Marital Settlement Agreement with Minor Children Wi 2019-2025 Form

You can represent yourself. Each form is different per state or county but generally an answer is simply a written document which presents a synopsis of your story to the court. The answer is not your defense, just written notice to the court that you intend to contest the suit. The blank forms are available at the court clerk’s office and are pretty much self explanatoryThere will be a space calling for the signature of an attorney. You should sign your name on the space and write the words “Pro se” after your signature. This lets the court know you are acting as your own attorney.

What is relevant, is that you need a lawyer to do this successfully. Civil rights is an area of law that for practical purposes cannot be understood without training. The police officer will have several experts defending if you sue. Unless you have a lawyer you will be out of luck. If you post details on line, the LEO's lawyers will be able to use this for their purpose. You need a lawyer who knows civil rights in your jurisdiction.Don't try this by yourself.Get a lawyer. Most of the time initial consultations are free.

In New Jersey, the Superior Court consists of the Chancery Division, Law Division, and Appellate Division. The Chancery Division consists of General Equity, Probate, and Family Parts. A plaintiff will file a complaint in General Equity to enforce rights because monetary damages will not make the plaintiff whole. In general, the enforcement of rights is called specific performance. This means the plaintiff is asking the court to compel the defendant to act in a particular manner. As explained in the website for the New Jersey Judiciary,A General Equity case may involve a terminally ill person[']s right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, or a dispute between labor and management over rights in the workplace, or even a company[']s ability to protect its trade secrets, such as how it makes or markets a product. Instead of money, the plaintiff in a General Equity case may ask the court to order the defendant to do something: remove a feeding tube, for instance, or end a strike and return to work. General Equity cases are decided by judges instead of juries.The defendant in General Equity is not accused of a crime. But if he should refuse to obey the order of the court, then the Equity Chancelor (judge) has the authority to impose penalties, which include jail. This is to avoid a stalemate with a recalcitrant defendant. The decisions of the Equity Chancelor are reviewable by the Appellate Division and Supreme Court of New Jersey.

From the Washington Post:“In their opinion, the justices focused on what they said was the unequal use of the death penalty, describing it as a punishment meted out haphazardly depending on little more than geography or timing.“The death penalty is invalid because it is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner,” the justices wrote. “While this particular case provides an opportunity to specifically address racial disproportionality, the underlying issues that underpin our holding are rooted in the arbitrary manner in which the death penalty is generally administered.””What makes this especially interesting is that the US Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment, as then applied (1972) threw out the death penalty laws of every state for much the same reasons that the Washington court cited: on the grounds that they caused people to be sentenced to death in an arbitrary way. The US Supreme Court "found that the lack of standards for imposing the death penalty enabled the penalty to be selectively applied, allowing for arbitrary application. Part of the arbitrariness concern was that the death penalty had been imposed unevenly, infrequently, and often selectively against minorities. Under the cruel and unusual punishment clause, a penalty is considered unconstitutionally imposed if it is administered arbitrarily or discriminatorily."Since 1972 the US Supreme Court has accepted, as consititutional, death penalty statutes passed by a number of state. But it is increasingly obvious that the problems cited in 1972 have not gone away.Here’s a link to the actual decision Washington State decision: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinio...

OK, now THIS kind of question is the kind that ALWAYS chaffs my… whatever. What, and I mean PRECISELY what does the phrase “domestic relations case mean… PRECISELY? Is this case about either of you, husband and wife, either or attempting to gain child visitation? Are you filing an action for divorce? Is it an antagonistic divorce or is it amicable?Has either of you struck the other?Is it over non-support issues? How in bloody blue blazes can anyone here help you if you do not tell us what the heck is going on??

I think the phrase is actually 'You reap what you sow,' and if you want me to give you an easy answer to that question then you are liable to be sorely disappointed. I’m faced with the prospect that people of all persuasions are not going to like what I have to say. And yes, I often write in a somewhat whimsical way and no, I’m not going to change that here.I’m genuinely upset by what happened — Manchester especially hit me hard — but to change they way I think, and the way I write is to let them score a victory over me. And they aren’t getting that from me, not now, not ever.So you’ve been warned.To begin with, like anyone else being asked to issue a thoughtful response to a recent terrorist action, it is both right and proper that I begin with a condemnation of the attack.At the time of writing it looks like seven people have been killed, murdered in a senseless and brutal attack. In addition to the seven lives cut short, we have hundreds if not thousands of people grieving for lost loved ones.Then we have the perpetrators themselves.For atheists such as myself, life is precious. You get one shot at it folks. One spin of the wheel. Just one.If you are lucky, you'll get the best part of a century to make something of your life. Maybe you'll raise some great kids? Maybe you'll make a direct contribution to society in some way? Perhaps you'll be a doctor and heal people, a scientist who discovers some great cure for this or that disease. You might be an entertainer and make people laugh (or cry,) or whatever. It doesn't even have to be grandiose. Society needs street cleaners as much as it needs politicians and poets; speaking as someone who has naturally curly hair of a somewhat non-euclidean nature I can only say thank god for hairdressers.There are only two important questions to ask yourself at the end of your life.Did I enjoy it?Did I make a positive contribution?The answer to the first question is all about bonus points, it's an optional extra really. It's nice if you had fun but it doesn't matter if you didn't really enjoy the trip. I can think of many a miserable sod who left the world a better place than it was when they entered it.The second answer, on the other hand, is not so easy to sidestep. You either did or you did not.Your life either meant something or it did not.I'm still alive — or at the very least I’m conceited enough to describe myself thus — but I'll do my best to post my answers to those questions on Quora before I pop off to wherever the hell atheists don’t get to go to when they die. But to the terrorists who thought that it would be a good idea to set off a bomb in an auditorium filled with little girls -- to those who ran through London last night murdering people in cold blood -- I have only this to say.You wasted the life that was given to you.Like seriously. Total fucking waste; #fail to the nth degree.Oh, I know that you saw your actions as just. I know you saw this as a short cut to heaven. I know that you thought you were doing god’s will.I also know that when you were small and innocent of all violence and evil you were taught that there was an almighty being who loved you and cared for you but who could be oh, so, so hateful and murderous when the mood took him.I know that.But the Bronze Age, invisible Sky-God that you was foisted upon your still developing brain is no more real than the one they attempted to foist upon mine. Different, gods, different holy texts for sure but cut from the same Abrahamic cloth nonetheless.And don't get me wrong, I believe in freedom of religion. You can worship whatever you choose. You can worship a giant Astro-Turtle for all I care. Seriously, knock yourself out.But my support of freedom or religion is based on a thorough reading of John Stuart Mill. It's based on secular, libertarian ideas of free speech. It has nothing to do with theology or respect for beliefs that I find at times insulting to human intelligence. I’d never force anyone to abandon their religion but I’d sure as hell encourage them to do so. It would be like watching my beloved pet lizard shed its dead skin.Now, I can happily sit down and discuss religion (or anything else for that matter,) with people of any faith.Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Scientologists... They can have their view of our cosmological and philosophical origins and I can have mine. They can tell me how enriched they are by faith and I can let them know how satisfying truth can be.Because my view of religion goes something like this:“Organized Religion is at best a well-intentioned attempt to make sense of a world we had no hope of understanding at the time of the religion’s formation. At its worst it is a con job engineered to shrink wrap brains so that people behave in uniform and predictable ways. “Most religions are a bit of both of those things.Maybe I’m right. Maybe there is no god. Maybe I got it wrong and there is one. Either way, there is no salvation for these killers.The terrorists won't be going to heaven to sit at the side of their preferred deity. They are either dead or facing very long jail terms. History will remember them-- if they are remembered at all -- as cowards, as dupes, and as fools.Those that live will come to regret their actions. If they are lucky they will appear on documentaries as shallow, broken, people filled with remorse as they try to piece together a shell of a life thirty or so years from now. If they are unlucky they will never even understand where they went so very, very wrong.Because, sure, they were indoctrinated and that's actually not their fault. Children have little defense from the ideas a trusted adult decides to impose upon them. But they got to grow up at some point and they had an opportunity to take a step back and say:"I still believe in the god my parents taught me about but a god that wants me to blow up children is an evil god. And an evil god does not deserve my adoration. I think I'll take my chances with real life and try to do something with it."That is the closest I’ll get to agreeing with any theist. If you must worship a deity — be he of Islam , Christianity or elsewhere —focus on his or her positive attributes and steer clear of the ‘human sacrifice’ stuff that tends to pepper the early chapters of such holy texts.Such texts were written in the past and the past—by definition — lacked the progressive wisdom of modernity.So, that's been said.Now on to the meat of the question.One of the awful things about such attacks is that many of us are afraid to speak our minds whilst others are all too willing to shoot their mouths off if they suspect they are within earshot of anyone listening.The far right for example, sees no sense in taking the time to actually think things through. Far better to go for the old knee jerk reaction, no?They see the world in bold, Manichean hues of good and evil. Theirs is a world carved in an easily recognizable font. It is a George Lucas script; fast-paced, easily understood and with little time spent on pondering the beige washout between story beats.Terrified of ever looking weak, they denounce everything they disagree with as a function of political correctness gone mad. For them, it's all so simple. Islam is evil, it is dangerous, and no measures taken to prevent a terrorist attack could possibly be too harsh.Throwing away due process, engaging in torture, racial profiling, abandoning our own rights, stopping and searching procedures, holding us without trial and so on and so forth.None of those things would make us absolutely safe from terrorists but we would be safer.We'd also be giving up the very things worth fighting for in the first place; so the whole thing would be a massive waste of time. We could live in the same one-religion police state that they have in Saudi Arabia and if anyone was suspected of wrongdoing, we could start lopping off heads and sort out any potential paperwork related snafu at a later date.This is clearly not he path we should go down.On the hard left, we have the apologists.Islam is a wonderful religion they tell us (it's not; like all organized religions it is beset with fundamental contradictions,) and we need to make sure that we encourage diversity in all aspects of lives.(Diversity yes. Enabling, no. )In their desperation to not appear Islamophobic in any way shape or form, they turn a blind eye to principles that they should hold dear. Admitting that the Islamic world struggles with issues such as human rights abuses, misogyny, antisemitism and extremist violence should not be a controversial statement.And yet it is.I don't have much time for this world view either.Lastly, we have the most reviled group of all. This group tends to believe that we have to have a frank discussion about such things. because we see failings on both sides of the equation we are forced to waste time issuing unnecessary platitudes to the side accusing us of :Having terrorist sympathies.Being fawning Islamophiles.Secretly celebrating each person killed in acts of wanton violence.Meanwhile, we are expected to tweet apologies to the other side that insists we are:IslamophobicDirectly supporting Neo Nazi-like racial epithets.Bad eggs.This is the group I belong to.It's a hard group to be in because we actually think through our responses and that takes time. It also means we are liable to stimulate the reactionary lower brain processes of those who either cannot or will not follow suit as regards to the whole ‘thought process scenario.’Thinking things through means taking a step back and looking at the big picture which means we need a history lesson.For 500 years Europe (and later, by extension nations such as the U.S.) have dominated global geopolitics.The question is, why?The Renaissance.The Renaissance happened in Europe.This is a really important point to understand if you have any hope of understanding modern geopolitics and it is indeed the first sentence I would utter back in the days when I taught 20/21st century International Relations instead of writing for a living.It’s all the more important to understand that the Renaissance happened in Europe because it didn't have to happen there. There were loads of places it could have begun.Pick pretty much any century before the 16th, and the idea of a European hegemonic power structure that would last over a half millennium looks somewhat unlikely. Humanity did of course begin in Africa, but civilization began in what we would now call the Middle East. There are loads of reasons as to why it did so, but one reason stands out above all others and its the one thing that people tend to overlook when talking about politics.I’m talking about geography here,The cultivation of plants and the domestication of animals spread across the globe in an asymmetrical fashion.That is to say, it traveled east to west with far greater ease than it did north to south and that makes an odd kind of sense really. If you find an edible plant that will grow in Persia then the chances are it will grow in Greece too. Try taking it down to the tropics or up to the frozen tundra of the north and you have a different story or more specifically, a dead plant.Civilization started in the fertile crescent and traveled west and east. It signNowed the southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea with little effort and happily curved around the northern coast of Africa as it spread through northern Europe too. But it didn't go much further South. The Sahara was in the way.Malaria was in the way.Eurasia's east-west axis was the ultimate trump card.Anyone looking at a map can see the rise of civilization as a logical progression of ecological realities. Central Africa lacks arable farmland and navigable rivers. It’s too hot and has a paucity of domesticatable animals. Pigs, cows chickens, sheep: all Eurasian. We had ponies — which are a delight — they had Zebra, which are not. They are bad tempered and bitey and I should know because I've been bitten by one.(True story.)Of all the animals we domesticated for food, only five come from Africa. One of those is the Honey Bee which has wings and is therefore ‘cheating. ’ Two others —the donkey and the goose —come from North Africa which is counted as the Middle East as far as political science is concerned (sorry but it is,) and the remaining two — the Barbary dove and the guinea fowl —are ‘small and twatty.’The Americas gave us the Llama, that other thing that is basically a llama, and the guinea pig, turkey, and mink.Everything else from dogs, to chickens, cows, pigs, goat, rabbits, yak, camel and sheep are Eurasian. And before you say what about cats? Well, they aren’t really domesticated are they?And they taste awful.Australia was also too hot; barren and cut off from the world, it really needed someone to invent air conditioning and surfboards for it to become palatable. Oh, you could live there and enjoy a life rich of spiritual happiness, sure. But you could build no empires.The Americas were large enough to be the exception to the rule but even here the very distance between civilizations coupled with comparatively small populations stunted their technological growth. And they had two types of Llama; which was a massive put off.So, we ended up with a predictable map. The oldest and mightiest civilizations were situated slap bang in the middle — where it all began — and the younger feistier civilizations flanked them, snapping at their bingo-wings.By the time you got to places like Japan and the British isles you were really in the sticks. Such places had little chance of inventing anything truly special.It had all already been done.I say 'all' because I'm only really talking about the good stuff like writing and counting, metal working and farming. Stuff like that. Anyone reading this on their iPhone might object to the idea that far-flung places had little to add and that’s OK because these places would get their chance to shine later on.At any rate, it doesn’t really matter because for the purposes of a discussion on terrorism we need only note that two things.That technology is progressive.That the Middle East was first and that the Middle East was best.The former is easy to understand.You start with stone tools, figure out how to make bronze tools, invent the bow, invent the stirrup, invent cheese, invent iron, steel, firearms, battleships, paper, and eventually, reality T.V. shows.More or less in that order.Barring a global cataclysm (such as the one Trump is trying to engineer by dropping out of the Paris Accords,) you never really got to un-invent cheese and for those of you that are thinking that cheese has nothing to do with terrorism I would say this.That cheese is more intrinsic to our understanding of how we got ourselves into this this mess than pretty much anything else I can think of.I'd rather not get into how cheese came to be a 'thing' because the important thing to know is that cheese is ace. It's one of the most popular foods in the world and will continue to be one of the most popular food in the world for as long as humanity continues.As with cheese, so with the bow.Once you realize that a taut wire under tension can fire a projectile with enough velocity to kill something tasty, you're never going to look back. Like satnav, dental floss, and Pringles, once you pop you cannot stop.This is hugely important to understand because it just so happens that some people did stop. The Aboriginal people of Australia for example stopped using bows and went back to spears and boomerangs.We don't know why.But we do know that in the late 15th century the Chinese Ming dynasty decided to cut itself off from the world. At the height of their power they scuttled their navy, decided that they had already invented everything worth inventing and closed shop.Early 17th Century Japan did the same. Now, the idea that there were no guns allowed in Japan during what is known as the Edo period (1603 to 1868) has been somewhat overstated. What is true is that there were not many of them and it's easy to see why.Bushido allowed the violent temperament of the Samurai to be counterbalanced with soft wisdom, but both spiritual and martial skills took a considerable amount of time to instill in a person.Decades really.A peasant with one afternoon's training and a decent musket could easily kill half a dozen charging Samurai. That—thought the Samurai — simply won't do but since nobody thought of building bullet-deflecting light sabers, the best thing to do was keep the swords but lose the bullets.Japan's decision to cut itself off from the world was political. The Samurai — conservative, and happy with their power base — opted for stagnation.Which is why when Commodore Mathew Perry steamed four warships into Tokyo Bay in 1853 and threatened to attack if Japan did not begin trade with the West, they had little choice but to comply.America wanted some coaling stations you see, and Britain had taken up all the juicy ones; a little gunboat diplomacy was all it took.Perry was not going to meet Samurai on the field of battle and engage in a mode of fighting that had been abandoned a long time ago. Had Japan refused he would have simply shelled them at a not too discreet distance. And then sent another polite letter asking them to comply. Japan capitulated and almost immediately made moves to catch up with the west at breakneck speed.China wasn’t faring much better. What had once been the mightiest nation on the planet was now reduced to politely begging the British to stop importing opium on the grounds that the highly addictive substance was ruining their country.Britain, a comparatively tiny island thousands of miles away twice humbled China over this matter during what are known as the Opium Wars.Bloody British.How did this come to be?Well, in part for the reasons I just told you.Japan abdicated power for political reasons, China's withdrawal was more philosophical and whilst that’s just ‘bully for them,’ it made little difference when they sent their obsolete navy of junks out to combat the British Navy at the height of its power.What has this got to with terrorism?A lot actually.Because Islam also decided to retreat into themselves and at much the same time.For the Islamic world, the retreat was very much theological in nature. They had been on the top for quite some time. Their knowledge of science and medicine was without peer, Their technological achievements were staggering. Although it cut across many different national boundaries, Islam was a progressive force and a powerful one at that. They welcomed new ideas, they allowed other religions to co-exist alongside them. Their art, crafts, and poetry were superb.And they gave it all up. It wasn’t taken from them or subsumed in a wave of evil western imperialism. They let it go voluntarily, willingly.In 1577 Murad III’s chief astronomer — a man called Taqi Ad Din — built in Constantinople, a magnificent observatory , perhaps one that rivaled Tycho Brae's observatory at Uraniborg. It was finished in 1577.And in case you are wondering."Why do I recognize Brae's name and not Taqi Ad Din?"Well, it's OK, don’t worry.It's not because you are the racist antecedent of European cultural Imperialism. It's because Taqi Ad Din's observatory was destroyed three years after it was built.You see, astronomy and astrology were inextricably linked back then and Ad Din used the appearance of a rather large comet to make a prediction.Things were going to be AOK he told everyone.And then an enormous plague hit and things were… not OK."Oh," said the Islamic clergy (who were huge fans of Astronomy but quite rightly saw Astrology as a load of old claptrap,)"Tear that fucker down," they said, referring to the shiny new observatory.And so they did.I'm paraphrasing a bit there…It was a little thing really and not even the beginning of a movement but it does serve as a great talking point. The clergy had the power to remove things they didn’t much care for. The second half of the second millennium was a period of change and if there is one thing that conservatives hate it’s change. The renaissance was anathema to traditionalists because it contradicted a lot of things we held dear. It encouraged people to ask questions and as people did so, they came up with answers that looked nothing like the descriptions found in holy texts.If this continues they must have thought. Our books are going to look flawed, unwise. Made up.Islam's lag behind the West in scientific advancement began around 1500 AD and stemmed from attempts by great thinkers to explain the world around us using systematic laws.And here we signNow one of the two great nexus points that you're going to have hold in your head if you are to follow a rather important line of thought. Because we're starting to see something happen from the 16th century onward. Something big.We see the rest of the world handing the reigns of power to a relatively small corner of the world called Europe and then letting them keep them for around 500 years or so. Asia chose to stagnate. Islam chose to stagnate but before Westerners among you swell with pride at how great we have been let's remember two things.That Europeans also tried to do the same. There was a reformation in Europe sure, but there was a counter-reformation also. We tried to suppress Copernicus, we burned our heretics. The concerted efforts to preserve not only the status quo but also the preeminence of church power was just as real and just as virulent in the Christian world. It's just that in Europe, and pretty much in Europe alone, the progressives won. It was an accident of history — sort of— but we were not better or more enlightened or anything like that. We just had different circumstances to deal with.Those of you who have been to Bulgaria or Belgium -- and I have been to both-- will understand that they idea of turning your back on science during the 16th century was absurd. European geography is such that it was in an almost constant state of war. Suggesting to the King of Belgium that it might be a good idea to hold off on the R&D ‘RE: weapons of warfare’ would have been laughed out of court. Progressive ideas were married to science which was married to warfare. We overtook Asia, we overtook the Middle East. Africa, with its lack of navigable rivers, north/south axis and other headaches too numerous to mention never really stood a chance. The America's had only just been re- discovered and we ultimately devastated those civilizations that arose independent of ourselves via a rather nasty combination of guns and measles.This is just simply what happened and getting upset about it or saying "It aint so," isn't going to change that. European hegemony was an accident of history helped along by geographical realities and accelerated by the victory of conservative factions elsewhere.Which takes us to the second nexus.The Middle EastAnyone who has spent time in the Arab world will have some understanding of what several millennia of farming can do to a region. Remember that they were first and remember also that much of the fertile crescent doesn't look so fertile anymore. In fact much of the Arab world is in pretty poor state really but there is one thing that it has in great abundance.Oil.Perry wanted a coaling station that hadn't already been claimed by the bloody British. Hitler charged across half of Russia trying to get at its oil fields. He needn't have bothered. His tanks were racing across Libya a country that like much of the Middle East just so happens to be floating on oil.Thankfully, nobody knew that at the time.The Industrial revolution was powered by coal which was a fine thing because both Europe and North America had plenty of it to spare. But as the 20th century dawned, it soon became apparent that oil was the only commodity that really mattered. By the time that became apparent, the Islamic world was in no position to dictate terms to the west. Europe -- which by extension now included the U.S. -- marched in, secured themselves a huge share on favorable terms and then settled back to rake in the prosperity.And there was very little that the Muslim world could do about it. They were weak, they were backwards.Can you think of any winners of a Noble physics prize? I'm guessing yes.Any from Muslim countries?No?I'll help.There has only been one such recipient, Mohammad Abdus Salam who received it in 1979.The Muslim world also managed two noble laureates in literature and two more in chemistry. And in case you see the whole thing as yet another example of western imperialistic tyranny, there have been seven Muslim recipients of the peace prize.Like I said. Backwards.So ends the history part of this answer.Human NatureAs Graham Chapman once said to Michael Palin"Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous, pervert!"I know, you came here for an answer not abuse.But abuse is what you're going to get because if you are reading this then you're probably a person and people are awful. What did Europe do with the reigns of power when they were handed to them?A full list would take some time but to summarize. The lied, raped and pillaged. They removed leaders of countries they did not like and replaced them with ones they did. They extracted resources using native labour, paying a slave wage at best and at worst used actual slaves. They used chemical and biological weapons. They committed genocide and dealt irreparable ecological damage. They left power vacuums vast enough to ensure that despotism, corruption and internecine warfare was to be their legacy. They drew lines on maps that took no notice of linguistic or cultural traditions. They murdered tens of millions of people and claimed to be doing so in the name of saving them from damnation.The question is, was it because they were European or because they were human?I'm going with the latter.We did these things because we could. we did these things because humanity’s capacity for self delusion is without peer.The accident of history that had allowed us to run roughshod over everyone who got in our way --and quite a few people who did not-- made us a warlike people. Still, had the European counter-reformation succeed and Islam's version failed, things would have been little different. They would have done to us as we did to them. They would have spread Islam as we spread Christianity. They would have pilfered our resources as we have pilfered theirs.Maybe.I don't really know of course. It's all very Phillip K. Dick.At any rate, we don't need to prove an unprovable hypothetical in order to arrive at some sound conclusions. Because this question is about reaping what you sow and after a rather long-winded introduction beset with an analysis of the unimportance of llama, we're finally there.We can deconstruct this into two separate questions.Are they consequences for our actions in nations that are ostensibly IslamicDoes that mean it's all our own fault?ConsequencesThe answer is yes. This is one of those statements that is going to have people yelling at me in the comments below but I guess if people have got 4000 or so words into an essay then they have every right to moan at me.I have said this many times before but I'm going to say it again.If I shoot someone you love you might shoot back.You probably won't of course.You'd probably let the police handle the whole thing.Even if you had a gun in your hand you probably would not pull the trigger. Oh, maybe you'd want to, and maybe I'd deserve it, but taking the law into your own hands is illegal and anyway… most of us aren't killers.But what if there was no justice? What if there was no possibility of any kind of regress? What if I was immune from prosecution for some reason?You’d be angry of course and you’d mourn. The pain would, I think be more real because human beings require the closure that justice would bring. Most of us would learn to live with what happened.But a few of us would creep upstairs to loft, grab Granddad's old service revolver and set out to settle the score.We killed between 175,660 and 196,408 civilians in the illegal invasion of Iraq. Last night, terrorists killed around seven people and many voices have been raised suggesting we go kill more Muslims in retaliation. It would make a few wild-eyed zealots feel better I'm sure, but it would not change things. In fact it would make things worse.Violence begets violence.It's not right or just or fair, it's just a fact of human nature.You can’t bomb people, (even if you have a good reason, even if they left you no choice,) and not expect some to fight back. People can be unreasonable over small and petty things. Why do we expect them to act reasonable in the face of something as emotive as death?Had they been able, Iraq would have bombed London and Washington as we bombed Baghdad. They did bomb Israel during the first Gulf War. Perhaps then people would move on, perhaps then people would say, ‘horrible war,’ glad it’s done with. Perhaps then, Bush would have been impeached and Blair would have been fired on the spot.It's not a numbers game or anything like that — or at least it shouldn't be — but we do have to admit that that is not how it went down."Who paid for the dead Iraqi's?" The elder jihads ask the young, impressionable, hot-headed youth."Why do they cry for their dead but have no issue with dead Muslims?"That's a compelling argument if you think about it.Why is it OK?I opposed the war for the same reason as I oppose the bombing in Manchester. There’s a constituency of thought there. I don’t like people being blown up. I’m not a pacifist but I prefer peace to war and I know — because I study such things — that most wars that have been fought, shouldn’t have been fought. It might look like a pyrotechnic display and their are far fewer suicides involved but a little girl killed by a bomb is a tragedy regardless of their nationality.So if you are going to fire missiles at people, you’d better have a bloody good reason as far as I’m concerned.Many refuse to make this connection. They re-elected Tony Blair after he took us into Iraq. They did the same for Bush. Now, they are eyeing Jeremy Corbyn with great suspicion because he’s not in favor of using nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon on moral grounds.He’d use them in defense of course, but he would not order the death of millions on the basis that it was ‘in the national interest.’What price did Blair pay for killing so many civilians? For sending British planes over the skies of Iraq and burning to death women and children?Blair;s worth £60 million now.Is it all our own fault?Hell, no!The vast vast majority of Muslims are well meaning, well intentioned people who are welcome to pop round to my house for a chat, a cup of tea, and a slightly uncomfortable exchange of opinions.But that does not mean that Islam is without serious flaw.It is its own worst enemy and has been for hundreds of years. The fact that it was British and American planes flying over Iraq and not Iraqi planes flying over London was — let's remember — an accident of history only in part.The burning to the ground of the Great Library of Alexandria is the subject of much speculation but one story states that in 642 an Omar noted that:"If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."The Quran has much to say on a variety of topics but ironically enough a discussion on the laws of thermodynamics is not one of them.Apocryphal or just down right wrong though that story might be, it doesn't change the fact that Islam is in dire need of its own reformation.As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg noted:“Though there are talented scientists of Muslim origin working productively in the West, for forty years I have not seen a single paper by a physicist or astronomer working in a Muslim country that was worth reading.”Ouch, that — within the narrow confines of the noble laureate family — is a serious burn.The wave of hostility towards science in the U.S, is just one reason why the U.S. is finished as far as being a leading power is concerned. It’s been brewing for a while really, but Trump’s refusal to embrace climate change as ‘a thing’ is the final abdication of power. Oh, Hillary? The leader of the free world is a woman after all.She’s called Angela Merkel.Where was I?Ah yes, the self dick kick that is the American right’s rejection of science is bad, but it is nothing compared to the anti-science sentiment found in parts of the Muslim world. Physics students blaming earthquakes on immorality? Iranian Sha's forbidding the study of foreign languages? Shit man how do they expect to do anything but lose?It’s not just science that they are at odds with. When it comes to social issues they are swimming upstream against the tide of history.A recent survey by Pew research showed how hopelessly out of touch the Islamic world is on matters relating to sexuality. Of the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death all ten have predominately Muslim populations.Indeed the New Atlantic compiled some data specific to the Arab world alone.Arabs comprise 5 percent of the world’s population, but publish just 1.1 percent of its books, according to the U.N.’s 2003 Arab Human Development Report.Between 1980 and 2000, Korea granted 16,328 patents, while nine Arab countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E., granted a combined total of only 370, many of them registered by foreigners.A study in 1989 found that in one year, the United States published 10,481 scientific papers that were frequently cited, while the entire Arab world published only four.When Nature magazine published a sketch of science in the Arab world in 2002, its reporter identified just three scientific areas in which Islamic countries excel: desalination, falconry, and camel reproduction.That last one is not a joke.When people in the Muslim world ask why their people are exploited and persecuted it’s really hard to come up with an answer that doesn’t lay some of the blame at their own doorstep.They are after all in their own minds, the chosen people of god.Some decide that they just aren’t being Muslim enough and set up Islamist states such as the Taliban. Here they care less about building schools and hospitals and more about the length of a man’s beard and the obedience of women.Again, I'm not joking.Others blame Western Imperialism almost exclusively which they quite rightly identify as having its routes in outright racism. The most extreme of these people-- representing only a tiny minority of Muslims worldwide -- end up blowing up little girls at a pop concert.The truth of the matter is that in this dog eat dog world there is only one way that the Muslim world is going to prevent being on the arse end of western imperialism and that is by confronting a few hard realities.It has to undergo the same secularization that Europe and most other parts of the world has. Religion must be separated from the state in all ways and relegated to ceremonial purposes only.Private beliefs must be upheld but must always be secondary to the secular needs of society.Royal families must be retired and the wealth of the region invested in education with a focus on science and social sciences.Power asymmetry must be recognized for what it is and corrected at a later time. You cannot win a war with the west by killing people seven people at a time. At best you will provoke an over-reaction that will net you yet more dead Muslims. The cycle of violence will thus be perpetuated.An acknowledgment that religion of all denominations — Christianity included — acts as a break on progress must be made and for those people unsatisfied with the status of Islam in the world must accept that Islam is part of the route cause. The Muslim world should reflect on the fact that the Christian church was reduced to a secondary role in society for political and not theological reasons and that it was this action that allowed them to take centre stage for so long.Lastly, it must accept that thanks to the voluntary abdication of power by the Muslim world and others, that modernity was defined by the West and will continue to be defined by the West until such time as you have caught up. The freedom to flex one's cultural muscles is not an easy one to achieve. Nobody cared much for Bollywood outside of India until India grew into the power it always should have been. Culture thrives in affluent, free societies that look forward.Meanwhile in the West must accept certain home truths too.We have to accept that lists like the ones I just wrote upset the hell out of progressive forward thinking Muslims especially those ones who grew up in the west. It’s one think to make generalities, quite another to tar everyone with the same brush.It’s also not acceptable to point to areas where they need to clean up their act whilst ignoring the positive aspects of their culture. I’m no more in favor of banning the Hijab than i am in making the wearing of a kippah a punishable offense but I’m not going to remain silent on the issue either. You want to cover up, cover up; but I’m not going to go along with any theological arguments for doing so though. I’m not going to make an exception to my support of feminism just so that I don’t offend religious sensibilities. Love the Hijab but the Niqab, Chador and Burqa?Not so much.If we continue to wage wars in Muslim countries if we continue to speak of Muslim bans, If we continue to refuse to have an honest dialogue about religion and rights, about racism, homosexuality, and misogyny.Then we will have no choice but to live with terror attacks.And it cuts both ways.The West is not perfect. It can be decadent. It can be self-obsessed. It can be ruthless.Are we so enlightened? Homosexuality was illegal in my home country during my parent's lifetime. I grew up in an extremely sexist society and no nation that I have ever visited has ever managed to achieve to sexual equality.We are ahead of the Muslim world in such things yes, but when you think about it, often only by a few decades. In some areas, such as their attitudes towards Zakāt and their commitment to sobriety, we could learn from them.We can condemn acts of violence across the board. We can acknowledge and then repeat over and over that most Muslims want no part of this kind of violence. We can invite people of all faiths into our homes and relate to them as fellow brothers and sisters, as human beings.Or we can fly sorties over their cities. Kill them in their tens of thousands. We can vilify them, dehumanize them.And then we can mourn our own dead when misguided zealots take pot shots back at us.There is another way.There is a better way.Both sides of this bloody conflict can move on.You can follow me daily at Liberalamerica.orgFor general musings or indeed if you want to contact me/ yell at me or ask for my phone number, you can contact me via twitter.

You do not need a lawyer to file a divorce in Wisconsin. Filing a divorce without lawyer is called a Prose Divorce.

Average Cost of a Divorce in Wisconsin. The cost of a WI divorce will vary depending on how difficult it is for the two parties to airSlate SignNow an agreement, typically falling between $3,500-$25,000.

The divorce documents are submitted to the Clerk of the Courts. You pay a filing fee, and the clerk assigns the case a case number. In Wisconsin, the fees vary by county. Roughly the fees range from about $175 to $188.

According to our survey, the average divorce in Wisconsin costs $11,300, including $8,900 in attorneys' fees. Attorneys' fees are an airSlate SignNow chunk of the cost of divorce because the average hourly rate for attorneys in Wisconsin is $210 (usually higher in Milwaukee and Madison).

There is a mandatory 120-day waiting period in Wisconsin during which your divorce cannot be finalized. Most divorce cases take between six months to one year to finalize. The time period can vary based on the county in which your divorce is filed and the issues involved in your case.