Archive for the ‘family court’ Category

‘He earned it, but you have half anyway.’
September 23, 2007


24 May 2007

“I’m a multi-millionaire…and I didn’t have to work for a penny of it!

‘Housewife’ keeps record £48m divorce payout


A woman awarded the biggest divorce payment in British legal history was today told that she is entitled to keep the £48 million settlement that her insurance chief husband labelled “grotesque and unfair”.

John Charman, 54, took the case to the Court of Appeal after contesting his wife Beverley’s share in his fortune. The head of the Axa Insurance group argued that his £20 million offer was more than adequate and a £70 million family trust should not have been taken into account when the total assets of the marriage were assessed at £131 million.

I’ve commented on this case before, it’s fucking sick. This cunt gets £48,000,000 (almost $100,000,000) just because she happened to be supported by a hard-working husband for 28-years.

Surely she should owe him money. Think of how much more cash her ex-husband would have if he hadn’t had to support her for 28-years. The guy would have been better off hiring a maid and calling for a high-class 18-year-old escort girl every night.

This goes for non-millionaires too. Think of an average guy who has been married for more than ten-years. Think of how much more money he would have saved away, or at least have to spend on himself (without having to ask for anyone’s permission to do so) had he not had some ungrateful fucking harpy sitting on his couch spending his money and creeching for more.

This goldigging cunt spent almost three-decades not having to work but living a life of leisure (I cannot imagine she did one ounce of housework once hubby reached his first million), and the courts have decided she is entitled to half the money that he earned!


Men = ATMs
September 23, 2007


16 May 2007

There’s talk of paternity leave in the UK for fathers, whereby a woman can give up some of her paid maternity leave to him. Not that that will work. How many women will go back to work earlier than they have to and be the primary breadwinner and support a man? Not many.

Amongst the comments at the Daily Telegraph (PDF) about the story is this, from some snotty bitch called Michelle:

Men’s contribution to the family is really nothing more than a few moments of pleasure 9 months before birth and then years of making the money it takes to finance the resulting kids. Men should keep to their traditional role, which is to be the family’s ATM machine, nothing more. Men have their careers, their work. Women have their kids. And this is why men don’t have many rights when it comes to divorce and subsequent custody/visitation arrangements. They just are not needed when it comes to taking care of children, right?

In saying that, though, I do think the whole “You are getting something that I don’t get” argument from those who remain childless is evidence of what is wrong with our society. To whine because you think that someone else is getting a benefit that you don’t get reflects a selfish attitude. If you feel so aggrieved, go home and be thankful that your life isn’t tainted by having to take care of a bunch of sick kids or some such thing.

I don’t think any of us enlightened men are surprised at this attitude, that us men are just a family’s ATM machine (family being the wife and her children), that us men are selfish for wanting a privilege women have, and that if us men feel aggrieved about anything we should, in her view, “go home” and contemplate how bad women have it.

This is how most modern women think with regards to relationships:

“You men work forty-to-seventy hours a week. Protect and provide. Us women drop the kids off at school in the morning, turn on dishwasher and washing machine, lunch with mates at Starbucks, go shopping, watch daytime TV, pick the kids up from school in the late afternoon, feed you and the kids a microwavable meal then spend all evening watching TV. You men don’t complain. You men shut the fuck up about your problems,and instead consider how bad us women have it. Otherwise we’ll fucking divorce you and take you for all you’re worth.”

Plus she justifies us men not getting any rights with regards to our children by the fact that we’re not needed…then moans that poor wikkle women have to look after children.

This personifies the official double-standard fembot attitude. They say that us men aren’t needed to raise children, and indeed are unsuited to do so…but also say that us men are bastards for leaving all the child-raising to women.

This Michelle is, clearly, a snot-nosed entitlement cunt.

Her hypocritical gobshite fucking attitude – that men are just ATM machines and not needed in families – is one of the main reasons why us men shouldn’t get married.

The other main reason is the fact that this same hypocritical gobshite fucking attitude is also held by family court judges and the divorce laws.

