530
531
532

Men's RightsJudge rules man must pay $30,000 in back child support for a child that is not his because it was his responsibility to "prove otherwise". (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 404041

[removed]

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 135 points136 points  (52 children)

It is absolutely incomprehensible to me, in the 21st century, in the age of 99.99% probability of certainty DNA testing, in an age when DNA test kits can be purchased at drug stores, that DNA testing is not done in the hospital as a matter of course after delivery of a womb turd. You've got the mother, the baby and the (maybe) father all sitting there, in a sterile hospital environment. Just do the fucking test.

If Maury Povich can do it, a hospital technician can do it, too.

[–]Transmigratory 24 points25 points  (15 children)

Tbh, I don't see why paternity tests aren't a standard thing now.

The law needs to catch up with the times.

[–][deleted] 44 points44 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Transmigratory 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Maybe it is the wake up call they need to see where beta-ness gets them.

[–]1AfterC 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Negative. Takes fiscal pressure off government and onto individual man.

[–]occupythekitchen 20 points21 points  (4 children)

The feminist movement is pushing to ban DNA test for children because if it isn't from their husband the situation can degenerate into violence against women

[–]Transmigratory 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Seriously, feminism is sowing the seeds to its own destruction. Men, the masses, will realise they're being ripped off at some point.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You already can't use DNA evidence in court without the permission of both parents to do the DNA test (or the parent with custody but we know which one that usually is). That part of the feminism movement already won.

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anything that isn't "nice" to women is interpreted as violence against them.

[–]BlaiseDB 7 points8 points  (4 children)

It's like pre-nups: you get shamed and shit blasted for even suggesting it.

I was helping a girlfriend fill out a visa application and asked her if she had ever been convicted of a crime. She got all upset saying "What do you think? How can you ask me that?" I don't think that and I wasn't asking, the fucking government want to know and you have to answer it not me, silly bitch.

Asking for paternity tests or pre-nups shatters the "trust" in the relationship. They are the ultimate male version of the shit test.

It's similar for common law relationships. Shack up and BOOM, you are effectively married if enough time passes. The only way to get out of that is to break up every few years or sign a cohabitation agreement (basically a pre-nup pre-nup).

You get drawn into beta status and questioning that process will generally torch whatever relationship you are in.

[–]FapDonkey 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Just wanted to correct a very common misconception about "common law" marriage. In most (all?) states, merely cohabitating or being in a relationship for a set amount of time is not sufficient for the legal rights/obligations of a marriage to attach. The couple must also present themselves publicly as married. Things like referring to each other as husband/wife, filling taxes as married, etc. A couple could live together for decades, raise several children to adulthood, etc but if they always referred to each other as boyfriend/girlfriend, filled taxes separately as unmarried and the like, in most states no legal marriage benefits or obligations would be imposed. That being said, IANAL. I just have some personal experience with this particular concept and know that most people have a slight misunderstanding of how it works.

Edit: probably should add, common law marriage only even exists at all in 9 states.

[–]BlaiseDB 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I am writing as a former Canadian divorce attorney. Even there, there are differences from province to province. Not just any relationship will do, it has to be "marriage like" and there are a whole series of factors that judges will look at as they parse through the evidence where one or both people are lying through their teeth because some significant money is on the line. "Playing house" is a big indicator. Two years tends to be the hurdle but you can get nailed for child support (for kids from the previous relationship) in as little as a year.

My understanding is that California set the stage for "palimony" with our good friend Lee Marvin, but New York doesn't recognize common law marriages.

This is just a summary and not legal advice. But the practical advice is to look up the laws in your jurisdiction and perhaps lay down a bit of money for a lawyer to walk you through what sort of obligations the state might impose on you without your knowledge or explicit consent. It might prove startling, but forewarned is forearmed.

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (1 child)

NY has just gotten a lot worse under Cuomo. He put in a whole bunch of things he didn't run publicly on as a platform, including gay marriage and no fault divorce. He's trying to kill home rule too -- get rid of most of the "old fashioned" stuff that made this state cool.

So I'd check what the status is in NY now if it matters to you.

[–]BlaiseDB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is "home rule"? Otherwise, don't put yourself out. If and when I get back into the legal racket it won't be in New York and it won't be in frickin' family law.

[–]speed3_freak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In some countries, paternity tests are illegal

[–]_OneManArmy_ 52 points53 points  (16 children)

http://www.rense.com/general51/chsup.htm

This study shows potentially 30% of fathers are raising children that aren't theirs.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 99 points100 points  (8 children)

http://www.rense.com/general51/chsup.htm

That commenter brings a good point. We use DNA evidence to release men from prison after being wrongly convicted of murder. We don't say to wrongfully convicted people,

"I don't care what the DNA says, you took on the role of murderer when you went to prison for it. Sorry, you get to keep serving your sentence."

But that's the logic used in family court.

[–]ioncloud9 23 points24 points  (7 children)

Thats because money is involved. The state wants YOU to pay for the bastard child. They dont want to pay anything and will do everything in their power to make sure of that.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 62 points63 points  (5 children)

Abortion rights: "Keep the government out of my womb, shitlords! My body, my choice!"

Child Support: "Come into my womb and help me, government! Coerce that man over there to pay for the thing growing in my womb!"

Female logic.

[–]SgtBrutalisk 11 points12 points  (4 children)

Government goes into the womb, government goes out of the womb. You can't explain that.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 22 points23 points  (3 children)

Baby in the womb = woman's rights, woman's responsibility

Baby comes out of womb = woman's rights, man's responsibility

See how it works?

[–]SgtBrutalisk 5 points6 points  (2 children)

You still can't explain that.

[–]DidiDoThat1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I know we are doing the Oreilly joke here but I still think an explanation should be typed out. What we have here is a brilliant PR campaign supported by hundreds of paid/volunteer lobbyists that will be working on the lowliest alderman all the way up to POTUS. They will present themselves as moderate woman seeking equal rights such as the "wage gap" myth (I will come back to this). These women will be given access to people of high rank like committee chairs. If they are ignored they will go to the media with complaints of sexism as to why a man got a meeting and the woman didn't. While the specialist zealots are going after individuals who make the laws they need others to spread propaganda to the public. This is where it gets pretty smart. Radfems started putting themselves in special jobs 30-40 years ago. Things like college professors, news/media, government jobs, lawyers, etc... Once in, they made sure to hire women with the same political ideals. Now they have a wide pool and that pool has many people in positions that allow many people to hear. This allows myths like the wage gap to get repeated so many times that people just take it as fact. A few months ado Obama repeated the wage gap myth and the 1/5 college women raped myth in a press conference. The average American isn't doing the research to dispute it so when POTUS says it, it must be true. With the general public believing the propaganda this helps the lobiest put pressure on congress because "think of the children". I'm on mobile so excuse any typos. This is getting long so if there is any interest I will come back and finish later.

[–]SgtBrutalisk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great post, thanks for typing that on mobile. I appreciate it.

[–]Dravous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

...doesn't the cost to imprison someone dwarf the cost of the child support in nearly every case though?

[–]wimmyjales 22 points23 points  (5 children)

That logic seems flawed to me. That's 30% of fathers who get the test done, which they then extrapolate onto the entire population of fathers. But I would imagine one would only have the test done if they were suspicious of the circumstances, and so those stats are a little skewed. For example, I wouldn't need a dna test because my kids are my clones. So, I don't think the rate of false parentage is as dire as 30%.

[–]drallcom3 9 points9 points [recovered]

A 70% chance of the child being yours when you're in severe doubt is actually quite good.

[–]wimmyjales 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly, I'm surprised it's as low as it is.

[–]BlaiseDB 2 points3 points  (2 children)

A relative of mine had a teenager arrive on his doorstep and say "Hi Dad". Apparently his ONS from 16 years previous got pregnant, never told him, and raised the kid until she ran out of money. I'm not sure if she went for social assistance first, but the government will give it to her and then chase after the guy.

He didn't get a paternity test because the kid looked almost exactly like he did at the same age.

[–]wimmyjales 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Oh man I hope that doesn't happen to me. My very own sister is doing that to some poor guy out there. She got ONS pregs and never told him. My niece is nine years old now and has no idea she has a younger brother. The only reason I know is I found the guy on facebook. He's completely oblivious because apparently they used a condom so why would he think twice about it? Fuck that, dude.

[–]BlaiseDB 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He was only on the hook for a couple of years of child support, and his whole life would have taken a different turn if he was in the loop from the beginning. From his point of view, it could have been far worse. From the kid's point of view - growing up without a father - I don't know what the upside to that is.

[–]zulhadm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*30% of DNA tests. You normally only do a DNA test if there is any doubt on who the father is. This does not mean 30% of all fathers are raising kids that are not theirs.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Because women don't want this test done. God forbid their hypergamy be exposed even more, we can't have that now can we, they are entitled to their feelings after all. The state doesn't want it done, you are talking about 10% more single mothers on welfare after the uptick in divorces. All the politicians are fucking married women (and men) left and right on the side, you think they want the testing done?

I know you know this already, I agree with you. One of the first things that needs to be done is to slip a mandatory paternity test in as part of childbirth, if only for the child's best health interests for "medical history" reasons.

[–]justindumke 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Actually most states require genetic testing in order to ajudicate a paternity claim. Here in Wisconsin if a mother wants her cash there has to be a genetic test if the father disputes the claim or not.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You are missing the point. I'm not referring to situations where you need to adjudicate a paternity claim, I'm talking about the unknowns due to a woman and her hypergamous nature. Where the husband discovers it down the road, and is still required to pay child support for a baby that isn't his.

[–]justindumke 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think a more interesting case would be a civil suit to recover damages by a male whom has been deceived for monies spent. I'm sure there must have been and I would be curious to see the verdict.

[–]George_l_rockwell 10 points11 points  (0 children)

We can use DNA testing for murder cases, but apparently not for paternity cases. What a fucked up world we live in.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (12 children)

It's not in the state's interest to have 1 in 10 births result in a divorce and another single mom. Likewise, doctors arent doing it because its not in the medical interest of the mom or child (the patients).

[–]ThePrince_ 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Kind of. In the short term, yes, there will be lots of divorces and drama. However, in the long term, this will alter womens behaviour so as to avoid getting caught (whether that be using condoms or not cheating/lying).

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 14 points15 points  (6 children)

I really don't give two fucks about what's in the state's interest. The state exists to serve the people, people don't exist to serve the interests of the state.

Likewise, doctors arent doing it because its not in the medical interest of the mom or child (the patients).

I fail to see how it's not in the child's interest to know who his/her real father is. To suggest this is not important to know is to kowtow to the feminist idea that father's are not important in their child's life. To let a child grow up for 20 years and to find out much later that he/she was a cuckold, IMO, would be more emotionally troubling to the child.

[–]2Overkillengine 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Establishing true genetic parentage is absolutely in the child's best interest since that information is invaluable in preventing or treating inheritable disorders.

Anyone that says otherwise is either lying, deluded, or some other form of jackass.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Anyone that says otherwise is either lying, deluded, or some other form of jackass.

Well, feminism is a hydra of fucking jackasses of all genders and ideologies.

[–]trplurker 2 points2 points [recovered]

The way it's taught in medical school is that if the presumed father finds out the child is not his he could desert the woman and therefore not support the child. It's in the best interests of the women and child to have a source of provision, even if it's slavery.

That is how fucked up the thinking is. At this point in time, paying a gangster for a hit starts to become economically viable even after the high risk is taken into account.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I thought today's womyn were independent and don't need no man? That's what Beyonce told me.

[–]jmottram08 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Likewise, doctors arent doing it because its not in the medical interest of the mom or child (the patients).

This is absurd.

Doctors aren't doing it for every child because its not a medical test. I guarantee any doctor would be fine doing it... its free money.

Find me any doctor that refuses to do paternity tests.

[–][deleted] 110 points111 points  (65 children)

Another reason to not date single moms

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

They don't even make good plates.

[–]George_l_rockwell 15 points16 points  (14 children)

Single mothers are absolute trash. I would never consider dating one unless her husband died, and even then I would be cautious.

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (8 children)

unless her husband died

That's an even bigger red flag.

[–]George_l_rockwell 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Well, if he died in a war or got in an car accident, I wouldn't be that worried.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (2 children)

The amount of emotional trauma would make things very difficult, as well as having to be compared to him at just about all times.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Possibly a perma alpha widow.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Never LTR a chick who was married to a service member

[–]Moldy_Gecko 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The dependas are the worst.

[–][deleted] 26 points26 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Surf_Or_Die 25 points26 points  (25 children)

Scandinavian women are some of the worst. They basically think you're Satan if you denounce feminism.

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (6 children)

It comes down to this:

Priorities of a single mom:

  1. Her kid

  2. Herself

  3. Her baby daddy

  4. You

[–]Shade_Raven 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Once a kid hits teenage years single moms put themselves over their kid

[–]That_Weird_Girl 18 points19 points  (2 children)

Please, a good amount of them put themselves first WELL before their children become teenagers.

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Oh give me a break. Scandinavia is the absolute worst.

You think women are "independent" there? Where does the money come from? From "government"?

Hey look, everyone. It's another European socialist who thinks 'money comes from government'.

Let me tell you what's really going on in Scandinavia:

For centuries, men used to be the heads of their households and they would generate income for their wives and families because in return they received their household support. (The 'old saw' that women were merely "work horses" or "household slaves" always conveniently discounts the fact that men labored all day to support them).

Then, in the 1960's, Scandinavian feminists decided they didn't want to have to serve their husbands. But who would pay their bills? Who would help raise their children?

(Here comes the big lie)

Answer: "The government"!

Except, as we all know: Governments actually have no money (Norway excepted, of course). It all comes from tax payers. So where would the money come from to support these single women and fatherless children? From men, of course.

See, Scandinavian feminists love to lie and say that "women pay taxes too". It's bullshit. They receive on average a greater value in benefits than they pay in taxes -- at a ratio of 3:2 (and often more). So women on average extract value from "government" and men on average are forced to pay more than they extract. In other words, all men are now forced to pay for families that aren't theirs.

And here's the rub: Men no longer get the household support of their wives because Scandinavian women are all smoking the "independent feminist" bong. So the financial support that women used to get from their husbands in return for being good wives, they now extract from their husbands via legislation -- in return for absolutely nothing. Men in Scandinavia are now legally, financially subservient to all women.

Welcome to Scandinavia. Where men are tax slaves to the master-gender: Women.

You couldn't pay me to live there. I'll fuck their spoiled, expectation-addled, feminist bitches though.

Make sure you ridicule the economics of Scandinavian feminism to their faces and treat them like children. It's highly entertaining.

[–]someguysomewhere321 3 points4 points  (0 children)

60% max taxes in Sweden is pretty close to communism. If the government takes more of your income than you get to keep, then you know something is already awfully wrong.

[–]nebojssha 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Hmmm, so, I should come to Scandinavia... I am not Kurd or Turk, will that be ok?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

...Then come Kurdish/Turkish immigrant nice guys and ask these 19yo teenage mom women to marry them because "she is the most beautiful flower he has ever seen to cross the night sky blah blah"; lives on her salary and beats her up/abuses the toddler.

Good argument, before this garbage.

[–]thegr8b8m8 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Another reason to be really careful with any girl your going to bang. I don't think the consequences of what can happen when your spinning plates are to vocalized on this sub. Having plates is fun and all but having %35 of your check garnered monthly should make anyone reconsider the notion that this is all a game.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Only 30,000? Shit, dude is getting off light. Thats less than three years of support payments for me. They awarded my useless ex 68% of my gross income. Figure that I was paying 22% to 24% taxes, and that the judge started me six months in arrears, so they pulled an extra 300 a month from me, and you cannsee why I was homeless while active duty for two years.

I agree it's bullshit, and a female judge doesn't surprise me at all, but if he were in Nebraska it would be over 100k in back suppor, even if he was earning less than $20k a year like I was back then.

Face it guys, get a vasectomy, never get married, and save up $10k or so for a lawyer to fight stupid shit like this. You're nothing but a walking wallet to the state.

[–]DerpWarrior 5 points5 points [recovered]

if i had to pay 68% of my gross income in child support

i'd probably go on a murder spree

[–]Dark_Shroud 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Same here, at a certain point its easier& cheaper to just murder the ex and the judge if possible.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't marry a bitch from Nebraska. The entire family Court system is run by man hating women. The judge might be male, but everyone else you deal with is female and out to exact her revenge on you in any way she can.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 25 points26 points  (22 children)

In a legal case isnt the onus on the accuser to prove the accusations rather than the accused? I would argue that the woman is accusing him of being the father and he was not given the right to defend himself from that accusation which results in cruel and unusual punishment (paying child support for a case that's over 25 years old means the child is no longer a child and no longer needs support).

[–]-Tyler_Durden- 25 points25 points [recovered]

When it comes to men, women, and anything involving sex, it seems like the onus is now on the man to prove their innocence.

"Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior." Socrates

Welcome to the new normal.

This is what happens when the majority of voters are not driven by facts, but by emotions. Modern justice is not about doing what is right, but what is "fair" and in the best interest of "the children". This is why Marxism needs feminism and social justice to thrive.

Philosophers warned us about this; but, we did not listen.

"Women in general are not interested in questions of principle as such, but at most only in so far as they affect particular personalities. They require the dramatic element to evoke their interest. With many men, on the contrary, though this element of course enhances interest, it is not the indispensable condition of interest." -- Ernest Belfort Bax

Most women believe in equality of outcome, whereas most men believe in equality of opportunity. This is why women want to take from others to make it fair, and when this is not possible, they want to destroy what others have built in the name of equality.

"No man living is more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty - none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Nor should this lead to a war upon property or the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor, property is desirable, is a positive good to the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." -- Abraham Lincoln

Make no mistake, the judge in this instance could have ruled in favor of Mr. Alexander to rectify a gross miscarriage of justice. Instead, she let her emotions rule her judgment, and punished Mr. Alexander for ignoring her court.

[–]aradone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

she let her emotions rule her judgment

and that's why an emotional homo sapien shouldn't have jurisdiction in first place.

[–]SgtBrutalisk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is, but "for the benefit of wymmyn, we must presume what's right for her and for the child!!11one".

[–]Red-Zen 2 points2 points [recovered]

In a legal case isnt the onus on the accuser to prove the accusations rather than the accused?

Family law is usually pretty clear about who is presumed to be the father, and how long they have to contest that presumption.

[–]1oldredder 6 points7 points  (4 children)

then family law gets the reverse everything sensible and legal for everything else and turn it upside down so that nonsense is the order of the day.

This is absurd.

Only real solution: immigrate. EVERYONE immigrate. Bankrupt the state into obedience. Not one tax dollar left to pay judges to make such judgments nor collect the money.

[–]SgtBrutalisk 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You meant emigrate.

[–]1oldredder 3 points4 points  (0 children)

it's relative: to the country you now will call home you're immigrating.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You'll also want to make sure you emigrate (that's leave your country for another) to a country that doesn't have a reciprocity agreement for child support enforcement with whatever country you are leaving (for most this would be the US)

[–]1oldredder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup. My list is narrowing based on that very tightly. So far it seems mostly South American countries would be the safer ones. Zero enforcement, zero respect for the law of the other country, no extradition.

[–]DylanRed 1 point2 points  (4 children)

This only applies to criminal cases, not civil suits.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You can be put in jail for child support debt. That's a civil suit that becomes criminal.

[–]BlaiseDB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can be put in jail for any civil suit if you could pay up but don't. The burden of proof always starts on the plaintiff but there are many tricks that shift it to defendant rather easily. In a civil suit the standard is something similar to "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". All it takes is the woman's word and unless she is completely nuts and you have an amazing lawyer, cross examination won't be enough to stop her from clearing that bar.

[–]DylanRed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was talking about the intrinsic value of innocent until proven guilty. It's a sentiment that's only inherent in criminal cases. The original discussion was on a civil case.

[–]vox_veritas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. The plaintiff in a civil suit has the burden of proving their claims, although the burden of proof is lower than in a criminal case.

[–]StandWatie 5 points6 points  (2 children)

The problem with these type of situations is that the judge is always, right or wrong, going to look out for the best interest of the child. That means some poor schmo is going to have to be the daddy. It's fucked no doubt though.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Argue that the child would be better off with the real biological father. He never consented to having his name put on the birth certificate, never adopted the kid formally or treated it like his own child.

From what I gather in this case she just wrote his name down and he got stuck paying child support. It'd be like if you wrote down a woman's name on a marriage certificate and she had to give you sex anytime anywhere.

[–]jaasx 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are cases when that's probably fair. The problem here is the child is long grown and the state is just trying to get money back. The judge is supposed to be delivering "Justice" and is obviously failing to do so by penalizing an innocent man screwed by some circumstances completely beyond his control and understanding. She's trying to hind behind crude rules and laws when her first priority should be in doing what's right.

[–]Moneyley 0 points1 point  (4 children)

As I understand the rule, it sounds to the equivalent of when a man signs off on the birth of his child. He can sign off on it after a paternity test otherwise he has a 2 yr window to prove the child isn't his.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Sounds like a scam to me... Unless it's 2 years from when he is notified of an accusation of being the father. Otherwise all she has to do is write your name on a birth certificate and not contact you for 2 years and then boom you're liable for 2 years of child support suddenly.

[–]needless_pickup_line 1 point2 points  (2 children)

From my understanding he was notified, and when he went to visit her to dispute paternity she wasn't at the provided address.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well if she doesn't need to prove that it's his genes in the kid then the law should enable the man to dispute without having to acquire the genes of the kid to prove it. If they disagree then a paternity test should be required to bind the man with the obligation of child support.

No Paternity Test. No Child Support. Simple.

[–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. In this case the poor guy tried to track down the kid to give the test, and the court gave him a bum address.

[–]vox_veritas 57 points58 points  (29 children)

Divorce/custody lawyer here. Frankly, this guy stuck his head in the sand and is paying for it now. I will preface this by saying this is awful, but...

He knew there was an issue in the 1990s when he got pulled over. At that time, he should have taken legal action. This is analogous to a statute of limitations issue. If you loan John $10k, he then defaults on the loan, you know about his default, and you wait 20 years to take legal action, guess what's going to happen? You're going to get booted out of court for failure to pursue your case within the statute of limitations. This guy honestly has no one to blame but himself.

But, the real issue here that bugs me from a legal standpoint is the personal jurisdiction problem. The court must acquire personal jurisdiction over you (being served with pleadings) before the case can move forward at all. In this case, he has pretty much incontrovertible evidence that the court never acquired personal jurisdiction (since he was in jail and not at the residence where they claim to have served him). In every jurisdiction I'm aware of, lack of personal jurisdiction is grounds to reopen a case and vacate any judgments/orders that have issued. The problem? There is a time frame for you to take action after discovering the issue - - typically 1 year.

Look, I feel nothing but sympathy for this guy and think it's a fucked up situation. But this guy should have tried to sort this out a long time ago.

The real lesson here for a man, redpill or not, is to be proactive in your life and not stick your head in the sand thinking ignoring something serious will make it go away.

[–]1oldredder 11 points12 points  (14 children)

The real lesson here for a man, redpill or not, is to be proactive in your life and not stick your head in the sand thinking ignoring something serious will make it go away.

No, the real problem is if a claim like that gets assumption of truth instead of assumption of falsehood, the country itself is so fucked that putting your head in the sand means you kept citizenship instead of immigrating.

Statute of limitations should be on her proving who is the father, zero ability to just name one. This is indefensible.

Literally to follow your wrongheaded advice means now that every man must assume every woman he never met, especially those he slept with, once pregnant may name him as the father and go check on that on a regular basis forever.

Especially if you move a lot.

OR you can immigrate and never return to the shit-hole where crime is the law, fraud is legit.

OR you can ensure to always give no address, no name to every woman you fuck. Ever. Never fuck up. Never, ever give your real name and address ever

[–]vox_veritas 8 points9 points  (3 children)

My advice isn't wrongheaded - it's reality.

Let me be clear: I do not agree with what's going on, and I have defended men in the past on this. But, legally speaking, this guy has fucked himself over.

[–]1oldredder 1 point2 points  (2 children)

My attitude is always break the law when the law is wrong and defies my personal freedom.

My attitude is when the country itself is that wrong, do not stay.

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Did you leave? Good on ya if you did.

[–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

preparing to (my country). That country (America) I didn't reside in but now it's gone too far I will not cross there. No job, no riches, no promises are good enough to tempt me to enter what is now a police-state. The place is dead to me. I'd go to Russia first.

[–]fabiofb 2 points3 points  (1 child)

OR you can ensure to always give no address, no name to every woman you fuck. Ever. Never fuck up. Never, ever give your real name and address ever

Or phone number, license plate, credit card payment at hotel, restaurant, gift or anything related to her. Any of those things can be traced back to you by a court.

[–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. Anonymous every single time, that's the only way and it's not that hard. There's no reason you should be gifting women you're fucking, skittles will do fine if anything, never ever use a credit card or leased/rented car, never use anything but a burner phone. That does mean tossing the whole phone when needed because the prepaid IMEI will be stored in records along with the SIM even if you change SIMs.

Make it a legal demand for a burner phone and they will tie EVERY SIM you used with it and know where you've been with all your numbers.

[–]TekkomanKingz 7 points8 points  (7 children)

Literally to follow your wrongheaded advice means now that every man must assume every woman he never met, especially those he slept with, once pregnant may name him as the father and go check on that on a regular basis forever.

Dude I've been saying this for almost 2 years now. It's YOUR responsibility to be vigilant and make sure you aren't sleeping with a potential Woman who wants to fuck you over. Courts don't care and obviously will lock you up and there's simply nothing you can do about it. Pick each woman carefully, your life depends on it.

How is it exactly "wrong headed" advice, he's a fucking lawyer working with these cunt feminazis on the daily basis.

[–]redkick 10 points11 points  (0 children)

make sure you aren't sleeping with a potential Woman who wants to fuck you over.

The court doesn't check whether you have actually slept with that person, so this is not a requirement to get fucked over.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're sleeping with a woman, guess what, they all have the potential to fuck you over, and the courts side with them from the outset. You must prove beyond shadow of doubt that it wasn't you within the legal time frame they arbitrarily dictate.

[–]rpkarma 2 points3 points  (2 children)

He's arguing that a system that puts the onus on the male to prove you're not the father, giving the female the entire ability to decide who's life she wants to ruin with you having little recourse other than sleeping with one eye open and assuming the worst at every turn is a fucked system. I can't say I disagree to be honest.

The lawyers advice is sound, however, considering the system that is in place.

[–]TekkomanKingz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He's arguing that a system that puts the onus on the male to prove you're not the father, giving the female the entire ability to decide who's life she wants to ruin with you having little recourse other than sleeping with one eye open and assuming the worst at every turn is a fucked system.

This is LITERALLY word-for-word how it ACTUALLY is and the whole purpose of Red Pill. The reality is we are all not just sleeping with one eye open. We are opening a THIRD EYE to look out for us at all times. We are AWAKENED to the true nature of society and equipped to dodge major risks such as cunts looking for a quick paycheck.

[–]rpkarma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. It's still fucked tho. Just gotta make the best of it.

[–]QraQen 4 points5 points  (11 children)

If you never did anything wrong it should be OK to assume you're safe from being framed for crimes you didn't commit.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Yeah, sure thing. It doesn't work that way. If a girl accuses you of something, you as a man are automatically guilty. You must prove your innocence to a jury that also assumes you're guilty.

I spent two weeks in jail for something I didn't do that my ex and her boyfriend accused me of. I had gone 44 years of living and never had anything bigger than a speeding ticket. All they needed to do was make the accusation and I was guilty despite being physically unable to do what they claim I did.

[–]Fryguy48 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Thats so shitty. Would you share your story?

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I have before. Short story, I'm a desert veteran, so I am doubly guilty because you know we are all crazy and go on killing sprees daily. I am Rambo shooting up the town with an M60 to the courts.

She left her neurotic dog with me, because she can't afford to keep it without my money and support, plus she wanted maximal fuck time with her new cock. She only had mine for 7 years, none before me, so "oooh shiny new toy" was in play. Her dog would escape and go looking for her, my husky would follow. We lived along a busy highway and huskies are headstrong dogs, so it's always a problem when she escaped.

I get her dog back, catch mine, call her at her parents house at 0800 and tell her I am bringing her dog. She says I can't come by right now, doesn't give a reason, just that I can't. Her tone of voice told me her boyfriend was sleeping with her at her parents house. I was married to the bitch and they made me sleep on the couch when we stayed there, needless to say I got pissed.

During the 8 mile drive I decided not to beat the fuck out of that kid. I park across the highway from her parents home, and he comes flying out of there. I give in to anger and chase him. I think better of doing a PITT maneuver and pass him, go down a mile and turn around. I come back and he is on the side of the highway with two flat tires.

The kid cut his tires because he knew he could blame me for it, then scratched up his truck to get a free paint job. He worked as an emt for the sheriff so he assumed they would back him up. They didn't, instead they fired him for being worthless at the job, which I discovered later is common for him. He can't work more than a couple months before they tire of him screwing shit up. Anyway, the state police are instructed by the county prosecutor, who is a chick trying to make a name for herself to get a judge appointment, to go after me.

They claimed I ran 300 yards, cut his tires without being seen by 12 people, then ran back to my truck. I was injured on my 04 deployment, and it is physically impossible for me to run. Walking 600 yards at that time would have been difficult because I was recovering from a chemical exposure that limited my breathing and limited me to about 20 yards a day. I gained weight, but was down to 285lbs when this all happened, there was no fucking way I could have done it.

Remember, I'm a veteran, a white man, with lots of muscle and an intimidating persona. I made the kid wet himself by yelling at him through his truck window when I gave her dog to her. She is now 32, he is 25, I am 45. He is a wimp, 150lbs of skinny fat, but likes to talk about MMA and pass himself off as things he isn't, like a veteran. He is loathed by damn near everyone who knows him. I am well liked, respected in our community, yet I go to jail and pay him to fuck her.

The fun part, she is 5'6 and was 110lbs on the local vfd. Utterly useless physically so they made her chief and we all helped her with the job. She brought him on the department after the other departments he had been on told the assistant chief he fucks up the trucks constantly. The truck mechanic said the same thing. The day she brought him on during a township meeting, theassistant cheif who was the other emt, the hazmat guy, the RN, and two others quit at the meeting. Leaving her, another useless girl that backs the trucks into things, and het boyfriend as the only members of the department.

Her ineptitude caused 40k in damage to a house owned by a friend of her father, and when he mentioned it, the state police were called out and they told him to stop harassing her. One critical comment is harassment now, because she's a girl, not a public servant. The other firefighters and me, her husband, covered for her while she wasn't being stupid. We aren't now, and it's a slow motion train wreck.

Sure, I went to jail for two weeks, now have a criminal record because a loser was fucking my naive wife, but they are still losers. It was a small setback for me, but my life has a lot more going for it than either of them. All it takes is a girl and a weak man to get the white Knight courts wound up enough to fuck you over.

The only reason she started fucking the kid is because I got sick painting a car I was restoring for her dad as a thank you for his help after I got hurt. She is bereft of honor, but that's typical of her being a girl.

[–]Fryguy48 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Im sorry for your troubles sir. I am 21 and im trying to learn what not to do, thank you for the story.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Don't get married, no matter what. Always be willing to walk away from a bitch, job, or friends that are fucking you over. Lift, lift again, and lift some more. At your age I grew to have 22" arms, I've lost muscle to where they are 20" now. If you never have much, you will look like shit at my age. Don't drink sugary shit, don't drink lots of alcohol (waste of money too) stay out of the sun as much as reasonable without causing a vitamin D deficiency. If you go bald on top, shave your head, nothing looks worse than a middle aged man with no muscle that clings to his scragly ass hair and does combovers and shit. Whatever happens in your life, own it.

[–]QraQen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well you're right but I still stand by what I said.

[–]vox_veritas 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Not sure what point you're trying to make here...

[–]1cover20 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not a legal point, but it's a common sense point that he expressed well. Let me expand, as a non-lawyer but one who is quite capable of understanding what you do.

As we live our lives, technically "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but that really sucks, because normal people want to live by that law that is in their hearts. For 99% of us and 99.9% of situations, that will allow us to get along instinctively and well.

We don't want a bunch of procedure and, frankly, courts and lawyers. And the court should stop being so protective of its fucking prerogatives and have a little humility. Yes lawyer, it is true that to you (a lawyer before a court) the court is king. But that's because you swore an oath to it. We didn't. Your oath shouldn't bind us to that damned system.

We really think the best use of your damned system would be to protect us from that 1% of people who act as if they don't have hearts. Rather than protecting them and ruling over us.

[–]rpkarma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a pretty fucked up state of affairs that I have to keep tabs on any girl I've had anything to do with in case she gets knocked up and puts my name down as the father, regardless of whether it's true or not.

[–]Lazlo-Red 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Counselor - I concur! Do not ignore court rulings. TRP means taking care of your shit, period!

Also, after a careful review of the responses herein, I detect a misunderstanding by TRP public gallery participating in this public discourse of the poor Mr. Alexander - alleged father. Do not be mislead, this woman DOES NOT have to be an ex-lover, plate, one-night-stand, friend, wife - shit, she does not even have to know you- to make the parental allegation! (If the poor mother lies to the court, you might have some financial recourse – good luck collecting!)

If a woman makes a legal allegation you are the father and if you have proper notice of the court preceding (giving the court jurisdiction), the court may make a ruling that you are the father and enter an order of child support. If you ignore the court/order - you will pay the support under the order you ignored!

ps- I agree with the jurisdictional issues raised herein and ignored by the judge. Yet, even if Mr. Alexander was not properly served, he appears to have appeared later and did not raise the jurisdictional issue properly; he waived the jurisdictional argument by not raising it in a timely fashion and has to pay the support.

As a TRP reminder: Watch the judge in the video whine about the poor treatment she received in making a bad decision. The lesson for TRP is that many family court judges are over-the-wall women with all the baggage that entails...

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The mother committed fraud. The mother should pay.. Surely.. Surely fraud is a crime.. Surely she profited from it.

[–]1oldredder 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is absurd.

People should confiscate that judge's HOUSE at gun point and say it's up to him to prove he really owns it - and make sure he's in a locked box and broke where he can't prove it.

The so-called "justice" aka "just us" is absurd.

The act itself should be a criminal offense, to do what this judge did.

Only real long-term solution: Abandon the state itself, bankrupt it, so that it can't pay the police to show up with guns to arrest a person refusing the credibility of the court.

[–]4_YRT 18 points18 points [recovered]

Lawyer here. Let me explain some things.

  1. American jurisprudence recognizes a presumption of paternity. This means that if a child is born while a man and woman are in a relationship, the man is presumed to be the father. I suppose that in Michigan, if the mother claims the man is the father, then the presumption is that she's telling the truth. This presumption goes back hundreds of years to English Common Law. You can understand why the presumption was important in the days before DNA testing. We want men to be responsible for the babies of the women that they are fucking, because someone has to be.

  2. Now it becomes the man's obligation to rebut the presumption. This is not a criminal trial. He doesn't have to prove his innocence. All he has to do is present some competent evidence that he's not the father, such as a DNA test, or evidence that he was incarcerated during the time period when the child would have been conceived. If he rebuts the presumption, then the mother would have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is the father in a civil action. This is called burden shifting, and it happens all the time in our legal system.

  3. When he was arrested in the 1990s, he was given notice that someone claimed him to be the father. Just like crimes have statutes of limitations, so do civil actions. If someone claims that you are the father, apparently you have three years to rebut that presumption. He failed to do so, which is why the court was so angry with him. He had an opportunity 20 years ago to fix the problem, but he didn't take it seriously.

  4. The american legal system values the finality of judgments. At some point the process has to end, and a judgement becomes final and indisputable. Generally, this happens after all the procedural appellate and post-appellate rights have been exhausted. In this case, he was put on notice that someone claimed that he was a father. Obviously he had notice, because he was arrested for being a deadbeat dad. He did nothing about it for 20 years.

  5. I understand why the judge was upset with the way that the case was reported. The mother may have lied, she may have committed fraud, but the victim of fraud still has to defend his rights. This guy's problem is that he just assumed if he ignored it, it would go away.

  6. So, the lesson of this story is, don't ignore your legal obligations. Because, they don't go away just because you ignore them for 20 years.

[–]srsh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wish it didn't work that way but I'm grateful for the breakdown. More males should know this.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the courts rely on what is reasonable and honorable being uphheld. nothing about this is reasonable or honorable.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You should make this into an intelligent, detailed post about "Parental Obligations". I'd sticky it. I think it'd help many men think twice about bare-backing that whore they picked up at a club last night.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ugh. I wouldnt bareback any woman but someone I was married to. Even then. Affairs almost always happen without protection. Its a form of rationalization; why am I putting a condom on a guy who isn't my husband? If I'm fucking another guy what more harm can I do to my husband?. They're so self indicting that the hamster goes nuts.

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wasn't he in jail for part of it, and given a wrong address ... sort of like they didn't want him to succeed in rebutting this presumption?

Why didn't the court understand how much shit they put him through and finally it could fall through the cracks?

I am not a lawyer but I am intelligent. I already knew all of what you laid out, and I still know the judgment is wrong, even if it does connect the legal dots. I remember I had a friend, then he went to law school. After a year and a half I saw him, and he was a changed man. I didn't like him any more.

[–]1oldredder -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

American jurisprudence recognizes a presumption of paternity. This means that if a child is born while a man and woman are in a relationship, the man is presumed to be the father.

Regular human here:

that is like presuming all criminal fraud is legitimate financial transactions.

This is beyond insane.

she may have committed fraud, but the victim of fraud still has to defend his rights.

This is impossible as the NATURE of the fraud ensures the man has no awareness of the events! Again, legal insanity and a good reason to ensure you stop paying taxes, stop being a citizen of America, to bankrupt the corrupt state into obedience.

So, the lesson of this story is, don't ignore your legal obligations

INCORRECT.

The correct stance is: you have no legal rights because any unproven claim can be put on you in secret with no ability to fight it at all because you don't even know. We can't all fight against invisible ghosts, assuming EVERY woman we ever met is naming us as father to her children - sex is not required for this to be real!

Not sex, no conception - she needs only to know your name and where you live.

Abandon America completely - no taxes, no citizenship - leave the crazy-ship before the captain puts it into the rocks deliberately.

A man can not be legally obliged to defend against secret claims on secret evidence or worse, where no evidence is required to make the claim. The very notion is insane beyond explanation.

[–]4_YRT 7 points7 points [recovered]

that is like presuming all criminal fraud is legitimate financial transactions.

This is beyond insane.

No. the presumption doesn't apply in all situations, just this one. This is a very specific area of the law. Family law is different than standard civil law because of public policy concerns. Generally, family law is concerned with the best interests of the child.

This is impossible as the NATURE of the fraud ensures the man has no awareness of the events! Again, legal insanity and a good reason to ensure you stop paying taxes, stop being a citizen of America, to bankrupt the corrupt state into obedience.

wrong. When you become aware of fraud, it is your obligation to fix it. when you check your credit card statement and see that there's a charge that you didn't make, you have to tell your bank about it. You can't ignore it for 20 years and then ask the bank to fix it after it destroys your credit because you refused to pay it for 20 years. This guy was made aware of the paternity claim against him when he was arrested in the 1990s. He didn't do anything about it. It would have been a simple matter for him to say, I'm not the father, I was in jail during the time period that the baby was conceived. He wins, case over.

INCORRECT.

The correct stance is: you have no legal rights because any unproven claim can be put on you in secret with no ability to fight it at all because you don't even know. We can't all fight against invisible ghosts, assuming EVERY woman we ever met is naming us as father to her children - sex is not required for this to be real!

stop being a child. stop being so dramatic. If someone makes a paternity claim against you, hire a lawyer for $500 to resolve the issue in a timely manner. Hell, if the mother committed fraud by putting your name on the sheet of paper while knowing that you are not the father, you could even ask for attorney's fees.

A man can not be legally obliged to defend against secret claims on secret evidence or worse, where no evidence is required to make the claim. The very notion is insane beyond explanation.

lol.

[–]1oldredder -1 points0 points  (2 children)

LOL yourself. Legally this man wasn't notified at all in a timely manner yet it was treated as if it was legally so.

It wasn't.

stop being a child. stop being so dramatic. If someone makes a paternity claim against you, hire a lawyer for $500 to resolve the issue in a timely manner.

He did this as soon as he could. He never received legal summons of any sort before his action to prove there was an action/event.

A man can not be legally obliged to defend against secret claims on secret evidence or worse, where no evidence is required to make the claim. The very notion is insane beyond explanation.

I repeat. CAN NOT.

To do so is to violate all manner of what the law is and then there is no law

This guy was made aware of the paternity claim against him when he was arrested in the 1990s. He didn't do anything about it.

What was he served? Papers of any sort? Any legal documentation? You sure he was notified as the definition of the law says it is?

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If a child is raised for 20 years i.e. is an adult now, and then some third party is billed an unpayable amount of money "on his behalf" and the child finds out about it and feels bad that this guy got so screwed --

Is that in the best interests of that child?

[–]1oldredder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"best interests of the child" is code for "government will get their cheese" "which is actually your cheese and we'll jail you any time we want to take it"

Government: the biggest criminal enterprise ever formed

[–]BIGBIGBIGMEANIE 8 points9 points  (2 children)

What part of a DNA test does this judge not fucking understand?

What a fucking faggot. I feel bad for this dude.

[–]1oldredder 10 points11 points  (1 child)

judge: "I am the law"

DNA-test: "but.butbut...."

doesn't matter. American judges are a symbol of corruption and largesse.

[–]BIGBIGBIGMEANIE -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I think some American judges are a symbol of corruption and largesse.

Long story short, once upon a time I knocked the shit out of a guy who came from a family of drug-dealin' losers and who knows how many lives they had part in ruining. Well, this pussy decided to press charges and I got a really low sentence: pay some restitution and a couple months of unsupervised probation. Went from felony assault to simple assault. A little bit of poetic justice. I'm no fighter but the guy deserved it, especially after wrecking a sibling of mine for no good reason.

When I was a kid, I accidentally burned a piece of wooded property to the ground. I went through mediation and my parents only had to pay court costs. That was... 17 years ago.

The law, for the most part, is better interpreted in the Southeastern USA.

[–]GV19 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Reading the comments was nice, everyone is against the judge and I doubt the bitch will win the case

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Note: White, female, 40-something, feminist judge.

[–]americanmook 3 points4 points  (4 children)

How come a case like this hasn't gone to the supreme court?

[–]5 Endorsed ContributorStayinghereforreal 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Because no one gives a shit when lower class males get fucked. Or middle class. Or upper middle class. Only when apex men or women get screwed does it become imperative to change things.

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend 2 points3 points  (1 child)

No broke father thats forced to pay that much arrearages is going to have the cash to pay an attorney to appeal it for him. Attorneys like to get paid for their work.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

His attorney is working pro bono, so props to him for that.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because they are part of the ruling royalty, and something like this is for the unwashed masses beneath them. Once a political connection or elite gets tangled up, then you may see something.

[–]proROKexpat 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What strikes me is in todays world this should be so easy to slove

Judge: Why do you not pay child support?

Guy: Cause the child isn't mine

Judge: WIll you submit yourself to a DNA test?

Guy: Yes

They do DNA test, comes back not the father

Judge: Very sorry, have a good day you owe her nothing.

[–]boogalooshrimp1103 3 points4 points  (0 children)

unfortunately. if the man doesnt pay the state would have to. the state is the ultimate deadbeat dad

[–]lispychicken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Serial killers..you listening? See that judge?

[–]1nzgs[🍰] 1 point2 points  (41 children)

This is what happens when government involves itself in private business, which is why everyone on here should be on the far right.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]George_l_rockwell 5 points6 points  (10 children)

Can you name some examples? I want to know what regulations of private business that you oppose, because you may find that I also am against many unnecessary regulation of private business.

[–]1oldredder 1 point2 points  (9 children)

the far right wants to promote a precise definition of what marriage is or should be and to use government, law, tax dollars to do it. That's regulating. That's private business.

[–]George_l_rockwell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not gonna deny that. I was going to say that I don't think consenting adults should be locked up for what they do in the privacy of their own homes.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (6 children)

and yet Greece had no problems at all with gay men as soldiers and citizens so this wasn't universal.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Greece was a wealthy society with gay men fully accepted and even gay soldiers. So... there is no good reason to regulate sexual relations between genders. It's not government business, has no excuse to be.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (2 children)

then the larger topic is proven also, that gays in the population don't threaten it as far as evolution is concerned. Even for other mammals.

[–]1oldredder 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the far right is pro-big government. Everyone needs to be firmly ANTI-government which is anti-left and anti-right.

[–]zarus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

right

If anything this is borderline anarchist. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

[–]BlackHeart89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a very exceptional case. And the system there is just stupid in that regard.

According to this, she could have literally put down the name of any random man. How many "Michael Johnsons" do you know? Thats all she needs. Pull a name out of a hat and BOOM! 30 year pocket rape.

Obviously the case should just be thrown out.

[–]SgtBrutalisk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember saying in TRP a while ago: "One day a woman will simply say you are the father and that's it." A "lawyer" responded to me and said I am an idiot etc. Justice has been served, Mr. Lawyer.

[–]SgtBrutalisk 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Know your rights. Fight for your rights relentlessly.

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like this guy did, they gave him a wrong address even when he tried to. He's just been fucked over thru no fault of his own.

[–]watersign 0 points1 point  (1 child)

the lesson here is to not tell women your real name. if you're prowling around on the net or at the bars, do not ever tell women your real name so if you manage to knock one up...its not your problem.

[–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or even if you don't knock her up, she doesn't have your name handy to put down on the application for birth certificate for some other guy's child.

[–]rangamatchstick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope this bloke appeals and gets this over turned, what a bitch.

[–]billyvnilly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that judge is a bitch. She has the gall to be upset?

[–]macguffin22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pro tip: get a fucking vasectomy. If you want to have kids, reverse it.

[–]Rougepellet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where's ma nigga moses at? We need a new plague.

[–]AnarchyBurger101 1 points1 points [recovered]

It's not so much an abuse of men's rights case, as a judge abusing power and going against the spirit of the law to make "someone" pay for this woman's bastard.

White liberal judge, dumb, been to prison black male. Guess who's going to lose? When exposed to the light of publicity, the judge does what any politician does to deflect the heat, feign outrage. Filthy peasants! Do not question my supreme authoritay! Failing that, dig into technicalities, and claim the clueless black guy did not dispute the paternity, file the proper forms, bribe the right politicians, hire three lawyers, etc, etc.

Now this is where the fun comes in. If that judge if put up to too much public scrutiny, the people behind her re-election campaign may cut off the bucks, and let her twist slowly in the wind. Pissed off males who got screwed by "friend of the court" and various child support scams, none of em will touch that judge. She's now fucking poison. Welfare mamas who vote, maybe they'll remember to elect her. Or maybe they'll just vote for a judge who looks alpha, instead of an elitist white bitch who probably fires and deports her Guatemalan maid 4 times a year. ;)

load more comments (5 replies)