Monday, 6 February 2017

MARRIAGE IS PROSTITUTION AND LOVE IS A CON MOSTLY

 
 Men and women make the children together, normally, and women just carry and deliver them with colossal men's help, yet, in general, women have been given the rights to own half of or most of both men's money and property, including their babies, thanks to Satanic English Courts of Statutory Maritime Admiralty Law!  WHO SAID THAT?
Love and Romance are mostly things of the past!
Image result for mgtow
video
 Marriage is Prostitution
Feminism LOL

Published on 15 Jul 2014
"for the law doth not intend that the man is advanced by marriage; and therefore such a promise of marriage to him is of no consideration in law, and by consequence, no action can be founded thereon. But it is otherwise where a man promiseth to marry a woman, because in the eye of the law marriage is an advancement to the woman."

Yo, men! You're just a cash cow and have been for hundreds of years. Don't go back to traditionalism, move forward into a world where you qualify as something more than a provider for others. Demand it!

Previous video on Sheehy's page 1: Lies #1 and #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0zK6...

Statutes of the province of Ontario, 1872 page 35
https://ia600703.us.archive.org/26/it...

Section outlining the new ability of married women to continue acting as a "feme sole" after marriage.
Feme Sole: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...


The Law of Contracts and Promises Upon Various Subjects and with Particular Persons: As Settled in the Action of Assumpsit, 1824, Samuel Comyn
https://archive.org/details/lawcontra...

in particular:

Part The Second, Chapter XII
OF Contracts to Marry: and of Agreements to Pay Money in Consideration of Marriage; and of the Statute of Frauds relating thereto

Part The Third, Chapter VI
OF Husband and Wife; and of Contracts made by the Wife before and after Marriage; and of their respective Liabilities: and of Contracts made with Persons living together as Man and Wife.

You can own this book
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookD...

Learn about Sexual Market Value and how women play the marriage marketplace as a science.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/10...


All Women Are Like That

Feminism LOL
Published on 6 Dec 2014
How do women manipulate men? This is gonna take a while to cover. I'll be placing these videos into a playlist under "The Manipulated Man" as a furthering of the discussion Esther Vilar sparked in 1971.

All PIV is rape? To find out what that means see my earlier video "Diana Davison sees the light"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGMRd...



Why Women Hate Nice Guys - MGTOW

Howard Dare


Graham Mills told to up ex-wife's money after she spent it

 Part-time beautician Maria Mills (left), 51, received a £230,000 lump sum - along with £1,100 monthly maintenance payments - when she split from her husband Graham (centre) after 13 years of marriage. But, since the divorce in 2002, Mrs Mills has invested the money 'unwisely' in a series of properties, landing herself in debt because of her 'poor' decisions. Judges said that, each time, Mrs Mills increased her mortgage and 'moved upmarket', going from a house in Weybridge, Surrey (top right), to a smart three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon, south west London (centre, right) and then to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea, London (bottom right), which is now worth £1m. Mr Mills argued he 'should not be the insurer against the wife's poor financial decisions'. But the businessman - who has since remarried and has another child with his new wife - has now been ordered to increase Mrs Mills's monthly payments to £1,441 so she is 'able to meet her basic needs'.

'Reliable honest' husband who handed his wife, 51, all of his ready cash in a divorce 15 years ago is told he must up her maintenance after she blows the lot on 'unwise property investments'

  • Maria Mills received a £230,000 lump sump and £1,100 per month in divorce
  • She wound up in debt due to 'poor' financial decisions and buying pricey homes
  • Graham Mills argued he should not 'pick up his wife's tab' 15 years after divorce
  • Judges ruled Mrs Mills, who works part-time, is 'unable to meet her basic needs'
A 'reliable' husband who gave his wife all of his 'liquid' money when they divorced 15 years ago must increase her maintenance payments because she has spent every penny on 'unwise property investments', a court has ruled. 
Part-time beautician Maria Mills, 51, received a £230,000 lump sum - along with £1,100 monthly maintenance payments - when she split from her husband Graham after 13 years of marriage.
But, since the divorce in 2002, Mrs Mills has invested the money 'unwisely' in a series of London properties, landing herself in debt because of her 'poor' decisions. 

