Well, it is official! Heather Mills has been given more money fro four years of marriage to Sir Paul McCartney than most people dream of earning in a lifetime!
AND THE B***H ISN'T HAPPY!
Ironically it is rumoured that Sir Paul is happy! Why, oh why would he be happy at paying £24 million to a woman who has done her best to humiliate him publicly, to drag his name through the mud and systematically destry his reputation?
The answer is an illustration of what is the matter in UK divorce courts. Sir Paul made his fortune well prior to mariage to hop-a-long but the Uk principle of "equalisation" of assets on divorce means that he is releaved not to have to pay the one legged trickster of anything approaching half his wealth!
Why do we think that by passing a law sayng that we do not look for blame in the event of marital failure that divorces are any less acrimonious? The truth is that "looting" one partners wealth to re-allocate it to the other marriage partner creates more of a sense of injustice than anything else.
Who on earth can tell a man he should not do his best to protect his assets by hiding them from his wife, her lawyers and the courts? Not me!
http://www.doctorditcher.com/
mailto: mailto:doctorditcher@hushmail.com
Monday 17 March 2008
Wednesday 13 February 2008
ASSET PROTECTION AND DIVORCE STRATEGIES - HELLS ANGEL STYLE!
Readers will remember the story of Susan Crossley, the so-called career Divorcee who had gained £18million form her last 3 divorces. She was suing her latest husband, Stuart Crossley, for half of his £45million fortune - despite only being married for 14 months and having signed a "Pre-Nup" saying she would seek nothing fom him!
I am happy to report that apparently for once the courts have done the decent thing and told her they will enforce the Pre-Nup - which is not normally protected under UK law. One for justice and right I am happy to say.
The only thing we need now is for the McCartney divorce judge to see some sense and tell the one legged wonder where to "hop off!"
On the point of Asset Protection - ever dear to my heart- I read that the wife of a Hells Angel believed her husband operated in a "cash universe" with a multitude of suspicious cash transactions. The wife alleged that their standard of living showed her husband had earned further cash than he had declared in their divorce proceedings. In a court ruling the judge noted that some of the husbands business dealings were highly unconventional - I suppose as you would expect from a Hells Angel who owns a chain of clothing stores - and indeed while the judge expressed concern over the truthfulness of some of the husbands evidence the husband had not received unreported cash.
The judge acknowledged the husband had friends and associates who were prepared to often lend him money in large sums often without security! Included in the "unusual" transactions were an unsecured loan for $500,000 and a cash payment of $28,000 for the balance of a Leased car! During the divorce the husband sold 3 watches worth $54,500! The judge ruled that the task of trying to determine the asset value of the husband was made more difficult because a number of his business transactions were conducted in "unconventional ways" including large cash payments, a company paying the personal debt of a shareholder, the husband not cashing company paycheques.
I often say that if you play by "the rules" you commit suicide. This Hells Angel certainly displays the benefits of a "fully rounded" education, the sort regrettably too few men learn! He did not play by the accepted rules and as a consequence the court had difficulty assessing his asset value! Congratulations! Men everywhere take note, waken up, and don't play by the rules; hide your true asset value, don't be afraid to deal in cash, it doesn't leave records and trails for dealings and can keep women and their lawyers and the courts guessing!
Asset Protection strategies in divorce start with confidentiality. They continue by not playing by the rules, your wife's, the courts' or anyone elses except your own! Protect your assets and you will protect your ass!
I am happy to report that apparently for once the courts have done the decent thing and told her they will enforce the Pre-Nup - which is not normally protected under UK law. One for justice and right I am happy to say.
The only thing we need now is for the McCartney divorce judge to see some sense and tell the one legged wonder where to "hop off!"
On the point of Asset Protection - ever dear to my heart- I read that the wife of a Hells Angel believed her husband operated in a "cash universe" with a multitude of suspicious cash transactions. The wife alleged that their standard of living showed her husband had earned further cash than he had declared in their divorce proceedings. In a court ruling the judge noted that some of the husbands business dealings were highly unconventional - I suppose as you would expect from a Hells Angel who owns a chain of clothing stores - and indeed while the judge expressed concern over the truthfulness of some of the husbands evidence the husband had not received unreported cash.
The judge acknowledged the husband had friends and associates who were prepared to often lend him money in large sums often without security! Included in the "unusual" transactions were an unsecured loan for $500,000 and a cash payment of $28,000 for the balance of a Leased car! During the divorce the husband sold 3 watches worth $54,500! The judge ruled that the task of trying to determine the asset value of the husband was made more difficult because a number of his business transactions were conducted in "unconventional ways" including large cash payments, a company paying the personal debt of a shareholder, the husband not cashing company paycheques.
I often say that if you play by "the rules" you commit suicide. This Hells Angel certainly displays the benefits of a "fully rounded" education, the sort regrettably too few men learn! He did not play by the accepted rules and as a consequence the court had difficulty assessing his asset value! Congratulations! Men everywhere take note, waken up, and don't play by the rules; hide your true asset value, don't be afraid to deal in cash, it doesn't leave records and trails for dealings and can keep women and their lawyers and the courts guessing!
Asset Protection strategies in divorce start with confidentiality. They continue by not playing by the rules, your wife's, the courts' or anyone elses except your own! Protect your assets and you will protect your ass!
Monday 11 February 2008
McCartney divorce and the reason for men hiding assets.
Well, the McCartney divorce circus returns to court this week. The "one legged wonder" is representing herself having fallen out with her legal team, apparently after appearing on TV and comparing herself to Princess Diana and others and owing them in the region of two million in fees!
I am puzzled. The justification in the divorce courts for the looting a husbands wealth in favour of an ex-wife is usually based on the premise that the ex-wife contributed indirectly to the family fortune by being a housewife, a support, perhaps a mother and generally a major part of the family team, while hubby went and built the bank balances. In Sir Paul's case he was already very wealthy BEFORE he met the one legged wonder, and from my perspective she has had nothing but a negative impact on him; think of her damaging appearances and the leaked allegations in the press. He was worth over £800 million before he married her and is worth approximatley the same now. Why should she get a share of this fortune when she contributed Zilch?
Of course there is the question of children. If I were Sir Paul I would be arguing that the mother is unfit, using her press appearances and confessions against her, but even where this is not the case a simple financial solution should - and indeed has been established by the Child Support Agency. Their monetary formula having been established the amount of child support should not be an issue in the courts. If Sir Paul wanted to establish a more generous Family Trust for the benefit of his daughter with the one legged wonder then he could, but of course these funds should be independently administered by trustees, not by the grasping ex-wife.
The other justification for looting a husbands money is the "lifestyle" argument; namely that a wife is entitled to be kept in as similar a lifestyle after divorce as before it. This however has some logical weaknesses.
First, why should a wife of only a few years marriage be entitled to be kept in the same lifestyle as when married to a husband independently wealthy before the marriage? To me this is really a legal sanctioning of prostitution. After all we are compensating the ex-wife who contributed nothing to the husbands wealth for what? Sleeping with him is about it.
Second, this argument is totally unfair in a system of "no-fault" divorce. We say it is a system of no blame divorce but in reality husbands are penalised as if they were guilty! If neither party is being blamed then the only basis for redistribution of wealth is contribution, which in the McCartney case and other similar short lived marriages is virtually nothing and should be compensated in that light.
If fault were taken into account then the guilty party should not be compensated and the guilty one should be penalised, whether husband or wife. This would be fair and vastly different to now where, only by virtue of being married, a wife receives an unfair redistribution of wealth! If a husband is guilty in the demise of the marriage then I can see the argument as to why a wife be compensated from his fortune to live a similar lifestyle as when the marriage was ongoing, but if he did not then why should he be penalised? It is illogical and more, it gives rise to a great sense of injustice and grievence.
In our sophistication we have tried to sanitise divorce from acrimony by deleting reference to guilt and blame, but instead we have left men with a sense of injustice that is a festering wound. No wonder more and more men seek to hide and protect their assets.
Good luck Sir Paul, don't give away too much- she doesn't deserve it.
http://www.doctorditcher.com/
mailto:doctorditcher@hushmail.com
I am puzzled. The justification in the divorce courts for the looting a husbands wealth in favour of an ex-wife is usually based on the premise that the ex-wife contributed indirectly to the family fortune by being a housewife, a support, perhaps a mother and generally a major part of the family team, while hubby went and built the bank balances. In Sir Paul's case he was already very wealthy BEFORE he met the one legged wonder, and from my perspective she has had nothing but a negative impact on him; think of her damaging appearances and the leaked allegations in the press. He was worth over £800 million before he married her and is worth approximatley the same now. Why should she get a share of this fortune when she contributed Zilch?
Of course there is the question of children. If I were Sir Paul I would be arguing that the mother is unfit, using her press appearances and confessions against her, but even where this is not the case a simple financial solution should - and indeed has been established by the Child Support Agency. Their monetary formula having been established the amount of child support should not be an issue in the courts. If Sir Paul wanted to establish a more generous Family Trust for the benefit of his daughter with the one legged wonder then he could, but of course these funds should be independently administered by trustees, not by the grasping ex-wife.
The other justification for looting a husbands money is the "lifestyle" argument; namely that a wife is entitled to be kept in as similar a lifestyle after divorce as before it. This however has some logical weaknesses.
First, why should a wife of only a few years marriage be entitled to be kept in the same lifestyle as when married to a husband independently wealthy before the marriage? To me this is really a legal sanctioning of prostitution. After all we are compensating the ex-wife who contributed nothing to the husbands wealth for what? Sleeping with him is about it.
Second, this argument is totally unfair in a system of "no-fault" divorce. We say it is a system of no blame divorce but in reality husbands are penalised as if they were guilty! If neither party is being blamed then the only basis for redistribution of wealth is contribution, which in the McCartney case and other similar short lived marriages is virtually nothing and should be compensated in that light.
If fault were taken into account then the guilty party should not be compensated and the guilty one should be penalised, whether husband or wife. This would be fair and vastly different to now where, only by virtue of being married, a wife receives an unfair redistribution of wealth! If a husband is guilty in the demise of the marriage then I can see the argument as to why a wife be compensated from his fortune to live a similar lifestyle as when the marriage was ongoing, but if he did not then why should he be penalised? It is illogical and more, it gives rise to a great sense of injustice and grievence.
In our sophistication we have tried to sanitise divorce from acrimony by deleting reference to guilt and blame, but instead we have left men with a sense of injustice that is a festering wound. No wonder more and more men seek to hide and protect their assets.
Good luck Sir Paul, don't give away too much- she doesn't deserve it.
http://www.doctorditcher.com/
mailto:doctorditcher@hushmail.com
Sunday 3 February 2008
What Men need to know about untrustworthy Women!
"He who finds a good wife finds good!", but what if she is not a good wife? What if she is a schemer, looking to take advantage of you? We are all given intuition to protect us, and when our still small inner voice screams that all is not well, then we'd better listen!
Time and again - professionally - I speak to lawyers who tell me they are convinced that women plan a divorce years ahead and then, when they feel the time is right , take some excuse of their husbands behaviour and provoke an estrangement and seperation.
The lawyers also tell me that this pre-meditation is the primary difference between men and women. A man will be "suckered" time and again bya wife who takes her time, lays her plans, gathers information against her husband in readiness for divorce and then issues the divorce petition. If there is one thing men need to do more than anyhting it is plan for divorce BEFORE it appears ove the marriage horizon.
First, even in a good marriage keep your financial details confidential. NEVER tell her all your financial secrets. Have at least one bank account she NEVER finds out about. NEVER tell her the details of your earnings or business profit. NEVER have her made a partner in your business.
Second, get a mailbox for confidential mail, including letters from the mutual fund, from the pension company and frm the bank she doesn't know about. ... AND DO NOT TELL HER ABOUT IT! Keep paying for it in cash and do not keep the receipt.
Third, if you have property investments make a division between the one's she already knows about and the one's she doesn't know about, so DO NOT tell her about every new acquisition. Keep these secrets; for the new properties use a different management agent that she knows nothing about and finance them with a different bank to the bank she knows you bank with for the properties she already knows about.
What a scheming woman will do pre-divorce is very typical. She will have been told by her lawyer not to mention divorce, rather to let it come as a surprise in due course. She will have been told to take every opportunity to gather as much information about her husbands affairs as possible, finances, business, investments and the like. Then when she has as much information as she can get, she will prompt the divorce action. This is not fiction; it i s the way scheming women make plans, pre-divorce.
Men need to take certain precautionary steps to protect themselves, again pre-divorce. Pre-divorce planning is the greatest difference between men and women today; women do it and men don't. It is the greatest need men have today.
http://www.doctorditcher.com/
mailto: mailto:%20doctorditcher@hushmail.com
Time and again - professionally - I speak to lawyers who tell me they are convinced that women plan a divorce years ahead and then, when they feel the time is right , take some excuse of their husbands behaviour and provoke an estrangement and seperation.
The lawyers also tell me that this pre-meditation is the primary difference between men and women. A man will be "suckered" time and again bya wife who takes her time, lays her plans, gathers information against her husband in readiness for divorce and then issues the divorce petition. If there is one thing men need to do more than anyhting it is plan for divorce BEFORE it appears ove the marriage horizon.
First, even in a good marriage keep your financial details confidential. NEVER tell her all your financial secrets. Have at least one bank account she NEVER finds out about. NEVER tell her the details of your earnings or business profit. NEVER have her made a partner in your business.
Second, get a mailbox for confidential mail, including letters from the mutual fund, from the pension company and frm the bank she doesn't know about. ... AND DO NOT TELL HER ABOUT IT! Keep paying for it in cash and do not keep the receipt.
Third, if you have property investments make a division between the one's she already knows about and the one's she doesn't know about, so DO NOT tell her about every new acquisition. Keep these secrets; for the new properties use a different management agent that she knows nothing about and finance them with a different bank to the bank she knows you bank with for the properties she already knows about.
What a scheming woman will do pre-divorce is very typical. She will have been told by her lawyer not to mention divorce, rather to let it come as a surprise in due course. She will have been told to take every opportunity to gather as much information about her husbands affairs as possible, finances, business, investments and the like. Then when she has as much information as she can get, she will prompt the divorce action. This is not fiction; it i s the way scheming women make plans, pre-divorce.
Men need to take certain precautionary steps to protect themselves, again pre-divorce. Pre-divorce planning is the greatest difference between men and women today; women do it and men don't. It is the greatest need men have today.
http://www.doctorditcher.com/
mailto: mailto:%20doctorditcher@hushmail.com
Thursday 20 December 2007
Another expensive divorce in the UK? Even after a Pre nup!
You have to feel sorry for Stuart Crossley. Not financially, he is worth around £50 million! No, for his choice in wives and his optimism!
He married Susan (nee Dean) in January 2006 having met her about 3 months previously. She had been married 3 times previously ( interestingly always to very wealthy men, thats interesting) and on each occasion had left richer than she had arrived at the altar. When she married Stuart she was worth about £20million, mostly from her last Divorce in 2000 when she'd scooped £16million from Robert Sangster, heir to the Vernon Pools Empire.
Stuart must have thought he'd protected himself by getting her to sign a pre nup in which she promised not to pursue his fortune if the marriage failed. Even though not legally binding in the U.K. a pre nup is still "taken into account" by British Courts, especially in cases like the Crossleys' where the marriage only lasted a few months! Yes, they seperated in June/July 2006 after marrying in January of that year.
I know you will be stunned to know that although Susan, as the doll she is, promised not to pursue his fortune, guess what, she is pursuing his fortune after all! She says the pre nup should not stand because he had not told her about all his assets and he has secret funds stashed in Andorra and Monaco.
Lessons to be learned? Simple.
http://www.doctorditcher.com
mail to; doctorditcher@hushmail.com
He married Susan (nee Dean) in January 2006 having met her about 3 months previously. She had been married 3 times previously ( interestingly always to very wealthy men, thats interesting) and on each occasion had left richer than she had arrived at the altar. When she married Stuart she was worth about £20million, mostly from her last Divorce in 2000 when she'd scooped £16million from Robert Sangster, heir to the Vernon Pools Empire.
Stuart must have thought he'd protected himself by getting her to sign a pre nup in which she promised not to pursue his fortune if the marriage failed. Even though not legally binding in the U.K. a pre nup is still "taken into account" by British Courts, especially in cases like the Crossleys' where the marriage only lasted a few months! Yes, they seperated in June/July 2006 after marrying in January of that year.
I know you will be stunned to know that although Susan, as the doll she is, promised not to pursue his fortune, guess what, she is pursuing his fortune after all! She says the pre nup should not stand because he had not told her about all his assets and he has secret funds stashed in Andorra and Monaco.
Lessons to be learned? Simple.
1. Wise men do not imagine that a leopard - or in this case a cougar - will ever change its spots!
2. Wiser men stash funds in secret because pre nups are open to challenge by an angry cougar.http://www.doctorditcher.com
mail to; doctorditcher@hushmail.com
Wednesday 12 December 2007
Five things Men should do when they see divorce coming!
Maybe you've never seen a rattle snake before but I'll bet the first time you do you'll still recognise it! So it is with divorce. You may never have gone through one before, but intuitively you'll just know when it's on it's way. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not even this year- but you still know it's going to come; some day.
When you recognise this you will have a choice; sit staring at the oncoming menace like a rabbit caught in the headlights of a truck, or prepare for the day of war.
What to do or not do is a vast subject that would fill libraries, but here are my "top five" basic pointers! Learn the lessons and they will help you survive.
When you recognise this you will have a choice; sit staring at the oncoming menace like a rabbit caught in the headlights of a truck, or prepare for the day of war.
What to do or not do is a vast subject that would fill libraries, but here are my "top five" basic pointers! Learn the lessons and they will help you survive.
- Do not escalate the problems by confrontation. To protect your assets you need time. Bringing matters to a head will merely deprive you of the time you need to plan and put your affairs in the best shape for the divorce. You must learn to be cunning and wait your time. Bite your lip; keep your thoughts to yourself and make your plans. That will be the most satisfying rward in the end, believe me.
- Move your financial records out of the home . Do this quietly to a place where she cannot access them and do it preferably without her knowledge. If she notices say your accountant needed them, think of some reason. In every divorce I have seen the wife ALWAYS, BUT ALWAYS copied the financial records of her husband where she had opportunity; her lawyer will tell her to do so before papers are served. Information is key in financial negotiations. Keep her and her lawyer in the dark as much as you can. If they have information they have the initiative; if they don't then you have the initiative as to what to tell and what to do, subject to the obvious limitations of what she already has knowledge of.
- Get a private mail address and your own a safety deposit box. Have bank statements, life insurance or pension correspondence and any other personal mail redirected. Don't forget to get any lawyer's communication redirected here as well as tax authority communications. It could be your office if that would work for you or a commercially rented box if you need to. Just do it! Again this is to prevent unknown information seepage. Similarily get a new e-mail address she never finds out about. Only access it from work, NEVER the computer at home! All private stuff you do not want her to know about should go through this new e-mail account. The other stuff can go through the old account she knows about. If there are things you have done on a computer she has access to, blame a virus and do a total clean of the hard drive and a reconstruct using the factory supplied discs. Tedious I know but it is the only way to insure your private emails and documents are fully wiped out from prying eyes.
- Get your own Bank account apart from any joint accounts. Again do this without fuss or argument, and don't stop everything going into the joint account if there is one, that would be too marked a hange of behaviour. Do it without arousing suspicion. I would advise that you do not even take the bank card home; store it and all the account details in your safety deposit box or in a safe and private place at your business.
- Clean out your wallet and pockets daily before going home. Do Not take home receipts you do not want your wife to see, like the one for the mail box or safety box! Every wife I've seen goes through her husband's pockets and wallet. Do not present her with information she doesn't need. Just allow the normal innoccuous mess of harmless meaningless papers you don't care about and that will not tell her anything.
These are matters of self discipline and good "house-keeping". Remember the foundation of ALL asset protection strategies is financial privacy. Control what she knows and you get ahead of the game. Her lawyers will know this too and for that reason will tell her to get as much information as she can BEFORE a divorce starts.
Here is my final recommendation; even if you don't think it will ever come to divorce, do these things anyway! It just means if you are wrong, you'll have limited the damage.
These are the starter issues, I could go on and on but that is for another time.
Saturday 8 December 2007
A Multi Millionaire shows how to protect your Assets in divorce.
Mr and Mrs Mubarak have spent more than £4m in legal costs so far in their divorce/financial settlement case. Their case shows the inability of the U.K.'s family justice system to enforce divorce awards against former husbands whose wealth is tied up in trusts, off-shore structures and other asset protection strategies!
Asset protection Planning working in divorce.
Asset protection Planning working in divorce.
Mubarik has run up a bill of more than £2m in costs to avoid paying his former wife, Aaliya, a lump sum of almost £5m, an amount the high court ordered him to pay nearly eight years ago. The pair although resident in the U.K. for tax purposes and liable to English taxation, manage to avoid paying any tax at all! You see some wealth preservation strategies do not need to be just about divorce, the good advice if acted upon can have tax benefits as well.
Note one of the simple things Mr. Mubarak did; The couple, come from prosperous families in the Kashmir region of India and lived in Kuwait and Hong Kong before moving to London in 1997. Mubarik's companies have business interests at the first two locations and there are also shops in Paris and New Bond Street, in London. The shares in his worldwide empire are owned by a family trust in Jersey, which has complicated his former wife's efforts to acquire his assets. Asset protection planning at it's best! These assets are hidden in the open yet so no one can get at them.
Pre Divorce Strategist at work!
Mubarik put his net worth at £8m in the divorce proceedings, but Mr Justice Bodey ruled that he had substantial undisclosed assets and ordered him to pay £4.875m.
In nearly eight years his former wife has managed to get only £266,000 of that, via the forced sale of Mubarik's properties. (Disappointed, baby?!)
Who says Asset protection strategies do not work? Mr. Mubarik obviously had good advice, I wonder from whom?
http://www.doctorditcher.com/
mailto: mailto:doctorditcher@hushmail.com
Mubarik has run up a bill of more than £2m in costs to avoid paying his former wife, Aaliya, a lump sum of almost £5m, an amount the high court ordered him to pay nearly eight years ago. The pair although resident in the U.K. for tax purposes and liable to English taxation, manage to avoid paying any tax at all! You see some wealth preservation strategies do not need to be just about divorce, the good advice if acted upon can have tax benefits as well.
Mubarik put his net worth at £8m in the divorce proceedings, but Mr Justice Bodey ruled that he had substantial undisclosed assets and ordered him to pay £4.875m.
In nearly eight years his former wife has managed to get only £266,000 of that, via the forced sale of Mubarik's properties. (Disappointed, baby?!)
Who says Asset protection strategies do not work? Mr. Mubarik obviously had good advice, I wonder from whom?
http://www.doctorditcher.com/
mailto: mailto:doctorditcher@hushmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)