-
Broke!
[QUOTE=George90;1787624]I saw Dennis Hof on CNN this morning. They were interviewing him because Odom was at one of Hof's ranches. Hof said Odom arrived on Saturday via Hof's car service. (Odom was in Vegas and Hof sent a limo to pick him up and take him to the ranch.) It seems Odom had been doing cocaine in Vegas on Friday and earlier on Saturday. At the ranch, he drank cognac and took those herbal ED supplements. He stayed at the ranch Saturday night, all day Sunday, all day Monday, and Monday night.
[B]Hof said Odom paid the two ladies $75,000 (didn't say if each or total) for those 3 days.[/B][/QUOTE]News reports this evening say that he paid a total of $75,000. Is it any wonder why so many of these pro athletes end up broke?
-
I went to one of those legal brothels in Nye County (prostitution is by county option in NV, and is illegal in Clark County, where Las Vegas is) once. All the women were ugly and they wanted $1,000. And that was 20 years ago!
WTF.
-
3 photos
Pics from the 80's
These are pictures from my archives.
-
[QUOTE=NoWahalla;1789882]These are pictures from my archives.[/QUOTE]And you are showing us these why?
-
I think they are from NV legal brothels, which we were recently discussing.
-
And you thought Lamar Odom's pussy was expensive:
[URL]http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29030700/denver-jury-awards-3-9m-former-stripper-who[/URL]
-
[QUOTE=Dickhead;1792920]And you thought Lamar Odom's pussy was expensive:
[URL]http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29030700/denver-jury-awards-3-9m-former-stripper-who[/URL][/QUOTE]He is the dumbass. Why would you invest that much in a chick? And a dude who had money? WTF? If she does not want you anymore then you go get another one. You don't force yourself on her.
-
And don't hire her for a regular job for chrissakes. Find, fuck, forget.
-
Hey!
[QUOTE=Dickhead;1792973]And don't hire her for a regular job for chrissakes. Find, fuck, forget.[/QUOTE]You forgot feel and finger before you fuck and forget LOL!
-
I saw the full documentary of Divorce Corp. All American men should look at it before they get married. The clips hit on some points including the worthlessness of pre-nups. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brznz2tif58&list=PLwSPy3vtsTi1D0rESwpbEYJJknq0HJJbt[/URL].
-
[QUOTE=ChochaMonger;1794676]I saw the full documentary of Divorce Corp. All American men should look at it before they get married. The clips hit on some points including the worthlessness of pre-nups. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brznz2tif58&list=PLwSPy3vtsTi1D0rESwpbEYJJknq0HJJbt[/URL].[/QUOTE]The film definitely fails to offer a balanced view of the system. If the film actually offered a more realistic and balanced view, it would likely sell less copies.
The film works its magic and throws meat to the lions by exaggerating and stretching the truth.
-
A lawyer's view?
The only people who think that "Divorce Corp" fails to provide a "balanced" view of the system are the lawyers and others who benefit from this $50 billion-a-year industry. All the cases presented are real court cases. What can be more realistic than that? The number of copies sold does not change the fact that the divorce courts function in a manner that benefits the lawyers, judges, shrinks and others making a living off failed marriages more than the litigants and their children.
The goal of the documentary was to show the worst case scenarios of how marriage can end in the American court system. People should know the worst that can happen before making a decision to enter into marriage. The documentary even recommended premarital counseling and a waiting period for those contemplating marriage. There is nothing wrong with the documentary showing the financial ruin, loss of time with children, and threat of incarceration to enforce alimony and child support payments. Even cell phone service contracts disclose their early termination penalties on the contract that the customer signs.
The truth is marriage as it currently exists in America brings no benefits and significant risks and obligations to those with substantial assets and income. On the other hand, it benefits the poor because it allows them to qualify for more entitlements and tax credits. They have little to lose in divorce court. The lawyers get it over as quickly as possible because there is hardly any meat on poor bones to devour.
-
[QUOTE=ChochaMonger;1795447]The only people who think that "Divorce Corp" fails to provide a "balanced" view of the system are the lawyers and others who benefit from this $50 billion-a-year industry. All the cases presented are real court cases. What can be more realistic than that? The number of copies sold does not change the fact that the divorce courts function in a manner that benefits the lawyers, judges, shrinks and others making a living off failed marriages more than the litigants and their children.
The goal of the documentary was to show the worst case scenarios of how marriage can end in the American court system. People should know the worst that can happen before making a decision to enter into marriage. The documentary even recommended premarital counseling and a waiting period for those contemplating marriage. There is nothing wrong with the documentary showing the financial ruin, loss of time with children, and threat of incarceration to enforce alimony and child support payments. Even cell phone service contracts disclose their early termination penalties on the contract that the customer signs.
The truth is marriage as it currently exists in America brings no benefits and significant risks and obligations to those with substantial assets and income. On the other hand, it benefits the poor because it allows them to qualify for more entitlements and tax credits. They have little to lose in divorce court. The lawyers get it over as quickly as possible because there is hardly any meat on poor bones to devour.[/QUOTE]Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the film doesn't have any good points. Indeed, there is a lot of truth in the film, but it is certainly rather one-sided.
Here are some examples:
The film suggests that prenups are of little use and are not respected in courts. As one example of their limited usefulness, the film observes that one cannot agree to custody or child support in a prenup. Duh! Of course, you cannot agree to those things in a prenup. Every 1st year lawyer knows that, just in the same way one can't agree with one's wife that it's ok to beat one's children. Just because you can't legally agree to beating children in a prenup does not mean that prenups are worthless (as the film tends to suggest). Indeed, there are many valid, good reasons to have a prenup and many aspects of prenups which are indeed upheld with great predictability. In fact, in some states, a family court judge in a divorce does not even have the authority to touch a spouse's separate party (only their community property).
Divorces can indeed be expensive, but the film leaves out the possibilities for inexpensive divorces under the right circumstances. In my state for example, organizations exist that to assist spouses navigate the divorce system. Alternatives to litigation exist such as collaborative procedures that help spouses resolve disputes more efficiently. Yes, I agree that many divorces are needlessly costly, in many cases, due to inherent problems with our system, but again, the film endeavors to only tell one side of the story and fails to give a full, balanced picture.
We could go on and on, point by point through the entire film like this. My point is merely that the film is terribly one-sided, so much so, that it quickly loses its credibility right from the start.
But, yeah if you're involved in a contentious divorce that involves kids -- you're fucked -- in the bad way, not the good way. If you ever find yourself in this situation, you better do your darndest to tactfully navigate those waters, manage the emotions, carefully negotiate, judiciously resolve disputes, etc, etc. Do your best to be civil and to not to inflame emotions of your spouse, etc until after the divorce is complete. If you manage to enrage your spouse enough, she will always have the option of making you both lose in the divorce process, even if she does not end up "winning".
-
[QUOTE=UltraHappy;1795976]Divorces can indeed be expensive, but the film leaves out the possibilities for inexpensive divorces under the right circumstances. In my state for example, organizations exist that to assist spouses navigate the divorce system. Alternatives to litigation exist such as collaborative procedures that help spouses resolve disputes more efficiently. Yes, I agree that many divorces are needlessly costly, in many cases, due to inherent problems with our system, but again, the film endeavors to only tell one side of the story and fails to give a full, balanced picture.[/QUOTE]Mine was not expensive. I think problems arise when bitterness, stubbornness, and greed come in to play on either side. I am a smart man. I have an MBA. So I did my own divorce. When I decided that I did not want to be married anymore me and my wife sat at the table to decide how we wanted to divide everything. (We did not have kids together, but if we had then I would have understood that my kids would have needed to be cared for had they stayed with her.) I drew everything up exactly as we had agreed at that kitchen table. When I sent it to her to sign she told me that she had showed it to a family friend and they said it was not legitimate. How the fuck can something that two parties agree upon not be legitimate?
My next step was to file the petition (same exact papers) with the clerk of the court and pay the money to get the sheriff's office to serve it. That is the only money I paid for my divorce. It was definitely under $100. When we arrived for our court date she had a lawyer that she had paid $1500 for. As UltraHappy alluded to, the last thing the court wants to do is litigate, so they give you one last chance at ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). They sent us into a room to try to work out a deal (as has happened with couple of other lawsuits that I have been involved in). She decided that she wanted more and I wanted to stick to the original agreement. Still in lieu of litigating, the judge decided to arbitrate the case in her quarters. We went back and the judge gave each of us 2 minutes to say why we should have what we were asking. The judge saw that she was just being bitter and decided to give me everything except the sofa, love seat, and washing machine. So she could have saved $1500 and gotten more stuff had she not tried to be greedy and stuck with the original agreement.
It is always better to try to work things out fairly among yourselves than to spend unnecessary money on lawyers and unnecessary time sending something through the judicial system. I never understand when people say they are in the process of a divorce. Hell all you have to do is draw up the paperwork and file it. Some places even have fill in the blank forms that you can use. If not, then go online and look for an example and type it up yourself. Also most jurisdictions have websites where you can go and they tell you the exact forms to fill out and exact process to follow.
-
[QUOTE=MrEnternational;1795989]Mine was not expensive. I think problems arise when bitterness, stubbornness, and greed come in to play on either side. I am a smart man. I have an MBA.
It is always better to try to work things out fairly among yourselves than to spend unnecessary money on lawyers and unnecessary time sending something through the judicial system. I never understand when people say they are in the process of a divorce. Hell all you have to do is draw up the paperwork and file it. Some places even have fill in the blank forms that you can use. If not, then go online and look for an example and type it up yourself. Also most jurisdictions have websites where you can go and they tell you the exact forms to fill out and exact process to follow.[/QUOTE]I agree with everything you said.
I would just add that in certain situations, it may make sense to seek experienced counsel. It's important for everyone to understand what they would be entitled to if judge were to order the split of property. In some cases, this isn't immediately obvious. For example, how much of your house does your wife get if you came into the marriage already owning 30% of the house with your separate property, but then paid another 40% of the house off with community property and during the marriage, the house appreciated in value by 17% and the house note still has $150,000 remaining to be paid off? (assuming you are in a community property state). Some states have detailed statutes regarding houses that already calculate all of this for you taking all of these variables into account in a fair equitable way for both spouses. If you are in one of those states, you better find and understand that equation because if you agree to something other than what that equation calculates for you, then you may have given up something that you are legally entitled to.
If one spouse owns and runs a business, that can be a fairly complicated valuation. Retirement and pension accounts can also complicate matters and have important tax consequences associated with them. Sometimes after a divorce, one spouse gets hit with a surprise tax liability because their divorce lawyer didn't understand the tax consequences of a particular property split.
So, yes, many times, two reasonable people ought to be able to come to a reasonable property split if they are able to be reasonable and civil with one another. Sometimes, things can get a bit tricky, depending on the assets and liabilities that the couple have accumulated over their marriage (and what they had before their marriage).
[U]Marriage Pro Tip 1[/U]
Student loans are particularly interesting creatures in divorces. Even if you had separate property student loans before you got married, there is no right of repayment if community property was used to pay off a portion of those student loans during marriage. In this way, student loans are treated differently than other debts. If you are in a marriage that you see going south in a community property state, increase your student loan payments to pay off your personal student loans quicker (for example, start making double or triple student loan payments). The net effect is that you are effectively using some of your spouse's income to pay off your student loans until someone eventually files for divorce. This is because of the special way that student loans are treated in divorce (in community property states). You come out a little ahead this way since the fact that you used community property to make those student loan payments is not later "used against you" in the divorce split because of the way student loans are treated. This quirk in the law regarding treatment of student loans in community property states is a sneaky gotcha item that you can exploit to your advantage if you know about it. The idea is that your spouse benefited from your higher education / earning potential, so hence the reasoning why student loans are treated differently. And, NEVER EVER pay off your personal student loans with your own separate property -- always use community property to pay off student loans!
[U]Marriage Pro Tip 2[/U]
If you live in a community property state and you had separate property before your marriage, be extra careful to not commingle that separate property with any community property. If you are unable to later establish that you kept your separate property truly separate and trace it back to its origin, then you won't be able to prove that it's your separate property and that untraceable property will be presumed to be community property.
[U]Marriage Pro Tip 3[/U]
You are better off keeping your separate property in a growth fund (not a dividend or income fund). The reason is that income / dividends from separate property are considered community property. Growth / appreciation in stock however is treated as separate property. So, let's say you come into a marriage with $100,000 separate property (or you inherit that amount during marriage). Put that shit in a growth stock fund (that is, a mutual fund that invests in stocks that don't pay out dividends but instead realize increases in value through appreciation in stock price). Then, tell your broker that you want any income / dividend payouts from that account (if any) to not be reinvested but instead to pay out into another account to prevent commingling.
[U]Marriage Pro Tip 4[/U]
I know lots of you will want to post Marriage Pro Tip 4: Don't get married in the first place, but it is unfortunately too late for many of our fellow forum readers.