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!
Marriage is Prostitution
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...
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
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...
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
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'
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
(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’.
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
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.’
No comments:
Post a Comment