TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Armiel Archive

View 2 posts and 182 comments by Armiel on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

So the judge ordered you to pay all legal fees before deciding on the merits of the case? IANAL but that sounds shady as hell and I would be shocked if it was legal.
/r/MensRights26/07/15 01:09 AM
1

That's exactly what I described. He was named the father by the woman and the government went after him for child support. The point of contention in that case is whether he was served or not. The government says they served him notice but he didn't appear at the court hearing. However, he says they never did because he happened to be in jail at the time. It was NOT that the mom named him father, hid it for two years, and then there was nothing he could do.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 06:27 PM
2

Paternity is only presumed if you're married to the woman. If women could name Bill Gates as the father, hide it for two years, sue for child support, and have there be nothing he could do about it then thousands of women would have already tried.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 07:42 PM
2

Except that's not true. Otherwise, famous athletes and actors would be paying child support to thousands of children. Generally, either her or the government will go after the alleged father for child support. At this point, he'll be served notice and has a certain period of time to dispute it.
/r/MensRights11/07/15 03:59 PM
3

That's not how it works. A woman can't just name anybody as a father once her kid reaches a certain age and have there be nothing he can do about it. If that was the case, famous actors and athletes would be paying child support to thousands of women. In reality, the mother will apply for government benefits or go after him directly for child support. He'll receive notice and it's at this point where he has a certain time period to dispute paternity.
/r/MensRights19/06/15 01:29 AM
32

I'm pretty sure a judge can order a paternity test if the alleged father disputes it.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 06:53 PM
4

I really hope the kid tells the doctors he doesn't want it done. Hopefully, they'd remember their Hippocratic oath and not do the operation. BTW: Does anyone else notice how suddenly "the best interests of the child" don't matter in this case?
/r/MensRights23/05/15 06:08 PM
5

Is it, though? If publishing someone's name and picture alone counts as doxxing, then the term is rendered meaningless. It's not like they're giving out his home address, phone number, passwords, or bank account information. Of course, this doesn't mean everyone should go on a witch hunt against this guy. It just means everyone is now aware he's a false accuser.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 06:02 PM
1

Not many states still do common law marriages and there are more requirements to them than "living together long term". You generally have to present yourself as married and do things like file joint tax returns and such.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 11:56 AM
47

It doesn't even look like they're married so he could literally just walk out. Why someone would stay in a relationship like that is beyond me.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 06:32 PM
9

I agree that naming the accuser as well is the best case scenario. But barring that, giving anonymity to the accused is better than the status quo. At least that way, they won't have their life and reputation completely ruined by an accusation.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 03:52 PM
53

Two brothers, ages 24 and 19, were arrested and criminally charged in connection with a rape that supposedly occurred on May 5, 2015. The brothers were named by the local news media; the woman who accused them of rape was not named. The practice of naming the accused but not the accuser needs to end. As it stands right now, an accuser can make whatever allegations they want completely secure in the fact that their name will never be released by the press, leaving their reputation intact. It's al…
/r/MensRights12/05/15 03:11 PM
8

Racism = Power + Prejudice. As a woman of color, the professor has no power and therefore can't be racist. -What SJWs will say (even though the professor has the power to fail white, male students)
/r/MensRights09/05/15 01:11 PM
9

Students criticizing college administrators = harassment that must be punished Professor tweeting racist/sexist comments = free speech War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength.
/r/MensRights09/05/15 01:08 PM
1

When you say something to the effect of "Here's a really funny story I heard in medical school" a reasonable person would take the story as a joke but not the claim that you were in med school so I'm somewhat skeptical. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt if you also didn't exaggerate everything else. You know, like delivering pizzas becomes "I was a professional driver". I'm always cynical whenever I see someone going around loudly proclaiming "as a insert profession, here's my opinion on the…
/r/MensRights08/05/15 03:49 PM
-1

The Streisand effect is irrelevant here. It is though. The facebook post has already been deleted and it will soon be forgotten. But if he sues it goes into the public record for everyone to see. If he lost his job, got arrested, or something like that I would definitely agree that he should sue. But as it stands right now, he has very little to gain from a suit. Actually, you would want this lawsuit very public both to radically demonstrate his own innocence, shame the offenders and make other …
/r/MensRights08/05/15 02:12 PM
1

How do you have the time to be a lawyer? When you've claimed to be attending medical school worked as a professional driver worked on an Air Force base and have a degree in finance all at the age of 29 Quit your bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 02:07 PM
2

I'm not sure how Australian law works but punitive damages are generally limited by statute or as a certain percentage of actual damages. As far as I can tell, the guy doesn't have any actual damages. A lawsuit in this case would be really expensive and time consuming for not a lot in return. The guy has standing to file but he'd only be doing it on principle.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 01:00 PM
–

Can you imagine if a man secretly injected his sperm into a woman, got her pregnant, and then sued for custody and child support when she gave birth?
/r/MensRights08/05/15 03:40 AM
4

Ever heard of the Streisand Effect? Plus, the guy hasn't suffered enough damages for it to be worth spending several years and thousands of dollars on a lawsuit.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 03:33 AM
10

You get the most expensive best lawyer you can afford. FTFY
/r/MensRights07/05/15 10:30 PM
2

You should definitely x-post this to /r/TumblrinAction. They'd get a kick out of it over there.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 12:56 PM
7

If they have evidence that someone is a rapist, why don't they go to the police? Seems it would be far more effective than this display.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 04:00 PM
-1

Obviously, this whole "freedom of speech" thing stands in the way of justice. /s
/r/MensRights29/04/15 02:32 PM
20

"If we use proof in rape cases we fall into the pattern of rape deniers" Emma Sulkowicz raped a 5 year old child in 2013. Asking for proof of this makes you a rape denier. /SJW logic
/r/MensRights27/04/15 12:40 PM
-5

There wouldn't have been a problem if he introduced the prenup a few weeks ahead of time and it only protected his premarital assets. But it sounds like he decided to be an asshole and give it to her at the 11th hour and it included unconscionable terms.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 01:32 PM
-2

In the last paragraph of the article the judge is quoted as saying "if there was no marriage she would have no job, no visa, no home, no community" So it sounds like she would get kicked out of the country if the wedding got cancelled. I think it qualifies as coercive to say "sign this contract heavily favoring me or get kicked out of the country."
/r/MensRights26/04/15 01:22 PM
-4

However if he pulled it on her days before the wedding that's unreasonable, yeah. That's the whole point. If he had given her a few weeks or months to review and the prenup didn't include any unconscionable terms, he would have been in the clear. But he decided to be an asshole and give it to her with less than a week before the wedding.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 01:03 PM
63

Did any of you criticizing the decision actually read the article? The prenup in question sounds highly illegal. The groom dropped it on his fiance just days before the wedding and threatened to call it off if she didn't sign. That is coercive under the law. Furthermore, it's described as very unfair and the woman's lawyer said "It's the worst contract I've ever seen." While this may just be hyperbole, I highly doubt she would call it this if it only protected pre-marital assets. Pre-marital ass…
/r/MensRights26/04/15 01:55 AM
30

Sulkowicz wrote: It's ridiculous that he would read it as a `bullying strategy,' especially given his continued public attempts to smear my reputation, when really it's just an artistic expression of the personal trauma I've experienced at Columbia. If artists are not allowed to make art that reflect on our experiences, then how are we to heal? What do you mean my actions have consequences!? I should be allowed to publicly defame someone without any repercussions!
/r/MensRights24/04/15 10:49 AM
8

Here's what I've said on the matter before: -AR 670-1 para 1-10e clearly states "Wearing a combination of civilian and military clothing is prohibited..." -AR 600-20 also states that wearing Army uniforms is prohibited "in connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interests... when participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations..." -AR 200-20 defines hazing as "Any conduct whereby a Servicemember or members regardless o…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 07:21 PM
16

I understand where you're coming from but let's face it, SJWs don't exactly vote Republican.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 06:50 PM
30

Soldiers aren't stupid. They'll see the new "gender neutral" standards for what they are; lowered standards just so women can pass the course and politicians can pat themselves on the back. Male service members will view these women with disdain since they didn't truly "earn" their blue cord or Ranger tab. Then when these women go into actual infantry units, things will get worse. They probably won't be able to keep up with their male counterparts during training exercises, ruck marches, etc. Th…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 02:36 PM
5

Late to the party but I feel I have to chime in. As a member of the military, this pisses me off for several reasons. -AR 670-1 para 1-10e clearly states "Wearing a combination of civilian and military clothing is prohibited..." -AR 200-20 defines hazing as "Any conduct whereby a Servicemember or members regardless of service, rank, or position, and without proper authority, recklessly or intentionally causes a Servicemember to suffer or be exposed to any activity that is cruel, abusive, humilia…
/r/MensRights21/04/15 02:19 PM
15

It depends on what's in it and if the spouse's signature is view as "coerced". For example, you can generally only protect pre-marital assets in a prenup. You also need to give them a reasonable amount of time to review the prenup before the marriage, ie- you can't present it to them the day before and say "sign this or the wedding's off".
/r/MensRights11/04/15 06:16 PM
14

I have a feeling if this were happening in Africa or the Middle East with a 4 year old girl, everyone up to the President would be calling the mother a hero. But I guess since they only want to cut off part of a boy's genitals, nobody gives a shit. The hypocrisy is sad.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 11:38 AM
29

I'm sure the victims' advocate with a gender studies degree they hire to investigate and judge these cases will be totally impartial. I don't see what you're worried about.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 05:40 PM
10

You guys just don't get it. Women are weak, fragile creatures who require safe spaces to shield themselves from even hearing opinions different from their own. What do you guys expect? Universities to treat men and women equally? That is such a horribly sexist view. Educate yourselves, shitlords! /s
/r/MensRights08/04/15 05:38 PM
1

"It should not be harder for a victim to prove that she was assaulted than it is for the person she's accusing to prove the assault didn't occur," explains Sokolow. It should not be harder to prove Brett Sokolow raped murdered a girl in 2009 than it is for Brett to prove he did not rape and murder a girl in 2009. Anything else is victim blaming. It makes it harder for a victim to prove that a male assaulted her. Silly me. I thought that was the entire point in having a burden of proof. Better to…
/r/MensRights31/03/15 02:30 PM
2

No, no, no. Rape = non-consensual sex + power. Since women don't have power in society, they're incapable of raping. For example, if Hillary Clinton forced a homeless man to have sex with her it wouldn't be rape since, as a woman, she has no social, economic, or political power. Educate yourself shitlord! /s
/r/MensRights31/03/15 11:33 AM
1

It was more about them trying to please OCR, who had just threatened to investigate them for not doing enough about sexual assault. When OCR says "jump", most colleges say "how high?" out of fear that they'll get their federal funding taken away.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 11:27 AM
8

TL;DR: The article details a case from Occidental College where a male student was railroaded through an extremely biased system to be found guilty of sexual assault. The problems with the case were: 1)The panel excluded exculpatory evidence for the accused, namely text messages from the accuser before and after the alleged assault indicating she consented. 2)The panel judging his guilt consisted entirely of women. 3)The 'advisor' he was allowed was from the dining staff. 4)The school found him …
/r/MensRights31/03/15 02:11 AM
9

Rape culture was actually first used to describe what happens in the prison system. Prison rape is not only tolerated but actively encouraged. People view it as part of the punishment; as if committing a crime means you deserve to be raped. But feminists couldn't have something be about men, so they co-opted the phrase.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 01:58 AM
3

That is fucking terrifying. Isn't it? I can't believe someone who made it through jury selection thought the facts of the specific case didn't matter. Just some vague appeal to the "greater good". Or in other words, "How dare the other jurors doubt the Holy Narrative!"
/r/MensRights28/03/15 10:39 PM
1

