Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

    [email protected] (Raul) writes:
    http://tinyurl.com/4t7ne "The couple lived together for 9 years after being wed in a Jewish religious ceremony in 1987, but remained together for just 14 months after they were legally married in 1994. In 1994, Graham, upset with what she felt was a lack of emotional support, began an affair with the contractor renovating the cottage"
    How come, by the way, you left out the fact that the husband's annual
    income was $5.5 million, and that he lied about this to the court?

  • #2
    Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

    Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    How come, by the way, you left out the fact that the husband's annual income was $5.5 million
    How come you left out the fact that the **** judge decided on this
    figure? Are public servants infallible? The wife, ofcourse, doesn't
    deserve a dime.
    and that he lied about this to the court?
    He should be charged with contempt of court, obstruction of justice,
    etc. The seperation of assets isn't used to punish the above.

    Besides, wouldn't you lie to the court if your wife betrayed you
    similarly and you were in his position? What a shameless uncle tom you
    are.

    Comment


    • #3
      Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

      Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
      How come, by the way, you left out the fact that the husband's annual income was $5.5 million
      How come you left out the fact that the **** judge decided on this
      figure? Are public servants infallible? The wife, ofcourse, doesn't
      deserve a dime.
      and that he lied about this to the court?
      He should be charged with contempt of court, obstruction of justice,
      etc. The seperation of assets isn't used to punish the above.

      Besides, wouldn't you lie to the court if your wife betrayed you
      similarly and you were in his position? What a shameless uncle tom you
      are.

      Comment


      • #4
        Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement


        "Raul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
        news:[email protected] om...
        Besides, wouldn't you lie to the court if your wife betrayed you similarly and you were in his position? What a shameless uncle tom you are.
        Always love when folks gotta resort to name calling to try and make
        their point.
        Attack the idea, fool, and not the person, fool.

        Oops, me bad.

        Storm



        ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
        http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
        ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

        Comment


        • #5
          Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement


          "Raul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected] om...
          Besides, wouldn't you lie to the court if your wife betrayed you similarly and you were in his position? What a shameless uncle tom you are.
          Always love when folks gotta resort to name calling to try and make
          their point.
          Attack the idea, fool, and not the person, fool.

          Oops, me bad.

          Storm



          ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
          http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
          ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

          Comment


          • #6
            Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

            [email protected] (Raul) writes:
            Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
            How come, by the way, you left out the fact that the husband's annual income was $5.5 million
            How come you left out the fact that the **** judge decided on this figure? Are public servants infallible? The wife, ofcourse, doesn't deserve a dime.
            This is hardly the poster boy for "men's rights" you would like. The
            guy is a slimeball. He lied to the court, and his considerable
            fortune comes from ripping off other people. (He's the head of a
            pyramid scheme.)

            Besides lying, the guy transferred assets offshore to hide them from
            the courts. So yeah, the judge decided to penalize him by awarding a
            small but significant share of the guy's wealth (much of which was
            accumulated during the 10 years of his marriage) to the ex-wife.

            I don't see a problem with that, though both people in this couple
            look to have behaved like slimeballs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

              [email protected] (Raul) writes:
              Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]ividual.net>...
              How come, by the way, you left out the fact that the husband's annual income was $5.5 million
              How come you left out the fact that the **** judge decided on this figure? Are public servants infallible? The wife, ofcourse, doesn't deserve a dime.
              This is hardly the poster boy for "men's rights" you would like. The
              guy is a slimeball. He lied to the court, and his considerable
              fortune comes from ripping off other people. (He's the head of a
              pyramid scheme.)

              Besides lying, the guy transferred assets offshore to hide them from
              the courts. So yeah, the judge decided to penalize him by awarding a
              small but significant share of the guy's wealth (much of which was
              accumulated during the 10 years of his marriage) to the ex-wife.

              I don't see a problem with that, though both people in this couple
              look to have behaved like slimeballs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

                [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                Doug Anderson <ethelthe[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote > (much of which was accumulated during the 10 years of his marriage) to the > ex-wife. The article makes it clear that they were married for little more than a year.
                Apparently you didn't read the article very closely. A little over 10 years, actually.
                They were legally married 14 months before seperating.
                Why is that isn't the important issue? They were married in a
                religious ceremony 10 years before that. And they had numerous
                children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
                If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why does she deserve the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever support she might've provided her husband could be surpassed by a concubine, cook and housekeeper. And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine / cook. If he really wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a mistake didn't he?
                That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't entitled to half of their husband's wealth.
                And she didn't get half her husband's wealth. So?

                In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth
                should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.

                Better resolved by a court (as in this case) than by a bunch of USENET
                kibitzers who've read half of a newspaper article.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

                  [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                  Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                  [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                  Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote > (much of which was accumulated during the 10 years of his marriage) to the > ex-wife. The article makes it clear that they were married for little more than a year.
                  Apparently you didn't read the article very closely. A little over 10 years, actually.
                  They were legally married 14 months before seperating.
                  Why is that isn't the important issue? They were married in a
                  religious ceremony 10 years before that. And they had numerous
                  children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
                  If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why does she deserve the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever support she might've provided her husband could be surpassed by a concubine, cook and housekeeper. And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine / cook. If he really wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a mistake didn't he?
                  That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't entitled to half of their husband's wealth.
                  And she didn't get half her husband's wealth. So?

                  In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth
                  should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.

                  Better resolved by a court (as in this case) than by a bunch of USENET
                  kibitzers who've read half of a newspaper article.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

                    Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                    [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                    They were legally married 14 months before seperating.
                    Why is that isn't the important issue? They were married in a religious ceremony 10 years before that. And they had numerous children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
                    It wasn't legally recognized.
                    > If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why does she deserve > the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever support she might've > provided her husband could be surpassed by a concubine, cook and > housekeeper. And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine / cook. If he really wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a mistake didn't he? That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't entitled to half of their husband's wealth. And she didn't get half her husband's wealth. So?
                    As I said, she doesn't deserve a dime.
                    In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.
                    The wife isn't doing chores solely for her husband's sake, is she?
                    Neither is she forced to stay home.
                    Why then should she be compensated for her career decisions?
                    Especially when she decides to end the relationship, which is the case
                    in most divorces.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

                      Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                      [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                      They were legally married 14 months before seperating.
                      Why is that isn't the important issue? They were married in a religious ceremony 10 years before that. And they had numerous children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
                      It wasn't legally recognized.
                      > If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why does she deserve > the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever support she might've > provided her husband could be surpassed by a concubine, cook and > housekeeper. And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine / cook. If he really wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a mistake didn't he? That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't entitled to half of their husband's wealth. And she didn't get half her husband's wealth. So?
                      As I said, she doesn't deserve a dime.
                      In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.
                      The wife isn't doing chores solely for her husband's sake, is she?
                      Neither is she forced to stay home.
                      Why then should she be compensated for her career decisions?
                      Especially when she decides to end the relationship, which is the case
                      in most divorces.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

                        [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                        Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                        [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                        They were legally married 14 months before seperating.
                        Why is that isn't the important issue? They were married in a religious ceremony 10 years before that. And they had numerous children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
                        It wasn't legally recognized.
                        So?
                        > > If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why does she deserve > > the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever support she might've > > provided her husband could be surpassed by a concubine, cook and > > housekeeper. > > And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine / cook. If he really > wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a mistake didn't he? That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't entitled to half of their husband's wealth. And she didn't get half her husband's wealth. So? As I said, she doesn't deserve a dime.
                        In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.
                        The wife isn't doing chores solely for her husband's sake, is she? Neither is she forced to stay home. Why then should she be compensated for her career decisions?
                        The family is considered (to some degree) to be a unit. Both partners
                        do work. In a case like this one, only one partner received
                        financial compensation for his "work." But because the family is
                        considered to be a unit, both partners are entitled to benefit from
                        his income just like both partners benefit from her work at home.

                        You may disagree with this principle, but it isn't a hard one to
                        understand, is it?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

                          [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                          Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                          [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                          They were legally married 14 months before seperating.
                          Why is that isn't the important issue? They were married in a religious ceremony 10 years before that. And they had numerous children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
                          It wasn't legally recognized.
                          So?
                          > > If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why does she deserve > > the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever support she might've > > provided her husband could be surpassed by a concubine, cook and > > housekeeper. > > And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine / cook. If he really > wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a mistake didn't he? That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't entitled to half of their husband's wealth. And she didn't get half her husband's wealth. So? As I said, she doesn't deserve a dime.
                          In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.
                          The wife isn't doing chores solely for her husband's sake, is she? Neither is she forced to stay home. Why then should she be compensated for her career decisions?
                          The family is considered (to some degree) to be a unit. Both partners
                          do work. In a case like this one, only one partner received
                          financial compensation for his "work." But because the family is
                          considered to be a unit, both partners are entitled to benefit from
                          his income just like both partners benefit from her work at home.

                          You may disagree with this principle, but it isn't a hard one to
                          understand, is it?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

                            On 15 Feb 2005 09:56:42 -0800, Doug Anderson
                            <[email protected]> wrote:
                            [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                            Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                            [email protected] (Raul) writes: > They were legally married 14 months before seperating. Why is that isn't the important issue? They were married in a religious ceremony 10 years before that. And they had numerous children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
                            It wasn't legally recognized.
                            So?
                            > > > If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why does she deserve > > > the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever support she might've > > > provided her husband could be surpassed by a concubine, cook and > > > housekeeper. > > > > And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine / cook. If he really > > wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a mistake didn't he? > > That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't entitled to > half of their husband's wealth. And she didn't get half her husband's wealth. So? As I said, she doesn't deserve a dime.
                            In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.
                            The wife isn't doing chores solely for her husband's sake, is she? Neither is she forced to stay home. Why then should she be compensated for her career decisions?
                            The family is considered (to some degree) to be a unit. Both partnersdo work. In a case like this one, only one partner receivedfinancial compensation for his "work." But because the family isconsidered to be a unit, both partners are entitled to benefit fromhis income just like both partners benefit from her work at home.You may disagree with this principle, but it isn't a hard one tounderstand, is it?

                            OK, so is SHE desrves to be compensated for loss of the income, then
                            should HE not also be compensated for losing access to her performance
                            of domestic chores? If he has to pay her "support" because she does
                            not earn an income, then why should SHE not also have to pay HIM for
                            the hiring of a housekeepr/cook???

                            I never understood this sort of crap. The judge in my case said that
                            there was an "impiled contract of support" for my ex's home based
                            business. And this was the basis he used to rape my wallet.

                            Well where I come from a contract MUST have "consideration". How can
                            only half a contract survive disolution of a partnership??? Oh yeah,
                            because the family court has become a Kangaroo Court! If I was being
                            forced to support her business (as her means of supposed support),
                            then why was I not aforded access to the profits from said business???
                            I realize that her business was not particularly profitable, but then
                            why not give me access to future profits of the business??? Basically,
                            if the judge had said I had to support her business, but that she -
                            claiming the business would eventually become profitable - had to
                            repay every penny of support WITH INTEREST from the future profits of
                            her business, then THAT would have been fair. Of course to prevent a
                            deliberate sabbotage of her business, there would have to be a clause
                            that if her business ceased doing business -- support obligation ends
                            immediately, and also a maximum timeline for the business to become
                            profitable - or support ends. My ex was the type that needed a fire
                            lit under her, or she would do nothing.

                            But this, of course, was NOT ordered. All the courts were concerned
                            with was taking money from me, and giving it to her. There was NEVER
                            any appearance that anything should be "equitable". Even HER lawyer
                            thought the premise was weak.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

                              On 15 Feb 2005 09:56:42 -0800, Doug Anderson
                              <[email protected]> wrote:
                              [email protected] (Raul) writes:
                              Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
                              [email protected] (Raul) writes: > They were legally married 14 months before seperating. Why is that isn't the important issue? They were married in a religious ceremony 10 years before that. And they had numerous children (at the time of the article, two still living at home).
                              It wasn't legally recognized.
                              So?
                              > > > If his wife wasn't a partner in his firm, why does she deserve > > > the half the fruits of his labour? Whatever support she might've > > > provided her husband could be surpassed by a concubine, cook and > > > housekeeper. > > > > And yet he chose a wife, and not a concubine / cook. If he really > > wanted only a concubine and a cook, he made a mistake didn't he? > > That's not a rebuttal of the point I made. Wives aren't entitled to > half of their husband's wealth. And she didn't get half her husband's wealth. So? As I said, she doesn't deserve a dime.
                              In general, it is a complex question how much of a couple's wealth should go to the partner that worked at home for no direct pay.
                              The wife isn't doing chores solely for her husband's sake, is she? Neither is she forced to stay home. Why then should she be compensated for her career decisions?
                              The family is considered (to some degree) to be a unit. Both partnersdo work. In a case like this one, only one partner receivedfinancial compensation for his "work." But because the family isconsidered to be a unit, both partners are entitled to benefit fromhis income just like both partners benefit from her work at home.You may disagree with this principle, but it isn't a hard one tounderstand, is it?

                              OK, so is SHE desrves to be compensated for loss of the income, then
                              should HE not also be compensated for losing access to her performance
                              of domestic chores? If he has to pay her "support" because she does
                              not earn an income, then why should SHE not also have to pay HIM for
                              the hiring of a housekeepr/cook???

                              I never understood this sort of crap. The judge in my case said that
                              there was an "impiled contract of support" for my ex's home based
                              business. And this was the basis he used to rape my wallet.

                              Well where I come from a contract MUST have "consideration". How can
                              only half a contract survive disolution of a partnership??? Oh yeah,
                              because the family court has become a Kangaroo Court! If I was being
                              forced to support her business (as her means of supposed support),
                              then why was I not aforded access to the profits from said business???
                              I realize that her business was not particularly profitable, but then
                              why not give me access to future profits of the business??? Basically,
                              if the judge had said I had to support her business, but that she -
                              claiming the business would eventually become profitable - had to
                              repay every penny of support WITH INTEREST from the future profits of
                              her business, then THAT would have been fair. Of course to prevent a
                              deliberate sabbotage of her business, there would have to be a clause
                              that if her business ceased doing business -- support obligation ends
                              immediately, and also a maximum timeline for the business to become
                              profitable - or support ends. My ex was the type that needed a fire
                              lit under her, or she would do nothing.

                              But this, of course, was NOT ordered. All the courts were concerned
                              with was taking money from me, and giving it to her. There was NEVER
                              any appearance that anything should be "equitable". Even HER lawyer
                              thought the premise was weak.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X