Give up...you're just wrong. https://dadsdivorce.com/articles/what-can-i-do-if-my-ex-is-using-child-support-for-her-and-not-the-kids/ https://www.justanswer.com/family-law/0rvkp-husband-s-ex-wife-not-spending-child-support-money.html
Did you see the often? If so, you'd know your contention is false. fair and equal can't be compatible What I actually said fair and equal are often incompatible Equal would be each party getting 50% of asssets. Fair is much more subjective and could be her maintaining the lion's share of her own earnings. It could also mean him getting what a woman would typically get, which could be a lifetime of alimony.
What did you assert? That fairness and equal go together? Are you talking about equal protection, or equal? Because fair and equal are often incompatible.
You've been making "beer" since the 13th century. "The beer", made by Budvar, has been around since 1895. Budweiser, made by AB, has been around since 1874.
Budvar 1899 Budweiser 1876 A company doesn't get to claim IP just because someone else a couple hundred years ago did something similar. The reality is that Budweiser is older than Budvar, hence the reason Budweiser owns the name in 193 countries outside Czech Republic.
Yeah, that cashier at the grocery store really knows which dollar came from which source. Call it whatever you want. Whomever gets either can do whatever they want with the money.
Cracker dates from Elizabethan England and meant "braggart". Cracker as "slave whip cracker" doesn't even make sense as a generalization for poor whites, as less than 8% of Americans even owned slaves, and almost no poor people.
You literally can't be this stupid. Statutory rape is usually a “strict liability” crime, meaning that the intent or state of mind of the offender is irrelevant. So long as he or she had sex with someone under the statutory age of consent, he or she has committed the crime. So, what the offender thought, including what he or she thought was the victim’s true age, does not matter and will not be the basis of a defense to the crime. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-convicted…
He's a rapist because he committed statutory rape. It doesn't matter whether you're comfortable or not, it's the law. The age he claimed she said she was isn't relevant either. Her age is. His age is. He was an adult who had sex with a minor child, 4 years from being an adult. And the age of consent is not 14 years old anywhere in the U.S.
He's still a rapist. We're debating what type of rapist he is. Edit: there are actually people on this sub that don't know that sex with a minor is rape? Edit: based on the downvotes, I'm assuming this sub is dominated by pedophiles
She walked all over this guy and he did absolutely nothing. He could have had her car towed for double parking, and have her arrested for assault. Instead, a video.