Stay single men. Don’t become an ATM machine for some bitch and her children.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:09 PM


McCartney Vs Mills, round one
September 17, 2007


01 March 2007


McCartneys go face to face in bitter courtroom battle

It has been claimed – not verified by either party – that Ms Mills may have lost the first round in the divorce proceedings with many of her claims of his misbehaviour allegedly rejected by the judge.

Hopefully it’s true that the bitch is having her claims rejected. Lying fucking skank.

She’ll still get a fortune though. Even the offer of £25,000,000 is outrageously over-generous, she didn’t earn a penny of it nor contribute to the success Paul McCartney had long before he met her.

This case will hopefully wise men up to fraud marriage and divorce has become. Sure, most guys haven’t got £825million but nonetheless, they can still lose a substantial portion of their assets and future earnings, and whilst a multi-millionaire can still survive on 50% of their assets, an average guy often can’t.

It’s funny how Mills happily slung a load of obviously bullshit allegations last year that Paul attacked her and such shit and it backfired, with most people regarding her as a lying bitch. Paul McCartney is very well liked in Britain, and almost worshiped as a minor God in Liverpool, so Mills is a bit thick if she thinks she can get the public on her side by reverting to usual skanky tactics and casually flinging accusations that McCartney is some sort of demonic wife-beating psycho. Daft whore.

McCartney was still a fool to marry her though. What was he thinking?

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:06 PM


Divorce and “sacrifices”
September 16, 2007


27 February 2007

If you go through a modern divorce in the West, the sacrifices your wife made during the marriage is key to how much she’ll be given of your wealth, and with some blubbing, some twisting of facts, some feminist double-think and plenty of lies, the sacrifices she made will be blown out of all proportion.

Naturally, any sacrifices you make will be regarded as irrelevant. In fact they’ll be twisted round to be seen as benefits you obtained on the back of your wife. Earning £100,000 a year at the end of your marriage? That’s half thanks to your wife and she’s entitled to half of that from now on. Nevermind if you only earned that amount through slogging your guts out and half-dying of stress, or if you barely got to spend any of that without asking your wife’s permission, or if you only crawled your way up the career ladder to keep up with her ever inflating material demands. Doesn’t matter. Pay her £50,000 a year after the divorce until she marries some other sucker. Get a pay-raise? So does she. Pay up. Or else, motherfucker.

Take careers. Now a woman will talk about “sacrificing – sob – my career”, which is clearly bollocks, given that they marry to quit their hated jobs (why else do they never marry guys beneath them status-wise, and thus unable to support them?) Claiming they sacrifice their careers is just a way of establishing victim-status before the divorce courts.

However, even if we accept the laughable notion that a woman quitting working 40-hours a week in a dreary office to stay at home and be provided for by a man counts as a sacrifice, so what? Why should she be compensated in any way? The man has made a sacrifice by providing for both himself and her, and possibly kids too, in that he has given up the choice of working the minimum necessary to support only himself. He’s sacrificed a stress-free life of responsible for no-one but himself, and possibly plenty of weekends out with the lads that he now spends them doing overtime.

Yet this is irrelevant to many women and certainly to the divorce courts. A man doesn’t make “sacrifices”, he merely does his duty, and damn him if he doesn’t. No matter that a man has sacrificed anything, all that they take into account is what the woman has given up, and thus she ought to be compensated. Most ludicrous of all is the insane belief that working is actually fun, when in fact it’s rubbish and, for most men, a means to an end. The opposite notion is put forth in divorce courts. A wife who gave up her job has made a tremendous sacrifice and requires compensation. The husband who, after marriage and after his wife quit her job, had to go from working 35-hours a week to working twice that has somehow benefited! Having all that fun virtually living at the office whilst his poor wikkle wife drags herself to lunch at Starbucks with her fellow ladies of leisure. Therefore she should be compensated by being allowed to keep their her home and half of her husband’s future income to compensate her. What bollocks.


Feminism ruins society, men blamed
September 16, 2007


16 February 2007


Cameron blames fathers for ‘broken’ society (PDF)

Fathers should be compelled to look after their children in an effort to tackle the breakdown of family life and discipline in society David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said today.

Father’s children”? I didn’t realise fathers had children these days, they belong to women. Women can abort kids, get full custody, get pregnant via a sperm donor (willing or otherwise) with no intention of the father having any input at all…whatever they want.

Hang on a minute though, it looks like some blame has to be placed for children’s misery, and that means – ta-daah! – suddenly children belong to father’s again! What a shocking surprise.

He said the shooting of three teenage boys in south London in the last fortnight had shown that British society was “badly broken”.

Issues like teenage gun crime, Mr Cameron said, could not be dealt with by better policing or tighter gun controls alone when the problem – and the solution – lay within families and communities.

Indeed it does lie in families and communities. Not in more laws and government interference, which is usually proposed as a solution, as Cameron pretty much proceeds to do.

“Every working parent knows that you can’t have it all.

Not really. Plenty of women still labour under this assumption.

“There is a natural conflict between hours worked, money earned and the time you spend at home. I believe that businesses have an overriding corporate responsibility to help lessen this conflict, and make it easier for parents to find the proper balance for their lives,” he said.

No, businesses don’t have to make it easier for parents. Businesses are there to make money. All this forcing of businesses to ensure people (primarily women) get their work/life balance in order is fucking the economy up, not to mention causing increasing resentment.


Freed from prison for being unhappy. And having a vagina.
September 13, 2007


14 February 2007


Bridge Jump Mother Freed

A woman who was jailed for trying to kill herself and her child by jumping 100ft from the Humber Bridge has been freed “as an act of mercy”.

Well, she does have a vagina, and it would be an act of merciless Patriarchal Oppression to actually keep her in prison, even if she did try to kill her baby daughter.

Said Judge Mangina:

“We have asked ourselves, is it really necessary, or was it really necessary to send this unhappy woman to prison to punish her for the momentary aberration which led her to try and take her own and her child’s life?

“Momentary aberration”? She did specifically drive all the way to the bridge, that can’t have taken a mere moment. Clearly it was premeditated. And she was unhappy? Oh boo-hoo! Maybe if I ever end up in prison I could tell the judge at the appeal court that I was little bit unhappy at the time of the offence, and thus obtain early release. Hurrah!

Oh wait, I don’t have a vagina. Silly me. I therefore wouldn’t be eligible.


“Could I be any more evil looking? Bwhahaha!”

He said she had then kept her child afloat “for some 45 minutes”, saving the lives “she had tried to end”.

The only reason her child’s life needed saving was because this demented fruitcake had jumped into a big bastard river whilst holding the crying child. She put the baby’s life in danger and only saved her life, and her own, after changing her mind about the whole murder-suicide thing (it’s a woman’s prerogative after all.) Yet they just about want to give her a bravery award.

Stake + firewood + match = proper justice

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:51 PM


The youth of today
September 13, 2007


14 February 2007


British youngsters get worst deal, says UN

Britain has been ranked bottom out of 21 countries in a United Nations assessment of children’s well-being.

The nation’s high number of single parents and step-families has contributed to the ranking.

Well duh!

Why the fuck is the United Nations wagging its finger at the UK for having disfunctional and broken families? This outdated prologue to a World Government piece of shit organisation is infested with feminists and all sorts of weirdo Women’s Groups. They’re the sort of big government twats who encourage broken families and single motherhood.

Lone parent organisations argue that there is no evidence that all children with one parent are bound to turn out worse off in adult life than children of traditional family units.

No evidence? Well of course they’ll say that. When has an organisation for single parents (i.e. single mothers) ever admitted children are better off with two parents? Not only do statistics show kids are better off with a father, common sense dictates this as well.

