This is great entertainment. Thanks guys. I am not an attorney but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night.

quote:

Originally posted by indigoss:
The point here is the woman had no grounds to be in court in the first place. It has been proven via paternity test. But some here wish to defend the system rather than what is known to be right from wrong. So some here wish to overlook her wrong doing and fuck the innocent guy because the system states you can do so. She made the fraudulent claim and he simply didn't show up to refute it. Who should take the screwing here?

Often times people who work in "rules" based jobs get so entrenched in that system that they can't take a look around and realize that they are wrong. She got a judgment against him. So what. She lied and he's not the dad. Some here seem to be ok with him still paying. "Well but but but the rules say...."

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
If the defendant, after being served with the notice of a claim of paternity, chooses - and let's be clear that he did not contest it - to default and let the petitioner win based on her pleadings, no court will step in and excuse or condone the defendants failure to respond.

For those of you who think a terrible justice is being done, change the facts. Suppose you're sued for $1m and don't respond to the Summons and Complaint and the plaintiff takes your default.

You simply owe the money because you didn't contest the allegations against you. The fact the you decide to contest it with later discovered evidence that you could have produced at the inception of the case is a fault that lands squarely on you.

The simple and compelled result is that he tucked up by not answering and he agreed that he was the father by paying the judgment against him. He owes and a court won't excuse his purposeful ignorance to defend himself.

So, he's framed by decry. Is that it?

H&K-Guy

You are looking to exude his purposeful behavior. What if he decided to contest it after making 10 years of payments after his default is taken? The law provides no relief for the stupid and in this case he was stupid to his detriment. The law allows you to be stupid and won't squirm over it. He owes and that's that. Any other result is a perversion of law anywhere and in any courthouse in the nation.

Sometimes, you're 'perversion of law' is the perversion.

Slavery, alcohol possession, freedom of religion, The 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments had to be established, and have taken their turn at bat being one of your 'perversions'. This does not make them right.

H&K-Guy

On I have no idea how paternity and support payments from the state of Texas are intertwined with the constitution in this case.

He tucked up by not answering the lawsuit against him. He chose not to stand up, back then, and scream, "she's a slut and slept with everyone, including me. Swab me!". He didn't so shit. Just be honest with yourself and say he didn't do shit to defend himself.

He failure to answer wasn't because he knew he wasn't the father. Don't kid yourself that he was some sort of brainiac. He was an idiot of the highest order. You can disagree with the outcome but at least be honest about the facts and that he was a goober from the beginning.

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:

quote:

Originally posted by indigoss:
The point here is the woman had no grounds to be in court in the first place. It has been proven via paternity test. But some here wish to defend the system rather than what is known to be right from wrong. So some here wish to overlook her wrong doing and fuck the innocent guy because the system states you can do so. She made the fraudulent claim and he simply didn't show up to refute it. Who should take the screwing here?

Often times people who work in "rules" based jobs get so entrenched in that system that they can't take a look around and realize that they are wrong. She got a judgment against him. So what. She lied and he's not the dad. Some here seem to be ok with him still paying. "Well but but but the rules say...."

Good point.

Rules are rules. I follow a life of principles. There is a difference.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
To get to your simple conclusion you can't ignore simple facts that he de facto agreed with at the time. He didn't argue that he wasn't the father, thought he was the father and was making the payments. How does that change things.

Who knows. Maybe he didn't know the bitch was two-timing him. Or three-timing him, whatever.
Maybe he DID think he was the father.

Turns out he wasn't.
He shouldn't owe the bitch a dime.
As I see it, she owes him for all the support money he DID pay, but shouldn't have.

DNA has released people from prison that were falsely accused. In this case, the DNA results should absolve him of ANY and ALL responsibility in the matter IMMEDIATELY.

If the judge wants to yell at him for not responding to a summons, fine. Yell at him.

I feel for the poor sap, nothing is normally fair when it comes to child support and the court system.

quote:

Originally posted by mod29:

If the judge wants to yell at him for not responding to a summons, fine. Yell at him.

I thought we wanted judges to follow the law, not make it up according to what they think is right. This court is applying the law as it currently exists in Texas. As enacted by the state legislature.

If we are in favor of judicial restraint, this court did the right thing.

But tell me if we are in favor of judicial activism when it goes the way we think it ought to.

That is going to make it really hard to complain when some loose cannon court makes some ruling infringing on gun rights.

Just be good and follow the rules. It is not hard. I have to admire the patience of our legal experts here. No one has yet spoken to the issue of why we have laws and what you need to do to change them. There is a system in place.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Just be good and follow the rules. It is not hard. I have to admire the patience of our legal experts here. No one has yet spoken to the issue of why we have laws and what you need to do to change them. There is a system in place.

Laws and sausages, man. No one should be burdened with the gross knowledge of how they are made.

My heart goes out to those restrained by rules, with no forethought given to the principles the rules are supposed to be based on.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by mod29:

If the judge wants to yell at him for not responding to a summons, fine. Yell at him.

I thought we wanted judges to follow the law, not make it up according to what they think is right. This court is applying the law as it currently exists in Texas. As enacted by the state legislature.

You're right, of course. What was I thinking.
Burn the bastard at the stake.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Dead_Eye:
In theory, a woman could file this on each of the 10 guys she was banging at the time and even though only one could be the father, those who fail to respond would be in her debt and the court thinks that is justice? There were times in my life where I couldn't afford to hire a lawyer for something that has nothing to do with me.

Not true. Once one is judicially determined to be the father, the rest cannot be and would not be ordered to pay support. Only one father per child.

This demonstrates the danger of offering opinions on subjects you don't know much about.

I presented a theory that according to TX state law could put multiple guys on the hook because it doesn't require the defendant to be the biological father of the child. Is it possible for a woman to file multiple claims in multiple courts or states and how would the court system track and verify to ensure that only one "father" was being held accountable?

For the sake of discussion, let's say this woman did manipulate the system and won child support from this guy and the biological father in two different courts. What happens then?

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:

quote:

Originally posted by indigoss:
The point here is the woman had no grounds to be in court in the first place. It has been proven via paternity test. But some here wish to defend the system rather than what is known to be right from wrong. So some here wish to overlook her wrong doing and fuck the innocent guy because the system states you can do so. She made the fraudulent claim and he simply didn't show up to refute it. Who should take the screwing here?

Often times people who work in "rules" based jobs get so entrenched in that system that they can't take a look around and realize that they are wrong. She got a judgment against him. So what. She lied and he's not the dad. Some here seem to be ok with him still paying. "Well but but but the rules say...."

Good point.

Rules are rules. I follow a life of principles. There is a difference.

H&K-Guy

Then you should have no problem recognizing the principle that this is a matter of being responsible, taking respnsibility for your own acts and omissions.

Here the claim was made that this fellow was the father of a child. He was served with papers from the court stating the claim and inviting him to contest it, respond. He chose for whatever reason to ignore this.

It is somewhat like being responsible for the condition of your car. You are told the brakes are about to go, but you would rather spend the money doing something else, then something else, and quite a while later, you hit somebody when your brakes fail and seriously injure someone. It isn't exactly the same because we have become accustomed to the idea that it is the insurance company's problem and you probably won't be touched for any money.

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

My heart goes out to those restrained by rules, with no forethought given to the principles the rules are supposed to be based on.

H&K-Guy

You are giving no consideration to why there are deadlines, limitations periods, and why it is important for legal matters to have a time after which they become final.

It would be difficult or impossible to draft a principled exception for this fact pattern that wouldn't create chaos and massive uncertainty in other civil cases and create other injustices.

Again, this result came about because of very basic and fundamental principles of civil procedure. If they were monkeyed with to "cure" this problem, that would create other problems.

The old saying is that hard cases make bad law. When we change the law to avoid an unpleasant result in an unusual case, it often creates unintended consequences that create unpleasant results in a broad swath of more normal cases.

quote:

posted July 23, 2017 10:02 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by H&K-Guy:
quote:
Originally posted by EmpireState:
quote:
Originally posted by indigoss:
The point here is the woman had no grounds to be in court in the first place. It has been proven via paternity test. But some here wish to defend the system rather than what is known to be right from wrong. So some here wish to overlook her wrong doing and fuck the innocent guy because the system states you can do so. She made the fraudulent claim and he simply didn't show up to refute it. Who should take the screwing here?



Often times people who work in "rules" based jobs get so entrenched in that system that they can't take a look around and realize that they are wrong. She got a judgment against him. So what. She lied and he's not the dad. Some here seem to be ok with him still paying. "Well but but but the rules say...."


Good point.

Rules are rules. I follow a life of principles. There is a difference.

H&K-Guy


Then you should have no problem recognizing the principle that this is a matter of being responsible, taking respnsibility for your own acts and omissions.

Exactly, personal responsibility and ACCEPTING the consequences of our decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by mod29:


You're right, of course. What was I thinking.
Burn the bastard at the stake.

That would also be judicial activism. Try to actually respond to other's arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:

quote:

Originally posted by indigoss:
The point here is the woman had no grounds to be in court in the first place. It has been proven via paternity test. But some here wish to defend the system rather than what is known to be right from wrong. So some here wish to overlook her wrong doing and fuck the innocent guy because the system states you can do so. She made the fraudulent claim and he simply didn't show up to refute it. Who should take the screwing here?

Often times people who work in "rules" based jobs get so entrenched in that system that they can't take a look around and realize that they are wrong. She got a judgment against him. So what. She lied and he's not the dad. Some here seem to be ok with him still paying. "Well but but but the rules say...."

Good point.

Rules are rules. I follow a life of principles. There is a difference.

H&K-Guy

Then you should have no problem recognizing the principle that this is a matter of being responsible, taking respnsibility for your own acts and omissions.

Here the claim was made that this fellow was the father of a child. He was served with papers from the court stating the claim and inviting him to contest it, respond. He chose for whatever reason to ignore this.

It is somewhat like being responsible for the condition of your car. You are told the brakes are about to go, but you would rather spend the money doing something else, then something else, and quite a while later, you hit somebody when your brakes fail and seriously injure someone. It isn't exactly the same because we have become accustomed to the idea that it is the insurance company's problem and you probably won't be touched for any money.

J,

I have no problem with you and the many edutainment based posts you have offered us over the years.

Please accept my apology if my posts have been confusing.

The simple truth is that this thread has fractured into one group seeking justice for what is right and good. And, the other group wishing to extol the virtues of following the rules (i.e. law) to it's totality.

No argument is going to bring these people together. I find myself, seeing judicial proceedings from all over the world, as seeing a great flaw. The laws and those that administer them become a means to an end. The system (any system) propagates itself through the enforcement of laws (Rules), and damn the truth that would lead to true justice.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by Dead_Eye:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Dead_Eye:
In theory, a woman could file this on each of the 10 guys she was banging at the time and even though only one could be the father, those who fail to respond would be in her debt and the court thinks that is justice? There were times in my life where I couldn't afford to hire a lawyer for something that has nothing to do with me.

Not true. Once one is judicially determined to be the father, the rest cannot be and would not be ordered to pay support. Only one father per child.

This demonstrates the danger of offering opinions on subjects you don't know much about.

I presented a theory that according to TX state law could put multiple guys on the hook because it doesn't require the defendant to be the biological father of the child. Is it possible for a woman to file multiple claims in multiple courts or states and how would the court system track and verify to ensure that only one "father" was being held accountable?

For the sake of discussion, let's say this woman did manipulate the system and won child support from this guy and the biological father in two different courts. What happens then?

