An otherwise anonymous poster on another thread would like to insist that he can obtain $1,000,000 of life insurance on a proposed insured without the knowledge and consent of the proposed insured.
My contention is that whether it appears explicitly in the insurance code of a particular state or not, in the law of contracts requires the parties to the contract to sign the contract in order for it to be legally in force. Since the insured is a party to the contract, whether he likes it or not, he must answer the various questions in the application (or supply the requested personal information) and attest to their accuracy being "true and complete to the best of my knowledge" (a representation). A third-party owner signs the application to acknowledge his insurable interest, which is a requirement of most if not all Insurance Codes.
Most insurance codes, if not explicitly referring to the insured, infer equivalency between the term "applicant" and "insured". For example, the California Insurance Code (799.03) requires that [for life and disability income insurance] "(a) An insurer that requests an applicant to take an HIV-related test shall obtain the applicant's written informed consent for the test. Written informed consent shall include a description of the test to be performed, including its purpose, potential uses, and limitations, the meaning of its results, procedures for notifying the applicant of the results, and the right to confidential treatment of the results. Prior to the applicant's execution of the consent, the insurer shall:
(1) Provide the applicant printed material describing HIV, its
causes and symptoms, the manner in which it is spread, the test or
tests used to detect HIV or the HIV antibody, and what a person can
do whose test results are positive or negative.
(2) Provide the applicant a list of counseling resources
available, where the applicant can obtain assistance in understanding
the meaning of the test and its results. The list may be provided
from publicly available information.
It is clear from the context, that the Code is referring to the insured, not a third-party applicant/owner whose insurability is not in question. We know that insurers have, for the most part, incorporated such consents within the application, or in additional forms that are made a part of the application. No signed consent, no insurance. Unless the insurance amount is small, say $50,000 or less, the majority of insurers utilize saliva, blood, or urine testing for HIV/AIDS.
Various state and/or federal laws also require informed consent of the insured under a COLI/BOLI policy applied for by their employer, particularly when the beneficiary will be the employer and not a person of the insured's choice, such as when the policy is being used to informally fund a nonqualified employee benefit plan.
Please share your thoughts.
Posted: 08 Dec 2009 03:22 Post Subject:
Well, I don't know what the written law is, but I can tell you that I've never seen an application insurance that would allow me to not have the insured's signature (exlcuding juvaniles) and as a result have their consent. In fact, even in a tiny 25k face amount case, the insured's signature (the wife who wasn't at the meeting) held up the case.
Posted: 08 Dec 2009 12:25 Post Subject:
Think back to your example in the other thread of the Wal-Mart case. What did Wal-Mart do? The company purchased policies on their employees without the employees consent. How did they do this? Did they break any laws? If I'm not mistaken, the insurance company did it all on a guaranteed issue basis and thus no medical testing was needed and no signatures were needed by the insureds.
California then changed their law. What did they change? They made it illegal to do this with non-exempt workers. In other words, corporations are no longer allowed to buy coverage on an hourly employee without the hourly employee's consent. What wasn't changed? Corporations still don't need consent from salaried workers to buy policies covering their lives.
Posted: 08 Dec 2009 12:37 Post Subject:
Let me explain why you are making this mistake. You are combining one factual mistake with a bunch of irrelevant facts and combining that with years of experience that have you to think that if you don't know something, it must be wrong.
Factual Mistake: The insured has to be a party to the contract. You won't find any law that makes this a necessity.
Irrelevant Facts: Medical testing, HIV etc. Sure the insured would need to sign for these things. However, there is not a legal requirement that forces an insurance company to do medical underwriting.
Years of Experience: Keep in mind these are the same years of experience that didn't allow you to understand how the secondary guarantees of UL are used in the marketplace. Every single application that you have ever sold has required the signature of the insured. Thus, you are jumping to the conclusion that there must not be any exceptions.
Posted: 08 Dec 2009 04:08 Post Subject:
Here are some examples of the insured not being a party of the contract and not needing to sign the application.
1) Max insures his car against accident. His car is the insured and does not need to sign the contract.
2) Max insures his horse against death. His horse is the insured and does not need to sign the contract.
3)Max owns a baseball team. There is a clause in his 2nd basement's contract that will pay him a $10,000,000 bonus if he hits 60 homeruns. Max insures this risk. The second baseman does not need to sign the insurance contract.
4)The 2nd baseman's contract also has a clause that guarantees payment if death occurs. Max also insures this risk. Again, the second baseman does not need to sign the insurance contract.
By the way, a third party contract is one in which the contract is designed to benefit a third person and that 3rd person does have contractual rights. The insured is not a 3rd person in a life insurance contract because they don't recieve any benefits from the contract nor do they have any contractual rights.
Posted: 08 Dec 2009 04:54 Post Subject:
fjrev, a small clarification:
1) Max insures his car against accident. His car is the insured and does not need to sign the contract.
2) Max insures his horse against death. His horse is the insured and does not need to sign the contract.
Not to get too picky, but the car and the horse are not the "insured." The car and the horse are the objects of insurance, and we insure people who own objects. This is why the credit, character and personal characteristics of the person who owns the object are the primary and critical elements involved. Sure, we always look at the object insured to make sure it meets certain requirements, such as a house being kept in a good state of repair, etc.
Posted: 08 Dec 2009 10:10 Post Subject:
Regardless, the point is still the same that the car, the horse, and the 2nd baseman don't have to sign the application. They are making no representations, agreeing to absolutely nothing, and receiving absolutely no benefits from the insurance.
Posted: 09 Dec 2009 10:32 Post Subject:
As InsTeacher tried to point out, objects of insurance such as cars and horses are not insureds. When the car is damaged, the owner suffers financial harm not the car itself. So the insurance protects the owner's risk of loss. That's exactly why your auto insurance follows you as the insured regardless of the car you drive, but may not follow the car, if someone drives it without your permission.
Your examples are ridiculous. As for HIV testing, here's what the California Insurance Code (and the Codes of nearly all other states have similar language) says:
799. The purposes of this article are to establish standards for the performance by life and disability income insurers of their duty to avoid making or permitting unfair distinctions between individuals of the same class in the underwriting of life or disability income insurance for the risks of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and AIDS-related conditions (ARC); to establish mandatory and uniform minimum standards for assessing AIDS and ARC risks for determining insurability which are deemed to be sufficiently reliable to be used for life and disability income insurance risk classification and underwriting purposes; to require the maintenance of strict confidentiality of personal information obtained through testing; and to require informed consent before any insurer tests for HIV.
Your first example of the baseball player is not one of life insurance, so it bears no relevance to the discussion -- it's in the same category as insuring a "hole in one" prize in a golf tournament where the risk is the payout itself if the contingent event occurs.
In your second example, please explain how the team owner will obtain what must be a multimillion dollar insurance policy on the player without underwriting, which will require the HIPAA consent to release PMI, medical exam, and HIV testing, without the player's consent? Fails to convince again.
You're right when you say "The insured is not a 3rd person in a life insurance contract" -- but it's because they are the first party and the insurer is the second party. It is the owner who is not the insured who is the third party in a third party contract. And the law of contracts requires all parties to the contract to enter into the contract willingly. They demonstrate that with their signature.
[the 2nd baseman] . . . receiving absolutely no benefits from the insurance.
This does not follow your second baseball example either. You state that the player's contract has a clause that requires payment if the player dies. Who gets the payment? Isn't it the family/estate of the player? Yes, he doesn't "get" the benefit because he's dead, but that's the same as any other life policy. But that doesn't exempt him from participating in the application for insurance.
Posted: 09 Dec 2009 11:49 Post Subject:
Max, there is no requirement that a company tests for Aids.
The player doesn't benefit from the insurance because his family gets the payment regardless of whether the owner buys the insurance or not.
I'm intentionally failing to convince you because I like watching you go deeper into your belief that I must be wrong and the know everything Max is correct.
Posted: 09 Dec 2009 09:37 Post Subject:
I was considering staying out of this thread, but it's gotten a bit contentious so I'll put in another two cents.
I think Max and fjrev are looking at this differently. I believe the OPs concern was the idea of who must actually SIGN a life insurance application. This has nothing to do with insurable interest, etc. which have arisen within the thread. As well, there is a BIG difference as to who has to SIGN the app and what's required to ISSUE the policy. Big difference.
As to the required signatures/consent on individual life and health insurance applications, I quote Oregon law (which is typically about the same in most states) and doesn't include info on EOLI, STOLI or any of those other acronyms
743.027 Consent of individual required for life and health insurance; exceptions. No life or health insurance policy upon an individual, except a policy of group life insurance or of group or blanket health insurance, shall be made or effectuated unless at the time of the making of the policy the individual insured, being of competent legal capacity to contract, applies therefor or has consented thereto in writing, except in the following cases:
(1) A spouse may effectuate such insurance upon the other spouse.
(2) Any person having an insurable interest in the life of a minor, or any person upon whom a minor is dependent for support and maintenance, may effectuate insurance upon the life of or pertaining to such minor.
(3) Family policies may be issued insuring any two or more members of a family on an application signed by either parent, a stepparent, or by a husband or wife.
(4) A person may effectuate insurance that provides for the final expenses of an adult who is dependent upon the person for support and maintenance. [1967 c.359 §342a; 1991 c.182 §2]
So, as you can see, there are absolutely instances whereby a person can apply for coverage on another without signature, but try getting the policy issued without the actual insured's consent.
As you are aware, medical testing, medical records, etc. require the consent (in writing) from the insured person as well as the physical presence of the insured to actually undergo the testing components of the underwriting process. If the insured refuses to undergo any medical requirements or refuses to release the records (HIPAA law), then there's no way the carrier is going to issue.
