Georgia Uncontested Divorce Tips

An uncontested divorce is where both parties agree on all issues involved in the divorce, including property division, child support, custody, visitation, and alimony.  The key is that both parties “agree”.  If you don’t agree, an uncontested divorce is not for you. 

With that in mind, here are some tips to help you succeed.

1. Make sure you both want a divorce.  If you want a divorce, but he doesn’t, then there’s no need to have an in-depth conversation about who gets the Buick and who gets the FORD.  If both of you do not agree that the marriage is over and it’s time to divorce, then you either need a marriage counselor or a contested divorce.
2. Understand the benefits of pursuing an uncontested divorce.  An uncontested divorce is the fastest, easiest, and least expensive way to get a divorce.     Instead of measuring the cost in thousands of dollars, you will measure it in hundreds.  Instead of measuring the length of divorce in months, you will measure it in days.  These tangible benefits are something that both parties should know and keep in mind.
3. Put grudges aside.  You’ve both agreed you want a divorce and that you want to do so as quickly and easily as possible.  Now is not the time to try and settle a score or punish you spouse. Who did what to whom is not a factor. 
4. Develop a Business Attitude. -  Focus on being in the best position you can the day after your divorce.  Dealing with your spouse is “just business” – it’s not personal.  Approach issues in divorce the same way you would issues in the business world.  Know what is reasonable, what is not, and try to keep your emotions in check. 
5. Agree on what needs to be settled.  – Start the discussion by trying to agree on what you need to settle.  Custody, child support, alimony and property division are all typical areas in the divorce.  Make sure you both know what the issues are that have to be settled.
6. Begin with something easy. – Once you know the areas you need to agree upon, try and pick something easy to being with.  It will help you both realize that it’s not impossible to settle this between the two of you.  Also, early momentum may help you tackle the tough issues later on.
7. Kids are not property. -   Do what’s best for the kids – period.  Remember that the children want to spend time with both of you.  Have a candid discussion about what is best for the children and while doing so, remember they are not steak knives or bank accounts.  Custody is not something you “win”; it’s something you earn.
8. Negotiate in Good Faith. – Realize that neither one of you is going to get everything you want.  There has to be some give and take.  Remember, if you go to court you are leaving everything up to a Judge. 
9. Don’t be petty. – You don’t really care about that dining room table do you?  There are hundreds out there for sale, new and used, and none of them cost as much as going to court over your divorce.  
10. Hire a professional. -  You’re not hanging drapes or finishing the deck.  If you screw this up, it can’t be fixed in an afternoon.  A professional will know the range of possibilities and help you understand what the ramifications of your decisions will be in the future.  If you’re smart enough to try and solve your problems out of court, don’t be stupid about how you do it.  Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish.

If you need help, call me at 678-383-1690. If for whatever reason I can't help you, I'll point you in the direction of someone who can.

Another wonderful day in court

Another day, another dollar. Except with inflation it's only *50* cents now. Trying to get a client out of jail for Christmas.

Luckily, court is not too busy today and everyone is generally in a good mood.

UPDATE: client is getting out and his daughter is very happy!!!

Attorneys are coming out swinging...

The recent downturn for Attorneys is well known in the legal ranks.  Corporations are cutting legal bills, law school enrollment is down, and offshoring is replacing legal jobs in the US.  On top of that, you have accountants, paralegals, and "self-help" legal websites taking a piece of the pie traditionally reserved for Attorneys.  So what are Attorneys doing?  They're coming out swinging.  HB 889 creates a new code section as follows:

"15-19-59.

Any person damaged by a violation of this article or a violation of the Supreme Court's rules or opinions governing the unlicensed practice of law shall be entitled to maintain a civil action to recover damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and expenses of litigation."

What does this mean really? One thing it means is that someone who pretends to be an attorney and does something wrong for a "client" can be sued by the client for damages.  It's possible that it means an Attorney can sue someone else for providing legal services to potential clients of the attorney.

Let's explore.  A young lady comes to my office in the hopes that I will draft a contract for her for some matter.  We discuss things and agree that she will pay $200 tomorrow for me to do the work.  Tomorrow comes, but she doesn't.  So being a diligent attorney and wanting to make sure I didn't misunderstand our conversation, I call the young lady up to find out why she missed her appointment.  I call and learn that the young lady as hired a "legal specialist" off craigslist to draft the contract for $100.

Do I, as an Attorney, have the right to sue the legal specialist?  I am a "person" that's been "damaged" by the legal specialist, so if we read the law literally, then I can sue. In fact, I think this law was drafted specifically so that I could bring the action and recover my damages.   But why?

There's too much unlicensed practice of law out there for the Bar to keep up.  I think this legislation is meant to provide a mechanism for private attorneys to weed out the UPL folks. What do you think?

The Problem Facing Manual Labor

A number of people are actively discussing income inequality. Basically the people on the lower end of the income spectrum are not enjoying the same opportunities for income growth as the people at the upper end of the spectrum.

The data supporting the notion that income inequality is growing is irrefutable.   The questions then  become why and what can be done about it.   You have to understand why in order to to figure out what can be done.   The  "Why" is the question.  

I believe the answer to "why" has to do with the basic value of human manual labor. People on the lower end of the income spectrum are paid to "do" manual things.  Globalism has taken the first toll on manual labor, but ultimately, the death blow to the value of human manual labor will be a combination of robotics and energy abundance.  

Robotics continue to advance and we will soon have robots that can build houses, self-driving cars,  and autonomous air vehicles (drones).  It's not difficult to imagine robots that will mow yards, prepare food, or harvest crops.  The question then becomes can robots do it cheaper and more effectively than humans.   Right now, no. However, once energy is essentially as available and economical as water, then why not.

Predictions for 2014

2014 is here; 2013 is gone.  Economically, not a bad year, especially for Wall Street.   The Economy would have been much better if Government could get out of the way. Obama has lost credibility with the American people.  Congress didn't have any credibility and is actually less liked than the Communist party.  So, what about 2014? Here are my predictions.

The Economy will grow at 3.3% this year.  The stock market will have another good year.  The principle driver of economic growth will be the technology sector.

Innovations in Robotics will amaze us.  These innovations will continue to make manual human labor less valuable.

Drones will become a part of the local law enforcement arsenal throughout the country.  

Healthcare in America will dissolve into a quagmire.  This will be the main reason the Republicans will retake the Senate in 2014.  

All states will be forced to recognize gay marriage based upon a Supreme Court decision.

Iraq will disintegrate into civil war.  Afghanistan will continue to cost the United States lives and resources.   

China and the US will have a major military standoff, or so it will seem.  DoD needs a reason to maintain current spending levels.

Marijuana will become legal for recreational use in 4 additional states. (Washington and Colorado are the only 2 now)

Television will fundamentally change forever.  Cable TV subscribers will radically decline as consumption of entertainment programming via the Internet explodes.

NSA collection of phone records will be held constitutional by the Supreme Court.  

What are your predictions?

Duck Dynasty - The Bright Side

Everyone wants to argue about the Duck Dynasty controversy, but I think it's important to recognize the positive aspect as well.  First, Phil Robertson has the right to say what he wants to say in regards to the Bible, homosexuals, and anything else.  Second, A&E has the right to fire Phil for what he says.  Third, people that watch A&E have the right not to watch it anymore, and we all have the right to criticize each other for what we think  about it one way or another.

Contrast the Duck Dynasty situation with how things are done in other countries. In Pakistan, a young girl (Malala Yousafzai) wanted to go to school. She didn't have the right to say that she wanted to go to school. When she said it anyway, she got shot.  Little girls going to school is not controversial in the United States, but even if it were, we wouldn’t shoot each other over it. 

So for all the controversy surrounding Duck Dynasty, to me, it's still important to realize that even in such a harsh disagreement, we are still just disagreeing instead of killing each other.  Hopefully, we can all see that’s a good thing.

The NSA and Civil Liberties - What's the deal pickle?

Let the Debate begin.

Should the government be able to track and know who we've called, when we've called, and how long we talked?  

Should the government know what websites we visit, who we email,  and what we email about?

Some say "YES, Absolutely".  It is critical to our safety.  Others say "No Way".  The government should not be spying on everyone in the Country and this doesn't help anyway.  

We don't know all the details yet, and probably never will.    We'll never know exactly what data is collected, how it's used, who has access, how is access tracked, etc., etc.

Therefore, since we're never going to get all the facts, I think the issue comes down to who has the "burden of proof".   By that I mean:

"The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation resting on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position."


If the Government has the "burden", as they do in criminal cases, then the default position is that this "data collection" or "spying" should not be occuring unless it is absolutely vital and necessary for our protection.  If the public, or at least the people who care about civil liberties, have the burden, then the default position is that its NOT OK, unless it's unnecessary or the government is somehow abusing the collected information.

Initially, our Republic was founded and established to distrust government.  That's why we have the Bill of Rights, the division of power between the Federal and State governments (at least we once did), and the checks and balances inherit in the three branches.

However, as the "nanny" state has emerged and grown, Americans have become more accustomed to government oversight, regulation, and control.  Recent polls on this subject indicate that most Americans don't care if the government collects this data.  Even Republicans are sharply divided over this issue.

Rand Paul believes the Government is overreaching, while John McCain and John Boehner believe the Government is well within its bounds by gathering this information.

