Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DNA Paternity Fraud Case To U.S. Supreme Court
Men's News Daily ^ | May 31, 2002 | Jeffery Leving

Posted on 06/02/2002 2:09:08 AM PDT by RogerFGay

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-275 next last
To: waterstraat
This isn't my specialty area, but I heard critisisms of one or more of those studies - re: the population used for the study may not be representative of the general population. Like, they used prison populations etc. Do you know much about the populations that were studied?
41 posted on 06/02/2002 6:58:39 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
Very intelligent and informed reply. I used to work in child support in Missouri and our procedures and experience is quite similar to yours. The 33% illegitimate figure is pretty close to the mark for children in the child support programs (including TANF and non TANF.) I kept very accurate statistics over a long period of time so I know whereof I speak.

I tend to doubt the Supreme Court will overrule long standing guidelines set forth by the state courts but they might. Contrary to the assertion by some that state support agencies only care about the collection of money, let me say this is palpable nonsense. We used to encourage paternity testing whenever there was any question about parentage. The notion that the people working there are mindless robots who have no sense of justice is ridiculous. The people who feel so strongly about this subject need to address this issue to their legislators and congresscritters. I used to do this all the time. We only enforced the law as it was written and expected to do so.

42 posted on 06/02/2002 6:58:58 AM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: waterstraat
This case could have far reaching consequences if 1/3 of all women in this country have to 'fess up.

Hopefully, one of those consequences will be the complete collapse of the feminist movement, which tells women that they have this type of power over men, and absolves them (the woman) from all responsibility.

I would like nothing better, than to see the NOW gang and that dumb b*tch Gloria Allred on tv in total panic when their fraud is exposed for all to see.

This is what the feminist movement hath wrought upon men.

43 posted on 06/02/2002 7:07:03 AM PDT by usconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RichardW
The people who feel so strongly about this subject need to address this issue to their legislators and congresscritters. I used to do this all the time. We only enforced the law as it was written and expected to do so.

They have. They've done so in every state over many years. Instead of fixing things, they make it worse -- every election year when Congress passes more laws with more federal funding for states attached. How much did you and your office make each year from participation in the child support system?

Barbara Johnson for Governor of Massachusetts
44 posted on 06/02/2002 7:09:55 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Here's hoping the Supreme's agree to correct this feminist windfall.

It is unlikely that they will hear it, which might be good, as you can never tell what the swing judges will do. Best thing to do is correct this travesty at the state level. I doubt governors like Greyout would be any help, but maybe other states can start a precedent (as is already being done).

45 posted on 06/02/2002 7:12:54 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
Hopefully, one of those consequences will be the complete collapse of the feminist movement, ...

Cumulative results should collapse something:

A Return to Welfare As We Knew It? Child Support Guidelines Declared Unconstitutional
46 posted on 06/02/2002 7:14:01 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
I'm just curious, but what kind of fraud is it when someone like Clinton is likely the father of Danny Williams and has his DNA tested but nothing comes of it, for obvious reasons?
47 posted on 06/02/2002 7:14:34 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: usconservative
Barbara Johnson for Governor of Massachusetts
48 posted on 06/02/2002 7:16:40 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
When did the burden of proof shift to the defendant to DISprove his guilt, rather than assuming his innocence? It seems to me that the mother (or the state acting on her behalf) should have to make a case for a man's liability rather than the man defending it.

This doctrine would seem to say that some two-bit ho can conceive, then just run down the phone book and pick some schmuck at random to be Instant Dad. And the courts -- those bastions of social equity -- will enforce her decision!

Fraud. Writ LARGE.

49 posted on 06/02/2002 7:22:35 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pure Country
No. Not what this is about. It's "Your husband is considered the father of your child". Original law doesn't need to be changed, but a law is needed to provide relief for those husbands who are not the biological father of their legal child.
50 posted on 06/02/2002 7:22:58 AM PDT by not-an-ostrich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: Unknown Freeper
It should be interesting, however, to watch those with some lame rationale come out of the woodwork.

See post above yours.

52 posted on 06/02/2002 7:27:12 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: waterstraat
if 1/3 of all women in this country have to 'fess up.

I would guess that cases that end up in dispute are not representative of overall paternity statics.

53 posted on 06/02/2002 7:30:23 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
When did the burden of proof shift to the defendant to DISprove his guilt, ...

The process began in 1975, expanded quickly during the Reagan years with tons of new social behavior legislation, and on those roots the tree of corruption bore a wealth of fruit during the Clinton years. Now -- it's so totally out of control they'll be shooting you in the streets in a few years and not apologizing for problems with "friendly fire."

This thing is international by the way. I don't know if you knew that or not. Along with the rest of globalization, the US is adopting the socialist system of "justice." They invested a lot in transforming domestic relations law, not a little in the propaganda war to undermine the credibility of the huge numbers of fathers making similar allegations. But it's well beyond that now. Nobody's safe.
54 posted on 06/02/2002 7:39:43 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: wasfree
97% -- That would seem to indicate a brother or cousin ....
55 posted on 06/02/2002 7:41:15 AM PDT by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
The issue seems clear and I guess they will win. The interesting question is how the votes line up on the supreme court.
56 posted on 06/02/2002 7:43:54 AM PDT by noah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Well maybe you ought to be more vigilent in getting your views across to the legislators. For years, women and children were given short shrift in child support matters. In 1975 the federal statutes kicked in response to the welfare monies being paid out. Later on it was expanded to the non-welfare mothers. Since then many changes and enhancements have been enacted to tighten the loopholes.

I make no apologies for the collection of child support monies. A typical employee in the office I worked would collect over $1 million per year in both TANF and non TANF cases and I suspect it may even be greater now. Much of this money was plowed back into the revenue base to offset the TANF money paid out to welfare families. The rest (most of it) was paid to non TANF families.

Again, I say if you don't like the status quo, then get to your legislator/congressperson and insist on the changes you desire. The state employees are trying to make a living just like you make a living and they do what they are required to do under the laws.

57 posted on 06/02/2002 7:44:11 AM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
on those roots the tree of corruption bore a wealth of fruit during the Clinton years.

Hand me my chain saw and the Agent Orange.

58 posted on 06/02/2002 7:45:37 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RichardW
The state employees are trying to make a living just like you make a living and they do what they are required to do under the laws.

I don't make a living stealing money from people.

And the guards at Auschwitz were just obeying orders.

59 posted on 06/02/2002 7:48:51 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: winodog
If all women were tested the numbers would be much lower. That rate is for those who willingly seek a DNA test because they believe their spouse has cheated.

Actually, the number might be even higher.

My dad is a recently semi-reformed wacko liberal(which helps to explain my own insanity). He is a retired math professor who specialized in probability and statistics. His last few big projects were with a small team or researchers of a similar(liberal) ilk.

While he was working with these folks(for the army, a long study on the reliability of composite material breaking strength in helicopter blades and tank armor), the feminazi-looking researcher on this very PC-looking team related a couple of interesting studies on seperate occasions that were suppressed or discredited because of their results. One had to do with penetration of the AIDS virus into vivisected vaginal tissue(researchers simply could not, under any circumstances, make the virus go into or through tissue from the vaginal wall). That one was suppressed because it would seem to imply that AIDS was not a significant risk to your average heterosexual.

Another study in which she had been involved was an analysis of the results of DNA testing among the families of children requiring tissue transplant. In that one, as she related it to me, among families wherein the child was concieved in wedlock(i.e. born more than nine months into the marriage) the male spouse was found not to be the biological father of the child in a whopping 70+% of the cases. She said the study was discounted summarily by a general consensus of everyone who looked at it, but basically just because the numbers were so shocking. Some potential causes of bias were a sample skewed toward lower-income families and a slightly disproportionate representation of minorities and immigrants(the study took place in southern California). The scary thing was that there was no bias due to the preexistence of paternity disputes, and the numbers were astronomical.

Her reason for relating the latter study was to recommend paternity testing in the custody proceedings for my daughter that were ongoing at the time. My reasons for relating it to those on this forum are to point out that women are not innately saintly, and to illustrate how not only are we force-fed nonsensical pseudo-science to suit The Agenda, but good, solid objective science is often suppressed for the same cause. Only a handful of researchers and their personal aquaintances are aware of the reality of these things.

Anyway....

I have been accused a misogyny before, and at the risk of validating those accusations I want to point to this phenomenon as one indicator of the unique historical situation in which we find ourselves. Women are at a critical point in cultural evolution. They enjoy the benefits of paternalism, but none of its legal or social handicaps. Selfishness, cruelty, abusiveness, deceitfulness and many other vicious qualities sit quite blatantly upon many a pretty face without being perceived as such by men who still see women through the veils of an antiquated feminine mystique.

Women judges and legislators are biased toward women because they see eachother as being on the same team. Male judges and legislators are biased toward women because of an endemic paternalism and, perhaps, an unconcious desire for a pat on the head from Mommy.

Lots of voices in our society are talking to women about their rights among other things, very few are talking to women about their collective and individual resposibilities to themselves, the people around them and society as a whole. It is a truism that rights and responsibilties go hand in hand, but we seem to be raising a generation of women who can only see things from one angle. A mindset like that is called psychopathy when it governs the mind of a man.

The long term consequences of the experience of these few generations will be, I think, more profound than any "backlash" I have heard discussed before. I believe there is a "reality factor" that prevents social conditioning and propaganda from being effective when the propagandists get "greedy" and try to induce for too long beliefs or perceptions that are too far skewed from ordinary principles of truth, justice, etc..., and to frequently contradicted by day-to-day experience. After a critical point is reached, the propaganda only serves to strengthen the opposite belief and to induce a disaffection from the propaganda source.

Essentially, if the world painted for you on TV is too far from the world around you, the reality around you will eventually break the spell, and furthermore confer a sort of immunity to future spell-castings of the same sort. I assert this without proof, and I stand by the "spell" metaphor.

We will see even fewer men willing to marry, and rightly so. Men will generally hold women in a unique contempt, and perceive them as an abusive and tyrannical priviledged class, who has done nothing to earn the priviledge.

The tables will turn in the demand for sex and love. It already has somewhat, but in the future, women will do all the chasing, the sacrificing, etc... for the sake of the love of a man -- something that will be very hard to come by.

Men will more and more say, "Why should die 7 years earlier for her? Why should I slave away to buy her lingerie to wear for the mailman?"

In generations to come, women will have to deal with the reality of a huge percentage of men who hate their own mothers for morally justifiable reasons.

As men begin to collectively pull back the veils of feminine mystique and see the reality of feminine character as it exists commonly in our society, a deep-abiding natural contempt for wickedness will dominate the perception of women by men. Truth is contagious, and this attitude will eventually become the standard. Women will have to learn to live with emotional aloneness because, in their collective social greed,they have gradually moved men into the position of having nothing to gain and everything to lose.

There is a certain number of husbands who have been faithful, gentle, supportive providers for years, only to end up with warts on their genitals and a hefty support payment for the wallpaper hanger's kid. The direction in which society continues to move is only increasing this number. A guy doesn't have to meet too many fellows in such a situation to open his eyes to the reality around him.

In the past, mysogyny as painted by feminism was men collectively saying, "You are incompetent, you must have sex with me to keep your job, I can beat you up." In the future it will take on a different form, "You are a bad person, you ask for things you haven't earned and don't deserve, I do not trust you, I do not like you, I am not your slave, you may not control me, I will not help you." And women have little to say but, "Honest, I'm not like other women, I promise."

And so, for women, the next several generations will look pretty bleak. But maybe that is what is necessary to force the beginnings of virtue among women as something more than a cute pose.

Currently, the suicide ratio during the first year after a divorce is 10 men for each woman.

It will take several generations of humble women to remedy the damage that has been done.

60 posted on 06/02/2002 7:49:08 AM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-275 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson