Fact: Betty & Dan离婚案打了4年多，法院所有相关文档神秘消失。有很多妇女表示自己被法律程序不公过，真别认为没钱一方离婚案跟有钱有势的老公对抗有多fair https://www.latimes.com/la-me-broderick3jun0390-story.html Even without the benefit of her voluminous divorce records, Betty recited names, dates and details to show just how ruthless she believed her husband had been: Dan, she said, had tried to drive her insane so no one would fault him for divorcing her. “I have never had emotional disturbance or mental illness--except when he provoked a ‘disturbance,’ ” she spat. “My ‘emotional outbursts’ were only a response to Dan’s calculating, hateful way of dealing with our divorce. He was hammering into me and everyone else that I was crazy. . . . How long can you live like that?” Soon after her story appeared in print, hundreds of people, most of them women, wrote to Betty and to local newspapers to say that while they didn’t condone murder, they understood the fury that prompted it. “I believe every word Betty says--because I’ve been there,” one woman wrote. “Lawyers and judges simply refuse to protect mothers against this type of legalized emotional terrorism.” Another wrote: “The inequities in court proceedings and financial settlements are . . . rarely believed or understood except by the women who experience them. Isn’t it time we take a good look at our courts and our system of divorce?”
Fact: 可以读一下Dan是咋利用律师优势用Epstein credit让Betty离婚只分到3.3万块财产，还被扣掉5000刀Dan出的律师费，总共分到2万8. https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/epstein-credits-used-betty-broderick-divorce-daniel-broderick In her final arguments, Betty — who was representing herself at the time — asked the court for $25,000 in spousal support each month for 10 years and a $1 million cash settlement. Dan, however, denied having a preconceived plot in terms of the credits and said he had never even heard of Epstein credits until he began the divorce. His attorneys suggested he pay $9,000 in spousal support for a year and then $5,000 each month for a few years after that. They believed the judge should accept all the Epstein credits Dan had claimed. The judge would ultimately decide with Dan, agreeing that Betty owed nearly $750,000 in Epstein credits and cash advances to Dan, according to “The Until the Twelfth of Never.” The figure included reimbursement for half of Dan’s student loan payments after his attorneys argued that his Harvard degree had “enhanced” the couple’s community wealth. After the couple’s community assets were calculated — including Dan’s successful law practice — and the $750,000 in Epstein credits were subtracted from Betty’s share, Dan owed her just over $33,000. The judge cut that figure by an additional $5,000 due to outstanding legal fees, leaving Betty with just over $28,000. Dan was also ordered to pay her $16,000 a month in spousal support. “[Betty] drove home with a screaming mind,” Stumbo wrote. “Not $1 million. Not even half a million. $28,000. A joke, an insult, an outrage.”
Fact: Betty & Dan离婚案打了4年多，法院所有相关文档神秘消失。有很多妇女表示自己被法律程序不公过，真别认为没钱一方离婚案跟有钱有势的老公对抗有多fair https://www.latimes.com/la-me-broderick3jun0390-story.html Even without the benefit of her voluminous divorce records, Betty recited names, dates and details to show just how ruthless she believed her husband had been: Dan, she said, had tried to drive her insane so no one would fault him for divorcing her. “I have never had emotional disturbance or mental illness--except when he provoked a ‘disturbance,’ ” she spat. “My ‘emotional outbursts’ were only a response to Dan’s calculating, hateful way of dealing with our divorce. He was hammering into me and everyone else that I was crazy. . . . How long can you live like that?” Soon after her story appeared in print, hundreds of people, most of them women, wrote to Betty and to local newspapers to say that while they didn’t condone murder, they understood the fury that prompted it. “I believe every word Betty says--because I’ve been there,” one woman wrote. “Lawyers and judges simply refuse to protect mothers against this type of legalized emotional terrorism.” Another wrote: “The inequities in court proceedings and financial settlements are . . . rarely believed or understood except by the women who experience them. Isn’t it time we take a good look at our courts and our system of divorce?”
Fact: 可以读一下Dan是咋利用律师优势用Epstein credit让Betty离婚只分到3.3万块财产，还被扣掉5000刀Dan出的律师费，总共分到2万8. https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/epstein-credits-used-betty-broderick-divorce-daniel-broderick In her final arguments, Betty — who was representing herself at the time — asked the court for $25,000 in spousal support each month for 10 years and a $1 million cash settlement. Dan, however, denied having a preconceived plot in terms of the credits and said he had never even heard of Epstein credits until he began the divorce. His attorneys suggested he pay $9,000 in spousal support for a year and then $5,000 each month for a few years after that. They believed the judge should accept all the Epstein credits Dan had claimed. The judge would ultimately decide with Dan, agreeing that Betty owed nearly $750,000 in Epstein credits and cash advances to Dan, according to “The Until the Twelfth of Never.” The figure included reimbursement for half of Dan’s student loan payments after his attorneys argued that his Harvard degree had “enhanced” the couple’s community wealth. After the couple’s community assets were calculated — including Dan’s successful law practice — and the $750,000 in Epstein credits were subtracted from Betty’s share, Dan owed her just over $33,000. The judge cut that figure by an additional $5,000 due to outstanding legal fees, leaving Betty with just over $28,000. Dan was also ordered to pay her $16,000 a month in spousal support. “[Betty] drove home with a screaming mind,” Stumbo wrote. “Not $1 million. Not even half a million. $28,000. A joke, an insult, an outrage.”
男方给了兄弟45万source一搜就有，LA Times不是流氓小报吧？ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-23-mn-456-story.html Late last month, Union Bank of San Diego filed suit against Colorado businessman Laurance G. (Larry) Broderick, the brother of Daniel Broderick, accusing him of failing to repay two-thirds of a $450,000 loan--money owed to Daniel and Betty Broderick’s sons, Danny, 16, and Rhett, 14. Larry Broderick borrowed the money from his brother in 1988, more than a year before Daniel Broderick, 44, and his former legal assistant, Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28, were gunned down in the bedroom of their home near Balboa Park on the morning of Nov. 5, 1989. Newport Beach attorney Jack Earley, who represented Betty Broderick in both of her murder trials, said the suit proves her contention “that Dan was transferring assets to his brother (during a bitter divorce) in an attempt to . . . make it appear Dan had less money.” The suit says Larry Broderick entered the agreement with his brother in July, 1988. The divorce hearing took place, Earley said, later that year and in 1989. Betty Broderick has long contended that her ex-husband wielded his power and legal influence against her.
根本不是合理分配婚内共同财务。男的在分居之前研究好了，做局挖坑，故意搞了好多债务还买了新房子。也就是说，利用律师背景，abuse了epstein credit正常概念。 要读原文就好好读，看不懂或者装看不懂也行，反正我拒绝辩论。 Dan allegedly took advantage of Californian Case Law that allowed him to claim back half of any debts incurred during the marriage, which he had paid following separation. Dan Broderick mortgaged multiple properties and purchased a house just prior to his asserted date of separation, in full knowledge that Betty would not be able to meet these mortgage repayments. This meant that in final settlement, Betty had to “reimburse” Dan for various debts that he paid from the date that he first moved out, despite the fact that she was of the view that their marriage was still very much intact for some time after (rightly or wrongly). These ‘Epstein Credits’ reduced Betty’s settlement from $783,000 to $33,000.
男方给了兄弟45万source一搜就有，LA Times不是流氓小报吧？ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-23-mn-456-story.html Late last month, Union Bank of San Diego filed suit against Colorado businessman Laurance G. (Larry) Broderick, the brother of Daniel Broderick, accusing him of failing to repay two-thirds of a $450,000 loan--money owed to Daniel and Betty Broderick’s sons, Danny, 16, and Rhett, 14. Larry Broderick borrowed the money from his brother in 1988, more than a year before Daniel Broderick, 44, and his former legal assistant, Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28, were gunned down in the bedroom of their home near Balboa Park on the morning of Nov. 5, 1989. Newport Beach attorney Jack Earley, who represented Betty Broderick in both of her murder trials, said the suit proves her contention “that Dan was transferring assets to his brother (during a bitter divorce) in an attempt to . . . make it appear Dan had less money.” The suit says Larry Broderick entered the agreement with his brother in July, 1988. The divorce hearing took place, Earley said, later that year and in 1989. Betty Broderick has long contended that her ex-husband wielded his power and legal influence against her.
男方给了兄弟45万source一搜就有，LA Times不是流氓小报吧？ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-23-mn-456-story.html Late last month, Union Bank of San Diego filed suit against Colorado businessman Laurance G. (Larry) Broderick, the brother of Daniel Broderick, accusing him of failing to repay two-thirds of a $450,000 loan--money owed to Daniel and Betty Broderick’s sons, Danny, 16, and Rhett, 14. Larry Broderick borrowed the money from his brother in 1988, more than a year before Daniel Broderick, 44, and his former legal assistant, Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28, were gunned down in the bedroom of their home near Balboa Park on the morning of Nov. 5, 1989. Newport Beach attorney Jack Earley, who represented Betty Broderick in both of her murder trials, said the suit proves her contention “that Dan was transferring assets to his brother (during a bitter divorce) in an attempt to . . . make it appear Dan had less money.” The suit says Larry Broderick entered the agreement with his brother in July, 1988. The divorce hearing took place, Earley said, later that year and in 1989. Betty Broderick has long contended that her ex-husband wielded his power and legal influence against her.
根本不是合理分配婚内共同财务。男的在分居之前研究好了，做局挖坑，故意搞了好多债务还买了新房子。也就是说，利用律师背景，abuse了epstein credit正常概念。 要读原文就好好读，看不懂或者装看不懂也行，反正我拒绝辩论。 Dan allegedly took advantage of Californian Case Law that allowed him to claim back half of any debts incurred during the marriage, which he had paid following separation. Dan Broderick mortgaged multiple properties and purchased a house just prior to his asserted date of separation, in full knowledge that Betty would not be able to meet these mortgage repayments. This meant that in final settlement, Betty had to “reimburse” Dan for various debts that he paid from the date that he first moved out, despite the fact that she was of the view that their marriage was still very much intact for some time after (rightly or wrongly). These ‘Epstein Credits’ reduced Betty’s settlement from $783,000 to $33,000. RedCrayon 发表于 2021-11-14 03:06
这个我不太理解啊。 这不是简单的数学吗？ 就是男女婚内有1百万财产，女方应分50完。男方有是买房又是提现，现在有200万资产+100完债务。女方应分100万资产50完债务完全没有区别啊？难道是我数学不好。 男方怎么“allegedly take advantage”了啊？他到底拿到什么了啊？
俩人争执不下，加州可以选择先判决离婚, but without marital property division，离完接着打官司如何分配之前的婚内财产，Dan & Betty就是这种情况。 Betty律师提出Dan给弟弟转移的45万是婚内财产。 大家别忘了，他家多年一直是Dan掌控经济大权，Betty属于家里具体有多少钱多少债都糊里糊涂，老公说啥就是啥。
俩人争执不下，加州可以选择先判决离婚, but without marital property division，离完接着打官司如何分配之前的婚内财产，Dan & Betty就是这种情况。 Betty律师提出Dan给弟弟转移的45万是婚内财产。 大家别忘了，他家多年一直是Dan掌控经济大权，Betty属于家里具体有多少钱多少债都糊里糊涂，老公说啥就是啥。
这么多人之所以回复针对你，是因为你的看法和认知已经超出了正常人的道德底线，是非曲直的标准。从小三的角度，你做什么说什么都有你的道理。没人想Judge你，但希望你不要挑战人性的善良，感恩心，同理心，是正常人都会有的。虽然你已经给你自己的妈妈成功洗了脑，但群里其他朋友不会被你洗脑，因为个人有自己的底线。
所以我说，你要先了解事实。比如她就是一个个遗弃在渣男家门口的，是一个个一共遗弃了四次。你可以去看一个opera跟她孩子们的interview,这是她女儿亲口说的，她儿子证实。 所以你觉得一个不断遗弃孩子，开车撞入你家的人，你想不想跟她share 50%custody?是不是对孩子最好呢？你可以看看interview.她孩子说本来Betty可以随时见孩子们，直到Betty不断辱骂渣男小三，他爸爸才以“你妈满口脏话”的原因要求Betty不得不告知他就见孩子。 她儿子哭求Betty少说脏话，这样他们就可以随时相见了。被Betty用脏话骂回去了。 anyway，本楼大家都觉得我很烦，像个神经病，我只想说。大家尊重事实，了解事实，可以听听当事人怎么说的，不要看些18手小报信息。你们维护凶手就跟猥琐男维护泼酸犯一样。
有些事，想一想就是不合理的。比如渣男小三怕极了Betty,结婚穿防弹衣，三天两头被她闯入家门，见到她就报警，他们最希望Betty可以安安静静的过得好，一辈子不要出现。为什么要到处“散布谣言”“搞丢她的工作”“传播她的日记”？如果你情敌是个神经病，你怕她杀你，你会不会到处激怒她？你激怒她有什么目的？怕她不来杀你吗？
真的！遇上事了这种人可比整个楼的人都要偏执纠缠，跟这种人较真个什么劲，让她自己去high吧。
你这样的思路已经alienate 你家老大。你家老二老三应该还没成年吧，所以只能母云亦云。 希望你可以尊重孩子的opinion,尊重他们对他们父亲的感情。父母之间的纷争是你们的事。希望你可以多看一些离婚孩子的书。不要逼你的孩子们战队你们的纷争。
Betty被逼到精神病边缘的所作所为和渣男做的坏事孰轻孰重？你不会判断么？
你真的对一个走投无路的弃妇要求太高了，面对曾经爱人的背叛，小三的咄咄逼人，家人的不理解，孩子的不懂事，还能时时刻刻维持一个完美妈妈的形象，是人都需要情绪发泄，否则那不是人。
你一直在强调果，有因才有果，不去谴责因，是你的问题所在。
这不用妹妹挂心，因为我们都是正常人，都懂感恩，懂做人底线，懂得做事留余地。
您：渣男不给50%custody, 所以才被杀的。 我：女方疯了，撞门遗弃，正常人都不会share的。 您：女方疯了是男方逼的。 我：男方怎么逼她了？ 您：男方不share custody.
人家看不到这些 就知道不停地说Betty把孩子扔渣男门口 渣男跟小三去欧洲，小孩伙食费都不给够 他们当看不见
有没有觉得楼里的吃瓜群众歪曲事实 不讲道理 对着你人生攻击？ 你怎么就不做不到像说betty那样的let go 滚远点呢？你的这些“委屈”和betty算个屁 怎么那么小的事发生在你头上你就那么纠缠至今了呢
我不委屈啦。我都拉黑了。 现在拉黑你～
大家别跟那个id辩了。她屁股都歪到渣男和小三那边去了。你让她怎么同情和理解大奶?太强人所难了点。
我觉得她不仅和小三共情，也和渣男共情，她在自己的世界里一定自成逻辑，金刚护体，虽然这种逻辑并不一定以道德为基准，所以姐妹就 let it go吧。 但是我个人修行不够，看她的发言，真的好气哦，所以我就把她屏蔽了...... 祝姐妹们周末愉快哦！
真的呀，啊～～～那我就豁然开朗了
有你这样的好妈妈，孩子们一定会健康成长的。祝福mm和你的孩子们！
我早就屏蔽她了，根本看不见，都是别人跟她辩论我才看看 有时候一页我就只能看见1-2个帖子，我就感叹这些id的战斗力真是爆棚 要是遇到Betty这种事情，还真不知道人家要怎么战斗呢
谢谢妹妹的祝福。妈妈也是人，也会犯错误，做不到完美。孩子也一样，但无论何时，不能丢了本心的善良。
你看到她说她大娃冷血无情，像她前夫，她对她大娃很失望的那段了吗？ 离婚的时候让孩子们站队对她们非常不公平。
我K，让娃站队也是罪？她被逼成祥林嫂，想得到周围人的支持包括孩子简直太正常不过啦。
你真会避重就轻，本末倒置，没有源头不会有后面的种种，渣男有觉得对不起发妻么？有一丝愧疚么？没有，发妻被他欺负惯了，他以为都在他掌控之中，没想到病猫也有反击的一天。
真是睡女人睡掉了命 很好的
很快这女人出狱了
算了算了，mm你因为她生气，真的不值得，这是我生了三天气之后的感悟......
不知他人苦，莫教他人善。我家孩子学业事业上的成就，不是多数孩子能比的。我能在离婚协议上签字付给前夫高额抚养费，独自今后负担所有孩子花销费用的豪气和底气，更不是一般女人能比的。要不是看你教育你妈妈，“做家务照顾公婆，给孩子做饭都是爱做不做，做了也不需要期待别人感恩”的价值观，实在看不下去才和你理论几句。没谁的付出是是理所当然的，请看到付出的人心里的爱吧，包括这个Betty.
那个id其实就车轱辘话来回说，没什么新意和深度。总结一下就是，1.小三不该被杀，ok，没人要杀大衣被禁，不要喋喋不休这份恐惧了，否则上位了也不优雅从容；2. 孩子冬天被丢爸爸家草坪了，这又算个什么事？当时最小的孩子都12了，老大高中毕业了，不是baby， ok?国内这个岁数的时候我们都自己放学回家的；3.妈妈骂人了，骂人骂的也是没良心的，是她爸不做人事衣冠禽兽在先的
你先开始骂我的，又是我意淫又是我被洗脑，然后我反驳一下现在又说我一蹦八丈高，还给我隔空诊断为男权癌。我敢于走出不愉快的婚姻，重建自己的幸福，屏蔽所有在前一顿婚姻里因为出轨和家暴配偶而离婚的男人以及没有这两条但堆积了各种心理问题的男人，我男权癌？我从小被如珠似宝地养大，接受了家人无条件的爱，幸运的受过最好的教育，经济和精神始终独立，觉得自己作为一个人非常珍贵，我男权癌？呵呵。
这里经历过离婚过程的人有几个？我最开始说意淫男方权势的原因是，只要男方律师拖一拖，法院程序慢一点，判赡养费（看清楚了，我说的是给配偶的赡养费）拖上八个月到一年多才能到女方手里的不要太常见，不需要男方有所谓的权势，普通人在合法程序里耍赖就可以做到了，直到今天也是如此。男方拖的目的就是把女方的资源拖光，让对方精神上崩溃，然后放弃要赡养费，也没钱打接下来的官司。这是离婚中不想付赡养费的男人和他们律师的常规操作，不需要你们想象的“权势”就可以做到，明白了么？
一个一个扔孩子到男方家门口，烧衣服撞门打电话骂之类的事情，事出有因吗？有的，可以理解。但是不需要一个有权势的律师或是别的什么才能送她进精神病院，让她丢抚养权，一个普通人听自己律师指挥找社工心理医生基于对方的这些行为就可以做到了，这简直是丢抚养权的标配，直到今天也是。一个人可以不犯法以及贴着各种规则走但是道德十分卑劣，说的就是男主，可惜的是离婚走的是法律程序，而且是家庭法庭，没有陪审团。男方是怎么用下三滥的手段把女方逼疯，包括如何没有契约精神，我没有一个字否认过和维护过。可是那些手段都是“合法”的，直到今天也是“合法”的—在这里我只是陈述一个非常无奈的事实。想对抗这些“合法”的手段在心理上和经济上保护自己可以有新生活，只有听律师的，把心理医生和社工用起来，别留把柄，没有别的办法。不然局势一定是失控的。
最后一遍，我从未说过渣男小三不值得谴责，女主不值得同情。但是值不值得付出自己的下半生去报复，对自己是不是更大的悲剧，有没有别的选择，是仁者见仁的。快意恩仇当然爽，可是如果代价是自己呢？结果各种诛心之论（比如秀自己理性的优越感，不敢不敢，在你种道德楷模的大牌坊面前，我除了自惭形秽没有别的选择），各种诅咒（出现在道德楷模身上还是让人感到非常违和的），合着这个问题不能讨论是么（我说自己的看法就是在judge，你说我男权癌算什么？我自始至终只说过女主可惜了，没有这种侮辱性的人格判断吧）。说一下女主有没有对自己更好的可能就是护着男方？这是什么逻辑？！还有，再说一遍，随便谁爱骂什么就骂什么，非自卫情况下的杀人，没得洗，不是针对这个案子。不好意思，核心价值观不一样，真的没有谈的必要。
你们骂不过瘾的话可以到这条视频的评论里挨个骂过去，各种圣母潜在渣男潜在小三在等着你们的谆谆教诲。
那咋样，好玩吗？
觉得还不错 从南加过去不算太远 适合2、3天时间打卡
激情杀人听说过吗， 人不是机器， 没可能每时每分都可以在脑海中
听说过激情杀人吗， 人不是机器， 没可能随时冷静判断做出最为合理的决策， 谁还没个lose control的时候，你能保证你生活中工作中就没发过不该发的脾气骂过不该骂的人? 因为离婚杀人的又不是Betty一个， 能克服心魔move on的谁想坐牢去啊， 这不就是橡皮筋拉到最后突然崩掉了吗， 所以前面有为mm说的很对， 万事留一线
https://www.latimes.com/la-me-broderick3jun0390-story.html
Even without the benefit of her voluminous divorce records, Betty recited names, dates and details to show just how ruthless she believed her husband had been: Dan, she said, had tried to drive her insane so no one would fault him for divorcing her.
“I have never had emotional disturbance or mental illness--except when he provoked a ‘disturbance,’ ” she spat. “My ‘emotional outbursts’ were only a response to Dan’s calculating, hateful way of dealing with our divorce. He was hammering into me and everyone else that I was crazy. . . . How long can you live like that?” Soon after her story appeared in print, hundreds of people, most of them women, wrote to Betty and to local newspapers to say that while they didn’t condone murder, they understood the fury that prompted it. “I believe every word Betty says--because I’ve been there,” one woman wrote. “Lawyers and judges simply refuse to protect mothers against this type of legalized emotional terrorism.” Another wrote: “The inequities in court proceedings and financial settlements are . . . rarely believed or understood except by the women who experience them. Isn’t it time we take a good look at our courts and our system of divorce?”
Fact: 可以读一下Dan是咋利用律师优势用Epstein credit让Betty离婚只分到3.3万块财产，还被扣掉5000刀Dan出的律师费，总共分到2万8.
https://www.oxygen.com/true-crime-buzz/epstein-credits-used-betty-broderick-divorce-daniel-broderick
In her final arguments, Betty — who was representing herself at the time — asked the court for $25,000 in spousal support each month for 10 years and a $1 million cash settlement. Dan, however, denied having a preconceived plot in terms of the credits and said he had never even heard of Epstein credits until he began the divorce.
His attorneys suggested he pay $9,000 in spousal support for a year and then $5,000 each month for a few years after that. They believed the judge should accept all the Epstein credits Dan had claimed. The judge would ultimately decide with Dan, agreeing that Betty owed nearly $750,000 in Epstein credits and cash advances to Dan, according to “The Until the Twelfth of Never.” The figure included reimbursement for half of Dan’s student loan payments after his attorneys argued that his Harvard degree had “enhanced” the couple’s community wealth.
After the couple’s community assets were calculated — including Dan’s successful law practice — and the $750,000 in Epstein credits were subtracted from Betty’s share, Dan owed her just over $33,000. The judge cut that figure by an additional $5,000 due to outstanding legal fees, leaving Betty with just over $28,000. Dan was also ordered to pay her $16,000 a month in spousal support. “[Betty] drove home with a screaming mind,” Stumbo wrote. “Not $1 million. Not even half a million. $28,000. A joke, an insult, an outrage.”
对，女人一般会比较感性一些，应该象男人学的理性自私一些，多利用社会规则，为自己牟利。其实贝蒂一开始就不应该生那么多孩子，辞掉工作。
很多人就被这个春秋笔法模糊事实的中文报道刺激的大骂渣男小三，应该去看看英文原版介绍吧，是Betty在男方提出离婚后先失去理智骚扰对方被restraint order的，失去监护权也是因为她明知男主家里没人故意把孩子扔在 门口不理孩子们的哭泣哀求，这样精神状态不稳定的母亲即便男方毫无背景也一样会被剥夺监护权的。 经济上来说，男主月入14万，可是税后能剩到10万吗？四个孩子监护权都归男方，双方人口6:1，女主每月一万六的alimony就是正常计算出来的，海边68万的房子也是男主离婚时给女主买的，英文版里没看到退休金转给男主弟弟。这个案子当时全国瞩目，没人质疑alimony不合理，倒是这里大把ID觉得女主如何经济上被打压，哪些号称男主应该净身出户的，应该没有了解过法律，美国还真不是出轨方就要净身出户的。 这个悲剧其实就是Betty失去自我性格偏执造成的。人生道路漫长，夫妻间如果grow apart，干干脆脆离婚，给自己和孩子争取最大经济利益，这不是一直以来华人上推崇的态度吗？Betty这样鱼死网破，看客觉得快意恩仇，可是她的四个孩子失去父母寄人篱下的心酸看客能补偿吗？ 原本Betty就算不幸失去婚姻，但是有钱，有闲，不用操心老公孩子，海边别墅住着，还有个陪伴在身边的小鲜肉同居男友，读书旅游看世界，找回生活乐趣的方式太多了！重新活的精彩，才是报复渣男的最好方式！这样死磕的结局，自己身陷囹圄，孩子寄人篱下，父母家人厌弃，真的是她想要的吗？如果身边的朋友陷于类似状况，难道大家都要看快意恩仇版？
就从那个渣爸对无辜的儿子（想搬去陪伴妈妈的）取消继承权，就能看出来这个渣有多坏了，擅长用经济手段来控制别人，包括妻子和孩子，控制欲那么强，你觉得他会让前妻好过？他简直是由里到外的坏！
Betty所表现我认为都蛮正常的，作为为家付出奉献了自己青春后成了弃妇当然不甘心，何况渣律师耍的各种手段，她一个家庭妇女如何招架得住？肯定被当成把柄被渣男利用起来，精神不正常绝对是离婚后表现出来的，不是家庭幸福的时候就有精神病举动呀！她是被逼出来的不容置疑。被逼成祥林嫂呀，做出不太正常的举动情有可原。
原来这就是你说的运用律师优势压迫她。 看来人和人真的差太多了。我觉得这个挺合理的。婚内学贷本来就是共同债务。看来这哥们真的挺穷的。这些人真是敢花钱，之前那些个vacation看着都挺豪。难怪一万六不够花。这哥们也是乍富不久就搬出去了。
真的，大家应该好好看看这篇文章。 我在华人经常劝人，离婚的时候姿态低一点态度好一点，乘着男方急着离婚钱赶快分一分，尽量拿现钱，速战速决，不要上庭，省钱省力。
双职工真的挺好的，变相aa,大家出一半钱一半力，谁也不欠谁，谁也别以为对方欠自己的，清清楚楚，离婚再一人一半娃，互相不用给钱。我觉得未来社会发展就是婚姻的解体，婚姻既没有必要，也没有synergy,也没有co dependency.
渣男有钱转45万给他弟弟，没钱还清学贷？
他正是要树立的这种“我很穷”的形象，然后能少被分钱，居然有蠢人相信这个障眼法！他一个月赚14万可不是空穴来风，他和新妻买的豪宅明明白白摆着呢好吧！
你可能没有理解文章吧。 文章说了，本来除了她分到的房子，Betty还可以分80万现金。也就是说他们的家产除了房子应该是160万+债务。扣除债务和男方之前预支给女方的生活费和律师费。80里只得3万。
这说明： 1.男方有钱还学贷啊。他家本来就是现金比学贷多啊。 2.女方律师费大概花了不少。 3.男方应该是大钱没多久就要求离婚了，所依他打离婚官司的那几年赚的几百万，买豪宅，跟女方没有关系分不到。 4.男方给了弟弟45万的source 你引用一下啊。
我真诚劝你通读全文。真的，美国法律是鼓励大家签婚前协议，文明离婚，惩罚大家打几年官司。
不辩论，你说的都对。
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-23-mn-456-story.html
Late last month, Union Bank of San Diego filed suit against Colorado businessman Laurance G. (Larry) Broderick, the brother of Daniel Broderick, accusing him of failing to repay two-thirds of a $450,000 loan--money owed to Daniel and Betty Broderick’s sons, Danny, 16, and Rhett, 14.
