An interesting case was recently ruled on in the Fairfax County Circuit Court. A woman previously married was receiving spousal support from her ex-husband for several years although apparently living with a another woman (an FBI agent, no less) in a relationship that was for all intents and purposes a marraige. This woman tried to cover this up and fought the ex-husband when the husband finally had enough and filed suit to terminate spousal support.

SHE LOST THE CASE! Even though the ex-husband could not prove a sexual relationship (although it appears that there was one), the judge ruled that "in every other way" this is a marraige. Very interesting... What this means is that for those of you out there, gay or straight, if you are in a relationship, you better be careful. Spousal support is meant to be "rehabilitative", not "punitive". Ex-husbands, and finally the courts, are starting to rule against those women that have "gamed" the system. SO BEWARE! If you are a woman trying to get your ex, men have had enough, you wanted out, your out, now go get a job and move on

DOn't like paying that spousal support, huh, pete?

I know plenty of guys that pay spousal support that seems punitive. Pete - don't warn the bitches, let them get caught.

I think this is great. I heard about another case where a
woman had custody of a 10 year old son and was always gaming
her ex for more money and driving him nuts. As time went on,
the kid became a behavioral problem and the mother couldn't
do anything with him and she agreed that the best thing was
for him to live with his dad because he'd listen to him.
Two months later, she received a letter in the mail from an
attorney notifying her that her ex had filed in court for
HER to start paying child support. She was so angry she had
to take the rest of the week off. Laughed my ass off when
she had to go to court and pay up. What's good for the goose is
good for the gander. :)

This is sexist. The woman is guilty of felony counts of fraud and should be in jail.

While going through a divorce, my soon-to-be-ex came home from her liars' (uh, lawyer's) office and said "Do you know what spousal support is? My lawyer says you owe me $1400 per month!"

I replied "Do you know what go fuck yourself means?"

It was not brought up again and I never paid a cent.

I'm now in the 96th percentile salary-wise and I hear she's living in a trailer park back near our hometown.

Karma wins!

People should pay spousal support when it's needed but,it shouldn't be a life sentance, till the ex-spouse gets on there feet, maybe they stayed home with kids now they need to get back out there.
When it come to child support it is the childs right to be supported by BOTH parents, whom ever they live with, the state has a formulation for that.
So it's not always Karma, it's how the law is written. Some people act before they think. Ask my Ex

that works a government job making less than 65,000 and has to pay his ex alimony while she lives in a relative's 1.5 million dollar house in exclusive neighborhood and refuses to get a job

It's me again. Thank you for all the responses. If all of us were to get together and form a group, perhaps we can prevent these miscarraiges of justice from continuing.

What these women forget is that these deceptions are illegal, usually clear violations of the law and can be prosecuted. In the case mentioned, there were clear violations of the law that were beought to the attention of the court. I would believe (and hope) that both of these women will be prosecuted.

As an FBI agent, I would hope that the agency itself would investigate and prosecute one of there own commtting fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

where can a guy go to get justice when he can't afford to get a lawyer because of his spoiled, rich (although she claims no income) wife?

Me too Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People should pay spousal support when it's needed
> but,it shouldn't be a life sentance, till the
> ex-spouse gets on there feet, maybe they stayed
> home with kids now they need to get back out
> there.
> When it come to child support it is the childs
> right to be supported by BOTH parents, whom ever
> they live with, the state has a formulation for
> that.
> So it's not always Karma, it's how the law is
> written. Some people act before they think. Ask my
> Ex

Spousal support and child support are two very different things. Children must be supported at whatever cost to the parents. Spousal support is often a vindictive act aimed to screw the ex-husband, forever.

I'm quite happy at the way my story ended.

