Tuesday, April 12, 2011

She can't take what you havent got

An Australian man avoids the financial rape of divorce court:
A man who blamed greed for ruining his marriage has acted out the ultimate revenge on his estranged wife. After selling their house for $395,000 he gave every cent to charities, a court has been told.... The man told the Federal Magistrates' Court, sitting in Victoria, that he bought hundreds of envelopes and posted $395,000 in donations. He said he was now jobless, with $2000 in the bank, a $1000 car, and land worth $10,000. Magistrate Norah Hartnett concluded the man had taken the drastic action to deprive his wife of any money after 20 years of marriage.
I expect to see more and more men utilizing this tactic as the economy worsens. After all, if you are going to be asset-stripped anyhow, why not give the money to those who might actually do something positive with it? And perhaps if more divorce-prone women realized that this was a legitimate possibility and that there is no post-marital gravy train awaiting them, they might be a little less keen about ending their marriages.

While I'm a little dubious that a woman who is willing to asset-strip her husband is worth keeping anyhow, the fact is that it is always foolish to offer a financial incentive for women to file for divorce as is presently the case in most Western nations.


The LP 999/Linda said...

Smart man, repentant ex-wife. Lesson learned*

Pablo said...

This tactic has occurred to me before. I never understood how someone who abandoned their marriage by means of adultery or selfishness could expect to be compensated for it.

Good for him!

Anonymous said...

Expect the western governments to attempt some type of legislation to prevent or punish this.

Vox said...

To be sure, Rottweiler. The problem is that there is very little the State can do to punish a man who is willing to live in poverty. The whole structure of the State is dependent upon the notion that men will work, but once too many disincentives have been placed on a man, it's nearly impossible to force him to do anything worthwhile.

Short of Chinese-style laogai, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it, which is why I expect men to increasingly opt out of family court serf status one way or another.

The LP 999/Linda said...

God bless him! He sees the value of living with little means while refusing to submit to the system or the woman. It is art!

Anonymous said...

I have a friend that was told by a judge that he "should" be making X so child support was based on it instead of what he was actually making which was about half of X.

stg58 said...

I love how everyone repeats that he was violent to her and the kids, without questioning it at all. She said it, it must be true.

Anonymous said...

Awesome. And yeah, short of forced labor, what can the state do to a man who places himself in a position where modern western society prison (3 squares a day, changes for recreation/education, and a roof over one's head) is a step up?

Anonymous said...

VD: "To be sure, Rottweiler. The problem is that there is very little the State can do to punish a man who is willing to live in poverty."

Good point.

But there is nothing to prevent them from putting him in prison or retroactively reclaiming the sold property or both.

I, for one, could easily stomach the decision to live in poverty - might even see it as a challenge. But spending 30 in the big house as some guy's girlfriend is something else.

Anonymous said...

Funny, this is exactly what Nelson Mandela did when he divorced his second wife, Winnie, months after getting out - stashed all his cash in the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund, so the old hag didn't get a cent.

She later went on to get a minister's position on the strength of her name, so she's still living off the taxpayer.

ox said...

Genius win win.

The guy lays up treasures in heaven rather than support the feminist infrastructure. It reminds me of the parable quoted below.

He helps his wife understand that her attempt to avail herself of socially applied injustice is futile.

He teaches her that big brothers strong arm is not invincible.

He frees himself of a lifetime of painful humiliation and interaction with the system.

He places himself in a situation that is ahead of the social curve. He's already living the reality the rest of the culture hasn't woken up to.

He purposefully places himself in an arena of social status that requires those character building scenarios that will make him stronger in the long run.

Geez. I could go on and on. Of course this isn't covering the potential down sides. Nice move given the info presented.

1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my master taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.
4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
5 So he called every one of his master's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my master?
6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.
8 And the master commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.
10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man?s, who shall give you that which is your own?

Daniel said...

"But there is nothing to prevent them from putting him in prison or retroactively reclaiming the sold property or both."

Not 'nothing.' There is plenty preventing it. A state without the tax revenue can't (or won't) afford the prison to put him in, and chasing cash given away becomes an exercise in increasing costs and diminishing returns.

In other words, eventually, this Franciscan style of "Galting" cuts the heel of the economic interests of the State, and there is little the State can do about it.

It is in the State's best interest to keep the opportunity cost of embracing poverty at a minimally high level. Current divorce imbalances provide a brutal discount on that price.

Dave said...

From the article-

The man told the court he gave the money away anonymously to "eliminate the cause of the divorce".

"I bought about 300-400 envelopes, stamped envelopes," he told the court.

"I put a random amount in each. I put charity names and addresses and I sent them out. Some I delivered, some I put in charity boxes. I distributed it in a random fashion."


He covered his bases...there is no way the State can get that money back:)

Anonymous said...

lol dude has stashed the cash somewhere, I'm sure.

"I gave it all away" is too easy to lie about if you can't trace any of it.

ox said...

hahahahaha Good point anon. 1+ He put the stash in a sock and buried it. That is hilarious. It'll be waiting for him when he gets out. Inflation will have consumed it by then though. Probably be able to by a loaf of bread with it maybe. hahahaha

Anonymous said...

Dave said...
"Not 'nothing.' There is plenty preventing it. A state without the tax revenue can't (or won't) afford the prison to put him in, and chasing cash given away becomes an exercise in increasing costs and diminishing returns."

You're thinking is faulty because you believe the decisions are being made by an entity (the state) that is making rational cost/benefit calculations.


Substitute the word 'feminist' for 'state' and see if you still expect it to behave rationally. It won't - in fact feminists (the largest consistent voting bloc the state has) exist mostly to extract vengeance on males. It's punitive in nature and largely immune to rational arguments.

The state is a feminist.

David II said...

I wish I could have seen her face when she heard this.

Pepto Von Bismark said...

This is wonderful. I wish more men would resist in this way. For too long we have played by the old rules while our govt. forces us to underwrite immoral behavior. I would much rather give my money to charity than to a former spouse and her boyfriend.

Anonymous said...

Actually this has been tried in the U.S. and all they do is force you under pain of imprisonment to compensate the wife her "due". They'll demand you buy her a new house worth just as much, provide her a car, etc. then throw you into prison basically forever for 'contempt'. The solution for this already discussed when imprisonment alone isn't enough will be labor camps and torture to make you work

RVT said...

Cutting off your nose to spite her face... good on him.

ox said...

I know several men who went below the radar and successfully raised children or evaded the odious burden of the feminist agenda for decades. Their children are now grown, married and reasonably well adjusted. Can you survive without the system? Absolutely. Is it easy? Nope. Is it worth the pain? That's for you to decide.

There is a genre of movie productions portraying men, women and children who have survived the gauntlet of one oppressive regime or another. Most are based on true stories. They are acknowledged as heroes. There are unintentional heroes all around us. I particularly appreciate the ones who base their convictions on wisdom from God.

Dodo Bird said...

"The wife said he was violent to her and their children."

Given the demonstrated instability of a man who preemptively destroys the savings of a family, gee, I wonder what the probability is that this statement is correct. You'll give a pass to anyone, so long as they hurt a woman, won't you. You're a hopeless woman hater.

"While I'm a little dubious that a woman who is willing to asset-strip her husband is worth keeping anyhow"

Presumably the same would go for a man?

Anonymous said...

"Given the demonstrated instability of a man who preemptively destroys the savings of a family, gee, I wonder what the probability is that this statement is correct."

The statement is almost certainly false as such an accusation turns the "savings of a family" into *her* money alone. There is a huge financial incentive to say this an no legal penalty for lying.

"You'll give a pass to anyone, so long as they hurt a woman, won't you. You're a hopeless woman hater."

He gets a pass because rather than having everything stolen he destroyed it first. If a thief wants to steal your gold and you throw it into the ocean you are not performing an evil act. If enough do this than stealing in this way becomes unprofitable and stops. We hate thieves as every good person should but if you believe most women are thieves then yes we hate you and you'd better watch out you need us far more than we need you.

revrogers said...

I suggest there is not enough information in the article to determine whether the man is a brutal and spiteful person or the wife is money grubbing. Praise or blame reactions one way or the other says more about the commenters than the situation. We don't know from the article the character of the individuals and the true motivations involved.

Vox is correct in his comments that this may signal a trend. (Note: Vox's comments are not directly about the persons involved but the liklihood that this kind of action by men may be repeated.)

Ping Jockey said...

When you can't get justice and must resort to drastic measures, use the 'Scorched Earth' policy of 'Mutually Assured Destruction'.
It worked with the Soviet Union.

And sorry, but I don't believe that 'violent/abusive' claim that Modern Womyn use so freely anymore, unless I see it for myself. Modern Womyn have falsely played THAT card too many times!

"The best way for men to deal with Modern Womyn is to NOT deal with Modern Womyn."

ox said...

There was an instance when the former wife received refuge from the man solely on the basis of her word. She claimed he was armed to the teeth and and threatened her with his "arsenal" of weapons.
Oh what a display of drama! The church took the woman and children, hid and sheltered them. Then they provided for her transportation many miles away out of State. Then the police ransacked the guys house. Found nothing even remotely close to an arsenal (hunting rifle). The State of refuge she fled to placed a court order on the guy. He spent the next few years jumping through hoops trying to get his children back. Counseling, courts, lawyers, therapies etc etc. He never did win the kids back. All of the expenses where on him so he accumulated this huge debt.
This guy was a very productive world class alpha with a substantial income. It was all stripped away because he subjected himself to the system. It ate him alive until he came to his senses.
So this thrills you feminists does it? The entire charade was based on a woman's whim.

ox said...

