Houston man must pay child support for kid that's not his

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

The lesson here is to stop focusing on the law. Stop focusing on right and wrong. Stop focusing on fairness and all the rest, and pay attention to this. There are parasites and thieves in the world. None of that matters to them and won’t affect their behavior.

In a better time for American society, a war was fought to rid ourselves of a parasitic governmental system. And fair courts and accountable, responsible leaders and fair laws came from that. But parasites have been working to slowly change that ever since, and they have had great success.

What guides their behavior now is not law, or logic or fairness or anything resembling it. What guides their behavior now is this: If you have something, they want it. Sometimes they want all of it. But often they may settle for a piece of it. They believe that taking a piece instead of taking all is less likely to be resisted. Over time, they demand a bigger and bigger piece. Incrementalism.

Women have probably always been this way. Although previously they at least tried to offer something in return. Today, they no longer try to offer anything, and they use the government to progressively increase the force behind their demands.

For me, the lesson here is that wether you earn a little or a lot, wether you save a little or a lot, be quiet about it. And the more you have or the more you save, the quieter/more invisible you should become.

Because if they can see it, they’ll expect a bite. Forget law and logic and fairness, and focus on the money.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

If that were me, I’d run over the judge with a rental truck, then back up and run over it 15 more times.

Then when I am on trial for murder, I’d tell THAT new judge that him and all the judges can go f~~~ themselves and I’d make a statement inviting anyone in the country who thinks judges are unjust to do the same thing I did.

Judges and the law likes to make examples out of people. Maybe it is time to make an example out of them. Hell, if killing them doesn’t work, then target their families. And to those who would insist that force SHOULDN’T be used, I would remind you that at the end of the day, GOVERNMENT = VIOLENCE.

Sex is not rape because of mutual consent. Purchasing at a store is not robbery because of mutual consent. Working a job is not slavery because of mutual consent. All that other s~~~… mostly government s~~~… child support for a kid that is not yours… NOT mutual consent. If you don’t obey them, they will take you away and if you resist being taken away you will be MURDERED.

I would argue in that sort of system, ANY response is justified, even going after a judge’s family. If you enforce a system that is evil, then that makes you evil as well. If you follow orders like a good Nazi, then you should die at the end of a bayonet or a noose.

Paybacks are bitch. And overdue for decades, by my reckoning. If 100,000 Americans finally said “Enough” and simply wiped out 100,000 judges (if there even ARE that many judges in the country), things would change overnight.

The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

If hitting back is not your thing, then there are two other responses besides just complying with slave masters: one is scorched earth and ditching the system by leaving the country (Plan Psi) or Giles Corey’s non-compliant answer to the Salem Witch Trials “More rocks”.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[~BSParticipant 3266]

OldBill wrote:

~BS wrote:

Regarding the garnishments in question. I can see how 3 garnishments of only $31 would be overlooked. How often do people normally closely examine their paystubs?

That’s a tiny amount, even smaller than the ~$80 I calculated in an earlier post. It’s just a few hours overtime or a change in health plans. If he was paid twice a month, as a majority of people in the US are, the amount is even smaller in relation to his overall pay.

As both you and I note, how closely does the average person look at their pay stubs? Generally all folks do is look at the hours and the bottom line while ignoring all the rest.

So, Texas garnished less than $100 from him 16 years ago, never told him why, stopped the garnishment, never told him that either, and now they want $65,000?

It’s insanity.

Agreed. And the scary implications of this story is that it basically could happen to anyone, whether you actually slept with the woman or not.

Say you knew a girl 16 years ago. She got pregnant by some unknown chad at a party, panicked, and used your name on the birth certificate. The State garnishes 3 of your paychecks for $31 and stopped afterwards, which was unnoticed by you as they sent no certified notification, nobody served you with court documents to pay child support. Then 16 years later, boom you got hit with a $65k bill to pay or go jail, despite a DNA test saying you’re not the father. All considered LEGAL.

"He didn't marry until now, so he won't ever do it. Think about it, why would a man like him ever marry? It's too late to catch him. " ~some cunt

[OldBillParticipant]

~BS wrote:

Agreed. And the scary implications of this story is that it basically could happen to anyone, whether you actually slept with the woman or not.

One of our UK members wrote about that happening to him. A woman in his company’s HR department whom he had never met got pregnant, plucked his name out of the company records, named him as the father, and his first notice of it was the UK national child support enforcement office knocking on his door for money.

He was able to take a DNA test, disprove the paternity claim, and even got a payout from the government office in question. The woman faced no punishment however, despite it being obvious she’d knowingly lied on a government document and knowingly committed fraud.

Sadly, where the UK has one system and one which accepts paternity tests well after the fact. Here in the US, we have fifty separate systems each, with it’s own quirks, and none which allow paternity tests after certain periods of time.

As I explained early, the systems operated by the fifty US states are deliberately designed to aid and abet paternity fraud. The states don’t care who pays as long as it’s not the states which are paying.

Of course, this is done under that female rubric which has caused so much harm: Think of the children.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[narwhalParticipant]

Much of this doesn’t make any sense. Since I pay child support in Texas, I’m somewhat familiar with the process. I am pretty sure that wages are not required to be garnished, it’s an option. When taking on new employment, I provide my employer with a document stating that I want the wages garnished, how much, where it is sent, and so on. I don’t see how wages could be garnished without the employee being a part of getting that setup.

And I’m not buying the argument that he was subpoena and never new about it. Either they never bothered to tell him, or they told him and he just hoped it would just go away and he wouldn’t have to deal with it.

Since child support is based on the income of the parent, how can you determine a support amount without the parent’s knowledge? You cannot request someone’s tax returns without their knowledge, or anything else about their earnings. It’s just not possible.

And I’ve never heard of the state letting a man slide on his CS payments for over a decade.

My guess is, the woman started the process of trying to get child support originally, then dropped her efforts when she was able to monkey branch and get another man to pay for her. The state screwed things up and somehow got unauthorized garnishments and such done. Not hard to imagine government employees mucking things up. The lawyer got data from the state on how had unpaid CS bills, then contact the woman and convinced her to sue.

As far as the man suing for a false acquisition, it’s past the statute of limitations.

I’d like to think that my state will throw this crap out, but even when that happens, I’m sure the legal fees will be horrendous. Besides the fact that this innocent man will be charged, the 5 kids he is supporting will be negatively effected…and that’s what this whole thing is really supposed to be about.

Ok. Then do it.

[AutoliteParticipant]

~BS wrote:

Agreed. And the scary implications of this story is that it basically could happen to anyone, whether you actually slept with the woman or not.

Not being the biological father has little to do with it. You can be liable for CS payments just for looking at someone else’s kid. Is this STILL not common knowledge?

FFS, just stay the f~~~ away from single moms! Stay the f~~~ away from women, period! It ain’t rocket science guys…

[OldBillParticipant]

narwhal wrote:

Much of this doesn’t make any sense.

That’s about the only thing which makes sense.

Why did Texas only garnish his pay 3 times? How did Texas decide on $31? Why did Texas stop? Why did Texas forget about him for 16 years? How did they suddenly remember him?

If she had monkey branched onto some other poor slob, can the slattern who falsely named him even tell the state not to collect child support for 16 years?

What about the supposed subpoena? Texas “thinks” one was issued, but can’t prove it. Nor can Texas prove it was served. Why aren’t there any records? How could they all have been lost?

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Anonymous 3]

There is a cognitive dissonance to me where men claim things are so dangerous, but then tell other men to pump and dump and insist you have to go out and pursue women. To me those things are mutually exclusive. I just don’t believe you can think both things at once.

The reality is that this isn’t a real concern to most men and it’s just not going to happen to you. And even if it does happen, our system of law still isn’t so far gone that hiring a good lawyer won’t fix this mess, no matter what the article says and no matter what some women who work in the system want to claim. That is done to discourage men from getting quality legal representation, so they can tee up and take free shots.

If a man succeeds in saving himself with a good lawyer, these same women will scream about patriarchy and how the evil lawyers miscarried justice. The reality is a quality lawyer is indispensable and the only way to assure you get a fair shake. So many men fall for the propaganda and instead blame the lawyers and think the system is their friend. “If I’m innocent, I won’t need a lawyer!”. It’s foolish and it’s a big difference between elite men as well as women in general vs. the average man. All the elites and all women will seek out legal representation at every opportunity, blue pill average men won’t.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

our system of law still isn’t so far gone that hiring a good lawyer won’t fix this mess

But how many average men have the financial means for hiring a ‘good’ lawyer? You only get as much justice as you can afford. For most guys the ‘system’ is corrupt, dysfunctional and broken beyond repair. Our best option is just to do whatever you can to stay out of it…

[Anonymous 3]

Autolite wrote:

phoenix wrote:

our system of law still isn’t so far gone that hiring a good lawyer won’t fix this mess

But how many average men have the financial means for hiring a ‘good’ lawyer? You only get as much justice as you can afford. For most guys the ‘system’ is corrupt, dysfunctional and broken beyond repair. Our best option is just to do whatever you can to stay out of it…

If you have the money to get married, you have the money to hire a good lawyer. Good lawyers are much cheaper than any woman is.

[~BSParticipant 3266]

Autolite wrote:

phoenix wrote:

our system of law still isn’t so far gone that hiring a good lawyer won’t fix this mess

But how many average men have the financial means for hiring a ‘good’ lawyer? You only get as much justice as you can afford. For most guys the ‘system’ is corrupt, dysfunctional and broken beyond repair. Our best option is just to do whatever you can to stay out of it…

This is a lose lose situation for the guy.

1. You hire the lawyer, and maybe win and still have to pay the lawyer fees. The courts already ruled against you so the odds are long of a reversal.

2. You hire the lawyer and lose, which puts you on the hook for the attorney fees +the $65k.

3. you skip town and never look back, detrimental to your current family

4. you bend over, grab your ankles and grit your teeth taking the $65k ass*****ing.

"He didn't marry until now, so he won't ever do it. Think about it, why would a man like him ever marry? It's too late to catch him. " ~some cunt

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Anonymous wrote:

There is a cognitive dissonance to me where men claim things are so dangerous, but then tell other men to pump and dump and insist you have to go out and pursue women.

Riding motorcycles is dangerous. Climbing cliffs is dangerous. Surfing is dangerous. Cave diving is stupidly dangerous.

It’s all a matter of taking precautions. There are ways of minimizing risks.

If you choose to avoid women, then by all means do so. If you must pursue women, make sure it’s catch and release. But it’s easier not pursuing them.

If you pump, you must dump.

And the dumping is more important than the pumping.

And the means of minimizing risks, such as getting a vasectomy and documenting the f~~~ out of it, or never letting women know your full name or address, also protect you from the cases where they try to nail you completely out of the blue. Such as when a girl picks your name at random from the employment records or sometimes simply takes it at random off facebook to try to nail you for 18+ years of monthly payments.

~BS wrote:

This is a lose lose situation for the guy.

So make it a lose lose situation for the courts too.

5. If you tell the court to go f~~~ itself, refuse outright to pay, and get sent to jail, the government ends up paying to support your ass and your current family. You lose, but they lose more.

Scorched earth.

[LionOnTheLooseParticipant 1315]

Autolite wrote:

Not being the biological father has little to do with it. You can be liable for CS payments just for looking at someone else’s kid. Is this STILL not common knowledge?

EXACTLY! Definitely true here in the UK. I know a single mum who’s recently found some idiot boyfriend, immediately he was buying s~~~ for them, moved in after a couple of months, I can see exactly what she’s doing. Makes me sick, she even puts these “cute” posts on her social media of him playing computer games with her daughter or some s~~~ and writes something like “ahhh he loves her as his own”: ffs man, you’re galloping up diarrhoea drive without a saddle.

There aren't holes in your pockets. It's called marriage.

[Author]

Posts