Galen

Belle: "I was pretty "waffle-y" in my involvement when I first got involved. I didn't like the micro-management of the person "undersheperding" me through PFAL, but I liked getting to SEE the man I had only listened to previously, so I put up with it. I didn't much care for the people who were hosting the class, they seemed cold, regimented and annoyed with us coming to their house every night. But I wanted to hear the class again and this time it was on video. I didn't much care for most of the people in the class. They didn't even know where the books of the Bible were and I suspect that some of them couldn't read. (Yes, I was that shallow) But it was just 3 weeks long and I could put up with that." Wow an entirely different introduction to a ministry. I was witnessed to and taken to a public 'Ex'. I signed and paid, then I had to go to sea. Next time in port, found the guys [a WOW family fresh on the field] offering the class and found when it would start. Wait, wait, wait; finally they started a PFAL class. This one was going to run and complete right before my next patrol. So I attended the class and I enjoyed it. I did not know anyone there. Then I went to sea. During which I read the collateral books. Next time in port, I went back to the WOW home where PFAL had been run and got the schedule for the next meeting. [as it turned out these were branch meetings]. I went to a couple branch meetings, and was told about the WOW program and WC, when someone finally asked me what Twig I was 'in'. Then followed a conversation explaining to me what 'Twig' was and who had them. Then I went out to sea again, but this time was another beleiver on my boat. Next time in port, the WOWs were gone but I went with the other guy from my boat and we found a Twig. Eventually went to intermediate, and the rest. But real soon after that I was thrown out anyway. :-)

ChasUFarley: "WF - But would you go to Graceland to see Elvis' gravesite?" I would not. :-) "Such a figure is bound to get people who wish to pay their last respects." If I never paid any 'respects' during their life, then why do I need to pay them something in their death? "It happened here with Diana and also the Queen Mother although they were laid in state in coffins and it has happened with some of your presidents." You are correct it did happen, though such an urge does not draw me. "I went to Arlington to see JFK's grave and it was amazing how many other people were also there." Good for you, and them. :-) "I also went to Ground Zero ..." I went by it once years ago, was told that it was the World's center of inter-national trade. Okay. I live 2 hours away, never been back. " ... What hit me powerfully and emotionally was ... Can you determine why did this 'hit' you? Did they die in your arms? Do you have their blood on your clothing? What was your connection to these deaths such that you felt an emotional charge it going there? "There is a human need to make a connection" I [respectfully] dis agree. "they still think him deserving of their respect." I could see that perhaps more when the man was alive, but not after he has died. It is too late then. :-)

ChasUFarley: "You know what I'm finding interesting about this thread about "big lips"? A lot of the starletts mentioned are also gay icons! They're attractive to men and men who wish they were women!" Eeewww!! Could that be why I dont see 'big-lips' as a big attraction? I like sparkling eyes and a nice smile. A flash of skin [arms, or legs, or stomach] or wiggling hips, or bouncing assests will naturally draw my eye from a block away; but it is eyes and the smile that get my heart-beat thumping. Mind you that has nothing to do with walking astray. :-)

Happy birthday.

Stayed Too Long: "Whne you say "well they got permission", does that mean the U.S. Navy gave them the okay to "tag-team" you? Maybe you could explain exactly what the conditions were you had to endure? Were you held against your will? Would they allow you to sleep if you desired? Sounds like pretty strange actions by the Navy." I left the Navy for a period of four years [1983-1987], when I went back in, I reported to San Diego Bootcamp, The Veterans [or Nav-Vets] were kept in a separate barracks with a fence around it [so our behavior would not corrupt the new recruits]. We left that enclosure only with the chief's permission, after being inspected to ensure that we were presentable. Some of the Nav-Vets were held in that enclosure for as long as six months awaiting PSD to get all of their records [pay, medical, dental, personnel] together and to get orders. I witnessed to a couple of the guys, and one weekend got permission and took a few to a local twig. The next week the bunking assignments were changed, and I had roomies that were all 'Navigators'. Talking to the chief about it, I learned that the group had influence through-out the Navy and were a pet project of the Chaplains Corp. Apparently 'cults' had become some issue with the pentagon. While stationed at Nav-Vets company San Diego RTC; I was never beaten, I was never tied-up, I was never electro-shocked; so overall I was better treated that I had been as a child. I was tag-teamed for one week by 6 men. They pulling rotating shifts to argue the scripture with me, to read various books detailing the evils that TWI had done, and to convince me the 'truth' of the trinity. There was yelling and screaming. Overall I only went a few days without sleep, I believe that I did get a couple hours of rest a couple of those days. They had prepared lists of Scriptures, and highlighted arguments in a couple books for 'witnessing to cult members'. I was accused of every so called evil that The Way had been reported of doing. Some Nav-Vets that I saw in that compound were dragging their feet about getting orders from there. By blowing off appointments and not really helping the various offices to generate new records for them to be able to return to full active service. I saw that my opportunity was in getting orders and shipping out as fast as possible. Once I saw that the chief was not in a position to assist me, I got out of the compound at every opportunity to make trips to dental, and medical and PSD. I had to be interviewed by a 'Special Projects Office Manager' to be re-screened for sub-duty, It turned out to be an old bubblehead friend Tom Fox, who I had served with on the George C. Marshall. He helped to expedite my processing back into the submarine service. During that period of time I was escorted by one or more of the Navigators, pretty much 24 hours a day. I did get a bit of assistance from another sailor, in distracting them. They never attempted to physically assault me, and I did not assault them, it would have held me there for months awaiting mast. On a Friday afternoon my orders were finally faxed, I was packed, with the assistance of a friend I got off that base and to the airport within a couple hours. [Navy orders customarily have 4 days 'proceed' time, which are separate from the travel time, to allow the servicemember to pack and to check-out from the previous command, and to ship household goods, etc] I was gone before those boneheads realized that I was gone. I would imagine that they had further ‘fun’ planned for me for over that coming weekend. Within a couple years The Navigators were officially dis-banded. They proved to be a far greater danger to the Navy than any threat from any other cult. However in 1993, when I reported onboard the USS Casimir Pulaski, the previous Protestant Lay-Leader had been a Navigator. During my check-in process the Boat’s XO made it clear that I would likely be assigned as their new Lay-Leader. But I told later that I had an interview with one of the Lts. When I did meet with him, I found that he had been their lay-leader. He interrogated me about my background, and beliefs for a couple of hours. He tried very hard to find something that he could use as hard evidence of why I should not be the Lay-leader. But by having my ordination, he really did not have anything other than the obvious differences between any two denominations. The CO did assign me as the Lay Leader, to perform all on-board Worship services for Protestants and LDS. Onboard I did find a lot of Navigator literature, which I destroyed. :-)

Who says that men have to provide 100% of all financial support for a family? I think that everytime that 2 adults take on the responsibility of raising a child, they both are from that point on responsible for that child. In our system men go to prison for their failure to uphold that responsibility; while for a woman to go to jail she would have to be convicted 6 times for endangering that child. Our system does not divide the responsibility of child rearing equally at all. According to the ‘system’ of our culture a man’s responsibility to provide for his wife and children is purely monetary. So long as you earn the money and pay for their standard of living, then everything is great and all responsibilities are done. I think that before we developed wage-slaves, it was an entirely different society. This is something that we have developed over many years. There have been times when I have discussed Proverbs 31:10-31 with ladies and I have been totally amazed. When I read it, I see about how: she owns lands and plants vineyards and, has her own employees and, runs her own business, and and provides food and, and provides clothing for her household. When I have spoken with ladies about this, and they have read the same passage they see: she buys food with her husband’s money, she buys clothing with her husbands money, she pays servants with her husband’s money, she steps into her husbands business and tells them what to do, What we are seeing in these child-support and child-custody issues is the over-whelming idea that a man’s ‘place’ is away at work, while a woman’s ‘place’ is home with children. Prior to 1930, my relatives were living agrarian lifestyles, store-bought items were a rarity. They grew, raised, or whittled most everything they needed [cotton, wool, milk, cheese, meat]. From talking to my grandparents money certainly existed but it just was not a big concern. They fished, wove clothe, boiled down lard and lye for soap. Two of them were even grammar school teachers, they did it in exchange for eggs and coal. Now that kind of an agrarian culture would view this entirely differently then we do today. :-)

Wacky Funster: "I'm watching the long lines to see the dead pope from satellite photos. I don't understand why they're so long." Because lots of people respected him. "When I was in Rome, it didn't even occur to me to wanna visit him." Same here, I have been there many times, during that time period that we lived in Napoli. But it never occured to me that I woudl want to go 'see' him. Roma Coloseum? yes, Aquaducts? yes. Museums? yes. St. Peters? Yes. Pope? no. "It actually scares me, that people are "falling apart" over it." Yeah but they fell apart over the WTO attacks also. :-)

I have never 'played' smiles. Though my understanding was that when they played it, the object of the games was to guess who was currently being 'serviced'. Thus some of those at the table would be 'bluffing'. As it goes around the table to be your turn to guess, you would be challenged to guess who was actually beign serviced apart from who was bluffing. If you guessed wrong you paid money into the pot [to be used for purchasing more rounds and to tip the hired service]. If you could guess correctly each time, it was your turn, than you could drink for free. I would care to draw your attention to the idea that in many ports, there also exists opportunitys to sight-see. To go into local families homes and be served home-cooked dinners. I sometimes hung-out with LDS friends who would routinely call their HQ, to get hooked-up with local missionarys, and we would go visit with them. Of course the silent service does not make nearly as many port calls as does the surface or 'target' fleet. It has been my understanding that pulling into so many ports actually increases maintenance costs of equipment, as so many more things get broken. The over-all operationability of the fleet goes down from the monkey-wrenching. :-)

ChasUFarley: "Galen - Yes, the LDS church does do PP but it's more like what's done with the WC when they graduate or when a couple is married and a word of prophsey is given - it's not a whole lot about the future but more like words of edification - in other words, it's pretty generic..." Okay, I have a friend whom I served with onboard the USS Casimir Pulaski, who is a Mormon. He relayed to me that his PP when he was sent out on his 'mission field' [which in his case was a Naval Career] included specific foretelling. And even after having graduated the PFAL class, I was shown a transcript of his PP. He asked me that if at some future time, his PP did come true, would I obligate myself to assist him. When he retired from Naval service, he returned to being an active member of the LDS church, though he was not terribly active during his career. So my understanding was that on occassion it has been known that a Mormon PP could include foretelling. The proof in the pudding is whether or not the foretelling comes true. :-)

Belle: " ... charges between $5,000 - $8,000 per day plus expenses ... in a neutral place ... a private place ... a hotel room suite ... a discussion ... not a yelling match ... both sides are free to speak ... asking questions and stimulating thought ... It's not a yelling or arguing match" In 1985, when we had a twig in Atwater Ca, one of our followers was kidnapped for deprogramming. Later when we did see him again and he returned to our twig. He said that it had cost his parents around $40k, not $8k. Yes a neutral place, a rented hotel room, and a very long discussion, lots of yelling, both sides free to speak in that no body gagged him, questioning, grilling yelling and arguing. They kept him awake for 3 days and submitted him to their arguments, before un-tying him and releasing him. Once in 1987, I was in San Diego for a couple months. There was a group in the Navy called 'The Navigators' operating to evangelize through-out the Navy and to deal with 'cult' involvement. Well they got permission, and I was tag-teamed for one week. Stayed in that room, no sleep, a team of guys pulling shifts yelling, screaming, and arguing. Scripture, church history, and logic, I was accused of every so called evil that The Way had been reported of doing. Then I got orders out of there. Soon afterwards The Navigators were officially dis-banded.

Jim: "Do you mean military music like all those marches? Or do you mean like drinking and whoring dirges?" "All we ever had in the Army were the marches" Choose your service, choose your fate. As a metaphor in our society, does ‘Army’ go along with drinking? No, not really. Ever see any movies that show solders as drunken fools when they are in town? Maybe a few. The Army has nice bases, they subsidize their commissaries so the food you buy is cheap, and they have nice housing. The Air Force has nice bases, they subsidize their commissaries so the food you buy is cheap, and they have nice housing. Navy bases are often a row of piers and warehouses. We don’t subsidize our commissaries, because we don’t care about if you can feed your family. We do provide housing but it is sub-standard and rat-infested. On the other hand, for many of us, our pays are doubled due to the ‘extra’ dutys we do. Many of our jobs keep us tax-free our entire careers long. The Navy does subsidize our Package stores, so our booze is half price. A Navy base commonly will have at least 4 bars on it, and if the base is big than more bars just so you don’t have to walk too far. Army and Airforce class-six stores are tiny stores the size of a 7-11, with expensive booze. I fully understand why the Navy has a greater name for drinking. I have seen bases where the gym was shut-down for years at a time, for repairs. But with an Enlisted men’s Club, a NCO club, a crow’s nest and an officers club, plus if there is any far corners of the base you need an extra club for that corner. We can go a long time without working out, but the Navy can’t function without drinking. We went down to Fort Sill, Ok, and we saw gyms on almost every block, How many bars? LOL. The package store was not big enough to provide for a single reenlistment party. :-)

Sharon- “Sometimes we as a society forget that "the best intrest of the child" is better served with the child staying with thier father.” I am honestly surprised to read this coming from you. Good for you. “ … The entire system needs overhauled.” I agree. HCW- “- It is appalling what they do to our sailors there is nothing in MY job description that includes actually having a gun stuck to my head. Why do they get paid so comparatively little yet they are REQUIRED to live to such a higher standard under UCMJ???” Reagan got us a couple 8% pay-raises. Both Bushes have done better, than Klinton. Generally of late our pay has gotten better. It really does help that with so many reservists being called-up, they and their families do whine a lot, which does help a lot. “I believe obligees, who receive Support, should be required to document their spending of it on the children or lose it. Presently their only "requirements" are that they keep their addresses current.” Hmm, maybe to some extent. From being a foster-parent we have seen what appears to have been parents who receive support but use it on ‘other’ things. “I believe obligees should be required to seek work to pay their end of the percentage formula, same as obligors do; under the SAME consequences.” I do agree with this statement.

Steve!: " ... Should Mary have gotten exactly the same raises every year as Joe? No!" I have seen instances where preferential advancements were done. Supposedly Congress saw the statistical differences between men and women in the military, and required that females be promoted up to fill the same billets as were filled by men. Unfortunately this meant promoting women who had not even accomplished the normal prerequisites for those promotions. In my last duty-station, I served as an E-6. At that point in my career, I had 14 years of sea-duty and say 18 years of active duty. My immediate supervisor was a minority female E8. She had 10 years of service and had never served at sea. Our next immediate supervisor was a white female E9. She had 13 years in the Navy, and she had served on-board a ship, for 6 months [she got off the ship when she got pregnant]. Neither of them had as much time in the Navy, as I had at sea, but they were my supervisors. I on the other hand, was not competitive among my peers because I did not have enough sea time to be selected for chief [E7]. I have had the honour of serving with two Master-chiefs who had served on the ‘selection-board’. To be promoted to E7 or higher you must have been ‘selected’ by this board. IN both cases of these two Master-chiefs, during their selection board debates, their supervisor [called an ‘enlisted community’ something of other, an officer at the pentagon] gave the board it’s direction and mandated that they had to promote X numbers of females, and X numbers of them had to be minority, regardless of their performance and whether or not they have completed the prerequisites. In both case, these fine men, argued and were retired from active service, for their insistence on upholding Naval standards. It could be argues that they were both sexist grumpy old men, who only wanted to promote other men. I believe that they were both experienced professionals who wanted to promote experienced and qualified professionals. :-)

Jim: "The difference between civilian justice and military justice is like the difference between civilian music and military music" Do you mean military music like all those marches? Or do you mean like drinking and whoring driges? :-) Just wondering.

sharon: "Men and woman in the exact field doing the exact job=men more $." Yes, ma'am. I thought that it was illegal to pay anyone person more than any other person for doing the same job, with the same qualifications. I seem to think that I have seen news articles about companys getting in trouble for doing that? "My brother is an attorney in Washington he sent me this: Under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, 50 UCS section 521 and in the discretion of the court, the legal proceeding may be stayed (delayed) for the time the service member is on active duty and for 60 days thereafter. This law also aplied to divorce actions. The court may appoint an attorney for the service person for the purpose of preventing the default." Yes the act of 1940, to precent towns from foreclosing on property due to un-paid back-taxes. Here in Ct, they interpret that law to mean back-taxes on your motor vehicle. Other state interpret it to mean real estate. I have a full copy of it around here somewhere. Do you think that a court is going to wait on a divorce for the guy to get out of the service? that would be sweet. It is all up to the discretion of the individual court. Which is why states dont even agree on how to interpret this. States dont know [or at least they did not know previously to the Patriot Act] who is on active duty, or when they will get out, if they get out in this decade at all. Remember that I went in 1976, I may have 'retired' but I am still a servicemember recieving pay and benefits, still subject to the UCMJ, and still subject to being recalled to active duty at the discretion of the DOD. Having been stationed in many different states, I have been in town halls and attempted to utilize the Solder and sailor releif act of 1940. Sometimes with good results, sometimes with poor results. I think that US code that your brother is reffering to may not be the relief act of 1940, but I see from a Google on the subject that President Bush singed US code 50's releif act in 2003. So maybe with this new law, and the beter inter-departmental communications that we now see post-patriot Act, things will get better. [thinking about it, I had never heard of it being used for divorce, that is why I just googled it] :-)

