You don't have to pay $50K, and that is only if the Divorce is contested. It is just wise to pay. The average cost of divorce in the United States is $15,000. The average cost of wedding in the United States is $28,427. Both are costly, though getting married cost more on average, but at least a wedding is mostly a big party...
@@Loathomar That part about avreage marriage is inflated by the ultra rich paying a million for marriage and big marriages 50-250k a wack while most pay less than 10k my marriage was only 3-4k but my divorce was 15k and I now pay a extra 300 in taxes a month. I hate all courts screw em. But I am so sick of it.
I don't even see a point to government issued licenses cause marriage and the state shouldn't be entangled. Leave as a matter between the mutual couple, their families and love ones, and their Church or whatever.
Fuck off. Instead reform divorce process, that it's not skewed against fathers. You are not a true libertarian if you want the government to still force couples to be married against their will.
So if divorce costs so much, shouldn't this be a boom time for the hitman industry? I mean if hiring a hit costs about $10k and a contested divorce costs about $50k I think the math on this one is obvious.
why not, that is surely a much better deal, look at the bitches loss, not at yours. If you get cought you do 10 years or so but you spents much more in earning the finances you loose! From cradle to grave, house + other assets + cash savings + future payments, etc. Whats a better deal!
Surprisingly, what I saw growing up was that this ruse known as child support is just as bad as alimony. My best friend's mom went out one night, got drunk, and fucked some guy and got pregnant. Two months later she divorced his dad, the man lost his house and the dude from the bar moves in. What makes it worse is that none of the thousands of dollars he paid in child support actually went towards my friend's living expenses, she just deposited in her own account. This is why we should have a law where the woman must come up with itemized receipts!
Wehunt vs. Ledbetter, & Blessing vs. Freestone. Two court cases that show child support really only exists to keep women off welfare. The State knows what a financial burden women are and they prefer to shift that burden on to Men wherever possible.
i have demanded this exactly in supreme court -- the judges answers was -- unless the children are harmed in some way we cant be involved in how the mother spends child support -- (Big WTF)
Family Court: a system that functions to undermine marriage and family through the creation of no-fault, unilateral or uncontested divorce or, otherwise, the subsidizing of divorce--disabling the legal defense of one's own marriage and family.
Family court against men is much worse than this describes. Do you realize that family court allows the lawyers to just take their money from the equity of the house? They can also make you pay alimony from the house equity. Most men leave with just their clothes. A man would be an idiot to get married today when youtube can provide this information nowadays.
Divorce is only about money when there is the incentive to gain money. In Scandinavia, that incentive is gone. Divorce is about freedom; marriage is voluntary confinement.
Marriage = a man gives money/gifts to a women in exchange for sexual pleasure. Prostitution = a man gives money/gifts to a women in exchange for sexual pleasure.
Divorce has become a large money industry in Sweden as well (I don't know about the other Scandinavian countries). In a custody battle there are many agents and institutions which profit from divorces - not only those in the legal system. Statistically, the Swedish system (social services, laws, mass media) is very biased against men and also the family as the fundamental unit of the society. Sweden's laws are driving divorces - between the years 2000-2006 there was an average of 2 600 high conflict divorces that went to courts annually (and this was fairly constant during that period - I have not been able to find older data for a longer time trend than that. In the year 2006 a new law was established that says that if the parents can't agree and cooperate (about the custody of their children) the court shall give single custody to one of the parents. An increase in the high conflict divorce cases began the next year and has continued to increase since then - the data points at a present rate of about 7 300 such cases per year (data for 2019 where I used a three year moving average to smooth out the variations from year to year). Most of these high conflict custody disputes seem to be driven by one parent. Many of these driving parents are in turn experts on lying and manipulations so they come up with allegations of physical and sexual abuse (which seldom can be proven so most of those accusations of physical abuse etc are probably false - and in their contexts seldom seem probable or make sense). The social services "believe" the manipulating parent (it is common that lies actually can be proven but most custody evaluators look into another direction) and write about them in their reports which in turn land in the courts. The courts then believe the reports but cannot find any evidence for most of those physical forms of abuse (against the children or the other partner). Then the courts instead look at whether the parents can cooperate or not. Typically both parents say that they want to cooperate and have shared custody but the manipulating parent is not interested in that so he/she will pretend to be willing to cooperate with the other parent and then blame the other parent for not being interested in cooperating. Statistically this results in the children losing contact (completely or a large reduction of contact) with their father (rather than mother) in more then 85 % of these cases. As the social services (equivalent to the CPS - child protection services) work/act in Sweden - many parents who thought they would get help from the social services now instead experience them as a terror institution which actively splits families and while helping a malicious parent also drives the other parent into misery (I am aware of hundreds of such cases - not only those where I had contact with a parent being thrown out of his/her home). The social services evaluators have no training in fields like psychology or law but they act as judges, child psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, police etc). The Swedish system, as it works today, is in practice designed to promote the breakdown of families. I don't believe that this was the political intention but this is what it has become (besides the ambition /intention of a small minority group who effectively is lobbying for a society working against families and to reduce men to DNA resources and bank accounts). Many fathers lose much more than 50 % of their resources - an alienating/divorce driving parent usually comes up with all sorts of legal reasons for extracting as much money or other resources as possible from the other parent, There are many ways of doing this. I have no legal training (I have a science background) and have including medicine but not psychology/psychiatry) not been into such a battle myself but I have had contact with more than 100 parents (and other extended family members) who lost contact with their children - more than 70 of those cases seem to have been driven by parental alienation (and of these in turn 23 were with a mother as a target parent). Many of the alienated parents/target parents lose their jobs because of a combination of the false accusations that reach their employers and also because of the stress due to the time and money consuming procedures. The bottom line is that it today is very risky to get married in Sweden - particularly if you are a man. Young men are scared away from dating because of an anti male culture ("men are potential rapists"). Even a hot exercise on a public dance floor can result in an unreasonable accusation of rape or rape attempt. I never heard of such things when I was young 50 years ago. In particular, men with resources including a good education have it very risky nowadays as the marriage often becomes a fake love affair (narcissistic egos and manipulators have a Heaven in Sweden) and a way to extract the resources from the partner. The love based on co-commitment seems mostly to be gone and has been transformed into financial transactions and in the end the once wealthy man may loses contact with his children (and vice versa) and end up as a social case (poor, no job etc, increased risk of suicide if anyone wonders).
Its the leftists that have infiltrated their tenticles everywhere into society and the US are always saying how good it is in Sweden! These being leftists liberals of course 🤦♂
@@newlin83 Thank You for Your logical response. I now read through what I wrote two years ago. Corrected some typos. Update regarding my data: I have now had contacts with more than 220 Swedish adult who were abused by parental alienation (PA). Of these about 180 are parents - and of these in turn 40 % are mothers. The rest are essentially members of the extended families (target side of PA). 7-8 of them are adults who were PA abused as children. I have a website about Pa issues but can't post the link here as such comments become erased. My website is called ompa with the extension for Sweden ("om" is the Swedish for "about"). Use my name and Google as my website is among the top hits so it should be easy to find. I have lots of English based references there (at the bottom of most pages). Today I also have a list there with 422 articles about PA that were published in 179 peer-review journals. There are direct links there to about 2/3 of the original articles where English and Latin based languages dominate.
Laws should have an expiration date of a decade, at which point they'd have to be renewed with substantial facts and logic required for this to happen.
I make an average salary in the US and I had to pay 200K in legal fees. I lost all of my savings and all assets . I recommend not to get married in the US , my lawyer saw a new young couple getting married in court while waiting on our hearing , and she told me that she should go give them her contact info as they will need her services. Lawyers feeds on angry spouses to make a fortune and destroy people’s life financially. Marriage in the US is an unfair business transaction. Buy the ring , so the wedding but don’t get the government involved with your personal life. Lessons learned for me
Someone, especially a man, who gets married these days is nuts. The small benefits are not worth the great dangers. If you're religious, have the religious ceremony at your place of worship, but don't sign the papers that will turn it into a legal marriage.
Every day is a teachable moment for my two sons. We take field trips to divorce court, let them watch what happens to men in Divorce Court. We watch videos from those men who were divorced raped and we talk and discuss laws and the game women play. I teach them: Treat everyone with respect. Have fun with women, be kind, be caring, be a gentleman. NEVER sign anything, EVER. NEVER live in a Common Law State, Never get married. IF you want kids, you can find a woman who is willing or adopt. Live your life, be successful for yourself, Keep and Save your money and keep women away from it. The game is known, we are teaching the next wave of men of wise up and walk away.
@@monkey-bananas2890 if you live with someone in the same house for a certain number of years according to the state even if you don't sign marriage papers you're considered married and they have full access to all your money just as if you were married
Let's not pretend that these laws that treat men so unfairly were "well-intentioned". Gutting the former system but keeping alimony payments, for instance, shows an interest in keeping parts of of the old system IF it was viewed as benefitting women. Favoring women in custody is also not philosophically a "feminist" view but it secures privileges for women.
No kidding. My marriage cost $500 for dress, license and all. Cost me $80k without lawyers for a divorce. Who in their right mind would ever get married. Find a state that's not common law and just live together.
Ya, but you marriage cost you spouse nothing and the divorce give your X spouse 80K, seems like a great deal for your spouse... In that case, who would want to get married?!?!
almost every law now a days had nothing to do with how life is now.. Laws always need to be changed just like humans grow and change.. its so dumb we got laws in 70s and 80s that still are laws on 2014.. like smoking weed and getting divorced.
Marriage is not simple. It’s a 3 party trust creation contract. The underlying contractual arrangements are complex. The veneer placed on this “process” is religion, love, social pressures. These hide the underlying contracts. Lack of knowledge is no defense in law. One party of the contract is the State, a party with unlimited powers of coercion. The “application” IS the contract. Avoid such contracts.
My closest companion's mother went out one night, become inebriated, and screwed some person and got pregnant. After two months she separated from his father, the man lost his home and the fella from the bar moves in. What aggravates it is that none of the a large number of dollars he paid in kid uphold really went towards my companion's everyday costs, she just saved in her own record. This is the reason we ought to have a law where the lady must concoct ordered receipts! www.bainslawoffices.com
Dude the Scandanavian method sounds amazing! I've heard they also do something sort of similar in France. I lean more feminist and it's unfortunate that I've never heard of this. I'd vote for it.
I had 3 of my 4 children reach emancipation, and the acting judge (Jeffery Sunshine) in new york allowed my x wife's lawyer to postpone the downward modification for 2 years while this judge allowed discovery on top of discovery on top of discovery -- to delay even though there have been more than 15 past discoveries of finance prior to 1st child reaching legal age, while Sunshine demanded under threat of incarceration, I pay x wife's legal fees and penalties for slow payments that I eventually caught up with -- ( $250,000 in legal fees ) ( $1,750,000 in alimony and child support) during discovery 2 children were documented to not be my biological children, unknown to husband, and sunshine said no matter, it is called an estoppel. there are dozens of other facts that prove the x wife's lawyer was granted privileges beyond the case scope of law and this judge acted beyond the law without a dought -- After 12 years of litigation and 5 lawyers later, only one out of state lawyer that had no other cases or business in front of this judge, privately told me exactly what Richard Fine in this video has said to the exact words. my lawyer told me a secret. He said one word that changed the entire case for me after 12 years and more than 30 court hearings, because my x wife's lawyer was NOW going after my new wifes finances threw our new marriage -- that would have made us both homeless and possibly divorced - what this lawyer disclosed to me was not legal according to state law, Even my own lawyer is legally not allowed to disclose ways of telling their client how to save money and shorten the court cases for the men -- (WTF) this one illegal word saved me from total destitution -- and this is the short version of the 250,000 lessons I got about ramped corruption in divorce -- if you want the rest of the proof of corruption ... contact me. the courts are NOT fair or equitable -- its fixed i interviewed and tried to hire more then 5 lawyers to help me stand up to the Judge Jeffery Sunshine in New York courts -- every one refused and one almost pissed in his pants, he thought i was joking and said good luck with that we all know he is corrupt but good luck finding a lawyer to do this P.S. My job for 40 years of savings (if you think i was rich) that went to embellish the courts and x wife came from grooming over 500,000 dogs -- I am a dog groomer -- I now live in a 1 bedroom apartment while x wife gets the 5 bedroom house -- thank you Richard Fine for the truth -- hopefully, the future men to be divorced can have been served by your advice --
Holyyyy crap thats insanse brother i feel your pain, thanks to you ill never get married. Stay strong King! Life gets better be blessed your still alive and can still make it in this life👌👌💯💯
I don't understand how a man can get remarried to the same ex wife two or three times. I believe any man that Marries or remarries in today's world is completely out of his mind. I personally sat on the sidelines watching friends get raked through the hot coals, knowing that I would learn from their mistakes. 🙏
They left out the part where the court make a profit from a percentage of alimony and child support so they have an incentive to extract as much money as they can from you.
No. Reform the divorce laws where it's not skewed towards the women. You are not a true libertarian if you want the government to force couples to still be together against their will.
@@CaptainBones222 the couple should not jump into marriage immediately before getting to know each other well at first. That long term relationship should ket you know that your significant other is compatible to you. Sorry, in divorce court is skewed towards women. Plus, it's not the government, it's the clergy who officially ties the knot. Unless it's a really bad relationship that someone wants to end. My parents have been married for almost 50 years, they also have problems with the relationship and end up working it out.
Even in uncontested matters, the parties can be very emotional and spend a lot of time on the phone, with the lawyer, complaining about the spouse. Their money (for the need to complain) would be better spent with a therapist.
***** Doesn't matter if it was pre-marriage. (well technically in some faiths the marriage is per-se invalid if you did but for the sake of the government, it only matters post-nuptials)
***** I agree with you. IMO divorce law still assumes we are back in the days where women were essentially property of their father and then husband rather than people capable and willing to hold a job and support themselves. Despite the 'feminitst' movement I don't see it changing soon. I don't blame them either. If a law grossly favored me I would be reticent to change it as well.
Who is saying that getting married in the US is affordable? Maybe the marriage certificate is easy to obtain, but the celebratory spending comparable to the divorce litigation costs.
The court system needs overhauling. The conflict of interest with money and the court system is why these things keep happening with the situation that could be resolved in a couple of days but because of the conflict of interest with the money and the court system some of these lawyers deliberately drag out the the case is just because they are making thousands of dollars per hour. Equal rights and justice for those who have money to throw at the flood court system and as a result when citizens start believing in the justice system it is surely a formula for chaos.
Since a Marriage Licence is nothing but a Non-Fully Disclosed contract with the STATE OF, than all that needs be done is to "Resend /Nullify said contract via an "Affidavit of FACT" attested and signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, and than Notarized as such! AND THAN: Demand any said quasi- judge, and postitutor, and clerk to provide an "Affidavit / signed / Notarized that they are NOT a Private, for Profit, corporate, administrative tribunal, under full liability, and that they are an actual Bill of Rights, Article 7 "Jury Trail" court! Before you show up for their fake court hearing! GRIN! But don't hold your breath on getting one from them!
@@tyroncline5978 yepper, like with at lest 6 people "peer" jury trial in an Article 3 court, by an Article 7 Trial By Jury! And if anyone really cared, they'ed look up the word "peers" as in the OLD before 2 Edition of Blacks, and or better yet.... go to a law dictionary BEFORE that and "find out that the people in the jury KNOW the people on trial," and NOT the "Law and Order...derd" switch-ah-roo-zoo do do that changed the "Law and ORDER" of the "trial by jury" to a quasi-thing, just called a "court!" Yep... Article 3 court, with an Artocle 7 Trial by Jury!
It’s a great documentary worth to buy if you are married MAN. Don’t get married in US . Save yourself from becoming homeless especially of you are a man
My divorce costed me nothing. She paid for the divorce. I was late to our divorce hearing, but since i didn't contest anything, it was over within two minutes. I gave her the house for our child. Ps, she lost the house to foreclosure 😅. Our son is 19 and i owe her nothing 😂.
Tampa, Florida...... one parent will go without time sharing with their children.....the court sells time sharing too the highest bidder parent through expenses spend on attorney fees......the poorer parent loses........ !
Hired a loyer that was friends with my in laws and didn't know it his name is scolfeild. He had a bank account at teacher federal credit union in niles Michigan that was about 2 blocks from his office in niles Michigan. He was friends with my ex brother in laws wife her name was Stefanie Jansen at the time of my divorce. Her name is Stefanie fletcher now. She worked at the bank I'm talking about. And my loyer never told me he was friends with my in laws. Scolfeild is a judge for the 5th district court's in niles Michigan unless they moved him to st Joseph Michigan to the barrien county court house. I had paper work on my ex wife from CPS in door co Wisconsin. And he never let the judge in my divorce see it it was never put in o evidences in the court case. And he let them throw me under the bus for my in laws. I had no rights in that court room at all and my children got screwed to by my loyer. I was told to pay 179.50 a week in child support. I was only making 11.77 an hour. And my ex wife was told to pay 21.00 a week. My ex wife was not disabled mentally or physically in any way she should have had to pay an equal amount of support for my children. And my loyer never spoke up about it and through me under the bus. Criminal loyer! I had paper work with CPS to keep my ex wife from getting custody of my children and my loyer screwed me. For my in laws. There's evil everywhere. I should have had custody of my children. My son Gregory fuzi 4th was 11 or 12 years old and got punched in the face by the man who had custody of him and CPS came to investigate what happened and Kenneth Jansen lied to CPS to keep from getting in trouble and coworst my son in to lieing for him. I guess a punch in the face will get you to say anything. No one contact me about it at all not CPS not the friends of the courts nobody. My son's lifes have turned out like crap they have both been abusive to their spouses and children. I was never abusive to my ex wife or my children but I got screwed and so did my children. What a messed up life I've had. The court system is messed up in this country. I know it first hand. Criminals all of them.
Horrible. Mine had me exiled. Destroyed my one year old portrait studio. Monster Judge and attorney/"crush". Based on straight up, bare faced lies. He had a double life IYCMD
It is all rather simple fellas, the answer is MCI. Don't get Married, don't Cohabitate and don't Impregnate! Feminism has inspire women to get degrees, earn 6 figures, buy their own homes and cars. If they want children they can pay for insemination and you can save your money and your sanity. When the powers that be decide to make equitable laws then it will be worthwhile to get involved again.
Lucrative lawyers, complicated family law and unfortunate cases notwithstanding- esp. cases mentioned in the film- as many people reviewing the film have asserted, much of its "analysis" seems one-sided and oversimplifies the real situation (and even the 'details' on some of the anecdotes presented *in* the documentary itself). For example, this "super scholarly and unbiased" film is narrated by ...who else but Dr. Drew himself (lol) And includes such "family law experts" as celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred (rofl). Tell me again why Gloria Allred "is a huge expert" on 'family court', all of a sudden, as if she "can add special insight" into no one else can?? o.O Much of the film's "prime cases", so to speak, cover, like... 7-10 of 'the worst' family-court outcomes imaginable? And it just keeps going back to those men and women who were supposedly 'victimized' by that system. While offering occasional "totally-verified stats", like the bogus claim that even uncontested divorce "costs 10k", on 'average.' ...Almost nowhere in any of the presentation of stats and crucial facts are any citations mentioned on-screen (and rarely by voice), interestingly enough. So it's hard to fact-check much of the claims, esp. the aggregate 'data' presented Also... why is some random-ass "rich private investigator" a "huge expert" on the system?? At *best*, he's *maybe* an "expert", with firsthand knowledge, of "all of the money to be made" within the system. if that but a "big family court expert"? please In all likelihood, the 'worst of the worst' outcomes presented in the 'documentary' are probably but a *small slice* of the overall outcomes. Could it be better? SURE but.. is it "nearly as bad", for the average divorcees, as the film makes it out to be? In all likelihood... probably not. You only hear about the cases that 'go really badly', but rarely do you hear about the likely-majority- if not vast-majority- of cases among the thousands of family-court cases where things *went fine or mostly-fine*. Hmmm... With a large-enough total, anyone can cite a relative handful and still have a *large absolute amount* of "the worst cases" and pretend like it's "bad for everyone, in every situation." However... what is the 'likelihood' of this?? Let's be honest The other thing that I find interesting is that people who were supposedly "super-victimized" by the family-court system *so often try to "pretend" as though the family-court system is "uniquely bad" and/or "uniquely biased (esp. 'against men')", or some shit like that. but... this is just AN EXTENSION OR PART OF a larger *shitty justice system and court system in the US* IN GENERAL Reason and others know, surely, that the criminal courts, tax courts, etc., are probably little-better in so many ways, right? If anything, the family-court system "sucks" because THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND 'CRIMINAL JUSTICE' SYSTEM IN THE US SUCK AS A WHOLE. It's not "uniquely screwy", though. Or "screws people in the courtroom over way worse than other aspects of the legal system", as some advocates would like you to believe. There's probably little 'extra chance' of "being screwed over" in family court than, say.. the standard federal court system or state criminal court system. I can assure you that nowhere near, say, "80-90%" of family-court situations and divorces are being decided "super unfairly", as Joe Sorge implies with his film. Anyone can latch onto a handful of 'really bad' outcomes and say, "aha!" But how much *actual, unbiased scholarship and research* were done for this film, esp. outside of talking to a relative-handful of *the same slim number of "big time experts" OVER AND OVER AND OVER, so many times in the same movie*? If this 'problem' were anywhere-near as "prevalent for practically all divorcees", shouldn't we have had FAR MORE experts discussing the issues in the movie, not just recycling the same lawyers, 'experts', etc., time and again throughout the film? This to me suggests either a) Joe could only get a very-limited number of 'insiders' who presided over or had experience with a certain "handful" of "really-bad outcomes in cases", b/c the "problem" he claims is, likely, nowhere near 'as prevalent' as he actually suggests in his film or b) to a certain extent, many of the experts and insiders talked to in the film 'have an axe to grind', so to speak. Which might bias their view of family court in a way favorable to Joe and Co. If Joe, however, were "so confident" in his position on "how bad family court is", surely he could've gotten, like... AT LEAST one person who's very "pro family court" to *talk about family court and "be grilled" by Joe or whoever, to answer, in their own words, why Joe and others are 'wrong'*? and yet... Joe didn't do that. All of the experts and insiders interviewed in the film were victimized by the system, attorneys *for* those victimized, otherwise associated with the family court system in a 'neutral way' or "don't care" b/c they can make a lot of money off FC. Again, the adverse outcomes suck, for sure, but.. the question is, how similar are they to "the norm" within family court?? Probably nowhere-near as prevalent as Joe and others would have us believe. The notion that the average divorce or family court case is anywhere-near "as disastrous" as the film implies is just downright absurd, to say the least (and highly unlikely)
Total bullshit, for uncontested, which can be done in (I think) any state, definitely the vast majority, with no lawyer. Google "DIY divorce" Some states are a lot easier, like Washington where we did it ourselves. In WA, they even provide a workshop on how to fill out the forms properly. The two of us negotiated our property settlement over lunch, and has it notarized a quarter mile away. We did need a judge, but understandably considering the legal ramifications of a divorce. He approved 30-40 divorces in maybe 90 minutes. The sole purpose of the hearing was that we were both sworn in and stated that the divorce and property settlement were voluntary and uncontested. That's it, sworn before a judge. I wouldn't want any less, since that could be the only safety factor in an abusive relationship. Total cost was about $100 for the workshop and court costs. After the judge "blessed" our divorce, we went to lunch together and parted with a hug, which is how it should be (uncontested). No lawyers. Sheesh.
P Mason I said "uncontested" Twice. Do you know what that means? The bullshit video claims a minimum $10,000 for uncontested. It's off by 99%. Social Security benefits are not relevant, but I need to correct your misinformation. (1)Spouse have their own benefits (called derivative), even if they never worked, based on age and marriage duration. www.ssa.gov/retire2/yourdivspouse.htm 2) Social Security benefits are not open to negotiation in divorce settlements. Indeed NOBODY can touch those benefits -- they cannot even be garnished by debtors. I'm 73 years old, so I know both Social Security and uncontested divorces from personal experience. So I know bullshit when I hear it!
P Mason Ummm, that's what I called "derivative" Sluggo. One more time for the mentally challenged. The spouse has their own benefit, even if they never worked. Whatever your mom got was NOT deducted from your dad's benefit. So, who should we all believe, a proven nitwit or the Social Security Administration.? (snicker) ---- "Note: Your benefit as a divorced spouse is equal to one-half of your ex-spouse's full retirement amount (or disability benefit) if you start receiving benefits at your full retirement age. ... "Note: The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the amount of benefits your ex-spouse or their current spouse may receive." I ALWAYS provide proof, which you NEVER provide www.ssa.gov/retire2/divspouse.htm ========== >>"And again so what your divorce went well. That's a minority." You really are a nitwit! An estimated 95% of divorces are no-fault, since no-fault became legal as described in the video. And all or most states allow DIY divorces. And ( laughing) my ONLY point is that the video is bullshit by claiming an uncontested divorce costs $10,000. Even with an attorney, if you know how to Google, you'll see all sorts of attorneys who will do all the paperwork and filing for $150-300. We're now into MASSIVE bullshit. Oh, and I forgot that MEDIATION is also and option --which also eliminates any lawyers. Wipe the drool from your chin. And get a life. STOP STALKING ME.
Mike Hihn "In the United States, the average cost of an uncontested divorce ranges from $100 to $500 without an attorney and $500 to $10,000 or more with an attorney." While uncontested divorces can cost $10,000 or more with an attorney they often do cost less then $500. It is not unreasonable to consult an attorney, even in an uncontested divorce, but for a hour or 2 of billing, just to make sure everything is in line. This will cost $500 or so. At $10,000 this is an unofficial contested divorce, where both side have lawyer and are fighting over shit, often shit not worth $10K. Read more: www.ehow.com/about_5558804_average-cost-uncontested-divorce.html#ixzz2zk4GMajY
Loathomar Your pseudo source agrees with me that the video is bullshit for claiming the AVERAGE cost for an UNCONTESTED divorce is $50,000. duh. But then ehow goes batshit crazy on its own. THINK. If nobody is contesting anything then .... ummmm ... which one would pay a lawyer $10,000? For what purpose? This is NOT rocket science. And since when is ehow a credible sources for legal issues? But thanks for agreeing that fhe video is bulshit hysteria mongering for birther-level mentalities and conspiracy freaks,
My most valuable merits were abolished in family court. since the abolishment of meritocracy is a woke character, it stands to reason the flaw in family court has its foundations rooted in the misuse of the woke culture for the purposes of provoking appeal. This is social deciduous no doubt. It is this malicious character of layering that is destroying the concept of family let alone the harm torment and destruction of children. For those fluid in resolute law the later should ring a bell.
We are working to solve this problem at National Liberty Alliance .org contact us if you would like to partnership. contact our National Director under our directory.
I don't know where they are getting these numbers, I got divorced last year and it cost about $300. Pretty simple process, just file a divorce petition that you can download on the internet and wait for your court date. If you're too lazy to do this yourself, don't complain about what the lawyers charge for it.
Uncontested divorces don't cost anywhere near 10k. Most lawyers will do it for 2k. Specialty lawyers are only needed for very complex contested divorces. Many people in my local family court handle their uncontested divorces themselves with out the lawyer and it's pretty simple.
Seems like a terrible idea to get married in the US.
It's worse in Canada.
It's a terrible idea almost anywhere in the western world.
Yes, so corrupt !
@MR. MR. in my case its just the opposite
Its who is your lawyer and connections
@MR. MR. i agree 100 percent. What do you think about going back home and getting married to a strict islamic wife and bringing her back to Canada?
so you can get married for less then $1000 but if you wanna get Divorced you gotta play $50,000? Sounds like a scam to me.
You don't have to pay $50K, and that is only if the Divorce is contested. It is just wise to pay. The average cost of divorce in the United States is $15,000. The average cost of wedding in the United States is $28,427. Both are costly, though getting married cost more on average, but at least a wedding is mostly a big party...
@@Loathomar the average divorce also cost the man his house, properties, and kids. Thats way more than $15,000
its legalized mafia between judges and lawyers , well know in the courts
@@Loathomar That part about avreage marriage is inflated by the ultra rich paying a million for marriage and big marriages 50-250k a wack while most pay less than 10k my marriage was only 3-4k but my divorce was 15k and I now pay a extra 300 in taxes a month. I hate all courts screw em. But I am so sick of it.
And have half of your personal belongings taken away
never ever get married. it's too dangerous.
I don't even see a point to government issued licenses cause marriage and the state shouldn't be entangled. Leave as a matter between the mutual couple, their families and love ones, and their Church or whatever.
No fault divorce is one of the greatest contributors to the decline of stable families. Get rid of it.
fareal. thanks ronald reagan, again .
You know it
Agree!
Fuck off.
Instead reform divorce process, that it's not skewed against fathers.
You are not a true libertarian if you want the government to still force couples to be married against their will.
@@CaptainBones222 aww yeah political compass boissssss
So if divorce costs so much, shouldn't this be a boom time for the hitman industry? I mean if hiring a hit costs about $10k and a contested divorce costs about $50k I think the math on this one is obvious.
hahahaha wtf ?
i would regret it after the fact -- so cant do it
why not, that is surely a much better deal, look at the bitches loss, not at yours. If you get cought you do 10 years or so but you spents much more in earning the finances you loose! From cradle to grave, house + other assets + cash savings + future payments, etc. Whats a better deal!
@@MrSbhussainyeah, when you have nothing to lose..
Surprisingly, what I saw growing up was that this ruse known as child support is just as bad as alimony. My best friend's mom went out one night, got drunk, and fucked some guy and got pregnant. Two months later she divorced his dad, the man lost his house and the dude from the bar moves in. What makes it worse is that none of the thousands of dollars he paid in child support actually went towards my friend's living expenses, she just deposited in her own account. This is why we should have a law where the woman must come up with itemized receipts!
GimmeYourJuice
James still has a valid point. Like he said Google MGTOW and welcome!
Wehunt vs. Ledbetter, & Blessing vs. Freestone. Two court cases that show child support really only exists to keep women off welfare. The State knows what a financial burden women are and they prefer to shift that burden on to Men wherever possible.
@@checkpointcovid8021 no the state knows to take money away fron the hands of men so that men and boys cannot get upwars financial mobility
@MR. MR. Gesundheit.
i have demanded this exactly in supreme court -- the judges answers was -- unless the children are harmed in some way we cant be involved in how the mother spends child support -- (Big WTF)
If you have an education in the STEM field, or you are wealthy STAY SINGLE!!!
Family Court: a system that functions to undermine marriage and family through the creation of no-fault, unilateral or uncontested divorce or, otherwise, the subsidizing of divorce--disabling the legal defense of one's own marriage and family.
Family court against men is much worse than this describes. Do you realize that family court allows the lawyers to just take their money from the equity of the house? They can also make you pay alimony from the house equity. Most men leave with just their clothes. A man would be an idiot to get married today when youtube can provide this information nowadays.
Marriage is about love. Divorce is about money. Children are a blessing during marriage. Children are a punishment after divorce.
Divorce is only about money when there is the incentive to gain money. In Scandinavia, that incentive is gone. Divorce is about freedom; marriage is voluntary confinement.
rzxwm10 Sounds like a feminist.
Jack Samsong
Sounds like a tradcon.
Marriage = a man gives money/gifts to a women in exchange for sexual pleasure.
Prostitution = a man gives money/gifts to a women in exchange for sexual pleasure.
@@TheWorldTeacher prostitute has hourly rates, marriage has lifetime rates!
What, not one feminist here explaining how treating men and women the same in divorce is misogyny?
MGTOW
Divorce has become a large money industry in Sweden as well (I don't know about the other Scandinavian countries). In a custody battle there are many agents and institutions which profit from divorces - not only those in the legal system. Statistically, the Swedish system (social services, laws, mass media) is very biased against men and also the family as the fundamental unit of the society. Sweden's laws are driving divorces - between the years 2000-2006 there was an average of 2 600 high conflict divorces that went to courts annually (and this was fairly constant during that period - I have not been able to find older data for a longer time trend than that. In the year 2006 a new law was established that says that if the parents can't agree and cooperate (about the custody of their children) the court shall give single custody to one of the parents.
An increase in the high conflict divorce cases began the next year and has continued to increase since then - the data points at a present rate of about 7 300 such cases per year (data for 2019 where I used a three year moving average to smooth out the variations from year to year).
Most of these high conflict custody disputes seem to be driven by one parent. Many of these driving parents are in turn experts on lying and manipulations so they come up with allegations of physical and sexual abuse (which seldom can be proven so most of those accusations of physical abuse etc are probably false - and in their contexts seldom seem probable or make sense).
The social services "believe" the manipulating parent (it is common that lies actually can be proven but most custody evaluators look into another direction) and write about them in their reports which in turn land in the courts. The courts then believe the reports but cannot find any evidence for most of those physical forms of abuse (against the children or the other partner). Then the courts instead look at whether the parents can cooperate or not. Typically both parents say that they want to cooperate and have shared custody but the manipulating parent is not interested in that so he/she will pretend to be willing to cooperate with the other parent and then blame the other parent for not being interested in cooperating. Statistically this results in the children losing contact (completely or a large reduction of contact) with their father (rather than mother) in more then 85 % of these cases.
As the social services (equivalent to the CPS - child protection services) work/act in Sweden - many parents who thought they would get help from the social services now instead experience them as a terror institution which actively splits families and while helping a malicious parent also drives the other parent into misery (I am aware of hundreds of such cases - not only those where I had contact with a parent being thrown out of his/her home). The social services evaluators have no training in fields like psychology or law but they act as judges, child psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, police etc). The Swedish system, as it works today, is in practice designed to promote the breakdown of families. I don't believe that this was the political intention but this is what it has become (besides the ambition /intention of a small minority group who effectively is lobbying for a society working against families and to reduce men to DNA resources and bank accounts).
Many fathers lose much more than 50 % of their resources - an alienating/divorce driving parent usually comes up with all sorts of legal reasons for extracting as much money or other resources as possible from the other parent, There are many ways of doing this. I have no legal training (I have a science background) and have including medicine but not psychology/psychiatry) not been into such a battle myself but I have had contact with more than 100 parents (and other extended family members) who lost contact with their children - more than 70 of those cases seem to have been driven by parental alienation (and of these in turn 23 were with a mother as a target parent). Many of the alienated parents/target parents lose their jobs because of a combination of the false accusations that reach their employers and also because of the stress due to the time and money consuming procedures.
The bottom line is that it today is very risky to get married in Sweden - particularly if you are a man. Young men are scared away from dating because of an anti male culture ("men are potential rapists"). Even a hot exercise on a public dance floor can result in an unreasonable accusation of rape or rape attempt. I never heard of such things when I was young 50 years ago. In particular, men with resources including a good education have it very risky nowadays as the marriage often becomes a fake love affair (narcissistic egos and manipulators have a Heaven in Sweden) and a way to extract the resources from the partner. The love based on co-commitment seems mostly to be gone and has been transformed into financial transactions and in the end the once wealthy man may loses contact with his children (and vice versa) and end up as a social case (poor, no job etc, increased risk of suicide if anyone wonders).
thanks for posting
this is terrifying
Its the leftists that have infiltrated their tenticles everywhere into society and the US are always saying how good it is in Sweden! These being leftists liberals of course 🤦♂
@@newlin83 Thank You for Your logical response. I now read through what I wrote two years ago. Corrected some typos. Update regarding my data: I have now had contacts with more than 220 Swedish adult who were abused by parental alienation (PA). Of these about 180 are parents - and of these in turn 40 % are mothers. The rest are essentially members of the extended families (target side of PA). 7-8 of them are adults who were PA abused as children.
I have a website about Pa issues but can't post the link here as such comments become erased. My website is called ompa with the extension for Sweden ("om" is the Swedish for "about"). Use my name and Google as my website is among the top hits so it should be easy to find. I have lots of English based references there (at the bottom of most pages). Today I also have a list there with 422 articles about PA that were published in 179 peer-review journals. There are direct links there to about 2/3 of the original articles where English and Latin based languages dominate.
America is similar in many ways
Laws should have an expiration date of a decade, at which point they'd have to be renewed with substantial facts and logic required for this to happen.
How about 8 years, just to line then up with the election cycles.
That would make prefect sense of the whole family law scam wasn't a covert military attack on freedom.
System is completely broken it's out of control!!
I make an average salary in the US and I had to pay 200K in legal fees.
I lost all of my savings and all assets .
I recommend not to get married in the US , my lawyer saw a new young couple getting married in court while waiting on our hearing , and she told me that she should go give them her contact info as they will need her services.
Lawyers feeds on angry spouses to make a fortune and destroy people’s life financially.
Marriage in the US is an unfair business transaction.
Buy the ring , so the wedding but don’t get the government involved with your personal life.
Lessons learned for me
Curious which state you live in?
Someone, especially a man, who gets married these days is nuts. The small benefits are not worth the great dangers. If you're religious, have the religious ceremony at your place of worship, but don't sign the papers that will turn it into a legal marriage.
Every day is a teachable moment for my two sons. We take field trips to divorce court, let them watch what happens to men in Divorce Court. We watch videos from those men who were divorced raped and we talk and discuss laws and the game women play.
I teach them:
Treat everyone with respect. Have fun with women, be kind, be caring, be a gentleman. NEVER sign anything, EVER. NEVER live in a Common Law State, Never get married. IF you want kids, you can find a woman who is willing or adopt. Live your life, be successful for yourself, Keep and Save your money and keep women away from it.
The game is known, we are teaching the next wave of men of wise up and walk away.
What's a common law state, can you please explain. I'd like to everything I can when it comes to my future
@@monkey-bananas2890 if you live with someone in the same house for a certain number of years according to the state even if you don't sign marriage papers you're considered married and they have full access to all your money just as if you were married
@@cinoaz1243 Jesus that's fkn stupid, thanks for letting me know 👍
It's a terrible idea to enter into a legal contract with a woman and the state as her enforcer
It's all about transference of wealth. Dudes are generally savers and that is money that greedy lawyers want to line their own pockets.
Seems like EVERYTHING is more complicated in the US!!!
We're a very litigious nation, insurance is seen as a 'lottery' too, so, lot of schemes to get that bag 💰
Government should not be involved.
Let's not pretend that these laws that treat men so unfairly were "well-intentioned". Gutting the former system but keeping alimony payments, for instance, shows an interest in keeping parts of of the old system IF it was viewed as benefitting women. Favoring women in custody is also not philosophically a "feminist" view but it secures privileges for women.
Regan did it
No kidding. My marriage cost $500 for dress, license and all. Cost me $80k without lawyers for a divorce. Who in their right mind would ever get married. Find a state that's not common law and just live together.
Ya, but you marriage cost you spouse nothing and the divorce give your X spouse 80K, seems like a great deal for your spouse... In that case, who would want to get married?!?!
almost every law now a days had nothing to do with how life is now.. Laws always need to be changed just like humans grow and change.. its so dumb we got laws in 70s and 80s that still are laws on 2014.. like smoking weed and getting divorced.
Weed laws come from the 1930s.
Marriage is not simple. It’s a 3 party trust creation contract. The underlying contractual arrangements are complex. The veneer placed on this “process” is religion, love, social pressures. These hide the underlying contracts. Lack of knowledge is no defense in law. One party of the contract is the State, a party with unlimited powers of coercion. The “application” IS the contract. Avoid such contracts.
Fuck getting married, you'd have to be a massive risk taker lol
My closest companion's mother went out one night, become inebriated, and screwed some person and got pregnant. After two months she separated from his father, the man lost his home and the fella from the bar moves in. What aggravates it is that none of the a large number of dollars he paid in kid uphold really went towards my companion's everyday costs, she just saved in her own record. This is the reason we ought to have a law where the lady must concoct ordered receipts!
www.bainslawoffices.com
Dude the Scandanavian method sounds amazing! I've heard they also do something sort of similar in France. I lean more feminist and it's unfortunate that I've never heard of this. I'd vote for it.
Feminists smell
I had 3 of my 4 children reach emancipation, and the acting judge (Jeffery Sunshine) in new york allowed my x wife's lawyer to postpone the downward modification for 2 years while this judge allowed discovery on top of discovery on top of discovery -- to delay even though there have been more than 15 past discoveries of finance prior to 1st child reaching legal age, while Sunshine demanded under threat of incarceration, I pay x wife's legal fees and penalties for slow payments that I eventually caught up with -- ( $250,000 in legal fees ) ( $1,750,000 in alimony and child support) during discovery 2 children were documented to not be my biological children, unknown to husband, and sunshine said no matter, it is called an estoppel. there are dozens of other facts that prove the x wife's lawyer was granted privileges beyond the case scope of law and this judge acted beyond the law without a dought -- After 12 years of litigation and 5 lawyers later, only one out of state lawyer that had no other cases or business in front of this judge, privately told me exactly what Richard Fine in this video has said to the exact words. my lawyer told me a secret. He said one word that changed the entire case for me after 12 years and more than 30 court hearings, because my x wife's lawyer was NOW going after my new wifes finances threw our new marriage -- that would have made us both homeless and possibly divorced - what this lawyer disclosed to me was not legal according to state law, Even my own lawyer is legally not allowed to disclose ways of telling their client how to save money and shorten the court cases for the men -- (WTF) this one illegal word saved me from total destitution -- and this is the short version of the 250,000 lessons I got about ramped corruption in divorce -- if you want the rest of the proof of corruption ... contact me. the courts are NOT fair or equitable -- its fixed
i interviewed and tried to hire more then 5 lawyers to help me stand up to the Judge Jeffery Sunshine in New York courts -- every one refused and one almost pissed in his pants, he thought i was joking and said
good luck with that we all know he is corrupt but good luck finding a lawyer to do this
P.S. My job for 40 years of savings (if you think i was rich) that went to embellish the courts and x wife came from grooming over 500,000 dogs -- I am a dog groomer -- I now live in a 1 bedroom apartment while x wife gets the 5 bedroom house -- thank you Richard Fine for the truth -- hopefully, the future men to be divorced can have been served by your advice --
Holyyyy crap thats insanse brother i feel your pain, thanks to you ill never get married. Stay strong King! Life gets better be blessed your still alive and can still make it in this life👌👌💯💯
I don't understand how a man can get remarried to the same ex wife two or three times. I believe any man that Marries or remarries in today's world is completely out of his mind. I personally sat on the sidelines watching friends get raked through the hot coals, knowing that I would learn from their mistakes. 🙏
They left out the part where the court make a profit from a percentage of alimony and child support so they have an incentive to extract as much money as they can from you.
This explains why celebrity divorces are so astronomically high.
Repeal No Fault divorce. It ruins family.
No.
Reform the divorce laws where it's not skewed towards the women.
You are not a true libertarian if you want the government to force couples to still be together against their will.
@@CaptainBones222 the couple should not jump into marriage immediately before getting to know each other well at first. That long term relationship should ket you know that your significant other is compatible to you. Sorry, in divorce court is skewed towards women. Plus, it's not the government, it's the clergy who officially ties the knot. Unless it's a really bad relationship that someone wants to end. My parents have been married for almost 50 years, they also have problems with the relationship and end up working it out.
@@CaptainBones222 when it comes to custody of the children, women have more rights than men.
They need to ban judges from throwing out prenups. If two adults with adequate legal counsel come to an agreement, then that should be ironclad.
how about no to families and getting married
This video is of utmost importance.
Solution: Don't get married. Stay BF/GF forever. Problem solved.
You're welcome.
voogru Many states automatically consider you married by law for being with someone for a certain amount of time. You solved nothing.
Uncontested divorce runs $10,000? I'd love to know where that figure came from.
Even in uncontested matters, the parties can be very emotional and spend a lot of time on the phone, with the lawyer, complaining about the spouse. Their money (for the need to complain) would be better spent with a therapist.
What about getting an annulment verses getting a divorce?
***** Doesn't matter if it was pre-marriage. (well technically in some faiths the marriage is per-se invalid if you did but for the sake of the government, it only matters post-nuptials)
***** I agree with you. IMO divorce law still assumes we are back in the days where women were essentially property of their father and then husband rather than people capable and willing to hold a job and support themselves. Despite the 'feminitst' movement I don't see it changing soon. I don't blame them either. If a law grossly favored me I would be reticent to change it as well.
Who is saying that getting married in the US is affordable? Maybe the marriage certificate is easy to obtain, but the celebratory spending comparable to the divorce litigation costs.
The court system needs overhauling. The conflict of interest with money and the court system is why these things keep happening with the situation that could be resolved in a couple of days but because of the conflict of interest with the money and the court system some of these lawyers deliberately drag out the the case is just because they are making thousands of dollars per hour. Equal rights and justice for those who have money to throw at the flood court system and as a result when citizens start believing in the justice system it is surely a formula for chaos.
Don’t get married ! Problem solved .
Since a Marriage Licence is nothing but a Non-Fully Disclosed contract with the STATE OF, than all that needs be done is to "Resend /Nullify said contract via an "Affidavit of FACT" attested and signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, and than Notarized as such!
AND THAN: Demand any said quasi- judge, and postitutor, and clerk to provide an "Affidavit / signed / Notarized that they are NOT a Private, for Profit, corporate, administrative tribunal, under full liability, and that they are an actual Bill of Rights, Article 7 "Jury Trail" court!
Before you show up for their fake court hearing!
GRIN!
But don't hold your breath on getting one from them!
You mean article 3 court?
@@tyroncline5978 yepper, like with at lest 6 people "peer" jury trial in an Article 3 court, by an Article 7 Trial By Jury!
And if anyone really cared, they'ed look up the word "peers" as in the OLD before 2 Edition of Blacks, and or better yet.... go to a law dictionary BEFORE that and "find out that the people in the jury KNOW the people on trial," and NOT the "Law and Order...derd" switch-ah-roo-zoo do do that changed the "Law and ORDER" of the "trial by jury" to a quasi-thing, just called a "court!"
Yep... Article 3 court, with an Artocle 7 Trial by Jury!
It’s a great documentary worth to buy if you are married MAN.
Don’t get married in US . Save yourself from becoming homeless especially of you are a man
People ask him why are you still married? Cheaper too keep her.
This is why men are not getting married good luck ladies
My divorce costed me nothing. She paid for the divorce. I was late to our divorce hearing, but since i didn't contest anything, it was over within two minutes. I gave her the house for our child. Ps, she lost the house to foreclosure 😅. Our son is 19 and i owe her nothing 😂.
Tampa, Florida...... one parent will go without time sharing with their children.....the court sells time sharing too the highest bidder parent through expenses spend on attorney fees......the poorer parent loses........ !
Way too many lawyers.
Far too much reason here.
Hired a loyer that was friends with my in laws and didn't know it his name is scolfeild. He had a bank account at teacher federal credit union in niles Michigan that was about 2 blocks from his office in niles Michigan. He was friends with my ex brother in laws wife her name was Stefanie Jansen at the time of my divorce. Her name is Stefanie fletcher now. She worked at the bank I'm talking about. And my loyer never told me he was friends with my in laws. Scolfeild is a judge for the 5th district court's in niles Michigan unless they moved him to st Joseph Michigan to the barrien county court house. I had paper work on my ex wife from CPS in door co Wisconsin. And he never let the judge in my divorce see it it was never put in o evidences in the court case. And he let them throw me under the bus for my in laws. I had no rights in that court room at all and my children got screwed to by my loyer. I was told to pay 179.50 a week in child support. I was only making 11.77 an hour. And my ex wife was told to pay 21.00 a week. My ex wife was not disabled mentally or physically in any way she should have had to pay an equal amount of support for my children. And my loyer never spoke up about it and through me under the bus. Criminal loyer! I had paper work with CPS to keep my ex wife from getting custody of my children and my loyer screwed me. For my in laws. There's evil everywhere. I should have had custody of my children. My son Gregory fuzi 4th was 11 or 12 years old and got punched in the face by the man who had custody of him and CPS came to investigate what happened and Kenneth Jansen lied to CPS to keep from getting in trouble and coworst my son in to lieing for him. I guess a punch in the face will get you to say anything. No one contact me about it at all not CPS not the friends of the courts nobody. My son's lifes have turned out like crap they have both been abusive to their spouses and children. I was never abusive to my ex wife or my children but I got screwed and so did my children. What a messed up life I've had. The court system is messed up in this country. I know it first hand. Criminals all of them.
My ex retaliated against and libeled me and hacked me and stole intellectual property.
Horrible. Mine had me exiled. Destroyed my one year old portrait studio. Monster Judge and attorney/"crush". Based on straight up, bare faced lies. He had a double life IYCMD
So true! And fathers gets racked under the coles.
It is all rather simple fellas, the answer is MCI. Don't get Married, don't Cohabitate and don't Impregnate! Feminism has inspire women to get degrees, earn 6 figures, buy their own homes and cars. If they want children they can pay for insemination and you can save your money and your sanity. When the powers that be decide to make equitable laws then it will be worthwhile to get involved again.
Lucrative lawyers, complicated family law and unfortunate cases notwithstanding- esp. cases mentioned in the film- as many people reviewing the film have asserted, much of its "analysis" seems one-sided and oversimplifies the real situation (and even the 'details' on some of the anecdotes presented *in* the documentary itself).
For example, this "super scholarly and unbiased" film is narrated by
...who else but Dr. Drew himself (lol)
And includes such "family law experts" as celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred (rofl). Tell me again why Gloria Allred "is a huge expert" on 'family court', all of a sudden, as if she "can add special insight" into no one else can?? o.O
Much of the film's "prime cases", so to speak, cover, like... 7-10 of 'the worst' family-court outcomes imaginable? And it just keeps going back to those men and women who were supposedly 'victimized' by that system. While offering occasional "totally-verified stats", like the bogus claim that even uncontested divorce "costs 10k", on 'average.'
...Almost nowhere in any of the presentation of stats and crucial facts are any citations mentioned on-screen (and rarely by voice), interestingly enough. So it's hard to fact-check much of the claims, esp. the aggregate 'data' presented
Also... why is some random-ass "rich private investigator" a "huge expert" on the system?? At *best*, he's *maybe* an "expert", with firsthand knowledge, of "all of the money to be made" within the system. if that
but a "big family court expert"? please
In all likelihood, the 'worst of the worst' outcomes presented in the 'documentary' are probably but a *small slice* of the overall outcomes. Could it be better? SURE
but.. is it "nearly as bad", for the average divorcees, as the film makes it out to be?
In all likelihood... probably not. You only hear about the cases that 'go really badly', but rarely do you hear about the likely-majority- if not vast-majority- of cases among the thousands of family-court cases where things *went fine or mostly-fine*. Hmmm...
With a large-enough total, anyone can cite a relative handful and still have a *large absolute amount* of "the worst cases" and pretend like it's "bad for everyone, in every situation." However... what is the 'likelihood' of this?? Let's be honest
The other thing that I find interesting is that people who were supposedly "super-victimized" by the family-court system *so often try to "pretend" as though the family-court system is "uniquely bad" and/or "uniquely biased (esp. 'against men')", or some shit like that. but... this is just AN EXTENSION OR PART OF a larger *shitty justice system and court system in the US* IN GENERAL
Reason and others know, surely, that the criminal courts, tax courts, etc., are probably little-better in so many ways, right? If anything, the family-court system "sucks" because THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND 'CRIMINAL JUSTICE' SYSTEM IN THE US SUCK AS A WHOLE. It's not "uniquely screwy", though. Or "screws people in the courtroom over way worse than other aspects of the legal system", as some advocates would like you to believe. There's probably little 'extra chance' of "being screwed over" in family court than, say.. the standard federal court system or state criminal court system. I can assure you that nowhere near, say, "80-90%" of family-court situations and divorces are being decided "super unfairly", as Joe Sorge implies with his film. Anyone can latch onto a handful of 'really bad' outcomes and say, "aha!"
But how much *actual, unbiased scholarship and research* were done for this film, esp. outside of talking to a relative-handful of *the same slim number of "big time experts" OVER AND OVER AND OVER, so many times in the same movie*? If this 'problem' were anywhere-near as "prevalent for practically all divorcees", shouldn't we have had FAR MORE experts discussing the issues in the movie, not just recycling the same lawyers, 'experts', etc., time and again throughout the film?
This to me suggests either a) Joe could only get a very-limited number of 'insiders' who presided over or had experience with a certain "handful" of "really-bad outcomes in cases", b/c the "problem" he claims is, likely, nowhere near 'as prevalent' as he actually suggests in his film or b) to a certain extent, many of the experts and insiders talked to in the film 'have an axe to grind', so to speak. Which might bias their view of family court in a way favorable to Joe and Co.
If Joe, however, were "so confident" in his position on "how bad family court is", surely he could've gotten, like... AT LEAST one person who's very "pro family court" to *talk about family court and "be grilled" by Joe or whoever, to answer, in their own words, why Joe and others are 'wrong'*?
and yet... Joe didn't do that. All of the experts and insiders interviewed in the film were victimized by the system, attorneys *for* those victimized, otherwise associated with the family court system in a 'neutral way' or "don't care" b/c they can make a lot of money off FC.
Again, the adverse outcomes suck, for sure, but.. the question is, how similar are they to "the norm" within family court??
Probably nowhere-near as prevalent as Joe and others would have us believe. The notion that the average divorce or family court case is anywhere-near "as disastrous" as the film implies is just downright absurd, to say the least (and highly unlikely)
The solution to avoid all of this is simple; don't get married!
BC Americans system from family court to education public schools are below standard to serve the purpose of devious acts.
lol the court isn't a free market unfortunately......
MGTOW 21 YEAR OLD FUTURE MILLIONAIRE IS ME💯💯💯💯💯
Let's goooooo😎
It was a piece of cake for my divorce and didn't cost a dime.
Do you have children?
Yes 4 children.
the lawyers charge top dollar, and do jack shit
Total bullshit, for uncontested, which can be done in (I think) any state, definitely the vast majority, with no lawyer. Google "DIY divorce"
Some states are a lot easier, like Washington where we did it ourselves. In WA, they even provide a workshop on how to fill out the forms properly. The two of us negotiated our property settlement over lunch, and has it notarized a quarter mile away.
We did need a judge, but understandably considering the legal ramifications of a divorce. He approved 30-40 divorces in maybe 90 minutes. The sole purpose of the hearing was that we were both sworn in and stated that the divorce and property settlement were voluntary and uncontested. That's it, sworn before a judge. I wouldn't want any less, since that could be the only safety factor in an abusive relationship. Total cost was about $100 for the workshop and court costs. After the judge "blessed" our divorce, we went to lunch together and parted with a hug, which is how it should be (uncontested). No lawyers. Sheesh.
P Mason I said "uncontested" Twice. Do you know what that means? The bullshit video claims a minimum $10,000 for uncontested. It's off by 99%.
Social Security benefits are not relevant, but I need to correct your misinformation.
(1)Spouse have their own benefits (called derivative), even if they never worked, based on age and marriage duration.
www.ssa.gov/retire2/yourdivspouse.htm
2) Social Security benefits are not open to negotiation in divorce settlements. Indeed NOBODY can touch those benefits -- they cannot even be garnished by debtors.
I'm 73 years old, so I know both Social Security and uncontested divorces from personal experience. So I know bullshit when I hear it!
P Mason Ummm, that's what I called "derivative" Sluggo. One more time for the mentally challenged. The spouse has their own benefit, even if they never worked. Whatever your mom got was NOT deducted from your dad's benefit. So, who should we all believe, a proven nitwit or the Social Security Administration.? (snicker)
----
"Note: Your benefit as a divorced spouse is equal to one-half of your ex-spouse's full retirement amount (or disability benefit) if you start receiving benefits at your full retirement age. ...
"Note: The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the amount of benefits your ex-spouse or their current spouse may receive."
I ALWAYS provide proof, which you NEVER provide
www.ssa.gov/retire2/divspouse.htm
==========
>>"And again so what your divorce went well. That's a minority."
You really are a nitwit! An estimated 95% of divorces are no-fault, since no-fault became legal as described in the video. And all or most states allow DIY divorces.
And ( laughing) my ONLY point is that the video is bullshit by claiming an uncontested divorce costs $10,000. Even with an attorney, if you know how to Google, you'll see all sorts of attorneys who will do all the paperwork and filing for $150-300. We're now into MASSIVE bullshit.
Oh, and I forgot that MEDIATION is also and option --which also eliminates any lawyers. Wipe the drool from your chin.
And get a life. STOP STALKING ME.
Mike Hihn "In the United States, the average cost of an uncontested divorce ranges from $100 to $500 without an attorney and $500 to $10,000 or more with an attorney."
While uncontested divorces can cost $10,000 or more with an attorney they often do cost less then $500. It is not unreasonable to consult an attorney, even in an uncontested divorce, but for a hour or 2 of billing, just to make sure everything is in line. This will cost $500 or so. At $10,000 this is an unofficial contested divorce, where both side have lawyer and are fighting over shit, often shit not worth $10K.
Read more: www.ehow.com/about_5558804_average-cost-uncontested-divorce.html#ixzz2zk4GMajY
Loathomar Your pseudo source agrees with me that the video is bullshit for claiming the AVERAGE cost for an UNCONTESTED divorce is $50,000. duh.
But then ehow goes batshit crazy on its own. THINK. If nobody is contesting anything then .... ummmm ... which one would pay a lawyer $10,000? For what purpose? This is NOT rocket science. And since when is ehow a credible sources for legal issues?
But thanks for agreeing that fhe video is bulshit hysteria mongering for birther-level mentalities and conspiracy freaks,
Ronald Ragan, 1969?????? Signed a law.....huh???
My most valuable merits were abolished in family court. since the abolishment of meritocracy is a woke character, it stands to reason the flaw in family court has its foundations rooted in the misuse of the woke culture for the purposes of provoking appeal. This is social deciduous no doubt. It is this malicious character of layering that is destroying the concept of family let alone the harm torment and destruction of children. For those fluid in resolute law the later should ring a bell.
I don't under stand 🤔
We can't just let people make decisions about their lives-- then bad things would happen. I'm glad bad things don't happen.
welp guess im moving to Scandinavia
Just Try not to die waiting for a doctors apointment
No lawyers required to get married only divorced
I have trouble believing that the average cost of the American uncontested divorce is as high as 10-15K.
Another question: how does 6 month “waiting” period factor in domestic violence?
We are working to solve this problem at National Liberty Alliance .org contact us if you would like to partnership. contact our National Director under our directory.
I don't know where they are getting these numbers, I got divorced last year and it cost about $300. Pretty simple process, just file a divorce petition that you can download on the internet and wait for your court date. If you're too lazy to do this yourself, don't complain about what the lawyers charge for it.
God(if there’s 1) know I’m married, then why let know the gov that you’re married?
So you can pay them when you get divorced.
Hello I'm for a wife
explain?
hi, wife here. PM for my cashapp.
Mmmm Tracy. More spank material from my favorite ReasonTV contributor.
Uncontested divorces don't cost anywhere near 10k. Most lawyers will do it for 2k. Specialty lawyers are only needed for very complex contested divorces. Many people in my local family court handle their uncontested divorces themselves with out the lawyer and it's pretty simple.
This documentary is another reason why I'm embarrassed and ashamed to be an American. T__T;;;