Family courts where freemasons destroy men not part of their creepy agenda
Lets NOT piss about the bush here. Their media are all controlled with their manufactured distractions and duff news for one reason only. The vast destruction of non mason mens families and lives to satisfy the greed of the masonic order and their zionist controllers. All the other bullshit that masquerades as news is just that a distraction, the curtain that hides the real criminal mafia who are a global monster high jacking decency and lawful order to push their thieving malicious form of law.
We spoke to a taxi driver the other day who faced homelessness and left penniless thanks to family courts ripping the heart out of the family he had built up over decades of hard graft with the same thing going on with increasing haste as their malicious and vicious deception only starts to get exposed across the internet. How long do they think they can get away with this deception? Indefinitely?
All men should resign themselves to the fact that in the short term things wont change until men learn what they have to do to avoid the twisted regime that they will at some point in the future encounter during their working lives . These evil bastards have designed the majority of supposed law to ensure all the world's wealth has a direct path into their burgeoning coffers and only by protecting accumulated wealth, which avoids buying into their global property racket, can men ensure they have some means to protect themselves from the rigors of homelessness and penniless ness which so many men find out to late when they are out on the street with nothing.
We will continue to send out warnings on a regular basis to counter the obsessive psychopathic media crap that avoids what is behind the massive destruction of men across the globe and it is fuck all to do with their pseudo terrorism.
Gary Lineker slams lawyers who get rich out of divorce cases
Controlled mass media finally get around to exposing what's going on in divorce, something we have
been exposing for decades.
Football legend divorced Danielle Bux for £400 using a simple online form
Gary Lineker has hit out at the divorce system, saying it is designed to cost couples a fortune and leads to them “hating each other”.
The Match of the Day host, 55, revealed in January he and second wife Danielle Bux , 36, were to amicably end their six-year marriage.
While the former football ace is thought to be worth around £20million, filing the divorce cost them just £400 using a government website to come to an agreeable settlement. But Lineker is appalled by the way divorces are generally carried out, saying: “It’s very easy to get married and very difficult to get divorced.
“And we know lawyers try to manipulate it to make you spend more money and basically end up hating each other.”
He said his solution would be to have a simpler way of divorcing. “There should be a mathematical equation that goes to the courts and they sort it out,” he told Radio Times.
Danielle is currently in Los Angeles where she hopes to boost her acting career. The former model has a 14-year-old daughter, Ella, from a previous relationship and has said she would like to have another baby.
But Lineker, who has four sons from his first marriage, was not keen on having more.
Britain's masonic controlled Divorce Industrial Complex turning women into millionaires
Compliant media finally getting round to exposing the corrupt family courts that claim to be legal
KERCHING! Their husbands built up some of Britain's most famous retail names while they brought up the children. Now they're divorcing and pocketing millions. Fair - or just greedy?
With its colourful fleet of delivery vans pootling around some of Britain's smartest streets, online supermarket Ocado has become a middle-class staple.
But behind the company's wholesome image is a tale of marital strife and betrayal - a multi-million-pound divorce row between Ocado's founder and his wife.
This has become so acrimonious that some financial analysts think the grocery firm's share price may even take a tumble.
On opposing sides of the courtroom in one of Britain's most expensive divorce battles are former merchant banker Tim Steiner, 46, and Belinda, 45, a former PR, his wife of 14 years and mother of his four children.
While he has launched divorce proceedings accusing her of 'unreasonable behaviour', she claims she has been 'obliterated' by her former husband, who is living with a Polish lingerie model two decades his junior.
Despite the legal and emotional turmoil in which she finds herself, Mrs Steiner does have one reason to be positive about her legal separation from the man whose fortune, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, stands at £116 million - it could leave her fabulously wealthy.
She is far from alone. A spate of divorce settlements involving some of Britain's most successful retail bosses and their out-of-favour spouses show judges are looking very favourably on the wives who stayed at home raising children while their husbands built up their empires.
Earlier this month, Nick Robertson, 48, co-founder of online fashion retailer Asos was ordered to pay former wife Janine, 43, £70 million after the end of their ten-year marriage.
The father-of-two, who is one of Britain's richest men, was forced to sell shares in the firm to meet the huge settlement.
And last month, Superdry tycoon Julian Dunkerton, 51, sold £50 million of his shares in the High Street fashion chain to fund his divorce from Charlotte.
He was following in the footsteps of Superdry's other founder, James Holder, who offloaded shares worth £20 million in 2013 to pay for his divorce.
For the wives in such cases, the situation appears to be rosy - and very different to the experience of the average British divorcee.
As Marilyn Stowe, a top divorce lawyer, puts it: 'Super-rich divorce cases are dealt with on their own terms.
'They don't apply to Mr and Mrs Average. Lower down the spectrum, divorce is all about 'reasonable need' and meeting that need out of what assets there are or finding a way to provide a home for both parties.'
But at the top end, a divorce settlement can be more like a Lottery win.
The landmark White v White divorce case started it all. Involving a very wealthy farming couple and settled by the House of Lords in 2001, the ruling made the concept of equal shares for 'bread-winner and home-maker' the norm.
It also brought an end to the days when a wealthy husband might expect to walk away from a marriage with the lion's share of the family wealth.
Over the 15 years since then the legal ground has shifted hugely in favour of divorcing wives, who can expect to receive half of any wealth built up in a marriage, even if they have never worked outside the home.
Wives in such cases, the situation appears to be rosy - and very different to the experience of the average British divorcee, who may not fair so well should their husbands take up with a lingerie model such as Pyka, above. Super-rich couples, says Marilyn Stowe, a top divorce lawyer, are less likely to settle out of court than ordinary couples who haven't the money to spend fighting divorce cases
And super-rich couples, says Marilyn Stowe, are less likely to settle out of court than ordinary couples who haven't the money to spend fighting divorce cases.
This is partly because the mega-rich tend to stash money in off-shore accounts and trusts, making it very hard for lawyers to tell what the assets actually are.
But even when a husband comes clean about his wealth, uber-wealthy businessmen such as Tim Steiner can turn to a legal loophole, that of 'stellar contribution'. This means the business genius that brought in the millions amounts to a 'special contribution' to the family wealth and, therefore, is entitled to more than a 50 per cent share.
'I would certainly expect Tim Steiner to run that argument in the months ahead,' says Stowe.
When Manchester University graduate Steiner met art dealer's daughter Belinda Cohen in 1995, Ocado didn't exist.
He was a bond trader at Goldman Sachs and she was working in fashion and beauty PR.
They married in a lavish ceremony at Hampstead Garden Suburb synagogue, North London, in 1999.
That year, Steiner quit his job and set up Ocado with two others, raising money from venture capitalists and going into partnership with Waitrose.
The company was floated on the stock market in 2010 and today claims to be the world's largest dedicated online grocery retailer with more than 500,000 regular customers.
With Ocado's success came a lavish lifestyle. The Steiners and their four children shared a £15 million mansion in Highgate, North London, and a chalet in the ski resort of Courchevel.
When their London home was renovated, Steiner is said to have moved his family into luxury suites at Claridge's hotel.
The couple enjoyed a glamorous social life, rubbing shoulders with Hollywood star Gwyneth Paltrow and retail magnate Sir Philip Green.
According to friends, Belinda Steiner played a significant role in supporting her husband while he built up the business, looking after their children single-handed while he was at the office.
The marriage ended in 2012 with Steiner moving to a large house around the corner, where the couple's children now live, too.
Since then, he has been dating model Patrycja Pyka, 27, who has featured on an over-18s website.
Belinda lives in a garden flat in nearby St John's Wood and has suffered the humiliation of seeing photographs on Facebook of her estranged husband and his lover in the French ski chalet they once shared.
She has accused her husband of being 'a complete control freak' and claims she was not even invited to her twin sons' Bar Mitzvah last year, where, she says, the guests were entertained by topless female cage dancers.
The gloves are well and truly off for their divorce settlement hearing in June. Their legal costs have already spiralled to well over £1 million, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount Steiner may have to pay in the near future.
He has hired Fiona Shackleton, a divorce lawyer with a formidable reputation for protecting the assets of wealthy men. She famously negotiated Prince Charles's split from Diana and that of Sir Paul McCartney from Heather Mills.
And given the generosity of the settlement awarded to the former wife of Asos's Nick Robertson, Steiner has all to fight for.
The mega-rich tend to stash money in off-shore accounts and trusts, making it very hard for lawyers to tell what the assets actually are
Robertson, the great-grandson of Victorian menswear retailer Austin Reed, has an eye-watering fortune of £220 million plus an OBE for achievement in the world of fashion retailing.
When his marriage to Janine collapsed in 2014, he tried to argue that she should receive £30 million. But the housewife and mother of their two young daughters insisted it should be nearer £110 million.
A judge urged them to settle the case out of court, but to no avail. When their battle reached the High Court, Newcastle-born Janine was said to have been of 'negligible means' when she met Robertson.
His company Asos was launched in 2000 at the height of the dotcom boom to sell copies of clothes worn by celebrities. A year later, it was worth £12 million. In 2015, it turned over more than £1 billion.
Robertson, and Janine got together in 2002 after a blind date. They married in Scotland two years later and set up home in an £8 million six-bedroom property in Wimbledon, South-West London.
As well as other homes in France and Oxfordshire, they own a fleet of cars including a Mercedes, a Bentley and a Ferrari. At first, their separation appeared amicable. Both have new partners. Robertson is living with his 32-year-old former PA, Charlotte Balin, in a large Georgian property in South-West London, complete with a sweeping staircase, expansive gardens and its own flagpole.
But when it came to dividing their assets, the civilised terms upon which the Robertsons parted soon evaporated.
And if Robertson, who stepped down as Asos chief executive last September, believed he shouldn't have had to give away such a huge chunk of his fortune, he was wrong.
For at the High Court, Mr Justice Holman stated, once again, that marriage is a partnership of equals.
Though he accepted Robertson was the 'moneymaker', he said that his wife had been 'an excellent homemaker and an excellent mother' to the couple's girls, who are aged seven and eight.
He went on to order Robertson to pay Janine £70 million, which led to his £20 million shares sell-off.
The Superdry co-founders found themselves in similar positions.
We're not arguing about a few thousands we're arguing about hundreds of millions
Last month, Julian Dunkerton, who founded the business in 1985 from a Cheltenham market stall, sold four million SuperGroup shares for £48 million, sending the company's share price falling by almost 6 per cent.
The sale was said to be 'due to personal circumstances' when it was announced on the London Stock Exchange.
He is said to have needed the cash to pay off his 41-year-old wife Charlotte, with whom he has two children - a staggering amount given that the couple only married in August 2009, long after Superdry was launched.
During their marriage, the couple lived in a £3.25 million, seven- bedroom, Grade II-listed farmhouse in Lower Dowdeswell, near Cheltenham, which Dunkerton had bought in 2007.
The house was put on the market last summer with a £6.5 million price tag. Meanwhile, Charlotte appears to have found love with a younger man, posting pictures of them together on her Instagram account, partying, skiing and at black-tie events.
In July 2013, Dunkerton's Superdry co-founder James Holder, the 44-year-old entrepreneur behind the Bench fashion brand, raised £20 million by selling off shares to fund his divorce proceedings. He had been married for seven years to Jessica, with whom he has a son.
Despite the huge pay-out, he was named joint 847th on the Sunday Times Rich List in 2015, thanks to his estimated fortune of about £112 million.
Given the growing reputation of British judges for awarding generous settlements to women, it is hardly surprising that London is fast becoming known as the divorce capital of the world.
Wealthy foreign wives are queuing up to have their cases heard there.
The courts demand transparency about assets and are also more efficient at enforcing court orders thanks to international treaties and a wide-spread respect for British jurisdiction.
'The situation for women has improved massively,' says Ayesha Vardag, a British lawyer nicknamed the Diva of Divorce, thanks to her work on high net worth complex and international divorce cases.
'It doesn't matter if you earned the money or whether you were at home supporting the family, you are seen as an equal partnership,' she says. 'That's not necessarily true in other jurisdictions around the world.
Vardag is currently representing the wife of 77-year-old Laura Ashley boss Dr Khoo Kay Peng.
Former Miss Malaysia Pauline Chai is locked in a £400million divorce battle with her husband of 43 years. The couple have five grown-up children
While he fought to have their case heard in Malaysia, 69-year-old Miss Chai has been granted permission to have it settled in London.
She lives on a sprawling £30 million estate in Hertfordshire, complete with an exotic menagerie of alpacas and llamas, and a dressing room filled with 1,000 pairs of shoes.
While Miss Chai claims he is worth more than £440 million, he maintains his assets are worth only £66 million.
Their case, which has already cost about £6 million, is believed to have been one of the most expensive divorce cases ever to come before the British courts.
The sums involved, admits Vardag, are staggering.
'There's plenty to go round, but there's a huge amount at stake,' she says.
'We're not arguing about a few thousands we're arguing about hundreds of millions. That's why there's such a big fight.'
We know that lawyers are having cosy meetings in the run up to Christmas anticipating the expected sharp rise in
marital break ups.
We have insider knowledge that not only are these evil crooked bastards rubbing their hands on the demise of men's marriages and the massive spoils that flow, but the freemason mafia who run the show behind the scenes, also provide the domestic abuse and violence propaganda to make that all the more likely.
This is a war where freemasons have to blame all ills of society on heterosexual men through distortions of what they claim is any sort of abuse so they can get their hands on men's hard earned estates. You will notice a sudden surge of DV articles in their controlled press around this time alongside adverts of women dollying themselves up for the festive parties NOT with their beloved but at office do's where much of the issues that make domestic fights much more likely as men try to stop the sudden anticipation of their wives turning into singletons over the Christmas period and ignoring their marriage vows.
The psychological mind games are basically saying that women can do what they like to damage their marriage and the state will back them up claiming any man who raises his voice restraining them from behaving like whores will be turned into mice while the freemasons help the little old lady to strip her man of every last piece of his life.
Well this is a message to these scumbags that men are rising up across the globe and are not going to take this shit lying down. To many good and decent men have lost their lives after being smeared and destroyed by the masons colluding in their controlled courts and police stations, snatching men and using restraining orders to stop them protecting their homes and children. Many of those children end up in the hands of the perverts running the system for their own financial enrichment and their perversions towards children made vulnerable by those very orders.
This cannot go on any longer with this facade of protecting those poor wee women. This is a massive psychological game where billions are being removed from men not part of their satanic cult and into their coffers to ensure this vile enrichment system can go on ad infinitum. Young men need to learn early on just what this is all about as they CRAFT this so cleverly that many of those younger men do not realise that they themselves will be caught up in the massive web of deceit that is going on right across the globe.
Men are massively more likely to die or face severe hardship and abuse from crooked freemason judges , lawyers and cops than any Middle East terror threat. Yet you would never guess so from how their controlled media find all sorts of distractions from their evil mind games.
Laura Ashley chairman and ex-wife rack up £5m in lawyers’ bills during divorce
Men are NO longer going to tolerate the legal mafia making up laws to fleece them of their estates
The chairman of Laura Ashley and his estranged wife have racked up £5m in lawyers’ bills during a divorce settlement dispute, judges have heard.
Khoo Kay Peng, 76, who owns 44% of Laura Ashley PLC, and Pauline Chai, 68, who was crowned Miss Malaysia in 1969, were together for more than 40 years and have five children.
The pair, who both come from Malaysia, have been embroiled in litigation for more than two years. Khoo lives in Kuala Lumpur and Chai in Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire.
A barrister representing Khoo on Tuesday gave three appeal court judges details of the amounts the couple had spent on lawyers at the start of the latest round of the legal battle.
Timothy Scott QC told a hearing in London that Chai had run up bills totalling about £3.5m and Khoo bills totalling about £1.5m.
The couple cannot agree on whether decisions about who should get what in the divorce settlement ought to be made in English or Malaysian courts.
A number of high court judges analysed the dispute before it reached the court of appeal. Three appeal court judges who examined evidence and legal argument at a hearing in London on Tuesday said they would give their views at a later date.
One divorce case that proves just how EVIL the system really is
Her lawyer will be on legal aid while he has to fund his own defence or act for himself.
The man could be dying of cancer and the legal mafia will still drag him in to their dens of iniquity to face
the theft of all his worldly possessions. Disgusting inhumane treatment of men that the political mafia rubber stamp.
Soldier left unable to walk or speak properly after being injured in Afghanistan goes into divorce battle over £1million compensation
A soldier left unable to walk or speak properly after suffering horrific injuries in Afghanistan risks losing his specially adapted home in a divorce battle.
Corporal Simon Vaughan, 31, was awarded £1.1million after he was left severely brain damaged when his vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in Helmand Province in 2008.
He also suffered a shattered pelvis, broken back and collapsed lungs in the Taliban attack in Musa Qala. His injuries were so severe that Army doctors were convinced he would not survive the flight home. They had pinned an obituary to his bag
Cpl Vaughan and his wife, Donna, 33, separated in February 2013 and she is entitled to make a claim on his compensation to help her bring up their two children. However, much of the money is understood to have been spent.
Cpl Vaughan's case will be heard today by a family court judge, sitting in Telford, Shropshire, who will decide how much money Mrs Vaughan should have, the Daily Telegraph reports.
The court could order Cpl Vaughan, who was serving with 29 Commando regiment, to sell his bungalow in Shropshire, which was bought for £295,000 in 2009 and specially adapted for him.
However the house was so structurally unsafe it had to be demolished and rebuilt, draining Cpl Vaughan's finances. He is now understood to have only £200,000 left.
Cpl Vaughan's finances have run so low he had faced representing himself in court for the divorce proceedings, despite being able to communicate only with the aid of a computer.
However, Julian Ribet, a partner with Levison Meltzer Pigott, said his legal firm had taken on the case free of charge.
Mrs Vaughan's lawyers declined to comment ahead of the court case.
Cpl Vaughan was one of the most seriously injured British soldiers of the Afghan campaign, with doctors so sure he would not survived the trip home, they pinned an obituary to his bag.
But he survived his transfer home, where his family were told he might be in a 'vegetative' state for the rest of his life.
Following treatment at Birmingham’s Selly Oak Hospital, the Royal Hospital London and at Headley Court rehabilitation centre in Surrey, he made a recovery.
Speaking about her husband's condition in 2011, his wife said: 'He's got his personality back, all the things the doctors said he would not get back.'
She said his dream was to stand in the pub with his friends at a commando reunion.
Devoted Dad has spent £450,000 just to watch his beloved son grow up
"The court system is so heavily-weighted towards the mum, I felt like I didn't get a look-in really.
Stuart Whipps travels to Cyprus every fortnight to see son Charlie, now nine, after his ex-wife Chrys Faulla returned there with him
A dad has spent £450,000 in the last seven years to watch his son grow up.
Stuart Whipps travels to Cyprus every fortnight to see son Charlie, now nine, after his ex-wife Chrys Faulla returned there with him.
On top of the £450,000 for flights, hotels and legal fees Stuart, who was forced to sell his IT firm, has paid £150,000 in maintenance.
Stuart, 37, of Reading, Berks, who has remarried said: “All I want is to be a part of my son's life.
"Since the day he was born, I have felt such a strong connection to him and I will pay whatever it takes to be the best father I can be.
"I've been left in debt and worked so many hours I had a heart attack, but it was all worth it.
"There is nothing I wouldn't do to make my son happy, even if it bankrupts me."
The devoted dad now works part-time as an investment banker so he can work remotely from Cyprus.
In all, he says he has made over 190 trips to Cyprus and thinks nothing of spending £2,000 each time he goes.
He has also spent £60,000 on legal fees over the years.
He added: "I've crippled myself financially, but I don't care - I want to be a part of my son's life growing up.
"The court system is so heavily-weighted towards the mum, I felt like I didn't get a look-in really.
Now married to Hayley, 44, a full-time mum, Stuart has one daughter with her Sophia, three, and a daughter from a previous relationship, Poppy, six.
He has fought to keep their close-knit family in contact with Charlie - and has flown the entire family out to Cyprus so they can meet him.
Stuart said: "My son spent every day with me until age of 18 months.
"His mother decided to move to Cyprus to which I fought in court and lost.
"To maintain my relationship, I've been put in this position, and there's nothing legally I can do."
Chrys maintained she has Greek-Cypriot heritage, meaning when she was granted the right to take her child to Cyprus.
Stuart said: "I'm pretty much skint now - I don't know what to do.
"On one hand, I want to see my son grow up, but on the other hand, I can't relocate my family 2,000 miles away, to a foreign country, away from all their family and friends."
There are men in their millions strewn across the globe in various states of comatose or dead from facing the rigors of an oppression, so all consuming so evil, that there is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING to compare with the enormity of the pain and suffering men are being forced to endure from the zionist / masonic scum and filth who have manufactured a system that enriches their pockets while destroying the men they target.
Their media daily, paint a picture of foreign war zones while ignoring the psychological battlefields much closer to home that have been created by psychopaths for one reason only and that is to enrich the cult they sell their souls to on the back of the men they thieve from on the grandest of scales and on a daily basis. The mindset that created these powers are truly fucked in the head.
If employees could claim that their employer raised their voice to them during their employment and could pursue claims that then allowed the payment of a salary for the rest of their lives there would be few companies still operating as they would ALL be shut down due to being bankrupt.
But that is precisely the system the legal mafia have created that allows women and their legal minders to manufacture smear campaigns to walk away from the marriage contract yet the ex-husband is then made liable for the long term financial burden towards an ex wife who can live off the spoils of a very warped system of what these evil bastards class as justice.
So why are these lawyers and judges who control this mayhem ruthlessly using these unchecked powers to destroy men? Simply this is the most
lucrative racket on the planet. NOTHING comes close to the ease with which freemason judges can sign a man's life's work away than the divorce contract. No matter how much wealth and estate a man can create in his lifetime these evil bastards have the total monopoly of where that wealth can be redistributed and while they CLAIM to be assisting the poor wee wifey most of the stolen wealth ends up in the hands of the scum who are lining their own pockets and the satanic cult they sell their soul to. The number one devil worshipper , the Duke of Kent, acts in the best interests of Britain's royal mafia whose tentacles reach right across the globe in an unending murderous campaign of death and destruction that knows no bounds.
While the sheeple are heavily distracted by the media they totally control, that murder and mayhem continues unabated and only by waking up the young men as yet to be dragged into this evil system and by totally changing the goals of men and how to avoid what is the most sinister madness that wont change until men STOP playing into their system. That means avoiding marriage and having children which is usually the normal course men are biologically programmed to go down but in effect leaves the SYSTEM wide open to abuse those men under the guise of some sort of justification for protecting women's rights while smashing every right men end up losing and the burden of the massive debts that accrue from the deviants manipulating the law to steal with impunity.
The system wont change until men change the habits of a lifetime that will force the political and legal mafia, who conjured up these abhorrent laws,
to stop the murderous campaigns against men that have not signed up to their evil satanic cult but who have paid an enormous cost of the greed, rape and pillage that will continue unless men en masse waken up to what is going on everywhere they have those tentacles heavily embedded in the population and in every country across the globe.
The domestic violence ruse that's costing men trillions
There is hardly a couple on the planet that don't argue and fight during their marriage and yet that is what freemasons use as an excuse to seize the assets of men right across the globe. There are criminal laws to protect anyone who is genuinely being harmed and with a high standard of proof required to ensure anyone accused of violence can put their case before a jury.
However the zionist / freemasons who control the judges and lawyers running family courts for their own self enrichment don't bother with all those safeguards all they need is some hearsay evidence from a crooked lawyer on massive legal aid payments and the judge rubber stamps the removal of a man from his home, his children and his bank account.
The media, totally controlled by media lawyers, ensures a massive propaganda campaign on domestic violence continues on an endless loop to brainwash the sheeple into believing that any man robbed of his life deserves the punishment, while the satanic cult of freemasonry and its global patron Britain's royal parasite Queen Lizzie just keep getting richer on the back of maybe the most evil lies that are destroying and psychologically killing men far more than all their pseudo terrorist scams that are blinding the public from seeing a much bigger picture.
The BBC are the main purveyors of the feminist lies and filth that are being used to steal children away from the biological protection of their fathers with corrupt judges and lawyers manufacturing the legal machinations that then remove them into care homes where BBC predatory paedo's like Jimmy Savile can satisfy their perverted lust for already vulnerable children. The masonic cop mafia turn a blind eye to the massive establishment paedo network that has jewish lawyers like Greville Janner getting away with murder with the crown prosecution service refusing to charge and jail the homopaedo's who are responsible for manufacturing and enforcing the very laws children are being stolen under.
Sick and sinister how the British establishment, even to this day with the massive changes in technology, think they can STILL get away with their perversions and massive fraud and corruption indefinitely.
The so called DV promoters (many politicians, lawyers and judges) are also voting for wars across the Middle East where women are being murdered in their millions. DV is a multi-billion dollar racket
and the most lucrative scam on the planet to smear men and then the freemasons help themselves to their worldly possessions.
These evil bastards will, in time, face the wrath of the men they think they can destroy with impunity.
Divorce Industrial Complex tries to tighten its grip to appease golddiggers VIDEO
Divorcee hunting for £400m fortune of death plunge tycoon chased for £11m by investors who bankrolled her
The bastards who invested their money in divorcing women who hounded depressed ex-husband Scot Young to suicide.
The ex-wife of Scot Young, the bankrupt property tycoon who fell to his death, who is searching for the £400million fortune she believes he hid from her during a bitter divorce battle now faces being sued for millions herself.
Mother-of-two Michelle Young, 50, who was embroiled in a seven-year court battle with her estranged husband over what she claimed was his huge fortune, now faces being taken to court by the investors who helped to fund her case.
Mr Young, 52, fatally fell on to railings outside a luxury flat in Montagu Square, Marylebone, in central London, last December in what witnesses described as a 'grisly' and 'brutal' scene.
Now, in an astonishing twist Mrs Young's investors are demanding that she pay back £11.2million which they claim she owes them - and which they allege she used to fund her 'champagne lifestyle.'
The Telegraph reports that the investors will send her a 'pre-action' letter giving notice of their intention to sue this week.
But Mrs Young denies the allegation and said she will fight them in court.
The group is made up of 100 investors who each contributed towards the cost of Mrs Young's legal battle and the hunt for her ex-husband's assets - in what is believed to be one of the first cases where investors paid for divorce litigation in the hope of profiting from the resulting judgement.
But the group claim that instead of using their money to pay for her legal costs she instead used some of the money for what they described as her 'champagne lifestyle'.
They also claim she has repeatedly turned down the opportunity to take a settlement of £26m which she could have used to repay her investors.
As a result, the group say Mrs Young has spent even more money pursuing the £400million she says her estranged husband hid in offshore accounts before his death.
Ash Edwards, 45, a businessman who says he lent Mrs Young more than £100,000 to pursue her case against Mr Young, told The Telegraph Mrs Young 'portrayed herself as a victim'.
He said he saw the divorce as an investment opportunity which would help a woman who had been 'deceived by a rich man.
He said: 'She needed money to prove what Scot Young had done and we funded her to do that, with the obvious anticipation of getting a return on our investment.
'But as the years have gone by we have seen no progress made on getting back our investment.'
'We had reached the position where we could enforce the divorce settlement against Scot Young's assets, but she refused to do that.
'We've even offered her a settlement, reducing the amount she owes us, but she has refused.'
Mr Edwards added that some investors were now suffering financially because of Mrs Young's refusal to pay them back.
The investors claim that in refusing to accept the £26million, Mrs Young is in breach of contract.
They say this means she now owes them £11.2m - and claim that when they offered to halve that amount, to £6.2million, she still refused to pay up.
Mrs Young said she would fight the accusations and said she 'utterly refutes' the allegations.
She added that as Mr Young was declared bankrupt in 2010 she has 'not received a penny' of the judgement awarded to her in November 2013.
The Youngs separated in 2006 after starting a relationship in 1989.
Mrs Young battled for more than seven years to secure half of her former husband’s fortune.
But Mr Young claimed that he was penniless after losing all his money in disastrous property deals.
He was even jailed for six months for contempt of court during his high-profile matrimonial row.
Mrs Young has now set up a foundation, named after her, with a group of other divorcees to help women during divorce settlements.
It has been revealed this week that Britain’s highest court will be asked to end spouses lying and hiding their wealth to avoid costly divorce settlements.
Even lawyers can't escape the divorce industrial complex
Ex-wife used a platoon of lawyers to screw a former husband with over £1m in legal fees
Russian-born Ekaterina Fields, 42, thanked her vast legal team after the favourable outcome against estranged lawyer husband Richard Fields
A former beauty queen embroiled in a multi-million pound divorce cash battle with her estranged millionaire husband has thanked her lawyers after a judge bemoaned the way more than £1 million in legal bills had been run up during the dispute.
Russian-born Ekaterina Fields, 42, today listed all her solicitors and barristers by name in a six-paragraph statement following a ruling by a High Court judge in London.
Mrs Fields thanked her “legal team” and “close family and friends” for “their unwavering counsel, support and love” in a statement issued by a public relations consultant she had employed following the end of the latest round of her dispute with Richard Fields - an American lawyer.
Her 59-year-old estranged husband - who earns more than £1 million a year and who had also employed a public relations consultant - left court without comment.
Mr Justice Holman had raised concerns about the amount the pair had spent on lawyers after deciding who should get what share of assets totalling around £6 million.
The judge said that when all assets had been taken into account, Mrs Fields would be left with a share of about £3.3 million and Mr Fields about £2.6 million.
He said Mrs Fields would get a £1.2 million lump sum and maintenance payments of £320,000 a year.
The judge, who had made several unsuccessful attempts to persuade the pair to settle differences and avoid a public “boxing match”, said the money spent on lawyers could have been “better deployed”.
He said he had striven to reach an outcome fair to both and added: “There are no winners and no losers.”
And, after lawyers for Mr Fields said they were considering an appeal, he urged the pair not to stage more court fights.
Mr Justice Holman had heard evidence at a trial in the Family Division of the High Court in London last month.
The judge was told that Mr Fields and Mrs Fields had been married for about a decade, had two children and had lived in New York.
He heard that Mrs Fields now lived in London with the children - and Mr Fields had homes in New York and Miami.
Mrs Fields was Mr Fields’ fifth wife, while she had been married once before.
Both told the judge that they hoped to marry again.
A controversial new book argues that the triumph of feminism has meant men are now second-class citizens.
On Saturday, in our first extract, it laid bare how men are abused, belittled and exploited. Today, it shows how men are treated unfairly in marriage and fatherhood.
George Clooney, Benedict Cumberbatch and Eddie Redmayne may have all taken the plunge recently — but they are a diminishing band of brothers, for the number of men marrying in the West has plunged in recent decades.
The state of matrimony is not just ailing. It is dying out faster than a mobile phone battery.
According to the Office for National Statistics, marriage in Britain is at its lowest level since 1895. In 2011, there were just 286,634 ceremonies — a 41 per cent free fall from 1972, when 480,285 couples tied the knot.
For an army of women, Mr Right is simply not there, no matter how hard they look for him. And the reason? When it comes to marriage, men are on strike.
Why? Because the rewards are far less than they used to be, while the cost and dangers it presents are far greater.
‘Ultimately, men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,’ says Dr Helen Smith, author of Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood And The American Dream.
‘They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.
‘Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.’
When British businessman Alan Miller married his first wife, Melissa, in 2003, he thought it was for ever. She immediately decided to give up work, including her £85,000 salary, to become what is known as a ‘Harvey Nichols wife’ — spending her time shopping and lunching.
When they separated just two years and nine months later, he was forced to pay her a £5million divorce settlement, which included his £2.3million home in Chelsea and a £2.7million lump sum — despite the fact they did not have children. That’s £5,000 a day of marriage. Ker-ching!
Or take former Arsenal footballer Ray Parlour. When he wed girlfriend Karen in 1998, it all started out rosy. But by the time the relationship fell apart in 2004, the former optician’s nurse didn’t just get two mortgage-free houses, £38,500 in annual support for their three children and a £250,000 tax-free lump sum...
Oh no. She also got personal maintenance of £406,500 a year from her ex’s future earnings. This, she said, was because she had ‘encouraged’ him to be a good midfielder.
This is precisely why the WAG culture rages through our country like an aggressive disease. Girls of 16 aspire to be glamorous girlfriends because it’s an easy life — not because they love the game or even the men playing it.
Young women who wear so much make-up they have to tip their heads back to get their eyes open are encouraged to hunt in packs until they snag a rich footballer.
Why? Because it beats getting up at 7am, doing the daily commute and actually thinking about something other than themselves.
And then, when the marriage is over, it’s time for the wife to make what Mayfair-based divorce lawyer Camilla Baldwin calls ‘some real money — more than the average person ever dreams of’. Especially as some judges, particularly those in London, are renowned for favouring the wife in the division of assets.
So, what’s a man to do? ‘If he’s determined to get married, then he must get a pre-nuptial agreement,’ says Baldwin. ‘Otherwise steer clear altogether.
‘Be in a relationship, even live together. But don’t get married. Especially if you have any prospect of making money.’
American social commentator Suzanne Venker agrees. The problem with divorce settlements, she says, is women want to have their cake and eat it.
‘We messed with the old marriage structure and now it’s broken,’ she says. ‘Back in the old days, stay-at-home mothers got a financial reward because child-rearing doesn’t pay cash.
‘Now we want total independence from men, but if we divorce — even without having children — we expect to get alimony for ever. We can’t have it both ways.’
Along with the prospect of endless domestic criticism, this is why men are saying ‘I don’t’ rather than ‘I do’. Men need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.
‘Many women have been raised to think of men as the enemy,’ says Venker. ‘It’s precisely this dynamic — women good, men bad — that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes.
‘After decades of browbeating, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s their fault. The rise of women has not threatened men. It has just irritated them.’
But by far the most negative aspect of marriage is the likelihood of being edited out of your children’s lives — if it all goes pear-shaped — by a state that has relegated the role of father to its lowest point ever.
It wasn’t always this way. In the 1800s, men typically got custody of the children in the event of a split — not as a result of privilege, but because they were solely financially responsible for them.
They got the children, but they also got the bill. Benefits Britain didn’t exist, encouraging single mums to go it alone.
Now, 200 years on, women get the children, but men still get the bill. Sometimes, men even pay for children who aren’t theirs.
The Child Support Agency has 500 cases of paternity fraud a year, where a mother names a man as the biological father of her child, even when she has a good idea he isn’t. And that’s just the cases we know about. According to a YouGov study, 1.2 million men doubt they are the fathers of their partners’ children.
The recent case of Steven Carter, from Devon, is not unusual. The CSA deducted £50,000 from his bank account between 2007 and 2014, even though a DNA test later proved the child in question wasn’t his.
They acknowledged this, but the Department of Work and Pensions still will not refund him because the ‘child’ is now 22, thus an adult, and so the case is officially closed.
Then there’s Mark Webb, who raised his ‘daughter’ for 17 years, only to discover she was not biologically related to him. When he sued his former wife for compensation, county and appeal court judges denied his damages claim, brushing it off as ‘a man’s obligation’. To this day, no British woman has been convicted of paternity fraud.
This set-up is no accident, though. Since Harriet Harman and her pals entered politics, the laws that govern family life have been re-jigged to put women on top and men on the back foot.
They decided that families aren’t society’s natural, balanced building block, but a cunning plot to oppress mothers while placing men in undeserving positions of power (when many men were breaking their backs in jobs they hated to keep everything ticking over).
To avenge this, they squeezed men from the home and hit them where it hurts: the heart.
Don’t believe me? The Children Act of 1989 specifically declares: ‘The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.’
A year later, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research called The Family Way saw Harman declare: ‘It cannot be assumed men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion.’
Even now, the Children and Families Act of 2014 doesn’t mention the word ‘father’ once. Not once.
Sir Bob Geldof was one of the first high-profile men to challenge the legislation after losing access to his daughters Peaches, Pixie and Fifi when Paula Yates left him in 1995.
‘It was beyond expensive,’ he told me. ‘I had to borrow money and was close to losing it all. In the end, my circumstances changed, but it could have been very different.
‘Men still spend thousands getting court orders that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. The whole system is disgusting.
‘I remember a court clerk telling me: “Whatever you do, don’t say you love your children. Family courts consider men who articulate this as extreme.” It was madness.’
According to the Office for National Statistics, one in three youngsters have no access to their fathers, which equates to four million children in the UK.
But there is a ray of hope, says Dr Craig Pickering, from the charity Families Need Fathers. ‘The Children and Families Act says, for the first time in English law, that both parents should be involved in a child’s life after divorce,’ he says.
‘The trouble is that its effectiveness depends on what the judges make of it. It wouldn’t be the first time that they came up with their own bizarre interpretation of something straightforward.’
Pickering says sanctions should be imposed on mothers who fail to co-operate, such as passports and driving licences being confiscated.
‘The Government consulted on this, but stopped mid-way through,’ he says. ‘We don’t know why.’
I put this to Edward Timpson, Minister for Children and Families. Eventually, I was told by the Ministry of Justice: ‘The consultation concluded we should not introduce further punitive enforcement elements. There are already punishments available.’
Hmm. Perhaps someone needs to tell them they don’t work.
Considering that the annual cost of family breakdown is reportedly £44billion — that’s more than the defence budget — you’d think curing fatherlessness would be a priority for a country haemorrhaging money. But it isn’t.
Instead, everyone is petrified of inadvertently apportioning blame to single mothers, even though it’s not about them. Only recently, in a bid to woo the female vote, David Cameron said deadbeat dads ‘should be looked at like drink drivers’, yet said nothing about the mothers who deliberately steer them off the road.
Here we had the head of the Government telling men to raise children properly, yet offering a law that actively keeps children and fathers apart as the solution. So much for family values.
Meanwhile, single-parent organisations such as Gingerbread — supported by children’s author J. K. Rowling of all people — casually dismiss studies that suggest a lack of male role models at home increases the likelihood of crime and mental illness.
This is despite a study conducted by Oxford University, which followed 20,000 children from 1958 and found those with a father were far less likely to break the law or suffer from psychological issues. Young boys with involved fathers also performed better at school.
Dr Paul Ramchandani, of Imperial College London, conducted a study that found ‘disengaged and remote father-child interactions as early as the third month of life’ often lead to behaviour problems in children when they are older.
The logic is simple — not having a father leaves a hole in the soul.
A void that young people frequently fill with drugs, alcohol or intimacy. This might not sit well in the feminist family framework, but sometimes the truth hurts.
In 2012, the substance misuse charity Addaction published a report that proved father deficit to be real, causing anger, self-loathing, addiction and identity issues.
It saw young men compensate with a ‘counterfeit masculinity’ of strength, anger and violence, often combined with sexual prowess.
Meanwhile, young women ‘act out a skewed version of femininity that prioritises the use of sex and relationships with men above all else’.
Cruelly, this creates the cycle all over again, with teenagers jumping into bed with each other without a thought for the consequences.
The Trust for the Study of Adolescence recently proved scores of teenage girls in Britain are deliberately becoming young mothers as a career move because, with the state and the father contributing, it offers more guaranteed security than a job.
Even 13-year-old girls admitted this, which might explain why Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, at an annual government cost of nearly £63million.
Perhaps the law-makers need to think about radical action to break the cycle. Maybe men could be allowed to have a financial abortion from a child to which they didn’t pre-consent.
In a specified time — say, legal abortion guidelines — men could be allowed to formally relinquish all monetary obligations, rights and responsibilities if duped into fatherhood. The woman still wants to proceed? Fine, that’s her choice. But not on his salary.
Controversial? Yes. But overnight we would see fewer acts of conception by deception. And that can only be a good thing — for men and for society.
TV MAKES MEN LOOK LIKE IDIOTS
Men have long been considered aggressors and threats to the safety of children, but getting it wrong is a human trait, not a male defect.
In fact, in the past few years, some high- profile perpetrators of child abuse have been women: Karen Matthews, who staged the kidnap of her daughter Shannon; Amanda Hutton, whose son’s mummified body was found two years after he died; and Baby P’s mother Tracey Connelly.
‘There is absolutely no magic ingredient that women have when it comes to being parents,’ says Adrienne Burgess from the Fatherhood Institute. ‘Men are equally innately hard-wired to care for children.
‘The only difference is that the rest of the world thinks they’re dangerous, uninterested and lacking skills mothers are born with. That is a total myth.’
The problem is exacerbated by the way fathers are portrayed in countless films and TV shows as being utterly inept and untrustworthy. Off the top of my head, I can cite Men Behaving Badly, Last Of The Summer Wine, The Simpsons, Everybody Loves Raymond and Friends as examples, plus Three Men And A Baby — the highest-grossing box office hit of 1987.
WE DO HAVE LESS SEX AFTER MARRIAGE
Think your wedding day will be the happiest day of your life, chaps? You may need to think again. The quantity — and quality — of sex dwindles after marriage, say researchers.
A recent survey of 3,000 couples found those who had sex four times a week before their wedding did the deed just once a week afterwards.
Then there’s the cost of bankrolling the average wedding — a burden that is increasingly falling on couples rather than their parents.
It’s not called the ‘big day’ for nothing; the latest stats say you’ll need to have saved up around £18,000 to pay the bills.
For the same amount, though, you could get an amazing holiday with first-class flights round the world, a nice car, a deposit on an apartment or a wardrobe of Savile Row suits.
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Laws ostensibly designed to protect women
and children have a hidden agenda -
destroying marriage and emasculating men.
by Rahul Manchanda and Henry Makow Ph.D.
In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery by enacting the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.
However, it only took then-President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Joseph Biden a stroke of a pen in 1995 to reinstate slavery with their Federal Child Support Enforcement Act. This act stated that even if you lose your job, lose your legs, or become a paraplegic, you will be sent to jail. Your licenses (driver, professional) will be taken away from you without even the need for a trial.
In addition, the 1994 Violence Against Women's Act ("VAWA") mandates men to be arrested at anytime for anything a woman says (even if there is no evidence). The court system and police departments act in concert to torture, punish, and assist in extortion/blackmail operation completely suspending men's civil, human, and constitutional rights. This law undermines the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
Twenty years after the enactment of these bills, the effect on the American people are as follows:
(1) More men have been arrested and thrown into jail by women who made false complaints. Those women were often con-artists, hookers, drug addicts, organized criminals, foreign spies, or agents for federal and state law enforcement.
(2) Fewer young men in their 20s want to get married for fear that their wives might destroy their lives taking everything they worked for with just one emotionally charged 911 phone call.
(3) Young women in their 20s find it more difficult to find eligible men to marry them anymore, pushing them into promiscuity desperately trapping men with babies in order to get a child support check in lieu of a relationship.
(4) Women in America have been forced to turn to criminals, thugs, drug dealers, pimps, and other jailbirds to find a stable male figure dramatically INCREASING domestic violence, disease, babies born out of wedlock, poverty, societal alienation, slavery, and other social ills.
VAWA has done a lot more HARM than good in America by giving 51% of the population 100% better human/civil rights than the other 49%.
A federal law that makes one class of people superior to another class of people with "special protected status" violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which states that all people in America are created equal and no one has more or less rights than anyone else.
This social experimentation is funded and lead by George Sorus' front groups like Safe Horizon, Sanctuary for Families, National Organization of Women.
VAWA has turned American women against men and destroyed the basic family unit by criminalizing the marital disagreement. It reduces once proud and strong men (and now women) into sniveling, cowardly individuals whose only path to marital peace is to assume the fetal position while their mate abuses them, never daring to stand up to them as human nature requires.
The Freemasons / Illuminati / Establishment have learned to stop people with ideas of changing the status quo or system. by branding them as either a terrorist, spousal abuser, child molester, deadbeat father, or some other horrible stigma.
Federal Judge named Alexander Kozinski, left, a known and committed Communist, born and raised in Romania, the land of Communist Dictator Killer Nicolae Ceausescu, Vlad Dracula, and Jozef Stalin, in US v Ballek held that these laws don't violate the Thirteenth Amendment. These laws are responsible for jailing millions of innocent American men who fell on hard times and couldn't pay, or were tricked, duped, drugged, or conned into child support slavery for 21 years.
The Freemasons /Illuminati brought back slavery and debtors prisons under the guise of "protecting children" by shaming men while rewarding con-artist biological mothers with weekly checks for life. The family court system bends over backwards to assist them in humiliating, shaming, torturing, enslaving, and otherwise chaining those poor hapless men who found themselves in the cross-hairs of a larger sinister international plot to enslave mankind using the "welfare of children" as their emotional excuse.
Court dismisses wife's appeal for MORE money after 'winning' $1billion in divorce
She'd already cashed her check so it's too late
Sue Ann Arnall, the ex-wife of Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm, lost an appeal of the couple's divorce case because she had cashed a check worth nearly $1 billion, the state Supreme Court said on Tuesday.
In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled in favor of a motion filed in January by Hamm, chief executive officer of oil company Continental Resources Inc, to dismiss Arnall's appeal. Earlier that month, Arnall had cashed Hamm's check for $975 million, the vast majority of the lower court's award in the case.
The majority of the justices said Arnall also took possession of the marital property awarded to her. Those actions, the court ruled, caused her to forfeit her right to appeal the judgment.
In January, Hamm also appealed the lower court decision, saying the judgment was excessive. In its ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court allowed his appeal to proceed despite dismissing Arnall's.
Craig Box, a lawyer for Hamm, said he had not read the opinion yet.
Last November, an Oklahoma district court ordered Hamm to pay his ex-wife about $1 billion in cash and assets when the couple divorced after a 26-year marriage. The check for $975 million that Arnall cashed represented the entire balance owed by Hamm, according to the court's decision.
But Arnall said the earlier ruling allowed Hamm to keep the vast majority of a marital estate worth up to $18 billion. She had sought an award of billions more.
The Hamm case began in 2012 and concluded after a 2-1/2 month trial last November. The judgment was among the largest ever in a U.S. divorce.
In a separate but concurring opinion, two justices wrote that they viewed the majority's decision to allow Hamm's appeal to continue as 'fundamentally unfair.'
In a dissenting opinion, two other justices wrote that barring Arnall from appealing because she accepted the $1 billion judgment was a 'draconian approach.'
Arnall made it clear from the start she believed the marital wealth she was entitled to had been grossly undervalued.
The only spouse to ever score a bigger settlement in the United States was Jocelyn Wildenstein, who reportedly received $2.5billion after splitting with her businessman and art dealer husband Alec in 1999.
During the trial it was argued that Continental’s growth stemmed mostly from passive factors, such as rising oil prices, and, under Oklahoma law, only the 'active' portion of wealth accrued during marriage in previously acquired assets is subject to division.
Miss Arnall’s lawyers contend however that Judge Haralson miscalculated what was due to her by attributing only a small portion of a $14billion rise in the value of Mr. Hamm's Continental shares during the marriage - 6 percent.
Miss Arnall, who worked as a lawyer for Continental when she and Mr. Hamm married, and went on to take a series of executive roles at the company, also claims that Judge Haralson undervalued her own contributions to the couple’s wealth.
Most estimates have stated that Continental Resources was worth around $50million in 1988 when the couple married, which is just a drop in the well when compared to the $20billion behemoth it is today. A behemoth that Mr. Hamm has a 68 percent stake in, a stake he lost none of in the divorce as it was determined to be 'separate property.'
You are here because you are thinking about getting married. Perhaps one of your friends did you a favor, and sent you here. If you are going to be the higher-earner spouse in the marriage, then this article is for you.
Taking the Plunge
Before you take the plunge there are a few things about marriage that you need to be aware of. The institution of marriage as we know it is no more. It has undergone drastic changes in the last 50 years. What used to be a life long commitment, unbreakable barring the most severe circumstances, has been relegislated into something entirely new thanks to the lobbying efforts of radical feminists and the divorce industry. In trying to to make divorce “fail-safe” for homemaker / lower-earner spouses, the bad ones included, they have made marriage “unsafe” for virtually everyone else.
Marriage today is a temporary union of two individuals where the exit costs are highly asymmetrical. What does that mean? It means that upon the dissolution of the marriage, one spouse generally makes off like a bandit, while the other is pushed into a life of unending poverty, abridged civil rights, and being two paychecks away from arrears, contempt, and prison.
If someone is made to suffer like that upon the divorce, you probably think that he/she deserved it. Perhaps they were a terrible spouse? Perhaps they cheated? If only this was so. Karma, you see, has nothing to do with it. That was the case during the olden days of “fault-only” divorce when the spouse who was at fault for wrecking the marriage got penalized during the divorce. With those old divorces , if the at-fault party was the higher-earning spouse, they were made to pay alimony and surrender many marital assets over to the wronged party. Similarly, if the at-fault party was the homemaker/lower-earner spouse, then they were made to forfeit any alimony and forced to accept a smaller share of the martial assets. Morality was a big factor in who made out better and who made out worse.
Enter Marriage 2.0
During the second half of the 20th century all of the ground rules governing marriage were changed. The laws were changed to such an extent that that we can no longer call it “marriage” as it was known through the millennia. We have to distinguish this mutated institution with a new name. We will call it Marriage 2.0.
Today all that stuff about the moral carrot and stick is out of the window. Basically the higher-earner spouse is always at-fault (i.e. made to hand over assets and pay alimony), and the lower-earner spouse is always the “innocent one” (i.e. gets most of the assets and a cut of the ex’s future salaries). It doesn’t matter if the lower-earner spouse was the one having an affair or is the one filing the divorce. Therein lies the problem with modern family laws. You can be the best breadwinner spouse in the world, take good care of your family, and stay true to your marriage vows, and you will still get shafted in the divorce. It’s a suckers bet for the good guy (or the good gal).
Here are some things working against you, when you are the primary breadwinner spouse within Marriage 2.0, and your spouse decides to walk out (cash out?) on you:
1. Women Filing Majority of Divorces – 66-75% of all divorces are now filed by wives. Publications like Cosmo love to harp on men for having a “fear of commitment”. Guys must ask themselves, why commit when it’s the other party who can’t live up to the commitment 3/4 of the time?
2. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.
3. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudalently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.
4. Decriminalization of Adultery – Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.
5. Losing Custody of Children – Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.
6. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?
7. Children as Cashcows – The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.
8. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party breaking the contract gets paid, and the innocent party gets punished? Only in Marriage 2.0!
9. One Sided Alimony: Ok so the ex-wife got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make the ex-husband pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things the ex-husband got used to? Do men have a right to be “accustomed” to stuff too? If not, why not? Shouldn’t there be some sort of reciprocal reverse-alimony payment by the ex-wife in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services for the ex-husband? How come one spouse is obligated to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and the other isn’t obligated to provide anything? (see the Chris Rock clip below)
10. Lifetime Alimony – Contrary to common belief, Alimony isn’t on its way out. There was a period in the 1970’s when no-fault laws were first enacted when a few states put limitations on how/when it could be awarded. However since then there have been a concerted effort by powers that be such as the influential American Law Institute (ALI) for bringing alimony back in a big way. Here is a New York Times article covering the release of a landmark 2002 ALI report which recommended broadening and deepening alimony awards across all 50 states. Right on queue there are now reports of alimony horror stories coming out from many states where the breadwinner ex-spouses are ordered to pay lifetime alimony.
There are also cases like the on in this Wall Street Journal article where long settled divorce cases are re-opened and modified under the new pro-alimony paradigms. Paul Taylor featured in the WSJ story had his ex-wife take him back to court in 2009, three decades after their original 1982 divorce when both parties had agreed to waive all past/present/future alimony. The court reversed that original 1982 divorce judgement and awarded lifetime alimony to the ex-wife. It was ordered that this new alimony be deducted out of Paul Taylor’s pension and paid monthly to a woman he hadn’t even seen in three decades. Mr Taylor is now in bankruptcy and can look forward to spending his golden years working as a Greeter in Wal-Mart.
11. Paternity Fraud – If you didn’t catch right away that your kids aren’t really your kids but instead were “sired” by some guy that your wife was having an affair with, you are out of luck in most states. What’s worse if your cheating wife divorces you, you can bring the DNA tests to court, and you will still be forced to pay 18-23 years of child support for these kids who are some other guy’s spawn. Read this case of the Toronto man forced to pay child-support for twins that even the court acknowledged are not his but ordered him to keep paying anyway. In no other area of the law do we punish the innocent victim for the conduct of two other people
Even more shocking is this New York Times article about a Pennsylvania man ordered to keep paying child support after his adulterous wife divorced him, and married the very guy she had the affair and conceived the child with. Today the bio-father, the ex-wife, and their bio-child live together under a single roof as a biologically intact family and guess who is still paying them monthly child support? Yes, the cuckold ex-husband still has to pay every month or go to jail. You can’t make this stuff up. Even cuckold porn doesn’t get this vile.
Marriage 2.0 is a very unequal contract where the legal power balance both within the marriage and after the divorce is heavily biased against the primary breadwinner. Given that this is today’s legal reality why would you want to sign such a one sided contract? There are simply no benefits in marriage for the primary breadwinner under these Marriage 2.0 rules. None whatsoever. Ask yourself now: “What is in it for me?”. If the above hasn’t yet convinced you to avoid this mutated institution that has become a a giant legal trap, then you owe it to yourself to keep learning more about the risks of saying “I do”.
A great place to start learning more is the Don’t Marry Blog. Also be sure to check out this colorful piece explaining why Marriage = Fraud.