Unfaithful wife scores $11.6M divorce settlement

[Doug Anderson]

mshlomb@yahoo.com (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?

[Raul]

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3789kgF58j5vsU2@individual.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.

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.

[Raul]

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3789kgF58j5vsU2@individual.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.

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.

[Storm]

"Raul" <mshlomb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecb96eed.0502131046.28711ccf@posting.google.c 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 =----

[Storm]

"Raul" <mshlomb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecb96eed.0502131046.28711ccf@posting.google.c 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 =----

[Doug Anderson]

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3789kgF58j5vsU2@individual.net>...

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.

[Doug Anderson]

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3789kgF58j5vsU2@individual.net>...

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.

[Doug Anderson]

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<37ariqF5ad8d0U1@individual.net>...

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).

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.

[Doug Anderson]

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<37ariqF5ad8d0U1@individual.net>...

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).

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.

[Raul]

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<37bv22F5aqgtrU1@individual.net>...

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

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.

[Raul]

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<37bv22F5aqgtrU1@individual.net>...

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

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.

[Doug Anderson]

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<37bv22F5aqgtrU1@individual.net>...

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.

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?

[Doug Anderson]

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<37bv22F5aqgtrU1@individual.net>...

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.

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?

[Cloaked]

On 15 Feb 2005 09:56:42 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

So?

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.

[Cloaked]

On 15 Feb 2005 09:56:42 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

So?

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.

[Albert Einstein]

Raul wrote:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3789kgF58j5vsU2@individual.net>...

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.

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.

How confidently people insult each other when
they are probably thousands of miles apart.

Would you say this if the guy was three feet
away from you in a pub?

Bert!

[Albert Einstein]

Raul wrote:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3789kgF58j5vsU2@individual.net>...

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.

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.

How confidently people insult each other when
they are probably thousands of miles apart.

Would you say this if the guy was three feet
away from you in a pub?

Bert!

[Albert Einstein]

Cloaked wrote:

On 15 Feb 2005 09:56:42 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

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???

and prick pleaser.... don't forget the important
stuff.

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.

[Albert Einstein]

Cloaked wrote:

On 15 Feb 2005 09:56:42 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

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???

and prick pleaser.... don't forget the important
stuff.

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.

[Cloaked]

As I said before, it should not matter how much he makes. Courts have
this nasty propensity to award the woman money simply because the man
has it - especially if he is loaded.

THEN, lower courts point to that ruling and use it as justification
for sticking it to the rest of us! Hey If I made that kind of money,
then at least I could aford to pay!

But I don't and likely never will earn any where near that.

In my case, I was riding the bus while my ex drove around in a
spanking new car - bought and paid for with MY MONEY given to her for
"spousal support". If she can aford a new car with my spousal support
payment, then the payments should have been stopped immediately! We
live in an urban area, if I have to take the bus, then so should she!
For chrissake! I was the one with a "real" job! And there was a 4
month transit strike here! If it had not been for the graces of my
coworkers taking pity on me and giving me rides for 4 months, then I
would have lost my job! Where would we have been then??? I can imagine
I would have been in jail, and she would have been out of that new car
pretty quick.

You have to look not only at the case at hand, but the implications of
the ruling on exisiting and future cases. You put blinders on and try
to judge the case in isolation, then some hair-brained idiiot of a
judge will find a way to bastardize the decision and use it to his own
ends. Happens all the time.

Ever since the idiot in "Bracklow" stated "need alone may be enough"
to justify support, there is not a judge in the country to have given
a rats behind about if the man can aford to pay support or not! All
they do is grab some guideline document, and order the man to pay. If
he can't pay, then he goes to jail.

All this despite the fact that HARD BLACK AND WHITE LAW - "THE LAW" as
enacted by parlement states the opposite! The "ability to pay" is
explicitly written as a factor in the published law. But because of
some asshole judges "interprtation" in the nebulous "case law", the
men of this country are doomed until someone either forces Parlement
to change the law (AGAIN), or until someone manages to get the ruling
struct done by the femminist dominated left wing Supreme Court of
Canada. Good bloody luck.

SO again I say, what does HIS imcome have to do with the fact that SHE
started an affair?

The entire scenario is rediculous.

On 12 Feb 2005 22:15:43 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

How come, by the way, you left out the fact that the husband's annualincome was $5.5 million, and that he lied about this to the court?

[Cloaked]

As I said before, it should not matter how much he makes. Courts have
this nasty propensity to award the woman money simply because the man
has it - especially if he is loaded.

THEN, lower courts point to that ruling and use it as justification
for sticking it to the rest of us! Hey If I made that kind of money,
then at least I could aford to pay!

But I don't and likely never will earn any where near that.

In my case, I was riding the bus while my ex drove around in a
spanking new car - bought and paid for with MY MONEY given to her for
"spousal support". If she can aford a new car with my spousal support
payment, then the payments should have been stopped immediately! We
live in an urban area, if I have to take the bus, then so should she!
For chrissake! I was the one with a "real" job! And there was a 4
month transit strike here! If it had not been for the graces of my
coworkers taking pity on me and giving me rides for 4 months, then I
would have lost my job! Where would we have been then??? I can imagine
I would have been in jail, and she would have been out of that new car
pretty quick.

You have to look not only at the case at hand, but the implications of
the ruling on exisiting and future cases. You put blinders on and try
to judge the case in isolation, then some hair-brained idiiot of a
judge will find a way to bastardize the decision and use it to his own
ends. Happens all the time.

Ever since the idiot in "Bracklow" stated "need alone may be enough"
to justify support, there is not a judge in the country to have given
a rats behind about if the man can aford to pay support or not! All
they do is grab some guideline document, and order the man to pay. If
he can't pay, then he goes to jail.

All this despite the fact that HARD BLACK AND WHITE LAW - "THE LAW" as
enacted by parlement states the opposite! The "ability to pay" is
explicitly written as a factor in the published law. But because of
some asshole judges "interprtation" in the nebulous "case law", the
men of this country are doomed until someone either forces Parlement
to change the law (AGAIN), or until someone manages to get the ruling
struct done by the femminist dominated left wing Supreme Court of
Canada. Good bloody luck.

SO again I say, what does HIS imcome have to do with the fact that SHE
started an affair?

The entire scenario is rediculous.

On 12 Feb 2005 22:15:43 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote:

mshlomb@yahoo.com (Raul) writes:

How come, by the way, you left out the fact that the husband's annualincome was $5.5 million, and that he lied about this to the court?