough crime , the state will find some where there isn’t any

this. for the win.

LuckyDuck · Friday at 9:01 PM

Bigfatcock said:
Pre-nuptial agreements for the win for pre-marital assets.

I suspect (don't know, just suspect) that's also largely dependent on the state. I looked into prenup's myself (not that I had considerable assets but rather I had my best plan to build some) and best case scenario- it would have helped me much should my now wife have decided to call it quits 20 years after we got married (at least in PA). Prenups also seemed to be a 'leaky boat' legally speaking as far as the weight they had for the lawyers I could have afforded at least.

One thing I did learn though during that research- at least in PA the one thing that trumps (no pun intended either) prenups and marital assets is inheritances. You can fuck up a lot of things but if you do that one thing right you have some pretty strong protections here on that. Of course that wouldn't help me much either since the one asset I'd want with my father's passing isn't much more than a 90's model 7mm-08 Remington Mountain rifle with a cheap Bushnell scope on it. Put another way- I'm not expecting to inherit anything of financial value (and that's ok and a factor I'm aware of and try my best to plan accordingly).

-LD

Having trouble using the site?

Frustrated with our legal system

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Flying Lottery Machine Winner!

Ham Fisted Gorilla

Flying Lottery Machine Winner!

Ignorant wretch

Ham Fisted Gorilla

Jihad Joe

Two Star General

McCarthy Was Right

Jihad Joe

Two Star General

Sergeant

Major Hide Member

McCarthy Was Right

GOLDEN TICKET HOLDER

Two Star General

Sergeant

World's Okayest Rancher and Hog Hunter

Constantly Learning

Philomath

Two Star General

Sergeant

Constantly Learning

Old Salt

Sergeant

Two Star General

Constantly Learning

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Two Star General

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

Old Salt

first class brisket smoker

Old Salt

Old Salt

Constantly Learning

deez nuts

Old Salt

Similar threads