|
Ivor Catt 3 june03 [ Index ] |
|
11.18 Hole in one. In this article, we will concentrate on certain key
aspects of the divorce process. Should a judge step out of line and act fairly, in the
best interests of all parties including the children, he puts his career in
jeopardy. Further, he puts his own marriage in jeopardy, risking himself
becoming homeless and losing all contact with his own children. If we want
judges to act properly, we have a duty to minimise the risk they face when
they do so. We will make the judge able to claim that he submitted
to Superior Power. We will further buttress his psyche by showing him how
much good he will do if he acts properly, and how much damage he will do if
he follows the pattern set by Sloss and Thorpe. To this end, the bundle of
“Retreat” documents that he receives a few days before the first scheduled
divorce hearing, which hearing he should cancel in order to save taxpayers’
money, since the hearing will serve no purpose, will include a further two
classes of “Retreat” documents, or he will be given their www addresses so
that he can access them. 1 Traditionally, the exclusion of the father, confiscation
of his children, assets, present and future earnings, has been achieved by a
very inefficient procedure, involving a great deal of court time and expense,
a great deal of delay, and a great deal of stress and soul-searching, which
includes the judge. In this particular divorce action, which he will describe
as a “Retreat Strategy Divorce” when he discusses it with his peers, all the
time, expense and stress is short-circuited. In one fell swoop, with no time
and effort, the judge can immediately achieve what in the past has been so
arduous and stressful; he can exclude the father and confiscate the father’s
assets. (Admittedly, he will not take the father’s future earnings, because
there will be none. However, we can advise him that half of divorced fathers
cease to be economically active. If we leave out amicable divorce, we can
conclude that more than half the father victims of contested divorce cease to
earn any income.) In the book Stolen
Vows , we read that a major career pressure on a judge is to complete
divorces cases expeditiously. Whichever way he jumps, every “Retreat
Strategy” divorce will take minimal time, and so improve the judge’s career
prospects. Sloss has said recently that in half of divorce cases, the
children lose all contact with their father within two years. Leaving out
amicable divorce actions, we see that this figure is much higher in the case
of contested divorce actions, which includes “Retreat Strategy” divorces. The
“Retreat Strategy” divorce puts the father-child link at no more risk than
the traditional adversarial divorce process. Thus, neither the father nor the
judge will be acting irresponsibly, or against the interests of the children
involved, by cooperating in a “Retreat Strategy” divorce. 2 The statistics are slim, but so far, every father who
has adopted “The Retreat Strategy” to the extent that he was able, has
retained his children and the family home. Thus, so far, the statistics
indicate that the father is much the more responsible and thoughtful of his
children’s future if he announces that his will be a “Retreat Strategy” case,
and the judge will be acting much more in the interests of the children
involved, if he bows to the pressure inherent in “The Retreat Strategy”, and
signs the courts order prescribed by the divorcing father. As a bonus, the
drain on the taxpayer will be massively reduced. Ivor Catt 3
june03 11.46 |
|
|