Home

OUR INNOVATIVE INSURANCE CONCEPT APPLIES TO REAL MARRIAGES ONLY!

That requires definition:
“OUR” indicates that this concept is Cynthia’s baby as well as mine. We fell in love,
married in the Catholic Church, were blessed with five wonderful children and provided to
the best of our ability for them.

“INNOVATIVE INSURANCE CONCEPT” contradicts conventional wisdom that deems
marriage not insurable.

I am eager to defend this contention against anybody worth prime time on major TV.
“REAL MARRIAGES ONLY” indicates that some couples deserve a higher degree of
protection than any affluent and secular jurisdiction grants. Neither race, nor religion, much
less political affiliation, least at all gender, defines need for innovative insurance.
The distinction between REAL and other MARRIAGES is a matter of perspective.
Considering that more contemporaries loose their family to preventable acts of attorneys,
than their house or condo to routinely covered acts of God, the acid test is: Do you
appreciate property more than marital relations with a particular spouse and resulting
children?

Don’t marry anyone you don’t trust enough in monetary matter to say “I do” without a
prenuptial agreement.

Cynthia married me in the Catholic Church wanting and affording a large family, were
blessed with 5 lovable children. Neither parent ever intended divorce, but learned the hard
way caring couples must cover their own vulnerability to self-serving professional
manipulation for mates’ progeny and grandparents’ benefit to protect the wedding vow.
BETTER FORGET VALENTINES UNABLE OR NOT WILLING to recognize innovative
marriage insurance’s merit. Spouses stipulate in premarital insurance contracts to
indemnify one another for emotional distress and trauma caused to family, close friends
and themselves by litigation and/or procrastination prohibited by premarital stipulation. As
economic litigation risk is shifted from emotionalized, estranged spouses unable to win
an award covering fees due to lawyers, shrinks and expert witnesses feeding on no-win
patients or clients no pro can afford divorce bluff, the play exploiting estranged spouses’
emotions, which did us in.

COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE practise didn’t exist back in 1988 but thrives in a small, albeit
affluent segment of the US market. Suppose a ‘nearly incessantly crying’ suburban soccer-
mom and wellbread mini-heiress from Beverly Hills consults in menopause a practitioner,
50 filing days before Christmas, about avoiding divorce her 5 children’s father and
husband of 24 years threatens. “If you try mediation we shall be happy to help, but we don’t
do contested divorce.” She might have been told.

Collaboration and litigation are mutually exclusive. Our philosophical affinity might benefit
experienced practitioners and marriage insurers serving an up-scale market. As top
executives devote days to routine checkups at the Mayo Clinic wealthy couples might prefer
dedicated weekends at elite spas, while periodic marriage check-ups at a church
basement reduce less affluent couples divorce risk.

A $20 million a year makes Shaquille O’Neal, 35, the second-highest paid NBA player.
According to records recently filed in a Miami court his monthly expense amounts to $1.3
million. His wife bore him since 2002 4 children being raised together with her premarital
daughter and his born by a different mother shortly before his marriage. My late ex’
compassion for children of divorce motivates donation of royalties she earns to a
charitable Cynthia Imhof Memorial Trust funding premiums for marriage insurance
deserving couples could otherwise not afford. I don’t have enough liquidity to establish that
Trust before receiving an adequate advance for our human interest.

Shaq excelled in high-school and college basket ball but married as a pro earning $
millions. His divorce suggests that potential role models must be awarded marriage
insurance grants sooner to maximise social benefit and help them attract more serious
partners for life. Awards to yet uncommitted young talents are of course contingent to bride
and groom stipulating to the premarital insurance contract.
Aged 77 I have hardly a chance to attend the weddings of any of my 5 lovely, little
grandchildren. Genetics indicate that they will be eligible for scholarships if necessary.
Rather providing for marriage insurance I ask generous grand-parents, except Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II, to pledge premiums insuring marriage of progeny, provided regulators
approve novel insurance product within reasonable time. Furthermore concerned
contemporaries might donate challenge grants for a specific celebrity’s benefit that accrue
by default to a local affiliate of Cynthia Imhof Memorial Trust.

The best known and deserving singles are handsome princes William and Harry. As only
the Imhof Hypothesis applies, but nor the law of diminishing returns they and heir brides
must stipulate that marginal utility of every 11th million is zilch as far as they are
concerned. That deprives paparazzi, pundits and attorneys of a chance to stage instant
replay of the nauseating McCartney show. Mind what we learned graduating from Sonoma
County’s Law School of Hard Knocks and “La guerre des roses, n’aura pas lieux.”
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. pontificates frequently urbe & orbi about ecumenical
progress. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

If The Wall Street Journal pronto publishes this introduction to my web-site and BBC
discusses our concept in depth many sophisticated Christians couples regardless of
denomination, Muslim, atheists even Jews shall insure their marriage this year as family
lawyers, caterers, retailers, etc. recognize enormous business opportunities on the eve of
global economic readjustments that may cause depression.

Visit www.common-sense-marrige-insurance.info and www.can-my-ego-trip-save-your-
marriage.info better sooner than later.

		Fosters reconciliation
		Makes unavoidable divorce more bearable
		Spares children trauma and conserves their inheritance