In the world of SJWs, you're not allowed to doubt the Holy Narrative. Women are always right and men are always wrong. If Pao had won, it would be proof that she was a victim of discrimination but if she lost it would be proof that society hates women and the jury voted against her because of it. You see the same thing with rape allegations. If a man is found guilty, he's a dirty rapist. If he's found not guilty, he's still a rapist but got away with it.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 10:35 PM
1

It'd be easier just to say "No, I can't find any cases where men are made to pay alimony just because they've dated a woman for long enough."
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:59 PM
0

You want to provide evidence to the contrary? Show me a news story where that actually happened.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:50 PM
0

That's not how court works. A judge isn't going to accept a self serving statement without evidence.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:41 PM
0

I see you didn't read the link. It's not as simple as "you were in a relationship with someone and lived with them for x years. Now you're common law married." The vast majority of states don't even recognize common law marriage. Further, you both have to present yourself to the world as married. So even if you're in a state that does common law marriages, you'd be in the clear as long as you don't present yourself as married.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:28 PM
1

Not exactly.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 07:08 PM
3

I actually wouldn't be so sure. She has a lot of dirty laundry and I wouldn't be surprised if she lost in the primaries. Even if she wins, the Republicans have a decent shot depending on who they nominate.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 03:55 PM
2

Get off your high horse there, buddy. We see plenty of this outside the US and especially in Europe. Feminists in Sweden tried to make it a crime to criticize feminism, for fuck's sake.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 04:59 PM
1

You know what's sad? That's not even feminist logic. True; it's not just feminists who use that type of logic but it's easier to say "feminist logic" than "the logic that feminists predominantly use".
/r/MensRights25/03/15 03:33 PM
3

Exactly. She might not have molested those 27 children but obviously something happened. Because completely false allegations don't exist, right?
/r/MensRights25/03/15 01:20 PM
7

“No evidence” of a rape Jessica Valenti being a child molester does not mean that a rape didn’t happen Jessica Valenti isn't a child molester. Wow, it's so easy to accuse people you don't like when evidence isn't a requirement. Thanks feminist logic!
/r/MensRights25/03/15 11:55 AM
2

Seriously. I'm not sure I could burn through that in a year even if I tried.
/r/MensRights25/03/15 11:40 AM
1

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Public universities must abide by it. Or do you think schools should be able to punish people for making statements to the media?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 03:29 PM
1

She didn't file a police report. If she did, she could be charged with a crime.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 03:24 PM
1

Codes of conduct still have to pass constitutional muster.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 02:13 PM
1

UVA is a public school bound by the constitution. That's also why students are entitled to due process during sexual assault hearings. Or are you opposed to that too?
/r/MensRights24/03/15 01:57 PM
1

True threats can get you arrested but defamation can only get you sued in civil court. False statements, unless made under oath, are not criminally punishable. See US v Alvarez: Permitting the government to decree this [false] speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Ou…
/r/MensRights24/03/15 12:41 PM
11

No no no. See if they admit this one accusation was false, then it must mean all accusations are false. That's how it works, right? /s
/r/MensRights24/03/15 12:32 PM
2

Pretty much. She'll probably say something along the lines of "It doesn't matter whether the article was true or not because it caused us to have a much needed conversation about rape on campus" as if that somehow justifies building policy on lies.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 12:31 PM
1

UVA is a public school and bound to the same First Amendment protections as any other government agency. So, no, they can't punish her for speech.
/r/MensRights24/03/15 02:31 AM
5

And?
/r/MensRights23/03/15 08:45 PM
9

That case literally has no relevance to this one. Why even bring it up?
/r/MensRights23/03/15 08:22 PM
6

IANAL but I would say they have a strong case against Rolling Stone. IIRC, the article didn't use terms like "alleged" and just presented Jackie's story pretty much verbatim. Furthermore, they didn't make any attempt to verify the story before publishing it. The fraternity also has provable damages such as vandalism and being forced out of their house to name a few.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 08:17 PM
3

Defamation covers both. Libel is defamation in print, ie- a newspaper artice while slander is spoken.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 07:53 PM
16

...the DA just might manage to find something to charge them with. The law is quite clear on when speech is no longer protected. See Brandenburg v Ohio. Any prosecutor who charged someone with a crime for clearly protected speech would see the case dismissed by the first judge it came across and would probably be referred to the bar association for reprimand. Edit: However, a person making such widespread false allegations would be open to a massive defamation lawsuit in civil court.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 07:25 PM
39

No charges, of course, for the woman who made the false claim... She never filed a police report so there's nothing she even could be charged with. What she did is completely protected by the Bill of Rights. However, Rolling Stone and possibly Jackie are open to civil liability for defamation and possibly other things.
/r/MensRights23/03/15 06:59 PM
2

Funny how they don't mandate other protections you get in civil court. Things like being represented by a lawyer, cross examination of witnesses, discovery, subpoenas, formal rules of evidence, and an impartial jury.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 02:14 PM
10

Anyone want to score this on the Tumblr Keyword Index? But what about disabled body-positive trans PoC other-kin!? What a fucking shitlord! Do you even intersectionality, brah? /s in case it wasn't obvious
/r/MensRights19/03/15 05:30 PM
14

/u/imbecile lives up to his name, I guess. Somebody says something you don't like? Well obviously physical violence is an appropriate response. /s
/r/MensRights18/03/15 07:49 PM
3

Honestly, I'm not so sure. It's a pretty modest bill. A similar one was recently passed in New Jersey. But we can only hope.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 08:54 PM
3

Some of the finger pointing is directed at Espinosa's attorney, J.W. Carver. Another attorney who filed for a new trial for Espinosa described the first trial with Carver as a "miscarriage of justice." "I was troubled by the lack of an aggressive defense at the trial level," he said. I would file a complaint with the bar association if his attorney was really that bad. You'd think the accuser's lack of credibility and the lack of any sort of physical evidence would be a defense attorney's wet dr…
/r/MensRights16/03/15 02:11 PM
1

