The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 228. Men and Divorce Court | Greg Ellis

Episode Date: February 22, 2022

As an alternative for those who would rather listen ad-free, sign up for a premium subscription to receive the following:• All JBP Podcast episodes ad-free• Monthly Ask-Me-Anything episodes (and the ability to ask questions)• Presale access to events• Premium, detailed show notes for future episodesSign up here: https://jordanbpeterson.supercast.com/This episode was recorded on December 14th, 2021.Greg Ellis and I discuss his recent project, The Respondent, and his critique of the US family law and court system. We cover divorce statistics, mending relationships, the impact of the divorce industry on families, the incentives behind it, and much more.Greg Ellis is a British author, television director, voice artist, and actor who has appeared in Oscar-winning movies directed by Hollywood superstars. He has produced and written for TV, starred in Broadway, and voiced characters for many movies, TV shows, and video games.His most recent work, The Respondent, is a multimedia combination of personal experience and a critique of the family law system in America.Follow Greg Ellis on Twitter:https://twitter.com/ellisgregCheck out The Respondent: https://therespondent.com/And Greg’s nonprofit, Children & Parents United’s (CPU): https://therespondent.com/pages/charity_______________Chapters_______________[00:00] Intro[01:29] American Family Law[04:03] Presumption of Innocence[05:14] Greg’s Divorce I[07:42] Autonomy[07:59] Signs of Trouble in a Marriage[10:36] Arrest I[19:11] Child Protective Services[25:54] The Edge of Existential Terror[29:28] Second Life[29:54] The Phoenix[34:59] Leadership & Patriarchy[37:00] Incentives & the Divorce Industry[42:16] Suggestions for Improvement[43:10] Custody[44:44] Asset Redistribution[48:05] Friendship & Support [58:52] Church & State Intervention[59:32] A Cautionary Tale[01:02:09] Greg’s Divorce II[01:09:25] Mending Relationships[01:12:14] A Joint Vision[01:13:48] Rewarding Behavior[01:15:29] Negotiation & Hugging[01:21:59] Greg’s Sons[01:25:57] Restraining Orders [01:28:36] False Allegations[01:28:56] Repercussions [01:29:59] Forgiveness & the Autonomic Nervous System [01:30:16] Arrest II[01:33:12] Children & Parents United (CPU)[01:37:20] Outro#Custody #GregEllis #TheRespondent #FamilyLaw #Divorce

Welcome to episode 238 of the JBP Podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. Dad just finished his show in Norfolk, Virginia. The tour is still going great. Today's guest on Dad's podcast is Greg Ellis. He came on to discuss divorce and family law in the US. Unfortunately, Greg's long and grueling experience through the divorce system makes him an excellent guest to discuss something that affects about 50% of marriages. Greg's recent work, The Respondent, is a multimedia project that mixes personal experience with systemic criticism.

Check it out in the links below. He and dad talked about divorce statistics, the redistribution of assets after divorce, presumption of innocence, signs of trouble in a marriage, Greg's nonprofit, the relationship between forgiveness and the autonomic nervous system and more. If you enjoy this episode or at least learn something, please subscribe. And if you don't want to hear me read ads, please visit JordanB Peterson dot supercast dot com and sign up there. It'll auto switch you to the ad for your version of this podcast. Plus, you get exclusive content like AMAs.

It's fast and easy and just $10 a month. I hope you today with Mr. Greg Ellis, a best-selling author, TV director, Annie Award-nominated voice artist, and Annie Award-nominated actor. He's appeared in Oscar-winning movies directed Hollywood superstars, produced and written television shows, starred in Broadway musicals, and voiced animated characters for movies, television series cartoons, and more than 120 video games. His major motion picture film credits include The Pirates of the Caribbean series Titanic, Star Trek, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Beowulf.

His television credits include 24 X-Files, CSI, Dexter, NCIS, and Hawaii 5.0. With his production company, Monkey Toes, Mr. Ellis is written and directed projects for Kiefer Sutherland and Stephen Fry, who's been on this podcast. He's also the host of several popular video podcasts, and he additionally founded the Child Advocacy Program, The Respondent, which inspires family champions through his nonprofit, CPU, Children and Parents United. His book, which we're going to concentrate on today, at least to some degree, is the respondent exposing the cartel of family law. It's a call to action and a necessary one to reform the one branch of our legal system that does not

provide the presumption of innocence, family law. Yeah, well, that's quite a claim that that branch of family law, that branch of law does not provide the presumption of innocence. So maybe we could start by exactly what you mean by that and why you would make that claim. Well, yeah, through personal experience. First of all, thank you for having me on Jordan. It's great to be on your show. I've been looking forward to this for a while. Yeah, family law. The only branch of our legal system where there's no presumption of innocence, murderers,

rapists, terrorists, pedophiles, all get more legal rights than law-rabiding citizens. And the silver bullet, as I call it, the silver bullet playbook or paradigm of high conflict divorce to smoking gun of this corrupt legal system, that's become the go-to strategy for divorce lawyers, the guarantees victory, and they encourage

the petitioners and the respondents to use usually petitioners to utilize this strategy, usually the false salegation of domestic violence to win and court to get the cash and prizes for one to the better phrase. And, you know, when I had no idea of the words family law before what happened to me happened to me in 2015, and once I started investigating through experience

and through talking with other experts in the system outside the system, it became clear to me that we have a real issue here and if we can improve or reform the family court or the family law system, expose the cartel of family law, as I call it, because it is like a crime syndicate, these quasi kangaroo courts that they have, you don't get the presumption in minutes, you don't get your rights read to you. I've spoken with fathers in particular who've been ended up in court with false allegations of domestic

violence. One told me a story about he put his wrists up and said, you're on a arrest me. Have the bailiff arrest me? And the judge said, you crazy? And the gentleman said, no, if I'm arrested, I'll get the rights that a criminal has, Miranda writes, access to an attorney, et cetera, et cetera. And of course, those who are suffering the most are i'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r

gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r the presumption is that you as the accused have to prove your innocence rather than the accused, which is West Endura's prudence, has to prove their case. And so I think that... Yeah, it seems like in our society, in a lot of strange ways, the accuser now seems to have almost an untrammeled right to be believed. And there's an increasing insistence on that in our culture as well, which is, for example, there is a, this is a bit far afield, but German chemistry journal the other day scientific journal, published their new guidelines for authors in the aftermath of a scandalous chemistry paper, they published, which hypothetically offended some people, that now authors have to be, what would you say, governed by the realization that their words will be interpreted by those who read them

and that they have the final say, those who read them. And so, on line two, you can be accused of virtually anything and then mobbed for virtually anything. And it's virtually impossible to defend yourself. And this notion that merely because someone says they've been offended, let's say, in the mildest of cases, that that means you have definitively done something wrong, is, well, there's a pervasive and broad scale move in that direction in our culture. So what happened in your case, you were the respondent in a divorce case, which you didn't

see coming is that is that that's correct. I read your book. It was a while back. So I'm pulling all the bits of it back into my memory. But let's go through the story exactly and sure and just just very briefly to that point, yes, victimhood has become the new social currency. Its economy is booming, and where victimhood is rewarded responsibility never follows.

So it's part of the reason I call the book the respondent. It's the defendant in a family law case, and the petitioner is that person who actually instigates the proceedings. So what happened to me in the span of, I'd say around eight hours. I'd been married for 20 years, two children, two boys, the meaning of my life.

We did everything together. I was that engaged, loving, present father, family was my everything. How long were your boys at that point? 10 years old and eight years old at the time. Okay, and you said you've had quite a stellar career and obviously we're very busy doing that. So in what sense was your family at the center of your life? That's a great question. Yeah, I think my now ex- and I work, we drifted somewhat to become a well-oiled marriage machine.

The avoidant in her and the anxious in me couldn't quite get close enough. I think a PMLADD equals it the co-addicted love tango, where we were kind of swaying back and forth trying to get closer but drifting apart. I would be out of town filming a movie and return and she go out to town because she wanted to work and I supported that. I would have preferred she stayed home but she wanted to work so I was like great so we worked our schedules out that we could be present and much of my work was in town in Hollywood at one of the studios. I had a busy career,

and but I would still say, as you did that my family was the center of my life, if I had to choose, existentially between my family life and my career, I would have chosen my family life. But I was busy in working, and while you have to be busy in working to actually support a family.

So, but it's a strange claim in some sense, right? If you have a career that's really moving forward at a rapid rate, how you can claim simultaneously that your family is still the most important thing to you, it means partly because part of the reason you have a career, if you have any sense, is so that you can bring stability and opportunity to your family. And that means in some sense,

you can't be with them all the time, but they don't need that anyways because they should have some autonomy. So, okay, so, but now you said to your marriage, you said you drifted apart a bit with your wife. And so when this happened, this eight hour period that you're describing, did you think afterwards,

oh my God, I should have seen this coming or I did see this coming or has it remained a shock to you? And then what do you think about the fact that it was a shock? Because obviously the thing to wonder is, well, were you willfully blind and should have you seen this coming? And I'm not claiming that you were. These are, you know, they're genuine questions.

But people are going to wonder, obviously. Yeah, well, look, in the span of eight hours, I was ushered from my home in handcuffs. At the behest, I later discovered of my ex-wife. I was committed to a mental institution against my will, the first of five incarceration. There was also an incarceration. And I called it solitary confinement, but it was a singular jail cell subjected to a temporary restraining order in divorce court

on the basis of a false allegation that eventually was disproven some six months later. But by then, of course, the reputation savaging had been done and it was all over by the shouting. I became homeless and almost destitute overnight and lost. My professional reputation, I wouldn't say it was irretrievably destroyed, but in the small, close knit community that I lived in in Hollywood, close to the studios, it certainly took a big dent. And the...

Everybody lives in a small, close-knit community like that if they're working. I mean, the immediate people that you are in contact with and working with intensely tends to be a quite a small number and it's quite interesting when you get tired and feathered. The people around you get afraid of the contamination real quickly. And that's partly because they look at what happened to you.

And then they also think, well, you know, we don't really know what went on in the marriage. And people are capable of terrible things. And maybe there were things that we don't know about. And then there's split because they knew you and your wife. And, and so it gets complicated instantly. And then it's easier for people just not to have that much to do with you because they also have choices, right? Because they know a reasonable number of people. And it's then maybe you fall from number one or number two on their list of people to invite to like number 15.

And they only ever invite the top 10. And so people don't even have to turn their backs on you that much in order for you to be, well, friendless. And so these, these, and the allegation, what exactly was the allegation? And why do you think that your wife felt compelled to make it? And how do you think she rationalized out to herself if it wasn't true? That's a great question.

She had been diagnosed with panic disorder. She wasn't taking her medication. She was out of town. And she had called the police on this particular day, March 5, 2015. And she'd asked them to come to the house. I'd actually taken the afternoon off. I was at home with my sons playing in the playroom with them.

And she asked them to come to the house and said that I was confused. And the dispatch said, we can't go to the house if he's confused. She said, well, what do you need to hear? And they said, we need to hear. He's a threat to himself or the children. And then allegedly sometime later, I think 45 seconds later, she called them back and said, she said, my husband's just told me, quote, I'm sick of this shit, I'm gonna harm the children, end quote. And those 10 words, that 10 word lie,

was the basis of law enforcement coming first, it was two to my front door, then it was three, then it was five and a sergeant and the massing garrison, the threshold of my home. Without cause, without a warrant, my rights were trampled. The police entered a smart team from the DCFS, Department of Children and Family Services came in, I was shackled in handcuffs with a bar behind my behind my back in a quite absolute neighborhood with the curtains wide open on the Thursday evening. Right. Well, that would be a little hard on your reputation. All right.

Well, no. Yeah, I would say so. And what are people going to think? What are they going to think? They're going to think the whole police system is corrupt and that this is all made out of nothing. and he's actually innocent It's like it's pretty damn hard for people to jump to that conclusion Correct. Yeah, that's and then of course what what then that what then happened was you know I was kind of bundled into the back of a An unmarked police car and you know raced off into the millenium one of the actually one of the most heartbreaking images I remember was looking up from the back

of that police car and seeing my son, my eldest boy child, the window. And, uh, whoo. Ah, joy that's rough man. Seeing, seeing my son, my son's childhood at 10 was over. I knew what was coming. Spacification, adultification, the, the vilification and the erasure of me as a man, as a father, as a patriarch, as a provider. And I was also heading into a terrifying unknown,

a dystopian odesty. I talk about it as if it's some kind of Kafka trap, but it certainly was Kafka-esque. And then of course, the word on the street, I mean, some of the stories I later heard back were absolutely insane. I mean, he's armed, he's psychotic. He's, I mean, she was telling everyone

that I was psychotic and I was bipolar. All of these messages came through that my children as well when I eventually got to see them. And there was no end in sight. It was just down the rabbit hole we go. And of course, I thought I would get justice. No, yeah. Don't be thinking of the justice system.

No, the justice system is mostly there to stop people who can't reconcile their differences from wreaking social havoc. That's basically what it's there for. To think, do you think you're going to go to the justice system and get justice, it's like you'll be lucky if it doesn't destroy you once you're tangled up in it. So nearly did nearly the only thing that didn't it's amazing that it didn't and that you managed to to get through this. And so, okay, so this happened. And then you're

off to the police station and the thing is the police are going to view themselves in a situation like that as white nights, right? Because they've come in and you can understand that they've come in at the behest of a woman and they God only knows how abused she's been because women do get abused and that's for sure. And so, and of course, the guilty act innocent, just like the innocent act innocent probably the guilty are even better at it. And so, and then you're going to be viewed with suspicion because men are going to be viewed with suspicion in a situation like this, for sure, where there's allegations of abuse. And that's because

there are a handful of bad men and then bad impulses in all of us that, you know, that can be dragged out one way or another. And so, okay, so why did your wife double down on it? Do you think? I think there's a, I think there are probably a few possible reasons. One, I think, is shame. The emotion, or, you know, we talk psychologies in extremely powerful emotion. And I think once she'd let Pandora out of the box, if you will, I think the only thing left was hope. And it was hope for her existence. I think there was fear and panic that instilled in herself

about that suddenly after 20 years of living a great life together and building a great life, and a great home and a great family, which is, you know, is so important. It's my primary reason for being. That she perhaps was unaware somewhat of the system, and how the system comes in, and forces, I mean, you know, when I found out that the states get reimbursed $6,000 for every child that they place into foster care and 4,000 children a day lose a parent in family law, there are financial incentives in place and the adoption and say families act of 1974

offers financial incentives to the states that increase these foster or adoption numbers. To receive these incentives and bonuses, local child protection services must have more children, they must have more, quote, merchandise to sell. Funding is available when a child is placed in a foster home with strangers or placed in a mental health facility or medicated as it's called, usually against the parents wishes. So I think she was also her family system of origin, her mother, appellation woman, very proud woman, twice married, twice divorced. She came in strong, moved into the family home straight away the same night. She actually got back, she

got to the family home before my ex-wife returned when I was incarcerated. And it was that psychological kind of hammering home that you need to do this, you need to do that. When the CPS came in and said, you need to start divorce proceedings, you need to file for divorce, you need to file for restraining order, otherwise your children will go into foster care. That threat, I'm sure, must have been terrifying for her as well. So having open the window was brought. And why did they threaten her specifically?

That was the child protection services. Why did they threaten her with having the children go into foster care? Was it because she was hypothetically unable to protect them from you? If she didn't take certain actions, what, what was the reason? It's my understanding that this is what they do. This is the modus operandi at the CPS because they need to like traffic wardens need to have enough tickets.

The CPS help me. If you ever get contact, God help you. If you ever got get tangled up with child protective services. That's that's that's I do and I got I got a few months later I managed to get the report that the CPS is woman. Oh, this this social worker. The CPS who came in and ruined, you know, played a large part in ruining my family with the system and removing social worker training is corrupt beyond belief. It's politically correct right to the bloody roots. And so the, you know, the, the, many social workers will come into a situation without

like that armed to the teeth with the presumption that the whole system is a patriarchal oppressive system. It's based on the exploitation of women and children and they just need the tiniest bit of evidence to make sure that you're one of those patriarchal oppressors who they're going to take care of. And so that's drummed into them like mad right from day one in social work training and and increasingly social workers of profession is completely permeated by ideologues of exactly that type. It's God help you if you fall into their hands. Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. I've learned this through my experience. And look, my sons were, they led a privileged life. It was an earned privileged life.

You know, I had to work hard to get out of my small little town in England and, you know, go to London and, you know, I want to get into the whole earned and un-earned privilege, but that's why I'm a believer in just the same as a fancess and given it's only taking if you choose to take it, go ahead. Look, we all have our privileges and our disadvantages. And, you know, and some of them are earned and some of them aren't earned. And hopefully we pay for the ones that aren't earned by trying to be good people and by taking the responsibility of that unearned privilege forward. But it's only a fool and an ideologue who goes after someone for their underempt privilege

because the same question can be asked very quickly and very effectively precisely of them. Now, I went to this Hollywood, I don't know what to call it, meeting on someone's lawn once where everyone there was talking about the 1%, and this was in like Beverly Hills, and it was in there. It was on the lawn and a mansion. And I thought, well, I go

up and said, you people might not be in the one percent by North American standards, because you're not, you don't have $100 million. But you're in the one percent by global and historical standards is like, so who the hell exactly are we talking about here with this under and privilege nonsense? So a little of that goes a long ways too. You know what I mean? No. Yeah, I agree.

Yeah. Yeah, I was, I was, you know, quickly say, you know, my sons, you know, they, they, they led a privileged existence, but they were connected to their mother and their father, their biological mother and biological father. We had a family unit. And to see, I mean, you know, a member of the country club,

and I would take the golfing every Sunday and family, at least family dinner, because we were both our working, but we would all, that was my thing. We come together as a family, if we can every day and definitely on Sunday for the traditional roast dinner that we do in England. And then to read that report, Jordan,

four months later, after I'd been in the fire, a 53 page report from the DCFS and the social worker I wept. I wept as I read, you know, the questions asked to my sons, has Daddy ever touched your penis as he ever put a needle in your arm? I mean, the questions that my sons were just, and I was still removed.