Easy.

pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's me again. Thank you for all the responses.
> If all of us were to get together and form a
> group, perhaps we can prevent these miscarraiges
> of justice from continuing.
>
> What these women forget is that these deceptions
> are illegal, usually clear violations of the law
> and can be prosecuted. In the case mentioned,
> there were clear violations of the law that were
> beought to the attention of the court. I would
> believe (and hope) that both of these women will
> be prosecuted.
>
> As an FBI agent, I would hope that the agency
> itself would investigate and prosecute one of
> there own commtting fraud and conspiracy to commit
> fraud.

First I dont believe your story with the gay lover, could not have happened in VA. Second, you obviously have some kind of axe to grind, maybe your ex left and now has a female house mate and you are grasping at straws to get out of something.

It's not always the man who has to pay up. My ex husband makes significantly less money than I do. Virginia is an equitable distribution state. Therefore, I have to pay child support to my husband to help him put food on the table for them, buy them clothes when they're with him, etc. We have 60/40 custody (I have the kids 60% of the time), so I help him support them financially.

Actually, you should be comended.......good to see an 'ex' that has substantially more money than the male counter-part do her part. You are part of a very few

Personally, I believe 100% percent in what has happened here. Having been in and around the court system for many years, I can't tell you how many times I have seen the husband get screwed. Soon to be ex-wives will lie, cheat, make things up, and do whatever else they can do to deceive the courts so that they get the money. AND THEY DON'T GET PROSECUTED! The far majority of the time, the husband didn't do anything wrong.

Women want equality, except when it means they actually have to work, earn a living, pay bills, etc. There are too many wives who gain weight, don't work, and complain about their lives and their husbands. Lose weight, get a job, and stop bitching. Try to fix it. Talk about it. Change it. If you want out, get out, but the grass is not greener on the other side. You will not have the same standard of living, no matter what you think, or what anybody has told you.

Many of these ex-wives will live the remainder of their lives blaming their ex-husand, stumbling through a miserable existence full of a complete lack of self-examination and a complete inability to acknowledge that they contributed to the issue in any way.

Men are not the problem, your husband is not the problem. So many of these cases are the result of the wife having an unrealistic view of reality. There is no white picket fence, there is no knight in shining aromr. Wake up! There are two of you who made a commtmment to each other. Work it out, at least try to. If you can't wotrk it out, then minimize the damage. Work out a fair and reasonable agreement. In the end it will be the children who will pay the ultimate price. Why don't you think of someone else besides yourself?

Spoke of my buddy earlier, his ex is living off her mommy and lives in la la land in one of our rich no.va.neighborhoods, refuses to work and continues to lie to the courts so she can get more from lowly public servant who has nothing all in an effort to continue to torment him

poor pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pete Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's me again. Thank you for all the responses.
>
> > If all of us were to get together and form a
> > group, perhaps we can prevent these
> miscarraiges
> > of justice from continuing.
> >
> > What these women forget is that these
> deceptions
> > are illegal, usually clear violations of the
> law
> > and can be prosecuted. In the case mentioned,
> > there were clear violations of the law that
> were
> > beought to the attention of the court. I would
> > believe (and hope) that both of these women
> will
> > be prosecuted.
> >
> > As an FBI agent, I would hope that the agency
> > itself would investigate and prosecute one of
> > there own commtting fraud and conspiracy to
> commit
> > fraud.
>
> First I dont believe your story with the gay
> lover, could not have happened in VA. Second, you
> obviously have some kind of axe to grind, maybe
> your ex left and now has a female house mate and
> you are grasping at straws to get out of
> something.

Actually, I am aware of the case Pete mentioned. The reality of the situation is that gays and lesbians actually do reside in VA and they do live together in relationships similar to marriage. They love just the same as any heterosexual does.

I think perhaps, what you were trying to say, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that based on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia stating that the Commonwealth does not recognize same sex unions of any sort, that Pete could never have won his case.

While it is true that the Commonwealth does not recognize same sex unions, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled to terminate spousal support a husband was paying to his ex-wife because his ex-wife was living in a relationship analogous to marriage with another woman. This appeal took place in June 2009 (Stroud v. Stroud). The Court of Appeals specifically stated that they are not recognizing a same sex union, but in decisions to terminate spousal support under the Code of Virginia section 20-109, a "person" can be either sex in determining if that relationship meets the requirement of 20-109 indicating a termination of spousal support.

The case Pete refers to was decided strictly on facts. In fact, the facts and evidence that ended up being the most compelling in the Court's decision were facts and evidence provided by the ex-wife, herself.

An honest woman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is sexist. The woman is guilty of felony
> counts of fraud and should be in jail.

I believe that as well. In essence, I believe that the Court was bamboozled for some time, too.

Fraud is defined as “An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.” (Black's Law Dictionary)



(I like that word, 'bamboozled', and thank you for the opportunity to use it.)

So it appears that the ex-wife in this case was not satisified with the ruling of the trial court. So she appealled to the Virginis Court of Appeals. The ex-husband represented himself PRO SE, in other words by himself, no attorney. Only the second Appellee Pro Se in the history of the Court of Appeals.

He wrote the brief and argued in front of a three judge panel of the Appellate Court, including the Chief Justice.

He won! Thats right he won. The ex-wife didn't agree and requested an enbanc hearing in front of the the entire Appellate bench, which was DENIED. Requested a hearing in front of the Supreme Court which was also Denied.

The decision was unpublished, but is available on the website.

Additionally, the court awarded damages to the ex-huband.

This is certainly a case that will have far reaching implications for those that are trying to abuse the system and their ex's. Expect to see more cases of ex's that are getting screwed to use this case.

Go dude.

I have found the Virginia divorce courts to be very fair. I paid for my ex-wife's bullshit PhD (yes, no fellowship, that's why it's a bullshit PhD). I gave up two separate extremely lucrative investment management careers to move to this bullshit area to follow her bullshit career in the federal government. It's a bullshit career not because it's the federal government, but because she can't get a step, a raise or a promotion in 4 years. So the bitch turns late thirties, has a mid-life crisis, discovers men want her on Facebook and decides she want out. OUT!!! Now I have to move out of the home I paid for because she wants NEW. I refuse. She pulls the domestic violence bullshit to get me out of the house.

Long story short, the judge hears all this and awarded me 90%+ of the assets. I got the house and most of the assets. My standard of living went UP post divorce. Way up (However living better now, Gucci sweater now
Drop top BM's, I'm the man girlfriend - Biggie Smalls). So ladies, don't assume you'll clean your man out in divorce court because mine sure didn't.

I won Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have found the Virginia divorce courts to be
> very fair. I paid for my ex-wife's bullshit PhD
> (yes, no fellowship, that's why it's a bullshit
> PhD). I gave up two separate extremely lucrative
> investment management careers to move to this
> bullshit area to follow her bullshit career in the
> federal government. It's a bullshit career not
> because it's the federal government, but because
> she can't get a step, a raise or a promotion in 4
> years. So the bitch turns late thirties, has a
> mid-life crisis, discovers men want her on
> Facebook and decides she want out. OUT!!! Now I
> have to move out of the home I paid for because
> she wants NEW. I refuse. She pulls the domestic
> violence bullshit to get me out of the house.
>
> Long story short, the judge hears all this and
> awarded me 90%+ of the assets. I got the house
> and most of the assets. My standard of living
> went UP post divorce. Way up (However living
> better now, Gucci sweater now
> Drop top BM's, I'm the man girlfriend - Biggie
> Smalls). So ladies, don't assume you'll clean
> your man out in divorce court because mine sure
> didn't.

I hope you at least got some kids out of her.

Hey "I won" - care to share the name of the law firm you used?

counsel shopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey "I won" - care to share the name of the law
> firm you used?

