Old Comments Still Stand

I was looking through some old comments on an MPR article from 8 years ago regarding lifetime alimony and ran into several that are quite poignant. Here are a few:

Jeffrey Dobkin • 

Not only is it time to scrap lifetime alimony, the whole so called "Family" court system in New Jersey needs an overhaul. A complete overhaul.

And frankly, so do the matrimonial lawyers. My brother who divorced his abusive wife in NJ, paid his lawyer over $300,000. He now pays over $5,000 each month in lifetime alimony. He works three jobs to do this.

Here's what happens: First, the lawyers look at your assets to see what is being split up. Whoa, did someone just let the fox into the hen house? Now the lawyers know how much they can bill you. Yes, really.

Then, the lawyers bring your case before a judge or arbitrator, and your lawyer brings up a fictional point: "Oh, he dropped his salary over the last few years..." Now both sides argue this fictional point back and forth — bringing up new motions, bringing up added motions as each side adds to their bill, getting ever farther from staying on point - resolution - which by the way is never re-addressed till you - the client - starts to run out of money. I watched my brother pay over $30,000 in one month in attorney fees. I can only surmise they had the whole firm: an entire bank of lawyers, working on his case on non-existent, non-matters.

ElvinaBergmannKallett • 

I strongly urge all to support alimony reform to abolish permanent alimony. At the conclusion of a divorce both parties should walk away in an equitable manner. Prior to the marriage they were individuals with separate lives, during marriage they merged, and upon divorce they should be allowed to return to their separate lives. One should not leave the marriage permanently tethered to the other.

One should not reap the benefits of a free lifetime of alimony, while the other spends a lifetime wearing a financial yoke. By providing permanent alimony, Florida’s law today does just that. The current law rewards one spouse at the expense of the other. It took two people to make the marriage, and two people to make the divorce. In Florida, a no-fault divorce state, the permanent alimony provision certainly runs counter to the fairness and equality that is the spirit of the law, punishing the person forced to make lifetime alimony payments. It’s not fair. It’s not right. It needs to change!

Naturally there are comments taking the other side but virtually all of them assume the wife sacrificed her career to take care of the children. In my case that absolutely was not the situation and the court even agreed so. 

Lifetime alimony is ridiculous and misogynistic in virtually all cases. Women should not be treated like children who are incapable of responsible behavior. 

Spring was rewarded with lifetime alimony by the court despite the fact that she was not the primary parent during the marriage (according to the court appointed custody evaluator), could earn as much money as me (according to the vocational evaluator) and clearly committed fraud numerous times during the proceedings. Family court is a court where crime and unethical behavior is rewarded. 

Duty

Police have a duty to act when a crime is occurring. They cannot ignore it. Even if the perpetrator is a fellow police officer. Yet, rarely, if ever, are police officers punished for failure to act when the person committing the crime is a fellow officer. 

Lawyers have a duty to report violations of the lawyers rules of professional conduct. Yet, rarely, if ever, are lawyers punished for failure to report when the person committing the violation is a fellow attorney. Indeed, as far as I can tell, no lawyer in Minnesota has ever been punished for failure to report a violation of the lawyers rules of professional conduct. 

If cops and lawyers are above the law and their own rules, is it any wonder why we have bad cops and lawyers?  

New Site - LegalReformMN.org

I have created an offshoot site to DivorceInjustice.org called LegalReformMN.org which has the narrow purpose of informing the public of the unethical and criminal actions of several public officials related to my case. I dislike calling people out by name but the people in question, namely Ramsey county attorney John Choi, his criminal division director Richard Dusterhoft as well as judges William Leary III and Mark Ireland, have all acted with callus disregard to the law and principles of justice and equality under the law. They deserve to be removed from office for their actions if not outright prosecuted. Note that unlike Divorceinjustice.org, LegalReformMN.org uses real name. 

The problem with corruption in the legal system goes way beyond family law. It is the reason bad cops like Derek Chauvin can remain as police officers despite a long history of using his position to abuse people. It is the justification people use to commit crimes - after all if the judges and lawyers who are suppose to ensure justice are themselves committing crimes and getting away with them why would we expect anyone to follow the law? Corruption in the legal system undermines the very foundation of our society. Sadly such corruption is so common it has become normalized within our system of justice. 

I hope my efforts will shed some light on how bad the situation is and motivate at least a few people to change the system for the better. Time will tell. 

Rudy Giuliani Suspended

Rudy Giuliani has now had his law license suspended in both New York and Washington. D.C.  According to the New York state appellate court said there was "uncontroverted evidence" that Giuliani "communicated demonstrably false and misleading statement to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer" for Trump and his campaign "in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020."

It is quite rare that a lawyer's license to practice is suspended without at least an arrest if not a a criminal conviction. It is nice to see that it sometimes does happen. I only wish it happened for less prominent figures such as Nelly Wince when they just as clearly and egregiously break the lawyers rules of professional conduct. 

In the immediate aftermath of 911, the vast majority of Americans had a positive impression of Giuliani. He was even named Time's person of the year. Yet there as always something a bit off about him. His own aides said the most dangerous place in New York was between a microphone and Giuliani's mouth. 

About 8 years ago Giuliani gave a speak at a leadership conference at work. At the time I had a fairly favorable impression of him. However his speech was a bit strange. Quite egotistical and not very respectful of the law. So even though I was shocked by his total meltdown over the last few years, I was perhaps less so than many. 

Attorney Gives Advise On How To Get Away With Murder

I have often talked about the fact that Lawyers Professional Responsibility Boards more often work to shield lawyers from violations of the law and their professional rules than actually enforce the rules and discipline lawyers for misconduct. Well, surprise surprise, in Nashville a lawyer named Winston Bradshaw Sitton was actually disciplined. He was suspended for giving legal advise on how to get away with murder. His suspension? A measly four years. Four years for offering legal advise on how to actually get away with murder in our legal system. I guess something is better than nothing but really four years?  The kicker is that Sitton thought he did absolutely nothing wrong. 

ABC reported on the case. Here is the summary:

Attorney Winston Bradshaw Sitton reportedly wrote that if the woman wanted to kill her ex-boyfriend, she should "lure" him into her home and "claim" he broke in with intent to do her harm and she feared for her life, according to the Tennessee Supreme Court judgment.

Sitton, whose Facebook page described him as a lawyer, also emphasized in the comment that his advice was given "as a lawyer" and that if she was "remotely serious" she should delete the thread, because it could be used as proof of premeditation against her in trial, the court documents state.

"If you want to kill him, then lure him into your house and claim he broke in with intent to do you bodily harm and that you feared for your life," he wrote. "Even with the new stand your ground law, the castle doctrine is a far safer basis for use of deadly force."