There is absolutely no court in America that requires a defendant to prove their innocence. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most highly cherished principles in our legal system. Name me ONE court that flips the burden of proof.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 07:05 PM
8

Who has win a Title IX lawsuit? Not Chapel Hill, Occidental, Swarthmore, Oregon, USC... There was a recent settlement between Colorado-Boulder and a male student expelled without due process. There are also over 40 other similar cases making their way through court. Correct. A legally legitimate one. As I said in my other comment, the Supreme Court has ruled that students are entitled to due process, especially with extreme consequences such as expulsion. Making someone prove their innocence is …
/r/MensRights04/03/15 03:12 PM
30

The SCOTUS case of Goss v. Lopez (1975) established that students are entitled to basic due process rights. It stated that at minimum, students are to be "given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story." Furthermore, this case involved high school students and the penalty was only a 10 day suspension. Courts have consistently ruled that college students are ent…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 03:02 PM
1

Yes, I invented it. Hey, would you like to go to an exclusive day spa where I can tell you all about the Malaysian Prime Minister?
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:39 PM
14

This woman's views are absolutely horrible and insulting to women! But don't actually listen to what she has to say. Just take our word for it... What do you mean you still want to go? You rape apologist shitlord.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 01:22 AM
8

You mean to tell me that men get falsely accused? Surely, you can't be serious. /s
/r/MensRights04/03/15 01:13 AM
5

Think of it this way: when you say that feminists want black men to be punished without due process based solely on the word of a white woman, it's absolutely 100% true. People can dismiss analogies pretty easily, but if you go over the implications of the anti-due process movement (especially in a way that highlights racial injustices from past decades) suddenly people will understand why it's bad.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 08:59 PM
37

Time for a word swap My favorite is to add the word "black" in front of men and "white" in front of women. It's weird how many people realize how wrong it is when you frame it like that.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 03:37 PM
157

A woman who identified herself as a teaching assistant stood up and said she did not feel that the notion of innocent until proven guilty should apply to rape cases because it only helps protect the rights of the accused instead of the victim. Do these people not realize that innocent-until-proven-guilty is the very foundation of a fair justice system? How are people like this taken seriously? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 03:31 PM
–

The more mentions we get, the more visits, the more the lies about the MRM are exposed. That's actually how I found this subreddit. I saw it mentioned a few times talking about how horrible and sexist it was. Then I come here to see what all the fuss is about and it's actually quite reasonable.
/r/MensRights28/02/15 06:48 PM
3

Well it's obviously impossible for a woman to rape a man. /s
/r/MensRights28/02/15 02:43 AM
39

“There are aspects of the conference that are really positive, such as the workshop by Jaclyn Friedman. There have been aspects that have been really horrible,” Warner said. “It clearly wasn’t focused on survivors.” Apparently, any discussion of due process rights for the accused is "really horrible." Do they not understand that it's impossible to have fair proceedings while leaving half of the equation out of the picture? I suspect that some of them do and either don't care or think it's a good…
/r/MensRights27/02/15 03:17 PM
7

While I would never advocate making false allegations against anyone, I don't think I could avoid partaking in some massive schadenfreude if that happened.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:25 PM
7

They'll probably make a false rape allegation to get out of the bar exam.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:21 PM
8

Back when I was applying for law school, I actually got e-mails from a few schools talking about how much they believed in "social justice" and had clinics like "Justice for Women" and such. I noped out of those applications as fast as I could.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:19 PM
8

In future news, 28 Penn law students fail the bar exam.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 04:36 PM
5

The scary part is that a lot of states have elections for judgeships. No law degree required.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 04:34 PM
1

But if they go too far in the other direction, even more innocent people will suffer. I'd rather save them from having their lives turned upside down. Plus, the sooner we can remove the SJW mindset from universities, the better.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 08:56 PM
5

You want due process rights further eroded for at least the next four years? That doesn't seem like a very good idea in all honesty.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 06:37 PM
1

Honestly, they were probably "splitting the difference" as it were. They didn't want to appear weak on sexual assault to OCR and found him guilty. But they also didn't impose any real punishment hoping the guy wouldn't sue.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 04:27 PM
8

It sounds like all these Ivy League law schools don't know much about the law. /s In all seriousness, it's sad to see what are probably the best legal scholars in the country ignored when they defend basic human rights. I really hope the next presidential administration appoints people to run OCR who don't buy into the whole rape culture meme.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 04:10 PM
-2

I'm pretty sure this is meant to emulate Jon Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and, as /u/Demonspawn pointed out, mock feminists who call false rape allegations a learning experience.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 08:41 PM
18

Anyone who considers themselves a feminist but is in favor of benevolent sexism female privilege is ignorant or a hypocrite. FTFY
/r/MensRights19/02/15 03:16 PM
28

This is what happens when you believe in patriarchy, where women are an oppressed class and can never do wrong. Raped an 8 year old boy? He must have seduced you. Murdered your husband? He obviously deserved it. Killed your own children? Motherhood is tough.
/r/MensRights18/02/15 12:57 PM
0

Do you really think it's that easy to drop everything and move to a different country? Would you be able and willing to give up almost everything you own, leave your family and friends, quit your job, and then move to another country with little more than the clothes on your back?
/r/MensRights16/02/15 04:43 AM
4

Will people stop giving this stupid advice? If he flees the country, he will be abandoning his daughter and going AWOL because there's a possibility he may have to make an additional child support payment. Then he will never be able to re-enter the country without being arrested at the port of entry. I seriously can't think of worse advice.
/r/MensRights16/02/15 02:56 AM
3