Shoun Bach Walinsky and Curran. Ask for Molly. She rocks!

pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I believe 100% percent in what has
> happened here. Having been in and around the
> court system for many years, I can't tell you how
> many times I have seen the husband get screwed.
> Soon to be ex-wives will lie, cheat, make things
> up, and do whatever else they can do to deceive
> the courts so that they get the money. AND THEY
> DON'T GET PROSECUTED! The far majority of the
> time, the husband didn't do anything wrong.
>
> Women want equality, except when it means they
> actually have to work, earn a living, pay bills,
> etc. There are too many wives who gain weight,
> don't work, and complain about their lives and
> their husbands. Lose weight, get a job, and stop
> bitching. Try to fix it. Talk about it. Change
> it. If you want out, get out, but the grass is
> not greener on the other side. You will not have
> the same standard of living, no matter what you
> think, or what anybody has told you.
>
> Many of these ex-wives will live the remainder of
> their lives blaming their ex-husand, stumbling
> through a miserable existence full of a complete
> lack of self-examination and a complete inability
> to acknowledge that they contributed to the issue
> in any way.
>
> Men are not the problem, your husband is not the
> problem. So many of these cases are the result of
> the wife having an unrealistic view of reality.
> There is no white picket fence, there is no knight
> in shining aromr. Wake up! There are two of you
> who made a commtmment to each other. Work it out,
> at least try to. If you can't wotrk it out, then
> minimize the damage. Work out a fair and
> reasonable agreement. In the end it will be the
> children who will pay the ultimate price. Why
> don't you think of someone else besides yourself?


I am a high earning female and believe you have valid points. It is difficult to comprehend stay at home women who spend all day and lots of money to make themselves look pretty while working women fit in workouts and shopping after the workday, making dinner and helping kids. It is difficult to watch women squander their husband's hard earned money and then lie about it. It is difficult to watch stay at home wives hire people to clean their houses and put bedsheets on the bed. It is difficult to watch these same women with all of the amenities buy dinners to go or pre-packeaged food because they can't schedule in time to cook their families nutritous meals. These same women gossip that working women's homes are not as clean or highly decorated and make comments about the yardwork. Men aren't the only ones who dislike these women, many women cannot stand them either. I think stay at home women forget how hard it is to make a buck and the bullcrap that one must put up with at work to bring home a paycheck. While setting your day in an office is less stressful than chasing after a runny nosed toddler, working women, especially part time working women, do it all and appreciate the time they spend with their children even in the monster phases.

Wow. Here is the link to the opinion;

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2042114.pdf

This poor guy got screwed and finally was able to correct what can only be described as a manifest injustice. I have been sort of following this story.

I hear that there is now a bill in front of the Virginia General Assembly that will specifically allow for the termination of Spousal Support if the person receiving support is receiving any kind of support from another person. You can get the back support already paid, as well as the attorney's fees you had to pay to get it.

Finally, make these miserable, unhappy, deceitful women get out there and join the real world. Just because you got married does not give you some "right" to receive support. Most of the time it is the wife's fault to begin with. You wanted out, you are out, now you will have to join the working world, pay bills, manage your time, etc. Welcome to real life!

After reading this opinion, it looks like the Court of Appeals acknowledged that there was fraud. I would not be surprised if this guy pursues criminal charges, that may prevent more of these gold digging women from screwing other unsuspecting husbands. Certainly looks like there is plenty of evidence to support it. Lets hope he goes for it (hint, hint). Wouldn't surprise me if her girlfriend, a federal law enforcement officer, was a part of it, or even the cause of it. Think about it....

Wow...thanks for the link...I read the opinion.

Seems pretty obvious that the guy was screwed. This woman was in a same-sex relationship with an FBI agent. They moved in together before the divorce was even final. The ex's gf even had a baby and the ex is the stay-at-home mommy for the kid while the FBI agent is the bread-winner.

Really????? Paying spousal support for that?????

Yeah, the guy should be able to get back the spousal support he paid.

Regardless of one's opinion on which sex gets to win something (or lose something), the purpose of spousal support should not be punitive.

