Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UNLV2001

PAY ME

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I just looked it up and saw that it also starred another former national treasure... John Candy. 

There were a lot of shitty movies in the 70s and 80s but man those comedies with Pryor & Wilder & Candy were some of the best ever. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I just looked it up and saw that it also starred another former national treasure... John Candy. 

Canadian treasure - Candy was one of those illegals taking American film jobs :foottap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, UNLV2001 said:

Canadian treasure - Candy was one of those illegals taking American film jobs :foottap:

Canada is really just the 51st State.  They just haven’t accepted that fact yet. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, UNLV2001 said:

Canadian treasure - Candy was one of those illegals taking American film jobs :foottap:

Yeah, what Mug said...

10 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Canada is really just the 51st State.  They just haven’t accepted that fact yet. 

pxY7RUf.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UNLV2001 said:

Literally impossible........things that you'd have to spend it on in massive blocks would end up being assets - don't see how it could be done short term 

 
My first order of buisiness would be to retain @Joe from WY as curator/director of my affairs. From there, traveling the world via leased jet, yacht, helicopter, to fully staffed, on-call, mansions, penthouses, villas would be plenty expensive. Throw in degenerate, high-limit gambling and we’re golden. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mad_Hatter said:
 
My first order of buisiness would be to retain @Joe from WY as curator/director of my affairs. From there, traveling the world via leased jet, yacht, helicopter, to fully staffed, on-call, mansions, penthouses, villas would be plenty expensive. Throw in degenerate, high-limit gambling and we’re golden. 

tumblr_o8z6xdaAJG1smsmqro1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, assuming no prenup or stuff like that, she already has all that money.  They are married. They are a partnership.  It's not "his" money.  She's losing half of her assets as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Guys, assuming no prenup or stuff like that, she already has all that money.  They are married. They are a partnership.  It's not "his" money.  She's losing half of her assets as well.

:huh: Well dammit :unsure:..........now I feel bad for the poor lady :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They mar

15 minutes ago, toonkee said:

Guys, assuming no prenup or stuff like that, she already has all that money.  They are married. They are a partnership.  It's not "his" money.  She's losing half of her assets as well.

They married in 1993.  He founded Amazon in his garage in 1994 with a $300,000 investment from his parents. Washington is a community property state.

Even if there was a prenuptial agreement of some kind, I don't think it matters.  Half of their wealth is now hers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

How do you fit five comedians in a VW Bug?

:shrug:

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bsu_alum9 said:

They mar

They married in 1993.  He founded Amazon in his garage in 1994 with a $300,000 investment from his parents. Washington is a community property state.

Even if there was a prenuptial agreement of some kind, I don't think it matters.  Half of their wealth is now hers.  

I see but my point is then that it was always hers. There's an impression that she's going to gain money but really she's going to lose half her money, just like him.  See what I mean?  I think you do but I'm just trying to get my point across to whomever is reading this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I see but my point is then that it was always hers. There's an impression that she's going to gain money but really she's going to lose half her money, just like him.  See what I mean?  I think you do but I'm just trying to get my point across to whomever is reading this.

Agreed, there are a lot of sexist neanderthals from the Associated Press on down thinking "he" has to "give" "her" what is in reality is already "hers".  I think the greater fairness question will be if there is a 50/50 custody arrangement (if there are minor children), associated child support amount (there should be none), and alimony (there should be none). 

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

Canadian treasure - Candy was one of those illegals taking American film jobs :foottap:

 

4 hours ago, mugtang said:

Canada is really just the 51st State.  They just haven’t accepted that fact yet. 

I was only behind by four hours!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, modestobulldog said:

Agreed, there are a lot of sexist neanderthals from the Associated Press on down thinking "he" has to "give" "her" what is in reality is already "hers".  I think the greater fairness question will be if there is a 50/50 custody arrangement (if there are minor children), associated child support amount (there should be none), and alimony (there should be none). 

In retrospect, it's possible he doesn't want 50/50 and then he should pay child support.

110926run_defense710.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...