Reply To: Lying Whores

Best Gore Forums Societally Relevant Gender Studies Lying Whores Reply To: Lying Whores


Paternity fraud endorsed by United States Justice System well documented in the video above

here is more data from actual FEDERAL & STATE Law, and Legal opinions by the courts.
It don’t get much more factual than this boys and girls. But please do your usual, Insult, ridicule and deny victim status.
It feels great to be MGTOW

[1] In the Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d (2006) at 328. The extent of Mark’s relationship was a matter of highly conflicting claims in the Family Court. The appellate court’s majority opinion and the dissenting opinion likewise present contracting pictures of Mark’s relationship with the child. The majority opinion shows no appreciation for tactical behavior in a relationship and before a Family Court. Such tactical behavior is common among humans. The dissenting opinion describes relevant relational facts: At the time of the paternity proceeding, the child had lived most of her life in a different country from Mark D., and their relationship was primarily on the telephone. Id., Smith, dissenting opinion, at 335-6. [2] Id., majority opinion, at 330. [3] Id. [4] N.Y. Family Court Act § 532 (a). [5] Shondel J. v. Mark D. (2006), majority opinion, at 331-2. [6] Id at 330, 331. [7] Guggenheim (2005) p. 143. See also id. pp. 153, 157-8. Cohen (2012a) and Cohen (2012b), addressing forward-looking and much less widely important policy issues, argue against the “Best Interest of the Resulting Child” (BIRC) legal justification. Cohen declares “BIRC justifications are vacuous” and “the BIRC justification, at least stated as such, is problematic both as a normative and constitutional matter.” Alvaré (2012), Crawford (2012), and Mutcherson (2012) take up the BIRC debate, with Cohen (2012c) responding. The implications of this debate for the child support system remains to be worked out. References: Alvaré, Helen M. 2012. “A Response to Professor I. Glenn Cohen’s ‘Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests’.” 96 Minnesota Law Review Headnotes 8. Cohen, I. Glenn. 2012a. “Beyond Best Interests.” 96 Minnesota Law Review 1187. Cohen, I. Glenn. 2012b. “Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests.” 96 Minnesota Law Review 423. Cohen, I. Glenn. 2012c. “Burying Best Interests of the Resulting Child: A Response to Professors Crawford, Alvaré, and Mutcherson.” 97 Minnesota Law Review Headnotes 1. Crawford, Bridget J. 2012. “Authentic Reproductive Regulation.” 96 Minnesota Law Review Headnotes 31. Guggenheim, Martin. 2005. What’s wrong with children’s rights. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Mutcherson, Kimberly. 2012. “In Defense of Future Children: A Response to Cohen’s Beyond Best Interests.” 96 Minnesota Law Review Headnotes 46.