On 22 Sep 2006 15:41:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

You display a profound ignorance of the way the legal system operates.

OK, please enlighten us.

A good example of how it works is in the current "Newsweek". Lawyers
now advise divorcing women whose husbands have abused their children
not to bring it up. The woman appears to be making hysterical
accusations, she is holding out for complete custody with no
unsupervised visitation by the husband.
Meanwhile, the husband is saying that he would be PERFECTLY satisfied
with 50 - 50 custody. He seems reasonable, sober, and accommodating.
The upshot? The majority of abusing husbands end up with complete
custody!

And, you expect reasonable treatment when bringing you yacht back
across the border?

--

Roger Long



"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On 22 Sep 2006 15:41:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

You display a profound ignorance of the way the legal system
operates.

OK, please enlighten us.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 19:03:13 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:
A good example of how it works is in the current "Newsweek". Lawyers
now advise divorcing women whose husbands have abused their children
not to bring it up. The woman appears to be making hysterical
accusations, she is holding out for complete custody with no
unsupervised visitation by the husband.
Meanwhile, the husband is saying that he would be PERFECTLY satisfied
with 50 - 50 custody. He seems reasonable, sober, and accommodating.
The upshot? The majority of abusing husbands end up with complete
custody!

And, you expect reasonable treatment when bringing you yacht back
across the border?

There's no question to me that common sense and the law do not always
go together. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if I were, I'd much
rather be arguing on the side of what the law actually says. That's
the point I was trying to make before my "profound ignorance" was
pointed out to me by our resident counselor.

Wayne B. wrote:
There's no question to me that common sense and the law do not always
go together. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if I were, I'd much
rather be arguing on the side of what the law actually says.

Since lawyers write all the laws (and they are generally written
purposefully to be as verbose and obtuse as possible - just look at the
tax laws), generally only those lawyers understand what they wrote. That
is one reason why we can have so many judges so easily misinterpret
those laws. So why would anyone expect someone in customs or the Coast
Guard to understand what most judges can't?

In article ,
says...



There's no question to me that common sense and the law do not always
go together. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if I were, I'd much
rather be arguing on the side of what the law actually says. That's
the point I was trying to make before my "profound ignorance" was
pointed out to me by our resident counselor.

I would quote Dickens. Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist (I believe): "If the
law supposes that, the law is a ass, a idiot." The law supposed that as
the husband he was responsible, not his wife.

holding out for complete custody

Hey, great another pathetic attempt to make a point by crying about those
"poor children"!

How utterly pathetic and COMPLETELY irrelevant to the argument at hand.