It's not impossible to (successfully) sue a prosecutor, just very difficult. As I said, they tend to have qualified or outright immunity from civil suits regarding the performance of their duties. It usually takes Nifong levels of prosecutorial misconduct to successfully sue.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 01:28 PM
11

if the prosecution doesn't stop you can countersue I completely agree with the rest of your advice but this isn't true. You don't "countersue" a prosecutor. In fact, they're fairly difficult to sue at all since most states grant DAs qualified or total immunity from civil suits.
/r/MensRights11/02/15 01:02 PM
14

she had actually called my lawyer and told them on record that none of any of the charges against me were true. She tried telling the da but since its a dv case they are still trying to prosecute. If this is true, you should talk to your lawyer about filing a complaint against the prosecutor with the state bar association. Most, if not all, states require prosecutors to take any exculpatory evidence into consideration. If you have a recording or statement by the alleged victim recanting her stor…
/r/MensRights11/02/15 12:56 PM
2

Seriously. If we abuse the legal system to get our way, what makes us better than them?
/r/MensRights05/02/15 02:31 AM
11

If someone calling you a slut can count I'm pretty sure someone calling you a rapist can. And I'm sure you'll be more than happy to share which court case established this. Unless, of course, you're talking out of your ass.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 09:53 PM
15

Well you could claim sexual harassment because the university is endorsing a practise of sex discrimination against men that makes you feel uncomfortable enough to impact your education. Basically because you think this is calling men rapists. No. Supreme Court precedent is quite clear. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education defines sexual harassment in the educational context as targeted, discriminatory conduct “that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines …
/r/MensRights04/02/15 09:32 PM
1

I'm not familiar with German law; my comment only applies to the United States. Does Germany protect sperm donors from child support? If not, that's pretty fucked up.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 03:07 PM
1

I have not read of any cases where child support was ordered for an anonymous donation either. However there are tons of cases where a sperm donation has led to child support. There are "tons of cases" but you can't think of a single one? It's only a matter of time before someone figures out who an anonymous donor is and he ends up on the hook for support. Interesting. What makes you think judges will suddenly ignore decades of legal precedent and statutory law?
/r/MensRights04/02/15 03:50 AM
5

That is exactly what I'm referring to in category 1. By the way, the guy didn't actually have a legal document, ie- one drafted by a lawyer. If he had bothered to seek legal counsel he would not be in the mess he is. Seriously guys, this isn't that hard to understand. If you donate anonymously through a sperm bank, you will not be held liable for child support. The first time that happened, it would make national headlines and sperm banks would dry up overnight.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 03:41 AM
1

This is an example taken from the very article we are discussing. Had that man not married that woman, he'd be on the hook. This would fall into one of the two situation I described. As I said, I'm unaware of any case where an anonymous donor was later held liable for support. Women won't even buzz strangers into apartment buildings, what makes you think they'll prefer to admit a stranger's genetic material from a sperm bank into their uterii? If you're a guy and donate to a woman you know witho…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 10:08 PM
2

Here's my advice but IANAL so take it for what it's worth: Don't sign or agree to anything that says you're the father. If her or the government come after your for child support, get a lawyer and demand a paternity test. If you are the father, then you're SOL. Hopefully, your lawyer can get a fair child support amount that doesn't leave you homeless. Unlike some others here, I do not recommend fleeing the country. Especially if you ever want to re-enter the country again without immediately bei…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 09:51 PM
3

Sperm donors have been successfully sued for child support before. This is untrue. Anonymous sperm donors have never been held responsible for child support. And they never will or else sperm banks would go out of business overnight. You're thinking of 1 of 2 things: 1) Somebody giving sperm to a woman through Craigslist or similar informal means. If you do this, you're an idiot since the legal protection of anonymous donations aren't going to apply. 2) A couple uses artificial insemination to g…
/r/MensRights03/02/15 09:39 PM
10

That Daily Beast article is a damn fine piece of journalism. I think it's pretty convincing evidence that there is no rape culture on American campuses. Every fact contradicts the accuser's narrative and yet people still support her to the point where a sitting US Senator invites her to the State of the Union Address. Are you sure society shames and questions rape accusers? Because I'm not.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 04:45 PM
64

Just because a woman has made false rape accusations in the past doesn't mean she's lying now and bringing that up in court is far too prejudicial. But obviously every past accusation against a man no matter how baseless shows that he's a dirty rapist and the jury needs to hear it. /s
/r/MensRights02/02/15 05:04 PM
45

Honestly, I can't help but think there's some sort of cognitive dissonance going on with the way people view the campus rape hysteria. You'd think such an epidemic would call for a previously unseen response. There'd be calls for video surveillance on every corner, heavy police presence everywhere on campus, and banning opposite gender visitors in dorm rooms. Women would be dropping out of universities left and right. Parents would refuse to send their daughters to college. Yet we don't see any …
/r/MensRights29/01/15 10:10 PM
98

When you portray women like oversized children, don't be surprised when they start getting treated like oversized children.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 09:50 PM
13

If Dave is so worried about the wellbeing of the children, I'm sure he won't object to a proviso to make himself responsible for picking up the tab of those "hurt children". Call me crazy but I think his tune would change pretty quickly if he were on the hook for supporting a child that isn't his. I don't know why but I feel that he's a massive hypocrite that way.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 06:29 PM
42

Benevolent sexism at its finest. One could almost call it privilege.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 07:39 PM
–

Your problem is you're one of the pretentious people around here who thinks everyone else should do what you want to do, all while hiding under the guise of caring about the children's education... You're just pissed because of how it affects you directly. I think this is a pretty accurate description of the modern feminist movement. Does anybody notice how most feminist goals benefit middle-upper class white women while most of those feminists just so happen to be middle-upper class white women…
/r/MensRights27/01/15 04:00 PM
2

Oh, I agree. I find it incredible that even with a preponderance of the evidence standard, the inability to cross examine witnesses, being prohibited from having a lawyer represent him, and the deciding panel having a massive conflict of interest that the guy was still found innocent. It tells me that there was literally nothing to support the charges. Yet even with all that going for him, people still think he's guilty. Honestly, rape culture crusaders are insane. They only ever have one desire…
/r/MensRights22/01/15 04:34 PM
6

