Divorce Lawyer gets hand blown off

[Nazaroo]

It would be wrong to cheer or snicker at this,
or sneer "I told you so", but duh:

God hates easy divorce.

Jesus forbade divorce except for adultery,
and warned strongly:

"What God has joined together let NO ONE separate!"

- Mark 10:9

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/winnip...scribes-frantic-moments-after-blast-1.2463584 Winnipeg lawyer who lost hand in bombing describes frantic moments after blast WINNIPEG -- Maria Mitousis clearly remembers the explosion that almost killed her as she worked in her small family law practice -- a blast from a seemingly harmless mail package that police allege was sent by an ex-husband of one of her clients. In a statement released Friday through Winnipeg police, Mitousis recounted assessing her condition immediately after the bomb went off last week. "I have my teeth, I can see, I can blink," the statement read. Related Stories Family lawyers reassess safety after Winnipeg explosion Photos Maria Mitousis is seen in this undated Twitter photo. "I'm going to get past this. I live in the moment," she recalled thinking as emergency responders rushed her to hospital where she would undergo 10 hours of surgery. The extent of Mitousis's injuries became clearer Friday. Police confirmed the lawyer lost her right hand and her left was severely injured. She suffered "countless" injuries to her face, chest and thighs, said Const. Jason Michalyshen. Despite the injuries, Mitousis expressed confidence and hope during an hour-long meeting with Michalyshen, he added. "One of the first things she said was, 'I want people to know I'm OK. I'll get better.' She is going to go back to doing what she does as a lawyer." Michalyshen said Mitousis recalled playing golf hours before the explosion and "remembered how at peace she was out on the golf course." "What became most evident is that Maria is an incredibly resilient person."

Actually no.
What has become evident is that Maria is an incredibly stupid person.


This is clearly a "three strikes, you're out" situation.

(1) She chose to be a lawyer, the most evil and stupid modern profession possible, other than politician.

(2) She chose to be a divorce lawyer, one of the things God openly hates.

(3) She didn't take the hint that God offers no divine protection for those
who openly flaunt His Laws.


Of course the angry husband engaged in a criminal act.

However, one must also note that a merciful God,
in spite of having a death penalty for aiding and abetting adultery,
has allowed her to actually live the explosion,
so she can have another chance at repenting from this wicked Sodomite court system.

Bye bye hands. Now try the brain.

 

[Rusha]

Of course the angry husband engaged in a criminal act.

And of course, it's so difficult to understand why the wife would seek to end her marriage to this raving lunatic.

Anyone who would use a mail bomb in hopes of wiping out his wife's lawyer as well as anyone standing within close proximity couldn't possibly be a dangerous nutjob.

 

[Nazaroo]

And of course, it's so difficult to understand why the wife would seek to end her marriage to this raving lunatic.

Anyone who would use a mail bomb in hopes of wiping out his wife's lawyer as well as anyone standing within close proximity couldn't possibly be a dangerous nutjob.

He certainly was a dangerous nutjob, and he clearly proved it.

What can Christians learn from this, beyond that obvious fact?

The answer of concern to Christians, is how God the Father
and God the Lawgiver, and God the Merciful, fits into the situation.

Some believe in a 'clockmaker god' who just winds up the universe
and lets it mechanistically tick away, according to natural law alone.
(i.e., Deists, and those who argue that God 'operates' only according to
natural laws).

Some believe in a God who interferes in history, often directing large-scale
events, and even performing miracles occasionally for His purposes.

In the Bible, God's word to humankind, we find promises of rewards
for ordinary honesty and merits, and encouragement to good deeds,
with valuable rewards in this life and the next.

A God who rewards those who take His teachings, laws, and guidance seriously,
is a God who can protect His faithful and those who fear and obey Him.

So we look in history, and also in current events for signs of God's
involvement in a sinful world.

Here we have a person who was NOT fully protected,
and was likely NOT fully or seriously respectful and
obedient of God's teachings and God's laws.

