On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:56:38 GMT, "~krp~" 
wrote:

>
>"Fred Hall"  wrote in message
>news:cuavts$r$3{at}astroconsulting.databasix.com...
>>>>
>>>>> > you haven't defined 'shortly after fatherhood
>>>>> > was legally established':    NO Proof offered,
>>>>> > claim fails!   ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cute, Borgerson.  But you fail on at least two
>>>>> grounds; a lesser ground is that your complaint
>>>>> is with Aetna Smith, the writer of what you quoted,
>>>>> and the paper that published Smith's story NOT
>>>>> Andre (Duh) and a stronger ground is that at
>>>>> least the last four years of fraudulent conversion
>>>>> can be pursued (Duh again).
>>>>>
>>>>> Each C$ check the bi*ch cashes is a separate
>>>>> fraudulent act.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The court could award punitive damages against the mother, and the
>>>> court could cap the damages to back maintenace.
>>>
>>>In cases where it can be said that the mother "lied"
about the guy being
>>>the
>>>daddy - she should be made to pay him back every penny!
>
>> What about the back child support you didn't pay, KennyKakes?
>
>    hey DIPSHIT  I have never owed ANY child support, not back or otherwise.
>I got CUSTODY remember?? Huh LOSER?
>Can you remember from day to day KOOKLAH?
>
>

Have any proof of your k'lames?
--

Kenny Kakes Pangborn displaying his grasp of English:
Message-ID: 

"Shall we confine it to sentence made up of 3 words or less and monosyllable
 words to help you out? TYPICAL KOOKINMATE!"


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/8/05 10:38:52 PM ---