LonelySoul,<P>Funny that you bring NJ up, since I also live in NJ. And that helps to explain the filing of the papers. And I also understand what you are saying about it is just a legal process and it is legal terminology. But I strongly am against that frame of thought - just because that is how it is done it makes it "OK"?<P>No offense to Sisyphus, or to anyone else in the legal profession, but I think that profession has gotten WAY out of hand. And no it is not just the attorneys' faults, it is our society's as well. The bottom line is that, if back in earlier days, someone were to say things about me that were false and everyone knew them to be false, there would be repercussions - there used to be something called "honor". <P>Sure my divorce papers were written by an attorney who has never even met me. But that does not lessen my disgust for how he could write something and file it in the public domain, without even thinking that maybe it was completely false!!! Call it pride, call it whatever you want, but I try to be an honorable person - a good person - a person of strong faith and conviction. And when someone makes false accusations of my character, I take offense to it. My wife did these things out of anger - I can understand that... But this attorney wrote something up (or rather he dictated it to his secretary) without taking one minute, one second to even stop and think if this bunch of words he was dictating was true.<P>So just because that is "how it is" does not mean that we should blindly sit around like sheep and continue to allow it to happen. Look at today - An eighteen year old boy was skiing (recklessly) and accidentally hit another man. Unfortunately that man died. Yesterday, two years later, that boy was found guilty of homicide! And depending on what happens today, he may go to jail. Jail, for a skiing accident? Maybe the boy was doing something reckless - but jail? <P>Our legal system (in my own opinion) is totally "out there" anymore. Again, I don't take blame with any one attorney, or attornies in general - it is more about the whole profession...<P>venting....venting....venting...<P>Mike<P>------------------<BR>God always waits for the right time to do the right thing in the right way.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoTired2000:<BR><B>Sure my divorce papers were written by an attorney who has never even met me. But that does not lessen my disgust for how he could write something and file it in the public domain, without even thinking that maybe it was completely false!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Believe me, he knows it <I>could be</I> completely false, but without him having reason to believe <I>it was</I> completely false, his ethical duty to his client required him to go forward with it. She is entitled to her day in court, and to have a strong advocate for her position, however misguided it may be. That's why we have court, instead of more people running around pursuing vendettas in the streets.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>So just because that is "how it is" does not mean that we should blindly sit around like sheep and continue to allow it to happen. Look at today - An eighteen year old boy was skiing (recklessly) and accidentally hit another man. Unfortunately that man died. Yesterday, two years later, that boy was found guilty of homicide! And depending on what happens today, he may go to jail. Jail, for a skiing accident? Maybe the boy was doing something reckless - but jail?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And the case is controversial too, with people strenuously arguing both sides. The fact of the matter is that 12 <I>skiers</I> convicted him. You can't get closer to a <I>jury of your peers</I> than that! They know what is prudent and what is reckless. And when you cross the line from carelessness to recklessness, the consequences turn from civil to criminal; and if you kill someone recklessly, criminal consequences include jail. Sorry, that's the way it is, and if it wasn't that way you would be a lot more likely to get killed while innocently driving, boating, skiing, or whatever. And the law doesn't want that.<P>The key fact that may mean that he should <I>not</I> be in jail is that no one defined what an <I>expert skier</I> is, and the fact that he admitted to being one while being questioned prior to recovering from a concussion came right into evidence unchallenged. He may <I>not</I> have been expert enough to realize he was a ballistic missile approaching an area of limited sight distance in time to slow down. But he didn't take the stand, and there were no witnesses as to expertise ... I think it made for a bad vacuum for a jury to have to fill using just the taped admission of a brain-injured 18-year-old. Plus, I think the jury was allowed to know he had alcohol and marijuana on him even though there was no evidence he was using at the time, and I think that was a bit prejudicial.

