It appears you have not registered with our community. To register please click here ...

!!

Welcome to Russian Women Discussion - the most informative site for all things related to serious long-term relationships and marriage to a partner from the Former Soviet Union countries!

Please register (it's free!) to gain full access to the many features and benefits of the site. Welcome!

+-

Author Topic: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...  (Read 34435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fathertime

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9864
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: Married > 10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #200 on: March 13, 2013, 06:04:30 PM »
Hi Paulie,  I'm glad you decided not to reward this poor behavior from this lady.  The more you wrote the worse she sounded.  I wouldn't want to live with such a pain in the butt, because life is just too damn short. 

Have you ever considered visiting Asian women also? 

Fathertime! 
I just happened to be browsing about the internet....

Online Faux Pas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10232
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #201 on: March 13, 2013, 06:38:28 PM »
Please explain further your comment  "they are not YOUR women."

Paulie, Fashionista might be saying (correct me if I am wrong) the kind of fish that you catch can be directly attributed to the bait that you use.

Offline BillyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16105
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #202 on: March 13, 2013, 07:07:33 PM »

I am unsure if she will give me up or not.  She now knows I am not going along with her plan and her bad behavior. 



Of course she's not going to give up. Although you did not know how to take care of her, you did give her something and something is better than nothing.


Get rid of her in the FSU way. Say a short simple goodbye and never look back. Don't think of this being rude. You will be educating her.


Now onto bigger and better things. Manlooking has a good list of sites to contact RW. Contact thousands and narrow it down. I did and found a gem.


Fund the audits, spread the word and educate people, write your politicians and other elected officials. Stay active in the fight to save our country. Over 220 generals and admirals say we are in a fight for our survival like no other time since 1776.

Offline BillyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16105
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #203 on: March 13, 2013, 07:33:19 PM »
No, most of my clients are already married.  But if a client of wealth is going into a second marriage, yes, I do advise them to get prenups, and if a client asked if it was a good idea from a legal perspective, I would say yes. 



I was under the impression you were against prenups because you agreed with people who called it evil and for people in love with their money more than their spouse.


Although the forum members here aren't paying customers or real life friends and family, you should have give out this quality advice earlier. Although you state the advice is from a legal perspective, it's still good advice at a minimum because the legal system can make it unfair for one party or destroy both parties financially.


I've spoken with attorneys and a spiritual leader about this topic before and they all agree a prenup is a good thing. Considering they deal with a lot of people's problems and pain, I believe them.


If a man or woman won the lottery or became the next Donald Trump, he/she will be a target for insincere people. A prenup may help them ensure their partner is marrying for love and will get nothing more than a fair split in assets if things don't work out.


Some people own businesses and if an ugly divorce happens, the business dissolves and people lose their jobs. A prenup can help prevent that since more lives are involved than just two.


What does prenup mean? Prenuptial AGREEMENT.  Most normal people talk and have agreements before marriage. They talk about what they own and their responsibilities in marriage and who assumes those responsibilities. My wife told me she loves me for me and doesn't need anything I owned and earned before marriage. I did not put her words in writing in a prenup but I don't blame others for doing so or question their love for their spouse.


In essence most of us do a prenup written or verbal. Of course there are people out there that don't talk about critical things before marriage but they will have to sort it all out during and after marriage if it comes to that point.
Fund the audits, spread the word and educate people, write your politicians and other elected officials. Stay active in the fight to save our country. Over 220 generals and admirals say we are in a fight for our survival like no other time since 1776.

Offline Patagonie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3257
  • Country: fr
  • Gender: Male
  • >25 travels
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 3-5 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #204 on: March 14, 2013, 01:52:09 AM »

I was under the impression you were against prenups because you agreed with people who called it evil and for people in love with their money more than their spouse.


Although the forum members here aren't paying customers or real life friends and family, you should have give out this quality advice earlier. Although you state the advice is from a legal perspective, it's still good advice at a minimum because the legal system can make it unfair for one party or destroy both parties financially.


I've spoken with attorneys and a spiritual leader about this topic before and they all agree a prenup is a good thing. Considering they deal with a lot of people's problems and pain, I believe them.


If a man or woman won the lottery or became the next Donald Trump, he/she will be a target for insincere people. A prenup may help them ensure their partner is marrying for love and will get nothing more than a fair split in assets if things don't work out.


Some people own businesses and if an ugly divorce happens, the business dissolves and people lose their jobs. A prenup can help prevent that since more lives are involved than just two.


What does prenup mean? Prenuptial AGREEMENT.  Most normal people talk and have agreements before marriage. They talk about what they own and their responsibilities in marriage and who assumes those responsibilities. My wife told me she loves me for me and doesn't need anything I owned and earned before marriage. I did not put her words in writing in a prenup but I don't blame others for doing so or question their love for their spouse.


In essence most of us do a prenup written or verbal. Of course there are people out there that don't talk about critical things before marriage but they will have to sort it all out during and after marriage if it comes to that point.
+1
"Je glissais through the paper wall, an angel in the hand, s taboy. I lay on the floor, surgi des chants de Maldoror, je mix l'intégrale de mes nuits de crystal, i belong to the festival.

Offline Patagonie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3257
  • Country: fr
  • Gender: Male
  • >25 travels
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 3-5 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #205 on: March 14, 2013, 02:34:45 AM »
Paulie, Fashionista might be saying (correct me if I am wrong) the kind of fish that you catch can be directly attributed to the bait that you use.

Paulie, you are not going to like what i am writing.
The way that you have been raised is not an excuse to shower the money like you are used to.
In the case of the Istambul's lady it would had changed nothing at the end.
But you would have however saved three trips and drop her after the first one.
You would have been really less emotionaly involved because breaking after one week and breaking after eight months is not the same about feelings and the necessary morning.
You perfectly know that your relation with money is one of your failure, you are angry with yourself because you are guilty.

Let me tell you that it will be worst in Ukraine or Russia, i can even tell you how many it will be worst : 10 more. You will deal with women who earn not 3000 or 4000 $ but 300-400 $ generally or close to this numeral.
You need to understand that it's not people who needs to adjust to you and your amazing earning (you are in the top 1% earner of one of the richest country of the world), it is you who need to adjust to them, this is quite different.
You really need to work on this if you date the FSU scene.

I remember a trip report in an other forum of a rich guy who used to rent a personal driver with a Mercedes for each vacation. He was lucky because the interpreter was a good woman. She told him : unless you want to attract all goldiggers, prodaters of the city i would advice you to drop this shit instantly (to tell you the end of the story he did and is quite happy with a family now and her wife is from FSU).
He was lucky because there are thousands of women, interpreters, taxis, restaurants, agencies ready to welcome your generosity.

The woman you have met in Turkey  is low on the lookout scale, but in FSU you will find many people who are better on tricks.


Paulie, you have the chance to have time, and almost unlimited means for such endeavor.
I would advice to contact Jack Bragg or Mark Davies and subscribe to a tour, you will be protected, it will be refreshing for you and you will be with some fellows. Later, you can use Eduard to dig it and give it a more serious perspective (your mourny needs to be done).
I would advice you for the moment to NOT write to any FSU women because you will not survive to a disappointing VO in the next weeks.  The best is to not write to stay in control.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 03:40:22 AM by Patagonie »
"Je glissais through the paper wall, an angel in the hand, s taboy. I lay on the floor, surgi des chants de Maldoror, je mix l'intégrale de mes nuits de crystal, i belong to the festival.

Offline Doll

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4947
  • Country: ru
  • Gender: Female
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #206 on: March 14, 2013, 02:51:38 AM »

I suggest you don't shower people with money particularly if they say you should. Develop friendship. Whatever women you will meet, they are not YOUR women.
I didn't understand it either))

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #207 on: March 14, 2013, 07:29:31 AM »
I'm surprised you would agree with the absolute misrepresentation of what I have posted, Patagonie.


As for not marrying for love, that happens only when you do not know who you are marrying, or it's not important to you because you are marrying a body, not a soul. 




« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 07:40:17 AM by Boethius »
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline Muzh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6842
  • Country: pr
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married > 10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #208 on: March 14, 2013, 07:49:29 AM »

Sending a bouquet is more a feminine thinking, but i would not reward her behavior by sending her a bouquet. I would just tell her" ......

FCUK YOU

LMAO

Pat, you are such a charmer.
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine - The American Crisis 1776-1783

Offline Muzh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6842
  • Country: pr
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married > 10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #209 on: March 14, 2013, 07:53:55 AM »
1.  I am very relieved that you came to a rational decision to end it.  I was really worried about you.


So..., he's not an idiot anymore, eh?  ::)
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine - The American Crisis 1776-1783

Offline TheTraveler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 528
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Married to a Disproportionately Hot Russian Wife
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Married > 10 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #210 on: March 14, 2013, 08:00:33 AM »
my impression has always been (and still is) that prenups are for very wealthy men (or women).  people worth tens or hundreds of $millions.
 
not for men who are deluding themselves into thinking they are wealthy just because their wife-to-be is from a poorer country and only earns a few hundred dollars per month.
 
i never considered a prenup, and i'm glad i didn't.  it would have hung a black cloud over our marriage and lessened the *magic* that we have together.
 
... but that being said, i can understand the viewpoint of men/women who are entering into a second (or third, etc...) marriage, and have children from a prior marriage, and would like to reserve their pre-marital assets (eg business) to pass onto those children rather than be split up (or dissolved) in a divorce.  but in cases where the wife simply outlives the husband, i frankly think the wife should get *everything*.
 
 

Offline Tulip

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Country: ua
  • Gender: Female
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #211 on: March 14, 2013, 08:35:58 AM »
So..., he's not an idiot anymore, eh?  ::)

I would like to ask the same question  :D :D :D

Offline Patagonie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3257
  • Country: fr
  • Gender: Male
  • >25 travels
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 3-5 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #212 on: March 14, 2013, 09:01:31 AM »
I'm surprised you would agree with the absolute misrepresentation of what I have posted, Patagonie.


As for not marrying for love, that happens only when you do not know who you are marrying, or it's not important to you because you are marrying a body, not a soul.
Hi Boethius, i have missed the point, probably you were making a reference to "It is all intertwined.  As both jason and Faux Pas posted, it is all just stuff.   I could not fathom protecting my "stuff" from someone to whom I have entrusted my soul." i suppose (or may you elaborate it please )?
In case that it i would say that my position has not changed :

"The problem of trust and fairness is two totally differents things and should be strictly evaluated apart. It shouldn't be linked at any time."

In the decision given by the judge trust had never been existing as a factor of any sort.
Situation is only judged on health and age of spouses, time under mariage, type of mariage (prenup or not if you prefer), stuff (include here all about money), number of childrens, estimate future pensions of each, debt or mortages.
ONLY that, no sentiment,

The problem is that you can trust what you want the day of the divorce others people with a huge power are involved and they ABSOLUTELY have no compassion, no sentiment, no trust, no misery (fortunately, if judges want to give a fair decision). They only decide on objectives parameters i have described above (they try because it is not easy in fact).
We have here two camps, very similars to believers and non believers. Why the believers refuse to consider the almost 50% of failure ?
I consider for the reasons i have explained (see one of my previous post) that the normal mariage (shared or shared but previous assets or new inheritance excluded) is obsolete due to all the new laws, the trend given by cases law, and a miscealleneous reasons, which are given a clear advantage to women especially when significant amount of money are involved compare to what she would have had in case of single.
It is to men to help themselves and stop to sign these default contracts, especially when they are above the average folk (but even average must do it also).
 
After everybody is free to do what he wants, connected with his convictions, like religion.

But don't bring the question of trust, soul, because damages suffered by single divorced men are not correctly assessed.


"Je glissais through the paper wall, an angel in the hand, s taboy. I lay on the floor, surgi des chants de Maldoror, je mix l'intégrale de mes nuits de crystal, i belong to the festival.

Offline LiveFromUkraine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Looking 1-2 years
  • Trips: None (yet)
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #213 on: March 14, 2013, 09:08:11 AM »
I do however despise anyone's condescending remarks toward someone else's perceived lack of "substantial assets". ML's remarks were OTT.


Not anymore OTT/condescending then people trying to tell others they have trust issues if they think prenups are not bad. 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 09:11:20 AM by LiveFromUkraine »

Online Faux Pas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10232
  • Country: us
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #214 on: March 14, 2013, 09:47:03 AM »

Not anymore OTT/condescending then people trying to tell others they have trust issues if they think prenups are not bad.

Really? Where was that? I must have missed it.

Offline BillyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16105
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #215 on: March 14, 2013, 07:40:12 PM »
my impression has always been (and still is) that prenups are for very wealthy men (or women).  people worth tens or hundreds of $millions.
 


I'd say more people do prenups than don't. It comes in verbal form, not written.


We sometimes here about someones trip report and that they are getting married but there are other elements that aren't talked about here. Say the average guy owns a house and he is marrying a RW that owns a flat. I'm sure they talked about assets and what to do with them before, during marriage, and after marriage. How many guys here own something and/or their RW owned something, talked about marriage and didn't discuss separate assets and what assets will become community assets? Can't stay quite on that issue. Love doesn't provide the answer. Two people in the marriage has to sort it out and come to an agreement.


My wife didn't own any significant assets but if she owned a flat, before marriage I would tell her not to sell it, and in the event the marriage doesn't work, she has a place to go back to. In planning for a divorce, it doesn't mean I or she doesn't trust each other or we don't love each other. If a man loves his woman, he'd think about her having a place to live if the marriage doesn't work out. Maybe a marriage doesn't work out because two people find out they aren't compatible or the lady goes into culture shock permanently.

Fund the audits, spread the word and educate people, write your politicians and other elected officials. Stay active in the fight to save our country. Over 220 generals and admirals say we are in a fight for our survival like no other time since 1776.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #216 on: March 14, 2013, 08:24:03 PM »
Hi Boethius, i have missed the point, probably you were making a reference to "It is all intertwined.  As both jason and Faux Pas posted, it is all just stuff.   I could not fathom protecting my "stuff" from someone to whom I have entrusted my soul." i suppose (or may you elaborate it please )?
In case that it i would say that my position has not changed :

"The problem of trust and fairness is two totally differents things and should be strictly evaluated apart. It shouldn't be linked at any time."

In the decision given by the judge trust had never been existing as a factor of any sort.
Situation is only judged on health and age of spouses, time under mariage, type of mariage (prenup or not if you prefer), stuff (include here all about money), number of childrens, estimate future pensions of each, debt or mortages.
ONLY that, no sentiment,

The problem is that you can trust what you want the day of the divorce others people with a huge power are involved and they ABSOLUTELY have no compassion, no sentiment, no trust, no misery (fortunately, if judges want to give a fair decision). They only decide on objectives parameters i have described above (they try because it is not easy in fact).
We have here two camps, very similars to believers and non believers. Why the believers refuse to consider the almost 50% of failure ?
I consider for the reasons i have explained (see one of my previous post) that the normal mariage (shared or shared but previous assets or new inheritance excluded) is obsolete due to all the new laws, the trend given by cases law, and a miscealleneous reasons, which are given a clear advantage to women especially when significant amount of money are involved compare to what she would have had in case of single.
It is to men to help themselves and stop to sign these default contracts, especially when they are above the average folk (but even average must do it also).
 
After everybody is free to do what he wants, connected with his convictions, like religion.

But don't bring the question of trust, soul, because damages suffered by single divorced men are not correctly assessed.


I think most of us are a little to old to believe in fairness.  However, I do not believe a relationship can endure over time without trust.  Furthermore, as I noted, I have never, ever, seen a couple with a prenup who did not, ultimately, divorce.

The 50% figure for divorce is misleading.  It is calculated by taking the total number of marriages, and the total number of divorces, recorded in a country in a year.  But it does not account for second or third marriages, which have a higher divorce rate than do first marriages, nor common law relationships. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0


I believe you overstate the powers of the courts, and damages suffered by men.  In most North American jurisdictions, any property a man brings into a marriage is his when he leaves.  What is not, pursuant to legislation, is the increase in value of that property.  There is little "screwing" of men in division of assets, generally.  Where men are often treated unfairly is when children are involved.  Typically, a man is the higher income earner, so he will pay a large amount of maintenance for the children.  He will often lose his home to his wife and children, and, if his wife was at home, he often will pay alimony to her until she can retrain to work, often, even longer.  Most of that would be fine, however, often, men's custody rights have been blatantly disregarded by women, in the past, with no consequences to mothers for defying court orders.  That is beginning to change.

Today, I asked my better half what he thinks about prenuptial agreements.  He said he does not care how others choose to live their lives, but to him, it turns a marriage into a business transaction.  It commodifies something that is sacred.

I have to say, I never looked at it this way, but that is, I think, an accurate analysis.  In fact, some prenups include provisions for a woman's weight, how often the couple will have sex (at a minimum), what happens if the man does not provide sufficient income for vacations, if he is not earning $X annually, and so on.   Why not just turn the whole exercise into one of contractual obligation, based on each party's expectation going into a marriage, with the same types of consequences for breaches (pecuniary damages)?  It would make life a lot easier than having to negotiate problems and eventually giving up, would it not? 






« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 08:41:24 PM by Boethius »
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline ML

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11661
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married > 10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #217 on: March 14, 2013, 08:44:16 PM »
I believe you overstate the powers of the courts, and damages suffered by men.  In most North American jurisdictions, any property a man brings into a marriage is his when he leaves. 

This is not true for one case I know of.

The man had inherited a small fortune before marriage.  He never co-mingled this money and in fact never touched it (spent it) at all as he and his wife both had good incomes from the very beginning of their marriage. 

He was intending to set up trusts, etc., so he could pass it on to future grandchildren and do some generation skipping with regard to taxes, but never got around to it.

At divorce proceedings, the judge acknowledged that was separate property of the man but, in view of this large sum . . .

He gave about 90% of the wealth accumulated during the marriage to the wife.

This had the same effect as splitting the accumulated wealth 50/50 and then giving the wife a portion the the man's pre-marriage assets.

Thus, in theory and even looking at specific wording in divorce decrees, it can be made to look like the pre-marriage assets stay separate; while in fact the monetary value of these assets is shared.
A beautiful woman is pleasant to look at, but it is easier to live with a pleasant acting one.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #218 on: March 14, 2013, 08:47:57 PM »
That is why appellate courts exist.
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline calmissile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3236
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #219 on: March 14, 2013, 09:21:26 PM »
That is why appellate courts exist.

The same jackasses exist in the appelate courts and the supreme courts.  It's simply a ladder they climb to get there.  They take their prejudices with them.  Where did  the revisionists come from?  Someone that could not read the original documents (law)?        ;D

BTW few people have the funds to appeal court rulings and verdicts.  Appellate lawyers are extremely expensive.   I know this from personal experience.
Doug (Calmissile)

Offline BillyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16105
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #220 on: March 14, 2013, 09:24:57 PM »

The man had inherited a small fortune before marriage.  He never co-mingled this money and in fact never touched it (spent it) at all as he and his wife both had good incomes from the very beginning of their marriage. 

He was intending to set up trusts, etc., so he could pass it on to future grandchildren and do some generation skipping with regard to taxes, but never got around to it.

At divorce proceedings, the judge acknowledged that was separate property of the man but, in view of this large sum . . .

He gave about 90% of the wealth accumulated during the marriage to the wife.



Family court judges are allowed a lot of discretion on their rulings. Stuff like this, maybe not to a large degree as this,  happens more often than not.



That is why appellate courts exist.


Maybe that's hope for Canadians that don't agree with a judge but that is not hope here. A person on death row may have a 15% to get his case in appellate court. What chance do you think a person unhappy with the ruling at divorce trial is going to have for an appeal? Appellate court don't have time to listen to everybody and they give precedence to those who's lives could be lost in prison for life.


Also if a person by chance gets heard by appellate court and wins an appeal, that is no reason to celebrate. The appellate court will state why they thought the judge at divorce trial is wrong and send the case right back to the same judge who made the erroneous ruling to make modifications. The same judge who screwed a person over and now embarrassed by higher level judges, may make only slight adjustments to his/her previous decision.
Fund the audits, spread the word and educate people, write your politicians and other elected officials. Stay active in the fight to save our country. Over 220 generals and admirals say we are in a fight for our survival like no other time since 1776.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #221 on: March 14, 2013, 09:28:31 PM »
The same jackasses exist in the appelate courts and the supreme courts.  It's simply a ladder they climb to get there.  They take their prejudices with them.  Where did  the revisionists come from?  Someone that could not read the original documents (law)?        ;D

BTW few people have the funds to appeal court rulings and verdicts.  Appellate lawyers are extremely expensive.   I know this from personal experience.


Judges are human, and make human errors.  I don't know if family court judges in the US are elected or appointed.  I do know that in Canada, where judges are appointed, and there is no political process in vetting judges, we have superior candidates sitting as justices.  Unlike the SCOTUS, there are no weak judges on Canada's Supreme Court.

After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline Patagonie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3257
  • Country: fr
  • Gender: Male
  • >25 travels
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 3-5 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #222 on: March 15, 2013, 03:46:17 AM »

I think most of us are a little to old to believe in fairness.  However, I do not believe a relationship can endure over time without trust.  Furthermore, as I noted, I have never, ever, seen a couple with a prenup who did not, ultimately, divorce.

The 50% figure for divorce is misleading.  It is calculated by taking the total number of marriages, and the total number of divorces, recorded in a country in a year.  But it does not account for second or third marriages, which have a higher divorce rate than do first marriages, nor common law relationships. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0


I believe you overstate the powers of the courts, and damages suffered by men.  In most North American jurisdictions, any property a man brings into a marriage is his when he leaves.  What is not, pursuant to legislation, is the increase in value of that property.  There is little "screwing" of men in division of assets, generally.  Where men are often treated unfairly is when children are involved.  Typically, a man is the higher income earner, so he will pay a large amount of maintenance for the children.  He will often lose his home to his wife and children, and, if his wife was at home, he often will pay alimony to her until she can retrain to work, often, even longer.  Most of that would be fine, however, often, men's custody rights have been blatantly disregarded by women, in the past, with no consequences to mothers for defying court orders.  That is beginning to change.

Today, I asked my better half what he thinks about prenuptial agreements.  He said he does not care how others choose to live their lives, but to him, it turns a marriage into a business transaction.  It commodifies something that is sacred.

I have to say, I never looked at it this way, but that is, I think, an accurate analysis.  In fact, some prenups include provisions for a woman's weight, how often the couple will have sex (at a minimum), what happens if the man does not provide sufficient income for vacations, if he is not earning $X annually, and so on.   Why not just turn the whole exercise into one of contractual obligation, based on each party's expectation going into a marriage, with the same types of consequences for breaches (pecuniary damages)?  It would make life a lot easier than having to negotiate problems and eventually giving up, would it not?
You are right the % of divorce is worse after the second or third marriage.

Tell me what is fair ?
Men's properties (prior marriage) give a substantial amout of money durint the marriage shared by both : ok no problem with that.
The increase of this properties has to be shared ? Why ? Why a guy who have 50000$ in stocks or a property for 200000 $ prior the marriage, if  the day of the divorce all have increased of 50%  why he has to shared 25 % of the net value ? And curiously if those assets decrease of 50% it has no consequence on what he has to pay ? Tell me in which manner the spouse is interacting which such assets ?

You believe that what was owned previous the marriage is protected. THis is the theory : in practice the reality is different because not only the net value of his previous assets are halved and it happens also and more often than you think that those assets are embedded in the community.

You notice yourself that the injustice is large when childrens are involved.

I don't know about the compenstory allowance in USA but her 15 % of male people pay one, which means that barely any guys earning above 3000 $ will have to pay one in case of divorce. So you have to add this also to the what the woman gets (in 97%).

And all of what had been bought by the couple, free of any consideration of who have put the maximum of money.

You ask my opinion on : "I have to say, I never looked at it this way, but that is, I think, an accurate analysis.  In fact, some prenups include provisions for a woman's weight, how often the couple will have sex (at a minimum), what happens if the man does not provide sufficient income for vacations, if he is not earning $X annually, and so on.   Why not just turn the whole exercise into one of contractual obligation, based on each party's expectation going into a marriage, with the same types of consequences for breaches (pecuniary damages)?  It would make life a lot easier than having to negotiate problems and eventually giving up, would it not?" for me this is shit : it only shows the failure of the actual system because the CONTRACTUALS OBLIGATIONS are mainly filled by MEN, and the women obligations are blank, the main parameters of the contract are not how many sex you should have, but who works, and how many childrens. There is nothing of this in the basic contract.

You continue to keep this same emotionnal tension aroung something which has no relation with trust or sacred.


It is like :
You  don't wear your belt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle but do know you that in the next 20 years you have 40% of chance to have a crash, and after the first crash your chances are 60% ?

What do you think of that ? Answer of some here :
You should  believe in God and trust him.

What God has to do with crashes ?
If you believe in God nothing will happen to you, if you don't believe in him you will have a crash.

But do you know that believers suffer statistically of the same proportion of crash ?
Answer : none

Would you advice your son to drive or ride without belt or helmet ?
Answer : none.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 04:00:00 AM by Patagonie »
"Je glissais through the paper wall, an angel in the hand, s taboy. I lay on the floor, surgi des chants de Maldoror, je mix l'intégrale de mes nuits de crystal, i belong to the festival.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3072
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #223 on: March 15, 2013, 07:58:45 AM »
You are right the % of divorce is worse after the second or third marriage.

Tell me what is fair ?
Men's properties (prior marriage) give a substantial amout of money durint the marriage shared by both : ok no problem with that.
The increase of this properties has to be shared ? Why ? Why a guy who have 50000$ in stocks or a property for 200000 $ prior the marriage, if  the day of the divorce all have increased of 50%  why he has to shared 25 % of the net value ? And curiously if those assets decrease of 50% it has no consequence on what he has to pay ? Tell me in which manner the spouse is interacting which such assets ?

Marriage is a partnership, ideally, for life, Presumably, a wife has brought something into that partnership.  Without getting into emotions, at a physical level, at least, she cooks.  She cleans.  She takes care of her husband.  Perhaps she even works.  Why shouldn't she get half of what a man has  earned when they were together?

Quote
You believe that what was owned previous the marriage is protected. THis is the theory : in practice the reality is different because not only the net value of his previous assets are halved and it happens also and more often than you think that those assets are embedded in the community.


No, you are not correct on this. and I can point you to lexisnexis, where you can read hundreds of cases to the contrary.  The situation ML described is an aberration. 

Quote
You notice yourself that the injustice is large when childrens are involved.


That injustice, though, is not usually about money.  It is about custody rights.

Quote
I don't know about the compenstory allowance in USA but her 15 % of male people pay one, which means that barely any guys earning above 3000 $ will have to pay one in case of divorce. So you have to add this also to the what the woman gets (in 97%).


I assume in most of those cases, what the woman is receiving is child support, not a division of assets.  Shouldn't men be obligated to look after their children?


Quote
for me this is shit : it only shows the failure of the actual system because the CONTRACTUALS OBLIGATIONS are mainly filled by MEN, and the women obligations are blank, the main parameters of the contract are not how many sex you should have, but who works, and how many childrens. There is nothing of this in the basic contract.

Why?  A weight gain is usually something required of the woman.  How often a couple has sex is a mutual obligation.   But, if a man is going to make contractual demands, shouldn't a woman have the same rights in terms of demands? 


The examples given were just that.  The contractual obligations negotiated would be that which each couple chooses.  However, the point was not to suggest all marital demands should be set to contract, but rather, to demonstrate the ridiculousness of conducting an emotional relationship in the same manner as you would to buy widgets.

Quote
You continue to keep this same emotionnal tension aroung something which has no relation with trust or sacred.


Really?  You don't believe a marriage is sacred?  In Christianity, it is a sacrament.  You don't believe a marriage requires trust?  Without trust, a marriage is nothing.


Quote
It is like :
You  don't wear your belt in a car or a helmet on a motorcycle but do know you that in the next 20 years you have 40% of chance to have a crash, and after the first crash your chances are 60% ?

What do you think of that ? Answer of some here :
You should  believe in God and trust him.

What God has to do with crashes ?
If you believe in God nothing will happen to you, if you don't believe in him you will have a crash.

But do you know that believers suffer statistically of the same proportion of crash ?
Answer : none

Would you advice your son to drive or ride without belt or helmet ?
Answer : none.


This is a poor analogy, because it is based primarily on physical laws.  A successful marriage is not based on the physical, but on spiritual and emotional work and compatibility.   I can't put in the emotional work to ensure the driver in the next car will always pay attention at the wheel.  I can work on my relationship, though, to ensure that I don't need to give up half my "stuff", if that is what is important to me.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2013, 08:00:31 AM by Boethius »
After the fall of communism, the biggest mistake Boris Yeltsin's regime made was not to disband the KGB altogether. Instead it changed its name to the FSB and, to many observers, morphed into a gangster organisation, eventually headed by master criminal Vladimir Putin. - Gerard Batten

Offline Muzh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6842
  • Country: pr
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married > 10 years
  • Trips: > 10
Re: Re: She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...
« Reply #224 on: March 15, 2013, 08:27:22 AM »

What chance do you think a person unhappy with the ruling at divorce trial is going to have for an appeal? Appellate court don't have time to listen to everybody and they give precedence to those who's lives could be lost in prison for life.


Also if a person by chance gets heard by appellate court and wins an appeal, that is no reason to celebrate. The appellate court will state why they thought the judge at divorce trial is wrong and send the case right back to the same judge who made the erroneous ruling to make modifications. The same judge who screwed a person over and now embarrassed by higher level judges, may make only slight adjustments to his/her previous decision.

You must live in Fantasy Island. De Plane De Plane

You have the money, you can go back to court. Just find a better lawyer. Simple.

Also, I bet the majority of the cases where the woman keeps the house, is paid alimony and child maintenance is because the man wanted the little woman to stay home and spit out babies and never attain any marketable skills. Heavens forbid!! She would become a feminazi.
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine - The American Crisis 1776-1783

 

+-RWD Stats

Members
Total Members: 8883
Latest: Leroy14
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 540997
Total Topics: 20849
Most Online Today: 2013
Most Online Ever: 12701
(January 14, 2020, 07:04:55 AM)
Users Online
Members: 9
Guests: 1959
Total: 1968

+-Recent Posts

Re: American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by krimster2
Yesterday at 09:20:42 PM

Re: American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by Infoman
Yesterday at 09:12:54 PM

Re: American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by krimster2
Yesterday at 09:02:12 PM

American With Russian Fiancé - Scheduled For K1 Interview In Warsaw, BUT.... by Infoman
Yesterday at 08:45:42 PM

Re: What to do by Trenchcoat
Yesterday at 07:59:27 PM

Ukrainian refugee working for me now by ML
Yesterday at 07:04:53 PM

Ukrainian refugee working for me now by ML
Yesterday at 06:59:45 PM

Re: What to do by Trenchcoat
Yesterday at 06:57:42 PM

Re: If you don't know what you are talking about, post away anyway by Trenchcoat
Yesterday at 06:36:52 PM

Re: Twenty Years... and Counting (MarkInTx Update) by supranatural
Yesterday at 03:02:29 PM

Powered by EzPortal

create account