Aug, 5, 2010
Touted as an effective tool to cut down the pendency of cases across courts, the mediation mechanism has recently hit a stumbling block as instead of ending multifarious litigation, it has often resulted in a fresh bout of cases. The Delhi High Court has recently witnessed several cases where the litigants, especially those entangled in marital disputes, have wished to reject the compromise deed executed after the mediation.
Of late many parties have been approaching the High Court asking to get their compromise deeds quashed, claiming they were made “under duress/coercion”. But, more worryingly, the retraction often comes after one of the parties has already availed the benefits of the compromise deed.
Noting a spurt in such cases, Justice S N Dhingra said a litigant complaining of coercion must be put to stringent test before the compromise is set aside. The judge further noted receipt of the benefits is a factor that should be kept in mind before quashing a deed. “One can understand the retraction of compromise, if no benefit is received. However, the compromises are retracted even after benefits are received by one party,” noted the court in its recent order.
Justice Dhingra noted that approaching the court after drawing the benefits of an agreement meant pushing the other party, who chose to comply with the terms, to a state of utmost disadvantage and hence, equity must prevail in such cases so that no injustice is done. “The party has to prove before the court by cogent evidence that the compromise was not entered into with free will and consent and the same was entered into under duress and should be ignored,” ruled Justice Dhingra while dismissing two similar petitions.
Backing the court’s views, jurists said the sanctity of a compromise deed must be maintained and not challenged by a lame allegation without substance. Retired Delhi High Court judge R S Sodhi told Newsline, “The entire purpose of alternate dispute redressal system is defeated if courts entertain such pleas without concrete arguments. These deeds are the rule of the courts and must be respected.”
Balkrishna Sharma, a trial court lawyer who has attended several mediation proceedings, said any litigant should not be allowed to retract from the mediation without strong reasons. “A deed is executed only after willful agreements are arrived at and that too before a judicial officer. Nobody should be at a disadvantage only because he or she opted to follow the orders and honoured the deed.”
Mediation process
The mediator — usually a judge — makes the two parties sit across a table and help them resolve the issues amicably before a compromise deed is executed on the terms agreed by both.
Mediation is considered very useful in cases of marital discord and issues of alimony, divorce and compensation are easily sorted out. These compromise deeds are subsequently submitted in the court trying their cases and matters are disposed of accordingly. A similar process is followed at the Lok Adalats.
Mr.Rebates
Friday, August 6, 2010
Allow dowry cases to be settled outside court: SC to govt
Aug, 5, 2010
The Supreme Court has sought an amendment in the Indian Penal Code to make dowry harassment a “compoundable offence” — which would allow willing families to settle their problems outside court. The Supreme Court made the request, to be placed before Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily, in a unique manner, through a judicial order.
The amendment would relieve the courts from the “burden” of hearing dowry cases in which warring families are happy to settle, but the penal code does not allow them to do so, the Supreme Court said in a July 30 judicial order released on Wednesday.
If the court’s “opinion” actually transforms into an amendment in the IPC, dowry harassment would become an offence which can be settled by affected parties, without permission of a court of law, possibly by means of paying some money to the victim and her family.
Dowry harassment (Section 498A of the IPC) is currently a non-bailable, non-compoundable (complaint once registered cannot be withdrawn) offence under the IPC, which attracts imprisonment up to three years. As per court records, conviction rate in dowry harassment cases is hardly two per cent.
An early settlement between the accused and the victim in a dowry case could even lead to a reconcilement, a Bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and T S Thakur observed. Dowry harassment is one of several offences featured in the IPC, the court feels, that needs a re-think. “Offences punishable under Section 498-A (dowry harassment) and Section 326 (causing grievous hurt) of the IPC are currently non-compoundable. Some such offences can be made compoundable by introducing a suitable amendment in the statute (IPC).”
The court directed the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to “forthwith” send a copy of the order to the Union Law Secretary and the Law Commission of India. “The Law Secretary is requested to place a copy of this order before the Honourable Minister of Law and Justice, Union of India,” the court observed in the written order.
Forwarding its suggestion to the Law Commission, the court sought the commission to examine whether a “suitable proposal” for amendment in this regard could be sent to the Union Government.
“We request the Law Commission and the Government of India to examine all aspects and take steps as may be considered feasible. Any such step would not only relieve the courts of the burden of deciding cases in which aggrieved parties have themselves arrived at a settlement,” the court said.
The Bench gave its “opinion” after finding it impossible under the present law to acquit a man from MP accused under Section 326 IPC, despite both parties involved having settled their differences.
The Supreme Court has sought an amendment in the Indian Penal Code to make dowry harassment a “compoundable offence” — which would allow willing families to settle their problems outside court. The Supreme Court made the request, to be placed before Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily, in a unique manner, through a judicial order.
The amendment would relieve the courts from the “burden” of hearing dowry cases in which warring families are happy to settle, but the penal code does not allow them to do so, the Supreme Court said in a July 30 judicial order released on Wednesday.
If the court’s “opinion” actually transforms into an amendment in the IPC, dowry harassment would become an offence which can be settled by affected parties, without permission of a court of law, possibly by means of paying some money to the victim and her family.
Dowry harassment (Section 498A of the IPC) is currently a non-bailable, non-compoundable (complaint once registered cannot be withdrawn) offence under the IPC, which attracts imprisonment up to three years. As per court records, conviction rate in dowry harassment cases is hardly two per cent.
An early settlement between the accused and the victim in a dowry case could even lead to a reconcilement, a Bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and T S Thakur observed. Dowry harassment is one of several offences featured in the IPC, the court feels, that needs a re-think. “Offences punishable under Section 498-A (dowry harassment) and Section 326 (causing grievous hurt) of the IPC are currently non-compoundable. Some such offences can be made compoundable by introducing a suitable amendment in the statute (IPC).”
The court directed the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to “forthwith” send a copy of the order to the Union Law Secretary and the Law Commission of India. “The Law Secretary is requested to place a copy of this order before the Honourable Minister of Law and Justice, Union of India,” the court observed in the written order.
Forwarding its suggestion to the Law Commission, the court sought the commission to examine whether a “suitable proposal” for amendment in this regard could be sent to the Union Government.
“We request the Law Commission and the Government of India to examine all aspects and take steps as may be considered feasible. Any such step would not only relieve the courts of the burden of deciding cases in which aggrieved parties have themselves arrived at a settlement,” the court said.
The Bench gave its “opinion” after finding it impossible under the present law to acquit a man from MP accused under Section 326 IPC, despite both parties involved having settled their differences.
THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010 PDF
Here is the actual PDF of the Amendment Marriage Bill, AS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA.
http://498amisuse.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/hma_amemndment.pdf
http://498amisuse.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/hma_amemndment.pdf
Bill in Rajya Sabha to make divorce easier
Aug, 4, 2010
NEW DELHI: A bill seeking to make divorce easier in case of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, moved by law minister M Veerappa Moily, aims at mitigating hardships by allowing divorce in cases of complete failure of marriages.
At present, the petition for a divorce on the ground of mutual consent could be presented by the spouses together before the court under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage Act 1954.
While both parties have to move a motion jointly before the court between six and 18 months of the original petition, it has been observed in several cases that one of them does not turn up.
This leaves parties desirous of obtaining decree of divorce hapless and remediless. In order to mitigate such hardships and to allow divorce in cases of complete failure of such marriages, the bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act.
The condition of moving the motion before the court subsequent to the first petition would be done away with, it said.
However, in case the wife happens to be the respondent to the petition, she is entitled to oppose it on the ground that the dissolution of marriage would result in grave financial hardship to her.
Similarly, a provision has been made to restrict grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if the court is satisfied that adequate provision for maintenance of children has not been made.
The amendment bill has been prepared on the recommendations of the Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court.
The clause of irretrievable breakdown of marriage will be in addition to the existing grounds for divorce.
NEW DELHI: A bill seeking to make divorce easier in case of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, moved by law minister M Veerappa Moily, aims at mitigating hardships by allowing divorce in cases of complete failure of marriages.
At present, the petition for a divorce on the ground of mutual consent could be presented by the spouses together before the court under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage Act 1954.
While both parties have to move a motion jointly before the court between six and 18 months of the original petition, it has been observed in several cases that one of them does not turn up.
This leaves parties desirous of obtaining decree of divorce hapless and remediless. In order to mitigate such hardships and to allow divorce in cases of complete failure of such marriages, the bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act.
The condition of moving the motion before the court subsequent to the first petition would be done away with, it said.
However, in case the wife happens to be the respondent to the petition, she is entitled to oppose it on the ground that the dissolution of marriage would result in grave financial hardship to her.
Similarly, a provision has been made to restrict grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if the court is satisfied that adequate provision for maintenance of children has not been made.
The amendment bill has been prepared on the recommendations of the Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court.
The clause of irretrievable breakdown of marriage will be in addition to the existing grounds for divorce.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
How To Tell She's About To Cheat
Cheating is rarely something that “just happens.” Often, the feelings to wander out of a relationship accumulate over time -- you just might not be aware that it’s on her mind. But you can stop yourself from being played by paying more attention to some telltale signs. Here are some things to look out for if you suspect she’s considering taking her sexiness elsewhere.
She has a case of “mentionitis”
Not to be confused with meningitis, mentionitis is when someone is afflicted with a certain person’s name that they just cannot stop themselves from dropping into conversation. It could be that your woman is constantly talking about Roger, her new partner at work, or Jordan, her personal trainer. No matter what the conversation with you entails, it seems this guy’s name is sure to pop up like an annoying internet advertisement.
You: “Honey, we should go check out that new action flick.”
Her: “Jordan saw it and said it’s great!”
You: “I am so tired lately, I think I need to start taking vitamins.”
Her: “I was telling Jordan the same thing earlier.”
See? Don’t fret if you hear the name of one of her colleagues or friends every now and then -- that’s just paranoia on your part. But if you’re hearing a little too much about some other guy on a regular basis and his name starts to appear in relation to more personal topics, it should alert you to potential danger. It’s like she just can’t help thinking about him.
She’s giving you space -- a little too much space
Just because many girlfriends become space invaders, it doesn’t mean every woman necessarily expects her man to be glued to her hip 24/7. However, if your woman is suddenly opening the floodgates to your free time and not flinching at how you two never seem to spend enough time together, this could be a red flag.
It’s one thing for her to be cool with you having personal time to do your own thing (hey, it’s healthy for your relationship), but it’s quite a different ball game if she’s nearly pushing you out the door or suggesting that you guys do your separate things too often. It could be that her hobby has become some other man.
She brings up reasons to fight
You forgot to buy a certain brand of toilet paper or you’re five minutes late in calling her and she goes nuts on you. If, lately, it seems that all she ever wants to do is pick a fight with you, this could be a symptom of an underlying problem, such as dissatisfaction in the relationship.
Dragging you into the verbal boxing ring could also be her subconscious way of wanting to get a reaction out of you. If you fight back, this probably eases her guilt for thinking of another man because you’re not a saint yourself. It levels the playing field a bit in her mind. The best thing to do is not fight back so you don’t allow her to mess with your head, and so you won’t be painted as the bad guy.
She’s more mysterious
There’s no doubt that mystery is a good thing -- but in small doses. It’s definitely not an intriguing feeling when your girlfriend is keeping too many things to herself, giving you one-word answers about her day, or making you feel that she hardly ever wants to talk with you anymore.
If she’s usually the one who’s keen to chat, but lately all she ever does is murmur through conversation without giving away too much of her day, this can be a sign something’s up. Another sign is if she doesn’t answer her phone at certain times and you see a pattern forming. An example is if she goes AWOL after work in the evenings or on a weekend day, and when she gets back to you she gives you an unclear reason for her disappearance, such as: “I just had to sort something out” or “something came up.”
She’s less affectionate
If another man is occupying her mind, chances are she’s going to be distancing herself from you physically. This could mean she isn’t so touchy-feely anymore and there has been a drop in your sex life. In other words, you’re not getting any or if you are, it’s perfunctory on her part. However, less sex doesn’t necessarily mean she wants to open up the playing field. It could be that she’s going through a sexual slump.
Keep some perspective here. The key is to look out for any drastic changes in your sex life. If your bedroom antics have changed a lot from what was normal for you as a couple, then that could be a sign of impeding doom. So, that means if there’s suddenly a lot more sex, this too could be problematic. Not that you would have thought so, of course. But, you know what they say about too much of a good thing.
She has a case of “mentionitis”
Not to be confused with meningitis, mentionitis is when someone is afflicted with a certain person’s name that they just cannot stop themselves from dropping into conversation. It could be that your woman is constantly talking about Roger, her new partner at work, or Jordan, her personal trainer. No matter what the conversation with you entails, it seems this guy’s name is sure to pop up like an annoying internet advertisement.
You: “Honey, we should go check out that new action flick.”
Her: “Jordan saw it and said it’s great!”
You: “I am so tired lately, I think I need to start taking vitamins.”
Her: “I was telling Jordan the same thing earlier.”
See? Don’t fret if you hear the name of one of her colleagues or friends every now and then -- that’s just paranoia on your part. But if you’re hearing a little too much about some other guy on a regular basis and his name starts to appear in relation to more personal topics, it should alert you to potential danger. It’s like she just can’t help thinking about him.