Larry Broderick borrowed the money from his brother in 1988, more than a year before Daniel Broderick, 44, and his former legal assistant, Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28, were gunned down in the bedroom of their home near Balboa Park on the morning of Nov. 5, 1989. Newport Beach attorney Jack Earley, who represented Betty Broderick in both of her murder trials, said the suit proves her contention “that Dan was transferring assets to his brother (during a bitter divorce) in an attempt to . . . make it appear Dan had less money.”
The suit says Larry Broderick entered the agreement with his brother in July, 1988. The divorce hearing took place, Earley said, later that year and in 1989. Betty Broderick has long contended that her ex-husband wielded his power and legal influence against her.
要读原文就好好读，看不懂或者装看不懂也行，反正我拒绝辩论。
Dan allegedly took advantage of Californian Case Law that allowed him to claim back half of any debts incurred during the marriage, which he had paid following separation. Dan Broderick mortgaged multiple properties and purchased a house just prior to his asserted date of separation, in full knowledge that Betty would not be able to meet these mortgage repayments. This meant that in final settlement, Betty had to “reimburse” Dan for various debts that he paid from the date that he first moved out, despite the fact that she was of the view that their marriage was still very much intact for some time after (rightly or wrongly). These ‘Epstein Credits’ reduced Betty’s settlement from $783,000 to $33,000.
好奇这45万最后执行起来到底还了多少。
那以后你老公出轨，你直接净身出户。没看错，是你，不是他。圣母做得到
有希望
哎哟，这个扔孩子梗你们来回来去地使，其它的都避而不谈，这也太黔驴技穷了
这个我真的是太不理解了。 他85年分居，86年正式离婚，分局的以后年入百万，这百万跟Betty一毛钱关系都没有，他爱给谁花，就给谁花，想必也给小三花了不少，88年借给他弟弟45万，这跟betty有什么关系呢？ 难道不是应该85年前的才是转移婚内财产吗？他难道离婚后赚得几百万怎么花还要经过前妻同意？ 我不了解婚姻法啊。大家科普一下，是不是离婚之后财产分割之前大家不能花钱借钱捐钱。
这个扔孩子根本不是遗弃好吗？年龄起码12岁了，美国法律已经允许独自在家和外出了，另外扔在门口根本就是妈妈赌气想给爸爸制造一点麻烦而已，而遗弃是长年累月的长期行为，这两种行为毫不相干
这个我不太理解啊。 这不是简单的数学吗？ 就是男女婚内有1百万财产，女方应分50完。男方有是买房又是提现，现在有200万资产+100完债务。女方应分100万资产50完债务完全没有区别啊？难道是我数学不好。 男方怎么“allegedly take advantage”了啊？他到底拿到什么了啊？
好几个人都和你一样回应过了，他们根本不理的
我也很无奈。回帖吧。就是不依不饶让人恶心的神经病。不会吧，就是黔驴技穷避而不谈。
说到孩子，我不知道她是什么时候遗弃的。我猜事86年离婚判决下来之前，因为离婚判决应该就定下来custody了。 86年的时候，betty的孩子们是16，15，10和7岁。你说是不是遗弃呢？我提醒大家一下，她不是一股脑儿遗弃的，让16，15看着10岁7岁。她是一个一个单独遗弃的。一共遗弃了四次，每次都是让孩子单独带着。你要问孩子什么感受，请参见opHra interview. 所以我说，大家讨论，先要了解事实。不要各种脑补瞎猜，还义正辞严。
