Is this one better?
"Not my little bastard!"
Posted on 08/09/2008 3:31:12 PM PDT by advance_copy
The Ho got paid off, indirectly by the Silky Pony supporters, so think of it next time you write a check to your favourite politician. I don’t have to.
Mr Two Americas is worth a fortune.You mention 50 million.In addition to being worth that he has enormous potential to earn serious $$$....millions a year.He could write a book (or two)...he could practice law.He could go on the rubber chicken circuit.
I suspect that a liberal state like CA...the state that gave us "palimony"....would take his current worth combined with his earning potential and come up with a *very* generous sum for Little Miss Two America's.
If paternity is proven.
Or if he's ordered to give DNA,he refuses,and the court then finds him to be the father "by default" (my words).
Of course a lawyer who practices divorce law in CA could shoot down my assumptions.
The trollop’s sister seems hungry enough for johnnie’s money. She could donate her dna and surely come up with some from the baby.
How do you determine what would "exceed the needs" of this girl? Her old man is worth a fortune.I,the mom,want her to have piano lessons from the lead pianist of the LA Symphony Orchestra.I want her to have violin lessons from a member of the Vienna Philharmonic....in Austria.I want her to attend the Choate Worthington Country Day School in Malibu.The tuition there is 35K/yr.Then there are riding lessons,private French tutors....
See what I'm saying?
Here's my question, though: if this child is not John Edwards' child, then why on earth would Ms. Hunter bring the child to the 2 a.m. meeting at the Beverly Hilton? She couldn't get a sitter? What possible reason could there be to bring the baby there unless it is Edwards' child?
There is no doubt that Mr. Edwards could arrange his affairs to maximize his reported income. However, Mr. Edwards were anticipating a child support suit, he would likely work harder to minimize his income further.
“I suspect that a liberal state like CA...the state that gave us ‘palimony’....would take his current worth combined with his earning potential and come up with a *very* generous sum for Little Miss Two America's.”
The thing is that ten or twenty thousand (or even thirty thousand, when rent and any other benefits are counted) dollars PER MONTH is already a very generous sum.
A court wouldn't really need to do anything unusual or out of the way to award a six-figure annual child support obligation. Which is what Mr. Edwards seems to be obtaining for Ms. Hunter already.
But any time one goes to court, there is uncertainty. It's possible that the court COULD find reasons to give Ms. Hunter more than the $300 thousand-plus package she's already getting. Or the court might find reasons to give her perhaps only $100 grand or so.
California law permits the parent ordered to pay child support to argue that applying the formula results in a payment in excess of what's needed for the child's support. I think that Mr. Edwards might find attorneys who might competently argue that a hundred grand or so is more than sufficient for the task.
And that's if paternity is established.
As I said, perhaps she's not so sure herself of who is the father.
Perhaps she thinks to herself, better several hundred thousand birds in the hand than a few hundred thousand birds more (or perhaps less) in the bush.
sitetest
I understand precisely what you're saying. There is risk for Mr. Edwards that a court might award MORE than $30,000 per month, in total.
And if Mr. Edwards had been married to Ms. Hunter, and had already established such a standard of living for her and their daughter, the court might be very inclined to require Mr. Edwards to pay support to allow them to continue in the lifestyle to which she had rightfully been accustomed as his wife.
But they were never married, and Ms. Hunter has never enjoyed significant wealth, or significant steady income.
Thus, the risk for Ms. Hunter is that the court may determine that $150K or $100K, or even, say $80K is more than adequate to lift Ms. Hunter and her child to a standard of living that is more what she ever had before she was involved with Mr. Edwards.
That's the risk.
California law appears to give significant discretion to the judge.
All things being equal, where a judge has significant discretion, I'll bet on the party with the most legal savvy. “Judicial discretion” is where the best lawyers make all their money doing the most dirty (and still legal) deeds for their clients.
And Ms. Hunter may perceive the risks in a similar manner.
Especially if she's not absolutely positive that Mr. Edwards really is the father.
sitetest
Perhaps she thinks to herself, better several hundred thousand birds in the hand than a few hundred thousand birds more (or perhaps less) in the bush.
This is certainly possible but one thing that keeps occurring to me is that any secret "bribe" he might offer her,unless it's up front,in cash,and huge,is always subject to his whims ("to hell with her,I've got better ways to spend my $$$")...particularly if she knows,or strongly suspects,that he is the father.A court order,OTOH,is as solid as the State of California's ability to seize his pay...his assets,etc...with the help of the Federal courts if need be.
Here's my question, though: if this child is not John Edwards' child, then why on earth would Ms. Hunter bring the child to the 2 a.m. meeting...
It would be logical to assume...or at least strongly suspect...that this occurred because he *is* the father and that they both know it.However,we can't be sure of paternity at this time and it's possible that neither of them are certain either.
Elizabeth basically admits to holding back the fact that her husband is a womanizing lying scumbag trial lawyer who feeds on his own ego and narcissism and allows her husband to go out and pimp her cancer for votes.
Problem is...people still couldn’t stand him.
TOTAL SCUMBAG.
And don’t forget, she LET him use her cancer as a political issue. Trying to turn it into sympathy votes.
“This is certainly possible but one thing that keeps occurring to me is that any secret ‘bribe’ he might offer her,unless it's up front,in cash,and huge,is always subject to his whims (’to hell with her,I've got better ways to spend my $$$’)...”
I don't think so. The evidence suggests that the money is laundered campaign cash. So it's not really costing him a penny, as long as he can keep cash coming through his PACs.
And if he's gotta pay it out of pocket, it's not all that much for him. This IS a guy with at least $50 million or so.
The thing is, if there is a good chance that he's the father, there is a reason why he wants to be able to deny it - because he honestly thinks that he can put the affair behind him and run for president in the future. He's still a young guy.
If all he has to do is account for the affair, it's quite believable that the Democrat electorate would find him acceptable in four or eight years.
But if the kid is his and everyone knows it...
...then every time he runs for office, he'll see multitudinous stories about his daughter, which will keep any future campaigns in neutral, because the affair will never be really in the past while the media cover the doings of his daughter.
Frankly, the ability to extort him over the possibility of his being the father is just as solid as any court order.
He's a lawyer. He can fight her for years, over and over and over again, on child support. He can tie her up in legal knots. In the case of the former Mrs. Jack Kent Cooke, it took SIX YEARS of legal wrangling to get a decent amount from the late Mr. Cooke. And if he'd have wanted, he could have continued to fight her. Fortunately, after fighting her for six years, and losing the divorce court case, he relented.
However, if Ms. Hunter were to go public with Mr. Edwards’ paternity, and sue him openly for support, how many years do you think that Mr. Edwards might fight her to revenge himself against her for ruining any chances for high elective office ever again?
As well, for as long as she keeps the secret of his paternity, she will not only receive whatever payments she's receiving (and we really may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of her overall “compensation” and “benefits”), but she will be favorably received by those who know him, for his sake.
If she betrays him, all those friends become her enemies.
“It would be logical to assume...or at least strongly suspect...that this occurred because he *is* the father and that they both know it.”
That's one strong possibility. The other is that they both know that his paternity is highly PROBABLE, but not certain.
And then, the risk for him is that a paternity test would confirm it, his future hopes for the presidency would be entirely destroyed.
The risk for her, then, would be that he isn't the father, and she would have nothing else with which to extort him.
And no legal cause of action for court-ordered child support.
sitetest
Little Beaver! Is that you?
Red Ryder
Well, she must be very "skilled."
Wonder whose hitting it now?
I wonder if BJ has paid a visit yet?
Hunter and baby will be at the Dem convention in Denver, representing the traditional Dem "shadow family?( Hey, we vote too!)"
And these idjits want to RUN our country?
LOL
Is this one better?
"Not my little bastard!"
love it - it’s nasty but I love it.
Because regardless of the child's paternity, the child is still Hunter's daughter and Hunter is responsible for her supervision.
She couldn't get a sitter?
How many babysitters do you know that will take a 2 AM sitting job?
If I had to guess, I would assume that given the media attention to this case, Hunter could be worried about a possible kidnapping attempt.
What possible reason could there be to bring the baby there unless it is Edwards' child?
Well, one reason is that it is irresponsible to leave an infant alone in a house to go out to meet someone.
To suggest that Ms. Hunter's choices were either bring the baby along or leave the baby at home unsupervised is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
Whether she could or couldn't or even tried is more than I could say, but family members in general ususally watch the children of other members of the family when it is convenient for them; most people are asleep at 2 AM local time.
Doesn't she have a sister?
She has a sister, but their relationship does not obligate her to be available for 2 AM babysitting if she cannot/chooses not to be.
If I recall correctly, there is also a claim that the baby's father is a campaign aide. It would seem to me that he would be a logical choice.
We don't know who the father is at this point, and it doesn't take much imagination to view the headline: "Edwards Campaign Worker kidnaps infant" Remember, a Kennedy "got rid" of a problem by driving his car off a bridge and allowing Mary Jo to drown. I imagine forefront on Edwards' mind is to "get rid" of this problem as soon as possible so she does not become a further embarassment to him and a threat to his future in politics.
There is also no word on why a daytime meeting couldn't occur.
Apparently Mr. Edwards and Ms. Hunter either could not arrange a daytime meeting, or they preferred to meet at that hour. I care not why they met at that hour, so long as they did not do so at taxpayer expense.
To suggest that Ms. Hunter's choices were either bring the baby along or leave the baby at home unsupervised is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
I never claimed those were the only choices, but as for whatever reason Ms. Hunter either chose not to hire or was unable to procure a sitter, those were the only remaining choices.
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.