Ask anyone who disagrees with this to contemplate the following: if you were going to buy a house and you had a choice of two identical homes, both the same price, and one was in a neighbourhood whereby every household consists of a married couple and their children, and the other was in a neighbourhood whereby every household is a single mother and her kids by several different fathers – and maybe her latest boyfriend too – and anyone with any sense would pick the first home. That’ll be in the neighbourhood that is less likely to have gangs of feral youths hanging on street corners.

This is feminism’s greatest legacy; miserable children, broken families and poverty. Well fucking done you stupid cunts. Bra-fucking-vo. And you dumb fucking baby-boomer women who eagerly followed the hate-filled ideology of a bunch of mentally deranged lesbians, give yourselves a round of applause. Then fuck off.

Feminists; fucking things up since the sixties and refusing to apologise ever since. Cunts.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 8:36 PM


Psycho divorcee imprisoned kids for seven-years
September 13, 2007


12 February 2007

Daughters Struggling After Mom Locked Them Away for 7 Years

Three girls who were imprisoned by their mother in a house of indescribable filth for seven years may never recover from the ordeal, experts said last night.

The girls were shut away from the outside world, existing in almost complete darkness, playing only with mice and communicating in their own language.

When they were discovered, their home in a smart, upper middle-class suburb had no running water and was filled with waste and excrement a meter high. The floor was corroded by mice urine.

What a bitch.

The girls’ ordeal was apparently sparked by their parents’ divorce, after which their mother, a 53-year-old lawyer, suffered a breakdown. But she won custody of the girls — then aged 7, 11 and 13 — and withdrew them from school, claiming that she would give them private tuition at home.

Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Upper Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them once, despite his claims for access reaching court nine times.

Welcome to the West; Mangina Central. The bitch suffered a mental breakdown but she still won custody of the kids and her husband’s demands to see his children completely ignored.

The mother is now being held in a special remand prison branch for the mentally unstable. She will appear in court in a few weeks on charges of grievous bodily harm and torture, and is facing between five months and five years in prison.

Ah yes, off to a special cozy psychiatric branch of a prison because she simply must be mentally ill or have a personality disorder like any woman who gone and done bad.

And the most she’ll get is five-years? Possibly less than half-a-year? Her daughters spent seven-years locked up.

I think, oh let’s say, seventy-years would be a more appropriate punishment. Or good old fashioned burning at the stake.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:00 PM


Baby blues
September 5, 2007


12 January 2007

A young woman at work the other day inspired surreptitious sniggering from me as she bragged that she wanted to have four children but did not want to have any until she was “at least thirty.”

Oh boy.

Women seem to be endlessly narcissistic these days, with their endless infatuation with themselves individually and as a sex. Yet they have a startling lack of knowledge about biology. Their most fertile years are between 16 and 21, and the biological clock starts ticking down by the late 20s. By the thirties not only are women less fertile – possibly as barren as the Sahara by 35 – but the risk of birth defects and miscarriages rises too.

According to Wikipedia:

Birth defects, especially those involving chromosome number and arrangement, also increase with the age of the mother. According to the March of Dimes, “At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.”[3]

Multiplying the conception rate times the miscarriage rate times the birth defect rates should yield a rough likelihood of a healthy birth:

30-year-olds: .91 x .85 x .999 = 77%
35-year-olds: .84 x .80 x .9975 = 67%
40-year-olds: .64 x .55 x .99 = 35%

So even at 30, there’s almost a one-in-four chance the woman will miscarry or have a spaz baby. By 40 it’s a two-in-three chance. Sure, no pregnancy is risk-free for either the mother or baby, but clearly you’re far better off trying to have children with a woman under 30; ideally under 25. Obviously us men know this instinctively, hence our tendency to go for young women instead of old flappy-titted career bints, although women – especially old flappy-titted career bints – tend to assume this is some sort of vast sexist conspiracy and go friggin’ mental.


Father’s Rights
August 26, 2007


29 November 2006

Are we guilty of ignoring fathers’ rights?

Amongst the first comments posted are guys proving that guys are increasingly seeing how fucked up and anti-male society is becoming.

