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

Skip to comments.

MI Man not the Dad, but Owes the State Welfare Reimbursement Anyway
www.fathersandfamilies.org ^ | July 29, 2010 | Robert Franklin, Esq.

Posted on 07/29/2010 12:29:32 PM PDT by fathers1

One of my first jaw-dropping experiences in the fathers’ rights arena came back in 1999. I was researching the phenomenon of men who had learned after the fact - and sometimes long after the fact - that they’d fathered a child. I was interested in what happened to their parental rights if a mother kept a man’s child secret from him. I was astonished to learn that the rights of such a dad could vanish into thin air. The rule in many states was that, since he hadn’t actively cared for the child, he had no more claim to it. The fact that the mother had intentionally deprived him of the ability to do that often made no difference to courts.

So I had lengthy conversations with a number of those dads, one of whom lived in Lompoc, California. He’d had a one-night stand with a woman 16 years previously. They both lived in the same community, but she decided he didn’t need to know about it when she became pregnant and gave birth to his daughter. Then she started receiving AFDC payments (now TANF) from the state which were required to be reimbursed by the father. Fifteen years later, the dad received a letter from the State of California saying (a) he had a daughter and (b) he owed the state over $40,000. This was shortly after he’d gotten married. He had to get a second mortgage on his house to pay off the state.

This case is very much the same, but in fact much worse (WXYZ, 7/8/10). This time it’s the State of Michigan that’s suing Gary Harper for AFDC payments made to a woman named Dorothy Hoose. She had a son in 1988 and named Harper as the dad. There’s just one problem, though; he’s not.

But the State of Michigan isn’t interested in technicalities like who the actual father is. It’s known for many years that Harper is not the dad and, as far as I can tell, lifted nary a finger to find out who is. That’s because it’s got Harper on its line and the hook is set. Why go after another fish when you’ve already got one reeled in?

You see, when Hoose named Harper as the dad, he was in prison. According to Michigan law, the state has to pay for a DNA test for any inmate for whom it seeks to establish paternity. The state knew Harper was in the joint because a Friend of the Court sent correspondence there about his case. But it never offered him the genetic testing.

After he got out, he didn’t have the $500 it would have taken at the time to determine whether he was the dad or not. He didn’t do the test until years later, when he had the money. That test proved he wasn’t the dad, but it was too late. His window of opportunity for disproving his paternity had closed. That’s one of those technicalities the state is interested in.

So as of now, Harper’s on the hook for $22,500, down from the $50,000 the state claimed at first. He’s got an attorney, Susan Pushman, who says that the state’s failure to provide DNA testing when Harper was inside means it can’t complain that he didn’t do it on his own when he got out. If Michigan had done what it was obligated to do, it would have known Harper isn’t the father, is her argument. The case is pending.

The “child” in question is now 22 years old. Perhaps oddly, he and Harper have gotten to know and like each other pretty well. That’s a positive development in an otherwise tawdry affair.

It’s worth asking why the State of Michigan has expended such effort in trying to bankrupt a man it knows has no responsibility for Hoose’s son. After all, Harper has been trying to get his life back together after his time in prison, and he’s done a pretty good job of that. But if the state has its way, it’ll tear down whatever he’s built. Nice.

What truly escapes me is why state welfare authorities don’t just ask Hoose who the father is, do DNA testing on him and, if she’s right this time, demand payment. What’s the problem with getting the right man and letting the wrong one go? What state interest is served by soaking a man who’s not the father and letting the man who is go free? One of the points of child support is that he who fathers a child should be financially responsible for it. In Harper’s case, the State of Michigan has it exactly backwards.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: childsupport; fathersrights; michigan; paternityfraud
The State of Michigan is suing Gary Harper for AFDC payments made to a woman named Dorothy Hoose. She had a son in 1988 and named Harper as the dad. There’s just one problem, though; he’s not.
1 posted on 07/29/2010 12:29:35 PM PDT by fathers1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Sounds fair. NOT.


2 posted on 07/29/2010 12:32:52 PM PDT by Grunthor (My coffee creamer is fat free because I am not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Looks like the law was made to please the biggest supporters of the dems - militant man-hating feminazis. That explains it all. Men have no rights under leftist fascism. Men are only good for their money.


