TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BullsLawDan Archive

View 4 posts and 695 comments by BullsLawDan 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)
0

She not even been temporarily been hold. What for most cases for men would definitely be the case. False. This is not a bail eligible crime in NY. Nobody charged with this offense can be held in jail pretrial. Nobody. It has absolutely nothing to do with her gender. The judge literally does not have the power to put her in jail awaiting trial. So the op is right even if he does not know the legal justice system in depth we can already see corners being cut that would not have been the case if we…
/r/MensRights19/12/25 02:12 PM
1

She was released on an appearance ticket and ROR. That most likely means that she showed up and proved that she wasn't a flight risk (potentially). While I agree with you, that there have been some judges that have imprisoned men before trial, this usually occurs per judge. It's not up to the judge in NY These are non bail offenses. The judge literally does not have the power under any circumstances to hold someone accused of what she's accused of before conviction. None.
/r/MensRights19/12/25 02:05 PM
1

There's almost no doubt if the said crime were committed by a man he would have been doing time in prison already. Absolutely false. You're just absolutely and positively WRONG on this. If a man was accused of the same thing there is absolutely NO WAY he would be in prison by now. None. You need to chill out. You're just absolutely wrong and misinformed here.
/r/MensRights19/12/25 02:02 PM
2

Technically the judge can not give her bail if he feels she's at risk of doing this to someone else. Wrong. In NY dangerousness is not a consideration for pretrial detention. This is a non bail offense, the judge has no discretion or jurisdiction to hold her at all
/r/MensRights19/12/25 02:00 PM
2

Please refrain from asking a BAR member. Why do you folks always capitalize "bar" like that? It's not an acronym.
/r/MensRights12/10/19 09:38 PM
2

She won't but in almost all cases, you do need to be a lawyer to be a judge. The majority of Judges in the United States are not lawyers, numerically. Having looked her up I believe this particular one is. Judges are held to a higher standard but judicial misconduct rarely results in anything. True.
/r/MensRights05/09/19 04:25 PM
44

Disbarred, and she might not be a lawyer in the first place, and she won't.
/r/MensRights05/09/19 03:11 AM
14

Deprivation of civil rights under color of law. Federal Felony on the judges part. Better lawyer up fucker. The judge has complete immunity for her actions. Absolutely nothing will happen to the judge as a result of this case.
/r/MensRights05/09/19 03:11 AM
5

Thank you. A while ago when my wife and I were in counseling, she came out of a session saying that she was shocked by how lonely I was. Thank for you trying to shed some light on that.
/r/MensRights03/08/19 05:49 PM
1

If you don't think falsely accusing someone of rape is trashy, then I don't know what to tell you. No, I don't think it's "trashy" as the word is colloquially used. Wearing your thong above your pants like a whale tail is trashy. Shotgunning Coors light is trashy. Riding on a lawn chair in a rusty pickup is trashy. Trashy to most people refers to a style or way of doing things. Falsely accusing someone of sexual assault is just shitty and also illegal. If I posted nothing but pictures of dudes s…
/r/MensRights28/02/19 07:18 PM
8

But, seriously for a minute... What the hell does that post have to do with /r/trashy ???? The mod's sanctimonious attitude is stupid, but the post doesn't seem to fit the sub at all.
/r/MensRights28/02/19 01:34 PM
0

Pretty cool. Where is it? Err I guess where do you work?
/r/MensRights10/11/18 09:41 PM
2

They were called "Alternatives for Battered Women" until 2014. They're really trying. Trust me. I donate every year.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 09:40 PM
0

Who's acting like he's evil?
/r/MensRights21/10/18 10:29 PM
3

Well that billboard is going to get vandalized soon lol. NY is not the place you want to be talking about "Equality" It's been up for months. This organization used to be called "Alternatives for Battered Women." They changed their name three years ago and changed to a 100% gender neutral mission/vision. They were roundly praised for it and have no inclination to change back. I know to unsophisticated morons, "NY" only means Lower Manhattan, amd they can't conceive of NY being anything else, but…
/r/MensRights13/10/18 07:04 AM
5

The sign has been there for months. This organization changed their name three years ago to be entirely gender neutral and they were praised for it.
/r/MensRights13/10/18 07:02 AM
3

It's in Monroe County, NY. Over 500 miles from NYC.
/r/MensRights13/10/18 07:00 AM
11

New York I wanna have faith, but this place will be back to being a "Believe Women" center before the decades up. Ok, this is in Rochester. Rochester is (much) closer to Ohio or Michigan than NYC. City proper is run by Democrats but the surrounding suburbs and rural areas, where an agency like this counts on for donations, are conservative. Not that any of that matters, since they're not a political organization, but yeah... Bringing up "New York" like this is in some hipster Brooklyn neighborho…
/r/MensRights13/10/18 06:52 AM
372

This center is in Rochester, NY. Their message is consistently genderless across their entire site and group, firmly stating that abuse knows no gender. They even changed the name of the hallmark event "Walk a mile in her shoes" to "Walk a mile in MY shoes." In fact, they used to be called "Alternatives for Battered Women," but changed their name four years ago to be gender neutral. https://www.willowcenterny.org They accept tax-deductible donations online.
/r/MensRights12/10/18 11:30 PM
2

I was just trying to answer your "why" question. I don't think anyone took it as a definitive response.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 12:23 AM
2

You're right, the new crime is "sexual intercourse without consent," I misspoke there. And if this were so clearly defined as a crime in Montana law, and they are charging her for everything else reported, then why is this omitted? Prosecutor discretion? Police discretion? They just haven't charged it yet? This is a very fresh crime and we are going off one article. They most likely will charge the sex crimes but just haven't yet. There could be many reasons.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 08:22 PM
5

Sorry it's actually "intercourse". I misquoted.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 05:40 PM
5

Montana changed their laws. She will probably be charged with sexual assault without consent.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 05:12 PM
11

Why don’t they call it what it is. Rape. Because the law doesn't contain the word rape.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 05:00 PM
13

Montana revised their laws in 2017 to allow men to be victims. The crime is "sexual assault without consent." That's why the article cites it as such.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 04:59 PM
12

It shouldn't stick out. They're using the correct legal term. The law doesn't define "rape" in Montana.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 04:59 PM
4

sexual intercourse without consent God forbid we use the “R” word... They're not using the R word because they're discussing the statute. The statute doesn't contain the word rape. It's "sexual assault without consent"
/r/MensRights26/06/18 04:58 PM
1

"Rape in the United States is defined by the Department of Justice as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." The DOJ definition doesn't matter for criminal charges. All that matters is the state's legal definition.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 04:53 PM
14

It is a major victory. His personal case against the school is still pending. The part where the judge declared they violated his equal protection under the law is final (unless an appeal is submitted). The judge didn't declare that, though. The panel of judges (this is the Sixth Circuit) declared that the lower court was mistaken in dismissing his claim that the school violated his equal protection. John Doe merely survived a summary judgment motion here, thanks to the Court. He we still have t…
/r/MensRights02/06/18 05:51 PM
0

I'm not part of any brigade, nor do I condone such behavior. Hopefully that will save your sub of incels from getting banned. I don't mind allowing all viewpoints on Reddit. You are just pissed that you lost an argument to facts. Haha your boy can't even understand basic statistics, after his eighty five posts where he didn't post any. because I'll log off and go have a career, nice house, Sounds good. It is. You should try it.. log off and try to be less angry. Maybe you'll find some success. g…
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 05:32 PM
-3

Thanks. Why didn't you link him the statistics like 5 posts up? He linked shit articles, which was your opportunity to link scientific data. He is a SIMP to nth degree. You're hilarious. I'm not even mad at your situation, it's just sad. Because I'll log off and go have a career, nice house, great wife, beautiful kids, and you'll still be here trying to convince your brigading friends here how bad all of that is.
/r/MGTOW21/05/18 01:18 PM
1

Yet the accuser remains anonymous. The accuser does not remain anonymous in US trials. It's absolutely necessary to protect the defendant. Yes. Which is why you shouldn't throw them into pit of mob justice. If they're being tried in a court of law, that's the opposite of mob justice. This is in the UK and there the complainant has life long anonymity. They're a terrible nation, unfortunately. With a barely functioning legal system. In part because of nonsense like that. Yes we can: One more time…
/r/MensRights21/05/18 12:53 AM
1

So what's the solution? 1) Don't publish the accused until they're found guilty. That's a terrible idea. Our system would cease to function without free, open, and public trials. It's why they're guaranteed in the Constitution. It's absolutely necessary to protect the defendant. 2) Don't prioritize catching bad guys over protecting innocent guys. I don't know how you've determined that this is a problem, but I don't see how you make this a solution. What's the specific changes this entails? No, …
/r/MensRights20/05/18 01:02 AM
1

Which means secret. No. courts need to be fair and open,... I guess, he is arguing that it be a right but not a duty for the defendant to have a public trial. I am not entirely sure how it would work. Yeah, I've heard that argument before. The problem is we would instantly have government officials saying "no, no, the defendant wants his trial to be secret, we promise." There's no way to know a defendant genuinely wants a secret trial without having his identity and statement public to begin wit…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 05:36 PM
0

Not secret, just protecting the identity of people who haven't been convicted of rape. Which means secret. No. Courts need to be free and open, with a full, public, record of everything going on, including names of everyone involved. All of that needs to be public to ensure a fair process.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:40 PM
0

That's a terrible idea. Secret trials are the end of a republic.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:23 PM
1

The part I'm upset about is that somebody got their life potentially ruined because of a mere accusation. That shouldn't be possible. So what's the solution? He spent money on a lawyer. He lost time in his life dealing with this. Those are things we really can't avoid without cutting off people's access to justice. And the law is instrumental in making it possible. No, the law was, in fact, instrumental in making sure he's not punished for an unproven allegation. Despite it contradicting the mos…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:18 PM
6

Thank you. You got the legal standing of an often misunderstood concept correct.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:12 PM
8

If we’re to keep to the standard of a presumption of innocence, then him being found not guilty requires that the allegations against him are false. That's not correct, and not at all what the presumption of innocence requires.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:11 PM
11

All people are innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't make this a false allegation. It makes it an unproven one. There's a substantial difference.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:10 PM
22

Nope. The burden of proof is on the State in a criminal matter such as this one. There is no burden whatsover on the accuser, since the accuser is merely a witness (and therefore a source of evidence for the prosecution). There is also no legal presumption on the statements of the accuser, in terms of their treatment by the trier of fact. They are not presumed anything. The trier of fact (jury, in a jury trial, or judge, in a bench trial) is completely free to find any witness credible, or not c…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 04:05 PM
17

The burden of proof falls on the Accuser. That's how "innocent untill proven guilty" works. She is the accuser, she is automatically lying until she PROVES otherwise. Yeah, I'm a lawyer and you're just completely fucking wrong. Stop it.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 03:41 PM
3

They have a bot that removes anything nice about men.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 10:45 PM
4

... whoosh
/r/MensRights13/04/18 01:23 PM
6

Hey, I'll have you know that Marilyn Monroe was a size 47!!!!!!!!!1!!#!!!!!
/r/MensRights13/04/18 11:39 AM
3

To me, these kinds of stories are proof that the MRM is objectively right, Actually, these kinds of stories - that's to say, "fake ones," - are proof some people will upvote any nonsense that validates their worldview, no matter how dumb it sounds.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 10:23 PM
-5

Can't say it surprises me. A guy I knew had his wife run off with the kids when she found another man and he got hit for child support for a kid that was hers from a previous marriage. Family courts are insanely biased against men, and there are no support services for men. Yeah FYI OP is a phony. This is an obvious troll.
/r/MensRights29/03/18 10:10 PM
3

There is no way to eliminate the pregnancy risk entirely off PIV and the mitigating and harm-reduction practices such as contraception and abortion are inherently harmful, too. Wow. I'm sure my wife will be pleased when I apologise for harming her when I had a vasectomy. Kinda strange, though... I don't even remember her being there.
/r/MensRights18/03/18 09:45 PM
0

ROFL! You assert that not releasing the name of accused individuals wouldn't stop them being talked about in the media and social media. Or them summarily being disadvantaged in work. That's insane. Well, I'm amazed to learn you've just woken up from a year-long coma. Do you want the list of names of people who have been published in the media in the past 12 months for sexual misconduct who haven't even yet entered the court system?
/r/MensRights01/02/18 01:59 AM
0

There's nothing written into the law that biases toward one gender, as far as the statutory requirements I know of. I'm a US lawyer not UK. But I know in terms of the written statutes the UK has gender discrimination eliminated There's no evidence in this case that any of the minor discretionary issues were based on any bias. Any articles you linked about sentencing gap and other issues are irrelevant. She was already sentenced six months ago. Her sentence has not changed. Parole determinations …
/r/MensRights30/01/18 07:39 PM
0

This article is citing her release from prison to complete the remainder of her sentence via home.monitoring. Care to point out how many male acid attackers have been released for home monitoring? We are going around in circles because you don't know what you're talking about. Again most countries early release of this nature is based significantly on mathematical formulas: you get certain amount of time knocked off for days without a disciplinary violation, you get a certain amount off for crow…
/r/MensRights30/01/18 06:27 PM
-4

What evidence do you have that this release in this single case has anything to do with her gender? She's a woman. Gender Sentencing Disparity According to this study, police, prosecutors, and judges always found an excuse to let women off easier. They didn't just arbitrarily treat women leniently, they always excused it with some reason. Yes I've studied the issue academically. As I said, I've forgotten more things than most people know about the legal system. You're missing what I'm saying. Re…
/r/MensRights30/01/18 02:40 PM
1

I read your top level comment. It doesn't answer my question.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 12:58 PM
1

Sorry, but when it conveys to females being sentenced and early release, it's got everything to do with men's rights. Come on. Don't be as bad as the other side. What evidence do you have that this release in this single case has anything to do with her gender? Have you forgotten the gender sentencing disparity? I've forgotten more things about the court system than you've ever learned, assuredly, but that's not one of them. However, I'm telling you, that has nothing to do with her release timin…
/r/MensRights30/01/18 12:43 PM
5

Not really a men's rights issue. She's a teen and served her sentence according to the rules of the jurisdiction which permit early release under a combination of factors, which she met. Nothing to do with her gender. Edit: and I should say that I don't know the sentencing guidelines at trial for UK, but at least for America her original sentence would have been pretty severe for an 18 year old in this type of attack. No sign of gender bias here at all, even if we imagine that this story has any…
/r/MensRights30/01/18 11:15 AM
1

So what is your definition of "civil privacy" and how is it accomplished?
/r/MensRights30/01/18 03:48 AM
1

None of what you're saying would be fixed if we either made laws making the court process anonymous, or made laws barring publication of defendant's names. It would not solve the problem being brought up, and would make many other problems worse.
/r/MensRights30/01/18 03:23 AM
1

Because rape is not like other crimes, people are charged without evidence No one is charged without evidence. That's nonsensical. The DA doesn't go around randomly filing charges. for a crime that has an usually high rate of false acausations. Of course a better solution is not anonymity, but rules of evidence that force police to investigate all angles and prevent them from charging people without evidence. You dont need anonymity if you aren't charged, and if you aren't charged anyone who pub…
/r/MensRights30/01/18 03:09 AM
1

Just to be clear, do you feel the same sense of catastrophic eventuality when, say, a 17 year old minor's name is with-held, which we do routinely? Well in many states 17 year olds are tried as adults and their names are public. But going off of charging minors and keeping their names private: the distinction is that minors adjudicated as minors are not being charged with a criminal act. That's why their process can be treated differently.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 07:18 PM
66

It mostly has to do with how prosecutors get their jobs. District Attorneys are elected by people who want them to be tough on crime. They need to hire underlings who will carry out that mission. So they hire mostly attorneys who are moral crusaders and true believers in putting bad people away. That creates a culture of locking people up and of resisting anyone's release.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 03:04 PM
2

No law is going to stop that, though. It's about educating society about due process, not making gag laws that won't work.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 02:42 PM
0

FYI the names of victims/accusers are not anonymous in sex crimes. "FYI" This discussion is usually understood to refer to the press and such not publishing the identities of accusers/alleged victims, often as a matter of editorial policy, but occasionally due to laws against it (e.g., when the person is underage). I know what it's referring to. Such restrictions would be not only ineffective at preventing the "court of public opinion" but would also substantially harm justice in the courts. It …
/r/MensRights27/01/18 02:29 PM
-1

That may have been true in a different environment, but social media and instant news cycles changes things a bit. Now, the accused is tried immediately upon accusation in the court of public opinion, and any subsequent verdict is treated with extreme suspicion if it doesn't conform to the already established narrative. And secret courts does absolutely nothing to change this. Nothing. What is being suggested can't keep every victim or witness or Paula Jones from tweeting or talking. It would be…
/r/MensRights27/01/18 02:22 PM
1

Cool. I haven't cared what the UK is doing since 1776.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 02:13 PM
6

No you're wrong. This is to PROTECT the accused. It's the exact opposite of the traditional justification for secret courts. I understand the justification. The justification is 100% totally irrelevant to how it would be used by unethical actors. I have an idea. Let's change our government to have a more agrarian, egalitarian, society. Sound good? Congrats, you're in the Khmer Rouge and you're going along with policies that led to the deaths of more than a million Cambodians. What we say our jus…
/r/MensRights27/01/18 02:10 PM
1

If it's going to be argued that involvement in a sex crime investigation is so culturally overloaded that the accuser deserves the protection of anonymity, FYI the names of victims/accusers are not anonymous in sex crimes. then an equally strong (if not stronger) case can be made to protect the accused as well. Except the victim isn't faced with the system coming down on them, a prospect that means the accused benefits greatly from a public trial.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 02:48 AM
1

In today's "rush to judgement" environment, protecting the accused must be a priority to any society that values the ideals of justice and law. Keeping the accused secret does nothing to protect them and a great deal to harm them. Publicity is good for a trial, that's why our Founding Fathers required it.
/r/MensRights27/01/18 02:46 AM
11

No, absolutely not. The last bastion of fairness in the justice system is open courts with an observable, known, process. Secrecy should not be anywhere near our courts. The courts should be under a public microscope. Yes, publicity in court cases can be bad. But the worst publicity is nowhere near as bad as a system where the names aren't public. Thankfully our Founding Fathers knew that and put those requirements all over our Constitution. Edit: I see now this is a stickied post so it will lik…
/r/MensRights27/01/18 02:42 AM
1

Just like the fact that a person can be convicted of both robbery and manslaughter for the same actions. Robbery and manslaughter are the same action? No, they're not. No, but you can be convicted of both out of the same act. That's what I'm saying. Drunk driving was one action. And I faced two separate penalties for the same offense. That's double-jeopardy. Fairly simple. It's not, though. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. It's not double jeopardy because: Double jeopardy only applies t…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/01/18 02:10 AM
1

Free speech means you won't be imprisoned for your words. It doesn't mean there won't be social consequences for them. You really should delete this comment as you're giving people an incorrect impression of the law here.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/01/18 05:07 PM
1

That's not double jeopardy at all. First, neither of those actions was even "jeopardy" in the first place. Removing someone's driver's license is not a criminal action, it's an administrative procedure. Second, they're not retrials for the same offense. The Florida procedure was for violating the Florida statutes. The Michigan one was for violating Michigan law. Two separate offenses, because you violated 2 different laws. Just like the fact that a person can be convicted of both robbery and man…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/01/18 05:05 PM
1

Yes, exactly. You assumed I was escaping punishment. You've provided a great example of my point. I got a DUI in Florida while living in Florida with a Michigan DL. Florida suspended my driving privileges for 5 years. Michigan also revoked my license. Of course both States are reciprocal. Ok, and? What's the problem with that? That's not double jeopardy. If there wasn't reciprocity you'd be able to simply leave Florida and escape punishment. But it was all hand-waved away. Because safety is real…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/01/18 01:04 PM
1

You're placing far too little faith in the ability of judges to uphold the law. I'm a multiple Drunk Driver who was punished Retroactively by the State of Michigan, after getting a DUI and being punished in the State of Florida, which counts as Double Jeopardy. The fact that you weren't able to escape punishment by moving to another state isn't double jeopardy. In fact, I'm sure there was no second trial for the same offense, as Michigan courts wouldn't even have jurisdiction to retry a Florida …
/r/PussyPassDenied20/01/18 02:48 AM
1

That case is public domain, so I'd be interested to see it. Got a link? It didn't come to a court decision. Once the college realized their error (by discussing our letter with their attorney) they immediately realized how grossly mistaken they were to suspend the student and reinstated him (and offered him tutoring for the week of classes he missed). BTW I do agree it's open and shut, in principle, but Affirmative Action exists and it has been repeatedly struck down. Yet we have it. The Defenda…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/01/18 01:38 AM
7