Why you didn't think about what questions like that? Do the kids, it's like, okay, first of all, you're telling the kids that there are adults that do this to children. So that's the first thing you're doing with the questions. And that's bit of a revelation to the average child who's, say, eight or ten, who's really not being privy to such treatment. So you're confronting them with the idea of malevolence itself. Correct.

And you're a stranger, and you're asking them these weird questions that about, like, deep malevolence. And so what's up with the institutions, you might say. And then you're implying that their father did this. And if you're the typical two typical social worker trained in this sort of nonsense, there's the kind of insinuation that goes along with that that's likely to produce nightmares in the children. And phobias. There's a big documented literature on that. It's like what do they call that?

It's the false memory syndrome, essentially. Like if you get into the hands of a bad therapist and they start poking around in your memory structure, or they can list its stories from children, there's great documentation of all the daycare. Remember the satanic abuse scandals in the 1980s? My God, you read about what the social worker types and police too, what they did to children by asking these leading questions. It's just absolutely pathological. And then you'd get kids coming up with these fantasies

about what happened that were just, well, and then egg dawned by the police and the social workers until there was a satanic nightmare at the bottom of it and none of it ever happened. It's unproud as moments I have of my sons at eight and 10, getting to page 51 or 52 in that report and they were asked about me as a father and how they rated me having rated their mother

and it was a plus plus plus. They could so easily, to your point, have been led down the psychological garden path to arrive at answers that were just fantasies and not real. But that lasting impression that was left on them, one of the saddest, I was forced to visit with my sons, which the very notion of, I remember one father in family court who was told by a judge, you know, visitation, and he said, I will never visit my children. They are my children, and he turned and walked out,

and I'll never forget that. I remember looking back years down the line of visitation where that led, because the visitation monitor happened to be, he had seven A.K.A.s, used to be a woman, had a criminal record, and he drove around in a car with stickers of guns and an R.A., and not that that's an issue, but just it all added up,

and there was nothing I could do and I was getting blackmailed and there was no one I could go to. He was the only conduit. And then I found out that he was there to supervise your visit. Right. To basically let, you know, by, by presence, let my sons know that I was dangerous to be around or to be a feared, which I never had been. And every piece of documentation in the visitation reports, at least for the first 18 months, was, we love you, Dad, we want to live with you, Dad. Can't we see you and Mom? Why can't we?

Mom doing this. The first visit was, Dad, Mom says to not get in the car with you because you're going to kidnap us and you have Biopolar. I mean, these kinds of things were just harrowing to me to hear, but there wasn't the one really. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to there's no one to speak to, but my eight-year-old, I remember one visit, I think was maybe my second visit, my eight-year-old not only had suicidal ideations at eight years old, my beautiful innocent, playful lad.

And he talked out loud about how he was going to kill himself. And I had to listen to that as this monitor listened to it and didn't even consider it a critical incident to report it. And anyway, who's he going to report it to and what are they going to do? They'd approach us more healthy and guilt. There you go.? They don't probably say that. It's just more healthy in guilt. There you go.

Yeah, absolutely, man. Absolutely. So this is this is why, Jordan, you know, I came back like a Phoenix from the flames. I was dead and buried. I mean, I literally got to that edge of existential terror. Yeah, that's a long way out there. That edge.

Whoa. Have you visited? Yeah, I've been there for quite a while. Yeah. About two years. So I feel for you. And well, I'm interested, you know, we could talk more about my story, but I'm interested on how we teach a on that long edge, How we, well, I was fortunate, right?

Right. I was fortunate, maybe in contrast to your situation, because what happened to me didn't happen in a manner that severed my closest intimate relationships. They were still intact. And so when I got very ill and was also being attacked constantly. My friends and my family were like rocks and so, thank God for that. But so I didn't lose that. And I don't think I would have lived if I would have lost that too.

And so, you remember talking with Kayla came on my show, The Respondent, and we talked about that whole situation. And again, I was moved to tears. The podcast you did with her when you came back and just your struggle and and what you given to society and humanity and the outrageous attacks from cowards who are, you know, the cowards think they have courage in their place on the pedestals of social media and they're not. And with what happened to me and my boys, that led me on a journey. I guess the big pinnacle moment for me and I didn't read that much at school.

I only read scripts as I went through my career, you know, whether it be screenplays or doing voiceovers. It was 2016. I went right to the edge. And I came back from the edge and I don't know where this came from, but I asked myself the meaningful question, who am I? And I opened up my iPhone and I did a deep dive dialectical with meaningful question and meaningful answer of the thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And I got over 1,000 answers and questions. I still have them. And that led me through to learn a little about philosophy, phenomenology, affect theory,

and just epistemology in general. And how I could ritualize my way back to, back to be on my feet again, because I was fetal. I think my parasympathetic nervous system was just shaking, and I was, and the blinds were closed. I couldn't see or hear another human being because there was probably going to be a child laughing, which would remind me of the devastation of losing my sons, the meaning of my life. And so I had to really get in that that deep conversation with self, me, self and the third eye of perception and really get the walking going again and the

talking going again and trying to get more precise with the words I was thinking and expressing and rebuild and reform and restore. Not the same life. You know, I say we have two lives and the second life begins the moment we realize we have only one. But that new chapter, that new episode and how to self-author, if you will, you know, life is remembered backwards and lived forwards. Well, how can I redraft that floppy disk in my mind, if you will, or outside? Why did you decide to bother? Do you think?

I mean, was, you know, because I, look, you tell a story in the respondent of, well, it's not just an encounter. What would I say? It's an encounter with arbitrary, with the arbitrary is form of authority. And, and then that reputation savaging. You're accused of doing something terrible. It's so terrible that it's very difficult for people not to view you with tremendous suspicion as soon as you're accused of that. And so then everything you have is stripped away from you.

Well, not everything. That's the issues like what isn't stripped away from you? And why did you decide to continue? I mean, you you lost your career, you lost your reputation, you lost your family, and then you're being pilloried constantly. And that's also really hard psychologically, because there must have been part of you during all this that was thinking, well, I must have done something wrong.

I mean, how can this, like, what did I do wrong so that this occurred? You know, all these people are after me and they're making these accusations of malevolence. And, you know, who's the crazy person here exactly? Is it this weird situation where it's everyone but not me? It's like, that sounds crazy. So how do you withstand that? And, and I mean, it must partly, I guess, the positive responses to your sons must have been heartening under those conditions. The fact that when you did see them, you could still see that they loved you and that that bond was still there.

And so that's definitely a touchstone. It was for a while, for a long while, but under the unrelenting inescapability of the trauma, you know, trauma resides in the body and the body keeps the score. And going through this, I could see the trauma that was being enacted on them. They're lost their grief, their living grief. I talk about suicide by living grief. I, you know, some of the fathers, many fathers, some mothers too, who are no longer withers because of that suicide by living grief. The inescapability that there isn't a finality to the grief. There isn't a finality to the morning process, to be able to memorialize and later rest

that last chapter of my book, I think it's chapter 17, a funeral for my sons, was I had to find some way to make meaning in that moment to later rest the childhoods that had been stolen from them and that sense of fatherhood and being that father to them. So that was, and then of course I had to find a way to make, to sense make through this and find a way to help and give back. I think, you know, the, there was part of me that throughout my career had always been, what can I get, what role can I get? And we're always living to the next,

to the next projected moment of, you know, if you're on tour, I'm playing this venue, can I get to a bigger venue next year? Can I play to more people, make more money? And that's the continuing cycle of projecting into the next moment, not living in the now moment. And that's what can I get? And where I moved to was what can I give? How can I give? You know, he who has a why can bear any how? Well, I got to the how. And for me, it was working through some kind of story within my own story, which made it more traumatic, because even writing the book,

I hadn't really authored a book before. So I was having to revisit the trauma of the experience and then read the audio book and talk about it. So it's this perpetual cycle, but fueling being able to help people, being able to at least when it happened to me, Jordan, I looked online. You know, for I was the black sheep looking online for some kind of help and hope. And the only thing available were 1-800 numbers for attorneys and law firms in family law to make money and

books written by women for women on how to ruin your husband and get the cash and prizes, the silver bullets. The only book I found was Alec Baldwin's book, a promise to ourselves. And I could only get 15 pages into that because he emailed me and said, this is the best I can offer right now, read my book. His is literally, it starts in the star chamber of family law, whereas my story, as you know, it kind of, that's the second, it's in three parts, part one is fear, part two is

loathing, part three is redemption, and it moves into the second part, into the system, and the systematic institutionalized bias of how courts perceive, how individuals within the court system judges, child psychologists perceive men and fathers and the family unit. And this, you know, the neo-feminist kind of radical fourth-way feminism that does the devalues, the patriarchy, I don't want to go to down that discussion. Yeah, but while it's worth it, it's worth, well, you know, if the idea that marriage itself is a patriarchal and oppressive institution isn't far removed

from the idea that the nuclear family, especially a two-parent nuclear family, is not to be preferred, say, over one parent nuclear family. So what the hell difference does it make if you break one up? And how do you know the father isn't just an oppressive? What would you say, exploiter? Because that goes along with the entire rest of your philosophy. And then you might say, well, that's just philosophy. Who cares?