Can we all agree to simply agree? Sheeeeesh! :D
Posted: 10 Dec 2009 11:41 Post Subject: insurance
GOSH!!..what a thread!! Ok...I'm gonna ask a very simple question here. I'm taking a Life Insurance policy out on my son. He's 16 now. Does he need to sign anything, on the policy? He has no Health problems, etc.
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 01:58 Post Subject:
First, thank you InsTeacher, for eloquently making the point I've been trying to get across. California's insurance Code is not quite as explicit on this point, using the word "applicant" as often as it does, but clear reading of the Code in context makes it apparent that where "applicant" is used, in most instances the legislature assumed that the applicant is the insured. As it usually is.
California Code is very clear about the need for insurable interest to exist at the time of policy issue, and it escapes the time limit of the incontestibility clause.
As I've already posted elsewhere, California Code specifically requires a spouse's knowledge and consent (unlike Oregon), but the law is essentially the same when it comes to children, as they are described as not being competent to contract under age 16.
Wendy . . . Because your son is only 16, unless you're applying with Prudential and maybe a handful of other companies, as a minor he will not be required to sign the application (Pru requires the signature of children as young a age 8 -- I have no clue why) if you are making the application. He is legally permitted to apply in his own right, in which case he would have to sign. So don't worry, go ahead and apply. If he wants to sign, he can. You would still sign separately as the owner/applicant.
Children being insured are often required by the insurer to be seen by the agent at the time the application is taken, or the agent must state the reason he did not see the child (lives out of state with a custodial parent, away at school, out of the country on vacation, etc.). So set the appointment at a time when you know he'll be home.
Without actually seeing the child, the agent (as a "field underwriter" -- eyes & ears of the company/first line of defense against "adverse selection") has no idea if he is healthy, has an obvious preexisting condition, or is even alive. Some companies will refuse to accept the application under such circumstances.
Agents know this, and submit applications with their box checked "Yes" anyway ("I personally saw the child") when it is not true, and it could end up being a problem, especially for the agent.
But when you sign the application, the words near your signature usually state something like, "All of the information contained in this application are true and complete to the best of my knowledge." That's why anyone would NEVER want to sign a blank insurance application. Doesn't make you responsible for the agent's lie, but could be contested by the insurer as a material misrepresentation if you were aware that he misrepresented the situation on the application ("We'll just tell them I saw your son, so it won't hold up the processing"). Sounds innocent, doesn't it?
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 02:06 Post Subject: insurance
Hey, MAX. When I applied, I DID tell the Insurance company that my child no longer lives with me (sniff,sniff). He now lives out of state with his dad. They didn't ask about seeing Medical Records, etc. on him.
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 02:19 Post Subject:
When it's disclosed, that's always a good thing. As to no medical records, etc., you can't be certain they didn't go looking for them. Your signature on the app gives consent to obtain his medical records.
If they did, and nothing was amiss, he'll qualify for the coverage.
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 02:26 Post Subject: insurance
They DID tell me that they had an Applicant say her child DID live with her..which was not the truth. When the Insurance company found out, they denied her application. (Thinking outloud here..) ...Why WOULDN'T the Applicant tell the truth? The worst the Insurance company could do is say she doesn't qualify, etc. and it wouldn't look 'negative' on the Applicant.
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 02:52 Post Subject: insurance
(I posted this on another thread, as well)....I was looking at a website for 'my' Insurance Company, that I started my son's Life Insurance through. Was browsing through a section about Signatures, Beneficiaries, etc. I DID find a section pertaining to who needs to sign an application and who doesn't. It stated if the Insured is "18 years of age or older" they MUST sign a Life Insurance application.
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 06:04 Post Subject:
You have to understand that there really are people out there who will say and do anything to get insurance or obtain a claims payment. Insurance companies prefer that people tell them the truth, but they know that a certain percentage do not.
There's no good reason for a life insurance company to deny coverage to a child who is living out of state on that basis alone, and most would simply require a paramed exam at the child's out-of-state residence so that it can be documented that someone saw the child (meaning living and breathing). But there's also no way to prevent someone from substituting an impostor, so insurers often take a guarded stance and underwrite conservatively. In the case you describe, I would believe that the decline was for the adult's misrepresentation rather than for the child's lack of insurability.
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 12:00 Post Subject: insurance
Ok.....I can understand that. I would think it would be some sort of a 'crime' (lack of a better word) to lie on a Life Insurance application.
Posted: 11 Dec 2009 01:39 Post Subject:
On the application, it's not so much of a crime unless the intent is to defraud. If it's untrue it can simply result in the policy being voided and no claim being paid.
On a claim form, however, it is absolutely a crime, and here in California, the mere act of signing a false claim form, with or without intent to defraud, is an additional offense punishable as perjury, which by itself is a felony worth 2,3, or 4 years in one of our fine, overcrowded state prisons. But at least there you can have your own "semi-private room", color TV, cell phone, and better health care than most others on the outside -- including heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplants -- at no cost to you. You're even covered for Workers' Compensation when you're stamping out license plates or washing underwear in the laundry or serving chow in the mess hall.
Almost better than being in the military. LOL
Posted: 13 Dec 2009 03:06 Post Subject: insurance
My goodness, MAX!! You're very funny!! However.....only one thing with that. The Military doesn't make license plates...LOL I wouldn't want to go to prison..I like my freedom too much. MAX..have a question. When my son turns 18 years of age, does he have to sign the policy THEN?
Posted: 14 Dec 2009 08:21 Post Subject:
No. As others have posted in different threads about what happens after a policy is issued (like now a smoker or a pilot), once the policy is in force, it is based on the original application information. Changes after that point in time are only an issue if one applies for new insurance not guaranteed by the policy or an attached rider.
In the case of a life policy on an adult with a child rider (covers a child under 18 at the time of application, and usually provides protection up to age 21 or 25), the child does not sign the original app, or anything else at or after age 18.
However, the rider will also offer them anywhere from 100% to 500% of the rider's face amount as a Guaranteed Issue individual policy. That they have to apply for, it is not automatic, because a premium has to be paid. Even though there may be no underwriting, the child -- now an adult -- has to sign the application for the new policy. They cannot be declined or rated substandard (unless already rated substandard as a child -- unusual, but not unheard of).
Posted: 14 Dec 2009 12:02 Post Subject:
However, the rider will also offer them anywhere from 100% to 500% of the rider's face amount as a Guaranteed Issue individual policy.
Max, you are becoming pretty accomplished with giving incorrect answers. One can get much more than that. The kiddie policy that I usually sell will allow a child to buy up to 16x the original face amount with no medical questions. This is capped at $1,000,000.
Be careful of what you post. People will believe you.
Posted: 14 Dec 2009 02:21 Post Subject: life insurance
MAX.....I catcha!! Thanks. And 'for the record'. MAX..yes..I DO beleive you because you are giving alot of the same advice that the Rep was giving me over the phone!!
Posted: 14 Dec 2009 02:23 Post Subject:
100% to 500% wasn't intended as an absolute limit. There are a couple of companies that I am aware of -- no need to mention them here -- that limit a child's conversion policy to the same face amount (1x) as the original rider in order to get the parents to buy a large policy on their infant (what infant or 6 year old truly needs a $100,000, $500,000, or $1,000,000 policy?). 5x the face amount in a conversion of a child rider is fairly common. Never meant to imply that it was the upper limit.
Obviously, 16x is very generous and allows the parents to purchase a much smaller rider ($62,500), saving them money in the process. Very commendable. It's always true that there will be no medical underwriting in such a conversion.
Some of those riders don't allow that large a conversion at one time, but as a series of increases over several years, usually at an increased cost of insurance with each increment, so it's also a little more expensive than converting all at one time. Then again, not many 18-26 year olds need $1,000,0000 at that time either and would be unlikely to convert for the full amount -- got to save money for the cars and parties, you know.
Posted: 14 Dec 2009 02:43 Post Subject:
The large mutuals all allow much more than 500%. (Guardian, Northwestern, Mass Mutual, New York Life)
2x the face amount up to $125,000 with 7 or 8 purchase options seem to be about standard for these companies.
Ex. Joe buys a $50,000 policy for his kid. As an adult, his kid can purchase $100,000 8 different times.
Posted: 14 Dec 2009 04:25 Post Subject: life insurance
I don't have an account at any of the above Insurance companies. Some years ago, I was interested in 'Guardian'. However....they didn't seem to answer my questions and didn't seem to know what they were talking about. Just about every question, I had for them, was "I'm not sure..I'll get back to you."..and, NOPE they never did.
Posted: 17 Dec 2009 02:42 Post Subject: insurance
The company purchased policies on their employees without the employees consentI don't know why I didn't respond to THIS quote. My EX husband worked at Walmart for over 15 years. Bottom line is:............the particular store he worked in, in the state of PA DID need my EX's consent for ANY kind of policy they 'covered' him with. I hope this answers your question......'NOT MAX' ( or whomever you go by now).
Posted: 17 Dec 2009 03:42 Post Subject:
SDCharger, how would you know that you are correct?
I am not saying that you are wrong. It may very well be the case that in PA, for the WalMart case, employees needed to sign something. However, if the "dead peasant" insurance was put in force on your husband, and he didn't need to sign something, how would you know?
What is 100% fact is that I'm correct that it is possible to buy insurance on somebody without their knowledge. It is rare and it is only done in unusual situations and it's typically for big bucks. Very few companies will do this. In fact, the only company that will do this in the U.S. that I know about is Petersen's.
I just want correct information posted. A board like this that let's incorrect information go unchallenged is useless.
Posted: 17 Dec 2009 05:30 Post Subject:
SDCharger, how would you know that you are correct?Because..I know.
It may very well be the case that in PA, for the WalMart case, employees needed to sign somethingYEP...that's what I said.
I just want correct information postedThen I HIGHLY suggest that you post it CORRECTLY!! If you're NOT sure how to post something, why don't you ask MAX?
Posted: 17 Dec 2009 10:10 Post Subject:
Look how this thread started.
An otherwise anonymous poster on another thread would like to insist that he can obtain $1,000,000 of life insurance on a proposed insured without the knowledge and consent of the proposed insured.
It took months of beating up on you to get you to see that I was correct about our beneficiary arguments. If you want to have it out with me again, you will once again come to the conclusion that I'm correct.
Petersen's International Underwriters of Valencia California will underwrite a policy in the State of California (Max's state) for over $1,000,000 without the knowledge and consent of the proposed insured. People, like Max, may try to explain the reasons for this, but nobody in the industry is going to come on here and post that I'm wrong.
Your buddy, Max, also admitted that California changed their law strictly due to the Walmart case.
Posted: 18 Dec 2009 02:22 Post Subject: insurance
That is in the state of California...not here. My brother-in-law ALSO changed a Law in California, as well. It sure helps when he (bother-in-law) workes for the Atty Generals Office of Ca (in San Diego). ..LOL i don't know the Laws in Ca..I no longer live there.
Posted: 18 Dec 2009 11:52 Post Subject:
I'm not arguing with you. I was just asking the question. I have no reason to doubt that in your state, the Wal-Mart employees may have given permission for the insurance.
However, if the application was signed in another state, the insurance laws of your state wouldn't matter, so it is possible that insurance was purchased on your husband without his knowledge.
Posted: 19 Dec 2009 10:32 Post Subject: insurance
NOPE...the application was signed HERE...in the state of PA. Hope I don't have to repeat that TOO many times to you.
Posted: 19 Dec 2009 12:13 Post Subject:
You are missing what I'm saying. I understand that your husband signed an application in Pennsylvania.
What neither of us knows is whether another application was signed in another state that your husband didn't know about it and only had to be signed by the applicant, Wal-Mart.
Don't argue about this because you and your ex have no way of knowing if this took place or not.
Posted: 20 Dec 2009 03:34 Post Subject:
so it is possible that insurance was purchased on your husband without his knowledge.
Posted: 20 Dec 2009 03:50 Post Subject:
Let me try this again. I understand that a policy was purchased with his knowledge.
What I'm telling you is that you would have no way of knowing if one was also purchased without his knowledge.
I'm not trying to say that this happened. I'm simply pointing out that you wouldn't know.
Posted: 21 Dec 2009 01:01 Post Subject: insurance
As I said in another post, I REALLY need to be more cautious on WHO I talk to now...don't I?
Posted: 21 Dec 2009 10:14 Post Subject:
Yes. You need to be careful. You might want to start by only talking to people who give you correct information.
Posted: 21 Dec 2009 11:24 Post Subject:
fjalro is correct, to a degree. If everything were done legally, there would be a paper trail depending on the size of the policy. Obviously the taxes that would come due on the premiums paid could be much better concealed when the company (employer) paid it itself.
Still though, the insured (employee) could be left essentially in the dark.
Keep in mind that in many states the law will dictate different possible scenarios.
Both of you appear to be looking for a sort of technical gotcha here.
Posted: 21 Dec 2009 11:33 Post Subject: insurance
You need to be careful. You might want to start by only talking to people who give you correct information.
Posted: 21 Dec 2009 11:58 Post Subject:
Sorry, SDcharger, but you are the one person who needs people to worry about her. You have proven yourself to be stubborn when presented with information that goes against your incorrect beliefs.
Posted: 22 Dec 2009 11:46 Post Subject: insurance
Anyway..........I've gotten alot of great, USEFUL information from MAX (on this Forum) and my Insurance REP. REALLY starting to get some things together, for myself (Insurance wise, I mean) and feeling a bit more secure about providing for my son, etc.
Posted: 22 Dec 2009 11:51 Post Subject:
That's great. I just hope that he is now the beneficiary of the life insurance or a trust is the beneficiary. It just can't be your friend if you are trying to benefit your son.
Posted: 22 Dec 2009 11:58 Post Subject: insurance
It's very funny that I'm getting responses from...WHOEVER you are, again. I don't know WHO you are and that's scary. I guess you don't mond 'preying' on people, on this Website. As I said...I was asked ALOT of questions on where my money was going and THEN then 'link' on my Yahoo mail?! You kep 'probing' and 'probing'. I think what I need to do is make some kind of complaint about this Forum, if they don't do anything about people like you. I hope you're not 'preying' on other people......God Help You if you are!! All I have to say is 'what goes around, comes around'. I didn't appriciate the 'email' ( trying to get DETAILED Insurance information from me). I think you need to stop your games now.
Posted: 22 Dec 2009 12:22 Post Subject:
I've told you many times who I am. I am Insurance Expert. I'm not hiding my identity. For some reason, it makes me log in every time and doesn't remember me and I'm too lazy to do so.
You should be thanking me because if it wasn't for me, your money would go to your friend and not your son.
You don't like the e-mail and I don't like the accusation. I've never e-mailed you and I never would. How would I even have your e-mail address?
I'm not a game player. I simply respond to your responses. Sorry that you don't like them. The truth often hurts.
Posted: 22 Dec 2009 12:47 Post Subject:
I'll make your day and stop posting. I have nothing to gain by posting here.
Posted: 12 Jul 2019 01:01 Post Subject: sexy russian women
Why you swipe right for some and not others
"OkCupid users are no more open minded than they used to be. contrary, Racial bias has intensified a bit, He wrote on his blog.christian said all the dating data he'd seen fits the same pattern:Black folk and Asian men get short shrift,around australia, Dating site RSVP does an annual study to gauge conduct to dating.while in 2016, They questioned nearly 4,000 aussies. It showed while four out of five people said what are the real date outside our own race, Only half perhaps had,Racial bias feeds into each aspect of our social lives, he explained,So you will find that we would find the same types of racial inequality that we see in society broadly, In people's sexual and affectionate lives as well,No one likes to be called a racist but the truth is that we are living in a world that has russian brides been, for centuries, One based on systems of racial inequality so it's the legacy of those systems that we're seeing engage in today and exist in our private lives,and racial bias is "Highly popular, Denton said his research showed that very few gay and bisexual men made that preference explicit in their uniform dating profiles about four percent.It generally manifests in more subtle ways, according to Denton, Like not replying to a message from someone in the list of racial groups you never fancy,People know that's going on. When I interviewed men about their experiences with sexual racism, mostly they discussed these very periphery, challenging to see, Hard to identify feelings of exclusion characterized their online experiences,Denton said his studies have found guys who rated low have come from historically marginalised groups.He surveyed nearly 2,000 men across Australia asking them to rank how attractive or ugly they found particular racial groups. White people were rated the best looking. the particular were Asian, indiana and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders,That to me represents really compelling evidence that that isn't a matter of preference because if this was a matter of preference you would expect a degree of randomness, he explained.Asian women fetishised Certain racial groups become among masculinity and some with femininity Asian women fit into this category, according to Denton.Chinese aussie woman Emma told Hack men assume she will be "smooth, Shy and modest" But she says she's anything but.I have known men to identify as encountering 'yellow fever', She suggested,I have a limited good male friends of mine who joke about it,Emma said there's also a fetishisation of Asian woman that's uncomfortable,you can have costumes for sale with a very tight, Very short cheongsam which is a Chinese dress that includes hair chopsticks. It's that kind of fetishisation that perpetuates a belief that we're something to be desired,In sexually graphic, lots of the actors are white,Where you do see actors of colour introduced, It's not on the same arena as the white actors race then becomes a feature of the porn storyline, Denton stated.
Posted: 25 Jul 2019 07:33 Post Subject:
Victim of ambiance scam cheated out of
BALTIMORE These are feelings numerous can relate to: needing to meet someone, Not knowing one way to go about it, But tired of being lonely.
A Maryland woman finally decided she would give online dating service a try. at the beginning of summer, She met an adult man on Tinder who claimed to live Baltimore.
She learned he was in Paris working as an interior decorator. over several weeks they spent hours texting, Chatting on the iphone, Even video talking. He was those same man she saw in the photos on the dating app. Tomas Haysbert sent flowers to her office and even a ring from the net jeweler.
"He's a seamless guy, He says the proper things, It made me feel happy, She stated.
This woman doesn't want to be identified because she doesn't want friends members to discover that this perfect man on the dating app would deceive her into sending more than $75,000.
"it's stupid, i'm not dumb, But you know it would happen to anyone believe me, She believed.
the particular con
Haysbert told the woman that he was experiencing difficulty at work. He'd deplete all of your funds to finish a project and needed her to accept a package containing $400,000, Documents and jewelry that he kept with a security company in China for household emergencies.
A company called Speed Logistics emailed the woman prompting $4,800 to ship the parcel. Later she received another email from Mary Sudeikis with Speed Logistics stating they would want $16,300 for a diplomatic pouch to customs. The package was shipped from Hong Kong to take pleasure in the.
Then an additional email: "We had to do full disclosure due to the new BREXIT laws in britain.. A duty of $52,670.00 has been imposed on your transport,
She paid additional $500 in late fees and was contacted once more when the package was held up in Mexico.
"They were saying basically because had to pay for the (circumference) outlet, whichever, Then we required to pay $152,000 and i said, 'that's of which. I do not own anymore money,' " The mother said.
in appearance back, She doesn't think there has ever been a package.
She lost surrounding $75,000. FBI Special Agent Keith Custer said that's around a typical loss for romance scam victims.
"So rrndividuals are losing that amount everyday, Custer had to talk about.
He added these kinds of crimes are underreported, challenging to prosecute, And happen all constantly.
"We have information potentially they are almost sweatshops overseas, in most cases in Nigeria, Where someone kind of has a game plan or script and they have a number of people underneath them working off this script, Custer defined.
And the probability of someone getting money back is very slim.
"Twenty four hours after it's left the report, If we don't need it, It's usually not coming back, defined Custer.
it you'd never fall for it, Even judge individuals who do, But the crime is more elaborate and the harm is much more monetary.
"a person understand, To trust a guy, It's usually very hard. I think it's better to be alone than to find somebody on the web, The women said.
based on Custer, could possibly $100,000 threshold for the FBI to open a dedicated search. in spite of, Victims should still file a report through the
FBI Internet Crime grouse Center
Research the person's photo and profile using online searches to see if the material has been utilized elsewhere.
Go slow and ask lots of subjects.
Beware if the individual seems too perfect or quickly asks you to leave a dating service or Facebook to go "real world,
Beware if the individual attempts to isolate you from friends and family or requests inappropriate photos or financial information that could later be used to extort you.
Beware if the personal promises to meet in person but then always comes up with an excuse why latamdatereviews.wordpress.com he or she can't. If you haven't met the person after a few months, for reasons unknown, You have great reason to be suspicious.
Posted: 10 Aug 2019 08:59 Post Subject: CHARMDATE SCAM
allies grow when it comes to security in view that battle inputs fifth year
Marne, 5 september 1918 society sermons have been produced, Memorials truly maintained and furthermore terms far from mind of statements to have been adapted to target the concluding from the fourth year modern current warfare.
to partners, The wedding may possibly occasioned from to a large extent solemnity and as a consequence ever-increasing anticipation simple fact year above very well get perfect glory peace of mind. troops obtained the total amount regarding the european front. Haig, that on the statements the Anglo france soldiers upon western european front, special that this partners immediately check out front combined with faith the time to come to variety may well unspeakable a couple of been simple previously simply weeks develop contain the u. k,spanish questionable to the actual other hand developed front.
in view that March of their year, A war of movement of immediate enhancements but also speedy adjusts is supplanted the trench emulation which had charactarised the combating because conflict with Aisne in september 1914.
The Germans encouraged this unique conflict of movement along with springtime offensive, rather as per the Irish repetitions, bash of contemporary months, illuminate is certainly breaching regarding the darkness recent reports present in swedish soldiers but allied types happen to be implementing major headway to the north of the Marne, the german language tools become daring a rebellious take, cHarmDate targeted personal repulsed most allied approaches also to have loved good results of their own in a bottle of champagne.
subsequently, The Kaiser transferred a proclamation taken from Berlin in which to CHArmDate SCAM workers on the chinese allows, Commending it on the aims and simply triumphs over the next four quite a few years.
in a very first year, the particular Kaiser suggested, they had preserved the confrontation under the attacker united states and safeguarded their own unique homeland throughout the and devastations of during lots of second and third lost the strength of eastern the ; into the fourth year, The fresh fruit of the company's operate got given piece in the distance to, in recent months, specific offence in the west had just gotten work adversary so what on earth in, this Kaiser reported, experienced been one of manners towards reputation in german history
[manager remark: it becomes an article including Century ireland, A fortnightly about the journal, printed on the mindset of a reporter 100 in years past, according to researches credit reports almost daily.].
Posted: 02 Sep 2019 04:40 Post Subject:
Half of Trump's major federal agencies still have one Senate
revision: An error in the earlier version of this article caused some confirmations to be double counted in the nominated but not yet confirmed tally. The charts have been upgraded.
president Trump has a major staffing problem. He has been web design manager for five months, And yet single ukraine ladies his agencies are severely understaffed at the top levels. and additionally, certainly no, challenge all Senate Democrats' fault.
In the valuable State Department, The Senate has confirmed only one third of positions that President barack obama had at the same point in his presidency. And that's not because, As Trump incidents, Senate dems are blocking his nominees. (democrats can slow walk committee hearings, But that they can't actually block votes.) Trump is way behind otherrecent presidents in nominating people with regard to Senate to vote on.
The State office is more settled than other major federal agencies. In over fifty percent of Trump's 15 primary executive departments, Only oneTrump appointee has been proved: The assistant who heads the agency.
This comes from new data compiled bythe collaboration for Public Service for The Post, Which reveals that other transitions were much further along next. and perhaps that's how Trump wants it.
The numbers, Gatheredasof Friday, Show Trump has taken action on about 120Senate confirmable positions at the major sectors. His three immediate predecessors had all nominated around 200 or moreby which you cannot use.
For pretty much everything tweeting about Democratic obstructionists, Trump may be looking play catch up now. by June, He's started nominating 20 active positions every week. There's actually a law that says Trump must act within a certain amount of time or risk having to leavethepositions empty without atemporary official filling in givingeven more duties tothe heads of the agencies.
While most of thepositions are not sitting vacant civil servants or holdovers from the previous governing administration stay on temporarily the backlogis leaving a cloud hanging over thefederal government and making it difficult to accomplish other treatment priorities, Say some masters.
spork Stier, The head of the business that is collecting the data, Warned that a lack of permanent appointees to head the agenciescan hamperthe efficiency of navy.
talking about why his group is collecting vacancy data, he said "marriage ceremony about big or small government. This is about making government run better, And everyone has that in their interest, whatever yourpolitical persuasion,
The inaction on md visits has prompted outcry from both sides of the aisle, WithDemocrats and Republicans asking for open positions to be filled faster. Post reportersLisa Rein and Abby Phillipchronicled this example in a story yesterday evening:
Republicans have become so alarmed by the personnel shortfall that up until recently week a coalition of conservatives complained to White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. "We remain very concerned over the lack of secondary and tertiary executive level amenities, They said in a letter signed by 25 prominent conservatives the Coalitions for America, Describing their concern that the leadership vacuum can create "Mischief furthermore malfeasance" By civil servants loyal to the federal government.
a large few reasons Trump is so behind in staffing his government.
to start, Inan April Fox News employment interview, Trumpindicated that he may not want to fill all the open tasks, pending restructuring or cutting them altogether. Paul lumination, A professor of public service at NYU and expert on government paperwork, Saidvacancies might not be the worst thing from the administration's point of view.
"It never hurts Trump to have agencies that cannot move. they are unable to regulate. that they can't implement, he said. "clearly completely decapitated, Light said having temporary officials instead of permanent appointees could makeit easier for the current administration to eliminate positions.
[Slow pace of Trump nominations leaves Cabinet lawyers 'stuck' in staffing limbo]
Another factor at play is thatthe administration's slow start allowed competing focus to take precedencein the Senate. company, A more combative partisan visiting team has played a role, With Democrats shipping Trump's nomineesmore "simply not true" Votes than any other Cabinet within its first several months.
But Trump is nominating this kind of career less government experience andcomplex financial backgrounds to untangle and has avoided anyone who voiced opposition to his candidacyduring the campaign.
Posted: 10 Sep 2019 06:33 Post Subject:
Saskatoon massage therapist Mark Donlevy found guilty of 2004 sexual assault
Justice Heather MacMillan Brown read out her decision thurs at Saskatoon Court of Queen Bench. She said the woman who testified earlier this month about being raped by Donlevy was credible and believable witness who did not hold anything back or manipulate evidence.She also took aim at an integral part of Donlevy defence, Which argued that it could not be said with certainty the woman had not consented to sex because there had been a of sexual practice throughout the date including consensual kissing and close dancing.Accept this line of reasoning would draw me in perilously close to girls in colombia an area that is rife with myths and stereotypes about victims of sexual assault how collectively behave, How utilised together react, Why they didn make a move differently, MacMillan darkish said.would have me buy into the myths and stereotypes that Canadian courts have repeatedly and forcefully rejected. I cannot and will not register for that line of reasoning. I won taking a trip down that path. It been barred in the past, And for a good reason.Donlevy, Who stood contained in the dock, Showed no feeling.Mark Donlevy inputs Saskatoon's Court of Queen's Bench on Sept. 7, 2018Matt Olson / Saskatoon StarPhoenix /Speaking with reporters beyond the courthouse, Crown prosecutor Cory Bliss said he was very happy with the judge reasoning and that the woman who brought the charges against Donlevy admirably in coming forward years after the incident had occurred,It needs to be clear that, of sexual assault, People have the legal right to say no, And that relates to every facet of sexual contact. as a person might agree to one form of touching, Doesn't mean they are consenting to other kinds of touching, enjoyment said.Donlevy trial on the single count of sexual assault lasted three days at the start of September. The only witness who testified was the woman who had previously been raped.Now 42 years, She testified that she met Donlevy through an online dating service in 2004, when you are she was 28. She said they met for coffee on a hot summer afternoon and then went mini golfing, To a drive in movie and then a club, the places they danced. She said she felt intoxicated at the club and asked to return to Donlevy place. once there, She testified, She told Donlevy she felt sick and desired to sleep. She said he led her to his space, took off her clothes, Forced her to perform oral sex on him and then had forced vaginal intercourse with her while she cried and told him she didn are looking for sex.She reported the incident to police in late 2016 after she saw news reports that Donlevy was facing sexual assault charges affiliated with his work as a massage therapist.Donlevy is scheduled to stand trial later this year on 11 counts of sexual assault related to his massage therapy work, associated with incidents alleged to have happened between 2003 and 2016.The defence argued there were in the woman testimony and said the woman decisions round the day including asking to go back to Donlevy place suggested she was in control of her actions.Donlevy did not present resistant in his own defence, Which MacMillan Brown careworn did not weigh into her decision.