THE DIVORCE CANCER ***
Friday June 23 2007 evening a server came to my home and gave me a "constraining order" I could nohigheryet foldert read, as I am blind. He explaineds it was only an order to appear in the Kenosha Family Court on July 3rd.
I immediately faxed it to my lawyer B.R.
The following day (Sarurday June 24) I found unauthorized persons in my plant.
I immediately bought a new plant and house keys and locks for my wife and me.Saturday Saturdayunday 24.
Sunday 25, my wife had me arrested for my having been found at my 23-room home FULL OF COMPUTERS AND SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF BOOKS.
A special court action on Sunday June 27 , without any evidence or witnesses, his substitute lawter ASSISTANTl had instructions by B.R. not to allow witness in my favor. He even didn't appear in court, as promised, as my attorney.
I was excluded from the plant I have designed, founded and uninterruptly run as the sole owner, only formulating chemist, and president, owner of 100% OF THE ABATRON 'CORPORATION SHARES, I was "TEMPORARILY" arbitrarily OUSTED FROM THE PLANT for ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF any misdeed WHATSOEVER, FABRICATED ACCUSATION.
I woeked virtually eveeryy yday untill late night for Abatron, by researching, translatting forkulations,instrctions and teghnical data sheets, plus at leat 2-hour twice every month, when not visiting and working with customeres anrd prospects in USA and abroad.
My being "absent' for 10 or 5 years is a ridicuoous and deliberately fraudulent lie. No one else was available to do my work, research and use my knowledge'.
As to my "fprcing people, firing my employees, it was f0r 3 reasons: incompetence and because I was the only one authorized to do so...,
I DAI LY OBJECTED THROUGH My LAWYER , WHO ONE DAY assured me MY BEing ALLOWED TO RETURN TO MY CUSTOMARY AND SUCCESSFUL RETURN TO THE PLANTI (AFTER AN "ONLY TEMPORARY ABSENCE" WAS TOO LATE BECAUSE THE TIME TO OBJECT HAS EXPIRED (. 15 MONTHS HAVE PASSEof myvociverous daylg, ALL SU-ERYISORYY EXECUTIVES HAVE QUJIT. I AM GETTING NO SALARY, NO MAIL and they were mamng and sellinf MY PRODCTS INVENTEE BY ME
NOW I AM TOLD IT IS TOO LATE..."kafka story")
I HAVE COMMITED NO CRIME, NO ABUSES, I ALWAYS PAID MY DEBTS FULLY AND FAST.
ADD TO THEN THE PECILIAR ANDFALSE STATEMENTs THAT MW JAD ME ARRESTED AFTER i HAD CHANGED THE KEYS.WHEREAS THE RESTREININT ORDER WAS DEOIF.VERED TO ME DAY BEFORE i DISCOVERED THE PLANT TRESPASSING... ETC..: JUST A WRIITTEN UNMITIGATED LIE TO PLEASE SOMEBODY..
*****************
Divorcees and their children are branded in a lower class. Even if only subcounsciously.
Virtually all civilized people are raised and live with customs and laws that define marriage as a permanent union that is protected against frivolous dissolution with laws that make divorce as difficult as necessary for a stable family and society.
Coherently, individual rights and ownership of any personal goods and wealth are inalienable rights.
If you marry in a state according to such laws, and move to another state of the same U.S.A., you assume that, being the marriage recognized in all the United States of America, you never investigate the possibilities that your marriage may be transformed into a different kind of union...
Not in states where the "no fault divorce"
and enforced 50/50% division of all property and all possessions between spouses
is enforced, even if one of them was a cynical parasite and habitual adulterer.
It sounds fair and desirable, but it can be
viciously destructive of family, society, morality and freedom (let alone the
destructive financial mess).
It protects and encourages irresponsible divorcees, sadistic abuses, unlimited adultery, cruel immorality and other untold evils.
Can anyone dwell as long as needed on each of those mental and emotional considerations as long and deeply as it deserves? For instance, how can the true, unconditional devotion of a loving spouse be cynically ignored and allowed by the law if "no fault divorce" gives to one spouse the right to ignore the atrocious suffering the callous sudden desertion of one can cause to the other?
It would be like authorizing the worst torture and causing suicide with sadistic indifference..
"Oh well, we are too busy to focus on it..."