What do you think?

A letter from Jefferson - Stay out of my relationship with God

Somethings can't be said better.  For that reason, I'm going to post a letter from Jefferson to a Mrs. Smith. The subject deals with some who criticize Jefferson based upon his religious beliefs. Some of the old phrases are awkward, but bear with it.

I have received, dear Madam, your very friendly letter of July 21st, and assure you that I feel with deep sensibility its kind expressions towards myself, and the more as from a person than whom no others could be more in sympathy with my own affections. I often call to mind the occasions of knowing your worth, which the societies of Washington furnished; and none more than those derived from your much valued visit to Monticello. I recognize the same motives of goodness in the solicitude you express on the rumor supposed to proceed from a letter of mine to Charles Thomson, on the subject of the Christian religion. It is true that, in writing to the translator of the Bible and Testament, that subject was mentioned; but equally so that no adherence to any particular mode of Christianity was there expressed, nor any change of opinions suggested. A change from what? the priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments, of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the act of Virginia for establishing religious freedom. They wished him to be thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their religious dictations. But I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives, and by this test, my dear Madam, I have been satisfied yours must be an excellent one, to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there. These, therefore, they brand with such nick-names as their enmity chooses gratuitously to impute. I have left the world, in silence, to judge of causes from their effects; and I am consoled in this course, my dear friend, when I perceive the candor with which I am judged by your justice and discernment; and that, notwithstanding the slanders of the saints, my fellow citizens have thought me worthy of trusts. The imputations of irreligion having spent their force; they think an imputation of change might now be turned to account as a holster for their duperies. I shall leave them, as heretofore, to grope on in the dark.

Our family at Monticello is all in good health; Ellen speaking of you with affection, and Mrs. Randolph always regretting the accident which so far deprived her of the happiness of your former visit.

She still cherishes the hope of some future renewal of that kindness; in which we all join her, as in the assurances of affectionate attachment and respect.

I couldn't come close to saying things as well as Jefferson, so I won't try.

Enough about taxes - let's talk Death

You always hear the old saying "Nothing is certain but death and taxes".  Well, I'm all talked out on taxes, whether we should raise 'em, cut 'em, reform, revamp, reverse, flatten, or whatever.  Let's get on to something less depressing - death.

Death is all over the news.  Newtown school shootings, Boston Bombings, Fertilizer plants exploding, killer viruses, etc, etc.  Five minutes of a news program and everyone is afraid to leave the bathroom.  Very scary stuff, but what are the facts?  For that, I turn to the CDC (2010 data):

• Number of deaths: 2,468,435
• Death rate: 799.5 deaths per 100,000 population
• Life expectancy: 78.7 years
• Infant Mortality rate: 6.15 deaths per 1,000 live births

OK, well, I guess the good news is that 78.7 isn't all that bad.  But when we die, what kills us?  Terrorists, people with guns, or wild pit bulls?  Actually good old pneumonia kills more folks than any of the horrific things you hear about on TV.  In fact, more people kill themselves than are killed by other people. FACTS (again from the CDC):

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

• Heart disease: 597,689
• Cancer: 574,743
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
• Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
• Diabetes: 69,071
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

So why all the news coverage about murder and mayhem?  Money.  News organizations today aren't concerned with informing you about relevant information for your life.  They want to make money, and they do that by selling ADs.  To sell ADs, they need you to watch.  No corporation is going to pay money to put an advertisement on a network or show that no one watches.   How do they get you to watch?  They scare you.  What's the best way to scare you - DEATH.

By the way, the official number of homicides for 2010 - 16,259.  More than twice as many people die at their own hand as die as the result of someone else's harmful intent.  So, if after watching the news you start to get worried that someone is about to kill you - statistically speaking, you better keep an eye on the person staring back at you in the mirror.

   

Term Limits - the cure for what ails us?

Despite whatever your political leanings actually are, almost everyone agrees that our government, especially at the federal level, is broke.   The Senate hasn't passed a budget in years, the Executive now portends the power to kill citizens at will without Due Process, and the Judiciary, well... no comment.

So is there a magical answer?  Many, and I for one, think there is - term limits. Our system is dysfunctional because many "came to do good - but stayed to do well".  Americans, regardless of political party affiliation or  age broadly support term limits for the U.S. House and Senate. Unfortunately most politicians don't support term limits.  As Thomas Sowell put it in his recent column:

"Those who oppose term limits express fears of having government run by amateurs, rather than by people with long experience in politics. But this country was created by people who were not career politicians, but who put aside their own private careers to serve in office during a critical time."

I submit to you that when more than 70% of a population as diverse as ours supports term limits, it's time for it to happen.