Anyone know a good divorce lawyer?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by marion on April 7, 2008 - 8:52pm

Ok, guys, I need a good, divorce lawyer who covers the Inland Empire (specifically Temecula/Murrieta) area. The ex is messing with my spousal, so it's time for me to lawyer up!

Recommendations? Thanks.

Submitted by Trojan4Life on April 7, 2008 - 9:05pm.

Those are crickets chirping, Marion. We need more pictures of your boots before we sell out one of our brothers...

Submitted by housepoor on April 7, 2008 - 9:39pm.

i know a guy who might be able to help. email me at coujohn at gmail.com and i can give you his contact info

Submitted by Deserted on April 7, 2008 - 10:23pm.

Call Miles Massey of Massey, Myerson, Sloane and Grilomick. He's up in LA. Just don't sign the pre-nup.

Submitted by marion on April 8, 2008 - 5:54am.

housepoor, e-mail on the way. Contrarian, thanks for the recommendation. To the rest of you, if you know a good man/woman, let me know. I need somebody vicious, I've been nice too long.

Submitted by Trojan4Life on April 7, 2008 - 9:05pm.

Those are crickets chirping, Marion. We need more pictures of your boots before we sell out one of our brothers...

Sell out!Come on, Trojan, live dangerously. You know you want to do it. Help me to rip out his jugulars. The black boots are just a part of my every day office attire.

Haha! :)

Submitted by jpinpb on April 8, 2008 - 8:43am.

I know a great certified family law attorney, but in San Diego. I don't know if he would do a case in Temecula. Something tells me no, but it won't hurt to ask. The worse he can say is no. He's not cheap, though, but maybe you can get the ex to foot the bill. The attorney is Carl Sizemore. Perhaps if he can't help, he can refer you to someone up there. 619-442-2100

Submitted by Trojan4Life on April 8, 2008 - 2:43pm.

Marion

You know I love ya, girl!

Submitted by carmelrenter on April 8, 2008 - 2:57pm.

http://www.louisbarrymack.com/ Experienced and dedicated.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on April 8, 2008 - 3:13pm.

call Joseph Katz, he's in temecula (old town). he is honest and diligent. ive known hima long time.

Drink Heavily.

Submitted by Deal Hunter on April 8, 2008 - 7:33pm.

Hugh A. Lipton (No. Hollywood, CA)

Attorney to the stars and very scary guy.

Submitted by guitar187 on April 8, 2008 - 8:35pm.

...sigh. Women.

Submitted by marion on April 9, 2008 - 3:53pm.

Thanks, guys. I'm going to contact these guys, except for the "lawyer to the stars". I'm pretty sure I can't afford him.

Submitted by Trojan4Life on April 8, 2008 - 2:43pm.
Marion

You know I love ya, girl!

Trojan, is it my sparkling personality? ;)

Submitted by davelj on April 9, 2008 - 4:18pm.

"spousal support"... "alimony"... or as some now refer to it:

vaginamoney (n): A term for alimony that was coined by radio personality Tom Leykis. Vaginamoney is "payment for a vagina that you no longer have use of." Ex-wives who demand vaginamoney, according to Mr. Leykis, are prostitutes who expect ongoing monetary compensation for sexual favors provided in the past.

Submitted by jpinpb on April 9, 2008 - 4:46pm.

How about this. You quit your job for however many years rendering your skills useless. You destroy your body breeding for your husband. You work for free: Cooking 3xs a day, doing dishes, cleaning, vaccuuming, doing laundry, performing sexually, running errands, grocery shopping, taking kids to and from school, band, football, ballet, shuttle/cab service, etc. etc. Now ask yourself what all that would cost if you had to pay someone to do it for however many years.

Submitted by NotCranky on April 9, 2008 - 4:53pm.

performing sexually? Are you a man or a woman? what about making love or at least mutually enjoying sex?I wouldn't think a debt is incurred as such? A hooker "performs sexually".Maybe the other awful post had a grain of truth to it?

Submitted by jpinpb on April 9, 2008 - 4:57pm.

Well, I guess I did go overboard on that one since ideal situations the pleasure is mutual. But if you didn't have a wife, you would end up paying for it, either paying for dates or a hooker.

Submitted by NotCranky on April 9, 2008 - 5:06pm.

"But if you didn't have a wife, you would end up paying for it, either paying for dates or a hooker."
That is not a given either, that is just for guys who want to end up married to someone who "performs sexual services". I am not saying that everyone "old fashioned" ended up married to a "John" or "Whore". The odds of it happening that way are higher.

Submitted by jpinpb on April 9, 2008 - 5:11pm.

I was afraid we would get bogged down w/details. Just take that one factor out then. The point was the big picture, and whatever value you want to place on love-making that maybe others would end up paying, not everyone. Is that better?

Submitted by marion on April 9, 2008 - 5:19pm.

Submitted by Rustico on April 9, 2008 - 4:53pm.

...Maybe the other awful post had a grain of truth to it?

Rustico, I believe you are aware that I tell it like it is, and I don't coward to any men on this site, or elsewhere for that matter. To that end, I would guess by "awful post" you are talking about Dave's post. From the previous posts I've read by Dave, I'm not sure he even has a soul. Furthermore, anyone that agrees with Tom Leykis or advocates his sleazy advice or outlook on the female sex is just as sleazy as he is. Sorry, Dave. In my experience, any man who has that outlook is not capable of treating his wife right because inwardly, and probably outwardly, he lacks respect for her.

pj is right. Spousal support is awarded for a reason. If the United States court systems deems such support valid, who are we to argue that.

Any woman that uses sex as a way to profit from a marriage, can aguably be defined as a prostitute. To say that most women go into marriage with that intent is an overly cynical view of life. It also shows an innate distrust of the opposite sex, and perhaps a dislike of oneself. On the other hand, to say a woman shouldn't be compenstated for doing housework and putting her career aside to raise children is a very greedy and self-serving perspective.

Submitted by jpinpb on April 9, 2008 - 5:29pm.

marion - did not mean it to be profiting from sex. But when a divorce happens, it seems that aspect is rendered null and worthless. Even if it is mutual enjoyment, it's sad that it becomes meaningless in a divorce. It's still a part of you that is given to the other. Does making love have no value at all? It must be of some value, since men are willing to pay for it, whether it be on dates or hookers.

My comment was only to say that everything a wife does out of love is worth something and should not be taken for granted, yet when a divorce happens, men think they can walk away and kick the wife to the curb w/out any obligation - - - Like they're walking away from a subprime loan - ;)

What happens to morals when there are actual human beings and feelings involved? We're talking about financial obligations when buying a house, an object, yet we don't have any morals when it comes to people.

Getting deep and OT. Sorry. Probably was not too pleased w/the Leykis comment. Luckily, I understand his show is entertainment just like Stern and all the others that instigate people for ratings.

Submitted by davelj on April 9, 2008 - 5:35pm.

"Awful post?" I'm truly honored.

Marion, no need to apologize ("Sorry, Dave") - your opinion of me is irrelevant. Like many of your posts, the rest of your previous post is cliched dime store sophistry. But at least you're consistently entertaining. And I appreciate that. Keep up the good work.

More specifically, however, you stated that "to say a woman shouldn't be compensated for doing housework and putting her career aside to raise children is a very greedy and self-serving perspective." Were you forced into this arrangement? It sure looks like you chose this deal for yourself. I'll agree that doing housework and putting aside your career to raise children doesn't sound like a good deal but, again, you decided to participate. It was your choice.

PJ,
"You quit your job for however many years..." - This looks suspiciously like a choice.
"You destroy your body breeding for your husband." This also looks suspiciously like a choice and assumes that only the husband is interested in the "breeding," which is almost never the case.
"You work for free..." - Again, sounds like a choice, and it's not "free" as the husband has to pay for food, shelter, etc. (presuming the woman is not working).
"Now ask yourself what all that would cost if you had to pay someone to do it for however many years." Yup, you'd have to pay a nanny from the Czech Republic $150/week plus provide food and shelter.

OK, back to the dungeon to nurture my dark and empty soul. Bwahahahahaha...

Submitted by jpinpb on April 9, 2008 - 5:44pm.

Silly what some women "choose" to do for love. I pity your girlfriend/wife. I hope she makes smarter choices, since apparently the choices some women make have no value to you.

(still $600 a month - and that's using your slimeball price)

Submitted by davelj on April 9, 2008 - 5:56pm.

Let me be clear: The choices MOST PEOPLE (including women, of course) make have no value to me.

But specific to women, a girlfriend is very different from a wife. I would never ask a girlfriend to "breed," do housework, or otherwise do any of the other unpleasant things that most wives get themselves into. It would never occur to me to be that injurious. Perhaps you have no such objections.

Wife? With few exceptions, a woman would have to be certifiably insane to marry me. And yet there's no shortage who vie for the position despite my protestations to the contrary. Believe me, it's a paradox that I've never been able to reconcile.

Submitted by marion on April 9, 2008 - 6:03pm.

jpinpb, again, I agree with everything you said. Dave has shown himself to be ridiculous again. He insults me because obviously my analysis of his character hit home. Besides being a Tom Leykis fan, he doesn't like children either...

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Leykis is so disturbed he coaches men to place hot sauce in their condoms to kill the sperm after they have sex with a woman. Now, what does that say about a man who's a fan of Leykis.

I also agree with your pity of Dave's girlfriend/wife.

Submitted by NotCranky on April 9, 2008 - 6:02pm.

JP,
I am not picking on you, just playing "The world according to Rustico" and I agree people should see their responsibilities for what they are. If am man or woman establishes a child rearing situation where one person is dependent there are some pretty deep responsibilities to go with it based on those choices. This is to love and care for those children no matter what and to facilitate the other parent doing that as well. Unfortuantely apparently it turns into a fight over support or avoiding it pretty often.

Yes marion, I find no value in that particular post by davelj. Maybe someone finds entertainment in it? Not my thing.

Submitted by marion on April 9, 2008 - 6:11pm.

Submitted by davelj on April 9, 2008 - 5:56pm.

Wife? With few exceptions, a woman would have to be certifiably insane to marry me. And yet there's no shortage who vie for the position despite my protestations to the contrary. Believe me, it's a paradox that I've never been able to reconcile.

Dave, this is going to be harsh...These women desire to marry you because in your career, you have a position of power. The other reason is you have money. You draw these kind of women becuase of your personality. No decent woman would have you.

Therein lies the answer to your paradox.

Submitted by davelj on April 9, 2008 - 6:25pm.

First of all, I've never heard Tom Leykis before (is he on the radio here in San Diego?), so I can't say I'm a fan, but I have heard OF him. (Although, in fairness, I can't say I'm not a fan either. I don't have enough information to have an opinion.) But I do find his definition of "vaginamoney" quite humorous. I found it on the internet.

"No decent woman would have me?" God willing! But you may very well be right regarding my paradox, Marion. At least I hope so. I would hate to accidentally cavort with any "decent" women.

Submitted by patientlywaiting on April 9, 2008 - 7:15pm.

I find davelj's comments quite entertaining and true.

Marion's comments are cool too.

You just have to be able to laugh at yourself. It makes life more fun. Why get offended when you can have a good laugh?

Submitted by Bugs on April 9, 2008 - 8:56pm.

Straight up...

Some men should never get married OR allow their wives/girlfriends to have kids. Those men who figure that out in advance come out ahead; most of those who don't end up paying for their foolishness.

Submitted by davelj on April 9, 2008 - 9:31pm.

Indeed. I had a vasectomy a few years ago (and I'm still pretty young). I've known for a long time that neither I nor anyone else would want to deal with any little davelj's running around. It's a recipe for unrest. My little gift to the Earthlings.

Submitted by Bugs on April 9, 2008 - 9:48pm.

I read somewhere that of all the stressors on a marriage, having a child is the biggest. It's bigger than losing a job, bigger than getting sick, bigger than the death of a parent, bigger than one side cheating on the other, the works.

The only event more stressful on a marriage than having a child is having a second child. Supposedly, anyways. I guess kid No. 3 isn't such a big deal, though. I guess by that point the guy has probably already figured out that he's in it for the duration whether he likes it or not. Might as well make it work.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.