ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

I wonder how they decided which of the 2 badgers got to be the maskot?

How do you feel about underwater UFOs? - - We have a thread for that. Welcome aboard before the bandwagon folks get here.

Your time is probably better spent getting on the phone and trying to work out some sort of payment plan with your creditors if you can, as others have suggested. You noted, however, that the $1600/month that the gov't diverts from your net retirement pay is a big reason why you are having current difficulty making ends meet. So even though the odds of getting that $1600/month reduced are low, you might want to read the rest of this post to see if that can be done. I had some time today and some interest in how military retirement pay is treated in divorce, so I checked out some things. Here's what I found (with supporting links because I'm just some anonymous internet poster with a Bills problem and brothers named Darryl): 1. "Federal Military Spouse Protection Act. After 10 years of marriage they are automatically entitled to 50% unless they sign it away." Absolutely not true. North Carolina makes both military and other types of pensions, whether or not vested yet, divisible in divorce. So your ex-wife had a legal interest in any pension rights you acquired during the marriage. But that is true of all married couples in North Carolina, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that you were in the military. BTW, you likewise had a legal interest in any pension rights that your ex-wife acquired while you were married to her. If she had to change jobs frequently that may not have amounted to much, but it's something that should still have been considered when arriving at an "equitable distribution" of your joint assets. http://www.nclamp.gov/c_eq_distr.asp If you doubt the accuracy of the information in the above link because of what others have told you in the past, here's one that explains a little about where it came from: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_assistance_military_personnel/about_us.html 2. It's possible that you misunderstood what your own lawyer told you during your divorce. But if your own lawyer really did tell you that any law absolutely required you to give up 50% of your net military retirement pay in all circumstances solely because your ex-wife was married to you for 10 or more years of your military service - - you got very sh***y legal advice. If you want to see how your lawyer should have analyzed your situation, read this: http://apps.americanbar.org/family/military/silent/mpd_servicemember.pdf It took me about 5 minutes to find the link to the Coast Guard document in my earlier post. With another 5 minutes of effort, I found a website for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which provides payment services of the U.S. Department of Defense. As I understand it, that's probably the entity that actually takes the $1600/month out of your net monthly military pension check and sends it directly to your ex-wife. Here's a link to the portion of their website that has Frequently Asked Questions about the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act ("USFSPA"): http://www.dfas.mil/garnishment/usfspa/faqs.html The answer to the first-listed question states: Now maybe your lawyer told you that in your particular circumstances, it was highly likely that a North Carolina judge would award 50% of your military pension to your ex-wife, so there wasn't much point in fighting to try to keep more of your pension. But that's a far cry from saying that the USFSPA always requires giving up 50%. As just one example of how you might have been entitled to keep more than 50% of your military pension, go back to this link: http://www.nclamp.gov/c_eq_distr.asp Read the second paragraph of the section entitled "Present Values, Future Division." If you were in the military for 10 years before you got married, and then for another 10 years between the date of your marriage and the date of your divorce, the starting point for the analysis of what would be an equitable distribution of your military pension is that your ex-wife would be entitled to 25% of it, not 50%. If you were in the military for any length of time before you got married, your ex-wife probably should have gotten less than 50% of your military pension. I don't know enough about your situation to know if that type of analysis applies to you. Now read the second paragraph under the section entitled "Procedural Considerations." The gov't can only pay a portion of your military pension directly to your ex-wife if the North Carolina judge signed an order making an equitable distribution of some portion of your military pension to her. Based on your comments in this thread and the relative rarity of fully contested divorce trials, it's highly likely that you and your wife signed a separation agreement that was incorporated into the terms of a consent judgment signed by the NC judge. If you want to understand more about how separation agreements work and are interpreted in North Carolina, read this link: http://www.ncfamilylaw.com/download/sao23.html In particular, note the answer to question #13, which states: 3. All the USFSPA does is provide a mechanism for your ex-wife to get paid her share of your military pension directly by the gov't (rather than by you) in any amount that the NC judge ordered. So if you can somehow get the NC judge to modify the earlier order awarding your ex-wife 50% of your military pension, you should be able to keep more than 50% of it. That will be hard to do, though, even in the best of circumstances. You should look through the separation agreement, and through the consent judgment that probably incorporates it, for a couple things. First, there is a slim chance that either document might have some language about how it can be modified in the future. If your ex-wife or her attorney were exceptionally greedy, they might have tried to leave open a possibility for future modification of the agreement or the consent judgment so that the ex-wife could come back later and ask for an increased award. Because the existing court order already gives her 50% that's probably unlikely, but you should look. If the door is open for her to seek a change, it should be open for you as well. Second, you should look to see if there is any language in the agreement or the consent judgment to the effect that your ex-wife would receive 50% of your military pension as a form of alimony or ongoing support rather than as a division of an existing property interest. That's also unlikely, but look anyway. The NC judge has the power to modify the earlier 50% award based on a "substantial change of circumstances" if the 50% was originally awarded as a form of alimony or ongoing support. 4. Also, you might want to consider a legal malpractice claim against your divorce lawyer, but only if BOTH (1) you have something in writing from the lawyer stating that your ex-wife was automatically entitled to 50% of your military pension under the USFSPA because she was married to you for at least 10 years of your military service, AND (2) you were already in the service for some length of time before you married her. There are also time limits for bringing a legal malpractice claim, which is why I asked you upthread about when the NC judge signed the divorce order. 5. Finally, I took a look at whether you could get the obligation for your ex-wife to be paid a portion of your military pension discharged in bankruptcy. If you think the explanations above are complicated, that issue is worse. It looks like the answer was usually no some years ago, but the link below appears to predate some significant changes in federal bankruptcy law, so it's not a final answer to the question: http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/bankruptcy/94jun118.shtml As I said at the top, you are more likely to be successful at getting your creditors to modify your payment obligations than at getting the payments to your ex-wife out of your military pension reduced. But if you want to try that, now you've got a road map. Hang in there.

Very promptly changed his user name when he changed his address.

"Do not reply"

There are stumpy-looking posts on median # I-26. I-26? Bingo! http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150109/PC16/150109468

Sorry, but I'm unclear. Are you saying that: (1) your ex-wife had a very savvy divorce lawyer who drafted the divorce paperwork, and you had a separate lawyer of your own who "said you couldn't fight it unless she signed a written waiver of her right to it?" or (2) you consider your own lawyer the "very savvy divorce lawyer?" I know that sounds like an odd question, but answering it may help guide my efforts to assist you if I can (and as my time allows).

I have never claimed any particular educational background or work history in my posts. I'm ignorant about a lot of things, but let's just say this sounded odd to me. So I did a little googling on the inter web tubes and found this, which appears to be a Coast Guard-authored summary last edited in 2010 describing how the Uniformed Services Spouses' Protection Act works : https://www.uscg.mil/ppc/ras/fmspouse.pdf I don't have time right now to dig deeper, but unless the law significantly changed in the last 5 years, which seems unlikely, it appears that you may have been misinformed. Based on just this one Coast Guard publication, it sounds more like a court has to establish what portion of your retirement pay (if any) your ex-spouse is entitled to get in the divorce, and AFTER a final court order establishes that entitlement, the ex-spouse can use the provisions of the FSPA to get paid that portion of your retirement pay directly. That's all I have time to investigate right now - - may not be helpful but thought you should know. Couple questions: 1. What state court issued the final divorce order? 2. When was it signed by the judge? Good luck. And thanks for your service.

If?

What, all the jumping frogs are in Calaveras County? I guess it costs less to feed and train crickets. The more I think about it, though, I can see some serious potential problems with housing your frog team and your cricket team in the same place.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/24/isis-star-wars-tunisia_n_6936188.html?cps=gravity_2687_-1468180974458704232

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/market-implies-greek-devaluation-1530-drachma-versus-euro

Forwarding the info was smart. John McAfee (the guy who built a cybersecurity empire at McAfee Associates) made a fortune, but got fooled by whoever was impersonating Ben of FedEx. Next thing you know, he's faking a heart attack in Guatemala to avoid being extradited to Belize because he's being investigated for the murder of his neighbor there. The Belizian authorities came for him at his island estate in Belize (I absolutely sh*t you not about any of this except the "Ben of FedEx" part). http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/10/john-mcafee-tennessee-security-legend-futuretense-alabama/21712017/ So you clearly did the right thing. But I would avoid getting into the Belizian booze business (despite the illiteration, as Darryl says). If you can't afford a security detail, you might at least want to get some guns and a pit bull. Just my 2 rupees.