Bluzeman: "Excellor sessions for CF&S??? How come no one told me about those? Hey, I feel robbed now! :D-->" Me too. :-)

sharon: "Divorce papers must be signed for, who is signing?" Stuff that requires siging for, like return receipt requestes mail? That is signed by the mail-orderly-clerk before he un-locks the mail closet and stuffs it all in. "Are we to believe that the milatary accepts service of a divorce notice (or any other legal matter) and does nothing?" No the legal chain-of-evidence is maintained. It is signed for and locked up. The clerk will have attended a course and willhave been qualified as a 'Postal Mail Orderly'. I even wore tha that for a while. There are times, when you need someone to drive a truck down to the base post office and to take reciept of the incoming mail. You have to carry a 'mail orderly' card to do that job. So all middle to senior petty officers will routinely qualify for tha tjob and will carry the card. You go to the base post office and sign for the incoming stuff, throw it in the back of the truck, and get a burger, than drive back to the office, or down to the pier [if the boat is pierside] and haul those mail-bags in. If they are going to the office, then you get the keys and soemtimes we sort the mail according to what department each guy is in. A big box for each department. When one box is filled, you put it in the back of the closet and go find fresh boxes. If your in a hurry, just stuff the un-opened mail-bags in the closet. The big problem is magazines. Everyone wants to rifle thourhg the magazines, and routinely guys get busted for doing that. Whole surveilance things are setup to catch somebody going through other guys mail. That is a felony, will get you a long sentence in a bad place. After months of it piling up [each boat I was on had a crew of approx 135 guys] when it finally comes out, it is usually a big mess. "I still find that hard to believe. I also think that the courts would be asstute enough (especially in a milatary town) to pick up on the address of the plaintiff." Nobody outside of the military seems to know what goes on in the military. "4 months does not equal desertion in a marriage in any state.: Okay, ma'am, if you say so. It is not like anyone is available or knows about what is happening to argue with what she is saying in court. "I am not sure about the legal aid in the navy, what you say unfourtunately rings true (so very sad) it should be a rule that only the enlisted/retired soldier can use the legal services for divorce." Should be, but ... "Never saw Jag" Too bad. Cool show. In Italy it was one of the few American shows that they showed on TV still in English. :-)

sharon: "Galen, your comment about income is insulting at best, what about sahms?" I did not intend to insult, sorry. :-) "These women spend their lives taking care of home and family, what income did they ever get?" Okay. "Another fact is that men still get paid more that women" Only in the limited context that women tend to leave the job market, off and on again and they dont tend to build 'careers' the same way that men do. My sister in-law however earns 6 digits a year, far more than her ex-husband does or ever did. "After a divorce, children need stability, and that includes continuity in as many things as possible. It is unfair for PARENTS to change the childs lifestyle, if you could afford to pay for Johnny's hockey lessons before hand why not after?" Did womeone tell you taht life is fair? They were mistaken. Yes children do need stability, which would be a good argument for them to stay with teir fathers. Thank you very much. :-) You still dont see that maintaining two households costs more than to maintain one? Hmm, You both together had rented an apartment for $500/month, because you were a family and could afford it. But now after the divorce, only one of you can live there, so the $500 is still paid, but the other adult needs to seek other accomodations. That will cost. YOUR apartment at $500, plus HIS new apartment at $150/month, will cost HIM $650/month. Which is more than rent previously had been for the both of you. It does cost more to run two seperate households than it did to run the one single household. Even though one of them will be substantially less or lower than the household with the children. "And you have really focused on the "bad woman" " Sorry but that has been my experience. Had I been in a career field which included females, I might have seen something different. But alas, no females have ever volunteered for submarine duty. "what about men who leave their first family, get married have a whole new faimly and totally disregard the first one. Happens, alot." Okay, if you say so. Again in my career, if a servicemember knowingly fails to support his family, it is a violation of the UCMJ, he will be charged for that crime, lose his security clearances and be thrown out, with a BCD {Big Chicken Dinner, or Bad Conduct Discharge]. If a servicemember commits adultery, it is a violation of the UCMJ. :-)