SoTired:<P>The point you need to remember is that your wife's attorney is working for her and most likely is paying him/her big bucks. It's lousy, but that is how it goes. <P>I believe I am a good and honest person. I know what went on in my marriage, but at court hearing with my H, his lawyer referred to me as an extortionist and an adulterer who was in the habit of dropping my kids off at whim to fly off for romantic trips with my lover. I wish. The incident the attorney was referring to was me going to a conference with four female co-workers and me asking my H to help out getting the kids off to school. I was very offended, but I know how it works and tried not to take it personally. <P>Sometimes it is difficult to remember that not everyone shares our views on the world or has the same set of moral standards. I don't think I am a follower like a sheep, but I have learned to choose my battles wisely.<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GnomeDePlume:<BR><B>I really, really hated it when my wife got down on her self. She would go on and on about how terrible she was at her job, how everybody there was laughing at her or talking about her behind her back, etc. I could never figure out how to handle this. If I tried to tell her that she was very good at her job, and that everybody there loved her and often told me how fortunate they felt to have her (all true; I worked with her - under her, actually - and was thus in a position to know), she accused me of invalidating her feelings.<P>I may actually have been disrespectful toward her). But I never did figure out how to handle this kind of situation...</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yer supposed to <I>just listen</I> to that stuff. If you're feeling frisky, you can wait until the very end and say something like "Gosh, I'm glad they haven't fired you yet. Guess there must be a couple of people there who think you're <I>OK</I>. I just want you to know that <I>I</I> think you're OK, and <I>we'll</I> be OK no matter what happens."

Sisyphus,<P>This is one time where I really could debate this for hours... Personally I relate it to the IRS Tax code (since I am a recovering CPA ) - Every line in that code was designed with good intentions (OK maybe not every line ). But now when you look at it, it is a complete mess - loopholes - two three or more other paragraphs trying to repeal or change the first - total ambiguity - outdated ideas and thoughts. The bottom line is that it needs to be totally revamped. Cleaned out. Simplified. I am not saying to "trash it", because it does meet a need. <P>I feel the same about the legal profession - sure it evolved with positive intentions, but it has gotten so conviluted and warped, that it often exists more to better itself and its "players" than it does for the participants.<P>But like I said before, I don't just blame the people involved with the system - I blame us all. Personal responsiblity has been long since disregarded - Now we need the courts and government to protect us, to live our lives.<P>The skiier - Was he intent on hurting someone? No. Did he? Yes. Will any of us ever know what exactly was going on in his head when the "accident" happened? Probably not. Accidents happen. Sure recklessness has to be minimized to protect others, but haven't we taken it to the extreme? Another example is the boy who got in a fight in a hockey game up North somewhere (don't remember all the details). Well I think he cut the other boy pretty bad with his stick. Instead of just being kicked out of the league (which by the way is what would have happened only 10 years ago when I used to play), the boy was charged with assault AND he was sued by the family. Just how far is too far??????.....<P>Sisyphus, I know there is no right answer. But I also think that when you put the legal system in charge of overseeing itself, trouble is going to brew? What do I mean? Who argues cases? Lawyers. What are most judges before they are appointed to the bench? Lawyers. What about the people who write and pass the laws - usually what are they? Lawyers. Something to think about....<P>Mike<P>------------------<BR>God always waits for the right time to do the right thing in the right way.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FaithfulWife:<BR><B>Now, the "Personal Power" person will think that maybe the partner misunderstood and took it as an attack, so he/she will try to explain; which just make the "Power Over" person argue harder, because their goal is to win or conquer the partner.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think you need a third category: the "Power Under" person. I'm very much what you describe as a "Personal Power" person, but my wife's tendency is to perceive innocuous or encouraging comments as attacks. It's as if she assumed I was a "Power Over" person and defended herself accordingly.<P>

Perception is everything. Especially in regards to abuse. <P>BTW: You guys are from all different states, yes? I live in FL, and we did not have to list specific justifications for the divorce. No explanations. We could have been getting divorced because he was having sex with our dogs, was secretly a gay circus clown, or never picked up his laundry. I wish we (he) had to write a written justification of why he wanted the divorce. Maybe it would have made him think. Is this what is called a no fault divorce? Also, it was final in exactly 42 days. How sad.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B>I sound like a <I>whiner</I>, but in fact this latest verbal abuse thread has been so therapeutic for me that I'm feeling almost at peace enough to leave this board for a while.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Anybody care to join me in a systematic attempt to get Sisyphus all confused and agitated? I'd hate to see him go, but I'm not too good at this verbal abuse thing, so I'm going to need some help...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>The issue isn't whether something pleases or not. The issue is <I>intent</I>.