patrick.net

Ceffer says

As a taxpayer, I have been supporting children that aren't mine for years. Why should I feel sorry for him?

you should feel sorry for him because he has the general tax burden of supporting irresponsible women's children just the same, but also is being told he must pay an additional $30,000 or go to jail. all to a woman he never even touched.

Rin says

Exactly, and in the future, they'll be fully animatronic with AI software, making them better than a real companion.

And when you are done, they will do the dishes, laundry, and clean.

Rin says

Men should give up on women and start to use RealDolls to satisfy their needs.

The man in the article did not have sex with the woman. She simply lied on a welfare form.

If only people would wise up and stop voting republican, we could have much more of this type of crap

Thanks, democrats!

My solution:

1. Make women 100% responsible for the children
2. Give women the *absolute* right to abort up to childbirth
3. Allow kids to be abandoned up to age 18

If anyone needed confirmation that justice is blind, this would be it!

There are many examples of women behaving selfishly to take financial advantage of men using the corrupt legal system. The woman in the op falsifying a welfare application is an example of this. However, I do not thing the victim's circumstance is itself an example of the family court system's War on Men. I think it's really more about the power of bureaucracies to get away with crimes, in this case theft, false arrest, and false imprisonment, without being held accountable because the individuals responsible for carrying out the crimes are hidden by the bureaucracy and there is no mechanism for holding bureaucracies accountable for their mistakes and crimes.

This same kind of injustice happens all the time with various departments and agencies in the federal, state, and local governments. If the IRS makes a mistake, you're fucked. If the DMV makes a mistake, you're fucked. If the police department raids the wrong house, you're fucked. If you're a five-year-old boy put on the no-fly list, you're fucked.

Bureaucracies first and foremost protect themselves. In the case of the court system, the only recourse you have is to go through the court system, which is an obvious conflict of interest. This is yet another reason why we need a public citizen court system, separate from the state's court systems, that can hold anyone in the state's court systems (judges, police, DAs, etc.) accountable for their actions.

Another thing. The entire practice of forcing anyone to pay child support or alimony is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Wow, doesn't that make you feel shit about America. Why is there an "except" clause in the banning of slavery? That really shouldn't be there.

Anyway, it's not a crime to have a child or get married, and child support and alimony aren't "punishment" according to the law either, so requiring anyone to pay them under threat of arrest and imprisonment and the use of violence should they resist is exactly what indentured servitude is, if not slavery.

And no, indentured servitude doesn't apply just for boat passage. You can indentured for any reason and it's still being indentured.

Dan8267 says

Wow, doesn't that make you feel shit about America. Why is there an "except" clause in the banning of slavery? That really shouldn't be there.

If you have children you automatically agree to be a slave to these children. I don't think anyone would grant you a pass based on the 13th amdt. Just continue not having kids.
Though of course this is not the case here. So indeed maybe he could try the 13th amdt.

Dan8267 says

I do not thing the victim's circumstance is itself an example of the family court system's War on Men.

The question is are there cases where other men are legally forced to pay for children who are not their own based on plain law rather than administrative zealotry, and there are. So I think it is just as good as any other example of war on men.

Dan8267 says

Another thing. The entire practice of forcing anyone to pay child support or alimony is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Wow, doesn't that make you feel shit about America. Why is there an "except" clause in the banning of slavery? That really shouldn't be there.

Anyway, it's not a crime to have a child or get married, and child support and alimony aren't "punishment" according to the law either, so requiring anyone to pay them under threat of arrest and imprisonment and the use of violence should they resist is exactly what indentured servitude is, if not slavery.

You sure have a knack for interpreting the constitution.
The fact is, if you bring a moocher into this world, it gets to mooch off you.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you have children you automatically agree to be a slave to these children.

No, that's not how parenting works.

Strategist says

You sure have a knack for interpreting the constitution.

Yeah, that whole having a kid isn't a crime thing is far fetched.

Now if you want to prevent people from having children until they pass a fiscal responsibility test and set up a trust fund to ensure the child is not impoverished, that's another matter. But to jail a man because he lost his job due to Republican policies and cannot pay child support is indentured servitude.

Just because you dislike the Constitution, doesn't invalidate it.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you have children you automatically agree to be a slave to these children. I don't think anyone would grant you a pass based on the 13th amdt. Just continue not having kids

Odd thinking. Just say whoever is financially able to support the kids gets them and keep the gubmnt out of it. Of course then the entire child support/alimony system/complex will lose their livelihood.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

You sure have a knack for interpreting the constitution.

Yeah, that whole having a kid isn't a crime thing is far fetched.

Now if you want to prevent people from having children until they pass a fiscal responsibility test and set up a trust fund to ensure the child is not impoverished, that's another matter. But to jail a man because he lost his job due to Republican policies and cannot pay child support is indentured servitude.

Just because you dislike the Constitution, doesn't invalidate it.

Dear Dan,
I just don't like your interpretation of the constitution. If that kid isn't his, he should not pay child support. It's something like this....if you like a red convertible car, I hope you enjoy it, but I should not be the one paying for it.

Dan8267 says

The man in the article did not have sex with the woman. She simply lied on a welfare form.

Hopefully he will be able to get out of this. She should be jailed and the kid should go to a good home.

Fathers, and men, have few rights when it comes to support. The court won't address visitation, but will charge a shitload of $$$ anyway.

elliemae says

She should be jailed and the kid should go to a good home.

I think it's wrong that she was forced to name a father in the first place to get welfare benefits. Does she even know who the father is? If a woman has a one-night stand does that mean she and her child should be denied welfare? What about rape victims who cannot name their assailants? The article, like all news articles, lacks the details about the law requiring the naming of the father.

Still, what she did was wrong. She should have named Boehner as the father and make him pay for the child. It would be the first thing he's done for the poor ever. [Note to conservatives: I'm be facetious.]

No it means the guy should have to pay for one night.

Dan8267 says

If a woman has a one-night stand does that mean she and her child should be denied welfare

SoftShell says

No it means the guy should have to pay for one night.

1. The point was that a woman might not be able to name the father in a one-night stand.
2. Why should the guy have to pay? Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child. As others pointed out, a man has zero say in whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term.

I'm pretty sure the idea here is to make men gay.
Because there's a million Liberal arts majors who's job it is to make being a heterosexual man in modern society a crime.

Dan8267 says

2. Why should the guy have to pay? Consent to have sex is not consent to have a child. As others pointed out, a man has zero say in whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term.

The guy should have used a contraceptive. Not doing so and getting her pregnant, is a form of consent.

Strategist says

Not doing so and getting her pregnant, is a form of consent.

No it's not. Consent, by definition, means a free agreement to something, not simply behaving irresponsibly.

Are we encouraging wanton sex? Out of wedlock sex? Time to go back to the old days, sex with your spouse only and stay virgin till the honeymoon.

hanera says

Are we encouraging wanton sex? Out of wedlock sex? Time to go back to the old days, sex with your spouse only and stay virgin till the honeymoon.

Why do you hate freedom?

Peter P says

3. Allow kids to be abandoned up to age 18

I would allow them to be aborted up to age 6.

hanera says

Are we encouraging wanton sex?

How the fuck can consensual sex be wanton?

Strategist says

Dear Dan,

I just don't like your interpretation of the constitution.

His interpretations are strange aren't they? Even when it is pointed out how/why he is incorrect, he refuses to back down in the slightest. Some people in my office lurk here and laugh at his utterly ridiculous interpretations of the law. They don't understand why a coder, with clearly no more than a laymens understanding of the law would want to continue to publicly embarrass himself. However, none of that matters here. Want to know why?

While talking about a different user SBH was very much on the mark when he infamously said:

you eat shit, more shit than just about anyone on Patnet, yet you have an insatiable appetite for it

Its a sad state of affairs, but this is the reality of modern day Patnet. It doesnt matter if you know what you are talking about or not. All you have to do is outlast anyone who cares about the truth and/or accuracy of the matter, and you will prevail. Its a shame I don't want to take my laymans understanding of coding, and make 50,000 incorrect posts about how to do it - I could be king of Patnet!