=============
THAT is our infamy...
=================*********************
Example:
Suppose a middle-age sole owner of a long established corporation (manufacturing , or instruments, food specialties, or chemicalswhatever items he personally created ), its building and enough land to expand it 10-fold, plus a custom designed 18-room classy brick house on top of a scenic hill in a "best" neighborhood.
He falls in love with a thirtyish professional girl never married before, working with a college degree but with modest results due to her bellicose personality overall. Since she cannot find employment, he hires her temporarily in his business as his assistant. She has no business, manufacturing, supervisory and cutural or technical experience, but he wants to train her toward managing it, because he loves to let her and their future children to inherit it.
Years later, he decides to transfer to another state to a better location for his business.
He builds a better factory and buys a 25-room mansion she desperately wanted.
His wife managed to grab more and more functions and expenses without his knowledge, because he trusted her completely. Why fear her if she was going to inherit everything?
When he discovers that she plans to grab half and worse, she sues for divorce and 50/50 division of every property, autority and everything else.
There is nothing he can do to defend himself, because the state laws include "no fault divorce" and ruthless 50/50 division of everything, no matter that he alone had earned everything that was left to divide, after her disastrous mismanagement.
Nothing could have been more unjust and sadistic against him: from successful wealthy hard-working, productive octogenarian, he suddenly became a helpless, insignificant ruined man waiting to die and paying the debts he ended up with, while his wife obtained a settlement that made her immensely wealthier than ever before.
Well: his wife had a better, cynical lawyer.
As one lawyer said: "You must play by the rules, which are only concerned with law to manouver, not morality or justice".
The same as in a card game in which the rules are revealed only after the game is over...
What is the use of suggesting what the spouse should have done?
Will anyone remember the poor man (let alone helping him)?
*****************
Life goes on...
**********************
Many marriages fail because what we expect has hidden disastrous consequences unknown to the victim.
We are not aware or knowledgeable enough.
Psychologists themselves don't know.
Often, the fulfillment of a particular pleasure, virtue or advantage forces us to pay an unsuspected cruel price.
A great lover may be selfish or promiscuous.
A devoted and obedient wife or husband may become resentfully helpless in a crisis, or an enemy, if the husband or wife comes up with opposite wishes.
A gentle, suave spouse may be a wimp.
A gorgeous woman or irresistible man may
have lost content and worth.
Marriage for looks may make togetherness impossible when the looks are all there is.
We require a license for driving, after a rigid test, after a serious training.
Marriage is by far much more difficult, muchncritical and significant than driving, often more than any diploma or career; but it is allowed without a learning period, test, or any evidence of capability.
The most irresponsible and ignorant wish is enough.
The more irresponsible the client, the more money goes to the lawyer.
There are no psychological systems capable of developing a dependable marital compatibility test.
Worse yet, we dare not focus on the problem lest lawyers and associates erect vicious barrages to defend their divorce gold mine.
Divorce lawyers are the worst contributors to the national divorce and moral plague.
They have inexorably constructed an iindefensiible fortress of laws, rules, procedures and hidden tricks that are revealed only too late, especially with time limits and countless unspoken conventions unknown by the victims and revealed to them only too late...
USA claims to be the best society in the world, but it has the highest divorces rate in the world. That is, it has the most unstable families and society in the world.
No society in history has been able to survive a family situation like ours. That is, the unhappiest spouses, the most subconsciousoy crippled children, who are therefore condemned to perpetuate collateral family crises when they marry. and psychologists themselves fail to cope with the resulting incurability....... andeven psychologists
The same psychologists who were forced by political pressures to declare homosexuality a "normal" behavior are now subtly conditioned into statements like "people cannot change..." (Then, in parenthesis: "...unless they want to...").
That traps the vast gullible majority of "normal" people into the wrong conclusion that "divorce is the only way".
The same psychologists have discredited Freud's endeavors to motivate subconsciously reluctant people into changing themselves.
Divorce lawyers loathe people who prefer psychotherapy to divorce.
Marital and other family harmony problems are psychological or emotional problems to be handled by psychologists and related professionals, not by lawyers.
The simple fact that lawyers make the more money the more they damage the family unity and finances is self explanatory.
As glibly as we approach marriage and family, we contrived divorce as a last expedient in lieu of a solution.
Considering the quality of modern marriage, divorce takes a function of garbage disposal.