So if you work for the DMV and use the same 4 letter word with a customer, you wouldn’t be fired? What does that have to do with this situation? Civics education in America is abysmal
/r/PussyPassDenied20/01/18 12:06 AM
-5

whether or not something is truly wrong doesn't have as much of an impact on the results of a court case as you may think Oh thanks for schooling me on court cases, anonymous redditor. I'll remember that when I go to work on Monday... as an attorney... specifically litigator. Too bad I didn't have this information a few months ago when I handled a case that was literally the same fact pattern as this.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/01/18 12:04 AM
0

She might not. Contrary to the article, we don't even know that the school expelled her. Given the swiftness of the response I suspect they didn't but that she left voluntarily. It wouldn't be a suit. It would likely be a 15 minute meeting with the lawyers for the University. The law on this is that clear cut.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 11:54 PM
1

No, she would win. Disciplining her for this would violate her freedom of speech per the First Amendment.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 10:07 PM
10

Also, good luck winning a lawsuit against UA in Alabama. The majority of lawyers, politicians, and public officials graduate from UA. So what? This is an open and shut case if they expelled her. They are absolutely wrong to punish her for this and have violated her Constitutional rights if they did.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 10:06 PM
5

The school also decided that they didn't want to be a part of furthering her education. As before, she can still join another school and further her education if she so chooses. I also fully agree with that decision of the school's. You have a right to agree with it, but you should be aware it's illegal.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 10:04 PM
4

To be more specific, their are legal arguments that can be made as to damages done to the school (especially monetary damages), They can, but they'd be totally wrong. I would say that would be a borderline frivolous argument in court. or interference on the rights of others in the school, Who's rights? What rights? No one has a right to not hear a naughty word. Just off the top of my head, you could say that it was not the content of her speech, but that she used social media platforms inappropr…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 10:00 PM
27

It’s not a first amendment issue, it’s an honor code issue. Pretty sure UA, like most colleges, make their students sign one which prohibits behavior like this. U of A is a public college. Their honor code can't supersede the First Amendment any more than your local government could pass a law outlawing four-letter words. So, no. You're wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 09:52 PM
20

The University would be absolutely in the wrong to expel her. Serious question: according to who? You? Some random moron on /r/incels version two? According to the Supreme Court in many cases, including most notably Papish v. Board of Curators. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/667/case.html In that case, a student was expelled for distributing obscene fliers on campus. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student. They quoted Healy v. James, an earlier opinion, saying "preceden…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 07:02 PM
17

Where in the policy did it limit her speech? That's the part of your argument that's missing. Huh? The part where they expelled her for her speech. Expelling her for her speech violated her rights. If the school used the code of conduct to justify that, the code of conduct as applied violates the Constitution.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 05:30 PM
5

You're applying a view of the First Amendment that hasn't been valid since the Reconstruction.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 05:18 PM
21

She broke the student conduct policies. The university has every right to remove her for that. They aren't suppressing her right to shout racist garbage. The student conduct policy of a public university, insofar as it limits a student's freedom of speech under the First Amendment, is void. I understand the feeling to want her punished but the University absolutely violates the law to expel her.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 05:17 PM
17

Free speech means you won't be imprisoned for your words. It doesn't mean there won't be social consequences for them. Ok but this isn't a social consequence. The University would be absolutely in the wrong to expel her.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 05:15 PM
45

I get why her private sorority kicked her out but I don't really understand how a public university can legally expel someone for using offensive speech. Even stupid racist speech is protected by the first amendment. They can't. If they really did expel her, she should speak to a lawyer because it's an open and shut case. They are clearly and absolutely in the wrong.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/18 05:15 PM
1

There is no scientific support for his claims. None. I'm not saying there is or there is not scientific support for the claims in his memo. I'm saying for purposes of his lawsuit, it doesn't matter. The scientific veracity of the underlying research in his memo will not be a significant issue in the case.
/r/MensRights10/01/18 03:49 PM
1

He was sacked for sending that pile of pseudo-scientific lies around to the entire company. Ok, and? Regardless of the scientific support for his underlying claims, he was fired for his personal and political beliefs. Google has all but confirmed that. Regardless of any other claims, this one is absolutely central to both his case and the associated PR battle. When you say "this one," are you referring to the scientific support (or lack thereof) for his memo? Because as I said whether his memo i…
/r/MensRights10/01/18 02:55 PM
8

Political affiliation is not a protected class. Try again. This lawsuit was filed in California, where political affiliation is, in fact, a protected class.
/r/MensRights10/01/18 02:05 AM
2

I would bet against it. This guy's "memo" was pseudo-scientific lies. The defence will be able to line up no end of expert scientific witnesses who will to it being utter nonsense. That's really tangential to his suit. He doesn't have to prove the claims in his memo to prove the suit (and disproving them wouldn't win it for Google).
/r/MensRights10/01/18 02:02 AM
1

The law firm here is a smaller firm but a very prominent named partner (a woman who basically ran the California GOP and was considered for the Trump admin). I would say they're probably working on some kind of special fee arrangements. Also, they're seeking to make it a class action. We'll see if it gets there. If it does, it might get removed to federal court for diversity jurisdiction. Unclear how plaintiffs would fare there.
/r/MensRights10/01/18 02:00 AM
5

Anecdotal. It's also the state that set OJ free despite overwhelming evidence of guilt (admittedly also anecdotal). You'll notice the difference between criminal and civil trials. On requires unanimity and one does not. I'd be surprised if there's a jury trial (if it goes that far).
/r/MensRights10/01/18 01:47 AM
9

It's too bad, the article took a great idea - reducing incarceration rates and increasing alternatives to prison - and messed it up by feeding it through the meat grinder of feminism.
/r/MensRights24/12/17 03:43 PM
1

I feel like dads are making a comeback. I see more men being more involved in children's lives.
/r/MensRights22/12/17 10:12 PM
3

Because it's likely the person making these decisions is a man.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 05:25 AM
0

Wrong. Stop being the kind of person that cites other people’s comments. It’s petty. Do you have a short term memory loss? You told me to show you the comments in question. So you think rape victims and minors should have their names publicized also then, huh? Rape victims already do have their name published. There's no law against that in the United States. And yes I think that openness, where witnesses are named ahead of time, definitely benefits the process. The prosecution should not be all…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 10:21 PM
3

For sure. Like I said, I would never say not to hire women. That's asking for trouble, ESPECIALLY if such a thing were put in policy. I'm just saying I can understand that HR people and managers, who are already risk-averse, might be thinking that the "strong woman" sitting in an interview is a problem waiting to happen. I feel bad about this whole situation. It's really going to mess up relations among the sexes both personally and professionally for years to come.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 10:07 PM
19

I'm in the business of exploring risk and what comes when risks are ignored or result badly. While I would never recommend excluding women from the workplace... Yeah. These people have a point. When single accusations of a bad touch or unwelcome flirt decades ago are bringing down empires... I don't agree with the sentiment, but I understand.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 06:53 PM
1

I'm in the business of exploring risk and what comes when risks are ignored or result badly. While I would never recommend excluding women from the workplace... Yeah. These people have a point. When single accusations of a bad touch or unwelcome flirt decades ago are bringing down empires... I don't agree with the sentiment, but I understand.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 06:53 PM
1

No one said anything about things being secret. All linked comments say they agree with the guy in the article, in that names of the accuse should be kept secret/confidential. I don’t think a party to either side of a rape trial should have their name publicized. I’m not asking for a secret tribunal. You're making a distinction without a difference. By not having their name published, it becomes a secret tribunal, as the public can no longer know whether due process is being properly granted. Al…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 06:50 PM
1

I guess you're blind then? Or illiterate? https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7kl44k/uk_innocent_student_wrongly_accused_of_rape_calls/drf60yy https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7kl44k/uk_innocent_student_wrongly_accused_of_rape_calls/drfml41 https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7kl44k/uk_innocent_student_wrongly_accused_of_rape_calls/drf9axs To top it off, your initial comment in this thread is asking why trials and judicial process isn't already secret / anonymous, a…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 03:07 PM
5

Look at the bottom, seems to be the metropolitan police have their branding on this, the website link is also an official site. Cool, so the police are sponsoring a gender-neutral program to help people who might need help in a relationship situation. Also, it's inevitable police are going to be sent on over to solve these sorts of petty disputes. I don't see that it's inevitable at all.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:32 PM
2

Where does it say the police will be involved? I think you need to read the sign again.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:23 PM
5

Believe all women unless the person being accused of anything is a woman.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:21 PM
1

They already can have a private trial though, but its only if they think publicity would hurt his right to a fair trial. And that's pretty unrelated to this circumstance anyway. Not in the United States. There are extremely limited circumstances where a court would be closed. Publicity isn't one of them. Why wouldn't you be able to just request that your name is not released though? Assuming you have the ability to contact someone I guess Because that's ripe for abuse. Allowing people to choose …
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:09 PM
1

Uh, do you need me to link to quotes in this thread? Literally the top comment is calling for secret trials.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:00 PM
1

You can still bring witnesses in who are anonymous to the jury but not the lawyers or judge. Yes, but discovering witnesses many times relies on a public process. Many court cases have been altered by witnesses who have come forward only based on media attention, and who were unknown to the parties previously. I've personally had it happen in my cases. I may need some clarification on the third point as I don't see the thought process there. It's important to have processes of the court be open …
/r/MensRights19/12/17 02:02 AM
1

The sixth amendment says you have the right to a public trial not that it's mandatory. The fact that we have the right to it necessarily makes it mandatory, since we can't monitor whether the right is preserved without making it public. It would also violate the First Amendment, the habeus corpus clause, and other provisions. In short, it's required by the Constitution.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:57 AM
-1

No one said that. LOTS of people here are saying that it would be a good idea to make trials secret/confidential.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:54 AM
1

I understand what youre saying, you are just wrong. I'm not though. Person is secretly arrested. The government tells us they have chosen to keep their court process a secret/confidential. HOW DO WE KNOW they really said that? You tell me.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:53 AM
-1

Except the trial by media can literally ruin peoples lives. Being dragged through the mud over a false accusation sucks. No doubt. But it is a far, far, far, less/smaller evil than the evil that results from allowing a government to take people into custody without having to publicly and openly justify why they have done so. See: The USSR gulags. North Korean labor camps. And so on. The media doesnt care if you're innocent or guilty. They just want ratings. And they will happily destroy an innoc…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:38 AM
1

The Sixth Amendment, the First Amendment, and the Habeus Corpus clause. And it is absolutely necessary for law enforcement to release the names right upon arrest. That prevents the person from being held indefinitely without due process. If the public knows that "John Smith" was arrested Monday, they will expect that he will be in court by Tuesday for arraignment. If he isn't, the public can say, "Hey, cops, where's John Smith? Produce him to the court and let's see if there's enough evidence to…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:22 AM
1

It allows witnesses to come forward. It allows defendants to be known and prevents them from being held indefinitely or without due process. It shines a light on the processes and accusations. It allows the public to examine the workings of the police and prosecutors and judge them for misdeeds. About a million other things, too, which is why the right to a public court process was firmly ensconced in our Bill of Rights, by gentlemen much wiser than I.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:18 AM
1

No, I'm saying people who think it would be Constitutional to make trials secret/confidential are objectively wrong. And anyone who thinks it's a good idea has obviously never really examined the US justice system in action.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:16 AM
1

The worst possible thing for our justice system would be to make any aspect of it private. "I've been dragged through the mud over a false accusation" is not even 1/100000th of how bad the government could make your life if any part of the justice system was secret. False accusations suck. They are fortunately relatively uncommon. The media and public do a terrible disservice to those involved to repeat or assume anything from them. But we have to understand it is far, far, far, worse, to allow …
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:14 AM
1

Because the defendant has that right. If you don't trust the system to grant the defendant that law, then there's no reason to trust the system to put the defendant through any sort of public court system. The public nature of the court system is what ensures that defendants get their rights. If defendants' cases are private by default unless the defendant agrees to make their case public, we have no way of policing whether the system is working, or even whether they agreed to keep it private. T…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 01:11 AM
1

Like I said, other than that I agree 100% with what you're saying, as a lawyer. This push for secret trials and arrests with no public record is super fucking scary and the fact that it gets traction here is shameful for the entire movement. Can dickheads judge you based on a false accusation? Yes. Is that far less scary than a government that can secretly arrest and detain people? Fuck yes.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 12:12 AM
1

Well I'm talking about in the United States. I'm not a lawyer in UK.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:59 PM
1

The accuser is kept anonymous. No they're not. Anyone can find out their name in pretty much any criminal case.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:31 PM
2

It's not a Constitutional provision -- it's a Constitutional prophylaxis, like Miranda. What? It's absolutely a Constitutional provision. Sixth Amendment. Other than that I totally agree with what you said.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:30 PM
1

What the advocates in this thread want is for Cosby's indictment, arrest and trial to all be private unless he was found guilty. How exactly would that be unconstitutional? It would violate the Sixth Amendment (in the United States).
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:29 PM
1

How is that anything other than a good thing? How are secret court proceedings not a good thing? They're not. Defendants depend on their processes being public for a big part of making sure their rights are protected.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:28 PM
1

No. The person I was replying to was wondering how keeping the defendant anonymous/secret charges was not already a law.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:27 PM
1

I clear it up later on. A dude from Florida who lives in my APT complex told me this one day out in the smoking Gazeb. Always a great source of legal advice. ;)
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:13 PM
1

Well, I'm an attorney, and in my spare time I teach Constitutional law at the college level. And in my spare, spare, time, I teach civics to young men, for free. But I'm sure you know far better than I. What, exactly, am I lying about?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:10 PM
2

Because, at least as it relates to criminal defendants, having the names involved be public protects the defendant. Then allow the defendant to make that choice. That's not a wise idea, either. If the defendant isn't public, how do we know the defendant chose to remain private? See the problem? No, a better solution is to advocate to make sure people understand that innocent until proven guilty means something. Just like we've advocated for other cultural changes. I disagree for the simple reaso…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:07 PM
-1

Fun fact: the UK is not bound by Constitution of United States. Well, yeah, they're not perfect.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:00 PM
1

Errr you know in Florida the papers can't publish your name hence the whole Florida man thing. So you really think that anyone accused of rape should have their name plastered all of the news and social media. Omg... Why is anyone up voting this? This is completely fucking wrong.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:58 PM
1

Interfering with the press is peobably overall making things worse. We mustnt ban the publication of anything. Why should the media be allowed to publish absolutely anything? Because, at least as it relates to criminal defendants, having the names involved be public protects the defendant. I think the only solution is for media to decide themselves to not publishing accusations. Which they wont, as they wont be able to compete with the media which doesn't give a fuck about those ethics. No, a be…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:56 PM
-1

Which is a secret trial. It is important to have defendants named. Naming defendants is important for their defense.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:53 PM
4

I said this in the other thread currently going on, but repeated here. This is a terrible idea. Trials being public is way better for the defendant than trials being private or secret. Not to mention in the USA this would be unconstitutional. Thankfully.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:47 PM
1

Drinking/driving isn't an inherent part of human nature. I'm not saying there's an easy solution, but conflating human psychological behaviour with banning intoxicated driving or smoking cigarettes is just stupid. Huh? Those two things, like gossiping about people who are innocent until proven guilty, were parts of our culture. We changed them. I'm just saying that culture can be changed.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:44 PM
1

Its not about holding secret trials. Its about not releasing their name until the trial which isn't unconstituational No, keeping their name hidden until the day of the trial in chief would absolutely be unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:09 PM
1

In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. But minors who are charged as juveniles are actually not subject to criminal charges. That's the difference in juvenile court. If a minor is charged as an adult the charges are public because they could face adult sanctions. So your comment is partially true, but not really responsive to mine. Since minors don't face actual criminal trials, the fact that their names are sometimes withheld does not really bear on what im saying.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:41 PM
0

It's the lesser of two evils. And we have changed people regarding things like this. Why is drinking and driving socially unacceptable? Or smoking?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:43 PM
3

In the United States, they don't have anonymity to either.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 05:53 PM
-117

Because it would be unconstitutional, and is a terrible fucking idea. Thank God it's not a law. Edit: Sorry downvoters, this is one of the rare times I'm comfortable saying your opinion is just plain wrong. Public trials are crucial to a defendant's rights. Try being an actual professional in the system for one day, you'll see.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 05:48 PM
6

No, the trouble would be in having secret trials, which are ripe for abuse.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 05:47 PM
-9

Terrible idea. If this guy's trial was secret he'd be convicted. As would many other innocent people.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 05:46 PM
48

We should consider some changes, but secret trials are an absolutely terrible idea.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 05:45 PM
-10

Honestly I agree. The world today brigades first, asks questions later. So fix that instead of allowing the government to hold secret trials (which would require a Constitutional Amendment and is a terrible idea).
/r/MensRights18/12/17 05:44 PM
-23

Terrible idea. Defendants in the United States are guaranteed a public trial for a very good reason, along with freedom of the press. The last thing we want is more secrecy surrounding charges of sexual assault.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 05:43 PM
0

Imagine if you will. A couple uses a surrogate mother. A few years later that surrogate wins the lottery and the couple sues for CHILD support, now imagine the legal gymnastics that the judges would do to ensure the surrogate doesn't pay CS. Wouldn't be any gymnastics at all. The surrogate isn't the child's legal parent, the end. The problem in this case was that the child only had 1 legal parent. When the legal parent applied for public benefits, the state attempted to collect from parent #2, a…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 05:29 PM
1

That's not what happens at all. Modern sperm donations and IVF are regulated by laws that say the sperm donors aren't responsible for child support (and don't have parental rights). It has nothing to do with any contract. That's why it's important to do the process through a doctor or approved clinic, which was not done here.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 05:18 PM
1

Sure but this single case isn't of itself 'the case'. So why not post articles that are actually pointing to the problem? The root argument is child support, which is self evidently skewed in favor of the mother. I'm saying that as a single dad who has main custody of an 11 year old boy, but that has nothing to with what is statistically true, guys get fucked on CS. It's not even a matter of contention, as the information is public record and as I said, self evident. I don't think that is necess…
/r/MensRights11/12/17 12:08 PM
-1

Lawsuit claims for child support do disproportionally effect men... OK, and? The method of people paying their legal fees (the US system is that each party usually pays their own, other countries do a "loser pays" system) is not unique to child support motions/actions. Lawsuits with no basis of the defendant breaking the law can be thrown out by the judge... This wasn't a question of the defendant breaking the law. in what way did (could!?) a sperm donor break the law by engaging in a mutually c…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 09:46 PM
-2

All of America - our entire legal system from top to bottom - is currently a pay-your-own legal fees system Were we to switch to "loser pays," the entire system would likely switch to that. This isn't just an issue of men, or just an issue of the family courts. Like I said elsewhere, having this outdated, incorrect, post at the top of the sub just confirms the worst things people say about it.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 09:38 PM
-6

This case was simply a function of the laws not keeping up with the times. Not any bias, as you accuse. There's no Men's Rights issue here. That doesn't make any sense. Just because you've identified the cause of the issue (outdated laws) that doesn't mean it's not a men's rights issue. The very fact that the outdated laws that negatively impact men is exactly what makes it a men's rights issue. But it doesn't anymore. That's what I'm saying. It's been corrected. Is it a men's rights issue that …
/r/MensRights10/12/17 09:10 PM
-5

That's not a men's rights issue. This sort of thing always seems to affect the men, though. This sort of thing, as in advocating for a loser pays legal system? No, no it doesn't. It affects everyone equally.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 09:09 PM
-4

Except when its a woman dropping off her child or getting an abortion. Neither of those situations involve a contract issue. Funny how contract law is only used to defend the man being forced to be a provider. It's not, though. It wasn't even in this case. Contract law isn't used to make men pay child support.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 09:08 PM
1

Because the man was vindicated and let off. He doesn't have to pay child support. The law, at first, did not keep up here and recognize that two women were the actual parents of this child who should be supporting it. However, the court ended up getting it right once the situation was sorted out. This situation doesn't affect any large group of men, and it isn't a problem anymore (as proven by the outcome of the case). Since the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriages are legal, courts will …
/r/MensRights10/12/17 09:06 PM
-2

Does it matter if it's Men's rights issue? If you want to post it in /r/Mensrights? I would say yes. It's wrong to allow frivolous lawsuits to impact innocent people so in my opinion it's a perfectly valid issue to discuss. It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit. It was an action brought by the state to collect child support. Nothing frivolous about that. If it's not something that disproportionately affects men, why should it be discussed here? It distracts from actual issues.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 08:58 PM
-7

Yes, you understood correctly. Not really a men's rights issue, just a case of the law not keeping up with the times.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 01:27 PM
-150

Partial news, perhaps, but not fake. The lesbian couple offered $50 for the sperm; he's now out several thousands, all courtesy of the state. The state should pay that bill, in my opinion. You're talking about switching to a "loser pays" legal system. That's not a men's rights issue. Person being downvoted is correct, this is a nothing story. The problem is someone posted an old story for karma without following up to see the outcome. Edit: Downvote all you want, I don't care. The fact is this i…
/r/MensRights10/12/17 01:25 PM
27

"A parent may not terminate parental rights by contract" So, you can sign a legally binding contract and even that isn't enough. Correct. A and B can't sign a binding contract for party C. There's nothing revolutionary about that principle. This case was simply a function of the laws not keeping up with the times. Not any bias, as you accuse. There's no Men's Rights issue here. He did appeal to a higher court, and they fixed it.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 01:21 PM
-1

Wow that's horrible. She should have to pay back every penny this many paid to her. Maybe even more. I'd agree, but I'd let her wait until the child is 19 (end of child support years). No reason the kid should suffer because her mom is an idiot.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 01:56 AM
2

"Hello, strange woman. Can i cum on your shoes?" Don't seem too polite to me. That's a polite way of asking? Does something become more polite to ask if you know her longer? Uh, yeah, it absolutely does. If I am in a long term relationship with someone and I say something like that, it's vastly different than saying it to someone you just met.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 01:40 PM
1

Nope.
/r/MensRights10/11/17 03:50 AM
1

It's trivial to read through my post history and verify that I am in fact a lawyer. The fact that you can't be bothered shows that the real issue here isn't this sub advocating for real problems, it's this sub failing to accept that a small piece of dogma is false.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 07:02 PM
2

Yes, but from my understanding those are frequently undone by state law. Your understanding is wholly incorrect. That's what I keep saying here. Unless your income is separated by more than one order of magnitude, they are usually moot. Ah. On this, you're correct. So many people here push for them when in reality for the huge majority of couples don't need one at all. Almost all who get married are young and poor, relatively speaking, usually with low or even negative net worth. There's no poin…
/r/MensRights09/11/17 02:39 AM
1

you are actually mentally handicapped. haha your statement is so goddamn bias Actually, I'm a lawyer, who knows far more about this topic than you or anyone else here.
/r/MensRights09/11/17 02:37 AM
1

What assets do you have? I see you live in Calgary. Here's a lawyer right in your province saying they almost never get set aside. http://www.familyandestatelaw.ca/blog/2016/05/an-introduction-to-alberta-prenuptial-agreements.shtml
/r/MensRights09/11/17 02:18 AM
0

or because of provisions that violate public good This can basically mean anything that the judge doesn't like. No, it really can't. Stop getting your legal knowledge from blogs and rumors. Have you ever even been inside a court? What you're saying is completely detached from reality. https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/03/how-safe-is-a-prenup-breaking-it-up-can-be-hard-to-do-lawyers-say.html Why get government bureaucrats involved in your personal life in the first place? Because getting a simple marr…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 11:14 PM
0

Let me guess. You're a lawyer that makes at least some of his money litigating family law. Nope. Good try though. Marriage has innumerable benefits especially in the United States. Such as? What benefits does marriage confer, that I can only get while married, There are many. Or did you think gays spent billions of dollars fighting for it for no reason? There are literally thousands of legal benefits in the US. And that's not all. Some really interesting research has been done about all kinds of…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 11:09 PM
4

Bullshit. It happens plenty. Cool, how long have you been an attorney? Almost ten years for me. Seems like only yesterday I was sitting for the Bar exam and reviewing the fact that, in the 27 states that have adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, it's virtually impossible to set aside a pre-nup. And also that in all but 5 other states it is extremely difficult, and that again, a properly drafted pre-nup will generally be upheld by a court.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:15 PM
0

Because in the overwhelming majority of cases, the court abides by them.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:10 PM
4

What happens all the time? You linked me to a blog on a Massachusetts law firm website about the rules for pre-nups in that state. I don't need to be brought up to speed on the laws of divorce by you, I'm an attorney. I'm already well-versed compared to you.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:04 PM
1

Well I'm a lawyer. What kind of background do you have to dispute what I'm saying? Even your own Wikipedia cite disagrees with you. In the United States you cannot be accidentally common-law married. It requires a conscious effort to hold yourself out as husband and wife, period.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 06:02 PM
0

You're wrong.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:54 PM
1

He's right. In the US, common-law marriage requires holding yourself out as husband and wife. You can't accidentally be common-law married.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:53 PM
0

Many states have common law marriages. Wrong.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:52 PM
1

Not anywhere in the US.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:52 PM
0

Nonsense. Marriage still provides a ton of benefits.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:51 PM
-7

You're wrong. They rarely get set aside. Edit: OK, keep down voting the attorney. Smart.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:50 PM
-1

No. In reality, when parties are in a state where pre-nups are legal, and where each side had a lawyer representing them during the drafting, they are almost never set aside. What you're saying just isn't true.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:47 PM
-7

no fault divorce has turned marriage into an options contract, where the lower earning spouse (almost always the woman) can exercise against the past and future finances of the higher earning spouse (almost always the man) at any time, for any or no reason. Assuming this were even true, it doesn't really have to do with no-fault divorce. this is insanity... it's why financial advisors now regularly advise men to not get married. Haha, no. No, financial advisors are not regularly doing this. Prov…
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:45 PM
5

I'm opposed to alimony though. It just seems like another way for lawyers to make money at the expense of people. What does alimony have to do with lawyers making money? It's a small part of any litigation in most divorces. You know lawyers don't get a cut of the alimony, right?
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:39 PM
5

Marriage is just looking less and less appealing. Marriage has innumerable benefits especially in the United States. All other things being equal, once property and children are involved its easier to break a marriage than a nonmarital cohabitation.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:38 PM
-1

Doesn't matter since what he's saying isn't even remotely correct.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:36 PM
7

Prenups have been tossed out countless times for nonsense like duress and change in lifestyle. "If I didn't sign this paper he wouldn't marry me!" This simply isn't true. Where pre-nups are thrown out is generally because both sides didn't have a lawyer, or because of provisions that violate public good, like child support provisions. And that's rare. Edit: /r/Mensrights down voting an actual attorney giving you what should be good news about divorce laws. Is this a sub that deals in reality or …
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:36 PM
-1

That's not true. A pre-nup can do a lot of things.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:34 PM
21

The reason I've heard was they only protected assets pre-marriage. So if you married while on your way up the ladder and saw a lot of success after being married (as many would in their 20s-30s) the assets generated post-marriage would still be up for grabs. That's not at all true. Also I've heard of judges just throwing them out anyway. In a state where they are legal, and where both sides go in with counsel, this rarely if ever happens.
/r/MensRights08/11/17 05:33 PM
3

Turns out when you spend your 20s fucking around and only start looking at men who make good providers in your 30s, a lot of time you run out of options before you are able to land one and have kids. Who could have predicted that? Oh, wait, everyone. Everyone predicted that, because we've known it for a thousand years.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 11:46 AM
0

It didn't go like this, plain and simple. You're either leaving something out or this is a made-up troll post.
/r/MensRights05/10/17 11:39 AM
2

The problem with state appointed lawyers is, that many of them want to become judges themselves. So they side with the judge, because it is a future peer to them. This is not even close to being true. It's so far from reality it might as well be gibberish. Maybe your friend can get a new lawyer, and another view on his case. But you would need one who works on commission and is ready to wait for his money. Such lawyers exist, but they are rare, and it would depend on the chances to win the case.…
/r/MensRights05/10/17 11:35 AM
1

I meant as opposed to being dead or permanently maimed physically. I guess nuance is beyond you.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 11:01 AM
2

Go back and read my post again. Especially these words: physical damage Then come back and tell me how silly you feel.
/r/MensRights22/09/17 01:34 AM
-35

And I agree with all that. What I was saying to the person I replied to is that, unless he has proof that men got a longer sentence for the same thing (essentially repeated assaults of a child), this isn't "pussy pass" material. They each got 20 years. That's a long sentence for any crime, let alone one where the victim is doing fine.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 03:02 PM
4

The problem is proving it.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 02:33 PM
-32

How so? Do you have some examples of a man doing a similar thing and getting a longer sentence? Remember, this victim is recovering and by the story seems to have no long term physical damage. He may be able to live a relatively normal life. Edit: OK, down voting an actual lawyer pointing out that these women got a fairly strong sentence for what they did, merely because you don't like the facts.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 02:33 PM
1

Which article? Link me to it. Because their identities haven't been released, so I'm curious where this article got that information.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 01:34 AM
1

Agreed, if this was the other way around What other way around?
/r/MensRights07/09/17 07:05 PM
2

It wouldn't apply. That's not what the statute involves.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 03:39 PM
2

The double standard in the above situation is the way in which local law enforcement AND the media have reacted. If the genders of the nurses had been men, and all other details of this case were exactly the same, then the men would likely not only face being fired and jail time, but also public humiliation by local and national news media. Instead none of that has happened, because women are held to a more lenient standard than men with things like this. Thanks for the response. You seem reason…
/r/MensRights07/09/17 03:39 PM
20

Where the letter of the law meets the spirit of the law. If a PI did this (their bread and butter) it's considered another day at the office, That's completely untrue. The problem here is he entered the stupid wife's boyfriend's house. I think the DA is overcharging him (I'm the hopes of getting a plea deal) but he clearly could be charged at least with trespass, as well as the unlawful recording, because again, someone else's house. And any PI who did this could be charged the exact same way.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 03:29 PM
-3

No. Paragraph 6 deals with bodies that are involved in an investigation of some sort. There's no evidence of that here. It also requires a lot more than just looking at it. Also, what you quoted is Oklahoma law and these nurses are in Denver, Colorado. Edit: OK, downvoters... I'm an actual attorney who is explaining why this isn't a criminal matter. What are you guys that you know better? Supreme Court justices?
/r/MensRights07/09/17 01:01 PM
2

Yeah, I mean these professionals lost 3 weeks of pay and will have a black mark on their careers for years. I'd say the punishment fit the crime and I don't see why everyone here is losing their minds. Actually, I do. Everyone here had assumed, in a hilariously ironic example of sexism and stereotyping, that these are all women, because they are nurses.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 12:07 PM
1

Correct. That makes it Abuse of Corpse. Haha, no. Looking at is not abuse.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:59 AM
-6

Male nurses would never work in the field again Reread the article and show me where it says none of these 5 nurses were male.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:58 AM
-5

3 weeks? A man would gotten 100! Please show me in the article where it says these weren't men. This whole sub is assuming "nurses" = female. Who's perpetuating stereotypes and double standards now?
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:58 AM
-11

yay double standards! What do you mean by double standards? Are you referring to the gender of the dead person? I would say male and female dead bodies are generally treated with similar levels of respect. Are you referring to the treatment of law enforcement and supervisors of the nurses?
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:56 AM
1

It's not desecration to look at a corpse.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:54 AM
1

He had sex willingly with a hot woman, on what planet is that rape? Ohio. Which is all that matters since that's where this took place.
/r/MensRights14/08/17 04:39 PM
20

He was raped. You think he was lucky?
/r/MensRights14/08/17 11:47 AM
1

Ok.... Are you saying women shouldn't have a vote or that we shouldn't publish data on how elected officials do their job?
/r/MensRights17/06/17 10:37 AM
2

All other things being equal marriage is a legal concept it doesn't affect the raising of children in any way. And yet studies show that in fact it does. It's not really that revolutionary... It provides stability, consistency of family, stronger family identity, financial benefits of many kinds, legal rights involving inheritance and transfer of property. The research backing up what I'm saying is fairly consistent and widespread.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 11:38 PM
1

I don't know what to tell you... I calculated that based in the actual data we have regarding percentage of divorces and percentage of divorces where alimony is awarded. I can't line that up with the outcomes I've witnessed. Of course, I'm in a different state, but still... I've seen too many divorces among co-workers and family, I can only think of two where alimony wasn't awarded. In one, the man earned less, in the other, a lump settlement was made instead of alimony (so... it was still there…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 11:06 PM
3

There's ample evidence showing children's best outcomes happen when raised by married parents, all other things being equal.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 11:04 PM
5

There's still the issue of division of assets, though. E.g. wife with few assets marries wealth husband, stays 5 years or so and leaves with half. Courts are wise to this. It's really just a media trope in most US states (with a few weird ones as outliers). In most states, the court will look at a reasonably equitable division of marital assets, with many things acquired before the marriage being taken out of that. There's still a lot of work to be done there though. And there's custody, as you …
/r/MensRights14/06/17 04:11 PM
2

only about a 2-3% That number seems unbelievable small. I don't know what to tell you... I calculated that based in the actual data we have regarding percentage of divorces and percentage of divorces where alimony is awarded. The article makes a distinction about "alimony awarded" versus negotiated settlements. Alimony often gets negotiated out before it gets to the courts, as 90 to 95% of cases settle. Does that mean alimony agreed to isn't getting counted here? Not at all. The percentages of a…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 04:08 PM
5

I'm just checking that I've understood you correctly... Are you saying that it's becoming rare for courts to award alimony during divorce proceedings in the USA? I've not heard anything to suggest that is the case. Can you point to any research on the topic? My statistics come from attorney CLE's I have recently taken on this issue (CLE = continuing legal education; I practice in NY). But here's an article that shows a sharp decline over the last few decades, ironically (or typically) being led …
/r/MensRights14/06/17 03:07 PM
5

The only issue in marriage that wouldn't come up in a nonmarital breakup, once kids are involved, is alimony. As Karen mentioned, in many countries including Australia, the same financial rules are applied during the separation of a defacto couples as apply during a divorce. In Australia, if you live with someone for a total of 2 years (it doesn't have to be in a single stretch, just the combined total), then your separation is treated just the same as a divorce, in financial terms. Right, which…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 11:00 AM
1

Why would it make a difference (in the US)? Hate speech is legal and protected.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 10:59 PM
2

I think it's worthy to note that many aspects of the speech apply more globally to having children with someone than marrying them. All other things being equal, if you're going to have children with someone a marriage is the best way to do that (which she acknowledged at the start). The only issue in marriage that wouldn't come up in a nonmarital breakup, once kids are involved, is alimony. And alimony is becoming more and more rare. Marriage can be great, it's just not always great.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 10:48 PM
2

You should point out that this is her logic too. She's not blaming him and says he was drunk also. She is basically mad at the product for putting this out in public, nothing else.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 02:06 PM
1

The lawyer however should face repercussions for wasting the courts time. Well, not merely for wasting the court's time. If the lawyer believed they had a good faith basis to proceed, they can (but have discretion not to). At face value nothing the defendant did should be considered criminal so why did the lawyer bring it before the courts? I don't know enough to say whether this is true given the 2-paragraph article we have. Certainly a case could be made that, if a person was extorting someone…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 06:54 PM
10

The type of woman to make bogus claims like this How do we know there was a "bogus" claim here? We don't.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 05:05 AM
15

Hopefully she got jail time Why? I don't see anything here that suggests she made a willful or malicious false accusation.
/r/MensRights30/05/17 05:04 AM
14

No, I know man. I represent working people for a living. Guys with horrible, career-ending injuries. Pretty much every one of them ends up with depression added as a consequence of their claim, as they try to cope with not being able to support their family any more.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 02:20 PM
0

Of course, you're right. Why should we put people in jail for murder. Sure it would prevent further murders, but that's just destroying more lives. I know you think you're really getting me here, with your ridiculous strawman, but actually you're proving my point. The problem is you're using the wrong analogy. The closer analogy would be to the death penalty for murdering someone (identical penalty to the crime committed). We know that executing people for murder doesn't provide general deterren…
/r/MensRights23/05/17 06:59 PM
0

So your response is to destroy more lives?
/r/MensRights23/05/17 02:56 PM
1

The now-deleted post I was responding to literally said we should do that.
/r/MensRights23/05/17 02:56 PM
0

As the blue-haired screechers are so fond of saying: So as I said to someone else: We're hypocrits who stoop to their level now?
/r/MensRights23/05/17 02:48 AM
-4

She can continue working to take people's livelihood away, but we shouldn't stop her? Correct. Why should we stoop to her level? When did this sub get to hypocrisy?
/r/MensRights23/05/17 02:41 AM
-9

Email her employer Nah. She's a troll and a bellend. But it's not up to me to instigate a witch hunt to get her livelihood taken away. She can say whatever she wants as far as I'm concerned. The best remedy for bad speech is better speech.
/r/MensRights22/05/17 11:42 PM
1

Are you going to tell me that purposefully running someone down with your car (a deadly weapon) isn't criminal intent? What was in the video when combined with the other evidence presented was not criminal intent to commit murder. Hence, why she wasn't charged that way. For example, her speed was relatively low compared to a speed to kill someone. There was a heated confrontation only a few seconds before that obviates the question of premeditation. And so on. WTF are you talking about. I'm talk…
/r/MensRights14/05/17 01:57 AM
18

Yeah, that whole feminist sexual revolution thing doesn't seem to have worked out quite like they wanted it to, huh?
/r/MensRights13/05/17 11:53 AM
1

There are probably state laws that require a certain number of male bathrooms per student. I would bet your school is not meeting the requirements with these conversions.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 11:50 AM
1

Because it doesn't meet the criminal elements for murder. Murder is a legal term. It's defined by a clear cut set of elements that have to be met. It is not defined by the outrage of a layperson.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 11:48 AM
1

Most likely, yes. Why doesn't it seem right?
/r/MensRights12/05/17 11:34 AM
1

Chasing someone down and attacking someone with a deadly weapon is text book attempted murder. Except that it isn't. In this case, it was exactly the charge she was convicted of. Hence why she was convicted of it.
/r/MensRights12/05/17 12:51 AM
1

You're completely wrong. ROFL, thats not even possible. Someone who thinks it's not possible they're wrong about anything. Surely a sign of great reasoning skills. I actually teach the "pussy pass" problem of gender bias in my classroom, obviously under a slightly more germane title. I started laughing when I read this. You're one of those guys who covers up the truth instead of exposing it. Just another cuck in the army of white knights who uphold female rights. A coward who must mask the truth…
/r/MensRights12/05/17 12:46 AM
0

I'm not wrong in the least. You're completely wrong. You're simply a blue pilled white knight cuck defending a monster of a woman. Actually I'm a practicing attorney in NY. At my second job, I am a professor of criminal justice who teaches courses in the courts, especially with regard to the process of the court system. I actually teach the "pussy pass" problem of gender bias in my classroom, obviously under a slightly more germane title. In my remaining spare time I volunteer educating young me…
/r/MensRights11/05/17 11:37 PM
1

If I accept everything that you've said as true, this story still isn't a men's rights issue, since she didn't get off easy, or easier than a man, or anything. She didn't act with impunity or get a slap on the wrist. She got 3 years in prison for a non-premeditaded assault. I don't know exactly how punishments break out in UK as I don't practice there but in NY, US, that would be a very serious sentence for what she did. I do know that in the UK, the absolute maximum for what she was convicted o…
/r/MensRights11/05/17 10:31 PM
2

It's a MR issue because it illustrates the pussy pass and the fact that women aren't held accountable for their actions to the same standard as men.. It doesn't illustrate it at all. Even the OP of this post says he posted this to show an example where a woman did not get a pussy pass. Do you have evidence this woman received a lighter sentence than a man would have given these facts? She should have been charged with attempted manslaughter... Not just reckless driving or whatever. What she did …
/r/MensRights11/05/17 08:48 PM
0

You're wrong that this crime looks like something that should have resulted in a 5-10 year sentence. 3 years is pretty fair, even on the tough side of fair, for an assault that was not premeditated and where the victim appears to be ok. It's not attempted murder because there's no evidence she did this with intent or depraved indifference (assuming UK has that mens rea).
/r/MensRights11/05/17 08:41 PM
1

So how is it an issue then? If it's not an issue in this case because she got a fair sentence?
/r/MensRights11/05/17 04:12 PM
3

What a thoughtful response, thanks.
/r/MensRights11/05/17 03:54 PM
0

I don't have to play catch up. In fact you'd probably be playing catch up to me. I am fully aware of bias present in the criminal justice systems of most western nations. But there's no evidence of that bias occurring in this case. She got 3 years which is a fairly serious sentence for an assault that was not premeditated and where the victim appears to have recovered completely. Where's the bias?
/r/MensRights11/05/17 03:01 PM
2

Actually, the point here is that she is getting the SAME Sentence AS A MALE. Right, so how is this article or story a men's rights issue?
/r/MensRights11/05/17 02:19 PM
-1

How is this a men's rights issue? I'm tired of this sub embarrassing itself by posting and upvoting things that have nothing to do with Men's Rights just to whine about a woman doing something shitty. Yes this woman is an ass and an idiot. Yes she deserves to be jailed. She's being jailed for three years, which is a pretty serious sentence for assault, especially where her victim apparently has made a full recovery. This has nothing to do with this sub.
/r/MensRights11/05/17 02:17 PM
0

God damn, 3 years???? Looks like a 5-10 years crime to me. But it isn't. You're wrong.
/r/MensRights11/05/17 01:55 PM
1

... Um, yeah. Probably about 3 years. This case isn't a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights11/05/17 01:54 PM
2

Agree 100%, it's a classic moral panic situation. Eerily similar to the repressed memory movement and the "Satanic Panic" of the 80's/90's.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 01:24 AM
-7

The mom doesn't "press charges," the District Attorney does. It has nothing to do with her.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 01:17 AM
-13

The police? Prosecutor? The girls' parents? What are you getting at?
/r/MensRights10/05/17 12:16 AM
0

What? No. You're completely wrong.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 12:15 AM
17

[this group] encouraged women to scrawl the names of students they accused of sexual violence in women’s restroom stalls in the basement of the Rockefeller Library Wow, writing names anonymously on bathroom stalls, accusing them of high level felonies, with no requirement for due process, evidence, or any sort of vetting. I'm shocked, shocked, that anything went wrong with this plan!
/r/MensRights03/05/17 02:10 AM
1

Well, I wouldn't say she decided to "profit" from it. Kids are expensive. I see cases like this (except for the consent issue with the alcohol) as a far smaller problem than cases where the father actually isn't the father. As between the father who made a choice, small as it was, and the child who had no choice, I'm going to say the court should favor the child. At least until we have a better option. It's a shitty system but it's the best we can do with biology. Keep hoping for reliable male b…
/r/MensRights03/05/17 02:05 AM
1

That's not what it indicates at all. Prosecutors will regularly charge higher crimes than they know they can prove, in order to encourage pleas like this one. That is a major assumption It's not a major assumption at all. It's a known and proven phenomenon in our court system. Anyone who has studied our court system to any degree knows that. Hell, my students know it, and they're undergrads. I know because I teach it (the strategy of overcharging employed by prosecutors) in my class. or are you …
/r/MensRights03/05/17 01:57 AM
2

Unless the prosecutor and highway patrol pulled the evidence out of their asses, the judge based his ruling on what she told him and how she acted / presented herself. He was in front of her. In part, of course he did. All judges do that in all cases. But what you're saying, that he went lighter because she is a woman, has zero evidence here. Do you have evidence that this judge typically gives men the 11 year sentence for voluntary manslaughter? No, you don't. Was he not on the bike when she hi…
/r/MensRights03/05/17 01:32 AM
1

Wrong, that's called having to do less work. The judge does the same amount of work regardless. So does the DA. They work full time every week regardless of how they dispose of cases. The judge believing her over the evidence especially based on her own testimony (she couldn't hit him because she tried to avoid hitting his bike, which could only be true if he wasn't on it. The point of trying to get a license plate is to stay behind someone. Why would she go faster than he?, etc), is an obvious …
/r/MensRights03/05/17 01:28 AM
1

It is very difficult to prove intent. But the key for this conversation is that you weren't using the correct standard. A reasonable person believing their actions might lead to death isn't the standard to prove intent. What you're describing is closer to recklessness, where a person knows of a likely danger of causing harm to others, but ignores the danger.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 04:25 PM
1

Oh definitely. I know there's procedures for maintaining probable cause. And there was a PH in this case. I'm just saying in our modern system sometimes the actual thoughtful review of PC gets short shrift in favor of "oh, well, there's some evidence here so let's move it along."
/r/MensRights01/05/17 04:23 PM
1

Can't prove intent or can't get a conviction. What you need to understand is that those two things are one and the same.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 04:11 PM
1

Why do you keep asserting a reason for the prosecutor accepting a plea deal? Do you have some knowledge of the interior king of the department as it relates to the case? I suspect your more likely pulling shit out your ass. Experience and knowledge of the system combined with consulting some friends with even more knowledge and experience than I. This is a completely typical handling of this type of case and there is nothing "Men's rights" implicated here at all.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 04:10 PM
1

And from what I understand from reviewing the statute, there's no "range" on voluntary manslaughter. So the judge had to pick 3, 6, or 11 years according to the statute. The judge could have picked 3 but didn't. That tells me he thought there was some merit to a longer sentence, but he didn't think the case was extreme enough to warrant the 11. Even given the weird "3, 6, or 11" setup for California, this is fairly similar to what I've seen people get in NY for deliberately running someone down.…
/r/MensRights01/05/17 03:50 PM
6

Is there one of those "Everything is" Twitter feeds for "Everything is Patriarchy" yet? We need one for bullshit like this.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 03:26 PM
0

That's the information I was looking for. Everyone here acts like it's an automatic thing and it's not. The remaining issue then would be of intent. She claims she wasn't trying to run him over. Ultimately I think she got the right charge and sentence. There's absolutely no "pussy pass" going on here and the story doesn't belong in this sub.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 03:22 PM
2

They're a necessity and in most cases a great way to get justice. Not every case should go to trial. The reason why sometimes innocent people accept plea bargains has far more to do with the fact that they don't have access to good legal counsel than it does with the process of plea bargaining. What would fix the issue is (1) drastically increasing the salaries of public defenders and (2) allowing private attorneys to bill their customary rates for assigned counsel cases, instead of the shit rat…
/r/MensRights01/05/17 03:16 PM
1

I asked you a question. You seem to be refusing to even address basic questions here. You asked whether a person who doesn't exist should contact me. How can I answer that? The person you named does not exist. Maybe check spelling or something? There's maybe a half dozen attorneys in my town so if you name one I'm sure I can contact them. Mr. Mougass is not an attorney anywhere in NY.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 02:41 PM
1

In what jurisdiction? California? Are you a barred attorney?
/r/MensRights30/04/17 11:58 PM
1

Yes you can. It's called being reasonable and that's the point that's being made here. No reasonable person would believe that death was not a probably consequence of her hitting him. That's not the legal standard for either voluntary manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 11:58 PM
1

Correct. This is called charging high to get the plea you think is actually sustainable. She pled to the appropriate charge. This article and case have zero to do with Men's Rights and should be deleted.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 11:57 PM
0

The prosecutor... Who maybe has a tiny bit more knowledge of this case than you... Didn't think they could prove that, and so they accepted a plea to a lesser charge. That's not necessarily the case. Of course it is. Are you an attorney? How would you know otherwise? She was charged wityh murder indicating that there was enough evidence to prove it. That's not what it indicates at all. Prosecutors will regularly charge higher crimes than they know they can prove, in order to encourage pleas like…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 10:07 PM
1

Except you started this thread by saying she could have possibly faced 11 years but got 6. You can't describe the legal situation and then apply your own, non-legal standard to determine there was something wrong with the result of the legal situation.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:53 PM
1

The bitch ran some dude over intentionally. That's what they would have needed to show, in part, to prove the murder charge. The prosecutor... Who maybe has a tiny bit more knowledge of this case than you... Didn't think they could prove that, and so they accepted a plea to a lesser charge. But I'm sure you know better than them, right? Because you're a lawyer involved in this case?
/r/MensRights30/04/17 07:10 PM
3

True, but that's not what happened here. 6 years for voluntary manslaughter is a typical sentence. This was a plea bargain. We don't even know from the article whether the DA asked for more than the six. This article doesn't belong here. Much better information here: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-jackson-plea-20170117-story.html
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:30 PM
1

Are you saying plea bargains don't result in justice? Shouldn't be used? What are your qualifications or experiences to make such a statement?
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:26 PM
1

Exactly. This is 100% typical. Yet again this sub takes an entirely typical legal situation and assumes without any evidence that it turned out the way it did because of sexism.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:24 PM
4

Do you know how rare it is for a defendant to get the max? We don't even know what the prosecution asked for. Maybe they only asked for 6 as part of the plea agreement.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:23 PM
1

It wasn't murder. She pled to voluntary manslaughter.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:22 PM
-1

A fist generally is not a deadly weapon without lots of specific training. A mobile car always is. In what jurisdiction? Not any one I'm familiar with.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:21 PM
-2

And I'm sure you know better than the prosecutor and judge here. Right.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:21 PM
1

The victim isn't a party to a criminal case. The parties are the people and the defendant. Anyway, the victim's family was consulted. California has strong victim's advocacy and I'm sure the prosecutor discussed it with them.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:20 PM
1

We don't have to imagine how it would turn out. The prosecutor, who knows infinitely more about the case than you, accepted a plea deal to the lesser charge. That means the prosecutor thought it was less than certain the intent could be proven.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:18 PM
1

Sure you can. Whats the cause for reasonable doubt? There are many. Might she have been doing 93 on that same road as him for some other reason? She changed lanes several times but thats not attempt to hit him? Whats the other reasonable scenario that works? There doesn't need to be an alternate reasonable scenario. The prosecutor felt it was less than certain they could prove this scenario, which is why they took a plea deal.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:17 PM
2

The prosecution was afraid they wouldn't successfully prove intent, which is why they did a plea.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:03 PM
2

How was it not intentional? Didn't she deliberately try to harm someone in a way that could only result in life threatening injury or death...? That's what the prosecution was trying to prove. They were worried they couldn't. Hence why they agreed to a plea bargain to voluntary manslaughter.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:02 PM
1

I don't see this as a reason not to marry women, in general. It's a reason to stay away from the kind of shrews that would accuse someone of rape when it was really a mutual bad idea. In particular, if you're going to have kids, it's better to be married first.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 04:28 PM
3

I don't mean this to sound insulting, but... Go read the first four words of the Sixth Amendment, and then come back and delete/edit your comment.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 04:22 PM
-2

I'm going to respectfully disagree, somewhat. I don't believe someone should be forced to get the police involved in what could be an entirely school discipline matter. However, I do think that (1) if the victim wants the possibility of any discipline that will result in the impairment of the offender's ability to continue schooling, or (2) if the victim is alleging something that is an actual felony (sex related or not) , the schools should be obligated to bring the police in and the accused sh…
/r/MensRights29/04/17 04:17 PM
1

Larry Mougass. There's no attorney with that name licensed in NY. Certainly not in Brockport. There's no attorney first name L last name Mougass. Anywhere in NY.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 09:16 PM
1

Well, let me know where you are and I will get you an actual attorney to sit down with you. I did that. Two posts ago. Brockport, NY.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 03:28 PM
1

I said I would. So go for it. Or admit you're just lying.
/r/MensRights28/04/17 03:28 AM
1

So you can't. I already have. You have not. You linked me to instructions that take weeks. Please link me to your post where you did anything other than that. Or as I said quote from that page where I can get them sooner. You can't, since you're a liar. A. Liar. If you let me know where you live, I can contact an attorney that can sit with you and explain it to you. I am an attorney. Which is why I can understand this and you can't. But I live in Brockport, NY. Please find me an attorney in the …
/r/MensRights27/04/17 04:56 PM
1

So you can't. Ok then. You don't have to admit I'm right, your dodging proves it to anyone reading.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 05:28 PM
1

You're just trolling at this point. Tell me what instructions you are reading that you think mean you could obtain access to these case files.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 02:19 PM
1

I do understand the options. The options available mean that no one here has seen or has knowledge of what evidence was used and your assertions to the contrary are a lie.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 01:21 PM
1

That page literally contains the instructions to get the court records. As an attorney, if you are an attorney, you should be able to follow those instructions to get the court documents. You're not an attorney. If you had bothered to read that page you'd know that, in fact, I cannot get the records. Not without waiting several weeks, paying fees, and making a motion to the judge to obtain permission. And perhaps not even then, depending on the judge response. Which was my point all along. No on…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 11:38 PM
1

Just quoting for when you inevitably delete this thread of lies. I said: You already lied and said your friend had journalistic access to the courts, hence why you were directing everyone to that page and citing the court case number. And then you said: That's not what I said at all... So here's what you said: Right here someone asked how you reviewed the evidence and you directed them to the court access page. Right here the same person asked you if you had seen the court papers by completing t…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 07:30 PM
1

That's for accessing or recording transcripts and exhibits, as well as the courts own documents. None of that is being referenced here. I've not said that I've seen any transcript, nor any exhibit, nor any film or other recording from the court. The only documents, are the investigation, and the case files, not the court files. Haha, so you double down on your lies? The investigation and the case files from what? The police? You already lied and said your friend had journalistic access to the co…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 07:20 PM
1

I've just provided you with the instructions to confirm my story No, you haven't.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 07:16 PM
1

Yes, I want you to be wrong that someone was convicted on flimsy evidence. What's wrong with that. Can you provide proof or not? (Hint: I know you can't, I'm just waiting for you to admit you don't really know what the evidence was)
/r/MensRights25/04/17 07:02 PM
1

Read again... That's for access by the public, not the media... Haha, just admit you're lying, dude. It's pathetic and makes the sub look terrible. Here's the Media access page: http://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/information-media "The operation of the Guidelines is subject to the exercise of judicial discretion in a given case. The Judge has the power to regulate the proceedings of his or her court." That's for access to the court and the ability to use note-taking devices, etc., in the courtroo…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 06:59 PM
1

It's not true. The person who said they looked up the case is a plain liar.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 06:49 PM
1

He just said the process (for media access) is automated (it isn't). Full on liar.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 06:40 PM
1

As for the rest, he doesn't request access. Journalistic access is automated and without delay Ok, now I know you're a liar, because that's not true. You didn't even read the process on their site. It's on a case-by-case (and document-by-document) basis and must be approved by the judge.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 06:37 PM
1

How does your friend have journalistic access? You live in Sweden, your friend lives in Australia? When did your friend request access? When did your friend get access? What does your friend do that they have media access?
/r/MensRights25/04/17 06:04 PM
1

He can't. He's a liar.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:58 PM
1

The case number is CR-16-00484. The case is based entirely on witness statements. There is no physical evidence of any kind and based entirely on the credibility of the two sisters, vs the credibility of Fieldew. You looked it up and reviewed the case documents? Cool, how'd you do that? When? Edit: see thread below. The person I'm responding to is a bold-faced liar and knows nothing of what he claims to know.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:46 PM
1

No, I want you to tell me how you're so damn sure there wasn't any more evidence here besides the testimony of the two victims. Instead of pretending like you went and got the records of the case (you didn't) or investigated any more than what's printed in this one article (you didn't). You attacked me for saying there was likely more evidence; I asked how you know there wasn't, and instead of admitting you don't know, you beat around the bush for half dozen posts with deliberately misleading st…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:45 PM
1

Cool, so did you get access to this case through that? How'd you do that?
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:16 PM
1

Send me a link to where it says there was no other evidence. You said in another post that you can get court documents online. Send me some information on where to get the court documents for this case.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 04:34 PM
1

Reminding me of this line makes me wonder what fresh stupidity Chelsea will come up with, now that she's determined to be... something. She's off to a good start, claiming her degree in International relations makes her a "scientist".
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:56 PM
1

Man, this is the third post that you have participated in where the article clearly states something and then you vehemently insist that how we are interpreting the article is wrong based upon your alleged knowledge of jurisprudence. So? I see mistakes. I try to correct them. People here insult and attack me because they want to affirm their preconceived notions. I'm not necessarily denying your knowledge, but Occam's Razor is on call here. If this many people are reading this article and seeing…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:47 PM
1

This isn't about remorse. The judge said it was. And in Australia remorse can only be considered a mitigating factor, not an aggravating factor in the absence of. Source? The judge explicitly said that he was considering the fact he mounted a defense an aggravating factor. Are we reading the same fucking article? Because the judge explicitly said the opposite. From the article: He [judge] stressed he was not punishing him [defendant] for going to trial, And you are a waste of time. You aren't mo…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:36 PM
1

The judge most certainly did not say differently. Show me a quote you think makes your point.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:34 PM
0

Yes, why? What does this mean?
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:32 PM
1

I don't think it has. Send me a link.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:31 PM
1

How do you know this was the only evidence? You say elsewhere you have access to the court documents. I would like to see.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:31 PM
1

Great! Send me a link so I can see. I will happily come back and admit I was wrong.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 02:31 PM
1

Where?
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:50 AM
1

You didn't. OP is completely wrong.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:50 AM
0

Judges at sentencing are directed to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. Those factors include "remorse displayed by the defendant" in every Western jurisdiction with which I am familiar. Considering those factors is what a sentencing hearing is for. This was a sentencing hearing. This judge would have been remiss in his duties had he not considered what he did. There is absolutely nothing wrong, questionable, or atypical in this story against what judges have a duty to do. This whole p…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:47 AM
-2

He got punished for his crimes. He didn't get punished for mounting a defense.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:46 AM
0

So on some level, the judge was right to do that. On some level??? Judges at sentencing are directed to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. Those factors include remorse displayed by the defendant in every Western jurisdiction with which I am familiar. This judge would have been remiss in his duties had he not considered what he did. There is absolutely nothing wrong, questionable, or atypical in this story against what judges have a duty to do. This whole post is a god damn dumpster fi…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:27 AM
1

OK, chief. Where's your law degree from? How many years have you been practicing? You don't have a clue. I don't know which is worse for this sub, the fact that you posted this story and completely misrepresented what it entails, or the fact that ~1800 people upvoted it, meaning they either didn't read the story or ALSO don't understand what it entails.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:25 AM
0

No. He's saying this defendant DID MOUNT A DEFENSE. That's literally what he said.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:23 AM
1

BUT there's also the possibility that the accusations are FALSE and made up. Of course there is. That's why we have a trial. And in this trial a jury found that they were NOT made up, and convicted him, based upon all the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. The courts have NO RIGHT to try and take that possibility off the board... They are trying to claim that EVERY SINGLE accusation a woman makes is true... even if the thing she is accusing didn't actually happen. No court is trying to claim t…
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:21 AM
1

his judge made those statements, but he reached that decision in the middle of this fair trial. How do you know he did? You don't think that affected his judgment and rulings in this case? Well, he didn't render the verdict, a jury did. So it didn't affect that, since he wasn't involved. And we're talking about sentencing now, where the judge is supposed to consider things like the defendant's remorse.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:10 AM
1

How do you know that was the only evidence? Edit: for anyone reading, he doesn't. No one in this thread does, and claims to the contrary are flat out lies.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:09 AM
1

There's no suggestion anywhere that they are true claims either. He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a jury. That's a lot more than a suggestion. Convicted on nothing but testimony about something that happened 30 years ago... that should never, ever happen. How do you know that's what happened here? Everyone is convicted on "nothing but testimony". Testimony is how evidence comes in to a court.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:08 AM
0

Sounds like he got extra time for defending himself in court. But he didn't. That's the point of all this. And I'm saying the point is incorrect.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:07 AM
1

the only evidence is the supposed victims memories. Were you on the jury? Otherwise how do you know that?
/r/MensRights25/04/17 05:06 AM
-3

Ok, and in this case they proved beyond a reasonable doubt he did it.
/r/MensRights25/04/17 12:50 AM
-10

How the fuck can you claim you are innocent without also implying someone made a false accusation. Well in lots of ways. For example if someone is mistaken it might not be "false" it might just be a mistake.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 07:12 PM
4

Imagine that - falsely accused of rape, pleading not guilty on the basis your accuser was lying (which she was), being found guilty of a crime that never occurred on zero evidence, and then being punished not only for the fake crime but for truthfully stating your accuser was lying. On what basis do you say any of this? There's no suggestion anywhere that these are false claims. The man was proven guilty in court after a full and fair trial.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 03:57 PM
8

It hasn't though. No one's due process has been denied in the case you linked. The man is being sent to prison because he was found guilty.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 03:53 PM
10

Except that none of these statements happened before or during a trial. This judge made these statements after a full and fair trial which resulted in the defendant being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of multiple sex crimes. Due process is not being denied because this sentencing hearing is yet another step in that due process.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 03:53 PM
-3

He wasn't though. He received a relatively run-of-the-mill sentence for his crimes, at least in Western courts.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 03:49 PM
4

MraBob: Where in the article does it state or make reference to the accused being innocent of his crime? It certainly won't, since he was found guilty. Of multiple counts of sex offenses.
/r/MensRights24/04/17 03:48 PM
1

I feel bad for her, more than anything. She's obviously severely mentally ill.
/r/MensRights22/04/17 02:26 PM
1

The quality of leadership at the district level and above is absolutely terrible. Depends on the District and Council. Our District is great, our Council is hapless but they try. National is the real issue.
/r/MensRights12/04/17 12:38 AM
1

You're rambling on and on and missing my point. In THIS CASE, there was no indication that this was a fraudulent identification, or discrimination, or anything. It appears to be nothing but a tragic mistake by many involved. That's why it's not a "men's rights" issue: because there's nothing in this individual case that can serve to address men's issues. There's nothing that can be broadly applied to anyone else besides this one case.
/r/MensRights09/04/17 05:41 PM
1

you might just realize this kind of injustice almost never happens to women, its a man thing. It happens more often to men because men are more often in the criminal justice system. It doesn't happen more often to men because of discrimination or bias. maybe you should start caring about it more? Well I mean I'm an attorney for a job. I teach Constitutional Law to future cops for a second job, for a volunteer job I teach civics to young men through Scouting several hours a week, I'm a volunteer …
/r/MensRights09/04/17 04:24 AM
2

I would personally say from a "false allegations in rape cases" standpoint. False rape allegations are almost solely a male issue right now in N.A. based on numbers alone. It's not some ultra-common thing that every man should be waiting for. But it's still a thing. But this wasn't the typical men's rights false allegation. This was a good-faith allegation that was later proven false. That's an important difference. Again, not a men's rights issue but an issue of the court system making a mistak…
/r/MensRights09/04/17 01:18 AM
2

Judges are lawyers, it's a prerequisite. That's absolutely not true. In fact, this happened in Texas, where many judges are not lawyers, although for some higher judge positions the state does require a law degree. I live in NY, where a majority of judges are not lawyers. Also, if they are disbarred they will lose their position. Again, no, since there's no requirement in many courts that a judge be a lawyer. You have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights09/04/17 01:14 AM
0

It highlights how men, especially in sexual assault cases, receive wrongful treatment by the legal system. It highlights how one man received wrongful treatment. This man was not only innocent, but had proof of innocence. They didn't care. They prosecuted him anyway and he died because of it. And this had pretty much nothing to do with him being a man. It had to do with failures of our legal system. I mean how should we address this from a "men's rights" perspective?
/r/MensRights08/04/17 10:07 PM
-4

... Again, this isn't an issue of men's rights. It's an issue of the justice system screwing up.
/r/MensRights08/04/17 08:00 PM
3

Maybe she was sure.
/r/MensRights08/04/17 07:24 PM
-5

Not her fault, my ass. She testified that a man who did not commit the crime, did in fact commit the crime. Happens all the time. It's not her fault. If your not sure, don't blame some guy who looks similar. She might have been sure. The brain does funny things during trauma. We know that. Also, the judge should be disbarred for disallowing the evidence of his innocence. Chances are he's not a lawyer, so I don't know why you'd "disbar" him if he was never barred in the first place. Judges don't …
/r/MensRights08/04/17 07:22 PM
-4

What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights08/04/17 07:19 PM
6

Who cares? Why does a sad case of a cheating wife have anything to do with this sub?
/r/MensRights15/03/17 08:54 PM
1

Because she is. And that's proper decorum for a court. I'm going to need to see some form of evidence backing this up. I see no logical reason for this to be court etiquette. I'm an attorney with nearly a decade of experience and thousands of court appearances. Decorum isn't written down and you'd know that if you had any clue whatsoever of this situation. Watch any court room video online. The judge refers to the parties as sir, ma'am, ladies & gentlemen, all that stuff. You see no "logical rea…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 08:50 PM
0

Here's the bottom line: You're acting like you can infer a judge's meaning behind something when you have zero experience with judges. I, as someone with years of experience in front of judges, not to mention someone who has studied how judges sentence people, am telling you that you're wrong, and that in fact you cannot infer what you are trying to infer from that. You're wrong. I'm right. That's really all there is to it.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 06:25 PM
0

Does that mean I'm not supposed to expect things to be supported by evidence?
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:46 PM
1

No it doesn't. It depends on his tone and emphasis. If he emphasizes the word "prison" then he was just using the word lady because the person in front of him happened to be a woman. The fact that this sub wants so desperately for this to be bias, based on this one word, where we don't even know if he was emphasizing the word, is sad. Be better than this. Demand evidence, not pitchforks. You're a special kind of stupid aren't you? Oh, yeah, I'm just a lawyer who's handled thousands of cases in c…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:46 PM
0

Why even mention the fact she is a woman. Because she is. And that's proper decorum for a court. The evidence is plain and clear "I'm not sending a lady to prison for it" do all the mental gymnastics you want but that is what was said. That's not evidence of bias, though. That's what you, as a layperson who doesn't understand how courts and judges operate, is not getting. And every time I try to explain it, people like you just spew back at me "OMG BUT HE USED THE WORD LADY". Just stop. Stop doi…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:02 PM
1

A judge must be mindful of what type of language they use; it should not be open for interpretation. He was being mindful. Lady/Gentleman is proper decorum for a court. The judge should have said "someone", not lady, to avoid these types of misunderstandings. There's no misunderstanding among anyone who knows what they're talking about. Literally none.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:00 PM
1

A huge issue is that the word "lady" should not have been used in the first place as it is inappropriate, It's not inappropriate at all. It's proper decorum for a courtroom in the USA, and courtrooms in the UK are slightly more formal than ours. and makes it open for interpretation whether this judge considers gender a deciding factor when sentencing someone to prison. It doesn't make it open, unless you're looking for something to be offended by (which people here obviously are, unfortunately).…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:52 PM
1

For the 100th time in this thread: I don't need to "google" sentencing bias. I teach it at the college level and 100% guarantee I know more about it than 99% of the people posting here. I'm saying that this story is not an example of it. This woman received a fairly hard and certainly not unreasonable sentence for the actual facts of what happened.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:44 PM
-1

You make a trite statement with zero evidence. Show me a drunk college kid, male or female, that winds up dead in one of those 2 cities because of a bar scuffle with police.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:42 PM
0

No it doesn't. It depends on his tone and emphasis. If he emphasizes the word "prison" then he was just using the word lady because the person in front of him happened to be a woman. The fact that this sub wants so desperately for this to be bias, based on this one word, where we don't even know if he was emphasizing the word, is sad. Be better than this. Demand evidence, not pitchforks.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:41 PM
0

Not what I asked.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 03:39 PM
1

Whether she or anyone should go to jail for it isn't really the issue we're discussing though. It's the blatant gender influenced decision making. So talk about it in a case where it's blatant. There's no evidence that she received an unfairly light sentence by being a woman here.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 12:54 PM
1

I missed the list so hard I typed it in at least two other posts! Piss off.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 12:52 PM
5

Exactly. This is a completely typical sentence for this and there's zero evidence it's because of her gender.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:14 AM
0

It's not, though. She got an entirely typical sentence for the events that occurred. Probably even a little bit harsh.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:12 AM
1

No. First, you shouldn't tell the cop anything, because don't talk to police. But s single slap that causes no injury shouldn't result in the same sentence as a bad stabbing, even though both are "assault." I'm saying the court is calling it an assault because that's the proper word, but the word doesn't signify anything in terms of the appropriate sentence.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 04:09 AM
3

I conflated the £200 fine with the community service hours. That's why I also added the fine. What's your point, anyway? Is there something you saw in the article that should change my mind about whether she deserves to go to prison for this that you think I missed?
/r/MensRights15/03/17 12:33 AM
5

Just to be clear, there is a standing judicial suggestion for judges to be more lenient on women for committing the same crime, in the U.K. : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html I already said I agreed there is. Second of all she assaulted multpile officers, She slapped one officer. She may have kicked or struck other officers in the course of them trying to arrest her and her struggling. She pled guilty to 3 counts. Pe…
/r/MensRights15/03/17 12:28 AM
2

Ok, and? She slapped a police officer. Zsa Zsa Gabor did it and she was fined basically a tiny amount for her income.
/r/MensRights15/03/17 12:11 AM
2

We're mostly on the same page, but she was indeed charged with a racially aggravated crime, plus it was multiple officers assaulted, not just one... as well as the fight and ensuing assaults on staff that got the police involved: She admitted three counts of assaulting a police officer, three charges of racially aggravated public order offences, one count of assaulting an accredited person, and one charge of common assault. Yes I was going by that paragraph. We don't have that crime (racially ag…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 09:43 PM
5

I did. Was there something you wanted to point out that I said that doesn't line up with what's in the article?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 09:38 PM
2

It's a shame that there's no easy solution to this problem. That's all.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 09:37 PM
2

It's a college student who got drunk and tussled with police. If everyone who did that got put in prison the prisons in my area would have more students in them then the colleges.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 09:35 PM
3

... Which are not evidence of bias. In any way, shape or form. How, exactly, is it evidence of bias to refer to a woman as a lady?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 09:33 PM
2

First off, it was an off duty cop during a basketball game. So it was simply an assault between two people, not an actual assault on an on duty officer. So that already invalidates your rebuttal. I said elsewhere the facts aren't exactly the same. I acknowledge that. But I don't have a way to link the people here to the thousands of cases where this happens in American college towns (drunk kids tussle with cops) because it is such a minor crime it doesn't make the news. Nect, The Game is a celeb…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 09:32 PM
6

I never said it wasn't. Clearly it is. But there's a crime that usually results in prison time, and there's a crime that usually results in community service and a fine. Given all the relevant facts, this is the latter.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 09:25 PM
1

That's a shame. I'm heavily involved in Scouting, which had a similar problem in the 1980s, but has really dramatically overhauled the leadership training. "Two deep leadership, no one on one contact," is practically a commandment now.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 09:20 PM
23

When police arrived, she slapped one of the officers and began “shouting and screaming”, said Ms McNulty, before kicking another officer on the leg. You don't think people get prison time for slapping and kicking police officers? Maybe it's really different in Europe but you absolutely get time for that in the US. Prison time? If that's all they did? No. People don't. Unless they have a prior record that is lengthy. I know at least in my state (MD) is qualifies as 2nd degree assault (even ignori…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:15 PM
2

So the question pops up for me every time this happens: Is it that this position gets access to children and therefore attracts pedophiles? Or is it the vow of celibacy that screws up their sexual desires so badly they are wired for horrible fetishes? If it's the latter, it would seem the obvious solution is to allow priests to get married. Hence why this is far more rare in Protestant denominations. If it's the former, the answers are much more complex.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 08:06 PM
3

There are examples of people going to prison here (in the UK) for hate speech, let alone assaulting members of the public and the police as well as hurling racist abuse. So it's a lenient sentence compared to some. Yes I believe it could be lenient in terms of the hate crimes laws but I didn't see that she was really charged with that stuff. She was charged based on the slapping and the struggling while being arrested. I'm a lawyer in the US, not UK, but in the USA this is a completely typical a…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:57 PM
14

And you know this from all your experience representing people in these sorts of situations? Or are you a cop? Or a court observer? Judge? Nah. You "know" this because it confirms your outrage and you want to be outraged.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:51 PM
3

It isn't though. Are you a lawyer? A cop? Have you seen cases like this in court on hundreds of occasions? Because I have, and I'm telling you: you're wrong. What she got is entirely typical for "drunk college student tussles with cops." Entirely typical.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:47 PM
2

No. Not for slapping an officer and struggling while being arrested. Do you have any experience with the courts? Or is this just what you think would happen because it reinforces your ability to be outraged here?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:46 PM
6

Garratt v Dailey begs to differ. The lady had a sore bum from falling over and the lawsuit went all the way to the Washington state Supreme Court. They didn't even bother discussing damages because being hurt and having a sore ass was enough. You don't need hospital bills to say you were damaged Read Garratt again, "counselor". Plaintiff in Garratt had a fractured hip and several other injuries totalling $11,000. The seriousness of her injuries was, in fact, conceded by the defendant. http://law…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:24 PM
11

Til, assaulting a police officer, and getting community service is, typical... For a simple slap? You and everyone else here keep saying "assault" like she stabbed them or something. She slapped one. Once. And then struggling while being arrested. Yes for that set of facts it's typical. I'm a lawyer in a college town. There's a hundred of these cases a month and they all wind up with community service and a fine. No one goes to prison with this set of facts. Someone is living in fantasy world he…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:21 PM
3

I have a 4 year post history starting with an AMA about my life as a mid sized law firm associate. It's trivial to figure out my real identity, people have done so before. All, according to you, so I could show up half a decade later and pretend to tell you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Ok genius. You want a picture of me holding up my screen name in front of my law license? I left my office a couple hours ago because of the snow but I can use the copy I have at home.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:15 PM
2

Doesn't mean that someone can win a lawsuit without provable damages. Except what happened in this very case you've presented. Except not. You don't know the definition of the word settlement? I mean, you don't have to pretend to be a lawyer to present your case. You could actually provide evidence to support it... I mean, you won't. That would require more knowledge of the law than you seem able to muster right now... but you could. It's trivial to see I am who I say I am. You just don't like i…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:10 PM
2

Neither did she according to what she pled to. BWAHAHAHAHAHA really? Literally in the story, so I've only to assume you're fucking illiterate : She admitted three counts of assaulting a police officer, three charges of racially aggravated public order offences, one count of assaulting an accredited person, and one charge of common assault. Do you see resisting arrest in there? I'm an attorney who's litigated literally thousands of torts and other types of cases over the last decade. Anonymous pe…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:09 PM
2

That was a default judgment. He lost because he didn't show. According to your own link, he settled out of court. Which again doesn't mean he lost. Do you know what "settlement" means? Because it doesn't seem you do. Anyway, as I said I'm actually legally qualified to answer these questions and you aren't, so again: You're wrong. Of course, we'll just take your word for it... since you can't actually prove anything you've said. It's pretty easy to show I'm an attorney from my post history. You c…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 07:03 PM
2

He slapped a police officer, which is what she did. No, he slapped a guy he was playing basketball with, who happened to be an off-duty cop. He did not resist arrest. Neither did she according to what she pled to. I've seen literally thousands of cases where simple assaults are adjudicated in a similar way with no jail time. Your lack of knowledge of criminal and civil law seems to indicate otherwise. Lol. OK. I'm an attorney who's litigated literally thousands of torts and other types of cases …
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:59 PM
1

In any lawsuit in a western justice system, the plaintiff needs to show DAMAGES. You just provided a link to a story where, in your own words, he slapped a police officer, was sued, and paid $100K as a result of the lawsuit. That was a default judgment. He lost because he didn't show. since I am 100% professionally qualified to discuss this topic and obviously you aren't. You aren't even qualified to read the links you provide. Ironic considering you didn't take the time to do any research yours…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:56 PM
-1

If. You. Have. Damages. These people likely have zero damages. They got a minor slap in a nation with universal health care. What would their damages be?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:41 PM
-2

What do you have to say for yourself now? That nowhere in that entire incident did he assault a police officer, or resist arrest. So, can you, maybe find a case where a man committed the same crimes she did and received no jail time? He slapped a police officer, which is what she did. No two crimes are exactly the same but the facts here are very similar. Did you even read the whole article? I'm going to assume this is the best you can do, and thank you for proving my point. How does it prove yo…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:39 PM
0

I can. I was wondering where you're getting this incorrect information from, since I am 100% professionally qualified to discuss this topic and obviously you aren't. In any lawsuit in a western justice system, the plaintiff needs to show DAMAGES. The people she assaulted very likely have no damages. You're 100% wrong. The end.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:34 PM
11

With the second one it's a person who happens to be a lady and has nothing to do with her gender. Right... I'm not sending anyone to prison for this crime.... is not the same as I'm not sending a lady to prison for this crime. It is. And I'm telling you this woman received an entirety typical sentence for anyone male or female committing the same thing. Quit trolling. I'm trolling now because all of a sudden this sub is all about feelz not facts. That's rich. Turn off the emotional rage for a mi…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:33 PM
15

It'd be like the judge saying I'm not sending a young man to prison for this. I see your point here, but think that the precedent of lighter sentencing for females is still in effect here. I'm not saying there isn't a bias of giving women lighter sentences. I know there is. I teach that fact in class. I'm saying in this case there's no evidence it's present. None at all. This woman got an entirely typical sentence for her crime. A night in jail, a fine, and a large amount of community service.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:30 PM
0

What is your qualification to say such a thing?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:29 PM
11

With the second one it's a person who happens to be a lady and has nothing to do with her gender. Stop doing what feminists do and imagining a sexist boogeyman where none exists. You have no evidence this judge was being sexist. None. Feels not reals, I guess. Right?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:28 PM
-2

Does it matter what word he emphasized? Yes it absolutely does. The first is bias. The second is referring to the fact that he wouldn't send a person to prison for these facts and the person in front of him just happens to be female. The same rings true that a man would've gotten jail time for this while the defendant (a woman) would not be getting jail time and instead, would be receiving community service. It "rings true" for you because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's no…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:22 PM
25

I'm not sending a LADY to prison for this. I'm not sending a lady to PRISON for this. Neither of those makes a difference at all. Of course it does. If it's second, it means he's not going to send someone to prison for a minor crime, and the word lady is simply referring to the person in front of him by her gender. If it was a young male student he'd say "guy" or something similar. He would, 100%, send a male to prison for this. And you know this how? You don't. You have literally no proof of th…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:20 PM
1

Do they have medical bills? From a single slap? In a country with universal health care? I doubt it. Assault and battery are both legal damages in and of themselves. It isn't often that it happens, but yes, you can absolutely sue for simple assault and battery. Not in the United States, or in any English Common law nation I know of. I mean you can sue, but you won't win anything. You're simply wrong.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:14 PM
1

Ok. http://m.tmz.com/2017/02/06/the-game-plea-deal-cop-punch/ Rapper with history of gang membership, drug dealing, etc etc etc. Big tattooed black guy. Slapped a cop while sober. Is completely unrepentant. Suspended sentence so no jail time. Community service and probation. So a way "worse" situation, with no jail time. What do you have to say for yourself now?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 06:13 PM
22

It's not that the punishment is not fair for the crime that is pussypass. It's that the punishment is much more lenient than what an adult male would receive. No, it's not. She slapped a bar bouncer. When the police came to arrest her, she struggled with them in her drunken stupor. This is something that happens to men and women alike every weekend in every city and no one gets prison time for it unless they've got a rap sheet a mile long. I've seen a million of these sorts of cases result in no…
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:46 PM
0

You do realize that racially motivated assaults at the police would get any many jail time? No I don't understand that at all, because it's not true for these facts. I'm telling you what she got is an entirely typical sentence for anyone who, in a drunken stupor, yells and swings at police, and slaps a bar bouncer. This is entirely typical.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:44 PM
3

I don't the police could sue but I believe that the bouncers could. They were assaulted and thus sustained damage. No, they didn't. Do they have medical bills? From a single slap? In a country with universal health care? I doubt it.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:42 PM
-13

The judge specifically said she didn't get jail time because she was a women. This implies that a man would've gotten jail time. That's not what the judge said at all. Do you understand that "I'm not going to send a LADY to prison for this" And "I'm not going to send a lady to PRISON for this" Are two very different statements? And do you further understand that we don't know which one he said?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:40 PM
-4

And you know this how? Because I would say no. I would say in an overwhelming number of similar cases a night in jail and lots of community service would be typical.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:38 PM
0

You have no clue what you're talking about here. There's no evidence of bias here. None at all. Her sentence is fairly severe for what she did.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:29 PM
-5

How is this sentence not fair for what amounts to an extremely minor battery? Edit: OK downvoters, I'm an attorney who's seen situations like this a thousand times. This sentence is totally typical. Care to explain?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:28 PM
1

People like who? What exactly would be the small claims case here? What tangible damages are there?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:27 PM
-6

How did she get off easy? What she did wouldn't be very serious in any western court.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:26 PM
-6

Lol. I can't see this happening to anyone else. Then you don't spend time in courts because this level of punishment is actually leaning on the severe side of normal for this sort of thing.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:26 PM
-18

How is this a confirmation of any of that? She got what seems to be a pretty severe punishment compared to what is common for western legal systems and a simple, relatively minor, battery. Edit: OK sure downvoters, explain to me what you do that you know more about the Criminal justice system to comment on this.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:25 PM
9

Did he emphasize that word or the word prison? It makes a huge difference and we don't know, do we?
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:24 PM
71

I mean she swung at and tried to kick a cop that was arresting her for slapping a bouncer. All the name calling and other stuff is just words. She got a night in jail and has to perform 200 150 hours of community service. That's more than an entire month of full time work weeks. She also has a £200 fine. Seems like a pretty fair punishment. I'd say it's on the severe side compared to what we usually see in the American system (though she's in UK). Yeah, she shouldn't go to prison for that. Does …
/r/MensRights14/03/17 05:22 PM
15

How many times is this going to be posted?
/r/MensRights23/12/16 02:57 PM
1

If you payed attention you would realize he didn't rape her Under the law he did. and that he didn't know she was 13, Irrelevant. not that should matter as, he was only 17 a mere 4 years older and still a minor. Again, irrelevant. Due to their ages this was rape in Vermont.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 06:37 PM
1

It is not nearly as rare as you are stating. It's incredibly rare. Crime is rare. Sex crimes are exceedingly rare. Made up sex crimes are several levels rarer than that. Look at the BJS data on these things. Without counting the rather large number of African-American men who were lynched because of this in the past, I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about in our modern society. you can just look at the rolls of the Innocence Project to get a real scope of how much of a problem that th…
/r/MensRights19/12/16 02:17 AM
1

Or just, you know, get to know the person before fucking them.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:35 PM
1

How about getting to know a person before sticking your dick in them? Remember that? Big big lies like age usually fall apart pretty quickly once you start getting to know someone.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:34 PM
2

This happened in Vermont. It's confusing because he's a NY resident.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:31 PM
1

No, she was 13.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:31 PM
1

Exactly. This sub is like "but she lied about her age". Well, if this guy had gotten to know her that lie would have fallen apart pretty quickly.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:30 PM
1

Yes, it is. Unfortunately you were subjected to a rare and terrible event which almost never happens. That will obviously skew your world view. I hope you are able to get help for yourself.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:29 PM
1

It's not false though. Under the law he sexually assaulted her.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:27 PM
1

It's not a question of gender it's a question of age. The older person should be responsible.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 05:24 PM
1

No doubt. However, the role of the older person in the situation is to be responsible and reject the coercion.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 04:56 PM
1

Because she's a child.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 04:54 PM
1

Yet there have been plenty of 13 year olds put into juvenile, The whole point of the juvenile justice system is that juveniles shouldn't be held criminally responsible for what they do. It's all about reforming them from a bad choice, not punishment. and even tried as adults for decisions they make. It would be extremely rare for a 13 year old to be tried as an adult. We can probably count on one hand the number of times it's happened in each state. For things they do regardless of their age or …
/r/MensRights18/12/16 04:50 PM
1

im an attorney. You can keep pretending. I'm open enough about my identity that anyone can easily verify I am. Except you don't want to, as you'd have to face the very real fact that you might be dealing with someone who is correct. So where did I say we don't hold them "legally responsible"? Age of criminal responsibility is when we hold them legally responsible, such as when someone 10 or older in a minimum 10 state (like the UK) lights something on fire. Legal responsibility = criminal liabil…
/r/MensRights17/12/16 07:02 PM
2

professional. Heh. Sure buddy. While we're on the internet, I'm king of spain. The difference is you're not, whereas I'm actually an attorney. Once more, if we didn't find them legally responsible, we wouldn't put them in juvenile facilities for a crime. Suppose an 8 year old commits arson in a state where the minimum age of CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY is 10, they don't get arrested, but the parents may be held responsible. Once they hit 10, they get arrested. It's really that simple, but you're pre…
/r/MensRights17/12/16 06:36 PM
1

So do you believe there should be age of consent laws or should it be based on whether or not it felt good to the child? Which one?
/r/MensRights17/12/16 06:35 PM
1

If they aren't legally responsible, they'd be sent home instead of to a juvenile holding cell. You're still trying to conflate criminal charge and delinquent charge with whether or not some kid is being help legally responsible. No I'm not. My original comment - go back and read it - was that we don't generally hold children "criminally liable." Which is 100% accurste. Juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal proceedings. I never used the phrase "legally responsible" because that phrase…
/r/MensRights17/12/16 02:59 PM
3

Ok, and? Personal attacks suggest you aren't able to properly defend your points. My favorite was where you were so sure that a lawyer would "chime in" and support you until one actually did chime in. Now all of a sudden we're "professional liars". Funny how you stop using lawyers as a resource the minute an actual one shows up and says you're full of shit.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 03:33 AM
1

And if I fucked that 16 year old, people would cry and cry about how he's a FUCKING CHILD because they find it offensive. But if in a state where it was legal, they couldn't do shit. It's legal in Vermont. So, no they wouldn't. the "MUH FUCKING CHILD" defense is so played out. 1960's called, it wants its "think of the children" rhetoric back. So you're saying age of consent laws shouldn't exist? Is that seriously what you're saying?
/r/MensRights17/12/16 03:31 AM
1

Is that why they typically retain a record until it is expunged at 18? If its not criminal, how is there a record of offense, which can weigh in to future crimes committed? They retain a record because the courts retain a record of everything. Someone adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent is not the same as a criminal offense. You're just using weasel wording, very lawyerly, as they're the type who probably designed that terminology anyway. No, I'm using the proper legal definition of things. An …
/r/MensRights17/12/16 03:28 AM
1

That is the claim made by the law. It's a belief shared by people in a civilized society: That we should protect children from exploitation from adults. That may or may not be actually true in the mind of the supposed victim. Ok, and? Again, she's a child. She doesn't know the effects of what she's doing, hence why the law exists. In this case, she sought out sex and if this had been 1850, it would be perfectly legal. We didn't have an understanding of childhood the way we do now. In 1850 there …
/r/MensRights17/12/16 03:24 AM
1

She can't consent. She's a child. A toddler might like the feeling they get when they're molested, should we make that legal, too? Seems like that's what you're saying.. If it feels good it should be legal. Disgusting.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 03:23 AM
1

Ok, it's not legal where he did it.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 03:18 AM
1

A juvenile charge isn't a criminal charge. That's what I'm trying to explain to you.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 02:51 AM
1

Did you miss the part where I said "in general"? I guess you did. For example, in both NY, the state where this guy lives, and VT, where he is being charged, people 16 and up are charged as adults. People under 16 are charged as juveniles. And I'm 100% sure I know quite a bit about the way laws work, so, yeah.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 02:48 AM
1

Why not? For the same reasons we don't hold 13 year olds criminally liable in general. Do I need to explain the concept of "juvenile" to you?
/r/MensRights17/12/16 02:30 AM
1

Doesn't matter. This happened in Vermont.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 10:44 PM
1

It happened in Vermont. Check again and then delete or edit your posts.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 10:43 PM
1

And what's the problem with that? Are you saying we should hold 13 year olds criminally liable for child porn charges?
/r/MensRights16/12/16 10:41 PM
1

This consideration should, but probably won't, be a strong factor that reduces his sentence if he's convicted. What consideration? That he didn't intend to break the law? Again, that'd not how mens rea works, and it's not something that could (or should) be proven in any case anyway. The whole process is a sham, It seems like it's not. The police built a case against him, they arrested him, and now the case will go through the court system. Where's the "sham"? why should things like evidence, Wh…
/r/MensRights16/12/16 10:40 PM
0

So you're basically saying that her telling him she was only about year younger than him, her sending him graphic messages and photos, and the fact that she was the one to invite him for sex is all irrelevant to this case. Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. On top of that, you totally absolve the girl in this case that initiated the encounter, willingly sent the photos/messages, lied to the police (she is more than old enough to know this was wrong), and has ruined someone's life based on her…
/r/MensRights16/12/16 05:22 PM
0

That's not what this sub is saying. You would have to take this entire thread grossly out of context to come to that conclusion. Many of the comments belie that. What this sub is saying is that there is responsibility on both sides, There isn't. She's a child. A. Child. Children are not "responsible" for bad decisions. A hallmark of a civilization is protecting children from bad decisions. and that he lacked mens rea (the guilty mind) in this situation. In other words, he had no intention of com…
/r/MensRights16/12/16 05:17 PM
-1

That's not required. In fact that's not the standard of mens rea for any crime. Mens rea for intent is whether the person had the intent to commit the act that constitutes the crime. The act that constitutes the crime here is having sex. The guy had the intent to have sex. But that's neither here nor there since this is a strict liability crime. No mens rea is needed.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 03:57 PM
-1

He didn't have intent to have sex with her? He accidentally had sex with her?
/r/MensRights16/12/16 01:23 PM
0

There is evidence that he's a predator, he preyed on a child. But I disagree with offender registries because they are ineffective and make rehabilitation difficult.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 12:57 PM
2

Yes, I disagree with sex offender registries. My point was mainly to the fact that this sub is saying what he did should he legal and no big deal.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 12:10 PM
0

We're talking about a 13 year old who falsely identified her age Kids lie. She's a child. and has testified she was not forced or coerced. So what? The point of age of consent laws is that a child doesn't know if they're being coerced and doesn't know what they're getting into. That why these laws exist. Should i be obtaining background checks and FBI certification of the age of every person i sleep with beforehand because underage girls cant be held responsible for their actions, and their pare…
/r/MensRights16/12/16 12:05 PM
4

Hi. I chimed in as he requested. He's wrong. Like, comically wrong.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:43 AM
3

There simply isn't an article that does that, that I am aware of. That is based on my study of Constitutional and Common Law. This is based on hours of reading various books, watching presentations by Constitutional Lawyers, and so on. I'm sure if a Constitutional Lawyer would chime in they could explain it a lot better than I am, Ooh, here, let me chime in: You're completely wrong. Your entire long post was a rambling cacophony of errors and untruths.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:42 AM
0

It's not in the Constitution. This guy's completely wrong.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:38 AM
3

The fact that this law violates the constitution and international bill of human rights Haha, what? No. Absolutely not.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:38 AM
-3

Who should lose their job for charging someone for raping a child?
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:35 AM
-4

He allegedly raped a 13 year old girl. What's disgusting about him being punished if he is convicted?
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:33 AM
3

Zachery McClure, 17 Not a legal adult, and currently only accused and not convicted... and yet his name is out for all to see. 16 years old in both VT, where she lives, and NY, where he lives, is when adult charges apply. He's an adult for purposes of the criminal justice system. We're talking about a 13 year old here. Pretty sick that this sub is defending this.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:29 AM
161

Am lawyer, can confirm. One of the best things of my job are those times when simply announcing my credentials gets shit done. It's rare because usually by the time I'm involved people are dug in, but it's great when it happens.
/r/MensRights09/12/16 02:42 PM
9

You realize vagina size/"looseness" is completely independent of age, right?
/r/MensRights25/11/16 03:15 PM
6

Can we all chip in and send her first class? We have to all chip in anyway... Isn't she one of the people that needs to buy 2 seats in coach?
/r/MensRights11/11/16 07:22 PM
1

only a small number wind up with a bad divorce situation. 50%? Those aren't great odds. Might as well put all your money on black in roulette. It's not 50%, it's much low and getting lower. If you're college educated, have certain basic things in common, and certain basic beliefs in common, the rate gets lowered significantly further to below 1 in 10. And I said bad divorce situation. Plenty of divorces are perfectly reasonable and no one gets screwed. The law is neutral now and people who hire …
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:35 PM
20

Exactly. This is a troll or a mistake.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:10 PM
1

This is terrible advice and exactly why this sub is looked down on so frequently. Marriage offers a lot of benefits and only a small number wind up with a bad divorce situation.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:10 PM
1

This...This is why I ain't ever going to find a girl. I'm so fucking terrified of this happening to me. He earns like...80 bucks a month? I made more than that when I was 14! Working ONE DAY A WEEK! AS A DISH WASHER! I'm a nice guy, funny, and i'm going to keep to myself because of this bullcrap. Don't worry about it because it's likely untrue, or it's a temporary situation because OP had a serious decline in his income.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:08 PM
1

It is in almost every state a simple formula, similar to the one you describe, already. But don't let facts get in the way of your pitchfork.
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:07 PM
3

You think your salary has decreased? How do you not know what you're making?
/r/MensRights29/10/16 11:05 PM
1

How did Marisa Meyer get to this point? Literally everything about her personality and ability seems to be awful.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 09:06 PM
2

Why? What makes you say that?
/r/MensRights17/08/16 04:38 PM
2

What makes you say that?
/r/MensRights17/08/16 04:38 PM
3

My face is getting hot and I want to bite my collar just thinking about it.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 05:31 PM
6

Like this, except completely un-self-aware and humorless. https://youtu.be/ovlp0N7ljFE
/r/MensRights09/07/16 05:11 PM
16

smart reserved girl who's probably gonna break out of her shell by the end of the movie, Oh God. I'm imagining the scene where rock music plays as she shakes the bun out of her hair. Cringe.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 04:52 PM
5

You're being downvoted but you're correct. A prosecutor does not have sovereign immunity. They have prosecutorial immunity. It's a different concept. Source: am lawyer.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 01:41 PM
8

Doesn't sound like any substantive discussion we want to engage in. Hopefully if we threw around accusations like that with no proof the mods here would delete it too.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 10:52 PM
19

I don't even get what they were going for with this.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 03:36 AM
4

Original WSJ article is behind their stupid paywall.
/r/MensRights10/06/16 03:58 PM
12

After reading these women's tales of lifelong dating woes, I'm reminded... If you smell shit every now and then, maybe you've rubbed up against an asshole. If you all you ever smell is shit, maybe you're the asshole.
/r/MensRights01/06/16 12:37 AM
1

The divorce rate is going down because the marriage rate is also dropping. The divorce rate is going down as a percentage of marriages, not as a percentage of people, which means marriage is becoming better once people get to that point. Also...prenups don't work and are ignored by judges in most western countries. Most judges just ignore them and rule the way they see fit. This is absolutely false and you should be ashamed for even posting such nonsense. Every US state, for example, will honor …
/r/MensRights29/05/16 12:13 AM
2

Agreed. This is exactly the kind of low-thought, strawman, whining, that makes any discussion of men's issues difficult. For every marriage and divorce like this there are a hundred that are way better for the man. Meanwhile, this shit gets upvoted so that, next time I mention that Title IX has resulted in kangaroo courts at colleges, or that young boys are falling behind their female peers in every measurable way, all the person I'm saying it to will see is this post. It's embarrassing and hurt…
/r/MensRights29/05/16 12:02 AM
1

If so, I really feel bad for you. This doesn't relate to my marriage or life at all.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 11:53 PM
1

Asking for spousal support after a 15 month marriage ... Which wouldn't be hundreds of millions of dollars. You said, and I quote: Money grabber isn't up for debate. She is going for hundreds of millions of his premarital wealth. But she's not. This is how the legal process works. She asked for everything possible in her initial paperwork, because if she didn't, she wouldn't qualify later no matter what came out. This sub frequently blows up over what is put in initial divorce filings without re…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 11:34 PM
2

Maybe she isn't and this article is full of shit, It's not an article, it's an image with two lines of text. but asking "where do you see that she is?" is a dumb question, because they obviously see it IN THE TITLE OF THE POST. Except that the title is misleading and sensationalist. It doesn't say she's trying to get it, the headline says "battle begins" over $400 million, because saying "woman files for divorce and CA law will peacefully and reasonably divide the marital assets" doesn't get cli…
/r/MensRights28/05/16 05:27 PM
1

Source? She asked for spousal support and her application was denied. Where does it say she's after $400 million?
/r/MensRights28/05/16 05:24 PM
1

I guess relationships are great when they're good. I took a chance and it paid off, I'd be lonely if it weren't for my wife. But if it works for you, awesome.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 05:24 PM
2

Except she isn't. Where do you see that she is?
/r/MensRights28/05/16 12:39 PM
-5

How did you determine she is "after the money "?
/r/MensRights28/05/16 12:38 PM
0

Sounds lonely.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 12:34 PM
1

They had a joint income (mostly his) of $30 million over those 15 months. She gets half under Californian law. So, a whopping $1 million a month of marriage. You keep saying this. Where does it say this in the law?
/r/MensRights28/05/16 12:32 PM
20

The funny thing is, pretty much everyone, most feminists included, is hating on them for this. It was pointed out that when Gamergate and anti-Gamergate both think your idea is shit, it's pretty bad. Also, I haven't seen officially that they want to jail anyone for remarks, although their leader has hinted at it.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 03:38 PM
1

If a stranger accuses me of rape, I lose at least $500k between the lawyer and my ended career. And that's less than the cost of being wrongfully imprisoned without due process because you were secreted away without anyone having the right to know. Privacy is maintained in France for the accused, the same way it is for rape accusers in the US, by not releasing the info to the press. I'm not seeing that this is an actual law in France. Moreover, I'm not really concerned about what France does. Ou…
/r/MensRights15/04/16 11:21 AM
1

Accusers are anonymous under the law in some countries. Like England. So what? I'm talking about the USA, where accusers are not anonymous. You are deluded if you think being named helps a rape defendant. I'm fairly certain I'm not. Having a public trial helps the defendant in many ways. It shines the light of the public on the process. It provides a chance for additional witnesses and evidence to be found. It prevents the government from levying secret charges. It prevents people from having th…
/r/MensRights15/04/16 01:34 AM
0

Our society loses when an innocent person's life is ruined by a mere accusation that leads to an arrest. An innocent person's life is ruined because morons do not understand how our system works. For example, that accusations are unproven and a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. The solution is not to fuck up our justice system with bad ideas. Until there's hard evidence, anonymity is warranted, as is the case in France. How on Earth would you do that when we have freedom of the press?
/r/MensRights15/04/16 01:21 AM
2

First, adult accusers aren't kept anonymous under the law. Second, it benefits the accused to have a public trial. That's why it is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:53 PM
1

So, just to be sure - are you saying that neither the accused nor the defendant should be granted anonymity? I am saying that. There would be much better chance of just being done if both parties were to remain anonymous until conviction. No way. Justice is done by an open and public process. Naming everyone involved is key to the process.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:52 PM
-1

No, out society benefits greatly from open and transparent court proceedings. No one should be anonymous which is why our Constitution provides the accused with the right to a public trial.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:51 PM
2

That doesn't happen in the US. Only in rare instances involving a young child suspect.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:49 PM
1

Let's try to stay with scenarios that are actually occurring more than one in a billion. 7 million Americans lost their homes during the great recession. You think the chances of financial hardship of someone who can afford a $1000 treatment to be 1 in 1billion? Do you have any examples of it actually happening? And we don't "allow" a woman to not support her child any more than we allow a man to not support their child. She decided to bear that burden, he didn't. A woman can decide, when she is…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 08:05 PM
1

And we don't "allow" a woman to not support her child any more than we allow a man to not support their child. Where is the discrimination or unfairness? Yes we do. If a father can't afford to pay for a child he will lose his drivers license, passport, go to jail, etc... If a mother can't afford to pay for a child she will get food stamps, medicaid welfare, etc... Incorrect. If a custodial parent is not properly caring for a child, they will be punished. If someone who cares for a child cannot m…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 07:32 PM
1

The child is 100% blameless. That's what you're ignoring. You're harming someone who is 100% blameless in causing the situation, in favor of someone who is not. How can you say that's a better moral choice? The child is "100% blameless" when a woman walks into a sperm bank, gets pregnant and then cannot support the child. Yet we allow her to do that. Because we don't want government telling people who can and cannot have children. Considering the cost of IVF how many times, exactly, do you think…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 05:31 PM
1

This is not even close to universally true. Irrelevant. The point still stands: No, it doesn't, since that was your whole point. in many places in the US women can reproduce without having to secure a man's financial support. It's not that they don't have to. It's that the state doesn't intercede unless the custodial parent asks them to. If society doesn't give a rats ass about the well being of the soon to be conceived child in this case, it should also allow for financial abortions (i.e. he is…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 03:58 PM
1

A woman can walk into a sperm bank and buy sperm and get pregnant. When she does this, no one objects with "what about the child?". No one forces the sperm donor to pay child support. She is on her own and no one cares. This is not even close to universally true. In many if not most cases, sperm donors can in fact be held liable for child support. It varies based on the laws of the state and the circumstances under which sperm was donated. In many cases where the donor is not liable, it is only …
/r/MensRights29/03/16 01:59 PM
1

Claiming that the mother and father had equal parts in 'making' a child is disingenuous. I didn't say they had equal parts. I said they both had a part. I acknowledge the parts are unequal. The alternative is the mother supporting the child as best she can. If this is not enough, then the state should step in in the form of welfare. Welfare isn't a dirty word, and is there for the most needy in society, including children. The population has a duty to care for those in need; Ah, I see. Ok, well,…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 01:50 PM
2

Can someone give me a good alternative to having both parents support a child they make? Serious question because I can never come up with one.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 04:50 AM
-3

Obama likes to appoint activist judges. Aside from the phrase "activist judge" being nothing more than a meaningless bit of media nonsense, I fail to see how this is judicial activism at all. The complaint was asking the judge to apply Title IX in a relatively new way. To find that the Plaintiff did not state a case under FRCP 12(b)(6) is actually restraint, and is the opposite of anything that would be or could be "activist".
/r/MensRights15/03/16 01:42 PM
13

It's actually not worth noting at all. This is not a NY judge, it's a federal district court judge sitting in the SDNY. The judge worked in NY for 5 years but left in 2009. Other than those 5 years he has zero ties to the NY legal community. To suggest that a couple of lawyers in NYC have any sway over a federal judge is pretty ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous when everything I see about her parents has "MD" after their names, which I'm sure you know does not really suggest they are lawyers…
/r/MensRights15/03/16 12:46 PM
1

There should absolutely be a cap on mandatory child support. We're talking about men that were forced to have a child that they didn't want or are forced to pay child support for a child that's not even theirs. It is absurd to think that the state should mandate a child is provided things like summer camps and music lessons. Those aren't good reasons to force someone into indentured servitude. It's not indentured servitude. It's taking care of your children. You do the best you can and it's a si…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 06:08 PM
1

Bummer, man. Sorry.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 05:53 PM
5

Too bad you're not in the United States. If you were, I'd encourage you to attempt to attend, and after being denied entrance, file a Title IX complaint based on the workshop discriminating against people on the basis of gender. Does the UK have anti-gender-discrimination laws that apply to colleges?
/r/MensRights11/03/16 02:35 PM
0

I'm aware of those laws. Then why did you respond in a way that conveniently ignored them. Are you trying to win the argument, or have a useful discussion? I didn't ignore them at all. They simply do not mean anything near like what the person I was responding to said. But those considerations are made by the judge, not "the woman." Yes. Niether I nor he said otherwise. I beg to differ. Here's the whole comment: It's case by case and very much depends on the state. Many states allow woman a lot …
/r/MensRights11/03/16 02:31 PM
0

I'm aware of those laws. But those considerations are made by the judge, not "the woman."
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:55 PM
0

You're not getting it. "Costs" of raising a child are not a fixed thing. They fluctuate with the income of the parents just like the costs of having a house or the costs of having a car. My children "cost" more than many others because our household income is relatively high. Included in the "cost" are things like summer camps, music lessons, Scouts, gymnastics, sports, transportation, and the $3k my wife seems to spend every Christmas when she's "cutting back." And the money generated by the pe…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:34 PM
-3

It's based on a percentage of your income. Which is typically less than parents who are together would end up spending. I know men paying close to six figures per year in child support and, on top of that, they still have to pay for virtually everything (clothes, dues for sports teams, etc) because the mom refuses to spend "her" money on the child. Cool story. I know parents who are paying little to nothing because they're deadbeat assholes. Now do you see why I don't take supposedly true anecdo…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 03:28 AM
7

Many states allow woman a lot of power do decide what percentage of the father's income is enough, "in the interest of the child". Can you name any of these states? Every state I know of uses a simple mathematical formula that takes into account both parents income.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:38 AM
1

How do you figure? It doesn't even cover the costs of the child.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 11:39 PM
1

I don't know if slavery is the right term, but marriage currently is an institution that serves only to benefit women. This is completely false. Marriage benefits a lot of people, myself included.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 05:13 PM
1

MGTOW exists for a reason. To complain about the women that won't sleep with them and whom they supposedly don't care about? If there's a reason it exists other than that, I really don't see it.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 05:10 PM
1

That's not true at all. First, marriage isn't a contract. It's a marriage. But even assuming we say marriage is a contract, it provides for many things that occur during marriage. Second, just because a contract doesn't have explicit terms for every ending possible doesn't void the contract or mean a court would throw it out. For example, a business partnership agreement might not have adequate terms to deal with the death of a partner, but that doesn't mean the non-compete section is void if a …
/r/MensRights05/03/16 05:07 PM
1

No his shitty decision was sticking his dick in crazy without a half dozen self-provided rubbers wrapping it.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 05:01 PM
1

/r/outoftheloop anyone? ELI5?
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:07 PM
1

Nothing you have said even comes close to a ground for annulment. You have zero chance of getting one.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 03:19 PM
2

How does this make her an alleged feminist? On the contrary, this is square with what feminists believe. If there was a CEO draft, they'd burn their bras for that. But actual dangerous difficult work? Oh my, heaven's no! (faints)
/r/MensRights04/02/16 11:01 PM
6

Child support is used for children. Alimony is for a spouse.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 12:11 AM
-3

Maybe we could say every man is taking on a serious risk. A serious risk of what? If you don't have significant assets before marriage - and let's be clear, the overwhelming majority of men do Not since they get married in their twenties - there's nothing being risked but a broken heart. On that, I will defer to Shakespeare. But I'm sure a lot of men go along with things they're not happy with because they don't want to lose everything they worked hard for in a divorce. You're sure? Based on wha…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:15 PM
5

Nah, it was just his legal argument. Lawyers make legal arguments all the time that are good for their client but bad for society as a whole if adopted. As a lawyer you have to pick your client over society every time.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:50 PM
0

Don't be ridiculous. The only people who benefit from a prenup are those with significant assets before marriage, which is very few people. Any typical poor or zero-net-worth twentysomething getting married (the vast majority of people when they walk down the aisle) has no need for one.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:45 PM
22

Alimony is bullshit unless it's to your own flesh and blood. I don't know what state you're from, but here in the developed world alimony never goes to "your own flash and blood", since its illegal to marry your flesh and blood.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:43 PM
0

This is a ridiculous generalization. Didn't you learn in school that always/never/all statements are usually false?
/r/MensRights31/01/16 08:41 PM
2

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
/r/MensRights04/01/16 08:54 PM
2

That's not true at all. Not even close. For a movement that prides itself on being rational, it really disappoints me to see men spreading this myth over and over. You're no better than the women who say they only make $0.78 for every dollar a man makes.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 08:52 PM
2

I like being single and free. Fair enough, I enjoy having a companion. I get to travel the world regularly, Not really dependant on being married. Anyway, I've traveled plenty and will continue to do so. really invest in my career That's good. My career is immeasurably better because I have my wife supporting me. I focus way more because of her, but I also recognize that it's not really important. and fuck lots of beautiful young women, who surprisingly stay young even as I get old. It's awesome…
/r/MensRights04/01/16 08:47 PM
1

Greater than 50%? What are you talking about?
/r/MensRights04/01/16 06:55 PM
1

There are thousands of legal benefits in the United States for married people. There are also personal and societal benefits. Personally, I enjoy the companionship, the masculine feeling I get from "having" a woman like my wife, great stability for my kids, and the stability for me as well.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 06:53 PM
2

I'm glad I'm married and have kids. They're awesome. You're missing out on an incredible part of the human existence because of the small chance you'd have a messy divorce someday. That's crazy.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 06:48 PM
-2

Can I watch? I love to watch. ;-) Watch you in court, I mean. I'm a litigator and always appreciate the chance.
/r/MensRights03/01/16 02:16 AM
-2

Agreed. The wife is a piece of shit but her words written in the memo line of the check are free speech.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 06:01 PM
0

That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about writing impolite language on the memo line of a check, which would be in almost every case protected speech under the First Amendment.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 05:59 PM
-9

No. There's this thing in America called freedom of speech. Edit: you guys want so desperately to find some punishment for this shitty woman you're downvoting someone giving the correct legal answer.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 04:32 PM
-3

If a man wrote "whore" on alimony checks, how long do you think it would take a court to hold him in contempt? All that would take is a call from the woman's attorney to the judge. That's not how it works.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 02:36 PM
1

i'm suggesting that getting accused of rape can devastate you socially and economically, regardless of any court proceedings. I understand that. However, it's the lesser of two evils, since allowing a government to have secret courts is FAR worse. The solution for your problem is to educate people about the court system and "innocent until proven guilty," not to remove the public from court. It's also to provide better access to justice in the form of attorneys and other services. further, you m…
/r/MensRights04/11/15 12:35 AM
1

Names are already public record. Do you have evidence that what you suggest is a widespread problem?
/r/MensRights04/11/15 12:26 AM
1

I disagree with your entire characterization of whether that benefits the accused, as a lawyer and adjunct professor of Constitutional Law, for the reasons I already explained. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers agreed with me, which is why we have the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, as well as the Habeas Corpus protections, in our Constitution. Your approach would require Constitutional Amendment. But I respect your disagreement.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 04:52 PM
28

but at the same time it's a problem that girls don't have the opportunity to be in something like Boy Scouts. Maybe they should be focusing on how to make Girl Scouts suck less rather than trying to put girls in Boy Scouts? Well they DO have the opportunity. There is literally nothing preventing this woman from starting a new Girl Scout Troop, registering these girls, and doing the activities they want to do. Nothing is stopping her from doing this but for her need to make a petty "girl power" s…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 04:38 PM
39

Well great, introduce your program--you know, the one that does away with rank, a core part of the scouting experience--to the Girl Scouts, and see how they feel about it. That's the thing, they could do just that. The Girl Scouts operate differently than the Boy Scouts in that the units aren't "persistent" from year to year. Units form and dissolve all the time based on the girls. My Pack is 50 years old this year, GSA units are often 1-3 years old. Boy Scout units need to be "chartered" (owned…
/r/MensRights29/10/15 04:32 PM
1

What does that gain of everyone knows who the accused is? A lot for the accused. It prevents the government from being able to secretly arrest someone and hold them without due process. It allows alibi witnesses, character witnesses, and other evidence to be found more easily. It reduces corruption by shining a light on the justice system in general. As I said, an open court system is absolutely necessary for a free society.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 04:12 PM
2

Not releasing names of people accused and/or arrested is a terrible idea. We need an open, public, court system in order to assure justice. The problem isn't the publicity of the name, it's the handling of it by everyone else.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 02:49 AM
1

Unfortunately, because she is a minor, many publications would not publish her name, and it may, in fact, be illegal to do so. It wouldn't be illegal to publish it in the United States.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 02:47 AM
1

That's a terrible idea. An open court system is a lynchpin of justice. Court proceedings need to be open and names need to be public record.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 02:45 AM
1

in the US it seems to be against the law to release the names of police officers until proven guilty. It's not. Not at all.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 01:01 AM
1

Well, in most cases, when a child commits a crime, they are processed through the juvenile system. A big part of that is because we recognize that children are less culpable. I don't see anything wrong with saying that a 15-year-old knows right from wrong and can be punished for a violent crime, while also saying that a 25-year-old who has sex with a 15-year-old was taking advantage of that teen and was therefore committing a crime. You have to separate the culpability of the offender. And no, t…
/r/MensRights22/10/15 04:14 PM
1

No, because neither of them would be culpable.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 12:01 PM
1

Maybe its not rape? Maybe he wanted it. It doesn't matter if he supposedly wanted it, he could not consent. His "wanting it" is irrelevant as our society takes the position that a 14-year-old is not mature enough to make a well-reasoned decision as to whether they want sex. At 14 he is a child. Legal age of consent in NY is 17.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 11:52 PM
1

... Not sure if serious...
/r/MensRights21/10/15 11:49 PM
1

He needs a lawyer. That's the long and short of it. Anyone that tries to handle a court case without a lawyer is gonna get fucked. I myself am a lawyer and would not go to court without another lawyer to represent me.
/r/MensRights21/10/15 06:59 PM
6

Yes, and those laws are similar to ones in the US, in that you can't be told to leave a private place that's a "public accommodation" for a discriminatory reason. For example, a mall in Canada can't tell you to leave because you're black, or Muslim, or female. It's private property, yes, but it's a public accommodation and therefore there are many times they cannot, in fact, tell you to leave. Canadian human rights laws in Ontario and BC specifically include breastfeeding on that list. Other pro…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:40 PM
16

This is completely incorrect, in both what I know of UK law, and in almost every US state. Most states have a law that says a woman can breastfeed anywhere that she otherwise could be legally. In other words, breastfeeding alone can't turn a legal presence into trespassing. Stores, malls, and similar places in the United States are what's called "public accommodation". They can't discriminate against guests on certain grounds. In states that have these breastfeeding laws, one of those grounds is…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:08 PM
1

And I've said elsewhere in the thread I want greater accountability for the spending of child support received by the custodial parent. That doesn't mean we should have noncustodial parents pay a lower percentage of their income, though. Let's look at an analogous situation. Aid to Africa. There is no doubt there are many people in Africa that could do well with aid from the West. But we know that much of our current aid is funneled away from the poor and used to fund civil wars by corrupt gover…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 02:05 PM
1

Anecdotal sure Right. Do I need to point you to the dictionary.com entry for the word rare? Because this makes it seem like you don't know it. Also, go fuck yourself. Personal attacks, always relevant and a great argument. It's a wonder people unfortunately don't take men's issues seriously with such cogent arguments. I wonder why we can't get a Violence Against Men act, or similar. "Members of Congress, I am here today to testify in support of a law that we hope will end the epidemic of young m…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 07:39 PM
1

That does not follow. Just because it's a formula doesn't mean it's inherently fair. But it doesn't make it unfair, either. Ah, you're a lawyer. So you probably think this makes you more intelligent than I It makes me more knowledgeable about the law, that's all. But are you seriously going to say there is gender parity in how it is applied? Yes, absolutely there is gender parity in how it is applied, because it is unequivocally gender neutral. The formula does not make the distinction of which …
/r/MensRights16/08/15 07:01 PM
-1

I actually really agree with this, the problem is always how poorly the end result favors the man as judges seem to love to throw out reason. Your information is bad. Judges cannot throw out the child support formula. It's statutory.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 06:39 PM
0

Ok, and? This is not in any way suggestive of reducing the percentage of income that is determined to be appropriate for child support. Here's this sub: "Women get too much custody and there's no accounting for where child support money goes so let's give kids way less money." How the fuck do A and B justify C?
/r/MensRights16/08/15 06:37 PM
1

If custody were given to men at the same rate as women, there would be far fewer divorces. How do you know this?
/r/MensRights16/08/15 06:35 PM
1

not having enough money left over to even pay for a tiny apartment and the associated utility bills isn't exactly fair. And if this is happening because of child support, then apply for a reduction. The mathematical formula has been devised by decades of observation regarding how much it costs to raise a child. It's a percentage of income. If your income goes down and you can't afford your living expenses, get a reduction.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 06:35 PM
0

The formulas in place already account for savings. They're not perfect for every situation but they are in the middle of what most people spend.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 06:33 PM
-3

Nonsense. Go play with this for awhile and tell me income doesn't matter. Uh, yeah, it's exactly what I'm saying: the formula is the same regardless of income. Thanks for proving my point. Obviously I'm way oversimplifying, but yes, rich parents will pay much more based on the argument that they can afford it, and poor parents will still pay based on the argument that the children need it (even if the parent with custody has much higher income). No, they won't. Every parent will pay based on the…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 02:45 AM
-4

How about we continue doing what makes the most sense: a rational formula based upon amount of custody each parent has and the amount of income each parent earns? What you're saying is that custody should always go to the richer parent. That's asinine.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 02:41 AM
-6

not at all. we all know that money is going to support the mom's lifestyle. it has nothing to do with the kids. How do we know that? Because a bunch of bitter posts on the internet say so? if the kids want a lifestyle based on their dad's income they should live with their dad. So the richer parent always gets custody? if they want to live with their mom, the dad can provide enough to feed, clothe, and educate them. not to put their mom up in a mansion and give her enough income for retirement. …
/r/MensRights16/08/15 02:37 AM
-2

I'm arguing that one parent shouldn't have to live out of a busted old Honda civic Well, being married results in a lot of cost savings. I would probably have a slightly less nice car were it not for the savings I have from being married. There is no guarantee that the person receiving child support is spending it on the kids. That's not an argument to change how much is paid. That's an argument for greater oversight, which I agree with.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 02:30 AM
-7

Ask the men that get thrown in jail for failure to pay truly unreasonable amounts of child support about why it shouldn't be. Those cases are ridiculously rare. You're arguing all children should be punished because a few men are too stupid to hire a decent attorney. Also, there's no one in jail for inability to pay. People are in jail for refusal to pay. Big difference. Hint: You need to have enough money to pay for food and a place to live after paying child support and alimony. The legal form…
/r/MensRights16/08/15 01:37 AM
2

It's not really a bad gamble, though. Especially considering most people get married when they are relatively poor and young in their life path.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 01:33 AM
-6

But divorce also shouldn't be punishment for the kids. My kids get the benefit, right now, of my income. Why should that change for them if I can't get along with their mother? What you're saying is that kids should get fucked because parents made bad choices. No.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 01:21 AM
-1

That's not true, though. I'm not aware of any state where there's a different formula based on income.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 01:19 AM
1

Which state?
/r/MensRights16/08/15 01:18 AM
1

Marriage has nothing to do with child support. All other things being equal, it's better to be married if you have children, from a legal standpoint.
/r/MensRights16/08/15 01:17 AM
-2

There is no balance though. Most men live in poverty after paying their support Source?
/r/MensRights15/08/15 11:39 PM
-4

Oh, right - it is based on men's ability to pay, not the actual costs involved with raising a child. Why shouldn't it be? My kids currently benefit from the fact that I make a good living. Why should that depend on whether I am with their mom or not?
/r/MensRights15/08/15 11:37 PM
29

It's called Horseshoe Theory, and whenever it comes up I remain surprised more people haven't heard of it. It's really quite a brilliant insight by whomever developed it.
/r/MensRights07/06/15 05:04 AM
1

Absolutely nothing has changed since then.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 07:18 PM
1

What are you talking about "courts"? The federal government takes the household income and assets of where the student is living. That gives them a total household value. They reduce that by several factors, including number of kids, multiple kids in college, and other situations including whether there are other parents to pay as well. They then take a percentage of the remaining number and arrive at an "expected family contribution," the amount the family should cover out of pocket (I believe …
/r/MensRights05/05/15 07:17 PM
3

They're not "illegal," but they're actionable, meaning a private citizen can be sued if there are damages. They're not a crime, though (and really under the First Amendment it would be extremely difficult to make them one).
/r/MensRights26/04/15 11:36 PM
1

Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Well, in terms of what occurred here, it's debatable whether this statement applies. You don't get to hurt people without regard then retreat back into "it's art". Actually, in most cases you can. This girl is young and dumb but the guy is right by suing the school and the teacher. That's true. I think his Title IX claims, in particular, have merit. As far as colleges and their exemptions from rules, they're not. They are free, however, to run parallel inv…
/r/MensRights26/04/15 10:05 PM
7

I CAN'T YELL "FIRE" IN A CROWDED THEATER? If I ever learn to make reddit bots, my first one is going to look for this text and then educate the poster as to why they should stop saying this for the love of God.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 09:50 PM
6

Nungesser isn't making a "criminal suit," there's no such thing in the US. This is a civil suit.
/r/MensRights26/04/15 09:49 PM
-4

Actually, in most cases you do. There's a distinction, first of all, between a "right" and something that is actionable. Secondly, you can make speech and/or expression that can " ruin someone else's life." There is no principle in the law that allows us to restrict speech based simply on the fact that the outcome might be bad for someone. The law even protects, in many cases, untrue speech. Third, while a person does not have a right to perjury, this moron's "art project" was no more perjury th…
/r/MensRights26/04/15 09:40 PM
2

Why'd he sign a settlement then? Why not fight it out?
/r/MensRights26/04/15 09:04 PM
1

Saying it is "objectively bad for men" is fucking moronic and is exactly the kind of "feelz not realz" bullshit done by third wave feminists. Nope. There are a large number of examples that show a large number of negatives for men in marriage. "Examples" = feelz. The only positives that people point to are "feelz not realz". That's not true at all. There are thousands of legal, social, financial, and health benefits. The negatives are court, custody, assets, etc - objective items. Haha, no. "Cou…
/r/MensRights14/04/15 01:06 AM
-3

Good. Maybe you can explain how marriage is "objectively bad for men," since he seems unable to do so.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 01:48 PM
-2

Please explain how marriage was a good deal for the man in this article? Why should I? I didn't say it was good for him. Saying it is "objectively bad for men" is fucking moronic and is exactly the kind of "feelz not realz" bullshit done by third wave feminists. His wife is a TV Star with a presumably fabulous income. Why is he obliged to pay her any alimony? Because he agreed to in his prenuptial. How is this not a 'bad deal'? How is it? It's pending legal action which has very little chance of…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 01:19 AM
0

Wow, maybe this means Jackie was sexually assaulted after all .
/r/MensRights12/04/15 12:35 AM
0

Well perhaps because of the thousands of legal (US), social, and other benefits it provides for people who do it? I mean if that's not enough I can provide more. And this isn't a discussion about the drawbacks of marriage. It's whining about pending, unresolved, litigation. When the litigation is resolved in Bobby Flay's favor this sub won't notice, or will act shocked, as though it wasn't an easy case.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 12:20 AM
-3

So. No, you can't. That's what I thought. This sub used to be about good discussion of men's issues but lately it's turned into conspiratorial whining.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 12:18 AM
-3

Stop being so apocalyptic about it. We're supposed to be the rational and level headed group. Vitriol like this gets us nowhere But vitriol like "don't ever get married" is?
/r/MensRights11/04/15 10:26 PM
-9

As an attorney, please explain to me how it is "objectively bad for men." I look forward to destroying your forthcoming incorrect or inadequate answer.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 10:25 PM
-6

It's actually not good advice at all for a multitude of reasons. Especially for younger men .
/r/MensRights11/04/15 10:24 PM
-2

First of all, unless you have significant assets before marriage, there's no reason to get one. Second, just consult a lawyer. That's the best advice you can get. If you do that, it's very likely to be upheld.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 10:19 PM
6

As an actual attorney, I'd like you to define "frequently," because in any reasonable definition of that term I am familiar with, that is an incorrect statement with a properly drafted prenuptial agreement.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 10:18 PM
1

So if a guy is unsuccessful, he's in a 50/50 partnership with his wife, but if he's hugely successful, she's not contributing nearly as much and he must be that way on his own. With opinions like that you're wondering where the feminist idiots get their ammo from?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 05:25 PM
0

Again. If that's what you guys think it means to support your partner in a marriage it's a good thing you won't get married.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:38 PM
0

And yet he settled, and agreed to the settlement, rather than say all of that in court. So who are we to judge?
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:40 AM
-4

Well, how about you be specific and elaborate exactly what the partnership of marriage really is. It's impossible to be specific because every marriage is unique. Do you mean that in 2015, a wife is supposed to support her husband by cooking for him, doing his laundary, taking care of the children by herself, buying groceries, penny-pinching to save money, etc. Is that the support that modern women provide? Some assuredly do. Some do not. The specific tasks performed by each spouse are less sign…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 04:06 AM
-1

If that's what you think the partnership of marriage is like - being a sports fan or a bus driver - I suppose it's good you probably won't get married. Sheesh.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 03:27 AM
-4

I don't know what she did, but as I said apparently she wasn't there for arguably the hardest part of his career. What are you talking about? They met in 1980. He was a small time personality then, making a living at it but not huge like he became later in the 80's. Why should she continue to receive 40% when she is no longer married to him, isn't doing any of the actual work, and isn't helping in any way? She got 40% of the business. If they remained married, she would have had more than that i…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 03:22 AM
4

If OP is correct she got more than 50% No, because the business assets were likely far more than the liquid assets. Apparently his ex-wife wasn't even there before he became Hulk Hogan. I'm not sure what you mean by this. They married in 1983. He had not yet won his first WWF title at that time. He was a small time wrestler, really. I don't see any reason why even if you divorse they still treat the fact that you were married as to mean that any money you earned might as well have been earned by…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 02:32 AM
-19

even if you're the one who did all the work generating those assets How do you figure that? You're saying she did nothing for 32 years? I don't find anything "ludicrous" about this settlement, or most of the ones bitched about here. Marriage is a 50/50 partnership, or it's supposed to be.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:43 AM
-6

Meh. I don't really have a problem with this. She was with the guy since long before he was famous and supported his career the whole time. It still equals out to less than half his "fortune." Especially if there's no alimony this is a pretty good deal. This sub has a problem with "50/50" splits in divorces, but what are you supposed to do? You guys keep saying "What if this was a business partnership?" Guess what? Most business partnerships would break up 50/50, too, if there was no other arran…
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:42 AM
1

Sex organs are specifically for pleasure. Reproduction is the unintended consequence of that pleasure that people tend to appreciate or at least deal with. Uh, no. Do you have a source on this? Even if there was somehow a situation of non-abusive pedophilia, See, this is your problem. You don't understand that there is no such thing. Sexual activity with children is abusive. Childhood consent is a serious issue. I've seen plenty of people on Facebook demonizing the idea of childhood consent, and…
/r/MensRights20/03/15 02:39 AM
0

underage Under what age? Sex organs are specifically for pleasure. The sex organs are not the only ones involved in the physical or emotional implications of sex, though. Moreover, sex organs are not "for" pleasure. They are for reproduction. The fact that the act of reproduction can be physically enjoyable is merely a side effect of evolution, wherein the proto-mammals who enjoyed sex had more of it, and were therefore more successful, biologically. If a person wants to combine their sex organs…
/r/MensRights19/03/15 06:23 PM
2

How do you deduce that underage people having sex with adults gives them pleasure?
/r/MensRights19/03/15 12:18 PM
2

I love everything I hear about the Kurds.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 06:40 PM
1

It isn't, necessarily. That's the point. The various qualities that can lead you to divorce someone in their 30s can be present in someone in their 20s without being a deal breaker. Why would someone not holding a paying job in their 30's cause me to divorce them? Maybe I'm a good provider and my wife doesn't need to work some menial job because instead she's caring for our children. Which is not an endearing quality of you didn't (and perhaps still don't) want children. Ok, so? I don't say this…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 11:32 PM
1

When a woman is in her mid/early 20s and fresh out of college, that she's never held a real/paying job in her adult life or been capable of supporting hersel is not necessarily a red flag. When a woman is in her mid/early 30s and still has never held a real/paying job in her adult life or been capable of supporting herself, that's a huge red flag. Why is it a red flag if she hasn't held a paying job? Maybe she's been raising children during that time. Yeah, in her teens and twenties she should w…
/r/MensRights28/11/14 03:08 PM
-3

That statistic is generated mostly by multiple-time losers. So 45% of marriages end in divorce, if half of them are first marriages that's 23%, if half of those are the woman's fault, you're talking about a little more than 1 in 10 chance of being with a woman ANYTHING like what OP says. OP's list of things isn't exhaustive and some of those items won't lead to divorce.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 12:48 AM
-10

It's good that he's speaking up, but it's also good if we recognize that a lot of his fears are unfounded and are based on marrying what appears to be a shrill caricature of an actual woman. Edit: Downvote me all you want, but its true. I thought this sub was interested in reality, not Evil Woman Bogeyman characters from two-camera sitcoms. If a woman you marry has all those qualities, why the fuck did you marry her?
/r/MensRights27/11/14 07:22 PM
0

I completely agree with you, which is why I'm here, too. I was just being silly because I've never seen you outside of our usual haunt before. :-)
/r/MensRights12/11/14 02:16 AM
0

... what are you doing out here? :-P
/r/MensRights11/11/14 09:21 PM
11

Apparently you're some sort of eunuch or something, so let me explain this to you from the perspective of a male with normal hormones. ::clears throat.:: EVERYTHING WE DO IS SEXUALLY MOTIVATED We're sexual animals. I get up in the morning and do everything that I do because, on some level, I want to procreate and continue my line. There's nothing wrong with being sexually motivated. People use those motivations for great good, and occasionally great evil. Greeting someone is neither good nor evi…
/r/MensRights08/11/14 12:15 PM
2

And like criminology has done a whizz bang job of understanding and minimizing crime… Well, contrary to media sensationalism, since the "professionalization" of most criminal justice careers, a process that has included vast amounts of research into the science of understanding criminal minds, there has been a drastic decrease in crime rates across the board. Crime remains at or near historic lows, and would be virtually nonexistent but for our "wars" on various victimless crimes. All of which w…
/r/MensRights24/09/14 08:23 PM
2

Common sense. Far too many people lack that these days. The problem is that "common sense" is not a good judge of criminal behavior and/or motivations, since criminals by definition exist outside that realm. You're qualifications to refute me are? A B.S. in Criminal Justice and Criminology, graduate work in the understanding of both criminal and victim psyche, a law degree, work as a lecturer of criminal justice, field work for the public defender, victim's advocacy groups, and local prisons, an…
/r/MensRights24/09/14 08:21 PM
2

You're talking about specific deterrence and acting as though that equates to general deterrence. It certainly does not.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 04:11 PM
2

Except that the actual science of criminology has determined that your approach is pretty much ass-backwards. You're making your statements based upon emotion, not reason.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 04:10 PM
3

And your qualification to make these statements is what?
/r/MensRights24/09/14 04:07 PM
3

Pretty much any country in the world has a recidivism rate near 2/3rds. And this child's crime, murder, has a far, far lower recidivism rate, the lowest of all crimes in fact.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 04:06 PM
1

Ok, and? Psychotic, yes. So how did we determine that "psychotic" children are no longer to be treated for their mental illness, but instead are to be locked away in dangerous environments forever? We are just going to give up on kids now?
/r/MensRights24/09/14 04:05 PM
2

The kid obviously had issues. Right. "Issues." How are "issues" solved by sentencing a child to prison? What kind of society warehouses young men with "issues" in dangerous environments, instead of trying to address what those issues are?
/r/MensRights24/09/14 04:04 PM
0

With a reasonable amount of resources it would be pretty easy to prove.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 12:44 AM
15

She says elsewhere in the thread she's 27, which means the marriage has been relatively short. That fact, combined with her significant income, means she's not going to get much if any alimony. And take further solace in this, /r/MensRights : The fact that she knew about the affair and stayed for so long after discovering it will actually work against her in getting alimony. Husband's Lawyer (HL): When did you find out about the affair? Wife (W): A year ago. HL: So if you stayed that long, I gue…
/r/MensRights30/08/14 03:26 PM
1

He can't afford one. He has to. That's his only solution out of this problem. Does the gf work? Does her family work? She doesn't even say he's MET with an attorney. Meet with an attorney and find out how much it costs, or go to legal services and apply for a free or low-cost one. If he's truly indigent (not just feels like he doesn't want to spend the money) he can obtain free legal help.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 02:38 PM
1

Your bf needs to hire an attorney, period. Any competent family law attorney would fix this. The court imputed income and denied any visitation or shared custody; that tells me he made no argument, because the courts do not deny visitation or shared custody unless there is HUGE evidence of abuse (like multiple criminal convictions).
/r/MensRights23/08/14 01:53 PM
1

OP's problems would be largely solved by hiring an attorney and going back to court for a modification. People who go to court without an attorney are like people who go diving without SCUBA gear. They're gonna drown. The moral of OP's story is if you have a court situation, you have to beg, borrow, and steal (don't steal) to get the money to bring an attorney along. Pay an attorney now or pay your ex forever.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 01:46 PM
1

Feel free to show me where I ever said that.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 01:38 PM
-4

Ok, and? If you're any kind of decent parent you have zero problem being financially responsible for your kids. You act as though being financially responsible for kids is a bad thing... I like it. I'm not missing out on anything.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 03:13 AM
4

FYI marriage makes no difference in anything OP said.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 02:05 AM
-12

Enslavement? LOL... Alright, if that's your deal. I personally don't feel enslaved by my three kids, I feel fulfilled.
/r/MensRights23/08/14 02:04 AM
3

Half of all marriages eventually end in divorce. That's not true, though. It's just not. The divorce rate peaked in the 1970's at nearly 50% and has been in decline since.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 11:51 PM
4

The 1/2 statistic is blatantly untrue. There is plenty wrong with the system but there's no need to keep repeating myths.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 11:14 PM
0

Eh, it's a joke. I refuse to get worked up by jokes. Anyway, it appears to paint moms as kind of boring, and dads as super fun.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 03:51 AM
2

Well I had SEX with YOUR WIFE.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 12:31 AM
2

And tomorrow she declares bankruptcy. Because having your credit screwed up for a couple years is totes a fair punishment for using the weight of the justice system to extract hatred on someone.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 11:46 PM
2

When was this? Because this requirement plainly and squarely violates HIPAA.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:11 AM
2

I can't believe this is a law This is absolutely not a law, in fact it's a violation of well-established law.
/r/MensRights16/04/14 12:07 AM
14

You know what lawyers call people who drafted a contract on their own? Litigants.
/r/PussyPass26/03/14 05:06 AM
2

Motherfuck the Rule Against Perpetuities. Your god damn chart gave me a headache remembering Property.
/r/PussyPass26/03/14 05:04 AM
1

Of course, and it means that there is nothing that needs to be done to "avoid" common law marriage, because you cannot unintentionally enter into one (in the United States).
/r/MensRights21/03/14 02:23 PM
1

You said "state" so I assume you live in the United States. There is nothing you need to do to "avoid" common law marriage. You cannot be common-law married by accident. Common law marriage, in the states where it is still allowed, requires holding yourself out as husband and wife publicly and mutually, along with several other factors.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:51 PM
2

Because it's an injustice. If there were a service for victims of sexual assault that gave them money to take some time off from work to heal, but the money was obtained by robbing people's houses, would you ask why it should be shut down? Would you say it should stay open because it provides a service? Is that your highest ideal?
/r/MensRights17/12/13 01:36 PM
4

DAE MALE PRIVILEGE???!?!?!??!?!
/r/MensRights13/11/13 04:35 PM
10

As an attorney: Why the FUCK didn't this girl have a G.A.L. appointed for her at the very first sign of any problem? Seriously, a child voices concern about her placement, she should immediately have a guardian ad litem assigned, BEFORE she runs away a hundred times, the dad is in contempt, etc. Fuck you, Florida.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 02:25 PM
1

Jesus Christ, dude, do not give anything to the police. Never again. Do not talk, do not voluntarily give samples of your DNA, NOTHING. Talk to a lawyer right fucking now, like yesterday NOW NOW NOW.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 03:53 PM
1

Yeah, I mean, a Google search of her name gives you all her details.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 02:37 PM
11

As a lawyer myself, I see this more as protecting the profession rather than holding a grudge. A person like this should not be practicing law.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 02:28 PM
2

The rods are pulled out I could be wrong, as I haven't taken a nuclear energy class in something like 15 years, but don't you mean "put in"? The inert control rods are put all the way in to the core water to stop the reaction. Right? Are we talking about the same reactor setup? LOL Edit: Yes, here it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod "In most reactor designs, as a safety measure, control rods are attached to the lifting machinery by electromagnets, rather than direct mechanical link…
/r/MensRights18/09/13 01:52 PM
1

Did you reply to the banning and ask why? You can do that, you know.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 01:51 PM
2

I have three beautiful biological children, and my wife and I are 35. I'm good with that.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 12:27 AM
2

Opting for it next month, when I become permanently infertile.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:14 PM
6

But misandry don't realz, you guise!
/r/MensRights14/08/13 02:03 PM
3

My daughter is 4. How do I make sure she turns out like you?
/r/MensRights06/08/13 01:17 AM
4

As an attorney, I spend my entire life in that gray area. It's just the nature of having a 225-year-old legal system, based on a legal system a thousand years old. Shit gets complex in a millennium.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 01:15 AM
3

cube neighbors Why I'm glad I went to law school - anyone with a heartbeat and a sheepskin gets an office with a closing door... where I can giggle to my heart's content.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 01:13 AM
7

Tagged as "super cool woman" in RES.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 01:12 AM
1

Thank you, I am aware of the presence of that academic distinction and the arguments supporting why certain types of academics like to make that distinction. I am saying I disagree with it.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 06:16 AM
1

So calling myself a girl changes my genetic makeup? I must have missed that day in Microbiology.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 02:08 AM
1

There's nothing you need to explain. I understand the concept quite well. I just disagree with it. Don't mistake my disagreement for ignorance; my disagreement comes from having studied the concepts in depth.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 01:35 AM
0

Totally agree, but I think a lot of transgendered folks are fighting just for awareness and recognition, so they saw this as a chance to latch on to a trending topic and be seen. The problem is, they're "being seen" as petty whiners who are attempting to make a big deal out of nothing. It's about as effective at addressing real issues as black people complaining that some radio DJ said the phrase "nappy-headed ho's"
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:14 PM
-1

Your whole "the person is not able to identify at 1 day old" is exactly the point these people were making (not the ones hating on the mere fact that the kid is male): the kid will decide his gender identity when he gets there. No, it's not the point they were making. They were making the point that, to say "it's a boy" when a male-sexed child is born is somehow coercive (see other posts in this thread) or wrong. Frankly, the whole "gender" thing as distinct from "sex" is total nonsense. By sayi…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:11 PM
1

How is this child being coerced into anything, merely by an announcement stating, "It's a boy"? You do understand that babies do not speak English, correct? Bottom line: Anyone who makes something of the announcement that "it's a boy" is just being an ass.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:04 PM
-2

In this case they are referring to the way a person identifies, not anatomy. No, they are most certainly not. They are referring to anatomy, since the person in question is 1 day old and not able to "identify" as either. The fact that they used the word "boy" instead of "male" is simply a colloquialism. In short: get the fuck over it.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:23 PM
25

You seem to be conflating sex and gender. In most contexts they are interchangeable And anyone who doesn't think that, in the context of announcing "It's a boy," they are interchangable (or that the term "boy" is simply shorthand for "baby of the male sex") is a hair-splitting douchbag.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:21 PM
11

anyone can have a gender identity that doesn't match their biological sex; While I agree to a limited extent, do you really think the mere announcement of "it's a boy" is designed to limit a person's gender preference? Any reasonable person would say it's simply the shorthand for stating that the baby's sex is male.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:19 PM
11

This guy had a really shitty lawyer, methinks.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 08:24 PM
13

Can you link us to something that supports your narrative?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:32 PM
1

Trigger Warning: Cuntyness.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 06:10 AM
176

Yeah. It's not really different than, "some mornings I wake up grumpy. Other times, I let her sleep."
/r/MensRights08/06/13 02:03 PM
23

It's an obvious fake, and it's unfortunate that /r/mensrights has chosen to focus on it, rather than all the real injustices done.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:22 PM
2

Call the police in their locale, then go to America and get your child. The grandparents are kidnappers if they interfere with you as the father, and hopefully any police officer you speak to will know that. The only wrinkle would be them in essence claiming their daughter is too slutty for you to be the father.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 01:20 PM
0

Obviously this is the result of misogyny.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 09:10 PM
1

I just wish I could have found a pic of the "BUT PATRIARCHY!!!!!" chick to put in there.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 12:04 PM
16

Obviously, this is because they've been conditioned to do so by the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 10:05 PM
1

Nothing in your post disputes what he said. Wal-Mart workers do not earn more because their labor is not valuable. However, the minimum wage artificially inflates the value of labor, so that Wal-Mart workers and others like them cannot afford the now-more-expensive products they need.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:55 AM
8

But false rape accusations don't real, you guise.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:25 PM
3

In before she is shouted down by supposedly "supportive" feminism.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 02:13 PM
106

This is a reasonably fair account and explanation of the situation
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:26 PM
2

O&A fans? Miss Patrice.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 04:58 AM
4

I linked the article because it illustrates the double standard. What do I think the punishment should be for her? Maybe two weeks in jail, or a dozen weekends. And that's what I think it should be for a man who does the same... But we both know it wouldn't be.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 08:57 PM
100

Sweet. I'm going to use this in court to defend rapists. "Your Honor, if she had just been sucking his cock, he wouldn't have gone crazy like he did." Case closed, I'm assuming.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:40 PM
2

Reddit lawyer here: Do not say anything else to the police under any circumstances, ever. I mean literally: You see the officer you spoke to on the street, he says, "Hi, how are you doing?" Your response is either silence or "I don't say anything without my attorney." Period.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:32 PM
6

Is this from SRS?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:44 PM
7

Two types of people in this world: carnies and rubes.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 05:19 PM
-1

It's also significant that "hiding" birth control pills, or taking off a condom in the middle of sex is something the woman will be aware of prior to the man copulating with her. In other words, she will say, "well, he hid the birth control, so I know I haven't taken it, but I'll still have sex." Or, "I feel/know/saw that there's no condom anymore, but I'll let him continue." Whereas a woman can damage a condom or go off birth control and the man won't know until it's too late.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 06:03 PM
3

Any proof of this?
/r/MensRights10/01/13 04:43 AM
1

Marriage creates a situation of implied consent, which, of course can be explicitly revoked or withheld at any time. In nonmarried people, of course, the default position is that they do not consent to sex, and so the consent must be more stated. Marital rape is a tough issue. We have to remember that divorce laws quite clearly provide that sexual denial is grounds for divorce or annulment. Those laws seem to suggest that a contract to marry carries some implied consent to sexual relations.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 08:41 AM
6

How did you arrive at the 1 in 1877 figure, versus 1 in 4? I'd love to have this.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:54 PM
4

Because this is apparently a humorless sub.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 02:19 PM
-2

This is completely inaccurate. No self-respecting man calls it a "restroom."
/r/MensRights16/12/12 03:44 AM
6

As I often say... Brad Pitt is incapable of committing sexual harassment, because the only difference between a welcome pickup and harassment is whether the woman is attracted to the man.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 09:37 PM
2

I agree. As for whether I'd rather be autistic or have polio, it's not even close. I doubt someone with debilitating polio has ever been on ESPN, won an Espy, and signed a movie deal after draining about a gazillion three-pointers in a basketball game. People with autism aren't handicapped, they just see the world in a different way.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 04:59 PM
2

Just wondering if you're a fan of Penn and Teller. They have pointed out (most notably on their HBO show "Bullshit") that, even if everything the autism/vaccine kooks tell us is true, it's still far better to be vaccinated, because the risk of autism would still be less than the risk of being unvaccinated.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 02:33 PM
-3

TL;DR: Guy marries crazy pussy, thereby violating a primary rule of dealing with crazy pussy. Crazy pussy turns out to be crazy, guy's life sucks.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 02:29 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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