You should be aware that in family law, especially around divorce, there are two “people”. Sounds like a statement of the obvious but I’m setting the stage.

In divorce law, one of them is the Earner, and the other is the Spouse.

This can be broken down, semantically, which always earns the lawyers, a lot of money, but the way divorce law is written, it is “to protect the stay at home mom”. Even though today: The stay at home mom is a unicorn anymore.

Divorce laws were written around the time that men were abandoning their wives in 1929 to go to the cities to work. Leaving these women on a barren farm, uneducated, with a bunch of children.

Fast forward, to today, where the laws have not changed, not even one little bit. And this is why, people should never get married, unless they are women, white, and aware. Because it is the best franchise to get into.

The best case scenario would be a sexy, white stripper or ersatz prostitute, who marries an older white guy. Preferably white.

If she can get him to pay the bills for one month, she can divorce him, and live for free, for the rest of their existence. This article will describe exactly how.

Your natural push back would be, “But wait, alimony laws don’t provide a lifetime of income? If they never had children, child support doesn’t provide a lifetime of income.”

Family law, attorneys know better than that. “It’s not about the laws, it’s what you can do with them.” 

There is a gaping loophole that will never be closed.

And it goes back to the Earner and the Spouse.

It turns out in divorce law, that if the spouse cannot afford a lawyer, family law will ensure she has a lawyer, and the court will order that those bills will be paid by the Earner.

This is a verbatim quotation from one of the hearings in 2021 set on an emergency basis to move the divorce case.

“He’s got lots of money, Your Honor, let’s not get bogged down into that.“

To which the judge responded: “OK, let’s order that husband is to pay $5000 in legal fees by next month. We will write it up and send it out to both counsel. Next.”

And you might say, OK, that’s not fair. 

But for the stripper, it’s beautiful. Because as soon as that happens, the stripper-spouse’s attorney can start sending a letter every day to the rich white guy’s attorney. And the rich white guy is paying both attorneys. [Something I know from personal experience.]

And unless he is ridiculously rich, he’s going to see an open artery bleeding out which is going to push him back to the table to see what he can give the stripper to make it stop.

You could have specific pushback to certain issues.

“What if she starts working?“

Answer: she simply tells the court that she’s not working. Family court rooms don’t verify anything. Everything is “under oath.“ And it is up to the rich-guy’s attorney to prove that she is working again. Guess who’s paying for that. The rich white guy does he really want to pay his attorney to run around to prove her income dancing on a pole?“

“There are not that many attorneys that would abuse the system this badly. Not all family lawyers, are morally bankrupt.”

Answer: Yes, actually, they are. It’s not an area of law that good people can stay in. It’s a big game, and lawyers can simply say, “I’m not the system. I’m just a raincoat.” And somehow feel morally and ethically separate from the system. They are brokering.

You should watch this movie before you get married. REALIZE:  You you have better than 50% chance of ending up here. You both will be dragging your children with you. I recommend that you reconsider actually getting married, and seriously re-think having kids; for the sake of ALL parties (60+%) concerned. If you have any doubts of any of what I’m saying, please ask the people who have been through a contested divorce. (60% of the people reading this came from homes affected by it. But were unaware of what the parents went through).

So to say that family lawyers aren’t morally bankrupt, deep down, it’s like saying that the guy that pumps the septic tanks and drives the honey truck doesn’t get shit on him.

It’s just like PHARMACY, where CEO’s and The Boards of publicly-traded pharmaceutical companies have to push the sword in, all the way to the moral, ethical and emotional hilt. It’s just what they do for shareholder performance, and satisfaction. There is no window dressing that can obscure the “exclusively for profit” motivations that are going on. 

The key element, again, is that it’s 1929 law, supporting the “Great Depression Dust Bowl, stay at home, nonworking spouse”, and the earner gets to pay all the bills. And then, that gets leveraged into an extortion situation, which is overlooked by the courts and all the attorneys involved. Please keep in mind, that the saying “justice is blind“ refers specifically to the oversight the judges put into the case.

You might also be surprised to know that the judge you’re sitting in front of, was only ELECTED by regular people in your community. Has nothing to do with their IQ intelligence quotient, or their performance at Harvard Law. That guy could be a patent attorney. 

He could sit on the bench there, and make $10, or be out in private practice making $100, what does that tell you about his level of engagement? is it possible that there is more to his compensation package than meets the eye. 

( https://divorcecorp.com )

[Something I know from personal experience.]

Did you know however, that you can get elected to judge ship in civil court and family law, and then simply leave? *Never* sit on the bench or adjudicate a case, not even once? Yep, you have your cases heard by random substitute judges. Yes, it actually, literally and really happens. Nothing happens as a result of that. And yet, these guys at the end of their career, receive all of the benefits of someone who has served in the public like that.

And here’s the next part, recall, long ago that I was talking about how a stripper could leverage a wealthy person into a position of paying her legal fees and then drumming up a big bill unless she can extort you serious alimony, or some thing.

 at any point in time, she can allege malfeasance in his execution of his duties in the agreement agreement. She can say “you didn’t pay this” or she could say “you didn’t do this in a timely fashion” and drag his ass back into court.

“Well, she wouldn’t win.” Is what you might say.

But who’s going to be paying her legal-bill? The taps are back on, neither Attorney is going to blow the whistle on the fact that she’s extorting him, he is going to pay *both* attorneys until he gives her what she wants. Again. 

“The laws don’t provide for that”. You might say.

Never forget what I said about family law, “It’s not about the laws. It’s about what (and who) you can DO with them.”

And don’t forget this about lawyers: Your case is just the Shoe the lawyer wears on the track. They require a shoe to be allowed on the track. 

But once they’re on the track, they are going to romp, and stomp, and run as far and for as long as they possibly can. But never forget: You’re just the shoe. They don’t care about your situation. Do you think they would TELL you that? 

No because you wouldn’t use them as lawyers. They will absolutely, and fervently, tell you they care. But you’re just the shoe.  

Every family law attorney that you see, has a catastrophic mental health disorder, most often it’s  reactive attachment disorder. Most are Machiavellian. A significant percentage are intelligent, capable, charismatic malignant narcissists. Many have Asperger’s. 

It doesn’t matter if you understand that, as long as you understand the consequences.