Judge rules lesbian couple gets child support from sperm donor

[Hitch]

This is pretty messed up. Lesbian couple signs a contract with a guy saying they have all the parental rights, not him, and he donates his sperm.

Now, he's stuck with child support.

So, the lesbian couple want the rights to raise a child, as a couple, but they don't want the responsibility to pay for it themselves.

Protect yourself, men. There is a war against us. They hate free men.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/22/4769468/judge-rules-kansas-sperm-donor.html

[BrewTech]

He donated sperm to make a baby. The baby was born. What's the problem?

[Hitch]

What's the problem?

You should read the article. If you can't see the problem after that, I don't know what to say...

[Glass]

I think the messed up bit is the lesbians having a kid, or pretending they can and this guy helping them. So you look at it and say, the guy wanted to reproduce without the responsibility and saw this as a way to do it. I say, make bed, deal with it.

[midnight rambler]

From the info in the article, had the sperm donated adhered to the statute regarding this matter (i.e. involved a M.D. at the right point in the process) he wouldn't have had a problem. Therefore the court stepped in 'cause the state actors were looking to recoup the money the state had put out. Moral of the story: do not allow one's self to get into a compromising position with the state - avoid ALL interaction with the state (this means doing one's due diligence when conducting transactions with others).

[EE_]

I think the messed up bit is the lesbians having a kid, or pretending they can and this guy helping them. So you look at it and say, the guy wanted to reproduce without the responsibility and saw this as a way to do it. I say, make bed, deal with it.

I agree.
A man has to protect his sperm, especially when the system/game is rigged against him from the get go.
The fool probaby thought it was a good idea at the time...he found out different.

A man's sperm can be cause of his greatest downfall and the greatest weapon used against him...especially when a man has assets, or a position of power...just ask Monica Lewinski.

I told my stepson at an early age, when he started dating, to take all the blowjobs he can get and save his sperm for the special one's he really cared about, or loved.
Once you stick it in the pussy, you're asking for trouble and taking great risk.

It used to be, girls/ladies would get all emotional, or fall in love after they give up their special gift of intercource (not to mention pregnancy)...but probably not so much today. A lot of them today are only concerned with themselves and are using their bodies worse then most man whores. They are out there fucking and sucking any cock, or pussy...yes I said pussy! of the moment. Not much of a special gift anymore...just a tool for them to get from A to B.

The few lesbians I have met/or know are very self centered. Their brains are scrambled...kind of like homosexual men (I use the term 'men' loosely) walk and talk funny (lisp) from having their shit pushed in.

Bottom line, protect your jizzum!...or be prepared to pay and pay and pay.

[EE_]

You should read the article. If you can't see the problem after that, I don't know what to say...

Lets analyze the point in question again...

Man donates his sperm to a couple of dykes he found on craigslist (without the use of a licensed physician), to help this disfunctional couple in an un-natural relationship, to bring a child into this world. Does that sum it up? Sounds like a couple of Jewish girls too, Schreiner and her partner at the time, Angela Bauer...double whammy!

Does that sound smart, or rational?

Through the wringer he goes
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MEuLaYug2bE/TbYMTG20AwI/AAAAAAAAIDE/E2VgzS9jVnY/s400/throughthewringer.jpg

[Glass]

I was reading a news opinion piece where the teacher opinionator thought it was adorable when talking about what is involved in marriage with her 9 year old class and 2 of the kids went through a list of normal things and then got to the part where the man and women "did sex". So no love there, just sex. I'm wondering how come 9 years olds are saying things like "did sex".

[EE_]

I was reading a news opinion piece where the teacher opinionator thought it was adorable when talking about what is involved in marriage with her 9 year old class and 2 of the kids went through a list of normal things and then got to the part where the man and women "did sex". So no love there, just sex. I'm wondering how come 9 years olds are saying things like "did sex".

http://volkundvaterland.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/jew.gif

This mural was done recently in a junior high school in Sweden...the school is trying to decide if it should stay or go.
It's called the "Smiling Vagina". Maybe the artist is working on the "Happy Boner" on the other wall?
http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/The-Conversation/2014/01/23/Smiling-Vaginajpg.jpg

[Neuro]

Moral of the story: Don't give kike dykes your sperm, and expect them to be grateful. With two Jewish moms the child must be some type of super Jew also...

[palani]

The guy had a contract with the female. The kid came along later. No contract. Daddy committed a TORT with respect to the kid.

"Your honor. I didn't pay to have sex with that woman. I paid her to leave afterwards."

[iOWNme]

Lets analyze the point in question again...

Man donates his sperm to a couple of dykes he found on craigslist (without the use of a licensed physician), to help this disfunctional couple in an un-natural relationship, to bring a child into this world.

Does that sound smart, or rational?


Please explain to me how a completely voluntary transaction between 2 or more people where no fraud, coercion, malice or force was used by either of the parties can be morally described as 'irrational'?

You and I may totally disagree with what this guy did, but the 2 woman VOLUNTARILY made a transaction with the individual man, both parties consented to the transaction, no force, fraud or malice was used. This is the very core essence of a valid, just and moral contract.

But i thought the Judge swore an oath to the US CON? The US CON says no STATE can impair the obligation of contracts.

Apparently, scribbles on paper are not enough to stop criminals, thieves and murderers. Even when they swear an oath and allegiance to the very same scribbles.

[midnight rambler]

The thing is, the two carpet munchers got the state involved by seeking benefits from the state (aka 'public assistance'), therefore the state had an interest in the child -


The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012, seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a child born to Jennifer Schreiner in 2009. The state’s objective was to hold Marotta responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/22/4769468/judge-rules-kansas-sperm-donor.html#storylink=cpy



But i thought the Judge swore an oath to the US CON? The US CON says no STATE can impair the obligation of contracts.

The judge WAS upholding a contract, the contract the two lesbos made with the state, and that contract superseded any contract the man made with the lesbos.

[iOWNme]

The judge WAS upholding a contract, the contract the two lesbos made with the state, and that contract superseded any contract the man made with the lesbos.

Really? How does the Judge get to decide which contract gets superceded, WHEN HE IS SWORN TO NEVER IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS?

[woodman]

The most expensive sex he will ever have. He would have been better off with a high priced hooker. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again: Child support is genocide. Any man with sense at all will be out bred by those with no ability to see into the future or whose culture allows them to procreate and be rewarded for it instead of punished. A man in western society today is made to feel that having children is a bad action against society and the woman who (of course is too much of a child to be responsible for her womb) is impregnated. No, we in America must import our citizens from around the world and pay for their illegal entry by way of social entitlements for aliens. Another type of impregnation, if you will.

[midnight rambler]

Really? How does the Judge get to decide which contract gets superceded, WHEN HE IS SWORN TO NEVER IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS?

Apparently you're not taking a judge's secret oath* into account. lol IMO that's very naive. The most lawless place in this country is inside a courtroom, I suggest you wrap your head around that.

*Those faggots in the black dresses have mercenaries with badges, guns, cages, and who are sanctioned to KILL those who refuse to play along with their game...what you got?

[palani]

Remember ... that court order is nothing more than a contract offer. He could counter with

"Your honor .. I will gladly pay to support the state's child if the state will give me clear title (return the original birth certificate)."

Just like your car ... the child becomes the state's when the BC is issued.

[EE_]

Please explain to me how a completely voluntary transaction between 2 or more people where no fraud, coercion, malice or force was used by either of the parties can be morally described as 'irrational'?

You and I may totally disagree with what this guy did, but the 2 woman VOLUNTARILY made a transaction with the individual man, both parties consented to the transaction, no force, fraud or malice was used. This is the very core essence of a valid, just and moral contract.

But i thought the Judge swore an oath to the US CON? The US CON says no STATE can impair the obligation of contracts.

Apparently, scribbles on paper are not enough to stop criminals, thieves and murderers. Even when they swear an oath and allegiance to the very same scribbles.

Ya know Sui, I'm still waiting for you to come up with solid answers that we can actually apply without being gunned down in our driveway. All I keep reading from you is philosophy. You make good points but with no resolution.

To answer your questions:

First of all, I know you can't be that naive to not know how the system works in it's current state regarding the courts on custody of child laws. Prenuptial agreements don't hold water either with regards to children. We can agree you know the system and what you're up against in a situation like this. So when you tread into an agreement, you should also know the corrupt system might rule against you. And if you don't abide by their law, they will come at you with a gun and the threat of death. Who be the fool?


Please explain to me how a completely voluntary transaction between 2 or more people where no fraud, coercion, malice or force was used by either of the parties can be morally described as 'irrational'

The agreement the parties had didn't mean shit, it was formed with fraud, malice and coercion...because the shemale had no intention of honoring the contract. She probably knew the courts would rule in her favor at the time of signing. That's fraud imo. It was irrational for this man to enter into an agreement with the devil and by not knowing the details.


But i thought the Judge swore an oath to the US CON? [B]The US CON says no STATE can impair the obligation of contracts. We covered this in my first paragraph...the system is corrupt. You want justice, go oil your rifle.
If you put yourself in harms way like this fool did, expect the same treatment.


Apparently, scribbles on paper are not enough to stop criminals, thieves and murderers. Even when they swear an oath and allegiance to the very same scribbles

Now you're getting it baby!

[7th trump]

Remember ... that court order is nothing more than a contract offer. He could counter with

"Your honor .. I will gladly pay to support the state's child if the state will give me clear title (return the original birth certificate)."

Just like your car ... the child becomes the state's when the BC is issued.
No verifiable proof a birth certificate is a state claim?
Procure one piece of evidence palani in support of your premise......we dont want to hear anything to the nature of philosophy or he said/she said......prove it palani!
Last I checked the new born didnt sign any papers at birth.
If the parents are "US citizens" then anything coming off that political standing is the states....birth certificates dont mean shit and are nowhere to be found in legal land !
However, inspite of your resistence to the truth, theres a shit ton of evidence pointing at Social Security making the participant a "federal personel" (5usc 522a is bonified legal evidence).
Yes its a statute....therefore I imagine palani will not accept this legal evidence with any significants....resulting in a huge never ending vicious cycle of denial.....resulting in a quest to persue a conspiracy that never materializes.


5usc 522(a)
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Makes all the sense in the world that participating in Social Securty would generate records in the government system and the particpant would have to be "federal personnel


5 U.S. Code § 552a - Records maintained on individuals

No mention of "any" birth certificates at all....imagine that huh?
A whole lot about Social Security though!!

[palani]

No verifiable proof a birth certificate is a state claim?

Not needed other than knowing that this is the case. If you choose then don't pursue the issue. The state has some basis for child protective services, mandatory education, mandatory vaccines, et al. It might as well be the BC as anything but it doesn't really matter. When you start slinging imaginary arrows at the other party some of them are going to draw blood ... even if it doesn't show. The illusion is pretty tight sometime.

In a sense this is similar to the topic of RIGHTS. If you don't know you have a right and cannot articulate it then that right does not exist for you. If you see a trespass but it doesn't register as a trespass then there is no trespass in fact. It is when you begin connecting the dots and can articulate these things that they are actually imagined into being. Otherwise they simply float by you and do not register as anything you need to be concerned with.

[7th trump]

Not needed other than knowing that this is the case. If you choose then don't pursue the issue. The state has some basis for child protective services, mandatory education, mandatory vaccines, et al. It might as well be the BC as anything but it doesn't really matter. When you start slinging imaginary arrows at the other party some of them are going to draw blood ... even if it doesn't show. The illusion is pretty tight sometime.

In a sense this is similar to the topic of RIGHTS. If you don't know you have a right and cannot articulate it then that right does not exist for you. If you see a trespass but it doesn't register as a trespass then there is no trespass in fact. It is when you begin connecting the dots and can articulate these things that they are actually imagined into being. Otherwise they simply float by you and do not register as anything you need to be concerned with.

Yep as usual....any poof of evidence is "not needed" huh?.........you have nothing but premises based on a conspiracy of some sort.

Lets see here whats that definition to "delusion".
Ahhhh here it is!


de·lu·sion [dih-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Premise

1prem·ise noun \ˈpre-məs\

premises : a building and the area of land that it is on
: a statement or idea that is accepted as being true and that is used as the basis of an argument


Both definitions fit very well, together or separate, in each and all of your statements palani.............nothing but hearsay internet garbage based on "nothing".

[palani]

Yep as usual....any poof of evidence is "not needed"

You require proof from STATUTES? Who is delusional now?

Agreement is the only proof you are likely to find. In the process of asking for something that is not achievable you may be able to find answers to your questions. I suggest you stop relying upon rhetoric intended to deceive you and start formulating questions that will provide answers.

I know the above is beyond your comprehension and ability. This clarification is for anyone interested enough to read and understand.

Remember that old cliche question 'Do you still beat your wife?' The questioner has no facts that you ever did or ever will beat your wife. Your response is what he is after. If you answer yes then you have convicted yourself as a wife beater. If you answer no then you have admitted you once did beat your wife and are still a wife beater. So the purpose of thiese little counter offers I pose is to put the other party in the same position. If they admit by accepting your offer that the BC gives legal title then so be it. If they choose to continue the negotiations that is ok too. Either way the game isn't over until the fat lady sings (but I doubt if you can hold much of a tune).

[7th trump]

You require proof from STATUTES? Who is delusional now?

Agreement is the only proof you are likely to find. In the process of asking for something that is not achievable you may be able to find answers to your questions. I suggest you stop relying upon rhetoric intended to deceive you and start formulating questions that will provide answers.

I know the above is beyond your comprehension and ability. This clarification is for anyone interested enough to read and understand.

Remember that old cliche question 'Do you still beat your wife?' The questioner has no facts that you ever did or ever will beat your wife. Your response is what he is after. If you answer yes then you have convicted yourself as a wife beater. If you answer no then you have admitted you once did beat your wife and are still a wife beater. So the purpose of thiese little counter offers I pose is to put the other party in the same position. If they admit by accepting your offer that the BC gives legal title then so be it. If they choose to continue the negotiations that is ok too. Either way the game isn't over until the fat lady sings (but I doubt if you can hold much of a tune).

Why do you twist my words around palani?

If the statutes say only 3121(a) "wages" are reported to the government wouldn't it make sense to learn how your earnings become these 3121(a) "wages" and stop your earnings from being reported to the government?
makes sense to me and just about everyone else.
I guess for you it doesn't make any sense to reverse engineer the statutes to find the cause.....I remember you accusing me of not ever "root cause analyzing".....that little lawyer double talk backed fired on you didn't it?
Speaking of "root cause analysis" what does this loaded question of "do you still beat your wife" play any role in "root cause analysis".
I notice when the hard questions are asked of you...........you play games!
I'm mean you really do bolt when your cornered...you do not like being cornered in your own game...you quickly, and I mean quickly, try and turn this type of attention away from you....you are an artist of twisting the truth....make no mistake about that. Several people have already called you out for it.

I think this BC bullshit needs some "root cause analysis"...what do you think palani?
I always back myself up with evidence...why cant you?
What's wrong with a little substance to verify your delusional premise as a fact and not some whacky internet theory you picked up somewhere?.....like all your whacky theories.
Oh that's right you tried to hide your trail by saying that "facts" had to do something with the devil....just more game playing from you....I knew what you were up to.

Its amazing that your a jack of all trades "legal guru know all" and yet demonstrate you're not a master of any one of these outrageous theories to procure one sliver of evidence in any of them.....I think some of us have picked this up about you.
Ohhh...don't get me wrong...I'll give credit where credit is deserved.....you sir are a slippery greased pig when it comes to authenticating any of your premises.

[palani]

Why do you twist my words around palani?

You are where you are and who you are by the law of your being. If your law comes from statutes and reading Cracking the Code then that is your choice. You are incapable of understanding any other so why are you torturing yourself?

[7th trump]

You are where you are and who you are by the law of your being. If your law comes from statutes and reading Cracking the Code then that is your choice. You are incapable of understanding any other so why are you torturing yourself?

I'm where I'm at of not getting taxes taken out my check and helping to starve the beast.
This saying you have of "your law comes from statutes" is bullshit palani.
If it was my law then why am I successful in keeping my full paycheck?
Why do you keep referring I'm following statutes when obviously my success is do to not following the statutes?
Why do you deliberately twist my words around Palani?

You don't see me yapping philosophy....I'm supplying the facts and evidence of the law.....why aren't you?
I take it since you cannot supply any facts or evidence your law must be delusions and premises?

Just show any facts and evidence to all these premises and delusions palani....just one time!

[palani]

If it was my law then why am I successful in keeping my full paycheck?

You describe yourself as successful because you keep your full paycheck? Yet you live in a society that does not honor private property and has no workable definition of what a dollar is? If you don't know what a dollar is then what matters whether your paycheck comprises a thousand of them or ten thousand?

Your success within the plane you find yourself has no meaning but if that is the law of your being then what cause have I to complain? Enjoy your success because in the end analysis it is keeping you from proceeding further.

Oh ... and the facts you ask for are
1) this society has no workable definition of a dollar
2) this society does not honor private property

[7th trump]

You describe yourself as successful because you keep your full paycheck? Yet you live in a society that does not honor private property and has no workable definition of what a dollar is? If you don't know what a dollar is then what matters whether your paycheck comprises a thousand of them or ten thousand?

Your success within the plane you find yourself has no meaning but if that is the law of your being then what cause have I to complain? Enjoy your success because in the end analysis it is keeping you from proceeding further.

Oh ... and the facts you ask for are
1) this society has no workable definition of a dollar
2) this society does not honor private property

Seriously?
You're kidding right?

Private property and society?
The sweat of my brow fruits are my private property palani.
You're really gonna sit there and explain keeping the fruits of my labor is somehow a failure do to society not recognizing private property and a "workable" definition of the dollar?
We went over the dollar before Palani!
Remember?
A $1 silver piece has the same purchasing power as a $1 Susan B Anthony clad coin or a $1 US treasury note or a $1 federal reserve note. Numistically $1 is $1 no matter what its made of.
You can sit there and argue your delusions all you want about gold being of value weight wise but it doesn't matter. The government put a value of 100 cents to the dollar. You cant go into any store and expect to purchase something thats 100.00 and only having a 20.00 gold piece....the store will be expecting the full price.
And as far as a dollar being a specific amount of silver doesn't matter either....a dollar is 100 cents.
All gold and silver coinage is good for is as means of storing wealth...other than that its just a medium of exchange....its a form of bartering.


What matters you ask?
It matters that the paper dollar keeps the gas and lights on ....that's what matters.
Imagine in todays world the millions of people just in this country alone would be homeless and freezing because there isn't enough gold and silver to go around if all money was to be gold and silver.
People couldn't have a roof over their heads....not enough precious metal to go around to hire someone to build the house.


No no palani.....The road to keeping the full paycheck is not keeping me from proceeding further. Its opened my mind to a lot of other legalities that were once confusing. I'm just that more aware of how things work.
Its you whos confused........look at all your delusional premises you are always defending yourself from.
You do more dodging and back stepping from these internet theories than you can prove their factual.
All I have to do is say ...."show the evidence" and you're off dodging and weaving in and out of other theories and philosophies.

[iOWNme]

Apparently you're not taking a judge's secret oath* into account. lol IMO that's very naive. The most lawless place in this country is inside a courtroom, I suggest you wrap your head around that.

*Those faggots in the black dresses have mercenaries with badges, guns, cages, and who are sanctioned to KILL those who refuse to play along with their game...what you got?

So at first you said he was 'upholding the contract with the State' as if he was 'following the law'. You said he 'superceded' the individuals contract with a contract with the STATE as if that was 'lawful' and 'legitimate'. Once i showed you he WAS NOT 'following the law' and that he is not legitimate then you changed your tune to say "he has more guns than you'.


Contradiction much?

[iOWNme]

Ya know Sui, I'm still waiting for you to come up with solid answers that we can actually apply without being gunned down in our driveway. All I keep reading from you is philosophy. You make good points but with no resolution.


Without philosophy YOU ARE NOT HUMAN. Without a moral principle to stand on, you are nothing more than a mindless Pavlovian robot.

Resolution? So i have to have all of the answers to everything before you can understand human morality? I have NO IDEA how YOU should run YOUR life. I have NO IDEA how 7 billion people should run their lives. Does that mean right and wrong dont exist?

If it was 1862 and you owned a slave plantation, i might come to you and say "Slavery is wrong". You may reply with, "Yes it is wrong, but who will pick the cotton"?

Now remember it is 1862. Do i have to explain to you how in the future there will be giant mechanical robots that are fueled from dinosaur bones, that will clear the cotton fields much faster than using human slaves before you will let the Slaves go?

You see, i dont need to give you any 'solid answers' in order to prove to you that human morality exists in the form of right and wrong. YOU have to come up with YOUR OWN solutions and answers on how to run YOUR life. How the fuck am i going to be able to do that for you? ESCAPE THE CULT OF STATISM and you wont be asking me to help you figure out the world.



First of all, I know you can't be that naive to not know how the system works in it's current state regarding the courts on custody of child laws. Prenuptial agreements don't hold water either with regards to children. We can agree you know the system and what you're up against in a situation like this. So when you tread into an agreement, you should also know the corrupt system might rule against you. And if you don't abide by their law, they will come at you with a gun and the threat of death. Who be the fool?

The person who IMAGINES there is a thing called 'Government' is the FOOL. If the Bloods and Crips showed up tomorrow with the entire Chinese Army, would you follow all of their 'rules' and sift through all of their 'scribbles' to try and find a way out? Or would you INSTANTLY recognize them as ILLEGITIMATE and resist them? What would have to exist between the ears of an individual that would make him IMAGINE one group of criminals is to be OBEYED and WORSHIPPED while the other group of criminals is to be DISOBEYED and RESISTED?




The agreement the parties had didn't mean shit, it was formed with fraud, malice and coercion...because the shemale had no intention of honoring the contract. She probably knew the courts would rule in her favor at the time of signing. That's fraud imo. It was irrational for this man to enter into an agreement with the devil and by not knowing the details.

Do you personally have first hand knowledge of this? Or are you merely injecting your BIASED opinion? I may even agree with your opinion, but that has no bearing whatsoever to human morality. If 2 parties VOLUNTARILY consent to a transaction, why on earth would you ASSUME one of them was fraudulent? Innocent until proven guilty? This is the same shit all STATISTS do: Blame the victim.


We covered this in my first paragraph...the system is corrupt. You want justice, go oil your rifle.
If you put yourself in harms way like this fool did, expect the same treatment.

So an innocent man enters into a voluntary consensual contract, and you BLAME HIM when his own 'Government' disregards it, and violently oppresses him. You are a STATIST. Its obvious why you dont like Philosophy, because you pick and choose when you want to use morality to your liking. And when you see a fellow slave getting beat by the Master, you run over to help cheer on the onlooking crowd to make sure he gets whipped into submission. Gee, thats REALLY going to make this world a better place.

GACK.