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!

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

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