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And how, pray tell, do you discern intent? How do you prove that your intent wasn't malicious and controlling? Are you guilty until proven innocent, or are you innocent until proven guilty?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Believe me, he knows it could be completely false, but without him having reason to believe it was completely false, his ethical duty to his client required him to go forward with it. She is entitled to her day in court, and to have a strong advocate for her position, however misguided it may be.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But am I entitled to <I>my</I> day in court? My wife has made horrible accusations against me, and from what my lawyers tell me, it is not at all clear that I will ever get a chance to defend myself. The law says that my wife must prove grounds for divorce, but the courts act to "punish" me regardless. They don't <I>call</I> it punishment, but if it's not that, it's extortion.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>Yer supposed to just listen to that stuff.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I tried that. My wife got upset and wanted to know why I was giving her the silent treatment.<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gsd:<BR><B>I live in FL, and we did not have to list specific justifications for the divorce. No explanations.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm a Floridian too, and I guess that's one silver lining in <I>"no fault"</I> divorce. You just say "irretrievably broken" without dragging the other person through villainous-sounding allegations that may or may not be true.<P>Sad in one way, but from another viewpoint it certainly spares ill-feelings.<P>

gsd:<P>In NJ if you want a No Fault divorce you have to be separated a min. of 18 months before the divorce is final. Most people don't want to wait around that long once they have reached the decision to divorce. This is where you have different grounds you can file under. If you file under extreme emotional cruelty, supposedly you only have to wait six months; providing there are no problems. Under emotional cruelty there are about six pages of offenses that constitute emotional cruelty. The filing spouse has to write a one page account, siting as many of these offenses as they remember happening...going back three months prior to the complaint. Are you following? The lawyers, paraphrase your words, the document goes out with the complaint when your spouse is served. Sometimes it takes six weeks from the time you file to when the court actually records the complaint. Nothing moves fast. <P>I filed a year ago and I am still legally married with no end in sight.<P>In some way it is good you do have to wait because the waiting gives you lots of time to think about what you are doing. On the other hand, the waiting, the legal mumbojombo bleeds you financially. It is ludicrous the amount of paperwork that has been involved. <BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B> The issue isn't whether something pleases or not. The issue is <I>intent</I>. And most of the world has come a long way in a short period of time on more social issues than I care to count (some of which I will likely remain a dinosaur on). Thank globalization and abundant journalism for that.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sisyphus,<P>Don't know if this will be helpful or not, but this site has a half a dozen lists, emotionaly abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, etc. The stuff is very easy to read, you can get through the whole shooting match in ten minutes.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/abusiverelationships" TARGET=_blank>http://www.geocities.com/abusiverelationships</A> <P>Get advice, information, and poems regarding abusive relationships. Explore the myths about violence, men who batter, why a woman stays and what constitutes emotional, physical and sexual abuse.<P>Intent isn't necessary to hurt someone, or to hurt someone's feelings. I had no intention of wrecking my car and killing a deer. All I wanted to do was go home. Nonetheless, that doe is quite dead.<P>I can't count the times I've heard some remark that was meaningless to me, maybe even funny, and later learned that someone else was cut to the bone by it.<P>Bumper<P> <BR> <P><BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GnomeDePlume:<BR><B> I tried that. My wife got upset and wanted to know why I was giving her the silent treatment.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You can't <I>not</I> not communicate. Everything you do is a communication. Body language, facial expressions--all this stuff the women learned long ago on the playground while you were chasing a ball. She <I>knew</I> you weren't empathetic to what she was saying.<P>It's hard to win when you didn't grow up playing the game (and even that is bad thinking--winning isn't the point, <I>connecting</I> is the point).<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><B>And how, pray tell, do you discern intent? How do you prove that your intent wasn't malicious and controlling? Are you guilty until proven innocent, or are you innocent until proven guilty?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You have to <I>communicate</I>. Without lovebusting, contempt, criticism, defensiveness or stonewalling. And only you and your spouse decide guilt or innocence.<P>And don't get me started on the legal system: you never know who's <I>really</I> going to get their day in court. Oscar Wilde said "I was only ruined twice. Once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I <I>won</I> one."<BR>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bumperii:<BR><B>Intent isn't necessary to hurt someone, or to hurt someone's feelings.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But if intent isn't there and you hurt someone, it's not abuse, it's an innocent accident. If you knowingly do the exact same thing again, it <I>is</I> abuse.<P>If I say "shoe", and you spent your childhood being beaten with one, that's not abuse--until you tell me that gives you flashbacks. If I then chase you around yelling "shoe"--well that's abuse.<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bumperii:<BR><B>Don't know if this will be helpful or not, but this site has a half a dozen lists, emotionaly abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, etc. The stuff is very easy to read, you can get through the whole shooting match in ten minutes.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The site had plenty of <I>examples</I>. I was looking to define the category independently of any particular example. <P>Some of that emotional abuse isn't verbal.<P>Of what <I>is</I> verbal, most of what's there falls under #1, although some of it falls under other categories. #1 covers almost everything ... the remainder are more sophisticated abusive strategies that don't necessarily look like what they really are.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B> But if intent isn't there and you hurt someone, it's not abuse, it's an innocent accident. If you knowingly do the exact same thing again, it <I>is</I> abuse.<P>If I say "shoe", and you spent your childhood being beaten with one, that's not abuse--until you tell me that gives you flashbacks. If I then chase you around yelling "shoe"--well that's abuse.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sisyphus, <P>I'm surprised to see that reaction from a person with legal training. There is an area of civil law, specifically EEO law, where intent has absolutely nothing to do with it, it deals with the effects and perceptions of the party alleging abuse.<P>We can argue for days about whether or not something is abusive and get nowhere. But, <P>A woman will forget what you do.<BR>A woman will forget what you say.<BR>But a woman will never forget how you made her feel. <P>Hope you decide to check that site out.<P>Bumper<P> <P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sisyphus:<BR><B>You can't not not communicate. Everything you do is a communication. Body language, facial expressions--all this stuff the women learned long ago on the playground while you were chasing a ball. She knew you weren't empathetic to what she was saying.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I wasn't chasing a ball. I was reading a book. <P>Our therapist was helping us work on that communication thing. No, it doesn't come naturally to me. But my empathy was real, whether she believed it or not. I <I>felt</I> her pain. But I imagine she zeroed right in on my paralysis and that's all she saw.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by GnomeDePlume (edited January 31, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bumperii:<BR><B>There is an area of civil law, specifically EEO law, where intent has absolutely nothing to do with it, it deals with the effects and perceptions of the party alleging abuse.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Such <I>strict liability</I> is the exception and not the rule in the law, usually intent (or at least negligence) is a required element. They only install it where there is a perceived inequality in the ability to prove something.<P>If I eat something injurious out of a can of corn, it's not fair to make me <I>prove</I> that there was negligence somewhere. There is a doctrine called <I>res ipsa loquitur</I> that will relieve me of the burden, but some statutes have that kind of idea written into them already.<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lonelysoul:<BR><B>gsd:<BR>If you file under extreme emotional cruelty, supposedly you only have to wait six months; providing there are no problems. Under emotional cruelty there are about six pages of offenses that constitute emotional cruelty. The filing spouse has to write a one page account, siting as many of these offenses as they remember happening...going back three months prior to the complaint. Are you following? The lawyers, paraphrase your words, the document goes out with the complaint when your spouse is served. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You actually answered a question I had about the divorce papers - why it had the line in it about "the events occuring within 3 months..." Not that it matters much now, and you may not be able to answer this, but what if in the preceding 1.5 years, NONE OF THE OFFENSES listed happened?<P>My wife came to me about 2 years ago and told me how she felt. The next day I began work on myself (which has never stopped). Two weeks before she moved out (March 2000), she told me that I was now the husband she always wanted me to be. She filed in November 2000. <BR>Not only did none of the events happen within three months, some of them listed had not occurred in over 3 years...<P>Mike<P><P>------------------<BR>God always waits for the right time to do the right thing in the right way.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoTired2000:<BR><B>Not only did none of the events happen within three months, some of them listed had not occurred in over 3 years...</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, as we attorneys say, now we have a factual issue. <P>Let that be a lesson to you: there is no statute of limitations on marital wrongs, and nothing that makes a spouse honor their own pardon.<P>

Mike:<P>My goof. The three month thing means that the emotional cruelty should have happened three months prior to her visiting the lawyers. If she filed in Novemeber, she could list every awful thing she perceived you doing up to September of 2000. Make more sense. So, even if you were the personification of a good husband those last three months, it wouldn't matter. The logic behind this is to show the court that the marriage had started to deteriate long before the divorcing spouse filed. <P>Susan<BR>