You could always break down for her how much in federal income taxes she paid IN, in proportion to what YOU paid in, last year. Considering the extreme progressivity of our current tax policy, I bet it's closer to 10/90 than it is to 33/67.
Puppy
Quite likely. I am a man of my word however and promised her to break it down based on income. I attached an Excel Spreadsheet printout to show how I figured it.
I adapted the military "shock and awe" doctrine of "rapid dominance" to hostile divorce proceedings.
1. Near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary, and environment 2. Rapidity and timeliness in application 3. Operational brilliance in execution 4. Near total control and signature management of the entire operational environment
Originally Posted By: Rapid Dominance
It is the desired state of helplessness and lack of will. It can be induced -sic- by direct force applied to command and control centers, selective denial of information and dissemination of disinformation, overwhelming combat force, and rapidity of action.
Timeline: 2/2/2009 Served with D papers 2/4/2009 Hired attorney 2/5/2009 Hired P.I. 2/6/2009 Got adultery evidence 2/9/2009 Counter-filed on grounds of adultery
During the period between this and the first hearing I gathered additional evidence, pulled together what I needed, and got ready for a hopeful knockout punch. What I achieved instead was having them back off and reassess their own situation. They began delay tactics, putting off court proceedings, etc.
I used this period to gather additional evidence and build a stronger case based on facts I learned about her mental history and current behavior. Since W has been lying to her attorney the entire time, hitting them with the Psychological evaluation has got to have shifted the momentum entirely away. They attempted to take the initiative initially but that advantage has now disappeared and they didn't get the initial knockout blow they were aiming for. I'm just getting geared up.
On one front the D has taken care of itself because if it reaches trial she will be found at fault. On the other front, I'm going for custody based on the best interests of D1, which is a good position to be in. D1 is their only bargaining chip, and I intend to remove that from the table. My daughter is not a pawn.
They picked the absolute worst father to go after like they did.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