'Reliable' husband Graham Mills (pictured) has been ordered to increase maintenance payments to his wife Maria (right) because she has spent every penny on 'unwise property investments'
Part-time beautician Mrs Mills (pictured), 51, received a £230,000 lump sum - along with £1,100 monthly  maintenance payments - when she split from her husband after 13 years of marriage

'Reliable' husband Graham Mills (left) has been ordered to increase maintenance payments to his wife Maria (right) because she has spent every penny on 'unwise property investments'
Mr Mills argued he 'should not be the insurer against the wife's poor financial decisions', saying it was unfair that he should 'pick up the tab' years after they split.
But the businessman has now been ordered to increase Mrs Mills's monthly payments to £1,441 so she is 'able to meet her basic needs'.
Despite pleas from Mr Mills for his ex-wife to secure her own 'independence', a judge said her monthly outgoings equated to £1,441 and it was wrong for a previous judge to order lower payments. 
Sitting at London's Appeal Court, Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Ernest Ryder heard how the couple, who have a grown-up son, married in 1988, before separating in 2001.
They divorced in 2002, after reaching an agreement on how their wealth should be split.
The court heard how Mr Mills, a surveyor, agreed to give his ex-wife £1,100 a month in personal maintenance.
He also offered to give her almost all their 'liquid capital', while he agreed to keep his businesses.
Later, however, Mrs Mills 'unwisely invested in a series of properties', each time 'moving upmarket' from a house in Weybridge, Surrey, to a smart three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon.
She then moved to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea.
The court heard how Mrs Mills 'over-financed' each of her homes, increasing her mortgage liabilities. But she failed to offset them with enough profit from the sale of the properties, the court heard
Mrs Mills 'unwisely invested in a series of properties', each time 'moving upmarket'. Her first home was this house in Weybridge, Surrey (pictured)
Mrs Mills 'unwisely invested in a series of properties', each time 'moving upmarket'. Her first home was this house in Weybridge, Surrey (pictured)
She then took out a bigger mortgage and moved to this  three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon

She then took out a bigger mortgage and moved to this three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon
She is now living in a rented home, back where she started in Weybridge, and works two days a week as a beauty therapist, the court heard.
The judge said the pair both went before a family judge last year, with the wife asking for more maintenance because she could not manage financially.
Her husband - who has since remarried and has another child with his new wife - went to judges in a bid to get a clean break, the court heard.
Judge Mark Everall QC - who heard the original case - threw out both their challenges, but both parties then each instructed QCs to renew their battle before the Court of Appeal. 
Philip Cayford QC, for Mr Mills, told the judges that he is desperate to 'move on' with his life and that a decision in favour of Mrs Mills went against 'the tide towards seeking independence'.
'This is a case where the wife leaves the marriage with all, or almost all the liquid capital, then says she needs maintenance for another 50 years, despite proving herself capable of working to a high standard,' he said.

Mrs Mills later moved to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea (pictured)

Mrs Mills later moved to a two-bedroom apartment in a luxury Victorian mansion block in Battersea (pictured)
'It is the husband's case that he should not be the insurer against the wife's poor financial decisions, taken over the course of the 15 years that have passed since the original ancillary relief order.
'The time is long overdue for the wife to terminate her financial dependency on the husband.
'Since 2002, the wife's management of her finances has been so poor that she appears to have exhausted her entire capital, and seeks to continue and now increase the periodical payments element of the order.'
He added: 'The husband has done all that could be reasonably expected of him in his reasonable wish to move on post-divorce.' 
But Frank Feehan QC, for Mrs Mills, pointed out that the original judge did not find Mrs Mills was 'profligate or wanton in her approach to her finances.'
Although she was 'not a good businesswoman' and 'did not manage her finances wisely', the judge accepted that her finances and ability to work had been 'hindered' by health problems. 
Mr Feehan also defended Mrs Mills's 'credit card debts, run up over many years as a single parent having health difficulties'.
Asking for an increase in maintenance, he said Mrs Mills is currently 'unable to meet her basic needs'. 
Sir Ernest, giving the court's ruling, said Mr Mills had been regarded as 'reliable, truthful and frank' by Judge Everall, who had been 'less impressed with the wife.' 
Referring to Mrs Mills, he said: 'She had unwisely invested in a series of properties, each time moving upmarket, with the consequence that she is now without any of the capital she was given in 2002.
'She is not a good businesswoman. The wife now says the judge left her unable to meet her basic needs,' he added.
Judge Everall had calculated the wife's 'needs' at £1,441 a month, but had gone on to order that her monthly maintenance should not be increased from £1,100.
But Sir Ernest said that 'shortfall' was unexplained and left Mrs Mills out of pocket. 
'He concluded that the wife would not be able to move towards independence,' he said.
'It is impossible for the court to ascertain how the £341 a month difference was to be saved by the wife. He didn't make the findings to justify the lower figure,' he added.  
'The judge made an error of principle. The order should have been that the husband pay maintenance in the sum of £1,441 a month until further order of the court.
'The husband has and had the ability to make the maintenance payments asked for.'
No value was put on Mr Mills's business interests, but the court was told that he had previously been able to draw dividends from them of up to £200,000 a year.

Irish painter and decorator, 52, who sued his 65-year-old stepmother for a share of her £2.9m Lotto windfall WINS his case and will now get £480,000

  • David Walsh sued stepmother Mary Walsh for a sixth of family's £2.9m Lotto win
  • The mother of two won jackpot in 2011 with ticket signed by six family members
  • She gave differing amounts to five signatories - including just £86,000 to one
  • Irish High Court ruled she must give her stepson Mr Walsh a sixth of the winnings


A stepmother who tried to stop her stepson getting a chunk of her £2.9million Lottery win has been ordered by a judge to immediately pay him £484,000.
Mary Walsh, 65, was also landed with the £258,000 costs of the seven-day High Court case taken against her by her stepson David Walsh, 52, for his rightful share in the huge family win that she claimed he didn’t deserve.
The businesswoman’s assets have also been frozen by a judge on the basis that she ‘lied on oath [to the Revenue Commissioners] to conceal her assets’ from her stepson following the January 2011 Lotto win.
Outside after winning his case, Mr Walsh smiled broadly and said: ‘It’s brilliant.’ He told reporters: ‘I’m just happy it’s over. I’m delighted with the outcome. I’m a winner. Justice has prevailed. The truth always wins. Simple as that.’
David Walsh
Mary Walsh
David Walsh (left) is seen celebrating outside court after a judge ordered his stepmother Mary Walsh (right) to pay him £484,000 out of a £2.9million Lotto win
The verdict raises the possibility that other signatories of the winning ticket, who were paid varying amounts by Mrs Walsh, could demand a full one-sixth share like Mr Walsh.
Asked about his late father Peter Walsh, he said: ‘He’s sitting up now in heaven looking down, cap in his hands, he took care of me.’
Sitting on the opposite side of the courtroom to her painter and decorator stepson, Mrs Walsh, wearing a black evening dress with a pearl necklace and grey cardigan, went pale and shook her head as the ruling was given.
Outside the Four Courts, she told the Irish Daily Mail she was disappointed with the outcome and vowed to appeal.
An ecstatic Mr Walsh told reporters he just wanted to ‘get on with my life’, adding: ‘I’m out of here’, before making a quick departure.
The mother-of-two won the jackpot six years ago with a ticket that was signed by six family members including herself – yet she believed that she could do as she pleased with the money.
She gave gifts of as little as £86,000 to one signatory – a nephew of her husband.
The court heard the biggest gift she gave was £392,000 to one of her sons – even though an equal one-sixth share of the £2.9million prize money came to £485,738.
Last night, at the highly charged conclusion of a seven-day hearing, Judge Richard Humphreys rejected Mrs Walsh’s version of events and awarded Mr Walsh £484,000.
The judge said Mrs Walsh was a woman ‘capable of very significant calculation and design.’
The judge gave the ruling despite pleas from Mrs Walsh’s counsel, Michael Delaney, that Mr Walsh cannot 'receive an entirely undeserved windfall in excess of £430,000’.

HOW THE £2.9M WIN WAS UNFAIRLY SPLIT BETWEEN RELATIVES



Last night's ruling could lead to other family members claiming a larger share of Mary Walsh's winnings.
The court heard how Mrs Walsh, along with her late husband and four relatives, signed the back of the ticket in a bit to avoid paying any gift tax.
After winning a £2.9million prize, Mrs Walsh gave her sons Tony and Jason pay-offs of £380,000 and £257,000 respectively.
Meanwhile, her late husband's nephew Kevin Black received just £86,000. 
Legal experts said the judgment ‘would certainly increase their chances’ of them seeking a larger share, having all been handed much less the a sixth of the winnings, which works out at about £480,000.
The ruling also sets a guideline for future Lottery winners – indicating that winnings should be distributed equally in cases where more than one person has signed the ticket.
The judge said Mrs Walsh gave unreliable testimony from the witness box this week and that she ‘ducked and weaved’ in her attempts to defend herself.
The ruling raises the prospect that other family members could now come forward to claim their own shares. Last night, legal experts said the judgment ‘would certainly increase their chances’ of them seeking a larger share.
The ruling also sets a guideline for future Lottery winners – indicating that winnings should be distributed equally in cases where more than one person has signed the ticket.
Under National Lottery rules, anyone who signs the back of a winning ticket is entitled to benefit.
However, former Lotto claims manager Eamonn Hughes told the court this week that exactly how winnings are distributed ‘was none of our concern’.
In court, Mrs Walsh, of Perssepark, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway, insisted that she had given her stepson the choice of a £171,953 cash gift or her £116,068 house – and that Mr Walsh opted for the house.
During the seven-day hearing, she said: 'Because they [Mr Walsh and his father Peter] had been estranged from the year before, and there had been no contact, and he came back three weeks before I won the Lotto, I felt he didn't deserve it.'
She said that despite her 'reservations', she had given her 'beautiful' home to the 52-year-old, and he 'wouldn't have got the house only for the Lotto win'.
The court has also heard that stepson David Walsh was seen as 'not much of a worker' and that he was once divorced after getting married in the US.
Mrs Walsh told Judge Richard Humphreys: 'We were afraid that some of his wives could come along and make a claim against him.'
The 65-year-old businesswoman claimed, on day five of the remarkable case, that painter and decorator Mr Walsh 'never once asked for any share in the Lotto'.
Mr Walsh, of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe, always insisted that his late father – who died in December 2011 – had intended him to have the house, regardless of the Lotto win.
But Mrs Walsh had counter-sued her stepson, claiming that if he won the case for a share of the jackpot, then she should get her old house back because it would amount to ‘unjust enrichment’ otherwise.
Giving his ruling after deliberating for about 30 minutes, Judge Humphreys said it was ‘not inherently plausible’ that Mr Walsh accepted a house worth £116,068 instead of £171,953 cash.
The judge observed that there was ‘no reason the plaintiff [Mr Walsh] would do himself out of £55,884’.

Last night, at the highly charged conclusion of a seven-day hearing at Ireland's Four Courts, Judge Richard Humphreys awarded Mr Walsh £484,000

Last night, at the highly charged conclusion of a seven-day hearing at Ireland's Four Courts, Judge Richard Humphreys awarded Mr Walsh £484,000
The ruling means that Mr Walsh will keep the house and get his £484,000 share of the jackpot.
Earlier, during legal arguments, lawyers for Mrs Walsh said she never intended anyone who signed the ticket or the Lotto declaration form to receive ‘a portion of the prize as of right’.
Instead, she intended ‘that such persons would receive payment of such amount of money as she in her discretion saw fit to make to them,’ the court heard.
Dervla Browne SC, for Mr Walsh, told the court that all six people who signed the ticket, including David Walsh, were entitled to benefit equally from the £2.9million.
Later, Judge Humphreys ruled that Mrs Walsh had ‘made a conscious and deliberate decision to swear an affidavit she knew was false’ and had done so in order to ‘conceal her assets from persons including the plaintiff [Mr Walsh]’.
The temporary freezing injunction on Mrs Walsh’s assets – designed to protect the award of £484,000 in her stepson’s favour – will last until Monday, when the case will come before the court again.
She has 28 days to lodge an appeal. Outside the court, she agreed she was disappointed by the ruling. Asked if she will appeal, she said: ‘Yes.’

THE MILLIONAIRE CURSE? HOW £148M JACKPOT SPLIT FAMILY 

Euromillions winner Gillian Bayford, who won a £148million jackpot in 2012
Euromillions winner Gillian Bayford, who won a £148million jackpot in 2012
Euromillions winner Gillian Bayford revealed last year how landing a £148m jackpot in 2012 had made her life a misery and triggered a irreconcilable rift with her family.
The 43-year-old - who split from her husband Adrian fifteen months after scooping the prize - said she has not spoken to her 'greedy' family for nearly one year, despite giving them £20m after the windfall.
She claims her mother, father and brother - who all live in plush houses and drive flash cars thanks to her fortune - 'disowned' her last May, but still expect her to bail them out when they need money.
She also accused them of becoming 'downright nasty' by constantly 'flashing the cash' which she gave them after the win.
Mrs Bayford claims her brother Colin, 41, drives numerous Audis with personalised numberplates and that her father Ian, 71, has become so accustomed to the wealthy lifestyle that he refuses to fly economy class on airplanes.
She also said that her father tried to take control of the money she won and has repeatedly tried to claim a stake in her business. 
Adrian and Gillian Bayford from Haverhill, Suffolk, shortly after winning the £148million jackpot
Adrian and Gillian Bayford from Haverhill, Suffolk, shortly after winning the £148million jackpot

No comments:

Post a Comment