I would start with the following, and work from there:

Aspiring recipient's economic status did not arise from the marital relationship. He or she would be in the same position s/he is in now with or without the marriage.

In recognizing the need for limited duration alimony, the Commission to Study the Law of Divorce focused "‘upon the economic impact of the marriage on the parties by examining whether employment opportunities were lost or career opportunities delayed.’" Id. at 481 (quoting Report of the Commission to Study the Law of Divorce, Recommendation 13 at 46-47 (April 18, 1995)). It was contemplated that a court would determine whether "any economic dependency that might exist between the parties was created by the marriage or was the product of the parties’ disparate skills and educational opportunities, unrelated to anything that happened during the marriage. The court’s inquiry would focus not on the fact that the parties were married but upon the impact of the marriage on the parties . . . [and on] whether either of the parties were economically disadvantaged by child-rearing responsibilities for children of the marriage."

[Ibid. (quoting Report of the Commission, supra, Recommendation 13 at 46-47).] J.E.V. v. K.V., 426 N.J. Super. 475, 489-91 (App. Div. 2012)

Fundamentally, and most recently, in Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 2013), the court explained the purpose of alimony, as follows: We nevertheless emphasize that judges considering an alimony request must always keep in mind the primary "purpose of awarding alimony to a spouse is based on ‘an economic right that arises out of the marital relationship and provides the dependent spouse with a level of support and standard of living generally commensurate with the quality of economic life that existed during the marriage.’" Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J. Super. 61, 72-73 (App. Div. 2012)(quoting Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70, 80 (2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The economic dependence created as a result of the marital relationship is a crucial finding necessary to impose the ongoing financial entanglement of an alimony award. The law attributes a party’s individual success to have been achieved by virtue of the joint union — "a shared enterprise, a joint undertaking, that in many ways… is akin to a partnership." Rothman v. Rothman, 65 N.J. 219, 229 (1974). See also Guglielmo v. Guglielmo, 253 N.J. Super. 531, 543 (App. Div. 1992) ("We are entirely satisfied that a spouse who maintains the home while her husband’s career advances should share in the rewards of their combined efforts." (citations omitted)). Finally, a judge awarding alimony must methodically consider all evidence to assure the award is "fit, reasonable and just" to both parties, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, and properly balances each party’s needs, the finite marital resources, and the parties’ desires to commence their separate futures, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23c. Parties must not forget, "alimony is neither a punishment for the payor nor a reward for the payee." Mani, supra, 183 N.J. at 80.

[Other citations omitted.]

And if that gets you nowhere, try this:

There is a lengthy legal precedent, Your Honor, going back to 1789, whereby a defendant may claim self-defense against an agent of the government where the act is shown to be a defense against tyranny, a defense of liberty – Henry Ward Beecher proclaimed, in his Proverbs From Plymouth Pulpit back in 1887, that “Every American citizen is by birth, a sworn officer of the state. Every man is a policeman.” As for the other officers, even William Congrave said; “he that first cries out ‘stop thief’ is ‘oft he that has stolen the treasure.”

I am afforded the right to speak in my own defense by our constitution, Sir. The same document which guarantees my right to liberty. “Liberty,” in case you've forgotten, is “the soul’s right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is [in] a cinco [syncope].” Ibid. Your Honor.

Julius Caesar proclaimed – Though he be wounded — “Magna...”

Merry Christmas!

------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585

Original Message:
Sent: 12-23-2015 16:19
From: Lisa Radell
Subject: Alimony quickee

I would start with the following, and work from there:

Aspiring recipient's economic status did not arise from the marital relationship. He or she would be in the same position s/he is in now with or without the marriage.

In recognizing the need for limited duration alimony, the Commission to Study the Law of Divorce focused "‘upon the economic impact of the marriage on the parties by examining whether employment opportunities were lost or career opportunities delayed.’" Id. at 481 (quoting Report of the Commission to Study the Law of Divorce, Recommendation 13 at 46-47 (April 18, 1995)). It was contemplated that a court would determine whether "any economic dependency that might exist between the parties was created by the marriage or was the product of the parties’ disparate skills and educational opportunities, unrelated to anything that happened during the marriage. The court’s inquiry would focus not on the fact that the parties were married but upon the impact of the marriage on the parties . . . [and on] whether either of the parties were economically disadvantaged by child-rearing responsibilities for children of the marriage."

[Ibid. (quoting Report of the Commission, supra, Recommendation 13 at 46-47).] J.E.V. v. K.V., 426 N.J. Super. 475, 489-91 (App. Div. 2012)

Fundamentally, and most recently, in Gnall v. Gnall, 432 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 2013), the court explained the purpose of alimony, as follows: We nevertheless emphasize that judges considering an alimony request must always keep in mind the primary "purpose of awarding alimony to a spouse is based on ‘an economic right that arises out of the marital relationship and provides the dependent spouse with a level of support and standard of living generally commensurate with the quality of economic life that existed during the marriage.’" Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J. Super. 61, 72-73 (App. Div. 2012)(quoting Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70, 80 (2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The economic dependence created as a result of the marital relationship is a crucial finding necessary to impose the ongoing financial entanglement of an alimony award. The law attributes a party’s individual success to have been achieved by virtue of the joint union — "a shared enterprise, a joint undertaking, that in many ways… is akin to a partnership." Rothman v. Rothman, 65 N.J. 219, 229 (1974). See also Guglielmo v. Guglielmo, 253 N.J. Super. 531, 543 (App. Div. 1992) ("We are entirely satisfied that a spouse who maintains the home while her husband’s career advances should share in the rewards of their combined efforts." (citations omitted)). Finally, a judge awarding alimony must methodically consider all evidence to assure the award is "fit, reasonable and just" to both parties, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, and properly balances each party’s needs, the finite marital resources, and the parties’ desires to commence their separate futures, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23c. Parties must not forget, "alimony is neither a punishment for the payor nor a reward for the payee." Mani, supra, 183 N.J. at 80.

[Other citations omitted.]

And if that gets you nowhere, try this:

There is a lengthy legal precedent, Your Honor, going back to 1789, whereby a defendant may claim self-defense against an agent of the government where the act is shown to be a defense against tyranny, a defense of liberty – Henry Ward Beecher proclaimed, in his Proverbs From Plymouth Pulpit back in 1887, that “Every American citizen is by birth, a sworn officer of the state. Every man is a policeman.” As for the other officers, even William Congrave said; “he that first cries out ‘stop thief’ is ‘oft he that has stolen the treasure.”

I am afforded the right to speak in my own defense by our constitution, Sir. The same document which guarantees my right to liberty. “Liberty,” in case you've forgotten, is “the soul’s right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is [in] a cinco [syncope].” Ibid. Your Honor.

Julius Caesar proclaimed – Though he be wounded — “Magna...”

Merry Christmas!

------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Metuchen NJ
(732)603-8585

Original Message:
Sent: 12-23-2015 16:19
From: Lisa Radell
Subject: Alimony quickee