DATELINE: LAS VEGAS, NEV., (Sept. 18, 2021). Once upon a time, divorce laws required parties to prove “fault.” Couples had to prove their spouses committed infidelities so horrific—that the court should dissolve the marriage.
In 1931, hoping to attract residents, Nevada enacted new divorce laws. Nevada changed its residency requirements to six weeks and adopted a “no-fault” divorce. Couples wishing to divorce could get un-hitched in just six weeks!—and they didn’t have to prove who cheated on whom!
With the advent of new divorce laws, divorce mills sprung up throughout Nevada. Reno became the Divorce Capital of America. Nevada ranchers cashed in on the divorce gold rush—they offered accommodations at “divorce ranches” where folks would stay for six weeks to establish residency. In 1951, Rita Hayworth took up residency in Tahoe before filing for divorce.
THE FAMILY LAW ACT
“No-fault” divorce demonstrated the popular belief that unhappy spouses should be able to quickly end a soured marriage—and move on with their lives. In 1969, California followed Nevada. Then-Governor Reagan signed the Family Law Act, which created “no-fault” divorce for California couples with “irreconcilable differences.”
NEVADA GOES RETRO
Sadly, Nevada has reverted back to a “fault” based system. Nowadays, attorneys fight to show the ex is “at fault,” and if successful, their clients are eligible to be the “prevailing party,” which triggers an attorney’s fees award.
But there are no winners or losers in family court; after all, when parties go to family court, they seek no redress for wrongdoings. Rather, they seek only to divide marital assets and/or possession time of children. And, because nobody wins in family court, the notion of “prevailing party” makes no sense.
THE PREVAILING PARTY FICTION
Where cunning attorneys can show the ex is “at-fault,” the attorneys’ clients are adjudged the “prevailing party”—which results in attorney’s fees. This is the precise point where the corruption pathogen takes hold and begins to fester. Next thing you know, attorneys from the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, (“LACSN”), pretend to be “pro bono”—with an underlying expectation they’re gonna get paid—but only if they show the other party is “at-fault!”
RISE of the ‘FAUX BONO’ LAWYER
Enter the notorious “faux Bono” lawyers—pretending to be do-gooders, supposedly donating time to charity cases—when in fact—they are money-grubbing, contingency fee lawyers—willing to wager they can show the ex is “at-fault”—and totally confident that crooked-ass judges will ensure the ex is “at-fault.” (Get it?)
Take, for example, Vince Ochoa. Once a LACSN team member, Ochoa is now a LACSN lackey. Nowadays, Ochoa’s job is to ensure that LACSN attorneys get paid!—by hook or by crook! Ochoa knows the scam. Ochoa understands that attorneys cannot donate campaign funds to the bench unless they have disposable income; and so, Ochoa ensures the LACSN attorneys get paid!
KRAMER vs. KRAMER
Do LACSN lawyers ever represent BOTH spouses in family court? No, of course, not! Why?—because one LACSN lawyer would have to lose!—and go home empty-handed! And no gold-digging LACSN lawyer will take a “pro bono” gig if there’s a possibility they might have to work for free!
THE LACSN HUSTLE
If your ex is represented by LACSN, your crooked-ass judge will find YOU “at fault,” and your ex will be the “prevailing party”—because the LACSN lawyer must get paid. Let’s say your ex LIES in open court and falsely accuses YOU of behaving badly. Bamm! The crooked-ass judge will believe your ex—guaranteed! Family courts reward perjury. Judges embrace the lies—because lies provide the necessary pretext to declare YOU “at fault.” This means your ex is the “prevailing party,” and their LACSN attorney gets a handsome attorney’s fees award.
BETTER CALL SAUL
“Pro bono” is a Latin term meaning “for good” or “for charity.” In contrast, “pro pecunia” is the Latin term meaning “for money.” The “faux Bono” lawyer is NOT in the game for charitable reasons. Getting paid is the sole objective. The “faux Bono” lawyer is basically a contingency fee lawyer—a bus bench lawyer—like Saul Goodman—but with lower ethical standards.
UN CHINGO de DINERO
Greedy attorneys and crooked-ass judges have effectively re-transformed Nevada law—from “no-fault”—back to “fault-based” divorce. Just think—only sixteen (16) civil judges for the entire civil docket, but twenty-six (26) for family court. Why?—because they need TEN extra judges to manage the bustling child kidnapping industry—which generates gazillions of dollars—and causes widespread misery more dismal, more costly, and more destructive than any blight, pestilence, or plague imaginable. Sit down, Covid—the family court is the real scourge!
Back in the day, enlightened Nevada lawmakers had a vision—to un-hitch couples after only six weeks’ residency. But those days are gone forever. Today, divorce is big business. Nobody gets out in six weeks. If your kid is five, and your spouse files for divorce, the custody battle will last 13 years—until the kid turns 18—guaranteed.
FAMILY COURT QUICKSAND
Regular civil courts have fast-track procedures—to quickly dispo cases, but not so family court. It’s a criminal cabal—where lawless and psychopathic judges choke the life out of couples, stranding them in family court quicksand—opening their veins and bleeding them dry—draining the family’s assets and stealing the children’s futures.
If you can’t afford a lawyer, and if your ex has a really good job, LACSN will represent YOU in family court—for FREE! On the other hand, if you can’t afford a lawyer—and your ex is on disability or welfare, then forget it—LACSN won’t touch your case with a 39-and-a-half-foot-pole. LACSN discriminates against the poor, (i.e., “intra-class” discrimination). LACSN treats poor people differently from one another—based only on whether the ex has a paycheck that LACSN can garnish.
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
Where lawyers have the expectation of a payday—and they call themselves “pro bono,”—it’s inherently deceitful—a deceptive trade practice, [see NRS 598]. The venerable term “pro bono” must be reserved for attorneys with no expectation of pecuniary gain. The moniker ”pro bono” must be unavailable to money-grubbing shysters.
50-50 CUSTODY NOW!
We call for mandatory 50-50 custody legislation in Nevada!—and not just a rebuttable presumption of joint custody—but full, equal, and undivided joint custody—as Equal Protection demands.
It’s been said that equal parenting is integral for a child’s well-being. If this is true, then the current system detriments children. The system generates the most revenue by making parenting “unequal.” Nevada is at a crossroads; we must decide—what’s more important?—the future of our children?—or Jennifer Abrams’ ability to buy another Porsche?
VETERAN in POLITICS INT’L (“Where Change Happens”)