Then there was the instance of the man and the woman both making good incomes but working different shifts. He instinctively became suspicious and hires a private eye while he worked that evening. Pictures, license plates, hotel room, all of it the first day the eye was on the job. He showed up before the guys shift was over!
After tens of thousands of dollars in the courts, the man wins the house, the car and the kids and support from the wife! But she keeps dinging him back to the courts and the legal bills keep piling up. Finally during a time of economic slump his wages drop. Hers don't. She keeps dinging him in the courts. He looses it all because he can no longer afford the crack lawyer.
Impossible you say?

Timothy Webster said...

ox, if he put gold and silver in the sock, inflation shouldn't hurt him too much.

Recruit said...

I feel like starting a charity!

Anonymous said...

Somehow they'll find a way to stop men from doing this and make them pay in some form.

ox said...

@Anon The assumption is that if they go below the radar their impact is minimal and that they ARE suffering by virtue of the infrastructure of a politically correct society.
Fact is though that love will find a way. Fortunately there are virtues and values that money or the system just can't buy or provide. A genuine natural loving relationship with a real man and woman is one of those. The wealth and amenities of society will never match the excitement, adventure character building substance of an alpha or sigma beating the system and providing for his mate. They'll reminisce on the details well into their dotage. They'll revel in the true riches of life.
Of course a little gold helps now and then also but it is definitely not necessary.

. said...

I'm surprised Vox didn't say this guy was a bitter gamma who didn't understand game.

TobyTemple said...

hmmm.... he could have an accomplice who is currently hiding all that money..

as for the ex-wife, POINT at her and LAUGH

Joseph Dantes said...

He should've moved overseas to a non-extraditing country like China and taken the money with him.

Robert said...

From Atlas Shrugged:
        The seizure of the multi-billion dollar d'Anconia Copper was to come as a munificent surprise to the country.
       "On the stroke of ten, in the exact moment when the chairman's gavel struck the rostrum, opening the session-almost as if the gavel's blow had set it off-the sound of a tremendous explosion rocked the hall, shattering the glass of its windows. It came from the harbor, a few streets away-and when the legislators rushed to the windows, they saw a long column of flame where once there had risen the familiar silhouettes of the ore docks of d'Anconia Copper. The ore docks had been blown to bits.
        "The chairman averted panic and called the session to order. The act of nationalization was read to the assembly, to the sound of fire alarm sirens and distant cries. It was a gray morning, dark with rain clouds, the explosion had broken an electric transmitter-so that the assembly voted on the measure by the light of candles, while the red glow of the fire kept sweeping over the great vaulted ceiling above their heads.
        "But more terrible a shock came later, when the legislators called a hasty recess to announce to the nation the good news that the people now owned d'Anconia Copper. While they were voting, word had come from the closest and farthest points of the globe that there was no d'Anconia Copper left on earth. Ladies and gentlemen, not anywhere. In that same instant, on the stroke of ten, by an infernal marvel of synchronization, every property of d'Anconia Copper on the face of the globe, from Chile to Siam to Spain to Pottsville, Montana, had been blown up and swept away.
        "The d'Anconia workers everywhere had been handed their last pay checks, in cash, at nine A.M., and by nine-thirty had been moved off the premises. The ore docks, the smelters, the laboratories, the office buildings were demolished. Nothing was left of the d'Anconia ore ships which had been in port-and only lifeboats carrying the crews were left of those ships which had been at sea. As to the d'Anconia mines, some were buried under tons of blasted rock, while others were found not to be worth the price of blasting. An astounding number of these mines, as reports pouring in seem to indicate, had continued to be run, even though exhausted years ago.
        "Reports from the various banks indicate that there are no d'Anconia accounts left anywhere; the money has been spent down to the last penny, "Ladies and gentlemen, the d'Anconia fortune-the greatest fortune on earth, the legendary fortune of the centuries-has ceased to exist. In place of the golden dawn of a new age, the People's States of Chile and Argentina are left with a pile of rubble and hordes of unemployed on their hands."

Lovely Singh said...

Call: 09781405926


We Provide High Class Escorts Service and Call girls in India | Amritsar, Chandigarh, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Nagpur, Mumbai, Pune, New Delhi, Agra, Bangalore, Goa, Lucknow, Kanpur, Hyderabad, Jaipur.

Amritsar escorts service

Call girl in Amritsar

Amritsar Escorts

Amritsar Call girls

Escort in Amritsar

Independent Escort in Amritsar

Amritsar independent escorts

Escorts service Amritsar

Amritsar Escorts Agency

Amritsar Female Escorts

Amritsar independent Escorts

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight


Collection Part 2:

Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car










Hardcore Porn Celebrity





100% MAKE you satisfy......

Reply Delete

Post a Comment