Off the Boat When?
by Paul Goetz
The misrepresentation of facts and partial truths being spread like
a plague by government officials and mainstream media is somewhat amazing
to me. Whatever happened to the WHOLE truth?
Imagine for a moment all the times in the past few years you've seen
or heard something about how much money is allegedly or estimated to be
owed in "child support." All those staggering numbers. But, where
do they come from? And, what do they mean? What's the credibility of the
reporting sources? And what are some of the related aspects?
I always thought that one mark of a shyster was their inability to supply
the listener (their "mark") with any precise details to back
up their claims. Why do you suppose all those figures we hear so much about
are all based on vague generalized estimates and who knows what else? With
the government's vast network of computers one would think they could come
up with some FACTS, pure & simple.
Another interesting element is the mislabeling of something as that
which it is not, for the dual purpose of emotionalism and chicanery. How
anyone with an IQ in double figures can call the forceful extraction
transfer of money, via government coercion, from one person to another,
for unaccountable and unknown usage, "child support," is beyond
me. "Child support" can be used to buy lottery tickets at convenience
stores, dumped into machines at casinos, poured down throats in bars, injected
directly into veins, and on and on. I heard of one case in which "child
support" was used for breast implants. If you find a dollar bill on
the street do you say, "Oh goody, a dollar in 'child support'"?
I wonder why we never read or hear about how many government "child
support" checks are cashed at bars and casinos annually? Or how much
"child support" is used for breast implants. How many lottery
tickets do you suppose are purchased annually with "child support"?
Minnesota even has an incredibly slick television and radio advertising
campaign to induce people to gamble and buy lottery tickets. Aromatic Cinnamon
Twist scratch off tickets are the latest. And, "I feel lucky..."
is broadcast across the airwaves. I wonder if they get a kickback from
the gambling counselors (besides the licensing fees and tax payments)?
The info about issues such as "child support" stem from the
same source as the folks who use the airwaves to induce others to gamble,
while raking in profits and collecting increased licensing fees from the
rampant upsurge in "counselors" because of all the gambling related
problems, including financial disaster and death. It's great for the economy.
That gives them plusher office space, more perk money, etc, to go on vacations
that they call "conferences" and "seminars." And think
of the increased business for the morticians. Minnesota is recovery capital
of the universe. I wonder how many parents have been induced by the government
to spend money on lottery tickets rather than for their children? I don't
recall any articles or estimates from all the beaugoise, mainstream media
sources. If any of you feel "lucky," maybe you should take your
"child support" checks to Minnesota and exchange them for lottery
Just think of all the other related financial aspects surrounding "child
supports" you never read or hear about. Like the billions of dollars
annually parents give to lawyers to look out for "the best interests"
of their children, for which they receive no credit, of any sort. If all
the nation's parents simply received credit for the money they gave to
lawyers, in the name of the "best interests" of their children
there might not be any so-called arrearages. Maybe there would even be
Lawyers charge parents billions of dollars annually that could be used
to support their kids, for which the parents receive no credit, and then
buy fancy cars, support restaurants and bars, go on vacations, pay their
country club dues, advertise in the yellow pages, and simply set up offshore
trusts to protect their harvests.
If you would like some information on how lawyers shelter their assets
offshore, especially from malpractice suits, just check out the January
1996 issue of "ABA Journal," p. 89. Barry Engel, president of
the Offshore Institute and a law partner who assists other lawyers in sheltering
assets offshore is quoted as saying, "I don't want someone to do to
me what I do to people all day in court." That 's the mentality of
the people who are determining "the best interests of the children."
And then, when it comes time to sue a lawyer for malpractice many of
the members of the various bar associations have collectively decided to
set a separate and distinct qualification standard - a nifty way to effectively
make themselves and their friends "suit proof." There is one
standard of qualification for allowing a lawyer to practice in the family
courts and take money from parents and children. However, if a parent or
child wants to sue a lawyer for malpractice - for botching up their life
- it suddenly takes an "expert." A whole new standard is established.
And of course an "expert" gets paid lots of money, in advance.
No "expert," paid in advance - no liability, regardless of how
egregious the conduct. That's just one of the ways in which lawyers and
judges "suit proof" each other. In other words the American standard
for looking out for "the best interests of the lawyer" far exceeds
the standard for looking out the "best interests of the children."
Sort of the definition of "America the Beautiful" in the 20th
You don't suppose one of reasons the nation's children are suffering
is because of all the money parents have been forced to give lawyers that
is now quietly nestled in some foreign land? I wonder how much money, collectively,
lawyers who have taken money from parents have tucked away in the Cook
Islands, the Isle of Mann, etc. I don't recall the mainstream media or
any elected officials even making any estimates. I wonder why? I guess
maybe some of the lawyers help them shelter their assets too. Tit for tat.
Do you suppose that will be an issue in one of the nationally televised
debates between Clinton & Dole? Maybe they're saving it. I don't recall
Hillary even discussing that one yet. Maybe she's saving it for the debates,
too. I know how much she cares about the nation's children.
It's my understanding that many of the lawyers practicing in the family
courts, have taken few if any classes in family law at their schools, and
have had to pass few if any questions on their bar exams in family law.
Those are the people, who, after using the parents and children as guinea
pigs, sit around and develop policy on family law. In Minnesota the bar
associations have banded together, and agreed to refuse to tell parents
about the educational qualifications of any attorney that they might be
considering. Name, rank, and serial number is all they will divulge.
Why do you suppose none of the newspapers, or TV stations, or talk show
hosts, or your elected officials ever tell you the qualifications of the
people having the impact on the families and children of America? Are they
paid to be silent? We've all been told over and over again what horrible
abuses seethe in secrecy. Don't you think it's about time to start asking?
Historically the United States might well be known as the nation in
which, while the state of the family was in shambles, the polices on family
law were developed by self serving lawyers, judges, legislators, presidents,
and administrators who were never educated in family law from the start,
while the media sat by and picked their nose and helped pass the blame
to others, all more interested in their off shore accounts.
That is, of course, unless the historians can also be fooled.
Copyright 1996-1997 Paul F. Goetz
View other articles by Paul Goetz .