On the other hand, her survival is also a sign of a merciful God,
who gives people another chance to repent and reconsider the
consequences of their actions.

Its not the criminal husband who needs careful judgement here:
he is obviously a violent criminal.

The issues which need careful parsing for God-fearing believers
are the behaviour and consequences for the OTHER parties in the case.

 

[Nazaroo]

And of course, it's so difficult to understand why the wife would seek to end her marriage to this raving lunatic.

The story is bad enough without us adding elaborate assumptions.

The backstory to this however paints an entirely different picture:

It suggests that she, not he, may have been the instigator of the woes,
because she apparently stole $3 MILLION DOLLARS from their company
a few months before surprising him with a divorce.

Then on top of that, the lawyers ensured that:

(1) SHE got primary custody of their son, and

(2) HE had to pay a further $500 per month to her in child support.

(3) the payments were increased later to $560...


So looks like the wife was a gold-digging scam artist,
in other words, a typical rich idiot, who wanted more.

Apparently she:

(1) Stole his fortune before announcing a divorce,

(2) Forced him to pay support payments,

(3) Attempted to wreck his relationship with a new partner,

(4) Attempted to flee with his son to Germany and spend his money there.


There's no history of violence or abuse,
or the court would not have awarded him joint custody of their child.

For a man to win custody rights in LESBIAN ONTARIO
he would have had to prove in court he was a good citizen,
upstanding member of the community, and able to provide
a good home for the boy while he stayed there,
as well as have no previous criminal record of violence relating to domestic
or spousal abuse.

Apparently he was simply a businessman before his life fell apart bigtime,
due to a hustling lying huckster wife.

I wonder how the woman feels about her lawyer's new armless state.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...-lengthy-divorce-court-records-show-1.3140437 Guido Amsel went through bitter, lengthy divorce, court records show ... According to documents, the couple married in Germany in November 1988, separated in January 2003 and divorced in August 2004. They owned a numbered company involved in automotive repair. The couple initially split shares in the company — Amsel later bought out his ex-wife — and Amsel was ordered to pay $500 a month in child support. That payment was later changed to $583 a month starting in November 2013. Amsel alleges ex-wife took $3M The divorce became bitter in 2010. Guido Amsel accused his ex-wife of secretly moving about $3 million from the company into hidden bank accounts prior to the divorce being finalized. Amsel alleges that the company struggled financially until they separated, then started to make money. Family lawyer Maria Mitousis, 38, was injured at the Petersen King law firm explosion in Winnipeg on Friday. (LinkedIn) In an affidavit dated July 9, 2010, Amsel said the company's accountant told him that "there were numerous transactions that appear to be erroneous and unexplained" before the separation. "A rough calculation regarding those transactions shows approximately $3 million unaccounted for," his affidavit states in part. Guido Amsel remarried in 2005. In court documents, he accuses Iris Amsel of trying to break them up, going so far as to create a character claiming to be a boyfriend of the new wife. Amsel also accused his ex-wife of flushing his wedding ring down the toilet, according to court documents. Iris Amsel has denied all the accusations against her. Son doesn't speak to Amsel much Guido and Iris Amsel have one son, Kyle, who said in a court affidavit that he doesn't speak to his father much because the conversations would often be about his mother. "In the past, when I was in contact with my father, he would rant for hours about how my mother has wronged him," Kyle Amsel, now 19 years old, stated in the affidavit. "He would also interrogate me as to what my mother has been doing or what she was planning to do. This has made me very uncomfortable and put me in a difficult position." The courts awarded joint custody of Kyle, but his mother was granted primary physical care, according to documents. Kyle Amsel wrote in a 2013 affidavit that his father was "threatening towards me when I do not agree with him that my mother stole several million dollars from their company." According to court documents, Guido Amsel refused to sign travel documents for his son to visit his mother's parents in Germany starting in 2010. In his own affidavit, Guido Amsel said he fears his ex-wife would use the money that he believes she stole to relocate to Germany with their son. Ex-wife suing Amsel By August 2013, Guido Amsel was expressing doubt that Kyle was his biological son. He wrote a letter to Mitousis demanding a paternity test. An auction sale has been postponed at this business linked to Guido Amsel on Springfield Road. (Erin Brohman/CBC) The court agreed to order one on the condition Amsel pay for it. There is no record of a result on file with the court. At the same time, Guido Amsel had his wages garnisheed on at least one occasion and she launched a lawsuit in 2010 against him and others in connection with the numbered company she once shared with him. That matter is due to return to court in December.

