|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl on 12:32 PM February 6th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If it's not about money, give him custody.
Oh wait, I guess it was about money.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:39 PM February 6th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It always IS about the money...,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 05:19 AM February 7th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's not about the money," said Dawn. "He made a promise to this child before she was born, knowing the possibility she might not be his."
What she says after the part about the money is the real insult. She knew full well who the father of the kid was, and she deceived this innocent man. Yet she expects him accuse his own wife of defrauding him before they got married!? We all know what her reaction to that would have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:31 AM February 7th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's not about the money," said Dawn. "He made a promise to this child before she was born, knowing the possibility she might not be his."
Now Justin says he'll have to pay for the child but won't have any input about how she's raised.
"I don't get anything out of it," Justin said. "I don't get to make any decisions in her life, I don't get to see her, I don't get any pictures from her. I could sponsor a kid in Ethiopia and at least you get letters and pictures, you know. I don't get nothing."
==================================================
Once again the gender feminist state commits a hate crime against a man, just to shake him down for money, and the courts have the audacity to say that teaching a child (through the criminal example of his Mother) to lie, cheat, steal, and commit fraud is somehow in the “best interest of the child.” Clearly, paternity fraud is yet another example of intimate partner violence (domestic violence) committed against men by women (and with the complicity of the state). Clearly, paternity fraud is yet another example of the tyranny of the organized hate groups known as “our governments” that function similar to the KKK or other hate groups, only they have a specific target of “all males” they choose to abuse with their misandry.
Ray
How is having a Mother Who Commits Fraud in the Best Interest of the Child?
Judicial Chivalry (and gender feminist training) Empowers Female Criminality
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked items. All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 10:28 AM February 7th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
On the surface (the comments in the article alone), it looks like Justin whould have an open-and-shut case in prosecuting Dawn for fraud.
What would the legal arguments be -- i. e., "the courts hate men" excluded -- to stop him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 01:40 PM February 7th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
THere is nothing STOPPING him...
its just that when he does, there will be no finding of fraud. child support is not looked at the same as, say, the petty cash till, or grandmas retirement money...
you can see the clues in this article.
that he "KNEW" the child might not be his
one thing the courts do not do is see without direction. they are also not allowed to put together situations not proscribed. so there is now connection to the practicality of telling your wife or girlfriend that you want to make sure the baby is yours, since at birth there is an overall general assumption that there is a chance a child is not his.
there is also no connection to other laws comming up that forbid the father to get a test without the moms permission (the only act that would allow him to check, find out the kid is his, and not have the family break up because he checked. all other options leave him in the worst possible postion, the whims of the woman he is with when her fidelity is questioned).
justice is blind....
the only case i know of that the woman is being prosecuted was the recent one of the woman getting support from a man and she never had a child at all!!!
it implies that as long as their is a child involved, anything she does is justified in that childs best interest as defined by that court that day through hearing the 'victims' truths.
until the courts view lying in any legal context at least questionable if not illegal, there is no recourse other than to remain sterile...
Sign me the Artful Dodger!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Apparently Canadian Supreme Court case law dictates that once a person has made a commitment to stand in the place of a parent, they must continue to do so if capable. Read it