3 posted on 07/29/2010 12:34:15 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (my favorite pastime: annoying liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

The facts don’t matter only the law and we can all feel better with the words of Alcee Hastings where that is concerned:

“There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ‘em up as we go along.”
—Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.)


4 posted on 07/29/2010 12:34:59 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

“It’s worth asking why the State of Michigan has expended such effort in trying to bankrupt a man it knows has no responsibility for Hoose’s son.”

As you probably know, there’s nothing more dangerous or arrogant than a lazy prosecutor or state’s attorney. “We don’t have to, you lose, pay up or we’ll take everything you own.” The most forceful argument I can think of against mandatory presumptions.

Colonel, USAFR, Esq.


5 posted on 07/29/2010 12:36:07 PM PDT by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
Why go after another fish when you’ve already got one reeled in?

You know, they used to have these things called press gangs...

6 posted on 07/29/2010 12:37:39 PM PDT by MAexile (Bats left, votes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Men are routinely screwed over in paternity suits. Nothing new.

But you need to come up with better examples than these two losers for anyone to care.

Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.


7 posted on 07/29/2010 12:37:58 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
Any guy can be named the father of any child at time of birth. And just like "that", a guys life can become a living hell.
Some states (CA being one of the worst) will wait until the "arrears" payments reach unpaid for 5 years or the total is $5000.00 or more; it then becomes a federal matter after that if said guy doesn't start to pony up (and believe me, the states know EXACTLY where people are; provided they pay/file their federal taxes; they'll send you a nice certified letter JUST after that five year mark).

Compound this with a "mother" claiming a guy is a father and a case is brought into family court. If the guy cannot be reached to appear (say he lives in a different state); be default, he becomes the legal father. No DNA needed.

"Family" court is a God awful abomination. I escaped it somewhat lighter in the pockets; but with most of my liberty intact.

8 posted on 07/29/2010 12:39:42 PM PDT by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Doesn’t even require un-zipping these days.


9 posted on 07/29/2010 12:42:10 PM PDT by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
I was interested in what happened to their parental rights if a mother kept a man’s child secret from him.

Had a friend this happened to. Dated a girl for about a year, broke up and never heard from her again. That is until about 5 years later when he got a letter from her lawyer demanding child support.

He wanted to make sure it was his so he did the DNA test and sure enough it was his. So...he decided to do little checking on this ex girlfriend and lo and behold he dug up some nasty stuff about her and used it against her in court.

He wound up taking FULL custody of the little girl and almost had her sent to jail for numerous charges.

So ladies, if you think you will ALWAYS win this kind of case, beware, you may not like the outcome.

Just sayin...

10 posted on 07/29/2010 12:43:44 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Is there any possibility that he could sue the woman who LIED to the state and now has inflicted him with sever emotional and financial strain?


11 posted on 07/29/2010 12:44:52 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
. He’d had a one-night stand with a woman 16 years previously.

I never got in much trouble (6 figure touble) with my pants zipped up.

This piker got off easy with just the massive injustice and 5 figure trouble.

Yet another reason to remain single, CELIBATE, and sane.

It only took 3 trips to the cleaners to figure that out.

/johnny

12 posted on 07/29/2010 12:44:56 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Barnes
Doesn’t even require un-zipping these days.

That is true, but staying zipped stops a lot of it.

/johnny

13 posted on 07/29/2010 12:47:43 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

MI is messed up and completely lazy in any friend of the court situation unless its a huge payoff.


14 posted on 07/29/2010 12:48:37 PM PDT by absolootezer0 (2x divorced, tattooed, pierced, harley hatin, meghan mccain luvin', smoker and pit bull owner..what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

..or slander, libel, defamation of character. He should throw the kitchen sink at her, and use whatever judgment he gets to seize any assets she has.


15 posted on 07/29/2010 12:49:01 PM PDT by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

In a lot of places a woman can name a man on the BC as the father with whom she has never had sex and the guy won’t know until the state comes after him; usually after the time for him to rebut the BC that he doesn’t know about in the first place. You could keep it zipped and still get screwed, so to speak.


16 posted on 07/29/2010 12:50:16 PM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

***Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.***

AMEN!


17 posted on 07/29/2010 12:54:01 PM PDT by kitkat (OBAMA hates us. Well, maybe a LOT of Kenyans do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Men are routinely screwed over in paternity suits. Nothing new.

But you need to come up with better examples than these two losers for anyone to care.

Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.”

And you have never made a mistake in your entire life?
Even if “They should have kept their pants zipped up” this is completely wrong. These men are getting screwed by the state and these lying skanks.


18 posted on 07/29/2010 12:54:10 PM PDT by sean327 (God created all men equal, then some become Marines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

These men need to seek justice OUTSIDE the legal system, since none exists within it. The evildoers can be harmed as well... financially and/or physically.

It’s relatively easy to do if you have the stomach for it...


19 posted on 07/29/2010 12:55:05 PM PDT by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

I vaguely remember a case in So Cal where a man paid child support for years but after paying it all those years found out he wasn’t the kids dad after all.

I believe he quit making the payments and the DA came after him even tho he could prove it wasn’t his responsibility. DA didn’t care. He was already “on the hook” and had been for years. DA wasn’t the least bit interested in getting this guy’s money back for him either.


20 posted on 07/29/2010 12:56:41 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby ( I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did. Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
Men have no reproductive rights. The woman, because of her gender, is superior ( in the courts, anyway).
21 posted on 07/29/2010 12:56:51 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

One more reason for young males to remain single. Family courts are not interested in the equities of the situation.


22 posted on 07/29/2010 12:58:09 PM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sean327

Right.

And none of their problems are their fault.

The man in jail? Was framed, right.

Maybe these guys weren’t the father. But they lived loosely. One night stands? Only if you want to pay some skank $500 a month for the next 18 years.


23 posted on 07/29/2010 1:01:06 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: abigailsmybaby

I remember a case where the man had been paying child support for years and years.

Even though the child had died some years back.

He stopped paying when he finally found out.

Too late. He never recouped a dime of the overpaid $$$.


24 posted on 07/29/2010 1:04:31 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Thanks to corrupt lawyers (redundant I know) who become elected officials and judges we no longer have a justice system but legal system and they are 2 completely different animals.

When the weight of government abuse is used on individuals, other than climbing to the top of a tower in Texas, very little can be done.


25 posted on 07/29/2010 1:12:03 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Here’s a story a little removed from that. I won’t use names but the details are true.

There was a young woman who joined the navy and at the age of 18, she was sent overseas. While stationed at a naval base, she met a marine and fell in lust.

When she became pregnant, she left the navy and the father of her child. She returned to her parents and when the child was born, the father was listed on the birth certificate and the child was given her maiden name.

When the child was eight or nine months old, his mother took him back to her home town where she became reinvolved with a divorced man with two boys. At that time, she sent for a copy of the birth certificate, requesting changes. The first change was the name of the father. The birth father was removed, and her paramor was listed. The last name of the son was changed from her maiden name to her paramor’s last name.

Years later, after a second child and a divorce, the father of the second child was ordered to pay child support, but the woman didn’t want to saddle him with child support for her first child, since she had manipulated the birth certificate.

More years later. The first born of the woman joined the army, while the second born was treated with all the respect due the first child. Second child got child support, braces, contacts, etc. First child was denied contact with his birth father until time for graduation from boot camp.

Because of this woman, her first-born son was denied his rights as a child and young man, to know his father and be cared for by him. As a side note: The father was more than willing to pay child support and set up visitation.

The rest of the story is this: He is married, now, and he doesn’t ever have to worry about being denied anything by his mother ever again. But you can bet he will be an excellent daddy.

If I live to be 100, I will never understand women. And I are one.


26 posted on 07/29/2010 1:12:43 PM PDT by Monkey Face (Welcome home to my awesome army grandson!! Prayers and yellow ribbons for Anoreth of CG fame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on paternity. If you have a one night stand with a woman, who would want to find out 15 or 20 years later they had a child?


27 posted on 07/29/2010 1:16:56 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babygene

Hey, if it works for Raoul Moat.....


28 posted on 07/29/2010 1:18:37 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

No one said their problems are not their fault. But why should he have to pay when it is proven he is not the father? Any way you look at it it’s wrong to make these guys pay. The women lied, the state knows they lied , but they still pursue the wrong men.


29 posted on 07/29/2010 1:19:47 PM PDT by sean327 (God created all men equal, then some become Marines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
Harper most likely, thought he was the father, was in on the fraud, or did not care about the tax payers getting skinned.

When Harper was served with Order to Show Cause and Petition to establish paternity, he should have answered. An answer coming from a prison ,hand written in pencil on toilet paper will be read by any Judge in America , if for the novelty alone. By allowing a default he da baby daddy , until set aside.

Half stories can diminish the real struggle for the rights of biological fathers, almost as much as false allegations of racism harm civil rights for the truly aggrieved.

30 posted on 07/29/2010 1:20:00 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Today is my daughter’s 18th birthday.......
I’m so glad that this is my last child support payment.
Month after month, year after year, those payments!

I called my daughter to come over to my house, and when she got there, I said to her, “I want you to take this last check over to your Mom’s house; You tell her that this is the last check she’s ever going to get from me, then I want you to come back here and tell me the expression she had on her face.”

So my girl took the check over to her. I was so anxious to hear what the ex had to say and how she took it.

As my girl walked through the door, I said, “Well now .. what did she have to say?”

“She told me to tell you that you aren’t my Dad.”


31 posted on 07/29/2010 1:22:19 PM PDT by MNDude (Ask the Native American's how their "Open Borders" policy worked out for them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sean327

I could explain it to you. But you wouldn’t accept it.

Lets just say I hope you are not like one of these stupid young men in this story. Or a thousand other stories that play out every day in family court.

“It’s wrong to make these guys pay.” No, these guys wanted to play, now they must pay.


32 posted on 07/29/2010 1:26:07 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Men are routinely screwed over in paternity suits. Nothing new.

But you need to come up with better examples than these two losers for anyone to care.

Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.”

Maybe I am missing something, but I didn’t see anything in the story that indicated the second man ever had sex with the woman involved. Maybe he did, but that information is not contained in the story. And it wouldn’t be the first time a woman named a man she never slept with as the putative father.


33 posted on 07/29/2010 1:27:01 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Bullshiite!!You as a conservative, one who is for limmited govt, keeping govt out of our lives, really? You are hypocrite. I understand the whole morality issue here, but govt has zero business legislating morailty. What the state is doing is wrong period, end of story. What you think about these men’s morals has no bearing on the state being wrong here. Were these guys moraly loose? Yes they were, but they did nothing illegal. Therin lies the rub. The state needs to do the right thing here.


34 posted on 07/29/2010 1:36:23 PM PDT by sean327 (God created all men equal, then some become Marines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: fathers1

First thing I would do if I were a man who got such a letter was demand a DNA TEST...


35 posted on 07/29/2010 1:45:45 PM PDT by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sean327

Slow down, Ace. I can see you are getting hot. Your typing gets worse as your blood pressure increases.

Since when does the government have no business legislating morality? Governnments have been doing that since the dawn of time. Currently our government is passing laws, and even selecting SC justices that are anathema to your sense of morality and mine.

Drugs, gay sex, abortion, porn... These are all moral issues, are they not?

Unless you are an anarchist libertarian, you do want a government that speaks to these moral and social issues.

So you do want a government that legislates morality.

So calm down.


36 posted on 07/29/2010 1:48:06 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
The State of Michigan is suing Gary Harper for AFDC payments made to a woman named Dorothy Hoose. She had a son in 1988 and named Harper as the dad. There’s just one problem, though; he’s not.

"Mr. Harper, you say it can't be your son, but you admit to being in the Hoose gal!"

"Hoosegow, your honor! Hoosegow!"
37 posted on 07/29/2010 1:53:55 PM PDT by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Anytime a man can’t keep his pants zipped up, he invites this kind of trouble.

Not necessarily.

One could do what the OldPossum did many moons ago: get a vasectomy. About a week or so after the operation one takes a test and there is then proof that paternity is not possible.

On the other hand, if you want to stay "sperm active" and invite such trouble, well, that's another option.

38 posted on 07/29/2010 2:00:54 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Yes I did get a little heated, but it really gets me when I see a state do this even when they have the proof the man they are going after is not the right guy. Sorry for the hypacrite comment. It’s been a long week. All in all it was a good debate.


39 posted on 07/29/2010 2:00:59 PM PDT by sean327 (God created all men equal, then some become Marines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fathers1
Years ago, I read Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The resources and systems used to convict men in modern America is not so different than the systems used in the old Soviet Union. Facts take a secondary or even tertiary role to state convenience. In some cases, they take no role at all.

In one passage of the book, Solzhenitsyn relates the case of a local office which was behind on their quota of deportees to the forced labor camps. Guess how they filled the quota when an elderly couple stops by to request assistance in looking after a deportee's children?

40 posted on 07/29/2010 2:48:13 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
One could do what the OldPossum did many moons ago: get a vasectomy.

"Zipped" or "snipped", that's the ticket...LOL.

41 posted on 07/29/2010 5:42:31 PM PDT by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
No, these guys wanted to play, now they must pay.

If I take my gun to the range, and shoot all day, but someone gets killed by someone else on the other side of town, should I do time for the murder?

No.

And the guys who aren't the father shouldn't get stuck with the father's tab, either.

You are advocating a miscarriage of justice based on a consensual act, the result of which (mere mutual gratification, without issue) does not justify the seizure of liberty or property for the stated reasons.

While I agree, in principle, that celibacy is the best course, the absence thereof is not just cause to rob these men under false pretenses if they are not the father.

42 posted on 07/30/2010 12:49:17 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
While I agree, in principle, that celibacy is the best course, the absence thereof is not just cause to rob these men under false pretenses if they are not the father...

Pretty amazing, isn't it...in the minds of many, commit the act and throw away your rights forever...anything goes.

That's sick and twisted. And, you guys who are single...absorb every bit of this twisted malice you can.

Guys should not get married; they should get vasectomies ASAP.

Or, as they say in a slightly different context...go Galt.

Give these sick birds (and society) what they're asking for.

Let them regret that it's not what they wanted.

43 posted on 07/30/2010 1:26:41 AM PDT by gogeo ("Every one has a right to be an idiot. He abuses the privilege!" Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gogeo
Oh, I'm not single, I'm a great-grandpa, but still wrong is wrong, and right is right. It takes two to tangle, and whatever happens is between those two and God, as far as I am concerned, if there is no begetting done.

That's no cause for the State or its agents who represent the citizens of the State, out of laziness or petulence, to rob someone who is innocent of paternity for someone else's issue.

Supporting such just makes one a party to the larceny, imho.

44 posted on 07/30/2010 2:04:15 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
 
No, these guys wanted to play, now they must pay.

If I take my gun to the range, and shoot all day


__________________________________
 
lolol
 
The irony of the metaphor you used does not escape me. After all, that's what these two guys in the story wanted to do; to take the guns to the range and shoot all day.
 
 


45 posted on 07/30/2010 6:30:43 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fathers1; All
I lived in Michigan for 10 years. I have a close friend, who, back in the 90's, had his wife leave him because she was having an affair with her boss. Long story short: They divorced. Not only did he have to pay child support, he had to pay Alimony to her while she and her new lover shacked up in his house in front of his kids. TRUE STORY!!
46 posted on 07/30/2010 7:18:55 AM PDT by no dems (Palin/Jindal in 2012 or Jindal/Christie in 2012. Either is fine with me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
After all, that's what these two guys in the story wanted to do; to take the guns to the range and shoot all day.

Yep. But they didn't 'kill' anyone. For all I know, they may have been shooting blanks...

47 posted on 07/30/2010 2:54:49 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

If there was justice the mother would be ordered to pay back the excess plus a hefty fine for not notifying him. It would be interesting to know what she did with his money after the child died.


48 posted on 07/30/2010 3:04:59 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby ( I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did. Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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