To: Bonaparte
Bottom line: A pre-nup will only keep honest people honest. If you want protection, marry someone who's not nearly as smart or Machiavellian as you, then get the goods on your prospective spouse and save them up for a legal "rainy day." That means investing in private investigators, steadily amassing your evidence, keeping track of the whereabouts and status of potential future witnesses, and always regarding your life partner as a potential legal adversary who may eventually have to be proven an unfit parent, faithless harridan, etc. Then, of course, the offspring of your union must be relentlessly conditioned to favor you in any testimony they may be called upon to make. This is a lot of work, carried out in secrecy and guaranteed to poison the relationship no matter what happens. Under such cloak-and-dagger conditions, what would be the point of marrying at all?
I agree, what would be the point? Yet, there's enough women doing just what you mention in order to steal the man's assets. That's exactly what is making marriage unattractive. Now I know, there's always been gold diggers, but this practice has reached epidemic proportions and all with the aid of the courts.
Boys, keep your drawers on and don't get married. That's my take on it.
356 posted on
07/06/2002 1:38:12 PM PDT by
meyer
To: meyer
There have actually been books written on how to prepare, long in advance, for these custody/asset battles. Some of them are so cold-bloodedly devious, they shock even me! I once glossed through one of these while browsing a bookstore. It advised the reader to take the initiative in filing for divorce, putting the spouse on the defensive, taking him/her completely by surprise and leaving his/her counsel with minimal time to prepare. The author emphasized that the adversary's friends and relatives would all be called to testify and that some or even many of them would be biased -- a few wouldn't hesitate to actually lie under oath. Therefore, he suggested that the plan of attack should include the stockpiling of evidence in anticipation of discrediting them as well as the spouse. He went on to remind his reader that reality had nothing to do with these contests -- only the impression produced for the benefit of the judge.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson