You really cant tell can you? (Wife leaves me)

Post by **BenZona** » November 1, 2011, 5:56 pm

Bandung_Dero wrote:
She would have fallen into the "Spouse (temporary and permanent) – onshore*" catagory and the note says that has been closed for more than 2 years and I can't see anywhere where they could or would waive the temporary residence period.

She had offshore and the way i read that it is actually that type of visa which is no longer available, maybe they call it something else now. I dont think the cut off they talk about is in relation to the actual DV thing that allows them to stay but... THANKS....After reading what you have to do its obvious what she did, she got some dyke refuge idiots to write two stat decs and used them to claim DV..

I doubt if it woud have been that hard when you have bleeding heart dyke commies helping you out

Post by **merchant seaman** » November 1, 2011, 5:58 pm

The only fact that can not be disputed is the fact that she left. Don't know anything about visa's but isn't there something when obtaining a visa about financial responsibilty? Somebody surely must pay for all this legal stuff or is it the taxpayer's responsibilty? Along with supporting the child which the OP said he wouldn't pay as long as the child was in the mother's coustdy. As far as anyone on the forum who does know the OP none have spoken up for or against him. If you can't say something nice about someone don't say anything seems to be the rule here, at least from anyone who knows him.

Post by **BenZona** » November 1, 2011, 6:58 pm

merchant seaman wrote:The only fact that can not be disputed is the fact that she left. Don't know anything about visa's but isn't there something when obtaining a visa about financial responsibilty? Somebody surely must pay for all this legal stuff or is it the taxpayer's responsibilty? Along with supporting the child which the OP said he wouldn't pay as long as the child was in the mother's coustdy. As far as anyone on the forum who does know the OP none have spoken up for or against him. If you can't say something nice about someone don't say anything seems to be the rule here, at least from anyone who knows him.

are you actually as (self censord)as you write? surely noone could be such an (think of your right hand and vaseline couped with lonely nights at sea with a copy of playdude)in real life... tell me ....WTF are you even doing here in this thread? You obviously do not have half a brain cell to comprehend whats in front of you if is is not a compass and a poop deck so why dont you just ignore it.. dont post.... your one liners and hackneyed cliches arent even as amusing as a normal flamer, you cant even get that right ..... your contribution is pathetic, your analytical skills could be beaten by a gnat ( i love the gnat analogy) and your grasp of reality is so weak Ronald Regan in his last year, would have a better grasp

At least the others ask questions.

The only person i have met in Udon who is a member of this forum has posted, did you miss that?

Post by **merchant seaman** » November 1, 2011, 7:04 pm

I comprehend just fine, you abused your wife either physically or orally, she left you, and now you must pay. You sir need to get over it and get on with your live or you will surely always be a loser.

Post by **BenZona** » November 1, 2011, 8:19 pm

merchant seaman wrote:I comprehend just fine, you abused your wife either physically or orally, she left you, and now you must pay. You sir need to get over it and get on with your live or you will surely always be a loser.

Yes seaman, you are spot on, take a bow for being so clever, your talents are wasted on ships, have you considered running for high office? (refer to my previous statement)

Post by **pompui** » November 2, 2011, 2:29 am

merchant seaman wrote:The only fact that can not be disputed is the fact that she left. Don't know anything about visa's but isn't there something when obtaining a visa about financial responsibilty? Somebody surely must pay for all this legal stuff or is it the taxpayer's responsibilty? Along with supporting the child which the OP said he wouldn't pay as long as the child was in the mother's coustdy. As far as anyone on the forum who does know the OP none have spoken up for or against him. If you can't say something nice about someone don't say anything seems to be the rule here, at least from anyone who knows him.

Have met Benzona and no need for me to repost my previous posts giving my support and interesting to get the thoughts of some farang who have actually met her a dozen times, at least, during his last trip here, and who support him as well,speaks volumes that.
I thought the thread was staying locked or at least after posting the outcome from the court but up to Benzona,his thread and if he wants it open for loads more posts then up to him,personally I would have not.

Post by **BenZona** » November 2, 2011, 10:31 am

pompui wrote:
merchant seaman wrote:If you can't say something nice about someone don't say anything seems to be the rule here, at least from anyone who knows him.
Interesting to get the thoughts of some farang who have actually met her a dozen times, at least, during his last trip here, and who support him as well,speaks volumes that.

........ and one of them has known both of us for two years...... Thanks for posting Pompui

I dunno why i repoened it, i guess it was the shock of what she admitted, well not so much what she said but where she said it... thanks again

Post by **ronan01** » November 2, 2011, 11:59 am

merchant seaman wrote:I comprehend just fine, you abused your wife either physically or orally, she left you, and now you must pay. You sir need to get over it and get on with your live or you will surely always be a loser.

how do you know that? are you stating a fact? where is your supporting evidence?

all you know is that she left. the rest is a figment of your imagination. you are making it up as you go along. nasty stuff

Post by **BenZona** » November 2, 2011, 1:06 pm

ronan01 wrote:
merchant seaman wrote:I comprehend just fine, you abused your wife either physically or orally, she left you, and now you must pay. You sir need to get over it and get on with your live or you will surely always be a loser.
how do you know that? are you stating a fact? where is your supporting evidence?

all you know is that she left. the rest is a figment of your imagination. you are making it up as you go along. nasty stuff

Dont worry Ronan, he is a lost cause, i have been reviewing his posts and he, when presented with facts he ignores them then makes up stuff (probably whilst drunk) at random after that he then asks for more facts which he then again ignores next time round

Its classic troll behaviour, but i think in this case its not trolling, just plain stupidity and the inability to understand even the most basic of conversations

quite sad really

Post by **Astana** » November 2, 2011, 2:00 pm

With an emotive subject like this it is hard to ascertain concrete facts and even at court the facts claimed by each party is open to interpretation guided by each parties lawyers, the law and through the judge, who can make mistakes to the degree that a case can be appealed and so on.

So we can only take our impression from what BenZona has provided us and if that is not liked or not believed I for one would not take him to task over an issue that is highly contentious family matter, was the OP right to post in the first place once again open to interpretation.

There is of course two sides to any story and remaining impartial is at best difficult, so on the one hand BenZona’s airing of his marital problems on an open forum is once again open to interpretation but nevetheless he has, on the other it is unlikely that this forum will ever read his wife's side but we should not try and play devil's advocate as we don’t really know her motives other than what the OP has told us.

In a nutshell I think this is really about the children concerned and not the adults, so lets hope for both their sakes that an arrangement can be made to accommodate the needs of the children over the problems of the adults. Can you tell us who the plaintiff is in the impending divorce and on what grounds as this may well determine who gets custody and hopefully conclude the matter.

Post by **jackspratt** » November 2, 2011, 2:28 pm

Astana wrote: Can you tell us who the plaintiff is in the impending divorce and on what grounds as this may well determine who gets custody and hopefully conclude the matter.

Amongst the many good features of Australian Family Law are that there is no plaintiff or defendant (the parties are the husband and the wife), and no "grounds" - other than the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Post by **Astana** » November 2, 2011, 2:32 pm

jackspratt wrote:
Astana wrote: Can you tell us who the plaintiff is in the impending divorce and on what grounds as this may well determine who gets custody and hopefully conclude the matter.
Amongst the many good features of Australian Family Law are that there is no plaintiff or defendant (the parties are the husband and the wife), and no "grounds" - other than the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Thank you for the clarification.

Post by **Aardvark** » November 2, 2011, 2:40 pm

Plus "SHE" gets every consideration and Monitery consideration including Govt financed Lawyers, and "He" gets f....d over big time

Thank you Germain Grear and the Sisterhood, it wont be long before Slavery is re-introduced

and I just know who the Slaves will be

Post by **Astana** » November 2, 2011, 2:52 pm

Aardvark wrote:Plus "SHE" gets every consideration and Monitery consideration including Govt financed Lawyers, and "He" gets f....d over big time Thank you Germain Grear and the Sisterhood, it wont be long before Slavery is re-introduced and I just know who the Slaves will be

Not so many good features then?

Is this the same for gay marriages in the land down under?

Post by **Aardvark** » November 2, 2011, 2:58 pm

Don't even mention that filth to me

Post by **jackspratt** » November 2, 2011, 3:01 pm

Plenty of good features - Aa exaggerates slightly.

From memory, gay relationships are treated the same as "conventional" relationships.

Also, you also do not need to be officially married for the Family Law provisions to apply - from memory (again), a defacto relationship of 2+ years is treated pretty much the same as a legal marriage.

Post by **Aardvark** » November 2, 2011, 3:34 pm

jackspratt wrote:Plenty of good features - Aa exaggerates slightly.

From memory, gay relationships are treated the same as "conventional" relationships.

Also, you also do not need to be officially married for the Family Law provisions to apply - from memory (again), a defacto relationship of 2+ years is treated pretty much the same as a legal marriage.

Actually no Jack. Gay Marriage is not treated the same, nor should it be. It's against the Laws of Nature and should not be Tolerated imo. You may have your own slant on this, good luck

I think it's about time Men got a bit back, especially with the Gold Diggers who should have no case in the first place. If and when the Courts look at the facts and start revoking Visa's maybe, maybe these ***** will rethink their game. The Sun might be shining in Bandung, but the rest of the World has problems. Try putting your self in the Ops position, you may be surprised what your response would be

Post by **Bandung_Dero** » November 2, 2011, 4:02 pm

Aardvark wrote:Try putting your self in the Ops position, you may be surprised what your response would be

Without including the DVO situation I think you will find most Farang in Thailand have been in similar situations in a past life, mainly in their home countries so maybe we can put ourselves in his position. May not be the same demographically but some sort of messy divorce and child custody/support issues are parallelled. I also think one response from most of us was to kept our problems out of the lime light.

Post by **jackspratt** » November 2, 2011, 4:04 pm

I didn't mention gay "marriage" Aa - I specifically (and deliberately) said "relationships".

As far as gay relationships are concerned:

The subsequent Labor Government continued some of this progress in November 2008, when the Australian Parliament passed laws that recognised same-sex couples in federal law, offering them the same rights as unmarried heterosexual couples in areas such as taxation, social security and health, aged care and employment. This means that same-sex couples who can prove they are in a de facto relationship have most of the rights of married couples since 1 July 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognitio ... _Australia

Therefore your views, or my "slant", are irrelevant on this point.

Getting back on topic, if I were in the OP's position, the last thing I would be doing is setting out my travails on a public forum.

Fortunately I am not - I am happily married in sunny Ban Dung, blissfully unaware of the problems of the rest of the world.

Post by **Bandung_Dero** » November 2, 2011, 4:14 pm

jackspratt wrote: I am happily married in sunny Ban Dung, blissfully unaware of the problems of the rest of the world.

I am as well but fortunately not to him! No offense Jack.