Oakspear: " ... I know of instances where women, who are perfectly capable of getting a job, will refuse to do so, in order that their child support will be higher." Bonnie has stated many times, that should she divorce me, she knows it would lower her standard of living. As a retiree, she would automatically get 50% of my pay, according to the law. After that she could have access to the rest of it, but if you took out even a single percent of it, then her standard-of-living would be lowered. There is simply no way to maintain the same standard-of-living through the divorce process. And the only way to stop her from getting 50% of my retirement is for me to die. Should I die, she gets none of my pension. Financially we must stay together, it is the only thing that makes sense financially. Both of us would suffer, financialy. Adn she is not abut to do anything that does not have some profit in it. "Thankfully, my ex-wife has not chosen this route, while it would hurt me if she did, the extra child support in our case would not make up for the income she earns." Good for her. "On the flip side, there are men who will stay in a low-income, dead-end job, or frequently quit their job and collect unemployment in order to avoid paying." I have read about such. It is a shame. :-)

sharon: "Galen, I do not mean to be argumentative but I find it absolutely impossible to believe that a woman could be granted a divorce on dessertion, while her husband is at sea. That is the most ludracris thing I have ever heard." Happens. "And a question, how long are your tours? Because I can not find one state that will grant a divorce on the grounds of dessertion with out the spouse being gone for at least 18 months, I could be wrong but I don't think so." Four months. "Not only that divorce papers would be sent to the soldiers last known address, which I would assume would be their base, which means to me that a fellow soldier would sign for them. Would you like me to believe that this soldier would not foward them accordingly, or notify his superior officer?" Mail to the sailors goes to their 'command'. Their command being under-water, they do have office spaces but the offices are empty with a clerk to recieve mail and file the mail as it is stored in an empty closet. No body can access that mail, accept that named person. When the command finally does return to their office and mail is emptied from the closet and distributed to the sailors. If any sailor has been transfered to another command, before the command returned then the mail goes back into the system. Mis-addressed mail only gets so long floating in the system, before it is destroyed, following the law. "I seriously doubt that an officer in the United States Navy, having recieved legal documents ..." What? NO officers are envolved. In fact they would do as much as possible to not be envolved with this process. I have seen CO's get mail that parents would address to the command, and as soon as they determine that it is from a parent, they hand it over directly to the sailor. They really dont want to get envolved with that whole issue. Not legally, not morally. Letters addressed to sailors will either be opened by that sailor or it will be destroyed. No body else will open that letter. Whether it comes from his parents, or from a court. "I could be wrong, but I do understand the milatary (having grown up in and around it) and I find this paticular senario unlikely at best." Served on active duty for 20+ years. Seen this acted out before my eyes many times, in various decades. I had to go to court once, in 1982. I had been busted by a towny, carrying a knife on my belt. The arresting office told me that I could choose what he wrote me up for. To carry a knife on my belt was illegal in the commonwealth of Virginia, if it was a concealed weapon, and since the blade was in it's sheath it was concealed. Or I had the option, that as we were in NewPort News, I could be charged with exhibiting a weapon, since the handle of the knife was showing since it stuck out of the sheath on my belt. I was also charged with being on the beach, since where I pulled over my bike was alongside of a stretch of beach, I was in violation of the signs where the laws were posted saying "No dogs or sailors allowed on the beaches". For my court-date, my command let me off for that day, but refused to send anyone with me. I had asked my LPO for assistance and I thought that someone should help to represent me. They refused and sent me to deal with the courts myself, after all it is a learning experience. I was fined for both offenses [exhibiting a weapon and being a sailor on a beach]. JAG is cool to watch on TV. It is possible that Navy legal may well show up to civilian courts, but I have never seen it happen. They negotiate contracts and labor disputes for the bases. They provide: wills, power of attorneys, and will help review paperwork that is being presented in a civilian court, but they themselves don't normally appear in any civilian court room. Navy Legal provides advise when asked, but can only advise one side of an arguement, not both partys to the argument. SJA serves a different purpose. SJA serves to write-up charges against servicemembers that are about to go before NJP Mast or Courts-martial. To go to prison for a really long time, they want the legal paperwork to be just right. I did work closely with a SJA for about a year at Capodichino, she did watch JAG on Italian TV, and she thought is was funny. She did not do independant investigations. Investigations are done by the CIs and by NIS. She did not appear in any court outside of the Courts-martials that were being convened at Capodichino, and we provided her office with a steady-stream of them. Most individual commands in the Navy, do not have any lawyers. They have no Navy Legal office, nor do they have a SJA office. Really big ships like carriers may have them, I dont know. Most commands are much smaller and dont any lawyers. Junior officers commonly rotate their a long list of responsibilities. Among that list is one that [man, I can not recall the name they have for this one duty] they prepare paperwork for NJP masts, and as such they may interview who is presenting the charge and who is being charged. But again the officer performing this role, is doing it as a temperary role and willhand it off to the next junior officer as soon as he can. They dont have any legal training outside of maybe reading the UCMJ. If the charged servicemember declines NJP mast, then that same junior officer must, form a list of who will serve on the courts-martial. He must see that each member of that courts-martial understands his duties, and he picks what other officer on-board will represent the accused servicemember. The possible fines and 'awards' of a courts-martial are far more severe than a NJP mast are. But a Courts-martial is the only way to hope that the 'judge' is going to hear solid evidence and not just hear-say. In either case, most commands that I have served at [4 out of 6] had no lawyers attached to them, nor legal advisors, no SJA, no Navy Legal office. Officers can very possibly be great and wonderful, but if their degree was in engineering, or in history, or physics; how comfortable are they going to be addressing a civilian court? The commands that did have lawyers, had a SJA office and a Navy-Legal office, but again no one to represent the servicemembers in a civilian court room, unless perhaps for felon charges. :-)

Oakspear: "Depends on the state. In Nebraska ... " Wow that sounds great. Should we try and get Navy bases in Nebraska? :-)

sharon: "I have no simpathy for people in there second, third or more marriage who get divorced and say how could this have happened. You've been there you know the drill. No reasonable buisness person would sign a contract (or any other legal document for that matter) with out reading it and understanding it. That's just foolhardy." Good point. I have sat down with couples who wanted to get married, being seconds or thirds. What can be asked? Have they learned something that would cause them to honestly beleive that this union will be everlasting? Still pre-nup contracts are a hard sale. "The courts will more likely than not try to keep the children with their mother and siblings, because the children of divorce have to deal with the loss of so many things that keeping somethings the same is the kindess thing we can do." That is the accepted thought. Keeping the syblings together with their mother is kinder than to keep them together with their father. I dont always agree, but it is the common thought. "... have been batering around how well women do after divorce, that is simply not true. It is a fact that women more often then not suffer economically after a divorce ... My ex-husband pays $1000.00 a month (2 kids), sounds good right? Fact my medical insurance costs $650.00 a month. I'm not whining just pointing something out." True. How is it different? If your husband pays 80% of his earnings to you to maintain your household and your medical assuming that he was the 'provider' before the divorce he was still maintaining your household and medical than as well. Now he has to maintain you, as always, plus his own seperate lifestyle. Is he living under a bridge somewhere? Or on someone's couch? Because so much of his money goes to you that he no longer earns enough to support to seperate households. It does cost far more to maintain two seperate households, than it costs to have a single household. That one individual income is not going to be able to be stretched forever. Yes you maintain the same standard of living, but can he? No. The court orders are all about maintaining your standard-of-living. I am not saying that children should be left out in the cold, but $1000/month so still only $1000/month [or however much youwant to say]. It can not be stretched out to provide for an infinite number of households. So many familys find that they need to have both adults working to make ends meet. Fine. So where in the system does the requirement come from that says. To solve this, just get a divorce, and attach his pay? Who cares that the ex-husband will never be able to pay rent, he will be doing good to be able to pay insurance on a car and sleep in it. So long as his pay continues to keep her in the standard of living that previously it required BOTH OF THEIR INCOMES to maintain. :-) "It is a fact that women more often then not suffer economically after a divorce" Yes, they go from a two-income [both adults worked] household, down to a single-income [the ex-husband provides all] household. So yes you are correct the ex-wives do 'suffer'. :-)

Which is why, I would prefer if divorces were hard, the most difficult things to get. And required substantiated proof of: abuse, or neglect, or adultery. Since the courts so often don't require such, that is why I have known a few guys [and counseled others] to go get a quicky divorce and quickly manuveur yourself to be able to withstand later court proceedings. Unfortunately as so often happens the guys only hear about their divorce when the paperwork arrives in the mail. And that is the first time they hear about their 'past' abuses, or neglects. From the cases that I have seen, often that first learning about it, when it comes in the mail, is also long after the bank accounts have been frozen, the CCs maxed without any method of making payments, and our pay-roll has already been attached to make court ordered restitution. Thus huge insurmountable debt, no pay, no home, no car, no clothing [outside of the uniforms you carried when you went out to sea], and the only method of getting pay again is to begin the process of contacting the court to assert that you were out to sea and un-able to be contacted and no you dont earn $100,000/year salary, and it was the wife who desserted the marriage, and can you please get a partial pay-check again. Yes I fully understand that in theory spousal abuse happens every day, and I have known some guys whose spouses did become fairly abusive. But the rate that such seems to be reported in divorce cases, does seem to make a strong argument that such is being 'reported' purely for purposes of manipulating the courts and putting the guys into hock. From the cases that I have observed it has been far more 'normal' that the wife had already been commiting adultery and that she had already sought the advice of her friends; long before any thought of divorce ever occured to her. During my 6 years working as an MP [both in Ct and Europe] I did have the occasion of responding to numerous domestic disputes. Getting the guys to medical and stitched-up and finally into the barracks. Only if the couple had lived on-base could we do anything to the wives, which was usually barring them from coming back on-base. But these don't make the statistics, for many reasons. First being that the Navy simply does not record statistics from DDs. And since we have limited jurisdiction over the spouses, there is nothing to charge them with, to charge a civilian in a federal magistrate court requires envolvement with other federal agencys, which is a big no-no for the military. When a military spouse goes into Navy Legal first to get assistance in handling her planned divorce, it stops the servicemember from ever being able to use Navy-legal to defend him [since it is un-ethical for the same legal group to provide assistance to both sides]. So I have seen spouses go to Navy-legal first to get 'advise' just for the purpose of locking-out that avenue of assistance later when she does file for divorce in a civilian court. So it is common for the wives to wait and when he goes to sea next time, then they go to their hometown and file for divorce. Claiming that he has desserted her. Since he does not respond to the court's summons, the court usually goes along with whatever the wife says. Usually the court is in some rural county somewhere that they dont have any military bases around and have no idea of what military pay-scales are like. Even though the spouse has the joint checking account and all his pay goes into that account, so she has always had full-access to all of his pay; wives commonly claim: first that the husband has desserted her, and secondly that he has not been paying his alimony and child-support. So the courts will issue all these attachments to his pay, including back-child-support and back-alimony. Even though the now ex-wife still has the joint checking account and all his pay. Adultery is a crime under the UCMJ, as a retiree I am still subject to that body of federal law. Adultery is punishable by jail time, in federal military jails [which we have seen in the media of late]. Unless you can get a courts-martial, the normal rules of evidence do not apply. A body of hear-say enough to convince the CO, is all that it takes for a conviction. But civilian spouses are not subject to the UCMJ. So they can only be charged with adultery if such is a crime in that area, and if you have evidence. You see HCW it is all dealt with fairly and evenly ;-)

Wow, Looking at my previous: "our bodies are 'good' the way that way were created" post; you can really tell that our household is currently running the CF&S class. At least it looks obvious to me, does it look a little too obvious to anyone else? :-)

HCW: " ... Your well-intentioned attorney will buy nice things with your money while you eat Ramen noodles and sleep on "Galen's" couch." Or they could well end up on your couch, I was just offering by way of example, the kind of things that I have done in the past to try and help these poor guys. In my limited exposure to divorces, it was overwhelmingly the wife who had ran up the debts, stopped making payments and then left the area, went to her home state and filed against the husband. On the other hand, it is my impression from listening to my relatives, that commonly people do go into divorce even when they are not in huge debt and the wife has not desserted. Even though among those that I have worked with such has not been my observation. Reading on the subject, it does sound like immediately getting rid of all assets, to pay off all existing debts. Just like when a corporation is closing it's doors. Liquidate everything, pay-off all creditors, and divide-up any money left over. The idea being that you dont wnat to still have any payments left to be paid, and you dont want to still have any items that could be community property. By doing this, before you go into court, at least gives you some level of control about where things go. Otherwise it will often be divided right down the 'middle': She gets the house, he gets the mortgage, she gets the car, he gets the car payments, she gets the kids, he gets the child-support, she gets to maintain her standard-of-living, he gets to pay for it, Which is what happened when I was a child, and my mother filed for divorce against my father. She had the family lawyer draw it all up, and kept it a secret from my father until he was served. He walked into the court room, without a lawyer, and everything was already divided right down the 'middle' for him. He walked away living in his pick-up truck, and with 80% of his income going to her. The kids were never asked about it, and were not envolved with the proceedings. He was still required to pay child-support even after I had gone into the Navy, because the divorce decree said he had to pay until some specific date. I thought it was very 'shrewd' of my mother, since I had to begin working at 15 to support myself. [just food and clothing, I did not have to pay rent, until I was 16]. Good luck