If the ex spouse is an abel-bodied individual of reasonable working age and mind, then s/he needs to support themselves. If s/he needs some time to get on his/her feet, then the spousal support can be temporary, or even structured in a step-down manner.

Folks get divorced FROM EACH OTHER. Thus, the ties - especially financial - need to be cleanly cut as much as possible.

And, especially, spousal support is not to be paid if someone is involved with another an is fully supported by the other.'

The new law proposed to, hopefully, prevent an ex from defauding their ex through spousal support makes it a duty for the ex who enters into another cohabiting relationship like a marriage to tell the paying ex-spouse. If s/he doesn't, yes, the paying ex should be able to get back any payments s/he has made since the cohabiting and supportive relationship started...plus the monies s/he spent to get back the over-paid support.

It's a good law they've proposed: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+HB2187

>>>§ 20-110. Maintenance and support for a spouse to cease on remarriage or cohabitation.

If any former spouse to whom support and maintenance has been awarded shall thereafter marry, such support and maintenance shall cease as of the date of such marriage. The spouse entitled to current support shall have an affirmative duty to notify the payor spouse immediately of such remarriage. Failure of such spouse to notify the payor shall entitle the payor to restitution and the court may order restitution equal to the amount of any current support and maintenance paid after the date of the remarriage, together with interest from the date of the remarriage and reasonable attorney's attorney fees and costs. For purposes of this section, the terms "marriage" and "remarriage" include habitually cohabiting with another person in a relationship analogous to a marriage. <<<

Difference between men and women.....When I divorced from my active duty wife, I did not pursue any portion of the retirement, nor did I claim any spousal support as she made more than I did, because I am in college.


A woman in my situation would have taken everything.

They are GAY! Read that opinion. Even the judges basically said they were - "more than a mere friendship", "hard pressed to find roommates like this". Talk about politically correct, geez. Why didn't they just say they are - THEY ARE LESBIANS! Every criminal says they didn't do it, apparently so do LESBIANS! I think it is great that these morally deficient mental defectives were caught! Hooray, being GAY doesn't mean you can get away with breaking the law!

More important are they attractive lesbians, it makes a difference you know.

Fantasize away!
Attachments:

......... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Difference between men and women.....When I
> divorced from my active duty wife, I did not
> pursue any portion of the retirement, nor did I
> claim any spousal support as she made more than I
> did, because I am in college.
>
>
> A woman in my situation would have taken
> everything.


Unfortunately I ALMOST agree with you. During my divorce, I never asked for a dime of support. My ex made more than I did, but not that much more. My attorney asked me if I wanted to ask the court for support and I said no...just split the assets and make it a clean break.

I did not want to have to keep any sort of contact with my ex (and I bet he felt the same way). It worked out great, but most of all...it was fair.

So, not ALL women, but unfortunately a majority, I believe, would try to take everything.

BeenThere Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think this is great. I heard about another case
> where a
> woman had custody of a 10 year old son and was
> always gaming
> her ex for more money and driving him nuts. As
> time went on,
> the kid became a behavioral problem and the mother
> couldn't
> do anything with him and she agreed that the best
> thing was
> for him to live with his dad because he'd listen
> to him.
> Two months later, she received a letter in the
> mail from an
> attorney notifying her that her ex had filed in
> court for
> HER to start paying child support. She was so
> angry she had
> to take the rest of the week off. Laughed my ass
> off when
> she had to go to court and pay up. What's good for
> the goose is
> good for the gander. :)

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH BEST STORY EVER!

I think this is a fantastic example of the legal system actually working despite itself. GAY people want equality, well here you go. Equal means you can't lie, you can't cheat. Equal means following the law and if you don't - SNAP - you get in trouble and have to pay up.

Lesbians are mean, hateful examples of humanity. I have yet to meet, even hear about one that doesn't hate men. Are you kidding me - this couple had a turkey baster baby? What happens when the child grows up and wants to meet her father - open up the kitchen drawer and say hello? Just another child that will end up being a sociopath because of two selfish homosexual people.

Now we have a new Attorney General, who, literally moments after he swore to uphold the Constitution of Virginia, stated that he will not uphold the Virginia Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage. He is doing this to try and make sure that people won't criticize him for having sex with men.

All gay women are the ugliest creatures to walk the earth. Seriously, have you seen these women, Rosie, Ellen, the pictures above. If you get the chance, look up the two women involved in the case this string is about. Wow. Gay people try to steal from and hurt straight people. That is exactly what happened here. Finally, a man WON over the evilness and devilworshipping lesbian community. Be on your guard if you are a straight man. Lesbians are out to get you, destroy your marriage and steal your money.

Having sex with the same gender is wrong and amoral, and STILL ILLEGAL in Virginia.

If this happens, it will only be a matter of time before the faggots want to legalize marrying animals, then dead corpses, and who knows what else.

^ How can you live with so much hate?

Haters Gonna Hate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ How can you live with so much hate?


Disliking an act =/= disliking a person.

Now you know.

Doesn't sound like he hates. Sounds like a good Christian who is sick of all these gay fucks trying to game the system

Joe G Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't sound like he hates. Sounds like a good
> Christian who is sick of all these gay fucks
> trying to game the system

Give the man a cigar.

*thumbs up*

Section 49-1 of the Code of Virginia:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as . . . . . . . . . . according to the best of my ability, (so help me God)."

I reiterate: I will support ... the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia ..."

He is a buffoon and needs to be censored, at a minimum.

He has no honor and right after he took that oath. Good grief. Congrats, Virgnians, on your new loser in office.

It because gay people are toilet bowl licking, dog shit eating, drains on our morality. The whole thought of what they do and how they do it makes me want to vomit. According to the information available abut this case, it looks like they want to be gay, but not if it has an adverse affect on their pocketbooks.

Wow. This case really happened! It looks like there was a bastard child that was produced in a laboratory as well. You can't make this stuff up! What a piece of work the ex-wife is. It looks like she spent a ton of money trying to prove that she wasn't gay, or was gay, but didn't want anybody to know, or is gay but still wanted to screw her ex-husband, or isn't gay but wants everybody to think she is, or is gay but doesn't know it, or wants to marry her dog, but thought this would be easier

Ever notice how many gay people are on disability, collecting unemployment, or welfare? Think about it AIDS, not a single gay relationship that has lasted more than 5 years, the potential for coyote ugly people to reproduce. God is trying to tell us something.....

I know some awesome gay people. It makes me sad to see the anger towards gays and lesbians.

Of course, the lesbians in the subject case don't really reflect all that well on the LGBT community, but there's no need to generalize the entire community because of some dishonest folks.

We all know better than to do that, don't we?

How many gay people do you know? Most of us normal people (those of us that believe in the inherent goodness of all straight people), don't know that many. Actually most of us won't even acknowledge that we know gay people (certainly not stand next to them) in order to prevent ourselves from getting hit by the lightening bolt that is coming.

poor pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pete Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's me again. Thank you for all the responses.
>
> > If all of us were to get together and form a
> > group, perhaps we can prevent these
> miscarraiges
> > of justice from continuing.
> >
> > What these women forget is that these
> deceptions
> > are illegal, usually clear violations of the
> law
> > and can be prosecuted. In the case mentioned,
> > there were clear violations of the law that
> were
> > beought to the attention of the court. I would
> > believe (and hope) that both of these women
> will
> > be prosecuted.
> >
> > As an FBI agent, I would hope that the agency
> > itself would investigate and prosecute one of
> > there own commtting fraud and conspiracy to
> commit
> > fraud.
>
> First I dont believe your story with the gay
> lover, could not have happened in VA. Second, you
> obviously have some kind of axe to grind, maybe
> your ex left and now has a female house mate and
> you are grasping at straws to get out of
> something.


"First I dont believe your story with the gay lover, could not have happened in VA"


^^^^LMFAO! Gays or lesbians don't exist in Virginia?????

Apply for disability...you'll get it. I swear.....

sosad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know some awesome gay people. It makes me sad
> to see the anger towards gays and lesbians.
>
> Of course, the lesbians in the subject case don't
> really reflect all that well on the LGBT
> community, but there's no need to generalize the
> entire community because of some dishonest folks.
>
> We all know better than to do that, don't we?


Oh cry a fucking river. Straight White men get lumped into one stereotypical category day in and day out, and you don't see us crying like bitches about it.

You whined...
>
> Oh cry a fucking river. Straight White men get
> lumped into one stereotypical category day in and
> day out, and you don't see us crying like bitches
> about it.


Are you kidding me? This board is filled with white males whining like little girls. Wtf???

Whiner - you must be one of those gay fucks who believes you should be able to marry anyone you want, any species you want, dead or alive, blind, deaf, or dead. As long as it is some deviant way to get your rocks off, you want it

........ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sosad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I know some awesome gay people. It makes me
> sad
> > to see the anger towards gays and lesbians.
> >
> > Of course, the lesbians in the subject case
> don't
> > really reflect all that well on the LGBT
> > community, but there's no need to generalize
> the
> > entire community because of some dishonest
> folks.
> >
> > We all know better than to do that, don't we?
>
>
> Oh cry a fucking river. Straight White men get
> lumped into one stereotypical category day in and
> day out, and you don't see us crying like bitches
> about it.

I certainly didn't mean to come across as crying. I'm just not a fan of generalizing a group of people simply because we read about dishonest cheaters defrauding someone else who are members of a group, be that group LGBTs or white males.

At the risk of going off topic from the dishonest lesbians case, I'm not sure what a stereotypical category for a straight white man is.

Seems like many things in this line of posts have been taken out of context. Gay people are entitled to marry whoever they want, because they are, well, gay. Gay people are entitled to lie, cheat, steal, because they are gay. They are entitled to create future psychopath and sociopath children because they are gay. WAIT A MINUTE, they are in context!

Waaaawaaaa waaaaaa!

Nobody cares about that slut.

A cunt is a cunt is a cunt!

hold on a second, you mean those people that I see sometimes that I can't tell if they are a man or a woman are actually lesbians?

I know, right? They are expanding the Animal Shelter down on West Ox to offer some additional living spaces for the growing lesbian population

For anyone who doesn't want to read the Court of Appeal's opinion about the case, Brennan v. Albertson, this blog does a decent job of summarizing the case:

http://www.dufflawfirm.com/2012/08/01/court-of-appeals-issued-its-decision-in-brennan-v-albertson/

Sheila E Brennan? Wasn't she the one that was killed crossing the VRE tracks?

So gay women can live together, with both earning an income, and the ex-husband still has to pay spousal support? One of them is an FBI Agent? They had a kid together? Looks like this lesbian couple should be put in jail. What does the FBI say about one their own committing fraud? Come on, we know you are watching this......

Wise Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So gay women can live together, with both earning
> an income, and the ex-husband still has to pay
> spousal support? One of them is an FBI Agent?
> They had a kid together? Looks like this lesbian
> couple should be put in jail. What does the FBI
> say about one their own committing fraud? Come on,
> we know you are watching this......

Worse than that. Apparently the ex who was receiving support (which the court terminated) was being fully supported by the FBI agent. The ex receiving support was the stay-at-home mom for the baby born of the relationship while the FBI agent was the bread winner.

The intent of spousal support is not to have the supporting ex continue paying spousal support once the ex enters into a marriage (or a relationship analogous to marriage).

Seems quite fair to me.

The part that seems shady is both the agent and the ex spouse consistently told the court that the relationship is not one analogous to marriage. They both worked quite hard to conceal facts of the nature of the relationship from the court.

Colleen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The part that seems shady is both the agent and
> the ex spouse consistently told the court that the
> relationship is not one analogous to marriage.
> They both worked quite hard to conceal facts of
> the nature of the relationship from the court.

So then why would the FBI tolerate such people being in their employ?

^ Damn good question.

Because the FBI has their token lesbian. They get to check off a whole lot of EEOC boxes. Doesn't matter if she can do the job, doesn't matter if she breaks the law. She is a lesbian for gods sake. That is all that is important. She can break all the laws she wants and their is nothing you can do about it because she is a lesbian

This couple should be reading the gay marriage thread. Do lesbians do each other in the butt?

Joe Momma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This couple should be reading the gay marriage
> thread. Do lesbians do each other in the butt?

Yes, I see it in porno flicks all the time. They use dildos with gusto. I take it you don't watch the Playboy Channel so you must be a gay troll.

Wayyy to stay on topic, jackwagons. This is what happens when desperate ppl marry then one gets a clue. If you werent that person first, you will be, wait for it. In the meantime, if you made at least double the other person's salary, if that person left home and moved to the hellhole known as northern va (among other gaping holes in this country) so you could make bank, and most of all if s/he put your kids first by staying home with them (which it appears is too difficult for every one of the selfrighteous posters above), then within reason you owe him/her, and deep down you know it, whether the holier than thou COURT rubs your nose in it or not. You cant have it all when you put very lil in anywhere besides the office.

It was George Bushes fault!

Spousal support is meant to be "rehabilitative"

the lawbooks do not say that and for a good reason: that's a bunch of reconstituded crap from a self-help legal book

------------------------------
support usually means for the children not for the adults

if there was a dependant then that is continued WHILE or WHEN the person is dependant (ie, if the guy has income or is living with a woman who has, the payments can stop)

lost opportunity and tied funds, so that a woman might have given up a lucrative career for rearing children and may have helped build a family business and is owed flat out 1/2

and if she doesn't get she'll blow the guys brains out so maybe it's better she gets it - on the other hand that's sometimes why it's sought - well that's going nowhere either way

it's assumed funds are tied. however that's not necessarily the case. there are pre-marital contracts just to avoid confusion of such decisioning later. ie, if a lazy cheating woman who works marries a guy with a good business and 100 employees which he had before he met her, would a good judge award her the right to close the business and tell the 100 people to f'off and die ? shouldn't. has in past. shouldn't.

but there is also commercial law, family law, and much else to consider

or a judge could just stay real quiet let the lawers talk and flip a coin, saying a few things to make it look like he'd done much when actually he said and did very little

i wish people could see how many judges are doing very little

in a relationship that was for all intents and purposes a marraige

FYI: commonlaw marriage is cohabitance for 2 years OR having expressed marriage publicly.

there is only interocular definition of cohabitance in law. no real support for protecting rights , the rights legally are the same as between two room-mates, though can be extended a small ammount

---------------------------
however it's hard to work in cohabitance since there is no law saying once divorced one cannot date and loose that segment of the divorce settlement

what many people in the area don't seem to know is that dating while separated can lead to losses in court. techinically separated your still married so if your dating while separated you've cheated on your spouse which leads to losses

i'm not for or against it that is the rule. actaully there's very good reason to it. to bad they rarely share the news why.

there is a waiting period demanded by courts (and extra legal feeees).

however in some cases that's an unwarranted, because there's already been waiting and failures involved. but it's the law anyway, they say

woudl a common law marriage matter

not necessarily. don't forget dependance and if any cohabitance is not impoverished

-----------------------------
that's more an upper court issue if there are lands involved in a dispute and there is cohabitance , and there are possibel conflict of interest and tax issues involved

that likely isn't much the case here.


OH MY LANDS !

she'll be comin round the mountain when she comes ...

she'll be comin round the mountain when she comes ...

she'll be comin round the mountain when she comes ...

she'll be comin round the mountain when she comes ...

she'll be comin round the mountain when she comes ...