As it happens with many government agencies, divorce has become a self perpetuating institution, with courts as its temples and lawyers as its greedy priests.
Politically, we have to promote more family destructions to protect the parasitic jobs of those who work in divorce-connected jobs...
What is more outrageous? Honorable lawyers stay away from such moral muck...
The worstn strive to transform a last recourse into a self spreading plague.
Most divorces are avoidable.
Many divorcees consider their own cases unavoidable because of the rationalizing process they trapped themselves in, especially if lawyers help... Then, their entire life is contaminated...
When any crisis comes, we can decide to overcome it or to push it to its culmination.
When the latter approach is taken, we start endless rationalizations that reinforce our divorce decision, to the shysters' delight.
Marriage used to be a sacrament.
It still is, but like a label on an empty bottle.
And divorce is like a flatulence, because the bottle is empty.
We hire lawyers who make the most money only if we divorce.
We engage our energies and patrimony defending our decision, our money, our right to take and keep what the other party wants.
We forget that we married for the opposite goal...
We cannot stop, lest the other party and lawyer plunge like vultures into our respite.
Ever hear a judge saying that the head of a family (man or woman) must be obeyed? No, because that would avoid a juicy divorce.
In a TV program I saw a heavenly messenger stating to worshiping believers that "family is a democracy"...
Really?
How can the children choose (before they are born?) elect, depose, reelect their parents or choose another natural father or mother? How can parents resign, or change (or cut in half) their children, or impose their unwillingness to honor their duty to the children they brought to this world?
Life and reproduction are inextricably connected to each other.
The only proven purpose of life is reproduction.
The active human family connection is inseparable father/mother/children love. Not just sex.
The active human family fragmen is divorce. Not just lack of love.
And we spend the rest of our lives justifying our self-destructive decision with selective recollections and reinforcing rationalizations that assure us our choice was inevitable.
Of course, the other party was always wrong.
In reality, what made it inevitable was our crossing the threshold between overcoming the crisis and escalating it.
Help?
A real attorney, a shyster, or a psychologist can help each according to the wishes of the paying client, or according to their political and/or philosophical trend.
Vampires can thrive in many societies.
Once crossed over, the ensuing proceedings and the lawyers set the course on an automatic non stop.
The solution?
We should decide against divorce, at least in principle.
We are capable (rather than having the right) of bearing much more than we thought we could, no matter what attorneys (not the shysters) and psychologists may proclaim.
Remember, BOTH SPOUSES are financially deprived (even if we don;t believeit) if we cannot avoid the pro-divorce help...
Their children are damaged most, and mostly for life.
Besides, the more we bear now, the less we suffer in the long run.
What if the other party doesn't go along? Well, that is a temporary insanity (it can eigher one)
non one side only.
We need re-education beyond lawyers and psychologists. They cannot help us to walk if we have given up our legs.
We should not be afraid to yield, even what may seem like "crawling to the s.o.b. or castrating bitch".
Nothing is unchangeable, including the apparently "hopeless" hostility of our opponents.
After all, a measure of our worth is our ability to cope with apparently impossible people.
It is an old truism that there is no merit in being nice only to a nice person...
In the overwhelming majority of cases, the long term advantages of accepting the challenge of a "second rate" marriage are far greater than the irreversibly ravages of divorce.
When I was in Italy and divorce was illegal, I remember a few cases of unhappy spouses hissing in anger to their spouses that it was a tragedy that they were not allowed to divorce...When I met them again years later, they were happy together and thanked the government and the tradition to have saved them from the tragic divorce blunder... in each of those families.
The divorce children subject alone would deserve many chapters.
Here, however, only one consideration should suffice: what would benefit the children more, or at all, marriage or divorce, both natural parents or just one?
Ask the children: if not permanently crippled by the divorce, still they offer a sobering answer.
Many parents want children the same way children want toys.
It is not difficult to imagine the educational quality in store for those toys.
What about the implicit right of the children to be born from responsible parents, above a minimum level of health, opportunities, comfort and training?
This alone should command laws and rules giving contents to the right and the manners of generating children.
At least, we should weigh the right of parents to have children and the right of children to be born in a responsible environment from reponsiblw parevts.
Without these rules, procreating children is
kept on a bestial level.
John J. P. Caporaso
April 4, 2007