Fathers don’t have rights. Period. Society does however force responsibilities upon them. No wonder increasing numbers of men will not form stable relationships or commit to fathering children. What goes around, comes around.

The liberals who have destroyed the institution of marriage and the family unit hadn’t got the intelligence to figure out the obvious consequences.

Men and Fathers face extreme prejudice from the courts and society in general. A Man has no rights whatsoever in reproductive nor post reproduction and that is a disgrace…Not only should we have equal measure in custody but also as much right as a woman to determine the future (or lack of) of a foetus..

The situation here in America isn’t much better; fathers aren’t considered as anything more human than a walking cash machine.

I have spent what would have been more than the equivalent of the cost of my daughter’s college education just to be even somewhat relevant in her life. What a waste of futute resources.

The saddest part is that the county Domestic Relations agencies ENCOURAGE this strife as they get matched, dollar for dollar, for every penny they extort out of fathers. How sick; being extorted by my own government.

On a related note, this guy has decided to harass and annoy a judge who has stopped him from seeing his child. Good on him. It’s a small step to holding family court judges – who are the scum of the Earth, no better than feminists and child molesters – responsible for their fucked up actions.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:20 PM


Women; the eternal victims!
August 13, 2007


23 November 2006

Action urged over abuse of women

The government is not doing enough to tackle the problems of violence against women in the UK, a coalition of charities has warned.

Men are far more likely so suffer violence in general, and just as likely as women to suffer from domestic violence at the hands of a partner. Whilst female children are more likely to suffer sexual abuse than male children, male children are more likely to suffer physical abuse than female children, and women are the greatest perpetrators. Women are responsible for the majority of cases of infanticide.

Yet all we ever hear about are poor women suffering. Oh noooo! One single woman suffering violence means the whole world must come to a stop and everything done to prevent this from happening again, but men and boys suffering – be it through violent crime, domestic violence at the hands of a wife or girlfriend, physical abuse at the hands of a mother, or the epidemic of male suicide – is apparantly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. Only women matter according to charities and governments.


From the Comments III
August 6, 2007


13 November 2006

Wow, yet another dumb woman (this one an anonymous coward) spewing forth a tedious pile of drivel at the comments page here. It’s getting a bit unoriginal, all this shaming language, but it’s worth putting it up here anyway to remind us of how fantastic it is to not have to put up with one of these infernal Western Women in our lives.

Wow…clearly no one in this exchange has gotten any in years!

Right off, accusations of “You can’t get laid!”

Anyone fancy a game of fembot bingo whilst reading this?

Bravo. Way to misconstrue the facts and the law … but hey at least you have your angry man hate to keep you warm at night!

Man hate? We don’t hate men, feminist do.

Unless you’re trying to imply criticising women is equal to us hating women, which is, according to dumb cunts like you, is Bad, whilst hating men is Good.


Women can legally lie about paternity
August 2, 2007


10 November 2006

Dad must pay for other guy’s kids

Plenty of people have e-mailed me links to this story.

It’s hard to really comment on this shit, it’s just so fucked up.

A man who sued his former wife after paying child support for two children fathered by his wife’s lover today lost his appeal to the High Court.

The judges unanimously ruled that the case for paternity fraud brought by Liam Neale Magill failed.

Three judges held that no action for deceit could lie in representations about paternity made between spouses.

So, let’s see. If women can’t be arsed looking after a baby, they can have it killed in the womb at taxpayer’s expense. If they have a kid, the father has to pay mummy huge amounts of cash – whether he can afford the demanded amount or not, on pain of prison – from the father, they can, in fact, name some random guy as a father and it’s up to him to prove he isn’t the father or else he has to pay child support. Or she can marry some sucker, name him as the father to her bad-boy thug lover’s bastard, and even after he’s proved he isn’t the father, he has to continue to pay the lying adulterous whore and can go fuck himself if he dares think he’s hard-done by.

And this society is awfully oppressive to poor wimmin because…?


Little bastards!
July 31, 2007


02 November 2006

UK youths ‘among worst in Europe’

Britain’s youth are among the most badly behaved in Europe, a study by a think-tank has suggested.