It's like, yeah, you wait till it gets all your leg. You'll find out who cares real soon, because it's going to be you. And you, that's just philosophy. Who cares? It's like, yeah, you wait till it gets all your leg. You'll find out who cares real soon because it's gonna be you. And you think that's not philosophy. It's like, hmm, you're gonna find out real different, real soon, and you're not gonna like a bit of it. Yeah, it's too true. And when I, you know, when I,

when I looked into the stats, when I looked, when I found out that the world leader and children growing up in single parent households was America. when I found out that 43% of American children live without their father, 63% of youth suicides from dad to priof homes. I know you've had Dr. Warren Farrell on your show talking about the state deprivation. The noted men's right fascist. He used to get on the national organization of women. And yeah, he's a real fascist or Warren Farrell. But it's like, where have all the men tours gone? Well, there's no surprise. We don't we don't have many men or as many men stepping

it. Well, we're okay, sending them off to war. But, you know, in terms of like stepping into the public conversation, because, you know, because patriarchy because smash them because believe all we should listen yes but believe all women know times up good riddance glad they're gone done we look at organizations like you know once great story to organizations like the ACLU you know, gone, done over, can't be trusted. Then there's the Southern poverty law center. There are lots of fun too. Yeah, they're just oiled laughs. Yeah, they are. They're just a blast. Those people. I mean, look, when we have an industry going back to family law, when we have it nearly 60 billion dollar a year, American divorce machine. That's what the cartel makes. $60 billion.

It's not incentivized to reform itself. The whole divorce industry can feast on the accumulated wealth of a once stable family. And so obviously it's going to produce a tremendous amount of parasitic activity. Now, that leads us to a deeper question here too, is look, many of the people in my immediate family have been divorced. And so, you know, I don't ask such questions lightly, but we did have a notion in our society for a very, very long time that divorce was wrong. And, and as I said, many people in my family have been divorced and they had difficulty in their marriages and sometimes they establish much more satisfactory, let's say, second marriages.

But it isn't obvious to me at all that liberalizing the divorce statutes, especially in relationship to no fault divorce, which was supposed to be an easy pathway forward, has produced anything but an absolute carnage in its wake. And so obviously, having lived through these problems, you're very much inclined and motivated to find solutions. And what do you think of in relationship to solutions? I mean, I think I didn't believe this when I was younger, but I think 50, 50

custody should be the default in every divorce case and that both parties should have to argue against that rather than the presumption being that the children, especially when younger better off with their mother. And I don't say that lightly because I know that particularly for children under nine months old, that maternal care is really primary. But the fact that the default position is custody with the mother, get puts man in an unbelievably bad situation. And so the children as well, I couldn't agree with you more on 50-50 default shared parenting.

There have been two states who've passed it, Kentucky and Arkansas. Kentucky interested in me enough. They passed 50-50 shared parenting in a large part because I believe it's illegal for the legal industry to lobby politicians there. And that's the challenge is that when you have a such such a huge, very wealthy lobbying group, the State Bar Association, who write their own family law codes in the Wild West of Family Law, they write the codes and they spend money at the last couple of weeks before, you know, a bill has dropped and they lie and they argue the statistics and people believe

them and bills don't pass. But Kentucky did pass. Arkansas passed. I'm really excited to say. That was a, I believe Kentucky was 2019. Arkansas was more recent, but just, I literally just heard a week ago that Senator, not Senator, representative Rodney Creech-No-Hio. This is a bipartisan bill. Normally these bills, when they're put through, they usually have about 10 to 15 co-sponsors. We now on that bill, I have, I think we have 68 co-sponsors for an equal shared parenting bill in Ohio. So this is fantastic news for Ohioans, for families, for parents, and for children. I think if we can improve the system, and at least through 50, 50 shared parenting, we

can ease the burden on the mental health system, the physical health system, incarceration rates, dropouts from school, drug rates, child, porn addiction, child, online porn addiction. One of the stunning issues of our time, I would say, is that the statistics that two parent families are better for children are absolutely overwhelming. And so it's quite the mystery that it's ignored. And I think part of the reason that that fact is ignored is because of this pervasive, anti-patriarchal philosophy. Let's call it that, because that particular fact sticks so badly in the crawl of that philosophy

that it has to be ignored. And so, but then you ask yourself, well, who are we for here? Are we for the kids or for the adults? Because if we were for the kids, we'd be pushing two parent families. And then that's rough too, because if you say two parent families are optimal, let's say,

you're faced with the necessity in some sense of having to discriminate against one parent families, because if two is better than one is worse, and then you point to the single mother struggling valiantly against all odds to do a credible job with her kids, and it's not like people like that don't exist. And then you're such a son of a bitch for daring to compare her horrible struggle to what's optimal. But well, I think that that. Yeah, no, it's a really good point. And I think, you know, given the way the system of government is set up, it's very challenging. The system has got so big that we almost need to blow

it up and start again. I think, you know, there's no shortage of people working on that at the moment. Not so much to start it again, but definitely the blow it all up. Yeah, but in terms of improvements for family law, I think, look, you know, I'd mention the presumption of innocence. Juris prudence, you know, I talk with Professor Robbie McCormick on my show and we talked about jurors, prudence and family and family law and the burden of proof that must be on the accuser and not the accused. You know, we're in family law in the sale and witch trials, we're in the Spanish Inquisition.

50 share parenting obviously a divorce must start with the default presumption that what is in the best interests of the children is for both parents to equally share in the parenting. We saw with Brad Pits divorce from Angie Jolie in the silver bullet that was used against him. And then he worked tirelessly through the retired judge, and he won a victory, quote, unquote, a 50, 50 shared parenting. That should have been the default starting position. I think false allegations of DV is something to balance. Okay, let me push back on that a moment, okay? Because this is what stopped me for years in relationship to,

I suppose it was some intrinsic sympathy for the mother infant bond and some realization that the maternal role is particularly important in the earliest years of childhood development. So what do you do with infants exactly? Do you go for 50, 50 custody there as well, and then hope that the men have enough sense to what exactly? It's pretty hard to find a substitute

for a breastfeeding mother, you know? I mean, now lots of breastfeeding mothers go back to work. And so obviously that can be negotiated. And maybe the issue is that it should be 50-50, regardless of the age of the child. And how do men do then when they have, you know, custody of a night of a six-month-old infant? That's a real tough question. Yeah, that's a really good question. I hadn't actually thought about that. You know, Brad and Angie's situation, they didn't have infants, but obviously case-by-case,

you know, Brad and Angie's situation, they didn't have infants, but obviously case by case. But the point being that it starts from the 50 50 and then immediately, there can be an order if there is an infant that mother has, you know, primary custody, 99% of the time or whatever that. So it's not that it should be should be negotiated away from the 50 50 based. Exactly. There's two things you'd really like to see change. One is the notion of the presumption of innocence has to be brought within the rubric of the family courts and implemented stringently and efficiently. And the second is we start from the default proposition that it's 50-50 split. What about what happened to your assets? Let's talk about that. So you had you had well

We know that your career was terribly disrupted, but you'd built up I would presume a reasonable degree of of wealth by that point and so What happened on that front? so Initially what happened when I was removed from the from my home on March 5th and incarcerated the first visit from my ex-wife and her mother. They arrived with no compassion. They've basically slapped pieces of paper down and penned and said, write down the usernames and passwords for all of the financial institutions and the bank accounts. And I trust in this with you were in custody. custody. Yes. Well, that must have been a fun.

So what in the world were you thinking when that was happening? I'm sure I could say. I could say, go ahead. Yeah, I was in coherent. I was dealing with the terror of being incarcerated in law enforcement and something I wasn't used to. And hoping that they were to help and that they needed

it to do things and pay bills and whatnot. And then I find out afterwards, the accounts got siphoned. Checks were being, you know, corporate checks were being, my signature was being forged. And, but family looked, not all of this evidence didn't seem to matter. So basically my, you know, the acquired wealth from the bank accounts and the brokerage accounts, which is disappearing, I find out later. And then the claim is made that the house, the family, the family residents was not mine and was hers. And when we met, it's, I think it's fair to say that my career was, was in a better position. And I brought more financially

to the place, to the start of the marriage, but the notion that she nearly won on that as well just would have been devised. I don't know if I'd be here speaking with you if I'd lost on that on that point. Why that one particularly? Because because the accumulated what I've been buying and selling properties since I was 17 and started as an actor in London. So the wealth that I'd accumulated was in the house. You know, it was an expensive house. And so the sale of that house didn't really need. There wasn't very much a tiny mortgage left on it. So that was really the I put everything into that house.

Because I'm old school. I believe you know, you own, you know, I don't want to, I don't want to owe money to people in America. I do that. This whole credit system of, you know, you have to get credit, you have to get credit where I come from. It's like, no, you just, if you want something, you buy it and you own it. And that's what I wanted to have. So you put your, I see, so you put all the eggs in that particular basket and so yeah, and that wasn't taken away from you completely Not not completely. Why not? Because Well, the title was the title to the house was in my name and her name and as much as she presented in court

That it was her house and I wasn't untitled. That piece of evidence was pretty crystal clear. She couldn't steal that. And was that part of the basis for your ability to rebuild your security, let's say? Yes. Yes. I mean, I was homeless for a while. I was homeless pretty, let's say. Yes. Yes. I mean, I was homeless for a while. I was homeless for a good few months. But for the kindness of a few friends who gave me sofas and floors to sleep on. And why did they do that? Why did why do you think they trusted you, given everything that had collapsed around you and all the calamity that had been heaped on your name? And why those particular people do you think? Well, it's a great, that's an insightful question. That just makes me, I look to what are the commonalities between those individuals. They were all men. There was one woman. So not all

men, most of them men, and they'd all been through divorces. I see. I see. So okay. So they have some sense. They knew the character. They knew they knew like there was one one gentleman. I mentioned him in the book Adam Fobelson who was the chairman of Universal Studios. He was he was he knew who I was. I my his young his eldest daughter and my my son were in pre-kindergarten together. I taught his daughter how to sing and play piano and songwriting. So he knew that even though I was public enemy number one on the streets and I was being vilified, he didn't believe it. His integrity was so strong that when the second time when I finally got released or discharged, he had actually employed a security team, top-notch security team to track the police scanners because he knew I was going to come up for air. And of course, I did at the neighbor's

house. And then that was when there was a team of I think 10 police, this was the second time, five days later, where they, you just banged on the door and I opened the door and they dragged me out and handcuffed me again. And I got dressed down by the sergeant and this gentleman just kind of stepped out from the shadows and had a word with the sergeant and and kind of I got, I got unhankuffed. And I walked into what I thought you would and I thought it was homelessness. And and he said, come with me. Someone's been looking out for you and he, he walked me to Adam and Hillary Fogelsons house.

And so you did have some relationships there that we stood the test of time. You could imagine what would happen if you lost that too, man. So I had this client, his wife just, he was a good guy, hyper conscientious, professional. And his wife just, she nailed him with accusations of abuse. And she was very attractive and charming and very manipulative and malevolent.

And white knights were writing to her aid all the time. He wanted to get 50, 50 custody of his kids. And she, first of all, with the allegations of abuse, destroyed his professional reputation. So that means he lost all his clients in his profession. And then she accused him of hiding the money because he was having a hard time making the Elimony payments because he didn't

couldn't make any money because his profession had been ruined. And so then he set himself up again, providing health care to basically indigent people on social services. And then he made a go with that. And then she accused him again in court of having money that he was drawing on. So they froze his bank accounts and and and garnish he just wages. And so that made it very

difficult for anybody to hire him. And then they could take away. He had to drive to work because he could no longer work close to where he lived. And then they took away his driver's license because they can do that without court in Canada. And so then he couldn't drive. And then they took away his passport because they could do that too. And so in the meantime, to take him through court to siphon La Las, penny out of him and deny him access to his children. And I went out with him and his children several times. And they were all, let's see, two, three and five, I think, three boys.

We went out to the science museum, which is a challenging thing to do with three young kids. And he showed up on time on the van and he walked those kids through that science museum. And they just had a wonderful time. And I watched him like a hawk and he was a really good father and she pursuing him, her father mortgaged their house and she spent all their money at which they deserved very nicely because they had raised her to be just exactly the way she was and it was just a bloody disaster. I worked with him for like three years,

trying to help him negotiate through this without dying, you know, just because he wanted his kids. And I pulled out every stop to strategize and we were careful and he did what we negotiated and he was really dedicated to his kids and he just got ground up, man. And then all this stuff blew up around me and around that.

That's a nice story. What you talk about right there, I think you, I think I heard you mentioned that maybe a few years ago that particular story, it may have been that one when you were in practice, but that speaks to, there is no escape. It's the zero sum game of family law. And it is a game to ease attorneys.

And it's not just no escape for me as a respondent. It's no escape for the petitioner too, like Johnny Depp and his situation, right? So, you know, the false allegation of domestic violence, we need to remind people, Johnny Depp has not been found guilty of any crime. He's not been accused of any crime. He's been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion guilty to approve and more guilty. And I think it's that, it's those kinds of, that inability to escape the divorce trap.

There's no trap door, there's no way out for both parties. And my ex-wife spent 1.8 million dollars on an attorney, Judy Bogan. And then after four years, this attorney just filed to the court to be released from the case. And I believe is now suing my ex-wife for $450,000 on top of that. suing my ex-wife for $450,000 on top of that. So the blatant plundering of an estate and how someone you've worked your whole life, you've started from not a lot and you've plowed your field in your career.

And the notion that just because you have a marriage contract because I believe in monogamy, I believe in family, obviously. I made some missteps along the way. I mentioned those in the book, I was, you know, flawed. One thing I wasn't was a bad, I was a great dad. I will shout that to the rooftops. I was a brilliant father. My sons loved me and I loved them.

So if it happened to me, and it can happen to Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, it can happen. It's happening, and it has happened for decades from my research to so many people. And there's a voiceless, growing group of people who've had enough. Well, the guys, the guys that it really happened to, you don't even hear from them. They're so done, man. Some of them are just dead. And the ones that aren't dead, they're, they're done. They're exhausted. They're friendless. They're way to yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, it's like you took, I think I wrote about the, I've talked about the child support hustle, you know, skip child support, go to jail, lose job, repeat, you know, poor, to your point, poor non-costal to your parents, many times for second fathers or, or the patriarch or the dad, who lack the ability to pay child support end up in modern day debtors prisons, if you will. A person who fails to pay child support can have their driver's license, professional license and passport revoked. Without any, without any, yeah, yeah. And that's just, that's just in the hands of the bureaucrats who all that's turned over to. None of that has to go through court. It's like you didn't pay.

Okay. We'll start stripping you of that, which makes it possible to you to make a living. So that's really going to be helpful. You're probably hiding money and then maybe you're working below your capacity, just for revenge. And that's not acceptable either. It's like, yeah, that's, I mean, some people might be pushed to that extreme, you know, because they think, well, how

do you be motivated when your money is being stolen out from underneath you, no matter what you do? It's kind of going to take away a certain amount of your drive to provide, let's say, especially if you don't have access to your kids anymore as well. It turns you into a kind of slave. Well, that's just it. It's, you know, judges can set the payment on presumed income. Prudumed income. Yeah, yeah. That's a nice one. Not what the non-custodial parent is actually making.

Causing fathers to enter and sometimes mothers, but mainly fathers, a crushing cycle of incarceration. I remember talking with one father who was in prison. He was in jail in New York and there was a bail reform and they let everyone out apart from the dad's who owe child support. in New York and there was a bail reform and they let everyone out apart from the dads who owe child support. And of course, while they're inside, the interest is accruing. And if they manage to pay the debts, the fines and and high interest rates charged, that money doesn't go to the custodial parent. It's going to the state. So the state, the additional problem here is, you know, there's going to be young men listening to this and they're going to be thinking Oh my God, I better never get married and so this whole catastrophe is undermining the idea for young men that marriage is something that anybody sensible would ever

Enter into but then that doesn't really help either because if you live with someone for six months or a year You're basically common law at least at some point along the way. And it doesn't matter anyways. You, so what are you supposed to do? Just forego, you know, permanent relationships with women altogether, because well, that's hardly a solution. Although it's a solution that not so many, that, that a non trivial minority of young men are seriously considering.

And there are many reasons for that, but this is one of them. Yes. Why would, why would you? I mean, I was talking with someone the other day through my charity about an app they have called I Do. And it basically, it marries you and divorces you automatically. So within a time frame, that will save you from actually paying, you know, alimony and from actually paying, you know, alimony and it's worked out by the state that you're in. I mean, the notion that we have to contract marriage, that's where I arrived. I believe in marriage, but the institution, no, the way it's set up, it's just, it's a fool's errand. Had I known now what I knew then, why can't we get married in the eyes of God or the eyes of religion or the eyes in a spiritual place of worship? Whatever the couple decides to enact that union ceremony, why does it have to be a contract with the state that the state can then

come in and negotiate without my say, without either say, but they can not even not need negotiate, they could just take away what they want, when they want. So it's a real challenge, like where's the ideological line in terms of I believe in marriage, but I would caution, I would caution younger people about that. Well, then the question is, what exactly are you doing when you caution it? Because, you know, yes, but with caution, well, exactly what do you mean by that? And the answer to that is, well, it's by no means clear. I suppose the answer to that lack of clarity is something like, well, the laws need to be changed. They seriously need to be changed. They seriously need to be changed.

And so presumption of innocence would be a nice start and default 50, 50 custody. What about splitting of assets? Like, where do you stand on that? I mean, I can't help but think that it's absurd in some sense that Paul McCartney's ex wife got half of his fortune. It's like, and perhaps that's not exactly true. But you know what I mean. And the, we are talking about a default 50 50 child custody arrangement is the right arrangement

in relationship to assets 50 50. Once the marriage takes place and is that also true? And I'm out of my legal depth here. Is that also true in the case of common law marriage? And should it be the case? Yeah, common law. I'm not too up legal depth here. Is that also true in the case of common law marriage? And should it be the case? Yeah, common law, I'm not too up to speed on that. I would say, you know, again, it's, you know, I've been talking with another technology company about a software, they have what in divorce court, what's called a disamaster.

So all of the financial numbers, the forensic account, accountancy, all of those numbers go into this machine and it spurts out what people have to pay, what people receive in terms of child support and alimony. And this app actually would would take in that information before, during and after, if there isn't after, while people are married and if they decide to separate, to actually calculate who brought what, how they brought it. But it's again, how do you determine that? Because the value of the value of a man.

That's a quick route to divorce right there, man. Trying to go and shade all that. Well, absolutely, because you partly what you do in a marriage is you enter into it and you have to with trust. Because otherwise, how can you enter into it? And the trust has to be, I presume that you're going to do the right thing here. And you presume that for me and we'll struggle forward trying to do that. And if we have to negotiate the terms of our eventual disunion, well, it's like we're negotiating the disunion right now. And so I just can't see how that's going to work. Well, and so look, what do you, if you look back, what do you, you must ask yourself this like a hundred times,

what did you do wrong? Do you think that led to the dissolution of your marriage? Or is that an unreasonable question? What did you bring to the table that made things go sideways? You said you were a great father and so array for that, but your marriage went sideways and why? Well, the part that I'm responsible for, I can talk to that, I wasn't monogamous, I wasn't faithful. That was probably the biggest. She'd found out after all this happened that that was the case So that would be I would say the kind of biggest factor

This marriage dissolution would have taken place if that had not been the case I mean because I'm sorry to push you But I'm going to because this is so bloody important, you know, and what happened to you is so terrible that important, you know, and what happened to you is so terrible that every and happens to many men and not insignificant number of women. It's so terrible that it needs to be dealt into deeply. And so you were looking for something outside the marriage, obviously. And perhaps that was because there was something that wasn't in the marriage or, or God only knows why. And so, what was an emotional intimacy that was you go ahead? Yeah, I was going to say there wasn't emotional intimacy. There wasn't physical intimacy.

The sex had dried up after the first care. And I tried talking about the male sex drive was there. It is that. Yeah, so let's go into that. That's a good one because that happens. Lots of people in their marriage. You know what I mean? Yeah.

And it happens as you get older. and it happens as you have kids because, you know, you have 15 priorities, but only 10 of them ever get implemented and maybe like number 14 is sex or something like that. And so it goes away and it's really hard for people to negotiate. And you said, you tried to talk about it. I guess I would like to know how hard did you try and how many times and how insistently and why didn't it work? I mean because I have clients in this situation and I'm talking to both of them. I wasn't a marital counselor but sometimes I would talk to both. It's like, how often do you think you should have sex? Let's get a range here, okay? Zero times per year is too few.

And like, twice a day, that's too many. So now we got the parameters defined here, right? So we're not going for zero. We're not going for, you never get out of bed. We're going for something in between that. And so we might look at what's acceptable for the average couple, and maybe that's something like twice a week or three times a week and that's a place to start. And so because it's not optional, this isn't optional exactly. And you say, well, you're going to

turn it into a routine, you're going to take all the spontaneity out of it. It's like, well, how's that spontaneity going for you exactly? It's like, well, we haven't had sex in six months. So yeah, it's quite some really important and really great points. And I think as well, it's not just the sex. I mean, there is, you know, there is, there is emotional intimacy. There's affection. There is, you know, that hopefully that's all part of that, that's all part of sex when it's really working properly like I just one client who is terrified of women to a degree you can't possibly imagine and He was so terrified of women He couldn't even get near one and he was in his forties and he had his problems

Believe me and that was one of them and his mother who was about 80 was still taking care of him to some degree And she needed to because he had a lot of impairments that were real and profound. And I suggested to her that I take him to a strip club, because that was the only place I could think of to expose him to women in any possible sense. And she was a very conservative person this woman, but she agreed immediately. And so we went once a week for quite a long time. One of the things I really learned when I was there that a lot of the men that were there were there for emotional intimacy, for whatever they could get, for some touch. Like you think it's pure sexual gratification, but and of course that that element is there. But most of these men were

desperately alienated and loansome and they were there at and I'm not being naive about this. I've been in strip clubs. I know what they're like, but that the idea that what you're negotiating in relationship when you're negotiating sex is just the the climax, let's say, that's just wrong. You're negotiating physical intimacy and that's not optional. You know, like babies die without physical intimacy. And children don't grow up properly unless they're played with and touched and cuddled and even animals are like that.

And so this negotiation is of crucial importance. And so I'll go again, you said that you talked about it. What happened when you talked about it? Oh, shut down. I mean, you know, how I was insistent at times, I was, I would continue to revisit the subject. I would implore to go and speak with a professional therapist. Right. Well, there's nothing sexier than a man imploring. Well, sure. Right. Darling, let's go. Yeah, let's go. No, but that was one of the tactics. I mean, you have to deploy multiple tactics.

I tried courtship. I tried, you know, I was exasperated at times. You know, look, what do you think I, what do you expect me to do? Go outside the marriage, you know, I have to, there has to be some, you know, what do you, what do you think, what do you, okay? So when I was doing this professionally, we'd start with these, you know, framing frequencies,

let's say, and then we would, these were people who rented into this in good faith. So they were trying both to move forward. We'd say, well, you know, have a date this week. And what you do as a marital counselor or sexual counselor and situations like that when people haven't been intimate for a long time, you say what you're gonna go gonna have two dates this week or maybe one and you're gonna hate it because it's awkward and you don't like each other and you're you know, you're You're separated from each other, but here's the first rule is no sex to consummation.

Zero that you do not do that to begin with. And so you kind of have the person revert to the first stages of what would have been a protracted courtship, right? And you go out and you have dinner and then they come back the next week and they say, I say, how did go? And they say, it was awful. We just all we did was fight. We're never doing that again.

And the answer was, well, I. We're never doing that again. And the answer was, well, I see you're never doing that again, eh? So that's your solution. No romance now for the rest of your life. You're just going to live and you're going to hate each other. That's your solution. How about you need to do this 20 times before you're not absolutely bloody awful at it. And so with, but it's very hard. You know, if you haven't been trained to think about such things like that, you don't know that you need to take 10 steps backwards. You don't know that you need to forbid full sexual contact for a while while you're kind of reintroducing it. And this, of course, as I said, this was being negotiated between two people and me, let's say, they had already agreed that they were

going to do what they could to fix this. So they were both kind of even though they're resistant to it in their individual ways, they were both willing to experiment to find a solution. And I don't know what you do if you have a partner that just refuses point blank to go there. Well, I think you said it right, the willingness to experiment and have a little nuance and a little doubt to rekindle and revisit maybe why you came together to kind of that nostalgic savoring of the first meeting or the first

few times and to try something new. Yeah, well, that one of the things I often did with people was ask them, okay, well what attracted you to the other person to begin with? And then they'd usually get misty eyed, both of them when they were talking about that because they weren't that happy that their love had disappeared. So, okay, so then I'll ask you a deeper question than that.

So why do you think your wife was unwilling to engage in those negotiations with you? I mean, it could be we could say, well, lack of skill on your part in the negotiation. And that's who the hell knows how to negotiate such things. It's not easy, you know, and it's not like we have professional training in negotiation, even though we should because people are so bad at it's just beyond belief. There's no idea where to start.

And so, why do you think you had a brick wall? Did you wait too long to start? I think I floundered because of much of what you talked about in terms of negotiation. You know, too many, from what I know now, I didn't know them in terms of the use statements rather than the eye statements, of the use statements rather than the eye statements, leading with the eye rather than the eye, rather than the right communication. The way to, you know, the way to understand and collaborate through and negotiate through without it being serious to do it together, to not put demands or non-negotiables down,

not that I did. It was just an exasperation. Yeah, well, couples will come in and they'll say to one of them will say to the other, like, you never want to have sex with me. And it's been like that for two years. And I don't see that it's going to change in the future. It's like, well, the other person is set on their heels right away because you basically said, you've been bad for a long time.

You're bad now and I can't see how you're going to change. It's like, oh my God, how are you going to start from that? And then maybe in a situation like that, you ask the person, well, if you could have the sex life you wanted, what would it look like? And you can ask each of them that. And then, well, then, you know, at least you got a mutual vision there. And they're right. I would say men generally would like to have sex more frequently than women. I don't think I'll probably get pilloried for that comment,

but I don't think anybody reasonable would do that. I agree with you. And I'll get less pilloried, but probably pilloried to. Yeah. Well, it's generally the case, not always the case, but you can meet in the middle, that's for sure, or no, that I shouldn't say that because that's not exactly right. What you want to do is you want to elaborate out of vision, then you want your partner to elaborate out of vision, and then you want to create a joint vision that's better than both of those that's sustainable. And then it's not compromise exactly. But if you start with accusations, which you're likely to do, if you're frustrated, and you have been for like three years, and things are already sideways, you're just not going to go anywhere. And the other person

will dig their heels in. And then they, you know, they hate you with counter accusations. And you know, it's one of the things terrible failing of our education system is that the rudiments of negotiation aren't taught It's really great to particularly into personal relating. I mean, this is one thing We haven't took you know the charity that I started CPU children and parents united. We have three basic, you know Focuses in terms of what we are programs and what we want to do and what we are doing And the first one is communication. You know, we've been talking with Warren Farrell about bringing his couples communication in and

not just couples, but you know, interpersonally relating throughout the generations and friends and because to your point when trust breaks down, how do you how do you get that back? You know, we need to Dr. John Gottman talks about,man talks about one negative comment has way more power than 50 positive comments. So how do you want to do that? Negative. Yeah, you can tell that if you go on Twitter and see how you respond emotionally. Yeah, well, it's also easier to pick up on the, so the other thing I used to talk about, one other thing I used to talk about with my clients was, well, here's a tactic.

How about you watch your partner real carefully, and whenever they do something, you'd like them to do more of. You tell them that you saw it and you tell them that you're happy about it. That's really hard because generally, we let normal go unnoticed, and we even let good go un rewarded.

Or if you could really be foolish and punish someone when they do something good. Like maybe you're a bit jealous and your wife goes out of her way to make herself look attractive when you're going out for a date, which might be an indication that she has some sense that maybe at some point in the future, she might sleep with you,

but because you're jealous, you don't compliment her word, robot, you say something snarky about it. And then it's like, do that three or four times, and she'll never dress up for you again, ever. And then it's done. You know, and so this idea of watching people and then seeing when they do something,

you'd like them to do more of them, and then telling them, that's really powerful. I think that's, I think that's a really powerful thing. And you know, that's something that to your point can be it's hard to take on new new routines, new ways of being a fair expressing affection. If you're not used to it, if you're more stoic or if you're, but it we have to I think we have to give what we'd like to receive. And I think we all like to receive platitudes and affirmations and, you know, that was lovely that you did that sweet heart. Yeah, especially if it's specific, especially if it's specific,

you know, you say, Hey, look, I just saw what you did. Here's what you did that was specific and like, yes, thank you. That's great. Yeah, that's great No, and it's funny too because you do have to negotiate details. You know, it's well think well How often do you want to be hugged? It's like I don't want to talk about it. It's like yeah, no kidding You don't want to talk about it, but like how about never? Okay, never seems a bit dismal. So okay, let's see if we can do a little better than never So maybe you have a couple and and you're talking to them and you think well Okay, it never seems a bit dismal. So, okay, let's see if we can do a little better than never. So, maybe you have a couple and you're talking to them and you think, well, why don't you

try once a day? Or do I need to just try once this week and come back and say how it went? Then you have to be patient with your partner because if you've been estranged from them physically and you're doing this hug because your idiot therapist told you it was a good idea, it's going to be perfunctory and a bit cynical, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. And so you come back and you're kind of irritated about you say, well, okay, you're practicing and you're not very good at it. So it didn't go that well.

But try it this week twice and see if you can just do it a little better. And that works, you know, but you've got to be Humble enough to know how stupid you are when you start and it's pretty pathetic how bad you are Well, you can also laugh you can also find find ways to laugh about it I think you know in the room if you're with a third if that third is a therapist You don't leave with the third, you know, so as much as a therapist can have ideas It's I think it does have to come down to the individuals who actually take that suggestion and really believe in it and want to actually move it forward in a positive way. Oh yeah, and the therapist actually can't give advice, you know,

you can only ask people. It's like you can say, well, how often do you want to get hugged? They don't say never. It's like, okay, it isn't never. So, you know, is it once a week or something? But you have to ask. And if you just ask, if you just tell people to do things, they just won't do them. They can't even tell themselves to do things and do them. It has to be negotiated.

You can't. You trust them. You tell yourself to do things? Christ. No, you won't listen. Well, the conversation was, I always say, you know, the two most important parts of the day, waking up and got a bed and there was many rituals. And if you go up to sleep, then you're not going to fall asleep.

You go up to rest. Sleep will handle itself. Right. How many times you're curious? How many, how many times do you like to be hugged? Are you a hugger? Yes. I mean, you must have a lot of people who come up to you like to be hugged? Are you a hugger? Yes, definitely. You must have a lot of people come up to you

and want to hug. They do that. They have a lot of text. Yeah, yeah, that's fine. It's fine, man. I don't mind that at all. I mean, when my, I'll give you an example of how this works.

When my daughter, my daughter's a year and a half older than my son. And so kids that are spaced less than three years apart have a pretty high risk of fairly severe sibling rivalry and that can get really out of hand. And it's partly because the older child is still pretty young to have an interloper in, you know. And as all also is called upon to be quite mature very rapidly because when you have a one and a half year old and no other children, you think that's a pretty young kid. But then when you have a newborn, you think, oh, no, that's

an adult, man. It's just a short adult. And so there's a big demand on the child to mature. And so then she or he can get jealous of the infant. And that can really wreak havoc. So we trained our daughter repeatedly to come and get a hug. And we practiced it. It was like, come and get a hug. And we practiced that till she got really good at it. And we said, whenever you're feeling upset, you just come over and get a hug. And then you can have some attention.

And so sometimes my wife and I would have a hug and we'd have the kid come in between us. And then she could have a hug too. And so by the time our son was born, and I would have a hug and we'd have the kid come in between us. And then she could have a hug too. And so by the time our son was born, she was an expert at coming to get a hug. And so whenever she got upset, she could just come get a hug. And but that took, like, you have to train someone to do that.

You think, well, you don't have to train that. It's like you would be surprised what you have to train and what you have to learn in practice. And you know what I mean? Yeah, and also it reminds me of Jordan. It's my youngest, my eldest boy when he was born, he went to pre-Kendegon and kindergarten. We would tell him because we had new parents.

We were listening to the school and it was a very, you know, Hollywood school. It was actually a Hollywood school house. It was all usual words, usual words, so we drilled this into them, usual words, usual words. Then he went to kindergarten, and then he, you know, he got the crap kicked out of him every day. It was bullied mercilessly from kindergarten through first grade, no support from the school,

and realizing that the tool of usual words doesn't, it doesn't do any good when a big kid is coming up and punchy in the face So you know, then my youngest son It was slightly different and he's a little and this may be a you know second sibling thing Second born of his boys. I don't know but that right of passage of you know Just being a little bit more rough and tumble and rough housing the importance of that You know going back to the the issue of fathers being around.

Yeah, you gotta use your words, man, but you gotta have something to back them up with. Oh, yes. Absolutely. And kids are really good at sussing that out real quickly, especially the bully types. Like they'll come along and poke you. It's like anything to you? Nope. Oh, well, then I can just pretty much steal everything you have, including your reputation and your happiness.

And there's an adam thing you're going to be able to do about that. You think, well, kids aren't like that. It's like, no, you're just naive and like, haven't helped your kids because being naive as a parent is not that helpful for your kids. And there's plenty of bullies on the playground and plenty in adulthood too. So aren't there? You've experienced quite a few, but you seem to be holding your own and you seem to be you seem to be back and getting into a full schedule again, I see you going on tour. Yeah, well thank God for small mercies and for all the help I have too. So, but yeah, hey, so tell me what happened with your kids. How old are they now, your

boys? 17 of 15, my youngest turned 15 on November 22nd the day before Thanksgiving. They, they, I don't see them. I don't hear from them. My, my arms are out stretched wide open for if and when, and maybe one day they will, they will be that reckoning. You know, so why do you think that why, why is it that they're not seeing you? What, what happened as far as you can tell? Parental alienation. Parental alienation is child abuse, plain and simple, it's brainwashing. And it's clear if you look at the history of our family and then for the 18 months, the first 18 months that I was mired in court

and had to have a visitation monitor that they actually published this in my book, at the end, the two independent psychological evaluations that I was forced to partake in and pay for. I published those, one is 2015 and one is 2019 in December at the end. Neither judge looked at either of them or care, but in the first one in 2015, December 2015, the psychologist, the psychiatrist included 70, I think was 69 Monitored visitation reports and it's clear and unequivocal that my sons are suffering. They love me They say in every report. I love you, dad. We love you dad. I love you dad

We want to live with you and the system didn't care and so That that spoke highly to me that the system Needs reform it needs improving on a personal basis they now That spoke highly to me that the system needs reform, it needs improving on a personal basis. They now have this image of me having not been around that I'm someone to be atheid, that I can't be trusted, that I'm dangerous.

And none of that is the case, and none of that is true. But, Jesus. Their psychologists, their psyies have been so cemented at such a young age, 10 and eight. Well, you, you talked about grief too, you know, and they never ending consequence of, of this grief that comes from separation without finality. It's like, they must have been experiencing that too. And at some point, you know, they can't even have that. And we're also betraying the matriarch. If they, anytime I remember my ex-lately youngest,

where it was a year in Jordan and, and, oh my God, we had a visit and he called me on the phone. I still kept the voice mail. It kept me going. It gave me, it was medicinal fuel for me to just hear his voice and know what it sounded. I know, I always know when it sounded like, but he called me and he was like, Dad, dad, dad.

And then his older brother was like, get off the phone. Don't hang up the phone. We're going to be in two trouble with mom. And he hung up the phone. And it's that fear, the irrational paranoid fear of me. Yeah. Well, that's the dad. It's got to be easier for them to let you go than to be torn apart on a day-to-day basis.

When I realized, yeah, when I realized that they were after four years of monitor visitation, I finally got a visitation without a monitor, watching my every move and writing it down. And then I realized that they were both, and they weren't allowed to have their iPhones with them, their phones with them on visits, mom would've led them. But they both had their phones, and they were video taping,

and then it became clear to me through other channels that they may have been fitted at least one of them with body cameras. And when it got to that place, when my sons are being used as a tool against me to try and record incriminating evidence, that there has to be an end to that for them. So part of why I came to some kind of resolution and ending on it.

And I gave up so much, I mean, she wouldn't even give me through the settlement agreement. She wouldn't give me the rights to know, to let me know of either of our sons were on life support. And the button was going to, the switch was going to be, you know, permission was going to be given that they would die. She wouldn't, she wouldn't legally have to let me know. And, but I didn't even realize at the time that every, everything in our settlement agreement that, that I got, which was very little, she hasn't held to anyway, because she knows that ultimately it's going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to go back to court in the same system, zero salmon, so on and so forth.

Yeah, why not? One of the things I learned from being a clinician was that restraining orders only work on the people on whom restraining orders work, for example. So I had some clients who had like six restraining orders on them. One of them I remember, he was really paranoid. He was, he was hard to deal with. I got somewhere with him, but it's very hard to deal with a paranoid client. And he was clinically paranoid.

And which like had no reason and non disclosure agreements, the, you know, really they aren't worth a paper. They're written on because people are just going to do what they're going to do. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So enforcing that's very difficult. He used to say to people if they annoyed him, now and then he'd get tangled up with someone who is bureaucratic in their inclinations and he'd say, I'm going to be your worst nightmare.

And you know, sometimes you might want to say that to someone, but you don't really mean it. He really meant it. Oh, yeah, you have no how do you how do you I'm curious? Okay, because this is the false allegations of of DVs and TROs. I mean, you know, over seven I think is around over 70% and I'd have to check on the stat of domestic abuse allegations resulting in a TRO attempt to restore your TRO. Yeah temporary restraining order. Yes, temporary restraining order, or EPO emergency protection order, and not sustained once the case moves to a permanency or evidentiary hearing. This shows that the majority, perhaps, the majority of domestic violence

allegations are perhaps false or unprovable. And I think that correlation was growing on it. The rub there was growing on it. Well, you say that we're going to be doing that. Go ahead. Yeah, the correlation with cancel culture and victimhood being the new social currency, this is in a front to the real victims of domestic violence.

So how do you tackle this, the false allegation, the perjurer, if the allegation works every time? Yeah, the silver bullet. And the question is absolutely. Well, then the question is too. How do you stop people from using systems there that are there to protect the vulnerable from being used as weapons? You think, well, people wouldn't do that.

It's like, yeah, yeah, you just wait till you tangle with someone who do that. And you'll change your, yeah, who is right. I don't know why people always make that particular noise when they hear about such things. But yeah, yeah, you, I've seen those systems weapon, well, they've been weaponized against me continually, but I've seen people just brought to their, well, same, same, same place you were brought to. It's like, yeah, I think that what child protection service is for a week and see what your life is like. An hour.

Yeah, full solidations. The full solidations that are used in family law to thwart the non-resident, parent, and child relationship need to be dealt with in a way that protects the relationship that is under attack, and in a way to dissuade the making of these allegations or accusations going forward. And so what I think we could, what are the things we could warn people about in this podcast is if you're thinking about making such allegations, don't be so sure that your own arm won't get tangled up in the machine, because you think, you're gonna leverage this enterprise

to punish your partner, and maybe you're willing to do that, because you've been pushed to your limit in some sense, or maybe just because you're feeling a bit malevolent, it's like you wear a loose clothing close to that machinery and you're gonna get pulled in and spit out. And so it won't just be you going down the negative pathway. And problem with that is is that some people, they get so inclined to wreak havoc and to extract revenge

that they're perfectly willing to hang themselves in the window to block out their neighbor's sunlight. Let's say. Yeah, if you're going to, if you're going to go on a journey of revenge dig two graves, you know, let's say. Yeah, if you're gonna go on a journey of revenge, dig two graves, you know? Yeah, that's right, that's for sure. Yeah, and when I, that's what I think about with the Pandora's box that she let out, the only thing that was left was hope is,

is those, you know, God will forgive our sins, our nervous system won't. And that, this is that false allegation, you know, that technique and tool being weaponized for financial gain. I just wonder when this will reach a, you know, it's we have a president in America, we have president who's a Catholic father and grandfather. And the violence against women act was his act in 1974. And that's a series of law enforcement grants that shifted the focus away from the problems of the relationship to a law enforcement approach to domestic violence,

resulting in a shift from the prior discretionary approach to mandatory arrest or detainment policies. And I think that's the kind of holding space, like, purgatory, where, like in my case, Jordan, when the police came, they couldn't arrest me. I've never been arrested. They couldn't arrest me because I hadn't committed to crime. But they had to remove me because I was seen as a danger.

Where do they take me? They can't put me in a prison cell for long because I would need my Miranda rights red to me. I'd need an attorney in access to one. You know where people like me end up? 5150 holds. You know those who need to be on 5150 holds where they end up because they were thrown out

and it's the prisons. So, you know, those who are actually emotionally disturbed, who need help and need assistance, go to the worst place possible for them, jail, and prison, prisons, our prison system, and those men and sometimes women like me who have a false allegation, false accusation made, there is no real place for the system to, so the police used to have discretion. And now all this money that President Biden created through pushing through his act and by the way, Vawa, the violence against women actors, being, you know, it's being looked at again, they call it stop grants. It was money for stop grants. So to qualify

for these stop grants, law enforcement had to adopt these policies of mandatory arrests. So, you know, forcing law enforcement to prosecute or persecute every man who's accused of domestic violence to keep the coffers full. Like, this is the incentivized structure that we have. So how can we change that? But then, you know, yeah, well, I guess we start to change it by having conversations like this, right? And trying to specify what the problem is because it's really complicated what the problem is

and then what the solution should be on a legal basis, what the solution should be ethically and on an individual basis. So, you know, a thousand conversations like this is a place to start. And so. I think so too. And I think I think more proactive solutions. I mean, that's what I'm trying to do through through my new fledgling charity is to have, you know, the communication programs. Where can people find out about that? That's children and parents united. Where? Where can people find out about that? That's children and parents united. Yeah, that's right now.

No, that isn't. Sorry, go ahead with the charity. Yeah, right now children and parents united or CPU is our mission is to promote and improve child well-being by providing information and resources to policymakers, the public, i'n gweithio, ac yna i'n gweithio, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddoddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, ac yna fel ei ddau, We will be launching the website for the charity soon, but right now it lives at the respondent.com. We have three cost-effective practical solution-based programs right now, communication workshops and programs that we're working out and developing that promote improved interpersonal relating. Mediation, CPU mediation, which we call it, is to provide mediation services. I just actually, I mediated my first case.

I wanted to do one myself just to see. And it was a couple who'd been in family law for six years, spent nearly $2 million. No resolution. I was able to find resolution in settlement within six hours on a Saturday and three hours on a Saturday. That's a way different process than trying to get each person all they

can grab from the spoils of the relationship. Yeah, it's like it's like it's not, I heard someone tell me once it's not, you don't get what you deserve, it's what you can live with, because you're always going to walk away from mediation, you know, feeling somewhat aggrieved. Yeah, at least you can walk away. Right. Yeah, you have life. And then the other is the public interest law firm providing legal advice that supports the mediation process oversees the legal procedures, so that if people do want to get divorced, that they do want to separate long term, that there's the ability to actually draw up those legal agreements and deliver them.

But really, we just need to keep people out of court. I joke that we are the world cross of divorces. We're growing and building out, but we need resources and infrastructure and we're hoping to get that because- Now, hopefully this podcast will help. So that's children and parents united. And that's at- it's at the- what's the dot com at the respondent dot com and that's after your book the respondent exposing the cartel of family law which is a

description of your journey through well let's call it first purgatory and then maybe hell thank you probably right and by the way the audio book will be out soon and I've just we've added we've been adding sound effects and ambience and atmosphere to that, to make it really feel like that hellish journey. So you're actually there and present more so than just a regular, like me reading the audio book. And I've got a couple of great people who've helped with that.

And Ray Romano was one nine, nine, nine time Emmy award winner. She voiced direct. It actually read as one of the psychologists at the end of the book. So hopefully hopefully you'll do some good. And you know, the emails that have been coming back from, you know, I was asked early on by, you know, how it is that the Hollywood, you know, marketing and publicity and the publishers, you know, who's your target demographic? I said, well, if we can get the suicide rights down, if my book can get to one person that they can feel like they're not alone. Well, that's a big deal for people to know that they're not alone. You know, and they're not crazy. I've got a military father who lost his legs and Afghanistan. Two chores at Tours of Duty was served with false allegations of domestic violence papers. He came home homeless, hasn't seen his kids, I think, for six years.

He's representing himself and family law. And I think about that Jordan and it just, it makes me we talk about being punished for your virtues, man. Oh, you said it. You said it. You know? Hmm. All right.

Well, Mr. Ellis looks good to see on your feet and through this. Yes, the piece of something to you too. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you very much, you