Friday, November 27, 2020

The 1898 Wilmington Massacre

Not many people realize that shortly after the civil war there was a period when blacks were far freer and had more rights than the later Jim Crow era which began in the late 1800's. In Wilmington, North Carolina there were many black business owners, doctors, lawyers, judges and elected officials. All was good until the some whites decided to take power in what is often called the only successful coup d'etat in the United States. It was a raw power grab. Hundred of blacks were murdered. It was horrific. Not a single person was ever prosecuted. 

Now why am I writing about a massacre of blacks in 1898 on a site highlighting crime and corruption in the divorce industry? The Wilmington massacre was not just a group of criminals killing blacks. They were aided, abetted, and protected by the people in power, or at least those whites left in power after legitimately elected blacks were forced out. Where were the police? Where were the city, county and state attorneys? Why did judges overlook the crimes? That all sounds quite familiar to me.

You might scoff at that as obviously there is not a mob outside my house trying to kill me but you would be underestimating the damage unethical and criminal behavior in family court causes. The direct victims, including children, many times turn to drugs or violence, often agaisnt themselves, due to the hopelessness of achieving justice. Furthermore, they and everyone even tangentially familiar with the facts learn that crime pays so are more likely to commit crimes in their own lives. 

When the judicial system itself is unjust, society inevitably breaks down bit by bit. 

Sunday, November 22, 2020

California Family Law Corruption

I ran across a telling article on Rigging Domestic Violence Cases for the Win in California. Lawyers are worried about COVID-19... specifically how it will affect their income. So what do they do? They rig the system of course!

Secret recordings taken from a conversation of divorce attorney Nicole Ford and Michael Clark following a Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council meeting reveal a scheme being used in family court to earn more money for lawyers impacted by COVID. Meaning with courts closed, lawyers are attempting to use domestics violence cases to move to the front of the line and assure cases will be heard and fees will be paid sooner than other motions. 

Divorce lawyers are reportedly working with bailiffs in courthouses to identify couples ripe for a false domestic violence claim. According to the Mitchell Papers left behind at a San Jose private school, divorce lawyers are working with clients years before a divorce case and setting up former spouses for a nasty and corrupt divorce that include a claim of domestic violence in the family court. 

Sadly this is quite similar to what I went through. Spring made false abuse accusations in her affidavits agaisnt me. Interestingly enough she later completely and totally refuted those accusations when on the witness stand in one of the hearings. Why would she do such a thing? I suspect because the accusations were either written or ghost written by her lawyer, Nelly Wince

After all one of my lawyers wrote a completely fictitious affidavit and was astonished that I would not sign my name to it. Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.  

Friday, November 13, 2020

California Alimony Reform

In the recent election one measure not on the ballot in California was to limit alimony to 5 years. The measure was pushed by Steve Clark and California Alimony Reform but they were unable to raise enough money to gather the necessary petitions to get it on the ballot. 

Clark pays $1000/month in alimony whereas I pay three times that. Furthermore I was required to pay child support for both children until the youngest one was out of high school not just until they turned 18 as it apparently is California. Minnesota is possibly the worst state there is when it comes to divorce. 

I have been quite busy preparing for my upcoming hearing on my motion to set aside the judicial order for permanent alimony. (called spousal support in Minnesota) Every time I write about what has happened to me I am struck with how good of a case I have. This is immediately followed by a punch to the gut knowing that despite the facts, the law, and principals of equality and fairness, I have nearly always lost in court. Whether I win or lose this round, it will be the last battle. 

Sunday, November 8, 2020

The Sturggle

It is going to be a long few months for me. I have filed a motion to, among other things, set aside the 2012 court order which included permanent spousal support. Spring has also filed a motion against me asking for even more money. My motion should be a slam dunk given the clear evidence of fraud upon the court committed by my ex-wife and her lawyer along with the Minnesota state statute which specifically says court orders in family court can be set aside for fraud upon the court with no statute of limitations. See below. In addition, the very idea that a person who was not the primary parent during the marriage according to custody evaluator and who could make make just as much money as me according to the vocational evaluation would receive permanent alimony after taking the majority of marital assets, despite not contributing anything to their accumulation, is simply beyond belief.  

I know many divorced people and not one of them pays or receives alimony. The only ones who receive child support are those who have sole custody of the children. Yet I had to pay Spring child support even though I had the kids the majority of the time. 

Unfortunately my experience is that the facts, truth, the law, and justice are not particularly important factors when judges rule. The good thing is that no matter how the court rules, this living nightmare will soon end. 


Subd. 2.Reopening. On motion and upon terms as are just, the court may relieve a party from a judgment and decree, order, or proceeding under this chapter, except for provisions dissolving the bonds of marriage, annulling the marriage, or directing that the parties are legally separated, and may order a new trial or grant other relief as may be just for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under the Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 59.03;

(3) fraud, whether denominated intrinsic or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the judgment and decree or order is void; or

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment and decree or order upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment and decree or order should have prospective application.

The motion must be made within a reasonable time, and for a reason under clause (1), (2), or (3), not more than one year after the judgment and decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment and decree or order or suspend its operation. This subdivision does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment and decree, order, or proceeding or to grant relief to a party not actually personally notified as provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.