 

[serpentdove]

God hates easy divorce.

God does not say I hate easy divorce. He says I hate divorce (Mal 2:16, Mt 19:8). Appreciate the exceeding sinfulness of sin (Ro 7:13). Even heathens know that a covenant of marriage is significant (Ge 20:9). :dizzy:

“What have you done to us? How have I offended you, that you have brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? Ge 20:9

"Ge 20:9 deeds … not to be done. The confrontation between prophet and king attested the grievous nature of Abraham’s actions. How humiliating for the prophet of God to be so rebuked by a heathen king." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 43). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[serpentdove]

"Here we have a person who was not fully protected, and was likely not fully or seriously respectful and obedient of God's teachings and God's laws."

Didn't Job's friends say that? :AMR: Mt 5:45, 13:30

"On the other hand..."

lain:

Blessed are [not will be] the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Mt 5:3).

"It's not the criminal husband who needs careful judgment here: he is obviously a violent criminal."

For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence (Mal 2:16A).

"In the Old Testament, when a man married a girl, he took his garment, his outer garment, and put it over her. This lovely custom was to signify that he was going to protect her.

This was the lovely thing which Boaz did for Ruth. Ruth was a widow and, according to the Mosaic Law, she had to claim Boaz as her kinsman–redeemer before he could act. He could not ask her to marry him; she had to claim him. So Naomi, acting like a regular matchmaker, sent Ruth down to the threshing floor. It was harvest time, and all the families were camped around the threshing floor. At night, to protect the grain, the men slept around it with their heads toward the heap of grain and their feet stuck out like spokes of a wheel. Ruth followed Naomi’s instructions and laid at the feet of Boaz. When he realized that someone was there and asked who it was, she replied, “… I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou hast a near kinsman” (Ruth 3:9). She was asking him to put his cloak over her, asking for his protection as her kinsman–redeemer—in other words, asking him to marry her. In marriage a man offers a woman his protection and his love.And she offers her devotion and her life to him. This is a beautiful picture of Christ’s relationship with believers.

In Malachi’s day the men of Israel were dealing treacherously with their wives. They had covered them with their garments in marriage, but now they were covering their garment with violence. In other words, they had divorced their wives.

Notice that God says that He hates divorce—“the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away."..." McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Prophets (Malachi) (electronic ed., Vol. 33, p. 48). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Jesus allows for divorce in Matthew 19. Was Jesus wrong when He said this?

 

[serpentdove]

Jesus allows for divorce in Matthew 19. Was Jesus wrong when He said this?

Jesus does not endorse divorce (Mt 19:8). :dizzy:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[The Barbarian]

There's the possibility that the wife was a horrible person, as much as the husband. No one really knows. What we do know is that this guy was willing to kill people he thinks wronged him.

So he needs to be in a place where he won't be able to do that.

I believe that marriage is a lifetime committment. But there are times when a separation is the only solution. Not the dissolution of the marriage, but the separation of the two for the good of one or both of them.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Jesus does not endorse divorce (Mt 19:8). :dizzy:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

In one case, he does. Read the next couple of versus.

God hates divorce but that should never be construed to mean that if a person is in an abusive marriage that they must stay married. There are times when the marriage covenant is so broken leaving the marriage is the best thing to do. The bigger issue is remarriage.

 

[serpentdove]

[Jesus never endorses divorce (Mt 19:8)] "In one case, he does. Read the next couple of versus."

When one spouse commits adultery or abandons the believer, he or she is not required to fight for them (1 Co 7:15).

