TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

condemned2bfree Archive

View 1 post and 31 comments by condemned2bfree 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)
1

I totally agree that emergency hearings can be misused and some judges do not apply the law when hearing them. Here in California, the legal standard for whether the court should consider a request ex parte is whether there is an immediate danger of irreparable harm. Further, the matter should be decided solely on the pleadings themselves, and not by listening to oral arguments. I practice in multiple counties. The judges in some of the counties apply that standard strictly, almost too strictly,…
/r/MensRights27/07/16 03:38 AM
4

Whether or not someone is convicted in criminal court does not determine whether or not they can be found to have committed the same act in civil court, or, in this case, a campus administrative court. The burden of proof in criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is akin to saying you're 90%+ sure he did it. The burden of proof in those other proceedings is preponderance of the evidence, which is akin to saying you're 51%+ sure he did it. I encounter this all the time as a family law…
/r/MensRights26/07/16 07:10 PM
1

You have responded with the maturity I expected.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 10:41 PM
-7

Reading some of the comments here makes me think posters are celebrating the evasion of child support obligations. As a family law attorney, I obtain child support orders for both mothers and fathers and it's never fun when the other parent is a deadbeat, regardless of gender. The people who suffer most are not the obligors but the children who need support. Is that what you're celebrating?
/r/MensRights25/05/16 11:44 PM
1

Then I really don't understand because apparently no one can find Lady Gaga ever saying this, and certainly not specific to this context. That's why these things should be sourced.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 05:07 AM
3

I have no clue what the context was here, but it is important to know. There was a situation during the 2010 and 2012 elections where politicians were arguing about "legitimate rape." In other words, right wing nutjobs were arguing you could not have an abortion exception in the case of rape because it might not be "legitimate" rape. Gaga might have been talking about having a bureaucrat decide whether or not your rape was legitimate enough to terminate your pregnancy. I really don't know, but t…
/r/MensRights20/02/16 10:02 PM
-22

Annnnnndddd, you make my point, thank you.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 05:49 PM
-26

What is unsaid in this piece is that a portion of the compensation was probably intended as lifetime earnings that would have been used to support the children. This happens often times in personal injury settlements as well. The difficulty comes at divorce in figuring out what portion of those proceeds was meant for that. Given that Mother will no doubt be caring for the children, it's understandable she would ask that that portion of the funds designated for that purpose be given to her. This …
/r/MensRights21/09/15 05:23 PM
1

I call it a medical procedure by which a woman terminated a pregnancy. What do you call it?
/r/MensRights09/06/15 01:56 PM
0

Yes but in your example above neither party would be financially responsible to raise the child, where it would like be adopted by a 2-parent family. Your petition would leave only one parent responsible.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 01:54 PM
-2

At that point she is no longer the child's parent. No rights or obligations.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:08 AM
1

That's called a fetus, not a child.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 06:06 AM
-4

I'm pretty sure children have the right to live. But let me know if you heard something different.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 04:01 AM
-16

This is not the dumbest idea I've ever heard ... but it's pretty darned close. No Mother can "give up" her rights to child support. They aren't her rights to give up. They are the child's.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 03:43 AM
-4

This isn't a Men's Rights issue. This is a deadbeat dad issue. My sympathies to his family, but what does this have to do with Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights05/06/15 04:09 AM
1

I think your case is a very difficult case indeed and I'm sorry you had to go through that. Hopefully you are now a part of your child's life. I can tell you the court is impartial. The problem is that the circumstances aren't always fair. Remember that, at all times, the court's priority is the child's best interests. So, while it may seem more fair to do one thing versus another, that may not be the best thing for your child at that given time. For example, after all this time you are able to …
/r/MensRights10/12/14 09:42 PM
1

Again, no citation to law, anywhere. That tells me there is no law. You've never seen such a law, and you have made up the law to make sense of your impression of the law. I'd love to see you prove me wrong, however. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that what you're talking about is parentage, not custody. A birth mother is presumed to be the parent of the child. This is common sense. The child just came out of her uterus. Ergo ... But there are numerous exceptions in family law here i…
/r/MensRights10/12/14 06:21 AM
1

It's HIGHLY doubtful she will win. As a California Family Law attorney, I often have clients (men and women) who wished they'd asked for support many years before they actually did. The problem is that, if you don't ask for it, the paying party has no notice that he or she might be on the hook for it. Therefore, support orders are only retroactive to the date at which they are filed and served. I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about this happening.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 01:06 AM
1

Again, despite saying this over and over again, you have cited NO LAW that says this. No law would ever say this. It would violate equal protection. That's why I assumed you "felt" the law regards it this way, because there is no statute that does so. I reviewed Michigan's laws in this matter just to make sure. Under section 722.25, "If a child custody dispute is between the parents, between agencies, or between third persons, the best interests of the child control." Read: NOT GENDER. If the ch…
/r/MensRights10/12/14 12:58 AM
1

You may feel like that's why she got custody, but I would want to see an order that says "mom gets custody because she's a woman/mom."
/r/MensRights02/12/14 12:41 AM
0

To be fair, that's not true and hasn't been true for many years now.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:44 AM
4

As a California Family Attorney, I was going to say the same thing. I have women and men as clients, and no difference when I go to court over who is paying and who is receiving. Please provide examples of two cases where all the facts were the same and only gender was the difference in varying child support orders. Child support is based on a guideline amount dictated by the California legislature. The three primary factors are mom's income, dad's income, and timeshare. The stereotypical case i…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 12:57 AM
15

Divorce Lawyer here. This isn't alimony. This is the division of property at divorce. When you acquire wealth during marriage as the result of your efforts, that is marital property that in most states is distributed in an equitable manner. Here, it appears the wife is actually getting significantly less than half of the entire estate. I practice in California where she would be entitled to 50%, so long as the property was all acquired during the marriage. All spouses make choices about what the…
/r/MensRights11/11/14 05:41 PM
2

As a family lawyer, I have to tell you you're taking this out of context. I understand why you feel the way you do though. What the law says is basically what we already know. The mother, by giving birth to the child, is automatically known and confirmed and therefore already has responsibilities and obligations. When parents are unmarried, we may not know who the father is (if you're that hard up about securing your rights as a father, I suggest not waiting until birth). There could be numerous…
/r/MensRights07/11/14 08:17 PM
-9

Should and will lose.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 04:21 PM
1

Yeah, but save for his actions, there would be no child. He's obviously not a "parent" in the traditional sense, but a parent nonetheless under the law and thus financially responsible for his offspring. That being said, I think it's a great argument that the other lesbian mother is the one that should be held financially responsible, but in a state where same-sex relationships are outlawed, that's just not a possibility. I could see in a state like California (where I practice), the court findi…
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:52 AM
-8

You see it as a "penalty." That's the problem. This isn't about "penalizing" anyone, although it might feel that way. It's about supporting the child, that's it. Someone's got to do it. Either mom, dad, or the taxpayer. If mom can't do it, who would you rather step in? Dad, or the taxpayer?
/r/MensRights23/01/14 09:34 PM
0

You said it right. Cases like this are not the result of big gov't, but morons like the father. The law is the law. Anybody donating sperm can talk to a family attorney (like myself) for 5 minutes and find out that you have to use a licensed clinic to complete the "transaction," so to speak, in order to avoid obligations (otherwise any father could argue they were "just a sperm donor."). Also, remember, the government is protecting YOU in this case, the taxpayer. The reason the gov't comes after…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 09:30 PM
-1

Both women and men pay child support all over the country. It's based on a guideline formula that takes into account what each party earns and the percentage of time they spend with the child. This prevents so called "receipt keeping" systems which are fairly moronic when you break them down. BOTH parties have an obligation to support their children, not just the one with more money. She may give the money to her church, but that doesn't mean she doesn't spend other money on the child. The very …
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:34 PM
16

I'm a family lawyer in California. This will never become an issue for you here so long as you contribute through a licensed fertility clinic. Where men get in trouble is contributing via the "turkey baster method," or "friends with benefits method." The first can be done and has been done quite literally, shooting into a turkey baster or similar device, the female implanting it that minute and voila! Baby. The second I've encountered more times than you would think, where individuals get it on …
/r/MensRights25/11/13 06:02 PM
32

What state are you in? This happens in a lot of cases where one side is represented and the other side is not. Does your brother-in-law have a lawyer? I'm a family attorney in Davis, CA. If he's anywhere near me I'd be happy to look into his case and do at least a couple hours of research for free just to help him out. My contact info is on my web site: www.pakpourlaw.com
/r/MensRights27/03/13 08:15 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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