Post: #1

Damn. Poor guy.

Post: #2

Scary shit.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #3

Is this just in Canada (I'm guessing not)? What's the situation like in places like California (if anyone can chime in)? How does one get into a marriage, but out of a situation like Dave Foley's? Aside from pre-screening for bat-shit-insane...

Post: #4

That shit is just crazy.
I couldn't believe it when he said a lawyer told him his salary is not relevant to his child support payments i.e he is obligated to send fixed monthly payments regardless of his earning power.

Post: #5

Any other Canadians on here used to watch the Kids In The Hall?

The Chicken Lady:

Post: #6

In family court a man has no rights. You are a beast of burden that MUST subsidize every future dick that your ex wife wants to ride.

Post: #7

@scotian: KIH definitely. Remember Four on the Floor?

I think guys like Foley need someone like el mechanico to help them....

Post: #8

(07-08-2013 10:12 AM)Menace Wrote:  @scotian: KIH definitely. Remember Four on the Floor?

I think guys like Foley need someone like el mechanico to help them....

Holy shit I forgot all about Four on the Floor, my favorite skit of all time was Mr canoe head:

Post: #9

O
M
F
G

Post: #10

(07-08-2013 04:03 AM)kerouac Wrote:  Is this just in Canada (I'm guessing not)? What's the situation like in places like California (if anyone can chime in)? How does one get into a marriage, but out of a situation like Dave Foley's? Aside from pre-screening for bat-shit-insane...

I never get tired of re-reposting this:

The demon is "imputed income".

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_jer...ld_support

I can't see having kids in the US unless you are really load and can take the hit while retaining your lifestyle.

Post: #11

Notwithstanding the Canadian legal system, he married a BPD chick...the signs were likely there in the beginning but he was too beta to figure it out. He's a nice Canadian boy. The hard part is that he doesn't even get to see his own children. The whole thing is a travesty.

Post: #12

(07-08-2013 11:12 AM)Menace Wrote:  Notwithstanding the Canadian legal system, he married a BPD chick...the signs were likely there in the beginning but he was too beta to figure it out. He's a nice Canadian boy. The hard part is that he doesn't even get to see his own children. The whole thing is a travesty.

Yeah, but a pissed off Narcissist will be getting the "take him for all you can, he's a JERK" lecture from her friends too.

Post: #13

(07-08-2013 11:10 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 04:03 AM)kerouac Wrote:  Is this just in Canada (I'm guessing not)? What's the situation like in places like California (if anyone can chime in)? How does one get into a marriage, but out of a situation like Dave Foley's? Aside from pre-screening for bat-shit-insane...

I never get tired of re-reposting this:

The demon is "imputed income".

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_jer...ld_support

I can't see having kids in the US unless you are really load and can take the hit while retaining your lifestyle.

Is going off the grid an option in these cases, say if a guy moved deep into the woods to grow dope or something and didn't report any income, or he became a homeless bum and collected pop cans for a living. Are those options or would he still be thrown in jail for due child support/alimony?

Post: #14

Can someone save me 22 minutes and tell me how bad he got fucked?

Post: #15

(07-08-2013 11:28 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  Can someone save me 22 minutes and tell me how bad he got fucked?

She was insane and they only had sex twice a year for 11 years.

Dude was ordered to pay something like 3x what he got paid.

He almost had to go to jail for 6 months or cough up 500k. He said he would have an additional 30 days in jail for every month he didn't pay on top of the 6 months. Basically a life sentence.

He can't go back to Canada now or he will get thrown in jail.

Post: #16

Why isn't this like all over the news and people being outraged. I mean he seems like a nice guy and he is funny and created entertaining stuff. He doesn't seem like he could hurt anyone (not meant to be a slight - meant like he seems like a nice stand up guy - granted the whole having sex with her when she was the gf of a friend sort of is like karma as it was discussed in the clip).

Just ridiculous.

Post: #17

WTF! My mom wants me to settle down and marry a girl in Canada, NO WAY.

Post: #18

(07-08-2013 11:27 AM)scotian Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 11:10 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 04:03 AM)kerouac Wrote:  Is this just in Canada (I'm guessing not)? What's the situation like in places like California (if anyone can chime in)? How does one get into a marriage, but out of a situation like Dave Foley's? Aside from pre-screening for bat-shit-insane...

I never get tired of re-reposting this:

The demon is "imputed income".

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_jer...ld_support

I can't see having kids in the US unless you are really load and can take the hit while retaining your lifestyle.

Is going off the grid an option in these cases, say if a guy moved deep into the woods to grow dope or something and didn't report any income, or he became a homeless bum and collected pop cans for a living. Are those options or would he still be thrown in jail for due child support/alimony?

I think jail or the threat of jail would be a horrible stressor in those cases, and I would not form plans that allow for that eventuality. It's barely living.

I've thought about it a lot, and much as health and education can be great in the US, I've come to the conclusion that unless you are deeply embedded in some ethinic subgroup where the certainty your wife will stay with you is WAY above the degree to which you can count on the average Americunt (Amish, Mormon, etc) , it is not wise to have children in the USA.

It works both ways. My sister is a regular middle class woman born in the 1940's, not a narcissistic bitch or religious nut, very pretty, she married a "holy roller" from a evangelical college where they didn't even allow dancing, someone much more "conservative" than she was-- at first.

He ended up shacking up with the village slut, he ditched her and married the slut, and my innocent sister was fucked.

As far as a man living off the grid, it's getting harder and harder to live off the computerized "grid"; except for the fact solar power is getting better.

Also, no matter what, having a warrant out for you means your life is rather precarious, you have to make sure you never come in to contact with the police for any reason, it's hard to make plans when you're living like that.

In my opinion ( I am not an international lawyer) it's better to have kids if you want them in a country that:

1) Isn't a member of the mutual child enforcement pact as enforced by taking away your passport so you can't leave the country.

i.e.Italy (It takes about 5 years to get divorced in Italy, I'm guessing-only guessing-they don't assign you alimony during those 5 years. )

2) Has NO divorce at all ( only annulment) (Phillipines)

3) Doesn't assign you insanely high child support payments (Russia)

Then the very worst case scenario is you leave and only occasionally visit your child. Not a primary or even secondary plan, but a last resort.

Being made a criminal for not paying money I don't have is simply not an acceptable option for me.

Post: #19

Foley makes a great point about the utter illogical absurdity of pegging child support on the income the husband made at the time of divorce, irrespective of the subsequent course of his career, when if he was still married their living standards would have dropped anyway.

At best such a system can be called indentured servitude, but frankly even indentured servants in colonial times signed the contract selling their labor away for however many years, but most guys have no knowledge what marriage can mean nowadays.

Post: #20

(07-08-2013 12:48 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  3) Doesn't assign you insanely high child support payments (Russia)

IKE, question do you think that is a function of the income there and that most men are not financially well off. Just wondering if you happened to be a bigger earner would those payments start to look like western ones.

Thanks for all your contributions.

Post: #21

(07-08-2013 12:53 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 12:48 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  3) Doesn't assign you insanely high child support payments (Russia)

IKE, question do you think that is a function of the income there and that most men are not financially well off. Just wondering if you happened to be a bigger earner would those payments start to look like western ones.

Thanks for all your contributions.

I don't know how Russia arrives at their decisions about levels of child support, but to some degree my idea is you want their decisions to be unenforceable no matter what they are.

In no way does this mean I advocate abandoning your children. My idea is that family courts are out-of-control agents extracting egregious financial retribution against men-- for emotional issues that are not appropriately addressed by what amount to de facto lawsuits.

Here is a section from the US State Dept site linked to above:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86823.pdf


(2) If there is no state-level or Federal arrangement with the foreign country, it may be necessary for the individual seeking enforcement or the foreign authorities working on behalf of that individual to retain the services of a private attorney in the United States to attempt to enforce the foreign judgment in accordance with U.S. law.
(3) There is no treaty in force between the United States and any foreign country on the subject of enforcement of judgments. See CA/OCS’s general guidance regarding enforcement of judgments on the CA Internet page. Information about lawyer referral services is available from the American Bar Association.
============

When they say "go get a lawyer" it means they're not going to help the eager-to-collect complainant.

Post: #22

Brian hit the nail on the head. Turn the tables. It sounds like he didnt even try. Here my friends is how a beta gets a divorce. And unfortunately, 90% of men. I have a hard time believing his story about the court. Unless he agreed to it, I have never seen this happen to a man who actively and aggressively defended his role as a father. Even in Canada. He left his evidence at his lawyers office? Really? And he had to go to court once a month for a year and a half? Wow, sounds like a typical divorce.

Post: #23

(07-08-2013 01:42 PM)puckman Wrote:  Brian hit the nail on the head. Turn the tables. It sounds like he didnt even try. Here my friends is how a beta gets a divorce. And unfortunately, 90% of men. I have a hard time believing his story about the court. Unless he agreed to it, I have never seen this happen to a man who actively and aggressively defended his role as a father. Even in Canada. He left his evidence at his lawyers office? Really? And he had to go to court once a month for a year and a half? Wow, sounds like a typical divorce.

In defense of the guy, he ran out of money to pay the lawyers. I suspect they weren't falling all over themselves to get him his documents once he was no longer a source of money.

As far as exerting no effort, maybe he was focused on trying to earn the money (I guess he is an internationally known TV personality) that ended up condemning him to astronomical child support.

And the demon behind the scenes I as I keep ranting about, is imputed income. There's no real oversight by qualified accountants etc. over what is a reasonable amount, these are government bureaucrats, who've typically never been entrepreneurs declaring "Oh, he should be making about.... (X). So you owe... y% of X."

Post: #24

In the US, attorneys are required by law to return client documents once they cease representation. I can't believe that it is any different in Canada. That evidence is the client's property, not the attorney's. Failure to do so is a violation of the rules of ethics and can lead to sanctions or disbarment. All he had to do was ask them to put all that crap in a box and send it to him.

Anyway, as with any family law situation, the reality is really fact specific, but it doesn't seem like Dave had the killer instinct to get down and dirty to make it hard for her.

Post: #25

(07-08-2013 01:54 PM)Menace Wrote:  In the US, attorneys are required by law to return client documents once they cease representation. I can't believe that it is any different in Canada. That evidence is the client's property, not the attorney's. Failure to do so is a violation of the rules of ethics and can lead to sanctions or disbarment. All he had to do was ask them to put all that crap in a box and send it to him.

Anyway, as with any family law situation, the reality is really fact specific, but it doesn't seem like Dave had the killer instinct to get down and dirty to make it hard for her.

I defer to your deeper knowledge of law, but as you say, the devil is in the details. If he was usually out of the country working, where were they supposed to send them, etc. And how long exactly did they have to send the docs back etc.

True, he doesn't seem to have the paranoia you need to handle a vindictive ex-wife.