You forget there's a vast patriarchal conspiracy at work to make people value so-called "evidence" and "facts" over feelz. We need to Listen and Believe women when they tell their stories no matter what reality says happened. Obviously, Columbia and the District Attorney who declined to press charges didn't get the memo. /s
/r/MensRights22/01/15 12:38 PM
8

What a coincidence you bring this up. My fellow patriarchs at the Illuminati and I were just debating how to reduce the cost of enforcing our male privilege on the world. Some of us suggested practices such as taking up too much space on the subway or refusing to move aside for women on the street. I believe they've moved onto the test phase so we'll see how it plays out.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 05:00 PM
20

That's another reason why the wage gap makes literally no sense. If businesses could save over 20% of personnel costs by hiring women and get the exact same work, they'd only hire women. But you know what, I'm wrong. There's obviously a vast patriarchal conspiracy in business to pay men more for the same work even though it hurts their bottom line. That makes much more sense. /s
/r/MensRights21/01/15 03:25 PM
32

Yes, that would be the Equal Pay Act of 1963. You'd think if so many women were being paid less for the same work, we'd see thousands of lawsuits against employers for violating the law. It's not exactly difficult to prove either.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 01:47 PM
11

They should be viewed in the context of a study published last year by the Crown Prosecution Service, which showed that false accusations of rape are ‘very rare’. Rape is also 'very rare'. Therefore, we shouldn't do anything about it. Oh, wait...
/r/MensRights07/01/15 09:55 PM
5

I'm sure suing a well renowned Harvard Law professor will work out well for them. I foresee absolutely no way this could backfire.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 06:40 PM
3

I'm all for allowing women to go to special forces and other high intensity training programs...but if they're not held to the same standards as males, then we're engaging in political correctness, not training soldiers. In a perfect world, you'd be correct. However, let's think how this will actually play out: First, the Army has asked for female volunteers to be "advisers/observers" at Ranger School. They will be "qualified" by completing a six day course which they can only fail by dropping o…
/r/MensRights06/01/15 03:11 AM
1

Male soldier gets offended: Suck it up, Sergeant. This is the Army. Female soldier gets offended: Here's an ARCOM. You set the standard for professionalism by calling those people "asshats" online.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 02:51 PM
2

I think vandalism is a completely legitimate form of action when like, legitimate authority is corrupt. I think it was justified,” he said in an interview with The Times. "My hatred is justified." -every bigot ever Asked whether he believed the ends generally justified the means, he casually replied, “Sure.” He also said he is not opposed to “armed revolution” as a means to end what he termed “systemic oppression.” Asked whether he felt at all bad about attacking the wrong fraternity, he showed …
/r/MensRights23/12/14 03:56 PM
1

Well, obviously 99.9% of sexual assaults go unreported. 1/5 of college women get sexually assaulted so any deviation from that statistic is the fault of the patriarchy. /s
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:32 PM
2

This is just blasphemy laws by a different name.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 04:27 PM
8

The CDC is wading into the controversy because a handful of studies from Africa have shown that the relative risk of a man acquiring HIV from an infected female partner was halved if the man was circumcised. Halved is a relative term. For all we know, intact men could have a .4% chance of infection while cut men have a .2% chance. Such a difference would be negligible. Of course, this all ignores the fact that condom use is the most effective method for STD prevention. Further, why is it so impo…
/r/MensRights10/12/14 11:49 AM
3

I'm pretty sure it's slander if a reasonable person would assume the material referred to the plaintiff.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 12:36 AM
3

Rape culture originally referred to men's prisons, where rape was not only overlooked but actually encouraged as people thought of it as part of the punishment. But of course, feminists couldn't have male victims become the focus so they co-opted the term and made it about women. Of course, the facts don't support a rape culture against women in America but facts have never stopped feminists before.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 02:30 PM
9

If people actually stopped to think about it, they'd realize just how absurd the whole 1 in 5 statistic really is. What sort of rational person would truly believe that women on American college campuses are in as much danger of being raped as women in the Congo during war?
/r/MensRights09/12/14 01:58 PM
1

I noticed that comment as well. What the BJS actually says is that 2 out of 1,000 women were victims of sexual violence in 2010. This includes everything from verbal threats to forcible rape and includes both completed and attempted acts of those crimes. Even if we assume 90% aren't reported that's still only 2 out of 100, a far cry from the mystical 1 in 5. For that stat there would have to be a 99% under reporting figure. Which is completely absurd.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 01:54 PM
2

All a prosecutor would have to do for a conviction is weave a story along the lines of a)poor defenseless woman breaks up with evil man b)evil man posts revenge porn in relatiation c)only victim and evil man had access to the materials d)why would poor defenseless woman post them herself? e)therefore, evil man posted them. It'd be a pretty easy conviction and very difficult to defend against. Doubly so if the girl posted them using a proxy or something similar. Revenge porn is a terrible thing t…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 09:30 PM
1

Interesting. I've actually posted the statute below. It says "within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness". I'm not a doctor but I'd be quite curious to see what injury or illness takes 40 years to manifest.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 07:09 PM
3

Is the analogy here really that complicated? I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask since only an idiot would claim distributing sexually explicit pictures (that somebody consented to take and gave them to the offender) should be treated the same as raping somebody. Only an idiot would fail to see how criminalizing such behavior could run afoul of the First Amendment. And only fucking moron would fail to see how the government could abuse such power. So why is it hard to see that …
/r/MensRights03/12/14 07:01 PM
4

Even if it's not classified legally as sexual assault, I think... The law and the justice system do not care about your feelz or what you think should be a crime. It's specifically designed to immune to emotional appeals. It's violating to publish pictures of somebody's naked body without their consent, and it has definite sexual connotations that make it more than just defamation. Provide a compelling argument for why revenge porn should rise above the level of civil defamation torts and into t…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:26 PM
3

What point are you trying to make exactly? That forcing someone to have sex against their will is on the same level posting a picture on the internet? As I've said before, those who post revenge porn should be taken to civil court and made to pay reparations to their victims. I have yet to see a convicing legal argument for expanding the government's prosecutorial powers.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:13 PM
15

