Third Time The Charm for Florida?

Florida governor Rick Scott has twice vetoed alimony reform in Florida. But his reasons for doing so have been more related to tacked on child custody provisions rather than alimony reform itself. A new bill, which will hopefully not contain such provisions, is now making its way through the legislature

The text of the bill is almost comedic in in obtuseness. While reading it, I can't help but hear John Cleese from Monty Python's voice in my head.

What we now have with our current law is a litigious model that allows for arbitrary and unbridled discretion by a judge, and condones continued litigation without end. 

With attorney fees ranging from $200 to $400 per hour on average, a typical divorce can cost a minimum of $20,000, with high-income-earner divorces costing in excess of $200,000. But it doesn’t end there. Current law favoring permanent alimony forces divorced people to become bitter enemies until they die.

Marine Scandal Over Compromising Photos

Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller told senators he intends to solve issues in the Marines that prompted former and current Corps members to share nude photos of female service members online without their permission. He directly addressed female Corps members, and asked them to trust Marine leadership to "take action and correct this problem."

"I ask you to trust me personally as your commandant and when I say I'm outraged that many of you haven't been given the same respect when you earn the title Marine," Neller told them.

Time has his full statement.

Now one would think this scandal is something recently uncovered. But that seems unlikely as there have been reports for years on the matter that were simply ignored by the Marines. What is new is that the issue has made it into the news.

I find it interesting, and maybe even little hopeful, that bad and even criminal actions which may be tolerated for long time can suddenly not be so tolerated.

There is a lot of evidence that institutions will seek to protect themselves even at the cost of committing immoral and criminal actions. The Marines, with their current scandal,  have followed this patterns. The Minnesota OLPR (Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility) is another clear example of this. Although the very reason they exist is to make sure the lawyers code of ethical conduct is followed, they generally operate in a manner precisely opposite from that. They almost never discipline lawyers unless the lawyer has been convicted of a crime. When I submitted unquestionable evidence of unethical and criminal activity by Nelly Wince, they simply ignored it and have been been clearly conspiring to cover up not only Wince's actions but their own criminal behavior ever since. They keep digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole. They are operating in a classically corrupt manner.

Maybe one day, like with the Marine Corps scandal, they will have to come to terms with their actions.  Maybe one day justice will be served.

More on Vermont Alimony Reform

An article in Seven Days on Vermont's alimony reform efforts provides an update on the reform efforts of Vermont Alimony Reform headed by Rick Fleming. It also highlights some of the issues blocking reform.

"You're a man, you're a professional, and you've been married for 15 years. You're gonna get screwed."

People consistently underestimate the injustices in alimony awards believing that there are only a few "outlier" cases which are unjust when that is simply not the reality. Injustice is common where one party is willing to act unethically and unfortunately the lure of power and money is often stronger than people's conscience.   This is, in fact, the very reason we have laws - they are supposed to insure fairness and justice. With alimony, the law unfortunately often has precisely the opposite effect.

One of the main reasons that reform is so hard is because many people believe that any reform will predominantly help men given that men are the alimony payers 97+% of the time, They forget that many of these men have spouses and significant others who are also burdened with paying the alimony to the former spouse. Even if this were not the case, how will we ever have true equality without fair and just alimony awards? Do we want equality or not?

Fleming is also relying on his second wife, Amy, to make payments to his first one. If not for Amy, he said, "I would probably be living in the back of my car."

Why Isn't All Violence Bad?

Our society rightly condemns violence against women.  We even decry attitudes that are the foundation of the violence. But when it comes to violence against men we seem to glorify it. The tough guy is a hero and the man who is a victim of violence is weak. Maybe this is the reason that the vast majority of violence in our society is against men not women.

When it comes to violence agaisnt men by women, we seem to either cheer it or make it a subject for comedy. This Piranha Club  comic appeared in the Sunday paper a couple weeks ago:

Is it sexist? Clearly. You know an action or situation is sexist if by reversing the genders your attitude changes markedly. This comic would have generated an outcry if it was the man committing the violence agaisnt the women. In fact, it would be deemed so offensive I seriously doubt it would have even been published. Yet, because the woman is perpetrator and the man is the victim, it is comedic.

Such sexist attitudes also exist when it comes to alimony. If women had to pay alimony as much as men, it would be outlawed. And just as reducing violence against men and women is good for both men it women, eliminating alimony, or at least making it fair and equitable, would be good for both men and women.

Minnesota Alimony Reform - Good News

Some good news for once. A working task force with Minnesota Alimony Reform, the Minnesota Bar, Family Section of the Minnesota Bar, the Minnesota chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, an attorney representing legal aide for lower income individuals,  a Senator to be named and Rep. Peggy Scott has been formed to craft comprehensive reform of Minnesota's spousal maintenance laws.

This is exactly the path Massachusetts followed to achieve reform back in 2009. Many state initiatives has failed because they have tried to push through legislation without the involvement of the bar association and divorce lawyer groups. In my discussions with lawyers and legislators many understand the fundamental injustice of the current system and are supportive of reform. But the political reality is that without widespread support from legal groups there is a reluctance to move on the issue. Political inertia is often underappreciated.

The goal is to introduce comprehensive legislation when the 2018 legislative session begins in January.  Specifically:

1. Eliminate permanent spousal maintenance from the statute.
2. Add durational guidelines - limit alimony based on the length of the marriage.
3.  Retirement shall end the spousal maintenance obligation.
4.  A second spouses income never allowed to be a factor in a modification.
5.  If the legislative intent of our Cohabitation Alimony Reform Law passed last year is not met... fix it.

The OLPR Saga Continues

My effort to reform the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) continues. In January I had replied to their recommendation agaisnt my petition to improve the Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct. They have now replied back to me and I again to them. Both correspondences are below.

Some would say my effort is pointless because the OLPR is never going to admit that they operated in way completely antithetical to their purpose as an organization in my case and, as is fairly evident, in many others as well, That would be a de facto admission of criminality. Yet there may be someone within the OLPR organization who due to my letters actually looks at the facts and decides they do not want to be a part of what may someday be known as a criminally corrupt organization.  Not everyone wants to be the bad guy. Look to Elliot Richardson's actions during the Nixon administration for an example.

My response to the OLPR:

February 5, 2017

Susan M. Humiston
Director – Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility
500 Landmark Towers
345 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-1218

Re: Your letter to me dated January 23, 2016 regarding Rule 6, Section A of the Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.

Dear Ms. Humiston,

I view your letter dated January 23, 2016 not only with extreme dissatisfaction but find it profoundly disturbing.

Your organization has never once addressed the evidence in the complaint I filed against . Not in my original complaint against her, nor the appeal, nor in any of the subsequent correspondence I have had with the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. If you really believe that Ms.  did not knowingly lie in court and commit fraud, then let’s have a discussion on the facts.  The evidence, I will remind you is based on publically available court documents and a hearing transcript. I would be more than happy to sit down with you and go through the evidence.  

It is because your organization has ignored the evidence against and has done every thing possible to shield her from the consequences of her violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and well as the law, that I believe your organization has acted unethically and criminally. How could I possibly not think this? 

We live in a political climate where telling falsehoods repeatedly and ignoring facts has become in vogue. I guess I am old school idealist because I believe is truth, ethics and justice.

You also seem to believe that getting away with a crime is the same as not having committed it. If in the 1920s an innocent black man was lynched yet no one, despite strong evidence, was even charged with the killing does that mean murder was not committed.? No, it just means the guilty got away with the crime. Just like , with your organization’s help, got away with her crimes. 

You state that your organization routinely disciplines lawyers who have not been convicted of a crime. That is an interesting statement given that your organization has provided me with information to the contrary. Please substantiate your claim. I am especially interested in cases where  lawyers  were disciplined for lying in family court.

There is a surreal Kafkaesque element to all this. The evidence that knowing lied in court and committed fraud is so clear and so solid  it is difficult to even imagine how it could even be stronger. If you have not carefully read the evidence, then I ask you to do so. Then examine your conscious and take action based on what is right. If you do not then for the rest of your life you will have to live with the realization that you stand with the bad people of this world.  

I repeat my request that my letter dated January 7, 2016 as well as this letter be passed on to all Directors and Assistant Directors at the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and that you confirm that you have does so to me. If you do not then I will simply have to do so myself.

OLPR letter to me:

South Carolina Reform

Wyman Oxner from SC Alimony Reform wrote a feed back letter on their efforts at alimony reform in the state. Well put I say.

Reform the state’s alimony laws

To the editor:

It is time for the archaic alimony laws in South Carolina to be reformed in order to make the laws fair for both the payer of permanent alimony and the payee.

Our organization, SC Alimony Reform, has been trying to reform the laws for going on seven years, but we have been scuttled by a few members of the legislature each year. I believe we have enough votes in the legislature to reform the laws if our bills are allowed to have an up or down vote. I believe that everyone should have the right to retire without the burden of permanent life time alimony.

Our legislative supporters have re-introduced the following Senate bills that would:

• Create public policy seeking equity for both parties. No one form of alimony would be preferred over another.

• Create transitional and fixed-term alimony which would give judges more options.

• Allow payers to seek a reduction or an end to alimony at retirement.

• Bar consideration of subsequent spouse’s earnings.

Our House Representative supporters have also re-introduced a comprehensive bill that includes the main points of the Senate bills.

It is time to bring South Carolina into the 21st century and bring our alimony laws up to date. No person should have to pay another person for the rest of their life simply because their marriage failed.

— Wyman Oxner, Orangeburg, S.C.