"God hates divorce but..."

God hates divorce period (Mal 2:16, Mt 19:8). Appreciate the exceeding sinfulness of sin (Ro 7:13).

"...[T]hat should never be construed to mean that if a person is in an abusive marriage that they must stay married."

Cite your scripture. each:

"There are times..."

opcorn:

"...when the marriage covenant is so broken..."

opcorn:

"...leaving the marriage is the best thing to do."

opcorn:

"The bigger issue is remarriage."

Re

marriage :idunno: serial adultery

They are married until one or the other dies (Rom. 7:2, 3). :dead: God does not leave covenant relationships (Mal 2:14).

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[CabinetMaker]

When one spouse commits adultery or abandons the believer, he or she is not required to fight for them (1 Co 7:15).

God hates divorce period (Mal 2:16, Mt 19:8). Appreciate the exceeding sinfulness of sin (Ro 7:13).

Cite your scripture. each:

opcorn:

opcorn:

opcorn:

Re

marriage :idunno: serial adultery

They are married until one or the other dies (Rom. 7:2, 3). :dead: God does not leave covenant relationships (Mal 2:14).

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

Here is what Jesus plainly said. Was He wrong to have said this?
Matthew 19:9New International Version (NIV) 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

[HisServant]

Jesus does not endorse divorce (Mt 19:8). :dizzy:

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

We are actually told to give our spouses a bill of divorce if THEY want one. Only a non-christian would want one and Christians are not to be unequally yoked with a non-believer if they want to leave. In this case you are no longer bound to your spouse.

People seem to forget the above conveniently... they always assume everyone involved is a Christian.

In my case, my wife left with no intention of ever returning (I initiated counseling, etc.) and I supported her for 5 years while seeking to reconcile the marriage... and covered her medical insurance and paid her pre-divorce alimony.

At some point, someone claiming to be a christian but unwilling to reconcile things or repent should be deemed a non-christian and given a bill of divorce and allowed to go on their merry way. In such a case you are no longer bound to your former unrepentant spouse.

To this day, I believe my divorce has been the only divorce the Christian law firm I hired to represent me (hired them for child support/pre-divorce alimony reasons) has ever done.

 

[serpentdove]

[Re

marriage :idunno: serial adultery] Here is what Jesus plainly said. Was He wrong to have said this? Matthew 19:9 "...I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

They had divorced (Jesus never endorsed it [Mt 19:8]). If they re

marry they become adulterers and adulteresses.

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery." The New King James Version. (1982). (Lk 16:18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

 

[CabinetMaker]

They had divorced (Jesus never endorsed it [Mt 19:8]). If they re

marry they become adulterers and adulteresses.

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery." The New King James Version. (1982). (Lk 16:18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

Didn't I say remarriage was a problematic in my original post?

In one case, he does. Read the next couple of versus.

God hates divorce but that should never be construed to mean that if a person is in an abusive marriage that they must stay married. There are times when the marriage covenant is so broken leaving the marriage is the best thing to do. The bigger issue is remarriage.

Why, yes. Yes I did.

 

[serpentdove]

"We are actually told to give our spouses a bill of divorce if they want one..."

Reconciliation is encouraged (1 Cor. 7:10–17). Marriage is binding for life (Mark 10:2–9; Rom. 7:2, 3).

"Only a non-Christian would want one and Christians are not to be unequally yoked with a non-believer if they want to leave."

If the unbeliever leaves, the abandoned spouse is not required to fight for him/her (1 Co 7:15).

"In this case you are no longer bound to your spouse."

You are not required to fight for their return (1 Co 7:15). You are still under the law of marriage (Rom. 7:2, 3).

"People seem to forget the above conveniently. They always assume everyone involved is a Christian."

Pick well in the first place (2 Co 6:14).

"In my case, my wife left with no intention of ever returning (I initiated counseling, etc.) and I supported her for 5 years while seeking to reconcile the marriage... and covered her medical insurance and paid her pre-divorce alimony. At some point, someone claiming to be a Christian but unwilling to reconcile things or repent should be deemed a non-Christian..."

I don't know if she is a Christian. Maybe you're right and she is not.

"If you can sin, you're not God's child." ~ J. Vernon McGee

"At some point, someone claiming to be a Christian but unwilling to reconcile things or repent should be deemed a non-Christian and given a bill of divorce..."

"Only a non-Christian would want one [divorce]..."

:AMR: How do you reconcile the above two statements?

 

[HisServant]

They had divorced (Jesus never endorsed it [Mt 19:8]). If they re

marry they become adulterers and adulteresses.

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery." The New King James Version. (1982). (Lk 16:18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

See:

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper

Still cannot see the forest for the trees... I see.

Do you hate your family?... you are commanded to do that too.

 

[HisServant]

Reconciliation is encouraged (1 Cor. 7:10–17). Marriage is binding for life (Mark 10:2–9; Rom. 7:2, 3).

If the unbeliever leaves, the abandoned spouse is not required to fight for him/her (1 Co 7:15).

You are not required to fight for their return (1 Co 7:15). You are still under the law of marriage (Rom. 7:2, 3).

Pick well in the first place (2 Co 6:14).

I don't know if she is a Christian. Maybe you're right and she is not.

"If you can sin, you're not God's child." ~ J. Vernon McGee



:AMR: How do you reconcile the above two statements?

Nothing to reconcile... She told everyone she was a Christian, but from conversations with her over the years, I know she wasn't. Eventually the eldership of the church came to the same conclusion.

She was in love with the life style, as long as it conformed to what she wanted.

It always amazes me that people think marriage is for life.. and that people do not make mistakes... and they think they can force things. I labored under the same delusion for 17 years... tried to make it work, even convinced myself it was my thorn in the flesh.


Anyhow, the marriage situation today is very different from those Jesus was addressing back then because women were property.... his statements were to protect women.

Anyhow, your misunderstanding of scripture has reached the point of epic stupidity.

 

[User Name]

Do you hate your family?... you are commanded to do that too.

Jesus was using an idiomatic expression:

We know that in biblical idiom to hate can mean to love less. When, for example, regulations are laid down in the Old Testament law for a man who has two wives, "one beloved and the other hated" (Deut. 21:15), it is not necessary to suppose that he positively hates the latter wife; all that need be meant is that he loves her less than the other and must be prevented from showing favouritism to the other's son when he allocates his property among his heirs. The RSV indicates that positive hatred is not intended by speaking of the one wife as "the loved" and the other as "the disliked," but the Hebrew word used is that which regularly means "hated," and it is so rendered in the AV.

That hating in this saying of Jesus means loving less is shown by the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." In Matthew's Gospel these words are followed by the saying about taking up the cross and following Jesus: the implication of this sequence is that giving one's family second place to the kingdom of God is one way of taking up the cross."​

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/did-jesus-teach-his-disciples-to-hate-their-parents

 

[HisServant]

Jesus was using an idiomatic expression:

We know that in biblical idiom to hate can mean to love less. When, for example, regulations are laid down in the Old Testament law for a man who has two wives, "one beloved and the other hated" (Deut. 21:15), it is not necessary to suppose that he positively hates the latter wife; all that need be meant is that he loves her less than the other and must be prevented from showing favouritism to the other's son when he allocates his property among his heirs. The RSV indicates that positive hatred is not intended by speaking of the one wife as "the loved" and the other as "the disliked," but the Hebrew word used is that which regularly means "hated," and it is so rendered in the AV.

That hating in this saying of Jesus means loving less is shown by the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." In Matthew's Gospel these words are followed by the saying about taking up the cross and following Jesus: the implication of this sequence is that giving one's family second place to the kingdom of God is one way of taking up the cross."​

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/did-jesus-teach-his-disciples-to-hate-their-parents

Which was the point I was making... when it comes to his understanding of divorce he is dealing in absolutes and doesn't take into consideration of what Jesus is really saying due to the context and culture of the time.