In the real world, embarrassment about not understanding the subject matter will cause most people to shut up, but none of that matters here. No matter how much I may correct him on matters of the law, Dan will readily gobble up all the shit in sight, and still sit there open mouthed waiting for more.

Reality is, modern Patnet is a stamina contest and I cannot compete. Anyone with 10,000+ posts on Patnet has likely developed quite a taste for shit over time, and I am getting tired of eating large meals before I log on.

Moreover, as this site has now given up as its primary purpose, discussing (or as was often the case misleading people) about real estate, I feel much less need to be here. I dont know if I will ever disappear completely, but Dan, please consider this my flag of surrender. I will never contradict you on matters of the law ever again.

This is certainly an example of unequal protection under the law. In ANY other context, tricking a person into paying for something under false pretenses would be considered fraud. You'd have to make restitution... Perhaps you would go to jail.

No guy should have to pay for a child who isn't his. The person who perpetrated the fraud should suffer the same consequences of committing fraud in any other context.

We aren't talking about insubstantial amounts of money, either. If a guy paid $500/month (which is on the low side) for 10 years on a child that isn't his, we're talking over $60k! In what other context could a person steal $60k from someone and it not be a crime? I'm unclear about how having a child acts as a shield from the law.

CDon says

publicly embarrass himself,

A thinly veiled ad hominem attack no more sophisticated than You are a poopy head and you smell like poop.

Honey, it's the Constitution, not the Da Vinci Code. It's written to be understood by any literate common man. Quite frankly, if you don't have an accurate understanding of the Constitution, than you should not have a high school diploma.

It's government of the people, by the people, for the people, not government unintelligible to the people.

By the way CDon, if you're not a lawyer, how the fuck do you know my "interpretation" of the Constitution is invalid? Contradiction much?

turtledove says

This is certainly an example of unequal protection under the law. In ANY other context, tricking a person into paying for something under false pretenses would be considered fraud.

It's even worse than fraud. The victim wasn't "tricked" into paying for something under false pretenses. He was forced using the full violence of the state to pay for something under false pretense and threatened with imprisonment, again using the full violence available to the state, if he failed to pay even if he's jobless or impoverished. That's not fraud, it's indentured servitude if not out-right slavery.

turtledove says

I'm unclear about how having a child acts as a shield from the law.

It's more the case of a bureaucracy being shielded from the law simply because it's the bureaucracy that prosecutes violations of the law and it has no way to prosecute itself because it does not want to.

Again the only solution is a separate court system ran by private citizens that can prosecute the state and its agents.

Dan8267 says

Honey, it's the Constitution, not the Da Vinci Code. It's written to be understood by any literate common man. Quite frankly, if you don't have an accurate understanding of the Constitution, than you should not have a high school diploma.

It's government of the people, by the people, for the people, not government unintelligible to the people.

LOL Dan, you are so funny. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the constitution. If it was really designed for any literate man to understand it, why do we have so many court cases regarding the constitution. Why even have attorneys who specialize in the constitution?

Dan8267 says

By the way CDon, if you're not a lawyer, how the fuck do you know my "interpretation" of the Constitution is invalid? Contradiction much?

Didn't you say you just say the constitution was designed for literate people to understand it? He is literate. You are not.

Strategist says

If it was really designed for any literate man to understand it, why do we have so many court cases regarding the constitution. Why even have attorneys who specialize in the constitution?

Because those in law and politics do not care about Constitutional rights or right and wrong. What they care about is power and money. The Supreme Court today almost always comes down to a 5-4 decision split along party lines. Do you really think Scalia honestly believes that anally penetrating a man against his will simply over a traffic stop is what the founding fathers considered a "reasonable search"? Yet 5-4 the police can anally penetrate you, Strategist, or your son if they claim you ran a red light or were speeding.

Oh, and Strategist please challenge me on the fact that police strip search people during traffic stops or that the Supreme Court said it was OK to conduct anal cavity searches for people arrested on alleged (and later dropped since they were trumped up charges) traffic violations and misdemeanors. PLEASE challenge me on this. I love to humiliate you with evidence.

Dan8267 says

Oh, and Strategist please challenge me on the fact that police strip search people during traffic stops

Police do not strip search people during traffic stops. They strip search people if there is a reasonable cause to do so.

Dan8267 says

or that the Supreme Court said it was OK to conduct anal cavity searches for people arrested on alleged (and later dropped since they were trumped up charges) traffic violations and misdemeanors.

Did the Supreme Court say they police could never strip search people on traffic violations?

Dan8267 says

PLEASE challenge me on this. I love to humiliate you with evidence.

Go ahead. It's a challenge.

Strategist says

Police do not strip search people during traffic stops. They strip search people if there is a reasonable cause to do so.

Georgia Police Strip Search Drivers During Minor Traffic Stops

While sitting in the passenger seat after his wife was pulled over for a suspended registration, Phillips was unexpectedly ordered to exit the vehicle by Forest Park police. Coming up empty on a vehicle search, police suddenly turned their attention back towards Phillips, demanding he submit to a search as well.

Expecting a legal, outside the clothes pat down, Phillips consented to the officer’s requests, only to have the officer demand he pull down his pants on the side of the road.

“That’s illegal, man, you can’t do that. You can’t do that,” Phillips told the officer.

Noting that Phillips was aware of his rights, the officer suddenly claimed to smell marijuana, demanding Phillips remain still as he continued his illegal search.

Although officers are allowed to pat down the outside of clothing to check for weapons, the officer clearly violated Phillips’ rights by demanding he remove his clothing. Unsurprisingly, no marijuana was found on Phillips or in the vehicle.

Internal records obtained by Channel 2 revealed that a police captain had already reported a “unit-wide” issue regarding searches six months prior. Following the discovery of Phillips encounter, several others came forward as well, revealing the same invasive searches during minor traffic stops.

Another passenger, Ben Kassars, was subjected to a similar search after his roommate was pulled over for allegedly following a vehicle to closely. Claiming the men had drugs and threatening them with jail if they refused, officers went inside Kassars’ pants as he leaned on the back of his vehicle.

Another man, Alphonzo Eleby, was approached by DeKalb county police while talking to a friend at a local gas station as he waited for his tank to fill. Having nothing to hide, Eleby consented to an officer’s search request like the others, assuming a normal pat down would take place.

“He went inside my underwear and searched my genital area,” Eleby said. ”It’s just embarrassing. I’ve got everybody seeing me exposed.”

Despite having no drugs, officers claimed Eleby threw “something” to the ground, charging him with possession of marijuana. After the gas station’s surveillance video of the altercation was released, it was revealed that Eleby never threw anything at all, with the officer instead appearing to throw something.

Charges were quickly dropped.

In December 2012, two Texas women in yet another minor traffic stop were forced to submit to roadside body cavity searches. Claiming to smell marijuana, an officer searched the vagina and anus of both women with the same pair of latex gloves.

No marijuana was found by officers.

So here we have cops who have no suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, that people are carrying drugs and are using the violence of the state to molest and rape -- yes, rape is the accurate legal term for penetrating a person's ass or genitals with your fingers against their will -- for their own sick either sexual pleasure or power-trip pleasure.

These are people who are not carrying any drugs or weapons and the cops knew that. The cops chose to commit crimes, felonies, against these persons and then compound those crimes with others such as false arrests and perjury. Video evidence have confirmed that these cops were lying on record in criminal reports.

Cop Who Anally Penetrated Dozens of Men with His Bare Finger Just for Kicks Gets “Punished”…with Only 2 Years in Prison

It’s worth noting that the US Department of Justice defines rape as:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Despite this official definition, it appears that if you happen to be wearing a badge and a uniform when you perpetrate rape, it isn’t frowned upon by the courts quite as strongly as it is if you are just a regular garden variety rapist that hasn’t gone to cop school. Anal probing seems to be a popular hobby among some of the boys in blue.

Despite dozens of victims who came forth, Milwaukee police officer Michael Vagnini got the extraordinarily light sentence of only two years in prison, despite the fact that he was charged with sexual assault (not rape???) which could have carried a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison and 15 years on supervision.

Between 2010-2012, a gang of uniformed thugs in the Milwaukee PD played the fun game of demanding that “suspects” produce drugs, and then forcibly performing road side cavity searches on them, in some cases causing rectal bleeding. All of the victims who have come forward publicly are men, as are all of the officers involved.

Put simply, your statements are lies and they are empirically disproved.

Strategist says

Go ahead. It's a challenge.

Only the stupid challenge an INTJ on evidence after he asks them to. I love demonstrating to the world how much of an idiot you are.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

or that the Supreme Court said it was OK to conduct anal cavity searches for people arrested on alleged (and later dropped since they were trumped up charges) traffic violations and misdemeanors.

Did the Supreme Court say they police could never strip search people on traffic violations?

Your reading comprehension skills suck. I say my car is red and you sarcastically ask the rhetorical question, "Is your car a pickle?", which has nothing to do with the statement I just made.

The Supreme Court rules that police can strip search a person after traffic stops. There is no way that is a reasonable interpretation, by any standards, of the Constitution and what the writers intended to allow the state to do.

The evil conservatives -- well, ok, that's redundant -- simply decided they didn't give a fuck about human rights because they and their family and friends are in the "elite" class that isn't subject to the same laws as us. No cop is going to strip search Scalia and if it did happen, Scalia would change his position immediately. Such indignities are only to be inflicted on the peasants.

Call it Crazy says

He does not appear drunk. You, however, do appear retarded.

Dan8267 says

So here we have cops who have no suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, that people are carrying drugs and are using the violence of the state to molest and rape

Bullshit. You may say they had no suspicion, not the police officer in question.

Dan8267 says

yes, rape is the accurate legal term for penetrating a person's ass or genitals with your fingers against their will -- for their own sick either sexual pleasure or power-trip pleasure.

Bullshit. Another of your bizarre interpretations. Criminals who get arrested are regularly strip searched, that is not rape. 6 months ago a doctor shoved two fingers up my ass. I was willing, so according to you that was not rape, but it would be sex by your reasoning.

Dan8267 says

These are people who are not carrying any drugs or weapons and the cops knew that.

Not finding drugs does not indicate the cops knew there were no drugs.

Dan8267 says

The cops chose to commit crimes, felonies, against these persons and then compound those crimes with others such as false arrests and perjury.

LOL. Your interpretation of felonies is funny. :)

Dan8267 says

Video evidence have confirmed that these cops were lying on record in criminal reports.

Again, your interpretation of a video.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Go ahead. It's a challenge.

Only the stupid challenge an INTJ on evidence after he asks them to. I love demonstrating to the world how much of an idiot you are.

What's INTJ? You demonstrated I don't know that, but nothing else.

Dan8267 says

The Supreme Court rules that police can strip search a person after traffic stops. There is no way that is a reasonable interpretation, by any standards, of the Constitution and what the writers intended to allow the state to do.

Ha ha ha. You know more than the Supreme Court? Now who's the idiot?

Strategist says

Bullshit. You may say they had no suspicion, not the police officer in question.

Did you even read the evidence, moron?

Noting that Phillips was aware of his rights, the officer suddenly claimed to smell marijuana, demanding Phillips remain still as he continued his illegal search.

Despite having no drugs, officers claimed Eleby threw “something” to the ground, charging him with possession of marijuana. After the gas station’s surveillance video of the altercation was released, it was revealed that Eleby never threw anything at all, with the officer instead appearing to throw something.

The police lie about there being any indication whatsoever of a crime. They even lie about the actions of the victims and their own actions. We know they lie because the video evidence, which does not lie, directly contradict the statement of the police.

Your premise that no cop would abuse his power and commit verifiable crimes is simply empirically false. The fact that you choose to ignore indisputable proof like video recordings of the police crimes shows that you are essentially a religious nut whose religion is cop worship. You are no different from a Jihadist who thinks that Islamists can do no wrong no matter who the Islamists kill, rape, or torture. Replace Islam with police and that's your religion.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

yes, rape is the accurate legal term for penetrating a person's ass or genitals with your fingers against their will -- for their own sick either sexual pleasure or power-trip pleasure.

Bullshit. Another of your bizarre interpretations.

It's not even my interpretation as you would know if you actually read the evidence. Your laziness is no excuse for your ignorance.

The definition comes directly from the Department of Justice

The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.

So call bullshit on the FBI and the Department of Justice if you like, but it's the definition used by our legal system and quite frankly, it's a damn good improvement over the old, limited definition that meant a man could not rape a man and a woman could not rape a woman.

Strategist says

6 months ago a doctor shoved two fingers up my ass. I was willing, so according to you that was not rape, but it would be sex by your reasoning.

We all know that the only consensual sex you have is with farm animals.

But there is a huge difference between a man letting his doctor perform a check for prostate cancer and a man being forced at gunpoint to let a cop finger his ass. And yes, the threat of the gun is there even if the cop does not pull it out because everyone knows the cops will pull out the gun if he doesn't get his way.

I'm just waiting for the day a pervert cop pulls over your son and grandson and fingerfucks them both on "suspicion" that they are transporting drugs. I suspect you'll change your opinion damn fast when that happens.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

These are people who are not carrying any drugs or weapons and the cops knew that.

Not finding drugs does not indicate the cops knew there were no drugs.

There is this branch of mathematics called statistics. When cops repeatedly don't find drugs where they "suspect" drugs are, either the cops' suspicions are so inaccurate they are worthless or the cops are lying about being suspicious. Either way, it is not reasonable to let the cops violate all rights under the 4th Amendment because of their so-called suspicions.

In fact, the cops should have no legal right to search your body or property based on their suspicion than any private citizen should have to do the same based on his suspicion . The 14th Amendment says that we all have the same damn rights. Our entire country if founded on the notion that the government derives its power from the people. The people cannot give what they don't possess to the government. So if the people don't have the right to stick their fingers up your ass when they are suspicious of you, then the government can't have this right either because the people couldn't give this right to the government.

Strategist says

LOL. Your interpretation of felonies is funny. :)

How the hell is it an interpretation to state that rape is a felony? That is a fact, not an opinion.
Strategist says

Again, your interpretation of a video.

Whether or not a person throws something on the ground is not an interpretation of a video. It's a verifiable fact. You don't get to treat video evidence like it's a vision from a psychic. We literally put people to death based on video evidence.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

The Supreme Court rules that police can strip search a person after traffic stops. There is no way that is a reasonable interpretation, by any standards, of the Constitution and what the writers intended to allow the state to do.

Ha ha ha. You know more than the Supreme Court? Now who's the idiot?

You pick your conclusions out of your ass. What I'm saying is that the Supreme Court is obviously basing it's decisions on political agendas, not on the law. Anyone who denies this is either an unskilled liar or a moron, in your case both.

Dan8267 says

Do you really think Scalia honestly believes that anally penetrating a man against his will simply over a traffic stop is what the founding fathers considered a "reasonable search"? Yet 5-4 the police can anally penetrate you, Strategist, or your son if they claim you ran a red light or were speeding.

Did you actually prove this? You showed that police will lie in order to do strip searches, but I don't see where you proved that it is legal for them to anally penetrate you for simply running a red light.

Those are two different situations.

tatupu70 says

You showed that police will lie in order to do strip searches, but I don't see where you proved that it is legal for them to anally penetrate you for simply running a red light.

Then you have not read the evidence. Read it. It refers to anal penetration. Particular read the parts that go like

In December 2012, two Texas women in yet another minor traffic stop were forced to submit to roadside body cavity searches. Claiming to smell marijuana, an officer searched the vagina and anus of both women with the same pair of latex gloves.

I can't dumb it down more for you. You just have to read. In fact, it's evident that you not only didn't read the evidence, you didn't even read the executive summary of the evidence.