It is hard to imagine how that could happen. The Attorney General requires courts to submit information concerning all child support matters. The AG would soon detect that the same child had been found to have two different fathers. And the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics also requires courts to pass on similar information when parentage is adjudicated, and they would detect it as well.

Further, if the matters were filed in the same county, the district clerk would also find that it already had a case involving that child and send a new case to the same court that handled the first one.

A mother trying that scam would be detected quickly and sanctioned.

Such methods might work across state lines, for a short while. But you have to live in a state to file such a case in it, and not many would be so dedicated that they were willing to move for that purpose. And if you did, the person getting support would probably get paid through the new residence state's AG, and they would learn that the same kid was being paid support by two "fathers." I don't see it as being a genuine problem.

quote:

Originally posted by H&K-Guy:


J,

I have no problem with you and the many edutainment based posts you have offered us over the years.

Please accept my apology if my posts have been confusing.

The simple truth is that this thread has fractured into one group seeking justice for what is right and good. And, the other group wishing to extol the virtues of following the rules (i.e. law) to it's totality.

No argument is going to bring these people together. I find myself, seeing judicial proceedings from all over the world, as seeing a great flaw. The laws and those that administer them become a means to an end. The system (any system) propagates itself through the enforcement of laws (Rules), and damn the truth that would lead to true justice.

H&K-Guy

The simple truth, as you characterize it, is that there are people who recognize and accept responsibility like adults, and those who do not.

The rules aren't the problem. Had he done the responsible thing, and acted when he was invited to, he would be in the clear. Letting it go for all these years aggravates the situation immeasurably.

I suppose someone could persuade a legislator to offer a bill that would absolve a man from further liability and return to him all that he has paid after he failed to object originally and let it ride for 16 years. No matter how irresponsible you are, or have been, why should you suffer? The rules are responsible for your irresponsibility!

J,

I see what you are saying. Additionally, I have come to find deep respect for your positions, attitudes, and expression of thought on this board.

But alas, if only there was some means of quantifying just how much difference there is between men trained at law and those trained by life. I could try to explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. You see, for some, it is as vital as breath to understand what justice truly is. The following quote says it better than I:

“For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.” -Ziad K. Abdelnour

I hope those on my side of the fence don't bother those too much on your side of the fence. For us, what is true and just is simply undeniable.

As such, a man should never need be in fear of responsibility for behavior he had no part in.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
If the child isn't his, none of the rest should matter. That is does is a YUGE problem.

It's bullshit technicalities like this that make people hate and mistrust the system.

If it's not my child, I shouldn't be required to do shit, much less by a technicality.

It's morally and ethically wrong, no matter how it currently works, and needs to change.

These are not "bullshit technicalities." Those are the basic principles of notice and citation and the responsibility to answer promptly that underlie every single civil lawsuit in the United States. Those rights are strictly protected as important under principles of due process. These are a long way from technicalities.

This guy could have showed up years ago and gotten himself off this hook easily. He failed to live by some fairly simple and basic rules that apply in every single civil case, not technicalities.

Then the basic principles and notice and citation need updating, plain and simple, for they are flawed. A system that punishes the innocent as such is not a just system. It cannot be, and will never be.

Currently, it's one small but important example of a wonderful system in general that is also supremely flawed and in need of fixing in others, as it excessively punishes the innocent over procedural matters unrelated to the more important and more serious matter at hand, that in this case they couldn't possibly be more innocent of.

And - philosophically - it is bullshit, of the highest order. Fine the man for screwing up the procedure, hell - hold him in contempt for a long night in jail, but to hold him responsible for a thing he is unequivocally innocent of, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars or anything else beyond a slap equivalent to the "crime", is wrong in every conceivable way except technically. The punishment in no way, shape, form, or fashion fits the "crime".

None of which is an indictment on your profession or you, of course, but the flawed nuances of the framework within which it exists, and it - those extraordinarily out of proportion and obscene punishments - needs to change.

My opinion, however unpopular.

I advocate no judicial activism nor revolt, but instead a change to how it works.