Child support judgments traumatize famous athletes, hamper NBA teams

 A $50,000, or mere $ 8,000 monthly child support judgment is the greatest career move for an uneducated young woman..Successful male athletes and singers get easily ruined by female predators empowered by feminist child support laws. Getting pregnant by such a man is like winning the jackpot.

Highly paid basketball and football stars, boxers, rap singers are easy prey. They are high testosterone, impulsive, quick acting successful males, usually with more brawns then brains.

We will point out numerous legal traps devised by the feminist sexual trade union in collaboration with religious zealots.

Fathering out-of-wedlock kids has become commonplace among athletes, many of whom seem oblivious to the legal, financial and emotional consequences

This shocking 5 part article is from 1998’s Sport Illustrated. Today, nothing has changed for the better. Probably athletes are probably a little less naïve by now.

Paternity can be an expensive proposition. In several states the baseline amount for a man who is proved to have fathered a child is roughly 20% of his income as support until the child turns 18. Considerations such as time spent with the child and the income of the mother are factored into a complex equation and can slightly reduce or increase the award.

A high earning athlete who has to pay to 7 children women 7 times 20% of his gross income certainly faces a dilemma.

there are women who hunt pro athletes in the hope of becoming pregnant and filing paternity suits to make an income," says Pat Richie, the chaplain for the San Francisco Giants and 49ers. "I’d say that teams probably have two or three women per year who are purposely looking for this."

Certainly there have been false charges made against athletes 4

 

End of career, end of big income

Add to that the short term nature of his dwindling income, and we understand how fading fame also brings about arrests for now un-payable child support judgments that exceed the poor ex-athlete’s waning gross income.

High-wage earners such as athletes present courts with a dilemma: Should judges follow the 20% guideline, which would mean a windfall to mothers and children? Or should support payments cover only the basic needs of the children, depriving the youngsters of their dads’ standard of living? Many judges have compromised by limiting support—sometimes at $10,000 per month per child—regardless of the father’s income, a decision that has sparked debate among family-law attorneys.  2

Even US$ 10.000 is un-payable for a simple man whose sports career is over. It is also cruel and unusual punishment to demand he depredate his savings until poverty, to pay such support.

In some cases, however, even a player earning millions can fail to meet his obligations. In 1995 slugger Kevin Mitchell, now with the Oakland Athletics, was making $4.5 million a year. The next year he declared bankruptcy, in part because he was supporting four children by four women.

Athletes’ out-of-wedlock kids can end up in poverty if their fathers are cut or retire before the children turn 18. "Often, you need to tell these women to bank as much money as they can because it’s going to be a very short payday," says Schwartz, the California paternity lawyer. "I’m handling a case involving an NBA player who had been making more than $2 million a year and this year wasn’t picked up. The mother was getting more than $5,000 a month, and suddenly we’re talking about $1,000 to $1,500. That’s only because, through good management, he still has some money. Some of these guys will be pumping gas, if they’re lucky." 6

 

Does baby consume $10,000 per month?

Nobody questions the sanity and necessity of awarding a child of an often poor mom US$ 50,000.- or even 3,000.- per month.  If that same woman had an honest, simple, working husband, $ 500 after tax income would feed an entire family, not just one child.

Child support to support mom’s new lover and their children
  • Child support should cover the basic needs of a child, not luxury, much less a luxurious life for mom and her new lover. If mom wants lots of money, have her make the effort to treat a man so he voluntarily parts with his money. Not just lie about birth control.
Pay child support, never see the child
  • It gets worse. In our modern matriarchy, even men who pay US$ 10.000 monthly in child support have no practically enforceable rights to actually meet and see their children.
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Child support judgments traumatize famous athletes, hamper NBA teams” »
Child support judgments traumatize famous athletes, hamper NBA tea… » continues here »

Share

MRA against men! Most MRA (men’s rights activist) actively support draconian prison sentences for men #4

Most men’s rights activists actively and vehemently support the relentless century-old feminist agenda 1 2 3 against male sexuality.

They became MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) after being stiffed by family court, divorce law, false accusations by their wives. They often have daughters. Thus these MRA are totally protective and sexually conservative, repressive and not libertarian.

These MRA totally agree with feminist inspired laws that cruelly imprison men for victimless crimes of *consensual sex with adolescents, for visits to voluntary prostitutes and for possessions patterns of 0’s and 1’s on their hard drive defined as child porn (see voodoo theory, disclaimer, Robert Kurzban)

 

MRA (Men’s rights activists) rightly assail biased anti-male laws regarding
Domestic Violence, *rape, due process, false rape accusations, child support, divorce.
But MRA are in full support of anti-male sex laws.

 

Even MRA are avid supporters of the feminist Child Sex Trauma Myth (#4)

This is the 4TH in a series of articles about the Child Sex Trauma Myth (#1 disclaimer, #2, #3)

 

 

Strict liability to compound the injustice

Feminists fought for the increase of age of consent and  the subsequent criminalization of normal male post-pubertal sexuality. This is further enhanced by unjust  Strict liability*
Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a minor) you are guilty and will be convicted. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter. If you had sex with a 17 year old, you are a *child *rapist.

 

Human-Stupidity hostilized, warned, banned by MRA

Human-Stupidity was blocked, chided, and banned at leading men’s rights sites r/mensrights and AVoiceForMen.

Check how Human-Stupidity’s moderate and reasonable comment 1, 2 led to banning from the otherwise excellent MRA activism site AVoiceForMen. My comments 1, 2 at the excellent article cited below (in #5) were understood by a few, but misunderstood by Paul Elam, who stands for many sex-repressive MRA’s

Can you share my outrage on this Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution or this Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them | 2

The comment above led to Human_Stupidity.com’s definite expulsion from the site of the most active and very representative MRA, AVoiceForMen.

avoiceformen-angryharry_thumb4_thumb_thumb

If these are the best defenders of men’s rights, we have a long way to go. Tens of thousands of men will be singled out for daily anal rape by common criminal prison gangs who hate "*child *rapists ".

Those prison rapists certainly will not understand the fine distinction between *consensual sex with 17 or 15 year olds and "real forcible rape of a real child" (in the classic sense of the words pre-pubertal *child and forcible *rape) . Even leading MRA Paul Elam succumbed to feminist brain washing and refuses to understand such obvious differences.

Paul Elam might even understand it. But he chooses not to enter a hopeless fight After all the prestigious peer reviewed Rind Study was rejected unanimously by both the US congress and senate. Academic research decided by politicians

So feminists have won the war on underage sex repression, so much that even MRA (men’s rights activists) don’t dare to even touch the topic.

Our pleading for unity among MRA leads to expulsion, not introspection and self analysis

AVoiceForMen pleaded for unity among MRAs. So we tried to help to raise awareness that they, themselves, actively abet and support the persecution of men. We did not manage to raise such awareness See our unwelcome comment further below.

 

Child Porn laws made specifically to criminalize men

Why may women legally devour Child abuse books by Amazon but inadvertent possession of a picture (usually by a man) is a heinous crime punishable by decades in jail? (Judge Weinstein, voodoo theory) What about the children photographed on the cover of the child abuse books?

Finally, I was shopping at ASDA (Wal-Mart) last week. They have a very small selection of books on sale. And I presume that they only sell those books that are in particularly high demand by the public. About 20% of the titles of the entire range were to do with ‘abuse’, and another 20% were to do with serial killers, murderers, torturers and, in general, ‘evil’ people. You know the type. angryharry.com/es_chris_langham.htm

Female pornography, the romance novel, is socially very acceptable. We specifically criminalize male preference for pictures. The handsome, witty, intelligent, rich, young physician, hero of a typical female romance novel humbles the average male and unrealistically raises women’s expectations.

 

Age of consent laws (sponsored by feminists) specifically target and criminalize men

Since long before biblical times, women choose older men for relationship and marriage.  Thus, automatically,age of consent laws ensnare mostly men.

Girls mature faster: marriageable age was lower for girls throughout history

One could make a very strong argument to imprison a 16 year old mature female for seducing a hormonally challenged mentally more immature 18 year old male.

Nowadays, sex has more traumatic consequences for boys then for girls
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “MRA against men! Most MRA (men’s rights activist) actively support draconian prison sentences for men #4” »
MRA against men! Most MRA (men’s rights activist) actively s… » continues here »

Share

Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Maurice McGill, 13   at the time of the alleged assault, is charged with one count each of rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and abduction, according to the Lima Police Department.

Police say the McGill youth, who will be tried in the Allen County Juvenile Court on Aug. 13, allegedly broke into the woman’s home in the 200 block of Haller Street and sexually assaulted the victim. Boy, 13, raped woman, 90

This is an (alleged) case of forcible true rape, rape-rape in the classical sense of the word “rape”, Not one of the dozens of new versions of re-defined *rape.

A child (monster) of 13 years breaks into a house, robs, burglars, abducts and rapes an old lady. Shocking in every respect. A nightmare. In her own house she gets robbed and raped. The kid deserves strict punishment, and society deserves to be protected from such animals

Strict liability laws for statutory rape

But the 90 year old lady had sex with a 13 year old child. In many US states, this is a *strict liability crime.

So the poor old lady could be charged with child rape. Due to the extreme circumstances of the case, prosecutors were wise enough not to press charges, so our analysis is theoretical.

If you have sex with a person under the age of consent, you are a child rapist

“Strict liability crime” [1] [2] [3] [4] means: if you commit an act, (e.g. if you have sex with a mnior) you are guilty and will be convicted.  Mens rea, criminal intent is not required , no knowledge needed that you are committing a crime.

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea. Strict liability (criminal)

Men get convicted for sex with underage women, even if they thought she was over the age of consent. Even if they have very good reasons to believe she was of age, because they met her in a 21-and-over bar with ID check. Even if she had a valid true government ID. because she duped the department of motor vehicles into giving her a incorrect age ID. It does not matter, if they had sex with a 17 year old, they are *child *rapists.

So, by modern re-definition of the word *rape, poor 90 year old lady would be a child rapist and could be indicted. She had sex with a 13 year old child (under 14 year old is a further aggravation). No criminal intent nor further proof is needed.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By strict liability, she is a (statutory) rapist!” »
Burglary, robbery, rape of 90 year old woman by 13 y old child. By… » continues here »

Share