In article ,
Society{at}feminism.is.invalid says...
>
> "Mark Borgerson"  wondered in message
> news:MPG.1c71d99b89b685399896c8{at}news.comcast.giganews.com...
> >
> > Andre Lieven reported...
> >>
> >> ( My comments in parentheses. )
> >>
> http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/10829009.htm
> >>
> >>     'Fathers' locked in legislative loophole
> >>     Men must support kids proved not to be theirs
> >>     By Aetna Smith
> >>     DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER
> >>
> >>     You have a relationship. You have a child.
> >>     You split up. The father pays child support.
>
> IOW, she makes a baby and wins a prize!
>
> Wow, there's a recipe for turning out sexually
> and reproductively irresponsible single women
> along with a batch of homewrecking women too.
>
> >> [...] Some of those men aren't the biological
> >> fathers of the kids they're supporting.
> >>
> >> [...]Armed with this new DNA information,
> >> both men stopped paying child support. Both
> >> went to court to get out of a legal obligation to
> >> make future payments. But both had to resume
> >> the payments. Florida law says they should have
> >> contested paternity shortly after fatherhood was
> >> legally established, not years later.
> >>
> >> ( So, does Florida law say that, if a criminal
> >> defrauder of money can hide it for the same
> >> amount of time, they can keep the loot and
> >> beat the rap ? Hardly ! )
> >
> > Florida does have a 4-year statute of limitations
> > on fraud.
>
> From the time of the fraudulent act or does the
> 4 year calendar start running upon the discovery
> of the fraud, Borgerson?
>
> > Since
>
> I take it you meant "because".
>
> > 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.
Could you cite the appropriate Florida code?
(or that of any other state...I am not a lawyer
and have no experience with fraud cases.)
>
> >> The men say they want to get the laws changed
> >> so a paternity order can be thrown out and child
> >> support may cease at any time if "fathers"
> >> find a 0-percent match through DNA testing. [...]
> >
> > Should this law abide by the same 4-year statute
> > of limitations on fraud?
>
> Interesting question, Borgerson.  Of course, 48
> separate counts (four years of monthly checks)
> of fraud could give a malicious moolah-chasing
> momma quite a long spell of serving as a negative
> example to other women.
>
> Still, one could argue that the proper limitation
> on prosecution and recovery would be that of
> kidnapping and ransom.  Most states have no
> limitation on kidnapping, Borgerson.
One could argue that.  Has anyone done so successfully?
>
> > Many single women have sex with enough different
> > men in a given month that the number is not one,
> > but should be finite and probably less than 10,
> > unless they are 'professionals'.  Do you then
> > ask for DNA samples from all the possible
> > candidates?
>
> Sure.  Why not?  With a statute of limitations
> on the number of candidates, of course.  ;-)

Does the statute of limitations get renewed with
each sexual encounter---as you say it does
with fraud?
>
> Oh, and the time Ms. Sprog-Whelper has to
> even make such claims should be limited to
> the minimum waiting period required by the
> state's laws for an adoption.
>
> >> But child advocates
>
> Correction: "Excuse makers for money-grubbing
> sprog-whelping women, including men who suffer
> cases of idiotic chivalry"
>
> >> such as Jack Levine of Tallahassee question
> >> whether the proposal is in the best interests
> >> of the child.
> >>
> >> ( Child *support* cash advocates, they meant... )
>
> Yup.  And wiping out a child's relationships to no
> more than "a money nexus"* with any former sex
> partner of the child's mother is in no way "the best
> interests of the child."  Sheesh.
>
>    *Note: Phrase from the Communist Manifesto,
>      1848 edition.
>
> >> "If a man finds out he may not be the father,
> >> he should be careful in his decision-making
> >> to not damage the child," said Levine, president
> >> of Advocacy Resources, a consulting group
> >> that works with private and civic groups that
> >> serve families.
>
> "Serve families" what?  Men to eat, of course!
>
> >> "I think there has to be a degree of selflessness
> >> when it comes to that decision. It should never
> >> just be viewed as an economic issue."
> >>
> >> ( OK, Jacko, why don't YOU put YOUR money
> >> where YOUR mouth is ?  YOU pay for any kids
> >> that are in danger of " damage "... Hypocritical
> >> bastard. )
> >
> > Do you KNOW that he isn't paying child support
> > for a child that is not his?
>
> Not necessary, Borgerson, because that remark
> of Andre's you're pouting about was a hypothetical.

Aha,  so he's only hypothetically hypocritical!
>
> > No Proof Offered, claim fails!
>
> Yes, you've failed again, Borgerson.  And any reasonable
> person may consider that were Jack Levine of "Advocacy
> Resources" being assessed C$ for a child that is not his
> that fact would have been asserted in this story.  I'll leave
> figuring out why that is a reasonable presumption to you
> as an excercise for the student, Borgerson.

Are child support orders part of the public record?
>
>
> >> [...]
> >> ( What, that those women don't know who
> >> they had sex with ? I don't want to view women
> >> as being that... DUMB. )
> >
> > So how do they pick the right guy out of 2, 3 or
> > a half dozen?
>
> "They" list 'em all when asked to name who might be
> the sperm source for their sprogs they use as begging
> bowls to plead their way onto the State's dole or
> into the leech's position on her sex partner's livelihood
> in the case of other C$ claims, Borgerson.  That would
> be the minimally honest thing for those women to do.
>
> Alas, tho', I must conclude that women are not only
> "that dumb" -- contrary to Andre's implied wish that
> women be better than they are -- but that dishonest,
> too.  (Sigh.)
>
> >> Since shortly after the test, Rhames and Miranda
> >> say, he's had little contact with the girl. The child,
> >> now a teenager, has received court-mandated
> >> therapy but refused to speak during sessions,
> >> Miranda said.
>
> I'd like to have heard of some "court-mandated therapy"
> in the State's gray-bar center for the woman whose
> avarice put the girl and that man through the heartbreak
> of a kidnapping-in-reverse.
>
> >> "She was his baby. He was so protective of her,"
> >> Miranda, 33, who was married last year and lives
> >> in Quincy, said recently. "From birth until 9 years
> >> old, he was her father. He's still her father. It's wrong.
>
> Being a "father" and being liable for C$ are two
> separate things.  Duh.  But some people can't
> figure that out.  Their desire to feed off a man
> overwhelms what little concern for justice that
> they have.  Sheesh.
>
> >> How can you raise this kid for nine years and
> >> then kick (her) to the curb like a stray dog?"
> >>
> >> ( Easy... )
> >
> > Lots of men knowingly care for children when they
> > are not the biological father.  Do you think it would
> > be easy for them to "kick (her) to the curb like
> > a stray dog?"
>
> Well, not so easy and "this kid" was not "kick(ed)
> to the curb like a stray dog".  There's no reason
> why the fatherhood emotional _relationship_
> cannot continue after the child $upport fraud
> ceases.  Those who can't see that are, IMO,
> blind to all but the "money nexus" as a basis
> for caring and humane relationships.
>
> One of the inhumane parts of the child $upport
> system is that it turns fatherhood into little more
> than a financial obligation.  Didn't you recently
> mention the bromide of "nobody washes a rented
> car", Borgerson?  If you've ever rented a car,
> Borgerson, did you keep up the payments AFTER
> the car was taken up by the rental firm or did
> you stop paying the 'car support'?

I don't know where you got that idea.  I've never
said anything about washing cars.  The only place
that bromide appears in any newsgroup, prior to
this post,  is in rec.arts.sf., where I've never
posted, unless by an inadvertent cross post.

BTW,  if you turn in your rented car 6 hours early,
you still pay for it, even after they start
washing it!   ;-)
>
> >> [...] Paula Roberts of the Center for Law and
> >> Social Policy in Washington, D.C., said paternity
> >> challenges, children born out of wedlock and
> >> infidelity in marriages say "terrible things" about
> >> the state of parenting.
> >>
> >> ( No, they say " terrible things " about the *honesty*
> >> of those women... )
>
> Yup.  But naming _women_ as the BAD sex is
> _verboten_ to those of what may be termed the
> We Always Take The Women's Side In Everything
> party or the _uebersex partei_.  (Of course I'm not
> telling you anything new there, Andre.)
>
> >> "We've divorced marriage, parenting and
> >> childbearing from each other," she said. "Instead
> >> of a cluster of events, we see them as separate
> >> events. That does not bode well for children."
> >>
> >> ( Nor do slag hos who *create* those situations... )
> >
> > 
>
> 
>
> You're so often autobiographical, Borgerson!
>
> > Hopefully  Florida will soon change their laws
> > to follow the good example of Georgia and
> > other states.
>
> At a minimum, yes.  I hope Florida sets a progressive
> example of doing more than saying "oops!" when its
> (so-called) child welfare apparatchiki discover they've
> been hoodwinked by "slag hos" into being agents of
> a fraud.  I want to see some prison time for those
> women who exploit children that way.

I hope they figure out how to release an equivalent
number of men, then.  I'd rather have the women working
and paying restitution than have about $22,000 dollars
a year in tax money go to feed and house these women.

Mark Borgerson


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/8/05 2:37:34 PM ---