She’s giving you space -- a little too much space
Just because many girlfriends become space invaders, it doesn’t mean every woman necessarily expects her man to be glued to her hip 24/7. However, if your woman is suddenly opening the floodgates to your free time and not flinching at how you two never seem to spend enough time together, this could be a red flag.
It’s one thing for her to be cool with you having personal time to do your own thing (hey, it’s healthy for your relationship), but it’s quite a different ball game if she’s nearly pushing you out the door or suggesting that you guys do your separate things too often. It could be that her hobby has become some other man.
She brings up reasons to fight
You forgot to buy a certain brand of toilet paper or you’re five minutes late in calling her and she goes nuts on you. If, lately, it seems that all she ever wants to do is pick a fight with you, this could be a symptom of an underlying problem, such as dissatisfaction in the relationship.
Dragging you into the verbal boxing ring could also be her subconscious way of wanting to get a reaction out of you. If you fight back, this probably eases her guilt for thinking of another man because you’re not a saint yourself. It levels the playing field a bit in her mind. The best thing to do is not fight back so you don’t allow her to mess with your head, and so you won’t be painted as the bad guy.
She’s more mysterious
There’s no doubt that mystery is a good thing -- but in small doses. It’s definitely not an intriguing feeling when your girlfriend is keeping too many things to herself, giving you one-word answers about her day, or making you feel that she hardly ever wants to talk with you anymore.
If she’s usually the one who’s keen to chat, but lately all she ever does is murmur through conversation without giving away too much of her day, this can be a sign something’s up. Another sign is if she doesn’t answer her phone at certain times and you see a pattern forming. An example is if she goes AWOL after work in the evenings or on a weekend day, and when she gets back to you she gives you an unclear reason for her disappearance, such as: “I just had to sort something out” or “something came up.”
She’s less affectionate
If another man is occupying her mind, chances are she’s going to be distancing herself from you physically. This could mean she isn’t so touchy-feely anymore and there has been a drop in your sex life. In other words, you’re not getting any or if you are, it’s perfunctory on her part. However, less sex doesn’t necessarily mean she wants to open up the playing field. It could be that she’s going through a sexual slump.
Keep some perspective here. The key is to look out for any drastic changes in your sex life. If your bedroom antics have changed a lot from what was normal for you as a couple, then that could be a sign of impeding doom. So, that means if there’s suddenly a lot more sex, this too could be problematic. Not that you would have thought so, of course. But, you know what they say about too much of a good thing.
NOW Questions Obama's Reluctance To Nominate Elizabeth Warren, Asks Whether Sexism At Play
It is quit amazing the Feminazi's of America accusing of all people President Obama of being Sexist, they have him in there back pocket to say it politely. This tells you one thing, that you can NEVER please the Feminazi's, they are never satisfied or grateful they are like kids having a tantrum, spoiled brats, unrelently witches.
The way these people look at it you have to keep on crying, and pardon my French, keep on Bitching, even after you get your way.
July 27, 2010
The National Organization for Women is asking whether President Barack Obama's apparent reluctance to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head a new consumer agency is due to sexism, according to an email the group sent supporters Tuesday.
The noted consumer advocate, Wall Street bailout watchdog and Harvard Law professor is one of three candidates the White House has identified as leading contenders to head the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency, conceived by Warren in a 2007 article, was created as part of the financial reform bill Obama last week signed into law.
Bank lobbies fought to kill the agency while it was under consideration in Congress, and have expressed concern with a Warren nomination. The agency will regulate consumer credit products like mortgages and credit cards and some fear she could be too aggressive in protecting consumers from dubious lending practices, cutting off key sources of profitability for banks.
But while Obama administration officials, liberal Democrats and some Republicans are in near-universal agreement that Warren is well-qualified to run the agency, Obama, though praising Warren last week, has thus far declined to nominate her for the Senate-confirmed role. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to her nomination, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views, the Huffington Post reported July 15. Treasury Department and White House officials, while effusive in their praise of Warren, have not denied the report, despite repeated opportunities.
Now, the nation's leading women's organization alleges sexism may be at play.
"If confirmed, Warren would protect consumers from further economic meltdowns caused by shady loans and credit," NOW wrote in its e-mail to supporters. "She would also demand accountability and consumer-friendly practices from Wall Street banks. But she's not part of the old boys club, so NOW asks: Could sexism be at work in denying her this position?"
The group went on to say that it hopes Obama "doesn't listen" to his top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, because of what NOW considers to be his allegedly sexist views.
"[S]ome of the president's top financial advisors, like Larry Summers, have expressed biased and blatantly sexist views about women's abilities," NOW wrote. "In 2005, Summers said, concerning women's aptitude for science and math, 'It does appear that on many, many different human attributes -- overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability -- there is relatively clear evidence that ... there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.' Essentially, he claimed that men are innately inclined to be better at math and science than women.
"Let's hope that Obama doesn't listen to Summers on this decision!" the group wrote in its e-mail.
In an interview last week with a media outlet, Obama called Warren a "wonderful voice making a very simple point, which is, if you've got a set of rules and standards in place to make sure your toaster doesn't blow up in your face, you should have some rules and regulations to make sure your credit card or mortgage doesn't blow up in your face."
Obama said he has the "highest regard" for her, but that he has yet to make a decision regarding possible appointment.
"[B]ut here's my guarantee," Obama added. "Elizabeth is going to be working with me, working with Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, to help in thinking about how do we make this consumer agency as effective as possible looking out for consumers. She is going to be actively involved in that process."
One consumer advocate involved in the effort to get the financial reform bill through Congress speculated that the "guarantee" could simply be a guarantee to keep Warren involved in consumer protection without actually nominating her for the role. Something similar was promised June 16 by David Axelrod, one of Obama's top advisers.
"The President believes Elizabeth Warren is a champion for middle class families and consumers, and her work on consumer protection issues helped guide his original proposal and will continue to play an important role on this issue going forward," Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement. "Though the President has not named someone to this post less than a week after signing the bill, Elizabeth Warren will continue to play a vital role regardless in ensuring the consumer agency is as effective as possible."
NOW's sexism charge is a far cry from May 10 and May of 2009, when NOW praised Obama for his separate nominations of women -- Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- to the Supreme Court.
The organization's accusation follows up a similar allegation from a member of Congress.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, wrote in a July 20 blog post on HuffPost that opposition to Warren may be due to sexism.
"The good old boy network of investors is uncomfortable around her," Speier wrote. "Is this because she is a woman in a male-dominated 'sport,' or is it that she's an advocate for middle-class families who sees nothing amusing about winning and losing with people's life savings?"
Charges of sexism in financial regulation aren't new.
In 2008, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank alleged sexism was partly at play when it came to the Wall Street bailout and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair's role in the negotiations.
Bair allegedly "annoyed the Old Boys Club," Frank said, likening the situation to several regulators "up in the treehouse with a 'No Girls Allowed' sign," according to a Politico.
In 1998, critics allege that sexism also played a role when financial regulators in the Clinton administration -- led in part by Summers -- objected to a proposal regulating over-the-counter derivatives that was championed by Brooksley E. Born, then-chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. At the time the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission were all headed by men.
However, while financial regulation has traditionally been dominated by men, there are some women in important roles today. The FDIC and SEC are both currently headed by women -- one of whom was appointed by Obama -- and two of Obama's three picks to join the Fed's Board of Governors are women.
The Treasury Department, though, continues to be led by mostly men. Of the top 20 officials Treasury lists on its Web site, just five are women.
Men also lead the CFTC, the OCC and the Fed. Of the five current Fed governors, just one -- Elizabeth Duke -- is a woman.
READ the e-mail:
Watchdog Not Lapdog Needed to Reform Wall Street, Tell Obama to Nominate Elizabeth Warren to Head Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
On July 23, President Obama signed into law a sweeping financial reform bill, which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency that would closely monitor Wall Street practices concerning credit and loans. Such an agency was originally proposed by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor and expert on bankruptcy and credit. Warren is the most qualified and most obvious choice for head of this bureau, but she's definitely not favored by Wall Street and its sympathizers in the government.
If confirmed, Warren would protect consumers from further economic meltdowns caused by shady loans and credit. She would also demand accountability and consumer-friendly practices from Wall Street banks. But she's not part of the old boys club, so NOW asks: Could sexism be at work in denying her this position?
Write President Obama today and tell him that the people of the United States want a head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who will promote the interests of consumers, not the interests of big banks. Tell him we want Elizabeth Warren!
Background:
In 2007, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor, wrote an article in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas that proposed the creation of a government agency to protect consumers from duplicitous credit practices, much the same way that consumers are protected from faulty or dangerous products. Three years later, the government has taken Warren's advice and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed on July 23.
The bureau would have the power to oversee, analyze, and regulate credit and loans, including credit cards and mortgages. It would protect consumers from any abusive banking practices and would also be able to monitor Wall Street to prevent another economic meltdown. Overall, the purpose of the bureau is consumer protection, and it needs a head who will be on the side of everyday people, not the rich and superrich.
Elizabeth Warren is more than qualified to head this bureau. She is an expert on bankruptcy, a distinguished researcher and the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitored the Wall Street bailouts. Her background, experience, and commitment to the welfare of consumers make her the most obvious choice for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
However, those on Wall Street and government officials who support them do not want Warren to head the bureau, as they know that she would boldly stand up for consumers and crack down on the underhanded practices of big banks. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has voiced objections to Warren, and though he's since described her as "an enormously effective leader," he still has not said that he would recommend her nomination.
Some of the president's top financial advisors, like Larry Summers, have expressed biased and blatantly sexist views about women's abilities. In 2005, Summers said, concerning women's aptitude for science and math, "It does appear that on many, many different human attributes--overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability--there is relatively clear evidence that ...there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population." Essentially, he claimed that men are innately inclined to be better at math and science than women. Let's hope that Obama doesn't listen to Summers on this decision!
The consumers of the U.S. need a strong watchdog like Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not a Wall Street lapdog.
The way these people look at it you have to keep on crying, and pardon my French, keep on Bitching, even after you get your way.
July 27, 2010
The National Organization for Women is asking whether President Barack Obama's apparent reluctance to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head a new consumer agency is due to sexism, according to an email the group sent supporters Tuesday.
The noted consumer advocate, Wall Street bailout watchdog and Harvard Law professor is one of three candidates the White House has identified as leading contenders to head the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency, conceived by Warren in a 2007 article, was created as part of the financial reform bill Obama last week signed into law.
Bank lobbies fought to kill the agency while it was under consideration in Congress, and have expressed concern with a Warren nomination. The agency will regulate consumer credit products like mortgages and credit cards and some fear she could be too aggressive in protecting consumers from dubious lending practices, cutting off key sources of profitability for banks.
But while Obama administration officials, liberal Democrats and some Republicans are in near-universal agreement that Warren is well-qualified to run the agency, Obama, though praising Warren last week, has thus far declined to nominate her for the Senate-confirmed role. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to her nomination, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views, the Huffington Post reported July 15. Treasury Department and White House officials, while effusive in their praise of Warren, have not denied the report, despite repeated opportunities.
Now, the nation's leading women's organization alleges sexism may be at play.
"If confirmed, Warren would protect consumers from further economic meltdowns caused by shady loans and credit," NOW wrote in its e-mail to supporters. "She would also demand accountability and consumer-friendly practices from Wall Street banks. But she's not part of the old boys club, so NOW asks: Could sexism be at work in denying her this position?"
The group went on to say that it hopes Obama "doesn't listen" to his top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, because of what NOW considers to be his allegedly sexist views.
"[S]ome of the president's top financial advisors, like Larry Summers, have expressed biased and blatantly sexist views about women's abilities," NOW wrote. "In 2005, Summers said, concerning women's aptitude for science and math, 'It does appear that on many, many different human attributes -- overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability -- there is relatively clear evidence that ... there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.' Essentially, he claimed that men are innately inclined to be better at math and science than women.
"Let's hope that Obama doesn't listen to Summers on this decision!" the group wrote in its e-mail.
In an interview last week with a media outlet, Obama called Warren a "wonderful voice making a very simple point, which is, if you've got a set of rules and standards in place to make sure your toaster doesn't blow up in your face, you should have some rules and regulations to make sure your credit card or mortgage doesn't blow up in your face."
Obama said he has the "highest regard" for her, but that he has yet to make a decision regarding possible appointment.
"[B]ut here's my guarantee," Obama added. "Elizabeth is going to be working with me, working with Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, to help in thinking about how do we make this consumer agency as effective as possible looking out for consumers. She is going to be actively involved in that process."
One consumer advocate involved in the effort to get the financial reform bill through Congress speculated that the "guarantee" could simply be a guarantee to keep Warren involved in consumer protection without actually nominating her for the role. Something similar was promised June 16 by David Axelrod, one of Obama's top advisers.
"The President believes Elizabeth Warren is a champion for middle class families and consumers, and her work on consumer protection issues helped guide his original proposal and will continue to play an important role on this issue going forward," Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement. "Though the President has not named someone to this post less than a week after signing the bill, Elizabeth Warren will continue to play a vital role regardless in ensuring the consumer agency is as effective as possible."
NOW's sexism charge is a far cry from May 10 and May of 2009, when NOW praised Obama for his separate nominations of women -- Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- to the Supreme Court.
The organization's accusation follows up a similar allegation from a member of Congress.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, wrote in a July 20 blog post on HuffPost that opposition to Warren may be due to sexism.
"The good old boy network of investors is uncomfortable around her," Speier wrote. "Is this because she is a woman in a male-dominated 'sport,' or is it that she's an advocate for middle-class families who sees nothing amusing about winning and losing with people's life savings?"
Charges of sexism in financial regulation aren't new.
In 2008, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank alleged sexism was partly at play when it came to the Wall Street bailout and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair's role in the negotiations.
Bair allegedly "annoyed the Old Boys Club," Frank said, likening the situation to several regulators "up in the treehouse with a 'No Girls Allowed' sign," according to a Politico.
In 1998, critics allege that sexism also played a role when financial regulators in the Clinton administration -- led in part by Summers -- objected to a proposal regulating over-the-counter derivatives that was championed by Brooksley E. Born, then-chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. At the time the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission were all headed by men.
However, while financial regulation has traditionally been dominated by men, there are some women in important roles today. The FDIC and SEC are both currently headed by women -- one of whom was appointed by Obama -- and two of Obama's three picks to join the Fed's Board of Governors are women.
The Treasury Department, though, continues to be led by mostly men. Of the top 20 officials Treasury lists on its Web site, just five are women.
Men also lead the CFTC, the OCC and the Fed. Of the five current Fed governors, just one -- Elizabeth Duke -- is a woman.
READ the e-mail:
Watchdog Not Lapdog Needed to Reform Wall Street, Tell Obama to Nominate Elizabeth Warren to Head Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
On July 23, President Obama signed into law a sweeping financial reform bill, which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency that would closely monitor Wall Street practices concerning credit and loans. Such an agency was originally proposed by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor and expert on bankruptcy and credit. Warren is the most qualified and most obvious choice for head of this bureau, but she's definitely not favored by Wall Street and its sympathizers in the government.
If confirmed, Warren would protect consumers from further economic meltdowns caused by shady loans and credit. She would also demand accountability and consumer-friendly practices from Wall Street banks. But she's not part of the old boys club, so NOW asks: Could sexism be at work in denying her this position?
Write President Obama today and tell him that the people of the United States want a head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who will promote the interests of consumers, not the interests of big banks. Tell him we want Elizabeth Warren!
Background:
In 2007, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor, wrote an article in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas that proposed the creation of a government agency to protect consumers from duplicitous credit practices, much the same way that consumers are protected from faulty or dangerous products. Three years later, the government has taken Warren's advice and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed on July 23.
The bureau would have the power to oversee, analyze, and regulate credit and loans, including credit cards and mortgages. It would protect consumers from any abusive banking practices and would also be able to monitor Wall Street to prevent another economic meltdown. Overall, the purpose of the bureau is consumer protection, and it needs a head who will be on the side of everyday people, not the rich and superrich.
Elizabeth Warren is more than qualified to head this bureau. She is an expert on bankruptcy, a distinguished researcher and the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitored the Wall Street bailouts. Her background, experience, and commitment to the welfare of consumers make her the most obvious choice for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
However, those on Wall Street and government officials who support them do not want Warren to head the bureau, as they know that she would boldly stand up for consumers and crack down on the underhanded practices of big banks. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has voiced objections to Warren, and though he's since described her as "an enormously effective leader," he still has not said that he would recommend her nomination.
Some of the president's top financial advisors, like Larry Summers, have expressed biased and blatantly sexist views about women's abilities. In 2005, Summers said, concerning women's aptitude for science and math, "It does appear that on many, many different human attributes--overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability--there is relatively clear evidence that ...there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population." Essentially, he claimed that men are innately inclined to be better at math and science than women. Let's hope that Obama doesn't listen to Summers on this decision!
The consumers of the U.S. need a strong watchdog like Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not a Wall Street lapdog.
Top 10: Mistakes Men Make In Divorce
Start with number 10
It’s easy to make mistakes at the very beginning of the divorce process, especially if you’re dealing with someone who is highly manipulative, abusive or just plain irrational. Even if you are divorcing a reasonable person, it’s tough to think clearly and make the right initial decisions. Most people are so angry, upset or anxious at the end of their marriage that they’re not thinking logically about what they should do to protect themselves or their children from an unfair settlement.
In the past, the prevailing emotions during a divorce were usually sadness and regret. Today, anger is the dominant emotion: People are angry at their spouses, their spouses’ parents, at their spouses’ new partners, etc. All this anger translates into words and deeds that make the divorce process more costly, stressful, frustrating, lengthy, and an all out war. It doesn't have to be that way, even if you are divorcing the most irrational of humans. Below are the 10 most common mistakes men make in divorce. If you can learn to place your emotions in check and avoid these mistakes, you can alleviate some of the pain that comes with any divorce.
No.10 - Using your children as pawns
Threatening to limit or deny visitation is a powerful threat, and it can terrify a parent who loves his child(ren). Often, parents who are the primary caregivers, but who lack the financial resources, feel that they must use this threat to gain sufficient financial support.
As painful as these threats are, do not respond in kind. Don’t issue threats of your own. Instead, recognize that in most cases, the truth will come out. If you've been a good, responsible parent, your spouse likely cannot deny you a chance to see your kids on a regular basis. More to the point, the court won’t allow it in most instances.
No.9 - Thinking romance first, divorce second
The most common factor that turns a normal divorce into an abnormally contentious one is bringing another woman into the mix. The situation is already potentially volatile, and all it takes is the mention that you have a new lover for your spouse to become infuriated.
There are several reasons you may want to announce your new relationship-revenge, one being to show her that someone finds you attractive and you've even found happiness. Try to keep a new relationship out of the conversations with your spouse and especially your children. The best decision is to wait until the divorce is concluded before you engage in a new relationship.
No.8 - Allowing your spouse to convince you to not hire an attorney
If your spouse has hired a lawyer, you need to hire one quickly. If you don’t, you are an amateur playing against professionals. One underhand tactic is for a spouse’s attorney to offer to represent both parties to save time and money. Not only is it unethical, but it also creates a conflict of interest.
The process is designed to be adversarial, and there is no way a lawyer can fairly represent you both. The odds are that your spouse has something to hide or something she wants, and she knows that if you hire a lawyer it will be more difficult to achieve that goal.
No.7 - Using verbal abuse
Just about everyone who gets a divorce argues. Not everyone, however, engages in continuous verbal battles in which threats and vile accusations become routine forms of communication. Being on the receiving end of this abuse is demoralizing, especially when the threats raise the possibility of physical harm to you or your children.
You need to discuss any threats of this type with your attorney, who can advise you on how to deal with them. Furthermore, if it is you who's engaging in the verbal abuse, remember that your spouse can easily obtain an order of protection and any violation of this order can land you in jail. There is a myth that men do not endure verbal or even physical abuse from their spouses, but it is just a myth. Abuse is not gender specific.
No.6 - Rubbing salt in the wound
If your goal is to avoid a court battle and the high costs that go with it, then you want to avoid any accusations of personality flaws. Be aware of your spouse’s sensitivities and avoid inflaming them. Compromise is the essence of divorce negotiations, and if you say and do things to encourage your spouse to dig in and be inflexible, you’re asking for a war.
No matter how much you despise your spouse; no matter how many ways you feel you’ve been wronged, don’t make a bad situation worse by identifying your spouse’s vulnerabilities when trying to reach a settlement. Always try to negotiate before you litigate.
No.5 - Using a difficult attorney
Lawyers can turn good divorces into bad ones and bad divorces into nightmares. It’s not just divorcing spouses that are difficult. Certain lawyers are intent on churning fees, and they can cleverly manipulate situations to their financial advantage. The result is couples who will fight over the big and little things and invariably wind up in court and broke.
Do not fall for the myth that you have to find a take-no-prisoners attorney, someone who is ruthless and will use any tactic necessary to “win” the case. When there is one difficult attorney, the odds are the divorce will be costly and unpleasant. When there are two difficult attorneys, the divorce will be a total nightmare.
No.4 - Becoming passive
The last thing you want to do when your spouse announces she wants a divorce is to become completely acquiescent. Many people are manipulative, and if they think they can manipulate you into getting what they want out of the divorce, such as money, property or custody, they will do so.
If you are stunned or saddened, you may agree to anything and everything your spouse recommends. Don’t confuse passivity with being reasonable. My experience is that the shock of divorce soon wears off, and once it does, you’re much less vulnerable to making this mistake.
No.3 - Arguing about who gets what
In most divorces where couples have been married for a number of years, disputes about property arise, and sometimes these arguments are perfectly understandable. These arguments, however, can become completely irrational and vengeance-based. I had a client say, “I would rather incur 10 times in legal fees what the painting costs than allow her to have it!”
These arguments can be draining emotionally (not to mention financially), but it helps to recognize that no matter how your spouse uses these objects in the bargaining process, the court generally divides property fairly if both parties have competent attorneys.
No.2 - Serving your spouse with divorce papers in embarrassing places
Having an officer of the law serve your spouse at home or business should be reserved for cases where they refuse to file an appearance or accept service of process, or where great conflict exists between the two parties.
There is nothing more embarrassing than having a police officer serve you with papers at work, and nothing more unnerving than hearing the doorbell ring at 2 a.m. and seeing a policeman at the door (and having your neighbors see him as well).
If your spouse uses this tactic on you, as obnoxious as it may be, remain calm.
No.1 - Responding to an impending divorce with anger
The early stages of the divorce process can be a highly emotional time when people say things they do not mean or act in unusual or uncharacteristic ways. Divorces “blow up” legally when one person responds to anger with even greater anger, creating an escalating war of attrition that otherwise would have been a brief skirmish.
Therefore, allow a bit of time to pass before you do anything. Your spouse may settle down after blowing off some steam, and you can continue to move forward in a reasonable manner.
It’s easy to make mistakes at the very beginning of the divorce process, especially if you’re dealing with someone who is highly manipulative, abusive or just plain irrational. Even if you are divorcing a reasonable person, it’s tough to think clearly and make the right initial decisions. Most people are so angry, upset or anxious at the end of their marriage that they’re not thinking logically about what they should do to protect themselves or their children from an unfair settlement.
In the past, the prevailing emotions during a divorce were usually sadness and regret. Today, anger is the dominant emotion: People are angry at their spouses, their spouses’ parents, at their spouses’ new partners, etc. All this anger translates into words and deeds that make the divorce process more costly, stressful, frustrating, lengthy, and an all out war. It doesn't have to be that way, even if you are divorcing the most irrational of humans. Below are the 10 most common mistakes men make in divorce. If you can learn to place your emotions in check and avoid these mistakes, you can alleviate some of the pain that comes with any divorce.
No.10 - Using your children as pawns
Threatening to limit or deny visitation is a powerful threat, and it can terrify a parent who loves his child(ren). Often, parents who are the primary caregivers, but who lack the financial resources, feel that they must use this threat to gain sufficient financial support.
As painful as these threats are, do not respond in kind. Don’t issue threats of your own. Instead, recognize that in most cases, the truth will come out. If you've been a good, responsible parent, your spouse likely cannot deny you a chance to see your kids on a regular basis. More to the point, the court won’t allow it in most instances.
No.9 - Thinking romance first, divorce second
The most common factor that turns a normal divorce into an abnormally contentious one is bringing another woman into the mix. The situation is already potentially volatile, and all it takes is the mention that you have a new lover for your spouse to become infuriated.
There are several reasons you may want to announce your new relationship-revenge, one being to show her that someone finds you attractive and you've even found happiness. Try to keep a new relationship out of the conversations with your spouse and especially your children. The best decision is to wait until the divorce is concluded before you engage in a new relationship.
No.8 - Allowing your spouse to convince you to not hire an attorney
If your spouse has hired a lawyer, you need to hire one quickly. If you don’t, you are an amateur playing against professionals. One underhand tactic is for a spouse’s attorney to offer to represent both parties to save time and money. Not only is it unethical, but it also creates a conflict of interest.
The process is designed to be adversarial, and there is no way a lawyer can fairly represent you both. The odds are that your spouse has something to hide or something she wants, and she knows that if you hire a lawyer it will be more difficult to achieve that goal.
No.7 - Using verbal abuse
Just about everyone who gets a divorce argues. Not everyone, however, engages in continuous verbal battles in which threats and vile accusations become routine forms of communication. Being on the receiving end of this abuse is demoralizing, especially when the threats raise the possibility of physical harm to you or your children.
You need to discuss any threats of this type with your attorney, who can advise you on how to deal with them. Furthermore, if it is you who's engaging in the verbal abuse, remember that your spouse can easily obtain an order of protection and any violation of this order can land you in jail. There is a myth that men do not endure verbal or even physical abuse from their spouses, but it is just a myth. Abuse is not gender specific.
No.6 - Rubbing salt in the wound
If your goal is to avoid a court battle and the high costs that go with it, then you want to avoid any accusations of personality flaws. Be aware of your spouse’s sensitivities and avoid inflaming them. Compromise is the essence of divorce negotiations, and if you say and do things to encourage your spouse to dig in and be inflexible, you’re asking for a war.
No matter how much you despise your spouse; no matter how many ways you feel you’ve been wronged, don’t make a bad situation worse by identifying your spouse’s vulnerabilities when trying to reach a settlement. Always try to negotiate before you litigate.
No.5 - Using a difficult attorney
Lawyers can turn good divorces into bad ones and bad divorces into nightmares. It’s not just divorcing spouses that are difficult. Certain lawyers are intent on churning fees, and they can cleverly manipulate situations to their financial advantage. The result is couples who will fight over the big and little things and invariably wind up in court and broke.
Do not fall for the myth that you have to find a take-no-prisoners attorney, someone who is ruthless and will use any tactic necessary to “win” the case. When there is one difficult attorney, the odds are the divorce will be costly and unpleasant. When there are two difficult attorneys, the divorce will be a total nightmare.
No.4 - Becoming passive
The last thing you want to do when your spouse announces she wants a divorce is to become completely acquiescent. Many people are manipulative, and if they think they can manipulate you into getting what they want out of the divorce, such as money, property or custody, they will do so.
If you are stunned or saddened, you may agree to anything and everything your spouse recommends. Don’t confuse passivity with being reasonable. My experience is that the shock of divorce soon wears off, and once it does, you’re much less vulnerable to making this mistake.
No.3 - Arguing about who gets what
In most divorces where couples have been married for a number of years, disputes about property arise, and sometimes these arguments are perfectly understandable. These arguments, however, can become completely irrational and vengeance-based. I had a client say, “I would rather incur 10 times in legal fees what the painting costs than allow her to have it!”
These arguments can be draining emotionally (not to mention financially), but it helps to recognize that no matter how your spouse uses these objects in the bargaining process, the court generally divides property fairly if both parties have competent attorneys.
No.2 - Serving your spouse with divorce papers in embarrassing places
Having an officer of the law serve your spouse at home or business should be reserved for cases where they refuse to file an appearance or accept service of process, or where great conflict exists between the two parties.
There is nothing more embarrassing than having a police officer serve you with papers at work, and nothing more unnerving than hearing the doorbell ring at 2 a.m. and seeing a policeman at the door (and having your neighbors see him as well).
If your spouse uses this tactic on you, as obnoxious as it may be, remain calm.
No.1 - Responding to an impending divorce with anger
The early stages of the divorce process can be a highly emotional time when people say things they do not mean or act in unusual or uncharacteristic ways. Divorces “blow up” legally when one person responds to anger with even greater anger, creating an escalating war of attrition that otherwise would have been a brief skirmish.
Therefore, allow a bit of time to pass before you do anything. Your spouse may settle down after blowing off some steam, and you can continue to move forward in a reasonable manner.
Why Every Man Needs A Prenup
Relationship
What man in his right mind would willingly enter into a contract that could cause him to lose 50% of his investment on a whim? Well, that's marriage, guys. When you say "I do," your house, your business and all the rest of your assets are up for grabs should you get divorced.
And these days, with divorce rates skyrocketing and so many brutally mercenary women out there who think that they're entitled to your hard-earned money, getting your fiancee to ink a prenup is a necessity, not a choice. That's why we're here to explain why every man needs a prenup.
A prenup protects your assets
Simply put, a prenuptial agreement is a legal document signed before your marriage that specifies very clearly how your assets will be divided in the event of death or divorce.
You absolutely have to protect yourself with a prenup if:
You own major assets such as a home, stocks or retirement funds You may be receiving an inheritance or lottery winnings You have children and/or grandchildren from a previous marriage You own all or part of a business You have a significantly larger amount of assets than your wife-to-be and/or she has substantial debt You are starting out in a potentially lucrative profession such as law or medicine You are likely to achieve great success in your business or career
You aren't sure about your fiancee's motives You have suffered a previous divorce
Financial protection
The next reason why every man needs a prenup has to do with protecting yourself financially. Nailing down a prenup before tying the knot is savvy financial planning in an era in which the majority of women use marriage and divorce as a business. Let's face it: There is a huge financial incentive for a woman to get divorced from a man. Women can enter into marriage as paupers and walk away millionaires.
Depending on where you live, your soon-to-be-ex-wife can legally coerce you into handing over 50% (or more) of the house you built, the assets you accumulated and the business you started years before you even met her, even if she's never lifted a finger to help you -- and even if she institutes the divorce just because she's "bored" and "wants to find herself" or she cheated on you.
No woman deserves half a man's assets just for saying "I do." The harsh reality is that marriage is a legally binding contract; once you sign on that dotted line, she has you by the checkbook and she knows it.
Bring up the prenup
Of course, as soon as you bring up the subject of a prenup, the average woman will hit the ceiling, since in her eyes you're about to abrogate her entire reason for getting married in the first place.
She'll protest that a prenup kills romance. She'll burst into tears, sobbing that you don't really love her. She'll fly into a rage and go running to her mother, squealing about what a horrible man you are and that you don't trust her. She'll blame you for predicting divorce. She'll cut off sex or -- with even more cunning manipulation -- she'll give you the best ride you've ever had before she cuts it off to show you just what you'll be missing if you insist on that nasty prenup.
Don't fall for her little tricks; treat marriage as a business, just like she does. Don't kid yourself: If she were about to enter into your marriage contract with more assets than you have, you'd better believe she'd have you endorsing the most ironclad prenup a lawyer can draw up (and she wouldn't even begin to tolerate a squeak of protest from you).
How to handle the subject
Honesty is the best policy. Let your potential wife know your views on prenuptial agreements very early in your serious relationship. Talk about the subject openly, logically and sincerely.
Be firm in your position; if she starts to object, hold your ground. Explain to her that a prenuptial agreement protects the assets of both parties involved. What if she received an unexpected inheritance or won the lottery and you got divorced? Would it be fair for a court to award you half her assets?
Tell her that it's like investing in health insurance: It doesn't mean that you're going to get sick, but you're just protecting yourself if the worst should happen.
A prenup has nothing to do with love or trust; it's about making sure that a man and wife take out of the marriage what they went in with, and equitably distribute the assets they accrued during the course of the union.
If you don't want to bring the subject up yourself, have a meeting with your lawyer, CPA or other financial planner and ask him to advise a prenup to your intended. But don't be hoodwinked -- make sure she discloses all of her finances, especially debt. And ensure the agreement is set in stone long before the wedding. This will effectively negate any appearance of "coercion," a trick many women are using these days to get courts to void prenuptial contracts.
For better or for worse
Ultimately, marriages should be about love, partnership and romance, not finances. But you have to watch your back. Some women have an agenda. They'll purr about love and romance while their fingers are surreptitiously sneaking the wallet out of your pocket. And that's the beauty of a prenuptial agreement: It effectively stops women from profiteering from marriage and divorce.
So, just in case better does become worse, you shouldn't think twice about having your future wife sign on the dotted line. Saying "I do" is fine, but get it in writing first. And if she refuses to marry you because of your insistence on a prenup, get rid of her -- it might be a sign of bad things to come.
What man in his right mind would willingly enter into a contract that could cause him to lose 50% of his investment on a whim? Well, that's marriage, guys. When you say "I do," your house, your business and all the rest of your assets are up for grabs should you get divorced.
And these days, with divorce rates skyrocketing and so many brutally mercenary women out there who think that they're entitled to your hard-earned money, getting your fiancee to ink a prenup is a necessity, not a choice. That's why we're here to explain why every man needs a prenup.
A prenup protects your assets
Simply put, a prenuptial agreement is a legal document signed before your marriage that specifies very clearly how your assets will be divided in the event of death or divorce.
You absolutely have to protect yourself with a prenup if:
You own major assets such as a home, stocks or retirement funds You may be receiving an inheritance or lottery winnings You have children and/or grandchildren from a previous marriage You own all or part of a business You have a significantly larger amount of assets than your wife-to-be and/or she has substantial debt You are starting out in a potentially lucrative profession such as law or medicine You are likely to achieve great success in your business or career
You aren't sure about your fiancee's motives You have suffered a previous divorce
Financial protection
The next reason why every man needs a prenup has to do with protecting yourself financially. Nailing down a prenup before tying the knot is savvy financial planning in an era in which the majority of women use marriage and divorce as a business. Let's face it: There is a huge financial incentive for a woman to get divorced from a man. Women can enter into marriage as paupers and walk away millionaires.
Depending on where you live, your soon-to-be-ex-wife can legally coerce you into handing over 50% (or more) of the house you built, the assets you accumulated and the business you started years before you even met her, even if she's never lifted a finger to help you -- and even if she institutes the divorce just because she's "bored" and "wants to find herself" or she cheated on you.
No woman deserves half a man's assets just for saying "I do." The harsh reality is that marriage is a legally binding contract; once you sign on that dotted line, she has you by the checkbook and she knows it.
Bring up the prenup
Of course, as soon as you bring up the subject of a prenup, the average woman will hit the ceiling, since in her eyes you're about to abrogate her entire reason for getting married in the first place.
She'll protest that a prenup kills romance. She'll burst into tears, sobbing that you don't really love her. She'll fly into a rage and go running to her mother, squealing about what a horrible man you are and that you don't trust her. She'll blame you for predicting divorce. She'll cut off sex or -- with even more cunning manipulation -- she'll give you the best ride you've ever had before she cuts it off to show you just what you'll be missing if you insist on that nasty prenup.
Don't fall for her little tricks; treat marriage as a business, just like she does. Don't kid yourself: If she were about to enter into your marriage contract with more assets than you have, you'd better believe she'd have you endorsing the most ironclad prenup a lawyer can draw up (and she wouldn't even begin to tolerate a squeak of protest from you).
How to handle the subject
Honesty is the best policy. Let your potential wife know your views on prenuptial agreements very early in your serious relationship. Talk about the subject openly, logically and sincerely.
Be firm in your position; if she starts to object, hold your ground. Explain to her that a prenuptial agreement protects the assets of both parties involved. What if she received an unexpected inheritance or won the lottery and you got divorced? Would it be fair for a court to award you half her assets?
Tell her that it's like investing in health insurance: It doesn't mean that you're going to get sick, but you're just protecting yourself if the worst should happen.
A prenup has nothing to do with love or trust; it's about making sure that a man and wife take out of the marriage what they went in with, and equitably distribute the assets they accrued during the course of the union.
If you don't want to bring the subject up yourself, have a meeting with your lawyer, CPA or other financial planner and ask him to advise a prenup to your intended. But don't be hoodwinked -- make sure she discloses all of her finances, especially debt. And ensure the agreement is set in stone long before the wedding. This will effectively negate any appearance of "coercion," a trick many women are using these days to get courts to void prenuptial contracts.
For better or for worse
Ultimately, marriages should be about love, partnership and romance, not finances. But you have to watch your back. Some women have an agenda. They'll purr about love and romance while their fingers are surreptitiously sneaking the wallet out of your pocket. And that's the beauty of a prenuptial agreement: It effectively stops women from profiteering from marriage and divorce.
So, just in case better does become worse, you shouldn't think twice about having your future wife sign on the dotted line. Saying "I do" is fine, but get it in writing first. And if she refuses to marry you because of your insistence on a prenup, get rid of her -- it might be a sign of bad things to come.
Sexual contact case dropped against Oakland airline passenger
Only women can accuse men of these things under false pretences, and try to get away with it, fortunatly this man lived in the USA and managed to get justise, had this been India he would be behind bars and have to prove his innocence, and the girl would have got her retirement income, before she can even work!
08/03/2010
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Salt Lake City has dropped its case against a 39-year-old California man accused of inappropriately touching a girl, saying it does not believe there is a "reasonable likelihood" of conviction at trial.
Aboubacar Soumah was charged with abusive sexual contact after a 14-year-old girl claimed he rubbed her arm and leg, put his hand under her shirt and grabbed her buttocks over her clothes during an April 7 flight from Atlanta to Salt Lake City.
But a defense lawyer for Soumah, of Oakland, challenged that account. Assistant federal defender Viviana Ramirez said in a court brief the alleged victim did not immediately report the supposed incident, gave differing statements in her follow-up interviews and "has a reputation for being less than truthful."
In addition, none of the flight attendants or the passengers seated in the vicinity saw anything even remotely similar to what the girl described, Ramirez said.
The case was dropped Friday, according to U.S. District Court records.
08/03/2010
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Salt Lake City has dropped its case against a 39-year-old California man accused of inappropriately touching a girl, saying it does not believe there is a "reasonable likelihood" of conviction at trial.
Aboubacar Soumah was charged with abusive sexual contact after a 14-year-old girl claimed he rubbed her arm and leg, put his hand under her shirt and grabbed her buttocks over her clothes during an April 7 flight from Atlanta to Salt Lake City.
But a defense lawyer for Soumah, of Oakland, challenged that account. Assistant federal defender Viviana Ramirez said in a court brief the alleged victim did not immediately report the supposed incident, gave differing statements in her follow-up interviews and "has a reputation for being less than truthful."
In addition, none of the flight attendants or the passengers seated in the vicinity saw anything even remotely similar to what the girl described, Ramirez said.
The case was dropped Friday, according to U.S. District Court records.
Campaign against Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Bill
Naturally it would be womens groups who would oppose this bill, who else? You can never please these Feminazi Terrorists. Your damned if you do and your damned if you dont. These Feminazi's are modern day Witches, if you know your history well remember what they did to the witches is Salem Massachusettes in the USA back in the 1600's? Well today they make the Salem witches look like Angles.
http://www.majlisbombay.org/pdfs/Irretrievable%20breakdown%20of%20marriage%20note%20July%2014,%202010.pdf
http://www.majlisbombay.org/pdfs/Irretrievable%20breakdown%20of%20marriage%20note%20July%2014,%202010.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)