The way it works for alimony is what they're likely to use here because they really want to make an example of him and there isn't anything preventing it...
When you declare bankruptcy, you don't get rid of it. You lose everything and are made to work.
If you don't work, you get locked up. At the end of your sentence, you owe your ex-wife all the money she should have got while you were locked up for not paying. Debtors' prison.
If you do, your wages are automatically cut down to a level agreed with your partner's lawyer, which is usually fucking crippling and not enough to live off.
I fully expect them to use this system against other dissidents.
The two most likely groups to kill themselves are trannies and the divorced. Trusting women, not even once.
Nick Rekieta during the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial talked about how it's much harder to get legal payouts from celebrities and the rich over wage slaves because the legal mechanisms designed to collect via garnishment of future income only really apply to wages and not to contractors and freelancers.
TL;DR If you don't earn a wage, your future wealth can't easily be garnished.
What if he just says no?
Then they do to him what women do if you say no to alimony. Jail for non-payment.
But this is crazy
The way it works for alimony is what they're likely to use here because they really want to make an example of him and there isn't anything preventing it...
When you declare bankruptcy, you don't get rid of it. You lose everything and are made to work.
If you don't work, you get locked up. At the end of your sentence, you owe your ex-wife all the money she should have got while you were locked up for not paying. Debtors' prison.
If you do, your wages are automatically cut down to a level agreed with your partner's lawyer, which is usually fucking crippling and not enough to live off.
I fully expect them to use this system against other dissidents.
The two most likely groups to kill themselves are trannies and the divorced. Trusting women, not even once.
Nick Rekieta during the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial talked about how it's much harder to get legal payouts from celebrities and the rich over wage slaves because the legal mechanisms designed to collect via garnishment of future income only really apply to wages and not to contractors and freelancers.
TL;DR If you don't earn a wage, your future wealth can't easily be garnished.
Is this actually true, or is Imp making up stuff again like he did about Kyle Rittenhouse?
I'd just leave whatever country was doing that.