当然啦，你也可以说10岁7岁怎么？他们不都好好的没事吗？我没有说她遗弃孩子不好啊。我说的是她既然遗弃了，那么就是她自己不想要抚养权了啊，后来干吗要死要活的。就算她只是想在男方那里放几天，但是法庭上这么判没有问题吧，成年人总要对自己的行为负责的。 所以我说离婚不要惩罚孩子，不要involve 孩子，不要让她们站队，除非你做好了失去他们的准备。
这个大女儿太狠了，恨了她妈几十年，就因为她妈杀了她爸她失去了奢侈生活方式？
睿智！
让那一坨💩在人前自由飞舞喷洒吧
大家别忘了，他家多年一直是Dan掌控经济大权，Betty属于家里具体有多少钱多少债都糊里糊涂，老公说啥就是啥。
是的，弃楼，车轱辘话说来说去，没劲。 再说一遍：杀的好，Betty解脱了，是丹咎由自取，也是给后来人一个警醒，陈世美们不要逼人太甚，当心丢了性命，做人留一线，日后好相见！
我有朋友也是结婚20多年，赚钱给老公在美国读硕读博，3个儿子，结果前夫一个人海归就出轨个酒店前台，说实话小三不如正妻年轻时美，就胜在年轻。朋友把孩子们教育的很好，也平静离婚了（平分资产，其实基本都是女方赚的，男的在国内赚的钱根本看不到），但我可以说，她是不甘心的，每次我们说到这个事，她的情绪是激动的（不是多舍不得渣男，是觉得自己的辛苦喂了狗）。真是很可惜一个大好家庭就这么没了。
男人呀，真是一有机会就不安分。这还不是发大财，只是顶着美国海龟博士的头衔回国，就被扑的不知道东南西北啦。
对啊。结婚争产就是各种撕b啊。所以我一直主张大家婚前理性文明的时候写好婚前协议，这样离婚可以文明一点啊。
所以现在的facts就是1.Dan 有权利在85年分居之后给任何人他分居之后挣得财产。所以他在88年赚了几百万时候给阿猫阿狗45万一点问题都没有。 2.betty应该举证在分居的时候他们提供有多少财产和多少债务。就算她85年分居之前对家庭情况一无所知，分居以后她请了律师，律师给她的第一个建议难道不是搞清婚内财产明细吗？她不是应该在律师的指导下搞清楚吗？怎么搞了2，3年还没搞清楚呢?她律师既然有证据证明这45万是婚内财产怎么没有要求分割呢？如果betty不能举证，那么只能由法官根据已知证据判定他们分居一刻的婚内财产和债务。既然法官不认为这是婚内财产，为什么酱油党都觉得自己被法官了解实情呢？
Anyway,华人各位要珍惜那些出轨就净身出户的国男们啊。这种反人性离婚不争产的配偶们，真的不多了，大家且行且珍惜。
1. 上策：理智离开，大打官司，挣来一半资产和孩子监护权，潇洒开始新人生，前夫小三对损失资产很不爽，但是日子也过得不错，双方都有所得失。
2，中策：接受当时前夫所有条件，分得小部分资产，失去孩子。她可以选择潇洒离开，而这是前夫小三梦想成真的时刻，因为Betty 彻底成全了他们。
3.下策：杀了前夫小三，自己进监狱，双方都损失惨重，但是Betty 获得实质和精神上的正义。我打赌她现在在监狱里放松愉快，肯定没有抑郁症等等精神疾病
4，下下策：不管多少钱都郁郁寡欢，自杀或者重度精神疾病，这是对自己最大限度的惩罚，也是前夫小三梦想成真的时刻
所以，Betty 没有选择上策中策，但是现状也不是下下策，而且最大程度保证了自己的精神健康
这个大女儿真是白眼狼，白养了，妈杀了爸，当时她已经成年了，自己独立了，而且财产不是也分到了，真是的，
人家报复的是渣男女，哪里报复社会了？
你爸就是这样抛弃你和你妈，导致你没机会接受教育而说出这样的话？
Alimony取决于男方收入多少啊？服务员和律师给一样的吗？
因为你太差劲了，所以你前男友离开你都求之不得
国内大学生？70～80年代的大学生？那你公婆还真是撸瑟，那个年代的大学生很多现在都是亿万富翁了。所以难怪你也是一脑子撸瑟思想。
她@大衣被禁 又丑又穷，平时只能专门给男性家暴啊，冷暴力站队来讨好异性，她前男友离开她都很无所谓，当然不至于有情绪波动
难道原因不是bezos 分了一半身家吗？这时候离婚还有什么深爱离不开可言，本质上可离职遣散费没给够，员工杀老板一个意思。
活得滋润谁乐意守着渣男……
拿多少钱和原本身家有关。怎么总是有人站在自己的经济水平角度决定别人的生活水准？
非洲难民还觉得你老板开给你太多钱，你怎么不少拿点？
所以孩子不是男方的？你爸也是这样抛弃你和你妈，不认你不愿意养你是吧。难怪你没有亲情观念，真可怜
你是没学过历史吗？那你这学读成这样真是浪费学费。那个年代有这么完善的补助吗？就像那时候离婚分配财产也不是这么公平。所以这种情况现在不会发生了呀？面对负心的男人，女人拿着一半身家快乐的走了。
那她就去针对男人啊……针对自己的孩子算什么？柿子捏软的？
这样言语上贬低男方并不能改变事实啊？
这个事件里面明明男方是老虎，女方属于被老虎咬断了腿，然后杀了老虎。
站在男方的角度前妻才是条狗，他本可以既把狗打断腿赶出去又毫发无伤，要不是狗发疯咬死了他，他就是大赢家了。
该分多少是根据本来二人身家来判定的。这里穷人真是多。你一定觉得tiger woods前妻和bezos前妻都分太多了是吧？都应该拿和你的薪水一样就够生活了。但是大姐你没看清楚问题的关键么？所以你根本找不到那样的老公呀！所以干嘛用你穷人的生活去评判？
你是法盲？你觉得贝秃分这么多是因为他好心而不是因为法律？
我看到你的穷人角度和穷人逻辑就够了。继续去舔你撸瑟一家的老公吧，看起来应该是跪了个白人求身份那种。 如果是爸妈投资移民拿的身份给你，你一定不会嫁给teller的家庭。 pity on you