I wanna find the bast**d who had the nerve to impersonate "Ben of FedEx." Maybe Eleanor of Aquitaine was catfishing?

I wonder if she likes squirrels?

I wonder what aliens think of squirrels?

Personally, I could do without squirrels.

Just my opinion, but from the way you've described your situation/preferences in multiple posts, that's the wrong question. Unless you've had a change of heart (no evidence of that in this thread), the question should be: How will my prospects of getting my dream job next year be affected if I switch jobs before then? Answer may somewhat depend on the age of the person making the hiring decisions for the dream job. The older that person is, the more inclined he/she will be to look unfavorably on a history of early or frequent job changes. At a minimum, you should think about how you would explain a job change now to the hiring manager for the dream job if it opens up next year. OTOH, better to excel at a different job now than to be so bored you suck at this one for a year. Sounds like the current job isn't really that bad, though, if you feel like you're learning a lot. Just my 2 drachma. This question deserves its own thread.

1. "Ramona Refugee" or 2. "Prodigal Son" or 3. "Got A Ranch For My Ex-Wife" and put "best trade I ever made" in your signature line. or 4. "I'm Back" and make some version of this picture from The Shining your new avatar:

I like the way the front office is finally spending serious money on free agents, but even a geneus like Doug Whaley probably won't be able to find enough cap loop holes to bring ALL those guys in. Especially if Miami doesn't match the offer sheet Clay just signed with the Bills. Or is there some salary cap trick I'm missing? Maybe restructure Mario, or roll some future cap space into this year?

Well, teams that dominate their division and win multiple Super Bowls would certainly never try such a hair-brained scheme: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/17079776/belichicks-longshot-cornerbacks-get-tough-super-bowl-draw In the 2004 season, the Patriots switched Troy Brown, already a veteran WR, to CB - - and won a Super Bowl. Brown was second on the team in interceptions that year. Do the google thing on the interweb if you don't believe me. In 2011, the Patriots had Julius Edelman (a young veteran who already had 2 years pro experience at WR) play both WR and cornerback, and lost a Super Bowl when David Tyree of the Giants made the miraculous "helmet" catch to beat them. He was not being covered by Edelman at the time. So by all means, let's bury a great athlete like Hogan on the WR depth chart - - and watch some other team play in the big dance. At least Easley gets to contribute on special teams.

Wait just a minute. Break coverage, or just break the law? Was Hogan really "always open," or did he just steal Da'Rick Rogers' identity during training camp? Maybe we should trade Hogan to New England and re-sign Da'Rick to play corner. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/nyregion/us-seizes-14-7-eleven-stores-in-immigration-raids.html?_r=0

Random entry AND a post on the railing:

If you have that much trouble trying to assign a point to the post, maybe you should consider the possibility that it is simply informational. I only used the words "joke thread" in my very short intro because I used the phrase "Sign of the Necropolis" (rather than "sign of the apocalypse") as a "tag" in the thread title. But you caught that, right? The ACLU often represents minorities and the downtrodden or less popular parties against more powerful or more popular interests, so it is facially surprising that they sided with a billion dollar NFL franchise against the American Indian "minority" in this particular case. It's not really a sign of the apocalypse, though, because they did so based on their interpretation of free speech principles. I'm fine with that. If you need to assign a "point" to an informational post, maybe you're the one with an agenda.

As "Veins" pointed out, that isn't such a bad idea. I wouldn't mind seeing Dareus at FB on the goal line knock some Patriots on their a$$, like Refrigerator Perry did in the Super Bowl: