Risky Business

[Ooooops]

... it's to prove to new men that not all FSUW are unlike their American sisters.

I've been saying it since my very first post on this forum.       

[msmoby_ru]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it happen with other charges as well, not related to DV?   That's why there are trials, lawyers, jury, judges and etc exist - to decide who's guilty and who's not. 

..and during that time the  "accused" is deemed guilty... it takes too long to get to court...

[BillyB]

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it happen with other charges as well, not related to DV?   That's why there are trials, lawyers, jury, judges and etc exist - to decide who's guilty and who's not. 

Oooooops, click on the link below and you will find a Clark county, Indiana prosecutor defining DV and that includes "fearing" physical harm. While some innocent men have been found guilty for other crimes, domestic violence can be abused because a judge/jury must convict based on the law and that means they will convict based on a woman's word. Lot's of opportunity for abuse to punish a man for whatever reason or for selfish reasons that includes getting a green card.

You mention you believe this is happening because of of a long discrimination of women and it will settle down in time. Two wrongs don't make a right. If things get  to equal rights now, how would you like it if you when to jail and got a criminal record against you because your man said he "feared" that you were going to scratch him? It's not right, isn't it?

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/what.htm

[Ooooops]

..and during that time the  "accused" is deemed guilty... it takes too long to get to court...

Yes, that's bad, I agree...

[Ooooops]

How does believing in the woman's right to make decisions about her body automatically become "pro-feminist, pro-abortion, anti-men drivel"? 

Because it's man's job to decide what's good for a woman.   And if she disagrees then she becomes man-hater who drinks babies blood for breakfast instead of OJ.   :evil:

[Ooooops]

Oooooops, click on the link below and you will find a Clark county, Indiana prosecutor defining DV and that includes "fearing" physical harm.

Thanks.   Fear is an awful thing to live with, don't you agree?   And I know of the cases when women were so scared that they couldn't just leave on their own.   And yes, I hear you that there are women who falsifies those charges in order to benefit something from them, but it still doesn't mean that real cases don't exist.    Again - go and vote for the new law.   One last straw will break that camel's back.   

You mention you believe this is happening because of of a long discrimination of women and it will settle down in time. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree - two wrongs don't make a right.   

[steviej]

Just to sum up a bit:
The risk of false DV accusations as a way to dump a man (either planned or spontaneous) and continue on the green card path is something that all "newbies" and those in various stages of pursuit NEED TO UNDERSTAND ! They need to understand that they CAN BE USED FOR THIS !! They need to understand that this can have SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES IN HAVING AN ARREST RECORD THEY CANNOT DISPUTE OR ERASE, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES, LOSS OF THEIR OWN HOUSE FOR A PERIOD OF A YEAR ..!! He needs to understand that any woman in the future, on her own initiative or advice of a lawyer, can look up as a PUBLIC RECORD and discover that the man she is interested in or dating HAS A COURT FINDING OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MADE AGAINST HIM. This can EVEN RUIN HIS FUTURE PROSPECTS OF ROMANCE. He will of course say that it is not true, and NO ONE WILL BELIEVE HIM.

The absolutely abusive character of these laws is abhorrent: violation of habeus corpus, violation of due process, violation of presumption of innocence. Sadly, we have learned that the ladies here don't care. GUYS SHOULD TAKE THAT AS AN ADDITIONAL WARNING AS WELL!!

You must really know your woman well. You must not enter into a fast marriage. And, I would now say, you must have a prenuptual agreement. The agreement needs to specify that under no circumstances would you be deprived of your home, that if the woman decides she wants out, she has pre-agreed that she does not want to stay in your residence (this can be used in court about the DV disposition), the prenup must say that there is no community property nor requirements for alimony. (Actually, I think I might prepare some information for a new thread on prenupual agreements ...)

This has turned out to be a very disappointing thread.

[Ooooops]

Sadly, we have learned that the ladies here don't care.

What do you mean - don't care?   Of course I'm against jailing innocent people, it goes without saying.   

[roykirk]

You must really know your woman well. You must not enter into a fast marriage. And, I would now say, you must have a prenuptual agreement. The agreement needs to specify that under no circumstances would you be deprived of your home, that if the woman decides she wants out, she has pre-agreed that she does not want to stay in your residence (this can be used in court about the DV disposition), the prenup must say that there is no community property nor requirements for alimony. (Actually, I think I might prepare some information for a new thread on prenupual agreements ...)

A prenup can't exclude most of these things, if any.  Especially anything that is considered community property in a community property state and certainly not forgoing alimony.  Any good divorce attorney can make such stipulations in a prenup null and void for any one of a dozen different reasons.  The most common one would be that she didn't understand what she was signing, especially since English was not her first language.  The next would be that you cannot sign away your rights as guaranteed by law.  For instance, if you live in a community property state that grants 50% of belongings accumulated during marriage, your spouse can't sign that right away in a prenup.  Granted, you may get her to sign it, but it won't hold up in court.  It's one of the reasons those "I promise not to sue" waivers that people frequently sign aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[steviej]

A prenup can't exclude most of these things, if any.  Especially anything that is considered community property in a community property state and certainly not forgoing alimony.  Any good divorce attorney can make such stipulations in a prenup null and void for any one of a dozen different reasons.  The most common one would be that she didn't understand what she was signing, especially since English was not her first language.  The next would be that you cannot sign away your rights as guaranteed by law.  For instance, if you live in a community property state that grants 50% of belongings accumulated during marriage, your spouse can't sign that right away in a prenup.  Granted, you may get her to sign it, but it won't hold up in court.  It's one of the reasons those "I promise not to sue" waivers that people frequently sign aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

It may depend on the state. Usually "community property" is the default law. But, also usually I believe, a prenup supercedes it. Community property is not a "right", it is a statutary disposition if none other is specified. Same with alimony: a prenup can definitely obviate alimony. It's done all the time. You make an excellent point that applies to a FSUW wife though: language and timing. You would have to prove two thingsI think: that everything was duly notarized and reviewed in both languages, and that there was no coersion. Coersion would mean that you bring your fiane here for the 90 trial, wait 60 days, then slap the prenup on her. Many judges would allow that to be overruled on that basis. My non-legal opinion would be that a bi-lingual "statement of understanding" that a prenup will be executed, and what, in very general terms a prenup will address, would need to be exectued BEFORE the lady arrives in your country. This would all be complicated stuff. However, the consequences for lacking one could be severe.

[roykirk]

True, I'm sure the state has some bearing on it.  My experience is from my brother's divorce where he had a prenup stating that his wife would not claim any of his pension or 401K.  The judge threw that part of the prenup out, stating that the law stated she was entitled to half of whatever he accumulated in those accounts during the period they were married.

[Taz]

Here is the stupid @$$ thing about assets in a divorce. This really irks me on so many levels. Lets say I am in a communal property state. I have a house that is worth 750k that I owned free and clear PRIOR to marriage. I then marry some RW or any woman for that matter. Lets say after 2 years, that home appreciates 250k and is now worth 1 million. She is then entitled to half (125k) of the houses appreciated value in a divorce. She assumed absolutely NO RISK but received all the benefit.

Now let's suppose though my house goes down in value too 500k. I have not lost 250k instead of having asset appreciation. Does that mean she has "owes" me any money? Hell no! It is a NEVER LOSE situation for her. All she stands to do is gain WITHOUT ANY RISK!!! Now tell me that isn't screwed up! Same goes for my 401k plan. Any appreciation in it while I am married she can go after it EVEN IF I DON'T contribute a single dollar while married. Any gain she can ask for part of it but any loss is one I'll have to bear myself. Again no risk and all potential gain for her!

One hell of a sweet deal to come into a marriage with no assets and if future partner as even moderate assets!

At least on the abortion and capital punishment issue I am consistent. Either way it is to take a life! Fortunately for some of the "pro-choice" women THEIR MOTHERS weren't PRO-CHOICE!

As mentioned by others this is a good thread to see how some RW really think. Hopefully some of you will never have to be involved with any DV related BS. Trust me, as a guy you will almost ALWAYS get screwed if the cops come to your door for a DV case. You don't have to be guilty but they treat you as if you are even if she is the one that caused you bodily harm.

[Jet]

Stevie, maybe you should check out this thread, as most of this pre-nup stuff has been covered ad nauseum already:
PreNups, Trusts, Offshore Accounts & Protecting yourself

[Taz]

Then it doesn't make no sense to me at all - why to look for a wife in a poor country?   You know she won't have any assets when she marries you.   Gets me...   


I don't know if you were familiar with contraception techniques in the Ole USSR but abortion was one of the most common method, unfortunately...      

Regardless of what country she is, 99% of the women I meet and date will have far fewer assets than I have. So it is an issue with almost anyone I date. There isn't a huge difference between an average RW's assets and many AW's assets. Many AW have HUGE credit card bills. I have none. I have almost no debt at all. I have prepared well for my retirement.

I am VERY familiar with the practice of using abortion as a form of contraception. You could get a free abortion which was cheaper than having to pay for condoms. I've spent quite a bit of time in the FSU going back to times when quite few RW here weren't even born or were so young they weren't even in school yet. Let's just say I've been around the potato patch a few times when it comes to Russia. I was in Piter when it was still in that period of time when it was Leningrad before being renamed back to Piter.

[Ooooops]

Regardless of what country she is, 99% of the women I meet and date will have far fewer assets than I have.

Well, then I guess you should do as all those Trumps etc do - write a solid proof pre-nup or post-nup.   

I was in Piter when it was still in that period of time when it was Leningrad before being renamed back to Piter.

If you'd say that you were in Peter before it was renamed Leningrad then I'd be impressed!      Otherwise - big deal!   I was too.

[Taz]

The point is I am no stranger to the FSU and very few Americans were there when I was. Actually I saw very few foreigners at the time other than people from Beijing. Definitely a different time in the FSU. I'll never forget all the lines of people standing waiting for food.

[Ooooops]

I'll never forget all the lines of people standing waiting for food.

Neither will I... 

[msmoby_ru]

Just to sum up a bit:
The risk of false DV accusations as a way to dump a man (either planned or spontaneous) and continue on the green card path is something that all "newbies" and those in various stages of pursuit NEED TO UNDERSTAND ! They need to understand that they CAN BE USED FOR THIS !! They need to understand that this can have SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES IN HAVING AN ARREST RECORD THEY CANNOT DISPUTE OR ERASE, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES, LOSS OF THEIR OWN HOUSE FOR A PERIOD OF A YEAR ..!! He needs to understand that any woman in the future, on her own initiative or advice of a lawyer, can look up as a PUBLIC RECORD and discover that the man she is interested in or dating HAS A COURT FINDING OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MADE AGAINST HIM. This can EVEN RUIN HIS FUTURE PROSPECTS OF ROMANCE. He will of course say that it is not true, and NO ONE WILL BELIEVE HIM.

The absolutely abusive character of these laws is abhorrent: violation of habeus corpus, violation of due process, violation of presumption of innocence. Sadly, we have learned that the ladies here don't care. GUYS SHOULD TAKE THAT AS AN ADDITIONAL WARNING AS WELL!!

You must really know your woman well. You must not enter into a fast marriage. And, I would now say, you must have a prenuptual agreement. The agreement needs to specify that under no circumstances would you be deprived of your home, that if the woman decides she wants out, she has pre-agreed that she does not want to stay in your residence (this can be used in court about the DV disposition), the prenup must say that there is no community property nor requirements for alimony. (Actually, I think I might prepare some information for a new thread on prenupual agreements ...)

This has turned out to be a very disappointing thread.

Hi Steve

Why disappointing?

Many of us learnt about different perspectives and others experiences.. and your concluding paragraphs for newbies and those considering marriage on valid

I would like to say that my experience of being accused of DV - her knowing the effect it would have on me - and the fact that I have an arrest record - has some ironic benefits - I HAD to be honest to any potential lady about my past and was grilled, and rightly so... But I was able to ask the lady more searching questions about her previous relationships, too.

I'd certainly recommend living together first - and I know that will offend many folk, but I can have my personal set of Christian beliefs and live with my conscience, too !

 

[Blues Fairy]

Does that mean she has "owes" me any money? Hell no! It is a NEVER LOSE situation for her. All she stands to do is gain WITHOUT ANY RISK!!! Now tell me that isn't screwed up!

One hell of a sweet deal to come into a marriage with no assets and if future partner as even moderate assets!

Future partner also has a job, health, and sanity all of which he CAN lose and the losses will very well affect his wife to various degrees of severity.  Don't tell me it's a no-risk venture for the RW.  Assets do not define everything. 

[AnastassiaAsh]

A prenup can't exclude most of these things, if any.  Especially anything that is considered community property in a community property state and certainly not forgoing alimony.  Any good divorce attorney can make such stipulations in a prenup null and void for any one of a dozen different reasons.  The most common one would be that she didn't understand what she was signing, especially since English was not her first language.  The next would be that you cannot sign away your rights as guaranteed by law.  For instance, if you live in a community property state that grants 50% of belongings accumulated during marriage, your spouse can't sign that right away in a prenup.  Granted, you may get her to sign it, but it won't hold up in court.  It's one of the reasons those "I promise not to sue" waivers that people frequently sign aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

I tend to agree with Roykirk. It's good to have some agreement or some paper with signatures, but at the end of the day, if that comes to that, it will all be more up to a particular judge and what law says about it...

[KenC]

I tend to agree with Roykirk. It's good to have some agreement or some paper with signatures, but at the end of the day, if that comes to that, it will all be more up to a particular judge and what law says about it...

Anastassia,
You are exactly right.  The judge can arbitrarily pick and choose which parts of the prenupt he will honor or not honor.

Blues Fairy,
Taz is speaking in financial terms only with regard to our divorce laws.  The man's risks in no way diminishes the risks the women face.  They are real and substantial.
KenC

[BillyB]

Steviej,

A prenup is only good as long as if follows closely the law of the State you live in when it comes to splitting up assets. It's no good if it's tilted in your direction. A prenupt is good so people know what they are getting going into the marriage and what they're getting out of it and if it's fair, it can promote having an amicable divorce instead of one going to trial and ending up nasty and expensive. A prenup is also good in preventing a judge from using his discretion to favor women heavily and straying from State guidelines himself. I read an article that mention men win divorce cases 10% of the time, women win 60% of the time and it's fair 30% of the time according to State guidelines. Judges tend to favor women and don't want to get their name in the newspaper for pissing off women's activists. It may ruin their future political ambitions.

[roykirk]

BillyB,

I think this is slowly changing, however.  It's like how women almost always got custody.  That's not the case anymore.  Years ago, it would make sense to me that women should have received the most in a divorce case.  Many didn't have careers, and some had never worked a day in their life (meaning a career)...all they did was raise the kids, they had no other training.  Those women obviously needed more support, in my opinion.  I work with a couple of guys who have insisted their wives not work, that their "job" is to raise the kids.  This is a dangerous proposition, because if they ever get divorced, they'll be paying alimony through the nose and they'll likely lose the house and the kids. 

Anyway, I think we're beginning to see the scale tip slowly back towards the "fair" end more than in previous decades.  So many more women have careers and a college education now.

[UTRO]

Here is the stupid @$$ thing about assets in a divorce. This really irks me on so many levels. Lets say I am in a communal property state. I have a house that is worth 750k that I owned free and clear PRIOR to marriage. I then marry some RW or any woman for that matter. Lets say after 2 years, that home appreciates 250k and is now worth 1 million. She is then entitled to half (125k) of the houses appreciated value in a divorce. She assumed absolutely NO RISK but received all the benefit.

Taz, thats nothin'! In the Great White North, if...... "I have a house that is worth 750k that I owned free and clear PRIOR to marriage. I then marry some RW or any woman for that matter. Lets say after 2 years, that home appreciates 250k and is now worth 1 million".... She is then entitled to half of the house a value in a divorce..... or in other words, a cool $0.5 Million. You Yanks should count yourself Lucky indeed!! Been there and done it

[WmGO]

Judges, being elected officials in many areas, are very reluctant to dismiss DV charges.  Even though there is no compelling evidence, the thinking is that the accused could possibly be a crazed man who would return and murder the accuser (unfortunately, it has happened).  Such an incident would create public uproar and end a judge's career. 

That is very true. I have seen it happen in my State more
than once.