Posts Feed
Comments Feed

DIY Divorce

You don’t necessarily need a solicitor or lawyer to manage your divorce if it is uncontested, i.e. you and your spouse agree to the divorce, although if there is other issues that you need to decide upon, for instance maintenance or dividing up property, it may be helpful to have a solicitor draw up plans. Obviously if the divorce is contested, meaning that either you or your spouse disagree to the divorce or the grounds for divorce ,you will need to involve a solicitor to see if there are grounds for divorce.
You are not automatically entitled to a divorce, you need to be able to show one of five facts which have affected your marriage.

When there are children under the age of 18 involved, (known as minor children) the courts will be concerned about the decision that has been made for them. They will need to know that the arrangements you and your spouse have made are in the Child’s best interests. You should ask a solicitor to approve the plans that you and your spouse have made for them.

You should be able to resolve easily the dividing of property in your home, but if you own substantial property it may be in your interest to have a solicitor make sure you receive a fair amount and that the property is divided up tax effectively.

If you will be financially dependant on your spouse after the divorce, you will need to get a solicitor to negotiate a regular payment amount and to get the amount legally protected.

If you can agree as much as possible with your spouse about the divorce, then it is possible that you can conduct the divorce yourself, only requiring the services of a solicitor when necessary. By conducting the divorce yourself, you can save you a great deal of money.

Pearl Deloria is a proud contributing author. Find more articles here. For more info visit Attorney Resources or Divorce Law

Tags: , , , , , ,

No Comments »

Irresponsible Need a Job

Let’s face it so many people these days are so completely irresponsible one has to wonder what type a job they might be able to hold? One career path, which might fit the bill for a totally irresponsible person is to become an Attorney at Law. Now you might think that attorneys are responsible, but you are mistaken. You see not only are attorneys irresponsible but they help others who are irresponsible pretend to be responsible and re-assign their responsibility to another, an organization or an agency; that in itself is irresponsible as a citizen. Assisting another to defraud and forgo their duties to society and yet retain the efforts of the whole of that society or steal from the labors of another for that which you did not earn is irresponsible; how on Earth could it be another other than that.

Not long ago there was a huge defrauding by Law Students to discharge their student loans by using their new law degree and license to file bankruptcy. It was said to be good practice and some graduating students found a never-ending supply of bankruptcy clients not more than a 3-mile radius from the University Grounds.

So, if you are an irresponsible piece of garbage and a worthless excuse for a human being, I recommend you become a lawyer so you can continue your current level of work ethic and comfortable lifestyle that you are use to. Just think you can even drive a Beamer and pretend your human waste is without odor. All attorneys know everything is only a matter of definition. After all don’t your wants out weigh any other needs of society? If you believe that, you are already on your way to being a very excellent lawyer indeed. Think on this.

Lance Winslow - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments »

Closure

Closure represents the triumph of reality over illusion, recognition that things are the way they are, not the way we wish them to be.

“A man has got to know his limitations.” Clint Eastwood, Magnum Force

Settlement is a peace treaty declared on agreed terms. It represents the triumph of reality over illusion, rationality over expectation, calculation over emotion, and the cessation of conflict between parties who, in many cases, will go their separate ways.

Reconciliation is different from a peace treaty, and harder to achieve. It represents a collaborative harmonization of emotional needs and perceived realities, where the parties want or need to continue living in relationship with one another.

After the defeat of Hitler in 1945, Europe, for a thousand years the cockpit of war was utterly devastated. Yet today, twenty-five European nations with different languages, histories, and economies have achieved gradual reconciliation so thorough that today a general European war is not conceivable. Neither today can we conceive of California attacking Idaho, or Alabama marching on Ohio. Reconciliation is possible.

Some litigators are quite withering about mediation: “I try my cases,” they boast, a variation on the theme “real men don’t eat quiche.” The reality is that these “real men” do settle their cases 96% of the time.

Without war we would have no word for peace, without peace no word for war; they are a dichotomy. The classical Greek word for “the natural state of things” was stasis, from which we derive the word static, but which to them meant perpetual conflict. The task of the mediator is a little more complicated than simply asking: “Can’t we all just get along?”

The mediator has the task of maintaining the process between the parties, whether the goal is settlement or reconciliation, through convening, opening, communicating, negotiating, until the final step, which is closure.

It will be found that parties often negotiate to a short distance from each other, but the final step that each side has to make proves elusive. They are like a horses that gallop right up to a jump, but then screech to a halt, sometimes throwing the rider - and as far as mediation is concerned, this is a moment when the whole process may blow up.

At this final stage, suddenly emotion may again take over, and the impulses of the ego thrust themselves forward. With only a small concession needed to achieve resolution, the desire to win, to score a victory over the opponent, to stick it to the other side, to achieve a tiny measure of revenge, reasserts itself.

How is a mediator to proceed? Some mediators talk about the dignity of being able to say “No” and walk away. Others take the view that the dignity of saying “No” is an insufficient reward to exchange for the benefits of achieving resolution. Such mediators see, in their mind’s eye, the parties as having entered the room with a great burden upon their backs, or a ball and chain around their ankle that with just a little more effort can be removed. Even if the parties, having settled, walk out of the room with some reluctance, which is called buyer’s remorse or seller’s remorse, the buyer wondering if he took too little, the seller wondering if he paid too much, the match is over. The reason the parties chose mediation in the first place was to achieve that cessation. It is not just a matter of money, and certainly not a matter of ego. There is a great deal of time and stress, and waste of energy and resources, involved in disputes, so that the benefit the parties receive in the form of “getting their lives back” is a very important consideration.

“You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.” Kenny Rogers

Charles B. Parselle is a mediator, arbitrator and attorney. He graduated from Oxford University’s Honor School of Jurisprudence and is a member of the English bar, then was admitted to the California Bar in 1983. A practicing attorney, he is a prolific author and sought-after mediator. To consult him, please contact him through his website: http://www.parsellemediation.com

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments »

Next »

Close
E-mail It