The easy route for women to become INSTANT millionaires divorce
Scandalous statistics of how women are able to become INSTANT millionaire's on the back of
marriage then divorce. There are millions of women in third world countries desperate to bag
a western man knowing how easy it is to fleece them via crooked family courts.
More than 100 women now on Rich List - but just TWO have made their own fortunes and most have inherited or won millions from divorce
More than 100 women have been named on a list of Britain’s wealthiest 1,000 people – but just two of those made their own fortunes, it has been revealed.
Many were wealthy from inheritance or shared their wealth with their husbands, while some gained their fortunes from divorce settlements.
In total, there were 114 women on the latest Sunday Times Rich List – down from 118 last year, but up from a decade ago.
Mellon co-founded Jimmy Choo shoes, while Rowling created the Harry Potter franchise.
The list revealed that Britain's 1,000 wealthiest people are twice as rich as they were when the economic crash hit.The mega-rich have a combined fortune of £519billion – and have never been better off.
It comes as high profile divorces continue to play a part in adding to the number of female multimillionaires.
Galina Besharova, the 55-year-old former wife of the late Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, is said to have walked away with £100million when she and her husband divorced.
Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich’s ex-wife Irina Malandina is believed to have been awarded more than £150million. her wealth is estimated at £155million making her equal 599th richest person in Britain.
And former Armani model Slavica Ecclestone, became one of the richest women in Britain following her divorce from Bernie Ecclestone.
Her wealth is said to be £740million making her the 136th richest individual in the country.
Asked why there were not more self-made female millionaires in Britain, Kate Grussing, the boss of executive recruitment firm Sapphire Partners, said: ‘Women are not less able – they may be less pushy and demanding.’
Kirsty Bertarelli, 42, is the richest woman in Britain, worth £9.75billion with her husband Ernesto, a Swiss businessman.
The Staffordshire-born former Miss World contestant said: ‘I am a girl from the North who has been incredibly lucky in life.’
Meanwhile, The Queen’s wealth rose by £10million to £330million as the value of personal property such as Sandringham and Balmoral rose, although her ranking fell from 268th to 285th.
(A MASSIVE LIE AS SHE IS WORTH TRILLIONS YET EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE GUTTER PRESS SAY THE SAME THING)
Actress Emma Watson's wealth has soared to £30 million, making her Britain's 20th richest person under-30.
Miss Watson, 24, who appeared in Noah with Russel Crowe and is about to leave Brown University made £3 million last year.
BRITAIN'S FIVE RICHEST WOMEN AND THE SOURCE OF THEIR HUGE WEALTH
There were 114 women on the Sunday Times Rich List this year - down from 118 last year.
But the figure is up nearly 50 per cent over the last decade from 78 in 2004. Below is a list of the five richest women in Britain:
1. Kirsty Bertarelli is worth £9.75billion with her husband Ernesto, a Swiss businessman involved in pharmaceuticals. The pair are fifth over all on the list.
2. Kirsten Rausing, worth £8.8billion with brother Jorn through inheritance and investment. They are both on the board of Swiss-based packaging group Tetra Laval and rank eighth on the list.
3. Charlene De Carvalho-Heineken, worth £6.365billion with husband Michel de Carvalho through inheritance, banking and brewing. She is the daughter of the late Freddy Heineken and, together with her husband, is 12th of the nation's rich list.
4. Carrie Perrodo is worth £6.14billion with son Francois and Perrodo family through gas, wine and oil putting them 14th on the list. The family runs a company with oil fields around the world built up by her late husband.
5. Lady Tina Green, worth £3.88billion with husband Sir Philip Green through retailing. The pair live in Monaco and are 21st on the rich list.
The combined total of the nation's mega-rich has risen 15 per cent from the previous high of £449billion last year, and is a huge leap from £258billion in 2009.
At £255billion, the joint fortune of the 64 richest is equal to the total wealth of the poorest 19million people in Britain, or 30 per cent of the population.
Britain also has 104 billionaires – more than ever – compared with 30 a decade ago, according to the latest Sunday Times Rich List.
The amount of money needed to join the ranks of Britain’s 1,000 richest is £85million, up from £80million in 2008 during the pre-crash boom.
The UK now has more billionaires per capita than any other country, with one for every 607,692 people, compared with one in every 1,022,475 in the US. London alone has 72 billionaires, way ahead of Moscow’s 48 and New York’s 43.
Forty per cent of Britain’s billionaires were born outside the UK, while many pay little or no income tax because their main homes are abroad.
Philip Beresford, who has compiled the list since 1989, said: ‘I’ve never seen such a phenomenal rise in personal wealth.’
The figures show that the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, which started six years ago when US bank Lehman Brothers collapsed, has been kind to Britain’s ultra-wealthy.
Critics say their increasing fortunes prove the gap between the rich and poor is widening as wages fall in real terms.
But Mr Beresford said: ‘The richest have had an astonishing year, and while some may criticise them, many of these people are at the heart of the economy and their success brings more jobs and more wealth for the country.’
So-called old money was largely unaffected by the economic crisis, and in many cases fared extremely well.
The sixth Duke of Westminster, who owns 300 acres of Mayfair and Belgravia and much of Oxford Street in Central London, saw his wealth climb by £700million last year to £8.5billion and is tenth on the rich list.
Global industries came up trumps, with Indian-born Sri and Gopi Hinduja, who have interests in oil, automotive, banking, property and media, top the list with a joint fortune of £11.9billion.
They knock Alisher Usmanov off the top after the metals and mining magnate, who has a 30 per cent stake in Arsenal FC, saw his fortune fall to £10.6billion. The third richest, Lakshmi Mittal, made his £10.25billion fortune in the steel business.
Judge who spoke out in favour of marriage says he would have been 'publicly hanged' if repeated
Judicial mafia closing ranks against even their own when they express concerns over divorce and the
effect it is having on the population.
The law society terrorists within the ranks of the judiciary are the BIGGEST threat to men and their families
A High Court judge who stepped down after being disciplined for campaigning in favour of marriage said he would have been ‘publicly hanged’ if he had spoken out again.
Sir Paul Coleridge launched a stinging attack against Lord Thomas, the country’s most senior judge, for rebuking him after he repeatedly spoke out about the harm that family breakdowns caused children.
He said the judiciary had been ‘brought into disrepute’ by investigating him for backing a traditional view of marriage.
Sir Paul, Britain’s top divorce judge, was given a formal warning by the Lord Chief Justice and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling for judicial misconduct, prompting him to hand in his resignation.
Yesterday he hit back to defend the right of judges to voice their private opinions on issues they believed were of national importance.
He said the way he had been treated proved the senior judiciary was ‘terrified of mild criticism’ and ‘trivial’ complaints by a few members of the public.
Sir Paul set up the Marriage Foundation think tank in May 2012 to champion the institution on a national basis and promote ‘healthy, stable relationships’.
The Office for Judicial Complaints, the body that polices the behaviour of judges, advised Sir Paul to take a lower profile after he protested about the devastating impact of family break-up on children, criticised cohabitation, and called for greater support for marriage.
But in December that year he gave an interview which appeared to criticise the government for focussing too much on the issue of gay marriage.
It attracted 10 complaints and an inquiry found his speeches and newspaper articles were ‘incompatible with his judicial responsibilities’.
Lord Thomas issued a warning say Sir Paul had brought the judiciary into disrepute with his views. When he complained that this was ‘unfair and disproportionate’, he received another reprimand.
He said: ‘I thought it was completely ridiculous.
'Every time I said anything, a member of the public wrote in and I found the whole enormous panoply of the judicial complaints organisation just grinding on. I mean, where do we go after a reprimand? Public hanging?’
Sir Paul, who has heard some of the UK’s highest-profile divorce cases, including that of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, said the senior judiciary was ‘risk averse to the point of being frightened of our own shadow.’
He said: ‘He [Lord Thomas] is the one who should have put a stop to it. He thinks I’m the one who brought the judiciary into disrepute. I’m not sure about that.
‘Allowing this to get out of hand has done us [the senior judiciary] no good at all. I think I said to him in a letter this whole affair brings the judiciary into disrepute.
'It makes us look stupid. It makes us look risk averse to the point of being ridiculous when half a dozen members of the public can provoke this kind of storm. It should not be allowed to happen.’
Sir Paul, 64, officially retired from the High Court’s family division last month but is continuing to sit as a judge while he finishes hearing three divorce cases.
He set up the Marriage Foundation to research the consequences of family breakdown on children, which he says is increased risk of indiscipline in schools, drug-taking, behavioural problems, gang violence, poor mental health, lack of achievement in exams and failure in the job market.
He said the ‘epidemic’ was damaging the lives of millions of children, with some 3.8million caught up in the family justice system.
He said: ‘I am not saying that every broken family produces dysfunctional children but almost every dysfunctional child is the product of a broken family.
‘Separation of parents may be good for the parents. It is never, never, never good for the children.’
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: ‘The office plays an important role in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. It is a statutory body through which the lord chancellor and lord chief justice investigate judges and magistrates under regulations passed by parliament.’
The ONLY way any man can safeguard his future finances and health is NOT to get married and NOT to live permanently with
anyone. Any other arrangement will give the excuse for the freemasons controlling the legal mafia to help themselves to your
property, business, bank account and especially any children from a relationship. This is a bigger crisis
for men than any other war that's come before.
Prenups are a hot button topic these days, but everyone is so afraid of actually talking about it.
I was at my grandparents’ house for dinner last night and the topic of prenups came up.
When these topics come up I tend to play all sides so I can really understand other point-of-views.
So, I listened, asked questions and let people battle it out with their opinions.
Many of the females said they would be hurt, offended and would most likely call off the wedding if their significant other had asked them to sign one.
The men said that they don’t see a problem with having a prenup and will most likely have their wives-to-be sign one.
And if she freaks out and makes a deal out of it? Well, according to them, she’s in it for the wrong reasons.
My opinion is that it’s really not that big of a deal. I’ve seen the best marriages go wrong and I’ve seen the worst marriages go right. Shit happens. And if you ask assuranceme, signing a prenup is a sigh of relief on all sides — you can just focus on getting married and sharing your life together instead of wondering if your soon-to-be spouse is in it for the wrong reasons. I don’t see anything wrong with it, quite frankly. I do, however, see something wrong if this isn’t discussed beforehand and the person just brings it up days before the wedding. Prenups, if dealt with respect and in the correct manner, should not become an issue.
“If he or she thinks I’m after their money, then they really shouldn’t be with me…” blah, blah, blah…this isn’t about YOU. Business owners and heirs to millions need to make sure they are protected, should shit hit the fan.
They've killed off marriage - and our hopes of a happy life
Marriage died last week after a long illness. There will still be weddings, of course. But they won’t mean anything any more. They’ll be like those certificates saying you are ‘Lord of the Manor’ which gullible Americans buy.
The whole point of marriage was that it was binding for life – ‘for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death us do part’.
That is what made it such a fortress against other influences. The State couldn’t break into it. It was a small, private place where we were sovereign over our own lives.
Either you like this or you don’t. I believe that raising children as well as we can is the central purpose of our lives. I also think that lifelong marriage is the best way of doing it, and of ensuring that we do not run away from it, as many of us are inclined to do.
I also think the greatest test of character most of us will face will come when a husband or wife falls ill and becomes dependent on us. Marriage, by leaving us no choice in this, actually makes it easier.
But in the late 1960s, Britain and most other Western countries introduced divorce laws that hollowed out the marriage oath.
Since then, if either spouse wishes to break the solemn marriage promise, the State and the law actively take that spouse’s side.
If the other half of the marriage wishes to stay married, he or she can in the end be removed from the home by force, with the threat of prison.
(in 99.9% of cases the man unless he's a freemason and part of the same funny handshake club as the judge. We are well aware of
freemasons getting joint custody and keeping their properties after divorce against all the odds.)
I am still amazed that this totalitarian change came about with so little protest.
Now the very sharp and influential Sir James Munby, senior judge in the English family courts, has said that couples should be able to end a marriage simply by signing a form at a register office, with no need for lawyers or judges.
And, being smart, he has also urged the next obvious step – that cohabiting couples should be treated as if they are officially married once they have stayed together for a couple of years.
After all, why not? There’s no important difference any more. Official forms long ago stopped referring to ‘husband’ or ‘wife’, and those who cling to these archaic terms are frequently told by bureaucrats that they are now in fact ‘partners’.
I think Sir James will get his wish. And everyone will be happy, happy, happy – except the growing multitude of children who have never known domestic security and now never will, and the lonely, confused old men and women with nowhere to turn but the doubtful comforts of the care home, where their lives can dribble away in a medicated haze, perhaps punctuated by slaps and insults.
Britain's ruthless judicial mafia want to to thieve from unmarried men with impunity
James Munby the judicial thug that wants to change the system once again to make stealing mens estates so much easier.
Britain's ruthless judicial mafia want to turn friendships into a pact that allows them to thieve from unmarried men with impunity.
These evil bastards will do anything to take control of men's estates to prop up their masonic hierarchy.
Let couples get quickie divorce at register office and protect unmarried women left on scrapheap, says top family judge
Couples should be able to get a divorce simply by signing a form at the register office, the country’s most senior family law judge said yesterday.
Sir James Munby also backed fault-free divorce, which would mean neither party would have to take legal blame for the breakdown of a marriage.
In a radical package of reforms to the laws on divorce and relationships, he said consenting couples should no longer need the approval of a judge to end their marriage.
Instead their break-up should simply be recorded by a registrar in the same way as births, marriages and deaths.
And he said the grounds of adultery and unreasonable behaviour should disappear from the statute book.
In a speech to fellow judges he said: ‘Has the time not come to legislate to remove all concepts of fault as a basis for divorce and to leave irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground?’
Sir James, who as President of the Family Division is the head of the courts that deal with family break-ups and custody of children, also called for a cohabitation law to protect women who face ‘the scrapheap’ after parting with a man they have lived with for years but never married.
Such a law would see live-in couples treated as married people in the eyes of the law once they have shared a home for a set period of time.
Government advisers have already suggested a live-in couple should be bound by law after two years if they have children and five if they do not. But critics said the proposed divorce and cohabitation laws would be open to abuse and hard to operate.
After his speech, Sir James told journalists: ‘There are countries where the system is that a divorce which is by consent and where there are no children is treated as an administrative matter dealt with by what, using our terminology, one might describe as the registrar of births, deaths, marriages and divorces. It seems to work.’
He said he ‘would not contemplate it in cases other than cases where there is consent and cases where there are no children of the family’.
Sir James said the process of deciding where the children of separated parents should live has already been ‘uncoupled’ from divorce, and he hoped the system for dividing up goods and setting maintenance payments could be similarly detached from the legal declaration of the divorce itself.
He acknowledged that he has not discussed his plans with ministers, but said his proposals ‘would make divorce no easier than it is at present’.
He added: ‘All one is doing is actually bringing a bit of intellectual honesty to the situation and getting rid of an unnecessary process which simply makes life more complicated.’
Any changes to divorce law would need parliamentary legislation to be drawn up and pushed through by the Justice Secretary. Ministers have indicated that present Justice Secretary Chris Grayling will not consider divorce reform before the election.
Yesterday, lawyers and family researchers warned that Sir James’s proposals are fraught with risk and difficulty.
Patricia Morgan, author of a study on the collapse of marriage, The Marriage Files, to be published shortly, said: ‘It would be the end, the demolition, the abolition of marriage.
‘These ideas would mean an end to any declaration of public commitment by a couple.
‘They would open the door to the monster state, which would arrange your affairs and divide your money whether you like it or not.’
Ex-wife with lawyers threatens websites to remove suicide note of former husband VIDEO
John Hemming MP Exposes CORRUPTION in SECRET FAMILY COURTS (2011) VIDEO
John Hemming MP bravely exposes the corruption in the secret family court system (and court of protection) he is the only MP to stand up to this and calls for the removal of some judges who seem to be in some kind of collusion with what is going on. He talks about bribery, and government targets and rewards for adoption which is fuelling the removal of children from their parents.
Family Court - The Horrors of Divorce for Men VIDEO
Is a dangerous woman planning to divorce you? VIDEO
Britain's dark forces
Any divorcing man (except those part of their satanic cult) will confirm that Britain is being ruled over by dark nefarious forces. Not only have these vile bastards been seizing mens assets and properties for their own self enrichment but they have been stealing men's children, under the guise that they are being protected from domestic violence and abuse , and placing them into homes to satisfy the vile sexual appetites of homopaedo MP's like Cyril Smith and BBC presenters like Jimmy Savile. In the dim and distant past it was only necessary for them to prove one of their lackeys was homosexual to keep them blackmailable but now it requires those with homopaedo tendencies to ensure they follow the agenda of the ruling royal elite.
The loyal lord lieutenant of the Queen bee the Duke of Kunt ensures the abusers with the vilest of tendencies are protected as long as they follow the agenda. Savile brainwashed the sheeple with endless rantings about the royals on his numerous BBC shows and did such a good job he was knighted despite them well aware of his decades long appetite for children. Cyril Smith, another knighted goffer, was an ardent supporter of the ruling elite and despite regular reports of his abuse, freemason cops and crown prosecutors took no action, neither did his own party the Liberal's at the time or indeed any other political party , and the very same gangsters that protected freemason Jimmy Savile turned a blind eye to Smith's appalling crimes.
Despite our own group and others exposing this agenda decades ago it is only now that the gutter press have finally succumbed to the pressure from victims with an internet platform that the media themselves have been protecting for so very long and only due to the diligence that has shown the utter hypocrisy of a system that feeds the most extreme perversions of the evil bastards who serve their dark forces. NO ONE 20 years ago would believe that this is what was going on and only now after the gutter press come on board are some of the sheeple finally waking up to those sinister dark forces.
The latest guff from the legal mafia today is that they are once again changing the family court structure as if that will make any difference. It isn't the odd bad apple that is behind this tyranny but the barrel is full of rotting apples. As long as there are billions to be made from stripping men they will continue to use divorce as a weapon to weaken those not part of their sinister network of power and
continue to provide vulnerable children to their psychotic thugs in state homes the length and breadth of the UK.
Crooked lawyers on legal aid have been paying their doctor pals and other EXPERT? witnesses to
smear men as abusers with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever. This has led to fathers being removed from their childrens
lives and the potential for children to be taken into care to feed the sexual parasites lurking in British
state homes. Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith only two high profile paedo's who accessed children in homes thanks
to the false claims by EXPERT witnesses. For decades we have been exposing the racketeering expert witnesses
create for crooked lawyers, the law society and their massive gravy train of legal aid.
End to family court experts gravy train: Witnesses paid thousands in 90% of care cases
A halt has been called to the routine use of controversial ‘expert witnesses’ in life-changing custody battles.
The Ministry of Justice said growth in the use of so-called experts – often psychologists or independent social workers – was causing misery for children left stuck in care waiting for reports to be finished.
The experts, who can rake in thousands of pounds in fees, are used in 92 per cent of care cases, with an average of almost four reports per case.
But studies have shown many are advising on matters for which they are not qualified – while others are no longer working in their field and are simply ‘professional expert witnesses’ making a fortune from the family courts.
In future, experts will only be permitted where absolutely necessary to ‘resolve the case justly, taking account of factors including the impact on the welfare of the child’.
Given the anguish use of experts can cause for youngsters, officials predict the number of reports will fall significantly.
Experts are often appointed to assess the suitability of a parent or parents to continue to look after their child in care proceedings brought by local councils.
They can also be used in access cases following a separation.
Thousands of children have their futures decided in the family courts every year and because of strict rules, often little is revealed about what happens.
A recent study by the Family Justice Council found crucial decisions were routinely being made on the basis of flawed evidence from poorly qualified ‘experts’ in the family courts.
In some cases, reports on parents or children were being given by doctors who have not even seen the individuals concerned.
Professor Jane Ireland, a forensic psychologist who has herself been an expert witness, examined more than 100 witness reports. She found that 20 per cent had been produced by people who were not qualified at all.
A further fifth had been carried out by those who were writing reports in areas beyond their knowledge or qualifications. In addition, as many as 90 per cent of the reports had been produced by ‘expert’ witnesses who were no longer in current practice at all, but were simply working as ‘professional expert witnesses’.
Professor Ireland, of the University of Central Lancashire, said 65 out of 100 reports were ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ carried out.
The reduction in the use of expert witnesses is part of a shake-up of family courts, which came into force yesterday.
It also includes compulsory mediation awareness sessions for separating couples and the introduction of a 26-week time limit for care proceedings.
In 2011 the independent Family Justice Review found vulnerable and damaged children who were meant to be protected were having their ‘futures undermined’ by excessive delays.
Family justice minister Simon Hughes said: ‘For too long children have suffered…excessive delays. Expensive and unnecessary expert witnesses and reports often added to the problem.
‘That is why we have restricted the use of experts…so cases can happen in the most effective and least damaging way.’
One judicial rat jumps the s(t)inking divorce ship
The divorce industrial complex starts to creak as one of the judicial rats jumps ship over the exposures
of WHAT they are doing to men during divorce, but he uses a different excuse avoiding the REAL issues of the damage
being done thanks to his judicial pals tyrannical judgements.
I can't just sit and watch the misery of divorce, says judge as he quits (a misery caused by his crooked judicial buddies
and lawyers all part of the top global terrorist group the Law Society)
A senior judge has called for action to ‘stem the tide’ of family breakdown – as it was revealed Britain has more failed marriages than almost any other country.
Sir Paul Coleridge retired from the High Court’s Family Division on Thursday after he was formally warned over campaigning for marriage.
He said he could not ‘sit here day after day’ seeing the effect of family breakdown without speaking out against it.
In December he was reprimanded by heads of the judiciary after setting up the Marriage Foundation think tank and airing views in a newspaper article.
At a retirement ceremony yesterday, Sir Paul said: ‘I know how consoling and good a good marriage can be and how it gets better over the years and also how ghastly family breakdown can be. Something can and should be done to stem the tide of family breakdown.
‘Family judges have a unique experience of this and therefore a unique contribution to make.
‘We should not be afraid to speak out … I cannot sit here day after day watching misery and doing nothing.’
Sir Paul’s comments came as an international report found barely half of UK adults are married – and almost one in ten are divorced or separated. Only four countries in the West have a higher proportion of divorcees who have not remarried.
Last night Norman Wells, of campaigners Family and Youth Concern, said the rise in unmarried cohabitation, outlined in the report, was a ‘disaster for children’ as it meant their parents were more likely to separate.
Tory backbenchers blamed the high number of divorcees on the fact Britain does not recognise marriage in the tax system.
Sir Paul, writing in the Mail in December, also said tax breaks for married couples would send a ‘positive message’ and that marriage should be put ‘at the heart of our social structure’.
In January, the Marriage Foundation called for the Government to encourage marriage and persuade couples with young children to stay together.
The report, by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, found Britain’s marriage rate has halved since 1970, when it was one of the highest in the industrialised world.
It is one of the sharpest drops among Western nations – to 22nd out of 34 ranked by the OECD study.
A report, by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has found Britain¿s marriage rate has halved since 1970, when it was one of the highest in the industrialised world
And the divorce rate has doubled over the same period. Just 50.6 per cent of adults in the UK are married and still living with their spouse – below the average for similar countries.
Last night, Tory MP David Burrowes said: ‘These figures are depressing and should be a wake-up call to get alongside the institution of marriage and do more to prevent the £45billion cost of family breakdown.’
He added: ‘Britain is out of step with the rest of the OECD in not recognising marriage in the tax system … We need to do more to support couples before, during and throughout their marriage – and the Church could take a lead in that.’
The OECD report shows 10.5 per cent of British adults live with a partner, and almost a quarter are single and have never married. A further 7.2 per cent are widowed.
The rest – 9.4 per cent – is made up of divorcees and those who have separated – the fifth highest proportion in the world, behind the Czech Republic, the US, Finland and Estonia.
While the OECD figures showed that Britain’s marriage rate fell from 8.47 per 1,000 people in 1970 to just 4.43 per 1,000 in 2010, there has been a small increase in recent years, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Divorce, instant homelessness and depression
The BBC paints a glowing picture of sympathetic cops and councils coming to the aid of a divorced depressed homeless man.
This is blatant propaganda by the BBC who cover up the real state of affairs of men during divorce.
We have NEVER found a solitary man in decades receiving similar assistance but we have witnessed thousands of men
in similar predicaments BUT with NO HELP and with corrupt judges, lawyers, council social workers and cops using
smear tactics of domestic abuse as an excuse to eject men from their homes into homelessness and fatherlessness.
Psychopaths control the divorce industrial complex
That nice wee woman you married and thought you'd spend your life with will quickly be turned into a rabid greedy bitch once the psychopathic lawyers get involved . Divorce is by far the most lucrative racket and far more lucrative than any war that has been waged to relieve a nation of its wealth. Men in divorce are SET UP by the freemason judicial mafia to fall right to the bottom of the pecking order immediately they find themselves being dragged through the divorce racketeering industry.
There is no worse shock to a man than to suddenly realise that the years of grafting that has provided a home
and estate for his family is under the biggest threat when the legal mafia start sharpening their knives and you
and that estate are what is going on the chopping block. Many men cannot face the reality that all that they pride
will soon be dissected and divided up among a shower of crooked bastards only to eager to help a now transformed
golddigger to wage a massive psychological war against an ex husband and why so much time and energy is
spent by their controlled gutter press smearing men as deserving of the legal tsunami about to engulf any man not
aware of the pitfalls of marriage.
The repercussions are enormous and only fully understood after witnessing the
amount of power freemasons who run the show have given themselves by the stealthy way they have changed
the law to allow them maximum leverage over every aspect of the men who they don't already control and blackmail
via their satanic network of power.
The British royal parasites hand pick their legal psychopaths to ensure maximum advantage over every mans estate that is up for grabs once the wee missus decides she wants to move on to pastures new with a massive chunk of your hard earned wealth while what is left is reserved for the big chiefs running the show for their own self enrichment. We continue to send this important message to young men starting out in life that it will be their own estates that will continue to feed the masonic network of power if they go down the marriage road. A marriage licence is the single most powerful tool used to cause murder and mayhem in a mans life on its demise.
There are dead men's bodies strewn across the length and breadth of Britain thanks to the monsters who have carved up their life leaving little to survive on and the battle continues to stop the out of control madmen hell bent on continuing their war against millions of decent men and the lives they had once tried to keep stability for their families only to find the 'ORDER out of CHAOS' madmen will do everything with that unchecked power to disrupt their lives forever. All other news is a smokescreen for this utter tyranny and every MP is well aware of this madness but don't seem the least bit bothered about the ever increasing statistics on the suicide's of men who have been dragged through this legal holocaust.
How much did your personal net worth drop due to the divorce and payment of legal fees?
Here is the tenth in a series of Divorce Corp polls. Please vote only once. We will post the results once we have received a statistically significant number of votes.
In most transactions in life the percentage charged by the “facilitators” is small. Credit card companies charge vendors 2% to 3%. Realtors charge 5%. Mortgage companies charge 1%. Why is it that lawyers charge 35% to 100% of a couple’s assets to complete a divorce? 58% of our voters were completely wiped out! It’s because our government has created an oligopoly to benefit the lawyers. Our legislators have made the laws so complex that very few people can effectively represent themselves in family court. So they feel that they must hire a lawyer. And the level of complexity is so great that the lawyers more often than not consume all of the available funds. If your spouse hires a lawyer and you do not, you are at a significant disadvantage.
It’s tragic when your own government is looking out for the interests of a privileged class of professionals instead of the general public. We need to reform the system. Please sign up at www.divorcecorp.com/reform. Thank you.
Foreign divorce cases are clogging up British courts
So why are British judges with NO jurisdiction
allowing these cases to be heard?
A breathtakingly expensive divorce battle between a major Laura Ashley stakeholder and his wife - a former Miss Malaysia - has been branded ‘out of control’ in an extraordinary attack by a High Court judge.
Foreign divorce cases like this one that are fought in England deny people in need ‘precious court time’ for more serious legal matters, said Mr Justice Holman during a taxpayer-funded hearing.
He said parents who were seeking ‘precious court time to recover their children from abduction’ would be kept waiting as long as lengthy foreign divorce cases were allowed clog up the British courts.
The Malaysian couple, Mr Khoo Kay Peng, 75, who owns a 40per cent stake in Laura Ashley and his estranged wife Pauline Chai, 66, have already wracked up costs of £1.6 million on what Mr Holman called ‘preliminary skirmishes’ in the extraordinary battle.
Mr Chai, who owns a £30million property in Hertfordshire, has alone incurred costs of £920,000 in England fighting the case.
But the senior judge pointed out that the couple, who do not pay tax in Britain, are actually paying a fraction of the costs of the taxpayer-funded court hearings, have only contributed £2,355 towards six days of court fees.
Mr Justice Holman said: ‘Neither of them are British citizens. Neither of them currently pays any English taxes whatsoever.
‘Very serious issues ought to arise as to just how much time of an English court these parties should be able to take up on these preliminary skirmishes, whilst squeezing out the many needy litigants who need precious court time to recover their children from abduction or seek their return from care, and other such issues.’
Pauline Chai, pictured as a former Miss Malaysia in 1969, and Malaysian businessmen Khoo Kay Peng
Ms Chai is seeking £500 million in the case, which would represent the largest divorce settlement in Britain to date.
It has not yet been decided whether the full divorce hearing will be heard in England or Malaysia. But the top judge said it ‘borders on the fantastic’ that ’10 days of precious court time’ have been reserved in October for the High Court to consider where the case will be heard.
A one-day hearing last week for an application for maintenance cost Ms Chai £55,000.
The judge described the cost of the worldwide litigation as ‘completely out of control’.
‘Phenomenal costs are being spent, a phenomenal amount of court time worldwide has already been taken up,’ he said.
Ms Chai now lives at Rossway Park, a £30 million, 1,000-acre estate near Berkhamsted in Hertfordshire.
The couple, who married in 1970 and have five children, lived a lavish lifestyle with properties in England, Kuala Lumpur and Australia, and an estate in Canada.
The judge said Dr Khoo must pay his wife a further £70,000 for living costs and £100,000 for legal costs for the seven weeks before the next hearing in April.
Ms Chai, who was Miss Malaysia in 1969, is represented by the ‘Diva of Divorce’ Ayesha Vardag, who said these legal fees are ‘small beer for the ultra rich’.
‘When you have a couple trying to divide up billions of hundreds of millions, the legal costs are generally high, because there’s enough at stake to make it worth it. It’s the biggest financial transaction most people will ever undergo.
‘Big cases are what make English justice affordable for the needy,’ she told the Independent.
Timothy Bishop, QC who represents Dr Khoo last year said that allowing the case to be held in London would bolster ‘the ill-gotten reputation of this country for being the divorce capital of the world’.
FOREIGN COUPLES SEEK DIVORCES IN BRITAIN AS JUDGES ARE CONSIDERED 'GENEROUS' TO PARTNERS OF WEALTHY PEOPLE
Khoo Kay Peng and Pauline Chai are the most recent in a long line of foreign couples to seek a multi-million pound divorce in the UK.
Just two days ago, stay-at-home husband Weng Choy won a crucial battle to his £11million divorce settled in English court.
The couple led a luxury lifestyle - with homes in Hong Kong and Malaysia, a £1million wine collection and £4.5million apartment in Kensington - but Mr Choy says he gave up his personal ambitions to allow his 'breadwinner' wife Lena Tan to pursue her career.
Ms Tan had fought having the divorce heard in Britain on the grounds that the Malaysian couple do not have any business interests in Britain - just property.
It is thought she wanted to have the case heard in Malaysia as British judges are widely considered to be 'generous' towards the partners of rich spouses.
But judges this week ruled Mr Choy could have his case heard in the UK because he had been 'habitually resident' for a year before the split.
In 2011, the late Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky divorced his second wife in the costliest marriage split in British legal history.
The massive payment dwarfed the previous UK divorce record of £48million and came just two years before Mr Berezovsky's death.
Young men are finally getting the message about the marriage / divorce scammers
We have been WARNING men for decades on the repercussions of divorce and the destruction of
men by the legal mafia and the golddiggers they support while men are stripped bare of everything
they worked for. The enormous cost of marriage failure is not worth the time and effort.
Ask any man who has faced the torture metted out by the evil murdering legal scum that run the courts
, not for the greater good , but
for their own and the Crown's self enrichment.
Young married men become a thing of the past as fewer than 58,000 husbands are under the age of 25
Young married men have almost disappeared in England and Wales, figures revealed yesterday.
There are now fewer than 58,000 married men under 25, official figures show.
The proportion of men who marry young has collapsed to 1.7 per cent, marking a profound change in family life since the 1950s.
About 135,000 young women marry annually, figures from the 2011 census, just released by the Office for National Statistics, reveal.
Most of them have found men who have reached their late twenties or older.
In the 1950s, three-quarters of women and half of all men were married by their mid-twenties.
These days one in three men in their twenties is still with their parents and the average age at which a young person leaves their childhood home is 26.
However, cohabiting couples break up at least three times more quickly than married couples.
‘In the 70s and 80s it became more acceptable to move in together rather than marry,’ warned Harry Benson of the Marriage Foundation.
‘The difficulty is that with more delay in marriage we are seeing a large increase in the rate of family break-up.
‘The good thing about delaying marriage is that it seems to be helping to increase the stability of marriage and contributing to a fall in divorce rates.
‘There has been a drop of a quarter in marriages that end within the first seven years, and a drop of a half in divorce within three years of marriage.’
The foundation says that a child born today has only a 50/50 chance of its parents staying together when it reaches 16.
Average ages at which people marry are now at just under 30 for women and over 30 for men.
Millions of women have decided to delay marriage to pursue higher education and careers. Many then find themselves facing the need to pay a mortgage and the difficulty of forming a stable relationship with a man on which to build a family.
After World War II state housing policies were founded on the need to build council homes for young couples, and in the early 1980s Margaret Thatcher’s government won popularity by making home ownership easier.
For men, the pressure to marry a girlfriend, and the threat of a shotgun marriage if she became pregnant, evaporated decades ago. Few feel any need to marry, even if children come along.
The census figures show that 57,191 men under the age of 25 were married in the spring of 2011 when the census was taken, and 134,605 women.
The men made up 1.7 per cent of a male population aged 16 to 25 in England and Wales of 3,372,665.
The raving feminist lunatics that are trying to run the family law asylum
Men need to take heed about marriage and what the loony feminists like Womens aid are trying to impose.
Don't give ANY woman power over you via crooked lawyers, judges and the courts they are ALL trying to steal
your hard earned cash and estate. Womens Aid, a front for freemasons, are ALWAYS silent when women are doing
the murdering and their masonic partners in crime are behind the law changes to give them power over a man's property and bank accounts.
Controlling your partner's clothes and friends could be made a crime in domestic violence shake-up
Forcing your spouse to wear particular clothes, deciding which friends they can see and ‘excessive jealousy’ could become crimes as part of changes to domestic violence laws, it emerged last night.
Ministers are considering whether to make forms of ‘psychological abuse’ which do not involve violence into criminal offences punishable by law.
It follows a campaign from women’s groups who say there is too much focus on specific incidents in which someone was hurt by their partner.
Instead, they said, crimes of domestic abuse should include non-violent acts against wives or husbands.
But last night, criminologists warned that any definition of abuse that included non-violent acts would hand huge ‘arbitrary’ power to the police.
Dr David Green, director of the Civitas think tank said: ‘Lots of couples are going to exchange angry words from time to time but there’s not the least chance of it turning into a fight. For others a raised voice or a fierce glare might be terrifying.’
He warned: ‘It’s very easy for society to slide in to a kind of police state where police can define something as against the law when in reality they are a bit of a barney but not something the police should get involved in.
‘Before you know it you could be in a Police State where a little bit of aggro could lead to the police being involved and someone being carted off to the police station.’
The proposals were published yesterday by the Domestic Violence Law Reform Campaign, which said existing laws fail to take into account ‘power and control’ in relationships.
It is calling on ministers to criminalise ‘coercive control’ and behaviour which causes psychological harm.
Laura Richards, director of Paladin said: ‘It is possible for the law to criminalise a course of conduct and move beyond physical injury.’
She said the law should take account of a ‘course of conduct’ and ‘address a broad range of harm’.
Polly Neate, chief executive of Women’s Aid said the criminal justice system was wrongly focused on ‘individual incidents of physical violence’ and failed to reflect the ‘ongoing psychological harm caused by coercive control in intimate relationships.’
A survey of abuse victims carried out by the campaign group found 94 per cent of those surveyed said mental cruelty could be worse than physical violence.
The Home Office’s own definition of domestic violence already includes ‘coercive control’ - but until there has been no move towards making them a criminal offence.
This coercion can include being excessively jealous, stopping someone from seeing family and friends or controlling what the victim wears.
Last night Home Office officials confirmed the proposal would be considered as part of a review of how the police deal with domestic violence.
It will be examined by ministers alongside a report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary into how forces are investigating such crimes.
Crime Prevention Minister Norman Baker said: ‘The government is committed to working with the police and other criminal justice agencies to ensure the response to domestic violence and abuse offers the best possible protection to victims.
‘The Home Secretary has commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to conduct a review across all police forces of the response to domestic abuse.
‘We will carefully consider the case for any change to the law against the backdrop of HMIC’s findings and recommendations.’
In September 2012 the government’s definition of domestic violence and abuse includes ‘psychological, financial and emotional’ factors.
It includes ‘isolating’ someone from sources of support, exploiting their wealth and ‘regulating their everyday behaviour’.
It's a pity the gutter press weren't so sympathetic when men are getting screwed in family courts?
This gold digger's charter! Daughter of Bob the Builder tycoon warns wealthy women against marriage after court orders her to pay her ex £1m
The daughter of one of Britain’s richest men warned that a gold-digger’s charter had been created yesterday after she lost a bitter High Court divorce battle.
Victoria Luckwell said there was now a strong disincentive for wealthy women to marry after being ordered to pay more than £1million to estranged husband Frankie Limata.
Mr Limata, who signed a pre-nuptial agreement, had demanded a £2.2million share of the value of their £6.6million marital home in London.
Miss Luckwell’s father Mike, who was the director of the media company that created children’s programme Bob the Builder, had previously threatened to cut off his daughter financially if Mr Limata received one penny – he has been paying her a £100,000-a-year allowance and her three children’s private school fees.
After the judgment, Miss Luckwell, 37, confirmed that her 71-year-old father, who has a £135million fortune, would stick to his vow and she will have to sell her house and raise her children on her own.
She said ‘important public policy considerations’ arose from the case, adding: ‘Unless Parliament enacts the recent Law Commission’s proposals on nuptial agreements, the law will remain in a state of uncertainty.
This results in very costly and public hearings as well as enormous emotional distress and financial uncertainty. My recent experience is exactly what nuptial agreements are designed to eliminate.
‘Sadly, I’m left to conclude there is a strong financial disincentive for a wealthy woman to marry if she cannot be assured of protecting her family’s assets. Simply put, this is a gold-digger’s charter.’
In his judgment, Mr Justice Holman said Mr Limata, 45, must receive £1.24million, including £900,000 to buy a new home.
However, Miss Luckwell will own around half of the value of the home he buys until their youngest child, now two, is 22.
Miss Luckwell was given her Connaught Square home, where Tony Blair is a neighbour, by her father in 2008. As this is her only asset, it was the only one the judge could consider.
Mr Limata admitted he signed a pre-nuptial agreement and two supplementary contracts promising never to seek his wife’s money.
But after the marriage broke down in November 2012, he was left penniless and homeless, ‘living like a tramp out of bin bags,’ he said. He is now earning the minimum wage at his mother’s bed and breakfast in Notting Hill.
He claimed his father-in-law was motivated by spite and malice in vowing to cut off his daughter: ‘He has a determination to control almost every aspect of her life.’
Mr Luckwell said after the judgment: ‘A law which rewards a gold digger after signing three legal agreements merits real criticism.’
A statement for Mr Limata said he had ‘never sought a share of his wife’s wealth’ but instead sought ‘sufficient funds to meet his real financial needs having made financial contributions himself during the marriage from employment and his own inheritance’.
It added: ‘Marriage brings with it important legal and moral obligations to care for the other spouse in a time of need, including if a marriage breaks down. Whilst those obligations can be properly regulated and defined by a pre-nuptial agreement, it cannot be right for it to remove entirely the obligation to provide for real need.’
Miss Luckwell married Mr Limata – ex-husband of underwear model and actress Katie Carr and a former boyfriend of Stella McCartney – in Mayfair in July 2005.
They met while he was working as a film editor at The Moving Picture Company, the firm her father founded. The court heard they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle involving recreational cocaine use, extravagant holidays, live-in nannies and visits to Mr Luckwell’s Surrey mansion before they split following bitter rows.
Miss Luckwell said Mr Limata had a ‘reluctance to work’ and had frittered money on designer clothes, art and strip clubs.
She accused him of making ‘cruel and wholly unjustified criticisms against my family’.
She added: ‘Frankie contributed nothing to my marriage in terms of capital. My father’s stated position that it would be outrageous if the court ordered Frankie anything is entirely understandable.’
Mr Justice Holman had urged the warring parties to find a way to reach an agreement, saying: ‘Between them they have spent £600,000 on this case. It is a great tragedy it has come this far.
‘Many hurtful things have been said. Caught in the cross fire are three adored, innocent but vulnerable children.’
He said that as Miss Luckwell ‘has never had a penny that has not come from her parents’, the only asset he could consider is the house gifted to her.
He said that one of the reasons for his decision to award Mr Limata a settlement in the ‘exceptionally bitter’ and ‘very painful’ case was the children as ‘their overall welfare is better safeguarded and promoted by making some award to their father’.
Law society terrorists attempt more manipulation of divorce laws
Best advice for men to safeguard their estate is don't get married and don't have children as the freemason run legal mafia will take EVERYTHING you own
under the guise of fairness and justice, when it is an excuse for these terrorist crooks to help themselves
while supposedly helping the golddigging ex wife. The most likely way a man will become homeless is through these
thieving bastards having the excuse to throw men onto the street via divorce laws and they wont change that while they rake in
trillions from stealing men's estates.
Stop divorce payouts after ten years, say law experts: Review calls for reforms to make sure husband and wife are financially independent
A divorced woman should no longer expect to be supported for life, government legal advisers said yesterday.
Law Commission experts insist divorce settlements should have a sell-by date of up to ten years.
The new maintenance arrangements would apply to men as well as women. An ex-wife with younger children would have to get a job when they reach secondary school, the commission recommended.
The surprise reform follows a four-year review of divorce laws.
The commission’s report said future settlements should push both the husband and wife toward financial independence.
Couples would have a written formula to calculate how much they might have to pay – or receive – after a split. It would say how long one should support the other, from two to ten years, and how much property equity they would keep.
The recommendations will go to ministers and, as expected, they include draft legislation to give full force to pre-nuptial arrangements.
Although the Nuptial Agreements Bill could be slotted into the Parliamentary timetable with ease, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling may act cautiously.
The last Law Commission recommendations for divorce reform, made in the 1990s, turned out to be unworkable and had to be repealed.
Professor Elizabeth Cooke, commissioner in charge of the report on Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements, said: ‘We believe that married couples and civil partners should have the power to decide their own financial arrangements, but should not be able to contract out of their responsibilities for each other’s financial needs.
‘The measures we are recommending would help couples understand and meet their financial responsibilities and, where appropriate, achieve financial independence.’
The report said divorce orders should cover the financial needs of a couple, including childcare, an income and a home, and ‘the objective of such orders should be to enable both partners eventually to achieve financial independence’.
It added: ‘The reality is that, in the vast majority of divorces, long-term support is not practicable.
‘It is generally brought to an end at least when the children cease to be dependent and often before that, save in those cases were age or illness make it impracticable for one of the parties to support him or herself.’
Pre-nups, the commission said, would be known as ‘qualifying nuptial agreements’. They would not allow husbands or wives to dodge their duty to meet the financial needs of their divorcing spouse.
The report said they would be useful for couples with independent means, for example older couples; where one party wants to protect inherited wealth or money made before the marriage, or the inheritance of their children from an earlier relationship; and where one party thinks they will make big money in future.
It added that both parties must have legal advice when they draw up a pre-nup, a clause that offers lawyers the prospect of £1,000 pay days.
Sandra Davis, of City law firm Mishcon de Reya, said: ‘The proposal for written guidance – or a formula – to help people agree financial settlements in advance, may provide a ball park in which to play, but offers no certainty that the rules of the game will be any clearer.
‘Written guidance and formulae still leave significant scope for dispute.’