Good catch. I didn't remember her. But notice that even if Trevor killed her a)the player doesn't actually do it and b)it cuts to black so we don't see anything happen. Contrast this with the brutal torture scene and mass slaughter of thousands of nameless goons and cops.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 06:08 PM
19

The way it affects people who have their pictures posted is unique - its a form of sexual assault. Please cite the criminal statute that defines sexual assault in such a manner. Further, if it meets such a requirement why can't prosecutors use the already existing statute? The people who have these pictures posted essentially have their lives ruined That's why it should be a matter for civil court. They can sue the offending party for damages similar to defamation. Proof is very difficult in the…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 04:39 PM
1

I already posted that exception in my previous post. Here's the text of the law: "340.1. (a) In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse, …
/r/MensRights03/12/14 04:26 PM
51

True. It's ironic that she's stolen most of her game footage from Let's Play videos but couldn't find any with players killing the women. She had to actually play the game and do it herself. You'd think if players were so incentivized, she'd be able to find examples of it on youtube somewhere. Of course, it bears repeating the the option to do something in a video game doesn't mean players are encouraged to do that thing.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 02:44 PM
3

I really don't see how this is legal. The statue of limitations for personal injury is within two years of the incident or discovery of injury. Or in the case of minors, before you turn 26, ie-you have eight years after you turn 18 to file suit, or within 3 years of the discovery of abuse of a minor. California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 There any lawyers who can clear things up?
/r/MensRights03/12/14 02:37 PM
97

To my knowledge, there is not a single pre-scripted scene in the game featuring any playable character harming a woman. Actually, there is a mission where you chase a woman and try to retrieve a stolen film from her. At one point she run in front of a jet turbine and gets killed. This is the only time in the game where a woman dies. Further, you don't actually kill her nor does your character have the intention to do so. However, this is not what the video game puritans object to. They object to…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 02:24 PM
21

That would require cops and prosecutors to do their jobs. And if you wait until trial to present that evidence you've already racked up thousands in legal fees. Honestly it should be left to civil court. That way you can countersue them for framing you.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 01:24 PM
32

While I find revenge porn morally repugnant I don't think it should be a criminal offense, mainly for the reasons you posted above. It should be a matter for civil court.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 12:58 PM
2

This law is unconstitutionally broad and would likely get struck down if it ever passed. Specifically, where it says it's an act of rape if the accused "has represented he is someone he is not." Literally anything could be rape under this statute. Lied about your height or weight? Rape. Lied about your job? Rape. Said you would call the next day? Rape. There is literally no way for the average citizen to know what constitutes a crime under this law.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 09:44 PM
8

relevant user name.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 09:38 PM
2

because they are the Righteous and cannot sin. They assume they are safe. Very accurate point. This is actually a problem with the American criminal justice system in general. People keep wanting to give cops and prosecutors more power because they only go after criminals and I'm not one of those people. Next thing you know, you're doing 25 years for having too many pain medications.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 08:07 PM
2

Some highlights: Acquaintance rape mostly is unpunished... Citation needed. “Affirmative consent”, however, is not at all ambiguous." When asked what constituted consent under the new affirmative consent law, the politicians who wrote it said "Your guess is as good as mine." By having later consensual sex with the rapist, the victim can be seen as attempting to regularize her world... Are you really trying to say it's normal for rape victims to go back for seconds? Because I'm pretty sure rape v…
/r/MensRights18/11/14 04:41 PM
12

Seriously, how hard would it be to call this the "Children Count Act" and make the language of the bill gender neutral? Not at all would be my guess. These people are deliberately making this a gendered issue when there's no need for it. Chalk up another example of male disposibility I guess.
/r/MensRights18/11/14 04:15 PM
3

This is absolutely disgusting. I wonder if the court would still order the surgery if it was to remove some other part of his body. Can you imagine the outrage if they were talking about cutting off a kid's ears? But I guess if it's just part of his penis that's okay. /s
/r/MensRights18/11/14 11:52 AM
1

IANAL - but presumably, if he were expelled from school, he could be barred from the campus and charged with criminal trespassing if he returns. In other words, the only way to stop a rapist from victimizing your students is to call the police. Exactly what I said.
/r/MensRights16/11/14 12:46 AM
9

You know what I really don't get about people who insist on these university proceedings? If this guy is the horrible rapist they say he is, and has raped multiple women, then how will expelling him protect anyone? Do rapists think "I got kicked out of school so I better stop raping people now"? What exactly is stopping an expelled rapist from victimizing others or going after his victim again? Honestly, we all know the answer. These kangaroo courts aren't about justice or the safety of students…
/r/MensRights14/11/14 02:08 PM
8

The double standard is pretty clear. Women are treated like people in the criminal justice system while men are not. Women: These poor abused women shouldn't be subject to the harsh environment of prison. Think of their children growing up without their mother! Men: Throw him in jail for 15 years. Oh, he has a family relying on him? Well he should have thought of that before getting caught with an ounce of weed. Edit: I love one of the comments to the original article: "People think I’m joking w…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 01:48 PM
1

people decided to go to HuffPo for a criticism of the law rather than actually reading the text of the law itself. But... but... that requires me to form my own opinion! Please don't make me think /s
/r/MensRights06/11/14 06:15 PM
3

It's impossible with the current first-past-the-post system. I highly recommend watching CGP Grey's videos on elections. tl;dw is that first-past-the-post will inevitably lead to a two party system and third parties spoil elections.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 04:24 PM
7

They do, just in the opposite direction. SJWs love to use definitions of rape that require penetration, which artificially deflates the number of male victims. Conversely, it make female rapists extremely rare. If you include "made to penetrate" as rape, then the number of male and female victims becomes comparable.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 04:09 PM
8

Let's not turn this into a circle jerk. Just because some feminists use misleading statistics doesn't mean all women are bad at math.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 03:23 PM
9

You're right. I'm a horrible excuse for a human being. What was I thinking? /s In seriousness, people pushing any particular ideology use statistics when they're convenient and dismiss them when they're not. For example, some feminists have actually criticized universities for having 0 reported sexual assaults. Their reasoning? Well, 1-in-4 women are victimized on campus so you obviously have a massive under reporting problem. Of course, this is a classic example of begging the question.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 03:20 PM
31

Well I have been reading on 2X and other subs that apparently 100% of women (i.e. ALL women) have been sexually harassed and abused by men. As we all know, all rape starts with sexual harassment and abuse, ergo 100% of all women have experienced attempted rape. 100% eh? That's pretty easy when saying hello counts as sexual harassment and making eye contact counts as stare rape. Of course, if we were to use the legal definition of those things, the numbers come down significantly. According to th…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 02:12 PM
57

“We know that about one in three women in her lifetime will experience some form of sexual violence," she said I see we're up to 1 in 3 now. But that's what happens when you count everything down to attempted kissing as sexual assault. I wonder how long it will take them to claim 1/2 of all women are victims and we must therefore shred the Constitution.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 11:56 AM
1

Did Jon Stewart or a producer for the show ever say this or did you pull that explanation out of your ass? Because as far as I'm aware guests are promised their interview will not be taken out of context. And of course, you just repeated the very "but it's comedy" bullshit I refuted earlier.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 12:53 AM
3

Jon in particular puts on and take off the jester's hat when it suits him. He often does the "meet me at camera 3" shtick where he preaches his views to the audience. But then in the next scene, he'll make the excuse "It's just a comedy show. Don't take it seriously." It's entirely inconsistent. I think my biggest problem with him though is the prerecorded interview his reporters do. They're so heavily edited I'm shocked nobody has sued for defamation. Imagine a scenario as follows: A. Invite pr…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 06:34 PM
15

I'm calling you out Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I remember when your shows were insightful and funny. Now you're both mouthpieces for the Democratic Party. You used to make fun of everyone who did something stupid or corrupt regardless of political affiliation. Now you have one standard for conservatives/libertarians(look, this guy said something kinda stupid when you take it out of context) and one for liberals(to call out Obama it takes something like the IRS scandal and even then all you…
/r/MensRights30/10/14 10:56 AM
1

I don't know why feminists keep using this argument. Replace it with literally any other group and you'll see how bigoted it is. You say not all Muslims are terrorists? Imagine a bowl of M&Ms... You say not all blacks are gangbangers? Imagine a bowl of M&Ms...
/r/MensRights24/10/14 02:04 AM
1

Which law says that? As far as I know, the only thing that determines admissibility in college kangaroo courts hearings is the whims of the panel.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 10:55 AM
12

This is why it's dangerous to go down the slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll try to make exculpatory evidence inadmissible so that even if you have video proving it was consensual, a jury will ever see it.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 03:23 PM
10

Yeah, she wrote some article titled "What I learned as the Internet's most Hated Person" or something like that. I actually read it because I hate myself apparently. The tl;dr is she did the whole professional victim routine.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 07:48 PM
28

Remember when they had articles like "The 5 Most Badass Weapons in the Animal Kingdom" and stuff like that? Now they have stuff written by Zoe-Fucking-Quinn, for God's sake. How the mighty have fallen.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 06:34 PM
11

here’s the thing: no one is actually trying to take anything from you. You mean other than my rights to an education, due process, and freedom of speech? People with your mindset have set up kangaroo courts with predetermined outcomes to kick men out of colleges and universities and have protested speeches by men's groups going so far as to pull fire alarms and make death threats. That sickening feeling you have that your being robbed of basic human rights, there are people around you in your li…
/r/MensRights23/09/14 06:24 PM
3

Let's see now, assuming accusations = convictions... check lack of respect for due process... check assumption that the news wouldn't report something untrue... check inaccurate statistics that false accusations never happen... check Seems like an average feminist thread to me.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 01:08 PM
16

The truth is, none of us need feminism, on a personal level... women still have the need or desire to liberate themselves from the oppressive forces of capitalism. This right here is proof that feminism is not a human rights movement. It's a left-wing political movement with shiny window dressing.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 10:56 AM
4

Sexually assaulting a minor for "evidence" aside, is anyone else glad to see the Washington Post didn't name and shame the accused and actually covered the story in fairly objective way?
/r/MensRights09/07/14 10:42 PM
3

Has anybody noticed that nothing satisfies these people? Even if a male if found not guilty in a university hearing (based off preponderance of the evidence standard no less), it's because he "got away with it". God forbid some people could actually be innocent. Honestly, it's like the accusation alone means a man is guilty and any sort of trial or hearing is a mere formality.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 12:54 PM
1

It is entirely possible to be convicted on flimsy evidence. Except this is the flimsiest of flimsy evidence. Her word is literally the only evidence of his guilt. Furthermore, consider the following exculpatory evidence: she sent him flirty texts after the alleged assault, didn't bring it up to anyone for weeks let alone report it to the police, never showed physical or mental trauma after the fact, and there are no witness from the party to support her claims. A first year law student could rip…
/r/MensRights13/05/14 10:49 PM
8

It's possible the DA was overzealous and wanted to look "tough on crime" but his defense attorney must have been terrible if this is true. Any lawyer worth his salary would have gotten this thrown out before trial if the only evidence is her word AND the guy has flirty text messages from her after the fact. So while it's possible for OP's story to be real, I find it highly unlikely.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 02:54 PM
6

Good for you on not taking the cop's bait and talking to them without a lawyer. Hopefully, your lawyer should be able to get her friends' testimony thrown out since it's hearsay and the cops can't use the fact you invoked your Constitutional rights as evidence of guilt. So based on what you say, it's really just your word vs. her's. The DA will probably offer you a deal since it's a weak case but don't accept anything without talking to your lawyer first. Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so take my …
/r/MensRights10/05/14 02:25 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter