I wonder if Debra ignored my earlier post, she can't seem to fade away without the last word. Perhaps she has some control issues of her own...
From one lawyer to another, there is no alimony or spousal suppourt for people married less than 10 (or 5? mute point, we have only been married for 3) years in my state. She is welcome and entitled to one half of all our assets, as community property, so there is nothing to fight about in a divorce.
And debs, I haven't just "been to law school", I went to Stanford, and I work for one of the most the most prestigous litigation firms in the south, I think I can handle myself on the stand. But as said, there will be no stand, so all you wheedleing (and one last groundless accusation- aside from the one time, I have neve gambled from my office and 2 hours a day was a high estimate) really has not helped me all that much.
And, if you read my previous post, I have already suggested that debs should marry me, she seems like the kind of woman that I fall for.
Debra_Law wrote: Fishin:
That's what divorce lawyers do . . . they use words to portray pictures for the court to envision . . . and as you can see, Mit gets quite defensive and reels out more rope wherein more reasonable inferences can be made. He even gets huffy when these things are pointed out to him. His wife's divorce attorney will LOVE that when he/she gets Mit on the stand. He can be provoked into shows of indignation. He might have gone to law school, but that doesn't necessarily give him the edge and prepare him to be a defendant in a divorce action.
I know, I kmow. I tend to get into the same mindset myself a lot but I remind myself that he's not here looking for legal advice. This is more of a bunch of people sitting around over coffee and chatting. If it gets to the divorce stage (and I'd hope that it doesn't) he'll have his own lawyer to protect his interests and walk him through the process.
Just take down the lawyer facade and be "just Debra". You have good insights on tons of stuff without having to be a lawyer all the time.
mit2727 wrote:
And debs, I haven't just "been to law school", I went to Stanford, and I work for one of the most the most prestigous litigation firms in the south, I think I can handle myself on the stand. But as said, there will be no stand, so all you wheedleing (and one last groundless accusation- aside from the one time, I have neve gambled from my office and 2 hours a day was a high estimate) really has not helped me all that much.
And, if you read my previous post, I have already suggested that debs should marry me, she seems like the kind of woman that I fall for.
I was talking to fishin . . . and I have handled my share of divorces and have dealt with all kinds of personalities from saints to demons.
Attorneys, and I don't care what law school they went to, are always among the worst divorce plaintiffs and divorce defendants to represent if the case ends up in litigation. You don't believe me? Read the cases and briefs . . . you'll be flabberghasted. They can't emotionally distance themselves (even though they think they can), they think they KNOW so much (when they don't know jack), and their over-inflated egos have a tendency to come shining through at the worst possible moments.
You have many things to be proud of . . . but don't think for one minute that that graduating from Stanford and working for a "prestigious" law firm somehow makes you better than all other divorce defendants when it comes to presentation. Admit it or not, but you have buttons and good divorce attorney will know how to push them. You're not infallible. No one is perfect.
But . . . like you said . . . you're not getting a divorce. You and your wife love each other and are going to work it out.
Kicky steals the ball once again... what a mind, what verve!
Having read this thread with some avidity because of the quality of posting, including the author Mit's, I am off now on my own tangent, a long life view re possibilities. I have trouble envisioning you two staying together, mits, no matter the counselling, because of the nature of your separate characters to date and the behaviors that follow from them. My own take is I think contrary to other's and yours... I want both of you out of this bind and into different lives of your own.
I think it is possible you could get into learning to deal with each other in straighter ways, but that that is unlikely given no interest in counselling by your wife. And I am still responsive to your pov and think you have been acting straightforwardly, but don't know that for sure.
You and I differ, mits, in that I do believe in divorce. Things may become unworkable and people move on, but can still love each other. All divorce does not have to be hate filled war of the roses or galaxies. I talk with my ex at least once a month, good sustaining conversations for both of us.
However it goes, I am hoping you two do not have children any time soon. I say this two hours after seeing two babies - our clients, both in the same town, one couple with a two week old sweetheart, and the other with a near talking ten month old (my eye surgeon and his wife). Those two couples are very different, but they both have visible attachment and commitment, it is always great to be with them, speaking nonbusiness-ey. Both of those children will be fine, I just know it.
If you do stay together, you both and the children would benefit from really dealing with all this power stuff, and much more.
I say this not as a person of marital success, at the end, but I maintain a certain observance of things around me.
Hmm - didn't think we were here to put folk on the stand....
ossobuco wrote:Did I put a fork in?
FoLk - and no, you didn't.
Folk on the stand, fork in the body -
If mits and wife could engage, I might be all for it. I see a long haul.
Debra,
Just an FYI on a point of law. Texas, where I live and was married, has no spousel suppourt for people who have been married less than 5 (or maybe 10) years. Even for people married more than 5 years, suppourt is limited to 36 months at no more than $2400 per month, and it is very rare get that. Look it up if you don't believe me, but this is simply the way it is.
Good luck taking this law to the Supreme Court on equal protection grounds (ignoring the state's perfectly rational arguments for distinguishing between people married for 5 years and those married for 20), lets just say I'm not too worried about that happening and would chuckle if opposing counsel threatened to overturn a longstanding law that was not working in thier favor.
So if we get divorced, I'm not going on the stand and having some divorce lawyer "push my buttons." We will divide our community property, she can have whatever else she wants or needs within reason, and that will be it.
But I don't think I'm getting a divorce. But its certainly not the courts or the divorce lawyers that keep me from doing it.
That last one sounded a bit more argumentative than I meant it to be. I do appreciate the posts, debra, and am sure you are a good divorce attorney (if such a crature exists
)
No offense or anything, but really wanna say that if you follow her orders like that, u r gonna be her puppy in a rest of your life, just like u said yourself.
Let me tell something, which you need to remember during your rest of your life: Don't show any mercy. Be the man of the house. Man has to make the rules, not wives. (No offense to females, I believe this is how it works in human nature system).
But this doesn't mean u go to her and say you will play poker, and don't give a **** about your wife.
You should and must concern her as well because after all she is your wife; wives are most important thing in men's miserable life. Wives bring happiness.
Once, you become and act like a man of the house, eventually, they will start follow you, and trust me on this because this is how it supposed to work.
So, now, be the man of the house, and at the same time, have a huge respect for her and love her as your wife. Eventually, she will be your wife, not your master.
Remember! do not take this so seriuos because if u do means u r being puppy. Just act on it step by step: that is to be the man of the house, or should I say be her man. Goodluck to your relationship. Make it work!
Ronfg
You are going to go nowhere fast with that attitude!!! Men are not suppose to make the rules as the same goes for women.
A relationship between a man and a woman is a partnership, not a power trip.
Marriage is not about rules of any kind. 2 grown adults are very much able to live in harmony without any form of control.
Your human nature system is very old and outdated, so I strongly suggest you don't try this on any of the women of today!
Ditto on what Montana said. Something tells me Ronfg is not very experienced with women. The best partnerships consist of give and take, it's not always 50/50, but the closer the better. Like Aretha will tell you - you've got to have and give R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
Quote:Man has to make the rules, not wives. (No offense to females, I believe this is how it works in human nature system).
Ronfg,
we're not in the animal kingdom here. Your reasoning
might have worked in the 40s, but since then - thank God -
women have not only made better choices than men,
they surpassed them in many instances.
As was said before, a partnership has to work on a50/50
balance, otherwise it won't work.
Ronfg, if I was you I would go hide out in a cave for awhile- you have stirred the wrath of women here - hide young man - hide...and rethink your naive thoughts.
Ronfg, god help you when you get yourself a wife!
He doesn't need a wife - he needs a doormat.
Actually, having read Ronfg's other thread in where he
is asking for advice with a girl, I'm rather concerned now.
His perception of women is quite disturbing.
