Speak Out

The place to speak your mind on everything from politics to potholes.

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
Posts awaiting your approval 0
Jim Nedo March 26, 2014 at 09:05 AM
"In either case, it is advised that a party seek counsel at the earliest possibleRead Moretime"... .CHA CHING!!!!!!!!!! and right here we have the nucleus of an attorneys resistance to Alimony reform.....
Bob Beaton March 26, 2014 at 09:21 AM
I consulted with Barry Chatzinoff after my divorce. Barry is very knowledgable about family law. Read More Basically, when I told Barry that I was now destitute, he told me that I had gone about my divorce all wrong. He said that I should have sold a piece of real estate prior to the divorce so that I would have a "war chest" of funding to go into battle against my ex. This is in a nutshell is what is wrong with divorce laws in NJ. The average man or woman cannot afford good lawyers for the years involved to get a divorce. This is why we need to change the alimony laws in NJ, before it happens to one of your loved ones.
Barry Chatzinoff, Esquire March 26, 2014 at 10:12 AM
It is interesting to note that even the most substantial Alimony Reform Bill, A-3909, provides for Read MoreJudicial discretion, including the imputation of income. In fact, the proposed Bill, advocated by those seeking the most substantial alimony law revisions, includes the following: "The court may attribute income to a party upon finding that the party is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed based on that party's age, physical and emotional health, earning capacity, educational level, vocational skills, and employability ." This new language is, in my view, a codification of the existing case law discussed in my article. Further, there are many provisions throughout the proposed Bill which provides for Judicial flexibility in determining the amount and duration of alimony and applications to modify alimony. As I understand it, these provisions are the result of a recognition that a "cookie cutter" approach to alimony could yield extremely unfair results, especially to alimony payors. For instance, a payor at the end of a 21 year marriage would, under the Reform Bill, be required to pay alimony for an indefinite term, which is, for the most part, the same as " permanent alimony" as defined by existing law. The indefinite term would apply to cases when the parties are 45 years of age ( having been married at the age of 24) and thus the payor is exposed to 20 plus years of alimony obligations , as well as cases when the parties are 60 and likely faces a substantially lower alimony term obligation until the age of retirement. Additionally, under the proposed Bill, a payor after a marriage of 10 years will likely have an alimony obligation of 7 years regardless of whether the reason for the discrepancy of the parties' incomes. Thus, if the parties have 3 children and the payee was responsible for child care, that payee will likely receive the same amount and duration of alimony as the payee who has no children and simply decided after the marriage to stop working. That doesn't seem very fair to me. It seems that the consideration of many factors, including the parties' ages and whether the parties have children, would allow for a more just result, especially for the payor . While most family law attorneys share in the frustration that clients often feel as a result of inconsistent and , in some instances, arbitrary Court rulings, the alternatives ( which are being debated in the Legislature) have the pitfalls of potential unjust results from the strict, intractable application of arbitrary rules established by Statute. Regardless of Alimony Reform, it is beneficial for parties to educate themselves over the issues that will, and should, be considered by Family Court Judges.
Kathleen Sherf March 24, 2014 at 06:53 AM
If he does indeed resign, this will be a huge loss to our town...what a shame.
Jacob Knowitall March 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM
Huge loss...don't think so. The town will be better off with his lack of leadership.
Kathleen Sherf March 25, 2014 at 08:28 AM
He seems to be an intelligent and hard working person to me. Leadership by empty-headedRead Moreindividuals is worthless. Just sayin' as I try very hard to stay out of the mess that has always been our little town's government. And PS, I am a Democrat.
Kathleen Sherf March 13, 2014 at 07:10 AM
I had the same experience, the worst hair cut of my life (and I'm pretty old!)
lmiller08096 March 15, 2014 at 11:40 AM
Stop crying,you get what you pay for but thanks for the info.
Timothy Conaway March 16, 2014 at 01:57 PM
...Ever since the landing and take off patterns changed (around two years ago) the noise pollutionRead Morei s just terrible...
Walter Frockmorton April 08, 2014 at 04:16 PM
So Joe, what you're saying is that Jeff looked pretty much like the entire committee did, 4 yearsRead Moreag o when the whole bunch of them had a pre-written script to go off of. No debate, no thought process..... just vote the way you are told and your relatives will keep their county jobs. Such a comedy they were, huh?
Joe Smith April 08, 2014 at 05:33 PM
@Walter I am not defending the prior administration in any way, shape or form. I just feel the manRead Morel ooks lost up there. When people question Gerry, Ray and Denice they fight back. When people question Jeff he has a lost look on his face and has no response. I want people to represent me and this community to have fight in them, either D or R, it doesn't matter. Not someone who is playing politics and looks lost on mostly every issue.
Walter Frockmorton April 11, 2014 at 04:26 PM
I think that you're going to find that career politicians are coached and pretty much have theRead Morewhole look (hairdo, nails, dress) thing going on. Been to DC lately? Anyhow, he's not a career politician and hopefully he will bring a private business perspective to the table. Besides, sometimes it doesn't make sense to fight with people when they say something that does not make logical sense. Now politically, I seem to think that D's in this county have gotten good at making the masses "feel good" about stuff. Just open your eyes in October, see how many times we hold special events for causes that make us feel good, and watch the politicians stand there to take the credit. Incredible. Oh, and don't respond by asking if I don't support these causes. I do, but I can't stand the disingenuous manner in which it is carried out. Because when the politicians do this, they are basically hijacking the cause for their benefit.
See more »