On every indicator of bad behaviour – drugs, drink, violence, promiscuity – the UK was at or near the top, said the Institute for Public Policy Research.


Measured against German, French and Italian youngsters, British 15-year-olds are drunk more often and involved in more fights, and a higher proportion have had sex.

We also have one of the highest rates of children raised without fathers. T’is no coincidence.

The BBC’s article points out that many teenagers don’t interact much with the rest of their families or parents, but skirts round the issue that most aren’t a part of a family, as a single mother and her kids isn’t a family. Most don’t have parents-plural either, just a stressed out useless skank who probably only had the kid to get a council house and some child support/benefits. Naturally it’s far too politically incorrect to attribute these factors to the removal by divorce courts of fathers from families, or the way financially rewarding and excusing skankhood makes women unashamed to become single mother whores.

It would be foolish to claim everything was a crime-free utopia before feminism of course, but nonetheless, the onset of feminism and the success of its aim of removing men from children’s lives has sent much of the youth population into little more than a feral state.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:48 PM


“McCartney was violent” claims ex-porn star and shoplifter
July 30, 2007


18 October 2006


Goodbye to violent McCartney, says Heather Mills

Former Beatle Paul McCartney’s estranged wife Heather Mills has reportedly accused the iconic musician of violence, murderous excess, sexual chauvinism, alcoholism and drug-taking throughout the course of their brief and ill-starred marriage, in the latest, ugliest twist in their divorce battle.

In a series of extraordinary allegations filed in the divorce papers, which quickly found their way into a British tabloid newspaper, Mills, a former model half McCartney’s age, accused McCartney of attacking her four times, trying to choke her and behaving in an altogether “vindictive, punitive manner”.

Mills, who has retained the late Princess Diana’s expensive divorce lawyer to try and claim the largest chunk possible of the former Beatle’s estimated one-billion-pound fortune, claimed the singer was “physically violent” and tried to stab her with a broken wine glass, refused to let her breast-feed their daughter and forced the one-legged anti-landmine campaigner her to cancel an operation since it conflicted with his vacation plans.

And who’s going to believe all these allegations that lack evidence, that suspiciously were not reported at the time, and which would coincidentally ensure an even bigger share of a divorce settlement? Oh right, a divorce court would believe them.

Divorce lawyers generally advise women to automatically make allegations of violence (or threats of it, which are even more difficult to disprove) against their husbands. It’s fair to assume the bulk of such claims are false.


Don’t co-habit
July 26, 2007


16 October 2006

Cohabiting couples to win legal rights if relations break down

Britain’s two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.

Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.

There was no doubt that this would go through. Women are whining that few men will marry, meaning it’s harder for them to orchestrate a legal theft of a man’s property and future earnings, and when women whine, governments swiftly act. Plus the family lawyers are panicking as their revenue falls.

Opposition MPs and family campaigners said the sweeping changes – expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years – would further undermine the institution of marriage.

Plus it’ll undermine co-habiting of course. This is what happened in Australia when they introduced similar laws; co-habitation has plummeted and more than a quarter of women are living alone or with parents, and moaning about it the whole time. “Boo-hoo, men are afraid of being financially raped…I mean, er, committment and intimacy.” The same thing will happen here.

The important thing is that as many men are made aware of this law as possible to save them from foolishly letting a woman move in and thinking that, so long as they don’t marry, they’ll be okay. They need to konw that that’s not the case.

But constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman said the number of people living together outside marriage would double in the next 25 years – and insisted yesterday they needed a new set of legal rights.

I wonder whether these politicians are actually aware of the fact that the dropping marriage rates are because men are avoiding the risk of financial ruin, and that we’ll avoid co-habiting as well now, but are just deliberately refusing to acknowledge this, or are they genuinely that thick that they don’t realise.


Hitchens on politics
July 25, 2007


12 October 2006


The real problem with the British constitution

Peter Hitchin’s view of contemporary British politics.

His overall point is that the main two parties, Conservatives and Labour, are too alike, avoid any controversial debate and are thoroughly deserving of voter apathy. It may be of interest to US readers, as I’ve heard plenty of Americans complain in the same manner about Republicans and Democrats (or Republicrats for short), that they are largely identical, inert elitists.

If they [the Conservatives and Labour] were commercial outfits, they would not survive at all. It is as if forgotten grocery chains, such as International Stores or Fine Fare, still dominated the retail market even though their shops were dingy, their prices high, their merchandise old-fashioned and shabby. But the rules of commerce don’t apply in politics. Habit and unreasoning tribal loyalty sustain brands, which would otherwise be dead.


There are several other subjects which are also effectively banned. You may not question the great social and political mistakes of the 1960s and seventies.

Crime can be debated, but shallowly, never in the light of its true cause, the laying waste of family life by the official encouragement of divorce and fatherless families, and by the death of absolute morality.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:55 PM


Hollywood has-been charged with refusing her ex-husband’s visitation rights
July 23, 2007


05 October 2006

Basinger will be tried in custody battle

Kim Basinger will go to trial after pleading not guilty Wednesday to disregarding court orders concerning ex-husband Alec Baldwin’s visitation rights with their daughter, a court official ordered.

Court papers filed by Baldwin allege that in 2005, the Academy Award-winning actress ignored court orders by not letting her ex-husband know she would be out of town working so that he could take care of their 10-year-old daughter until she returned.

Hmm, a tiny bit of sense sneaking in to the family courts. I doubt if she’ll be found guilty, or if so, she won’t be punished in anyway. She can surely just make up a few false allegations of abuse.

What the fuck has she ever starred in anyway, apart from that porny flick with Mickey O’Rourke?

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:23 PM


Eleven-years of prison for divorced man
July 18, 2007


17 September 2006

Man jailed 11 years in ‘scorched earth’ divorce case

Slight, scholarly and enigmatic, H. Beatty Chadwick is doing this day what he has done for the past 4,093: He is sitting in a county jail outside Philadelphia.

It is a place meant for run-of-the-mill crooks just passing through on their way to comparatively luxurious state prisons. Certainly not for anyone to stay 11 years — not for the central figure in one of the most bizarre divorce battles in American history.

It hinges on a charge of civil contempt designed to force Chadwick to turn over $2.5 million the courts say he hid overseas all those years ago. Except he won’t. Or can’t, depending on whom you believe.

In July 1994, the Delaware County courts ordered the $2.5 million sent back, into an court-controlled account, while the divorce played out.

Momjian showed the courts documentation that Chadwick’s money wound up in Gibraltar, with some of it briefly returning to accounts in the United States, and eventually to Luxembourg and Panama. But that was 10 years ago. Momjian says the cash could be anywhere by now.

Chadwick insisted he couldn’t pay up because the cash was no longer his. A county judge found him in contempt, and on November 2, 1994, he was ordered imprisoned. The deal from the courts: Give up the money and go free.

Only in the Matriarchy could a man be imprisoned for over a decade for not handing over money he earned to hand over to a woman he used to be married to. And, as is invariably the case, she was the one who divorced him.


Rewarding cheating harlots
July 16, 2007


21 August 2006

My job in banking isn’t exactly exciting, although the various women there provide amusing anecdotes for my blog.

The other day I did encounter something work-related that needs reporting. I got a file relating to an investment bond type thingie. It wasn’t meant for me so I flicked through it to figure out which Department I should send it too. Inside was a photocopy of a Divorce Certificate, complete with various information relating to the assets being split up; presumably it was there to prove the man who owned the policy had been assigned it during his recent divorce.

I had a nosy through it, growing more and more sickened as I did so.

At the start it related that the man had filed for divorce because his wife had committed adultery “with an unnamed man.” The wife admitted adultery and did not contest it.

Then came to dividing up the assets or, more accurately, giving the adulterous bitch just about fucking everything.


%d bloggers like this: