linearity:


I understand your position and the truth is, that is the prevailing position in the US. However, the COPs when called, usually try to determine the aggressor between both parties. They look for injuries and in almost all the cases, where injuries are on the men and not the woman and the man agree to press charges, the woman is taken to jail.

One of the many reasons, you do not see women aggressors going to jail is because, women more often than men are willing to press charges. Most men, will decline to press charges and volunteer to leave for the seek of their kids. However, most women will want to press charges or inform the COP that night, that they will press charges and later go and withdraw the charges or decline to testify against their husband and the case will die under it's own weight.

If there are no injuries, it becomes a judgement call.

Also, it is not true that the aggressor is not free to come back the next day, it usually depends on the circumstance. If the aggressor or one person volunteer to leave, they are free to come the next day. The COPs does not have any authority to order them to stay away from their home, in the above case; they volunteer to leave. However, if no one agrees to leave, the COPs have to determine who is the aggressor and take them to jail, where they will face a bail hearing the next count date and the Judge will have to determine, if they go back or not...Without the order of a Judge, the COP can not order you to stay away from your house period!

You will agree that, you are been stereotype in stating that, in 100% of the cases; the husband is the one that gets booted. A little google on US family law cases across the US, will reveal cases where ladies who have been deem less fit compare to their husband are given the boot and asked to pay child support to the husband.

The fact that, in most of the cases; women get to stay is in sync with men's nature...in that, most of us will prefer to be out there chasing after one challenge or adventure than to be responsible full-time 24/7, for the upkeep of my kids; most of us are okay with reasonable visitations and unhindered access to the kids and as such are unwilling to fight to the bitter end, when our rights are guaranteed, which many women usually agree to. The truth is, there are very few bitter separation fights to the very end, most are settled and usually with the guy agreeing to let the woman take the kid(s) in agreement to access to the kid(s).

nwamehn:


Maybe u can furnish us with the particular sections of the Marriage Act or the Matrimonial Causes Act of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria that state that property acquired by a partner during marriage would be shared equally between couple in the event of a divorce.
Getting married under these acts (and not customary or Islamic rites) guarantees no division of property equally in the case of divorce. It only guarantees that the man or the woman in special cases where the woman earn far higher than the man makes arrangement for a lump sum to be paid, or alimony or provision of accommodation for the child(ren) till the said child(ren) reaches 21 years or if there is a special situation like being handicapped, imbecility, etc, that would extend the stay beyond 21 years, after which the man or the woman is not deemed to be legally responsible for the child's accommodation and general welfare (I can provide the sections of the Acts that say this). The law of sharing property equally would come into action by the time the gender equality bill is passed into law, and then these Marriage and Matrimonial Causes Acts would be amended to reflect it too.

lastpage:


Most likely she knows his FBook password (or set-up a fake page using his picture) and after hatching her plan to assassinate him in Nigeria (If she tries it in the USA, "proper forensic investigation" would quickly catch-up and expose her but we know "how it is", with Nigeria Police ).. she then went about posting all these rubbish on his Wall, by impersonating him.
Bet me, if she had shown the date on those post, it will coincide with when the man was murdered (+ or - a day so that he had no time to see it and scream).

How did she know he killed a Kidnapper? That is privileged information that only an investigation could have shown
Where is the body of the "killed" Kidnapper she is talking about? How could she confirm that a kidnapper actually was killed?

one of the picture she posted showed the man "waiving Dollars" but if you look at that picture very well, it does not show him "spraying it" nor was it taken in Nigeria. So, how did she come to the conclusion that "it was his display of wealth in Nigeria that attracted Kidnappers to him?

This woman is deliberately TRYING to lead investigation away from herself by "flying" all these red-herrings.
But l am happy that a lot of intelligent people (l am not talking about those that dont think at all or those that just swallow a story without using their own brain to "think and analyse", or those "feminazis" that see the death of any man as a thing of triumph nor of those "wussy-men" that get their ego massaged by just jumping behind a woman, no matter the issue in discuss) are seeing easily through her lies and alibi.

I bet if the phone records of ll calls emanating from the nearest Tower to her house in the US, to \Nigeria is recalled and read, (after getting a Court warrant), they will see and hear things that will shock everyone here.

This woman is a killer... but a Learner at that.
The Police needs to liaise with their U.S and Interpol counterparts, once they open a murder investigation about this death.
We are all interested in the truth.

The guy might have his own faults just like anyone of us but that does not mean he should be assassinated by his wifey.
This made a lot of sense. Besides, you got all those categories well delineated. Kudos



Lastpage

Aigbofa:


You need your head examined. You come across as a very dangerous and unstable individual. Nobody deserves to die for cheating. His wife had a choice to either stay in the marriage or leave.
With the amount of bile you are spewing against a total stranger, if I was investigating the case I would have you examined.

lastpage:


I just cant stop reading and re-reading this write-Up!
Its so interesting and would make a good "Case Discussion" on a Class.



*he beats you everyday for the last thirteen years and you told us you have undergone surgeries because of his "wicked beatings" yet when he was travelling to Nigeria, You still packed his bags for him!

Let me see: That is to prove that you love him, right? But the Surgery and beating part does not fit into that lovey-dovey tale, not to mention that you were in the habit of calling Police for him (as advised) to come and remove him (or maybe to get him shot, as you claimed he has a gun!)

* When anyone predicates their innocence on their "witness being God" who is in heaven l always look at them using that Buahri slant of face! "I am innocent and God is my witness"!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She went further:


That is an "uncommon language" from a woman whose husband was killed by Kidnappers!
"Hits" are always from (Hired) Assassins and Cultists. Kidnappers dont "order hits", they "snatch" victims and then follow the usual 'Cat and Mouse' procedure. How did this woman come about all the "phrases' she has been using ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Let me see again: For a woman who has just lost her husband, the man whose travelling back she packed when he was about to travel to his death, this kind of strong, condemning statements is very unusual! Why is she so defensive, to go as far as this level?
How/Why did she make such confirmatory statement (he was assassinated) when she was not even there nor the matter fully investigated nor did she have a police Report?
okay, the clubbing and Dollar part was to make it convincing that he was kidnapped because he showed-off money?
But that does not equal to assassination which is "when someone is killed just ti snuff life out of them, not for their belongings/money".

Assassination is purely for Punishment, by death.Simple.
So, in one place she claimed assassination and in another she claims death by misadventure due revenge by the kidnappers, for killing one of theirs! Where is the proof of such categorical statement?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And she goes again



Categorical statements again!
He was careless. He was kidnapped. he shot one of the "Robbers".

How does a woman who just lost her husband she claims she is in-love with (despite all the beatings of past 13yrs as she claimed) work so hard to destroy any hope of further investigation into his death?
She actually JUSTIFIED why the Kidnappers shot him! (She said he killed one of them! Yes, she saw everything or has a witness to the event but there is No picture of the "dead body" of a kidnapper anywhere)

From Assassination, to Kidnappers now it is "Robbers"?

How did she come about all these 'categorical statements" which can only come from someone in the know, like the Police, Forensic Experts or someone who has done a thorough investigation and is armed with FACTS?

She actually blames him for shooting one of the "robbers". Question is how did she know he was even carrying a gun on himself at that moment (we are talking about Nigeria, not USA where carrying guns is legal and he is a "JJC" that has to pass through immigration and Custom, not some Fulani herdsmen! )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First, she justified her not able or wanting to kill him by saying "things were not that bad".
But reading her statements, one would ask: How worse can things get? she said "should l have allowed him to kill me", meaning she thinks he is trying to kill her! So things are not bad, ehn? But you think he wants to kill you?

She said she has no interest in his properties but notice how she 'carefully chipped-it-in' by adding "after-all we both work for it"!
This woman is a cunning fox! She just gave herself an alibi while ensuring that she did not completely remove her "teeth" from his properties!

okay, she claims to have endured all these years of "beating and cheating" without divorcing him or killing him.
When you 911 the Police that a man (your husband) has a Gun and wants to kill you..... do you think you are telling them that you are "enduring" him or you are telling them "l want this murderer shot for trying to kill me"?
Dont forget she asked the question: Should l have allowed him to kill me?

Why would she do it now? very good question because she thinks she has eluded the "motive" question which is the crux of every criminal matter.
But here it is:
1.) You finally "packaged" him to a country where crime is rampant (her words). he gets killed there no one should bother investigate!
2.) You packed his Bag just to show you are innocent and still the loving wife (her words but her prior actions shows it is a ruse!)
3.) You ensured you got video streaming of him showing-off Dollars (But even that is not true) so you can pin it on armed robbers (money).
*You tried to use his "weakness" (I know my husband) as the motive for the murder (and you even purport to have a video evidence of him spraying Dollars) so as to deflect the searchlight from yourself
* You confirmed that even you (as everybody else), knew his EXACT LOCATION in Nigeria! So, it was easy to just relay it down.
4.) You sold the world the stroy of him killing the kidnappers as a "motive' of them killing (not assassinating this time) him. But we all know dead bodies dont disappear and you have not show this one! tel us what happened this time that you cant show the picture of the Kidnapper he killed, the gun he used and the "ballistic" forensic report that tied the bullet to the gun
5.) You pretended you arenot interested in his properties but for someone whose 'loved' husband just died, you did not fail to draw attention to the fact that you both owned it! So, in actual fact, you are very interested in his properties!
6.) Finally, if we collate all the efforts you have put into "distancing" yourself from this assassination (that is exactly what it is, a paid-for assassination), the video-link, the categorical statements, the packing of his bags prior to travel, the beatings and surgery story, the "it serves him right slant" to your story, e.t.c....... we must ask ourselves: Why are you already defending yourself, when the Police are yet to charge you for Ist Degree Murder?

Maybe you think the Police in Nigeria are so dumb (afterall, there is so much crime in Nigeria!), so slow and you are out of reach that you need to send them an invitation, with loads of ready-made alibi?

You try but you did not try at all.
Infact, you "out-tried" yourself ...and that is the bad part of all these stories, the part that would now start putting you in the "accused Box"!

Now, she wants to be left in peace so she can take care of her children!
Imagine the liver!
Lets wait and see sha.



Lastpage!

lielbree:

I know the lady personally. The man built the house. He was ordered to provide accommodation for his kids.... hence she got the house he built. If the court can only provide alimony, where will the kids live??

lielbree:

Read all section 72 and 73 Matrimonial causes Act Nigeria.

Then get back to me.

logica:
It is actually better to marry an Oyinbo or African American using your logic, if you think about it well. All African women abroad are overwhelmed by this new "power over the fate of men" that their transgressions are at another level.

he beats you everyday for the last thirteen years and you told us you have undergone surgeries because of his "wicked beatings"

LecciGucci:


Exactly as per say AMERICAN MILLITARY TACTICS. Him no no say all these hood bois no get soul..may he rip tho.
But he could hav avoided this.

logica:
This surgery part is all that is required to break this case. If it can be established to be false...that would be similar to the case of the Yoruba woman accused of murdering her husband, who claimed there was power outage.

lastpage:

Its also very easy to attribute surgeries, meant to correct a medical problem, to the indirect effect of a beating!

lastpage:


Please "say something" instead of quoting that long Post naah!

Your opinion counts!



Lastpage!

nwamehn:


It's actually section 72 because the entire section 73 talks about alimony, payment of lump sum, periodic sum, order for all kinds of payment etc. It's section 72 that talks about settlement of property and section 72 subsection 1 talks about the settlement of property for the benefit of all or part of the parties involved including the children and not in anyway about dividing a man's or a woman's property into two. This settlement of property relates to accommodation of the children, how the family can raise money to take care of the children in the case the man owns a rented house and the family had been depending on that house for livelihood. This particular settlement of property in this subsection is what the court uses to prevail on the man to rent an apartment for his wife and kids, leave the house for them to stay in etc but IT'S NEVER USED TO DENY THE MAN HIS HOUSE OR ASK HIM TO FORFEIT HIS HOUSE PERMANENTLY TO THE WIFE, except for special cases for eg where the woman's money was actually used to build the house and now the man wants a divorce etc, the court can interpret it that way if the woman can actually prove that it was her money that was used to build it.
Subsection 2 of this same section 72 talks about ante-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements which ar binding in marriage. I might want to have a written agreement with my spouse before we marry. The agreement might contain that in the event of divorce, the children will go to her, then I will dash her my car and give her a house somewhere to use and take care of the children, the agreement might also contain that in the event of divorce she gets nothing from me aside the weekly or monthly money to take care of the children, it can just contain anything, and such an agreement is called ante-nuptial agreement and it's binding according to that subsection 2 of section 72.
Subsection 3 of the same section 72 states and I quote, "The power of the court to make orders of the kind referred to in this section shall not be exercised for the benefit of a child who has attained the age of twenty-one years unless the court is of opinion that there are special circumstances that justify the making of such an order for the benefit of that child".
U can see that this subsection 3 states it clear that the entire section 72 including subsection 1 that talks about settlement of property becomes null if the child in question attains 21 years. So if subsection 1 translates to the man and wife dividing the man's property equally as u claim, does it mean that once the child is 21 years, the woman will return all her 50% share of the properties divided or does it mean that if the man and wife had children all above 21, that when they divorce, the woman will not have any 50% share again since the law says the settlement of property is binding only if the children ar below 21?
What subsection 3 is saying is that if we divorce and I rent a house for our kids or I leave my house for our kids to stay in for accommodation, that by the time they ar all above 21, I am no more legally obliged to keep on renting property for them or accommodating them in my house. However I can still decide to leave them there for life, after all they ar my kids, whether old or young.
And do u know that if I and my wife both earn salaries, and in the event of divorce the court determines that I have custody of our kids and not my wife (which happens especially when the woman is certified to be into drugs, alcohol or certain bad occupations etc), that I will have the kids with me and my wife will get no single penny from me and she will still not live in my house?
I repeat, there is no law in Nigeria at present that mandates a man and wife to share the man's or woman's property equally when they divorce, that law can only come into action when the gender equality bill is passed into law.

euromilion:


Well said m8.
I was too lazy to respond to lastpage assertions,in many cases women are left at the family home for the sake of the kids,in a case where a child/ren chose to stay with their father,then the woman will have to leave and can be ask to pay for support.

@lastpage,
The woman couldn't have possibly carried out/done such act except if she had visited Nig recently and for what reasons would she want to kill him?for a house in the village?a house that worth nothing.

If am to look for any suspect,I would start with his relatives Nig based,they can kill for mere 1000 dollars.

lielbree:

72 (1)The court may, in proceedings under this Act, by court in order require the parties to the marriage, or either of them, to make, for the benefit of all or any of the parties to, and the children of, the marriage, such a settlement of property to which the parties are, or either of them is, entitled (whether in possession or reversion) as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.

Is it that you can't comprehend? or are we reading different laws?

YOU KEEP REFERRING ONLY TO KIDS. ARE CHILDREN PARTIES TO MARRIAGE??

THIS SECTION STATES CLEARLY THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO MAKE PROVISION FOR SETTLEMENT OF ANY OF THE PARTIES!

What of cases where there are no children but a party wants divorce, is the other party (he/she) not entitled to settlement?

nwamehn:


Did u read that subsection 1 well? It says 'for the benefit of all, or any of the parties to AND the children of the marriage'. Did u see that AND and not OR, it didn't say for the benefit of all, or any of the parties OR the children, but it says AND the children, which means that children must be involved before this subsection is valid. Nevertheless, let me talk about children not being involved. Let me give u instances of where subsection 1 prevails in marriage where there ar no kids. Do u know that if a man marries a woman and deprives the woman of working for so many years and so she couldn't make savings and then decides to divorce her, that the court would likely prevail on him to make settlements? Do u know that if a man builds a house by the contribution of both him and the wife and after then decides to divorce her, that the court will compel him to make settlements? There ar many other cases aside these two. These are the cases I'm telling u that warrant settlement according to that subsection 1 once the woman is able to prove any of these, but not that if both the man and woman work and the woman never contributed anything to any house or property acquired by the man, that when they divorce they will now share the man's property equally and she gets 50% as u claim. U haven't been able to show me where the Act said they will share the man's property equally as u have been claiming. I suggest u contract a lawyer to enlighten u more on settlement of property, so that u understand settlement of property doesn't wholly translate to division of property equally, it can mean provison of accomodation, it can mean giving a house or a land, it can mean giving a shop etc.
Subsection 3 nullifies subsection 1 when the marriage has a child and he or she is 21years. So, if u claim settlement refers to division of property into two, what does subsection 3 mean? Does it mean that once there is child in the marriage and he or she is 21years, that the woman will forfeit her 50% share?
If a man and a woman would share the man's property equally when they divorce, so can u furnish us with details of cases in Nigeria where the couple divorced and the man's property was divided into two? Don't bring examples of the man providing accomodation for his kids because that is different from dividing a man's property into two.

lielbree:

That's your interpretation of and.

ArabMopol:
Charlie women can kill at slightest provocation. threatening to kill the guy in video clip make her prime suspect. you can get a hit-man to take someone out without stepping a foot in Nigeria, u asked what is she going to do with village house , ? u talk as an illiterate do u forget they might have joined trustfund and the woman is automatically the beneficiary if anything happens to the husband, abeg apply small common sense, she is the prime justice , if she claims the guy is a serial wife beater ,she would have walk away , America I know will give her custody of the children and 70% of what the guy had, she choose to kill him so she can have all the wealth for him self... but believe Nigeria and taste for justice, her in-law will go extremely high to get justice, ogwugwu akpu okija and alusi mbaise is still potent

nwamehn:


Boss, did u say 70%? Isn't that figure wrong? I thought it's 50% and sometimes sef the woman can settle for less especially if she is the one filing for divorce because perhaps she is already tired of the marriage.

ArabMopol:
then why the fuse since u knw there will be 50/50 settlement, with her threatening video clips, that woman can go in for 2 decade until proven not guilty, this is a murder case and she cowardly make herself prime suspect, even if she wanted the guy out, she should have do it professionally and make sure no trail is left behind, just imagine her defence statement, all she want is a space , so she can mourn her husband , which husband is she talking about, is it the one she claims that abuses her unnecessarily... abeg spare me that

nwamehn:


That's a universal interpretation. AND means what it is. A man/woman AND the children doesn't in any way translate to a man/woman alone or children alone. It must be man/woman AND children. If u consult a lawyer, he will enlighten u well on that subsection 1, he will explain to u that in legal proceedings, 'for the benefit of a woman AND the children' is very different from 'for the benefit of a woman OR the children'. The earlier makes it clear that it's only binding when children are involved but the latter is binding even when only woman is involved.

ArabMopol:
Charlie women can kill at slightest provocation. threatening to kill the guy in video clip make her prime suspect. you can get a hit-man to take someone out without stepping a foot in Nigeria, u asked what is she going to do with village house , ? u talk as an illiterate do u forget they might have joined trustfund and the woman is automatically the beneficiary if anything happens to the husband, abeg apply small common sense, she is the prime justice , if she claims the guy is a serial wife beater ,she would have walk away , America I know will give her custody of the children and 70% of what the guy had, she choose to kill him so she can have all the wealth for him self... but believe Nigeria and taste for justice, her in-law will go extremely high to get justice, ogwugwu akpu okija and alusi mbaise is still potent

euromilion:


This una trial by social media,you have concluded that she's guilty without any substantial evidence,while the real killers could be roaming round your streets.All the motives that you suggested are only assumptions,for all we know the man could be living on debts,I've never met any vet that's minted,however,the woman could have ve still get her hands on the mans wealth based on divorce alone,so to me that motives doesn't hold except for life insurance which we don't know if he has or not.

You guys thinks that hit men are that easy to find,until you need one,talkless of being in America and getting one in nig,as far as am concern,NIGERIA based has upper hand when it comes to things like that.

Am not ruling her out,but there's huge possibilities that she's innocent.

logica:
LMAO. You no dey tire dey dish logic lessons?

ArabMopol:
in Nigeria hit men are much easier to locate, chucks being bona fide Igbo man and typical Nigeria man will never depend on his salaries alone, he might have hit some fortune while in Army , the woman became the prime suspect the day she recorded the video clip threatening to kill the husband, that video alone sold her out, she get luck the assassination happened in lawless Country Nigeria, if its in America that tape alone will give her a lengthy holiday in one of the US prison... make she go enjoy her wealth while it last, bcux her in-law must surely seek justice somewhere more faster

euromilion:


Na lie that video is only an indication that they had/have marital issues,not an indication that she killed him,judges are very careful when it comes to using video as an evidence,how are you sure that she even made the videos,if oj Simpson can be innocent,that woman is innocent too,those videos could've been doctored for all I care.

This's why I like western criminal investigators,because that video will only tell them to bring her in for questioning,it doesn't stop other lines of inquiries.

ArabMopol:
she did not deny the video... meanwhile she is the prime suspect with evidence at hand...

euromilion:

When did you asked her about it?