Message Boards
Replies to '12/25 Parent Trap'
|
October 30, 2007, 1:18 pm PDT
 Quote From: lighthouseguy HI There, I've read lots of your posts on here and find you to be one of the more balanced and fair people who take the time to post insightful comments rather than long ponderous rants. I respect you for that. Even in this post noted above you are attempting to be fair, but I think you are giving the lawyer too much credit. I honestly found Gloria Allred replusive as she continued to shift the argument around other issues NOT related to this one. For example, when the other guest who was victimize over paying child support noted that 1 out of every 3 men is falsely accused of being a father to someone's baby (a true stat by the way), Allred rebutts with "The real issue in America is deadbeat dad's." Huh???? How is this related to paternity fraud and why isn't paternity fraud a "real" issue to her? Is this some kind of "payback" for deadbeat dads? How dismissive and callous on her part, but what she did was a typical lawyer's trick (I've taught debate tactics), it is called non-sequitor argumentation which is designed to redirect the jury's attention elsewhere when the other side has a solid point that can't be countered. She couldn't counter that gentleman's point, so she attempted to redirect the attention elsewhere. If she was only explaining the law, she wouldn't have such a vested interest in defending Maria's indefensivable position. I wouldn't be surprised if she picked up her case after all this publicity. This particular case had much more to do with paternity fraud than anything else as this man, Enrique, was duped into paying child support for a child that wasn't his and the mother knew it and was clearly proud of her actions as Dr. Phil appropriately pointed out, but Allred knew that she didn't have much of a legal leg to stand on there and redirected the argument to a topic most women would holler "you go girl" about (deadbeat dads), but that didn't happen here as most saw through her and her shallow attempts to "rally the troops." This was a step back for "women's rights" if children are going to be used as pawns like Selina was by her mom who has thwarted every effort to turn this situation around. So much for looking out for the child's best interest. Lawyers only do that when it conveniently fits in with their defense strategy. Gloria Allred was not up there explaining the law in some none bias manner (she had an agenda), but was rather grandstanding on so-called "women's rights" and "deadbeat dads" which, again, is not what this case was about really. She is a publicity hound and her presence here added nothing to the debate and was used to promote her book, not once, not twice, but three times in the 15 minutes she was on the show (a requirement for her presence, I'm sure). I think it was pretty evident what her purpose on the show really was, and it wasn't to simply explain the law. Finally, a lawyer is sometimes the worst person to explain the law because they are so busy perverting and twisting it to their advantage in order to win a case at all costs, and Allred did that at every turn on this show. To her, winning is everything; hence, the title of her own book, but she wants to masquerade as a defender of the rights of children and women (as if men don't count). She was an embarrassment to the legal profession in this particular instance. In any event, I continue to read and enjoy your posts and look forward to bumping into you again on here. Sorry, if I went off on my own rant here. This really is a touchy topic for all the posters on here. I think you are right that this must be some kind of record. Hopefully, Dr. Phil will have a follow-up on this as I think he really didn't handle this show very well. Respectfully, Steve
i just want to say that i do not agree with the fact that once a MAN finds out that he is not a childs father that he should continue to pay for that child. yes he did think the child was his but man has not ever been in that situation where the woman said baby im pregnant and the child is yours just to find out years later that it is not theirs. I am a feman and mess like that makes me mad. If that guy wants to stay in the childs life then thats something that he and his ex wife needs to work on but for him to continue to pay child support that is out of the question why pay for a child that is not yours all becase the nasty girlfriend or wife wanted to cheat. we all need to stop sleeping around and hurting one another. i have a son now and i am pregnant now both my kids are by the same man. does he want my kids no does he have other kids yes. am i mad that he doesnt want to be there no thats on him not on me so men what you all need to do is first off stop sleeping around with every thing that walks and put a comdum on make sure the girl is on the pill or something if you dont want to have kids or you know that the girl you are sleeping with is out there plain and simple. as far as the courts go i dont think that he should have to pay for this child becase at the time he thought the child was his and to come to find out the child is not how is that fair. put your self in their shoes whould you want to pay for a child that is not yours no becase in know if i were a man i would be pissed the hell off. |
|
|
October 30, 2007, 1:40 pm PDT
Quote From: lighthouseguy HI There, I've read lots of your posts on here and find you to be one of the more balanced and fair people who take the time to post insightful comments rather than long ponderous rants. I respect you for that. Even in this post noted above you are attempting to be fair, but I think you are giving the lawyer too much credit. I honestly found Gloria Allred replusive as she continued to shift the argument around other issues NOT related to this one. For example, when the other guest who was victimize over paying child support noted that 1 out of every 3 men is falsely accused of being a father to someone's baby (a true stat by the way), Allred rebutts with "The real issue in America is deadbeat dad's." Huh???? How is this related to paternity fraud and why isn't paternity fraud a "real" issue to her? Is this some kind of "payback" for deadbeat dads? How dismissive and callous on her part, but what she did was a typical lawyer's trick (I've taught debate tactics), it is called non-sequitor argumentation which is designed to redirect the jury's attention elsewhere when the other side has a solid point that can't be countered. She couldn't counter that gentleman's point, so she attempted to redirect the attention elsewhere. If she was only explaining the law, she wouldn't have such a vested interest in defending Maria's indefensivable position. I wouldn't be surprised if she picked up her case after all this publicity. This particular case had much more to do with paternity fraud than anything else as this man, Enrique, was duped into paying child support for a child that wasn't his and the mother knew it and was clearly proud of her actions as Dr. Phil appropriately pointed out, but Allred knew that she didn't have much of a legal leg to stand on there and redirected the argument to a topic most women would holler "you go girl" about (deadbeat dads), but that didn't happen here as most saw through her and her shallow attempts to "rally the troops." This was a step back for "women's rights" if children are going to be used as pawns like Selina was by her mom who has thwarted every effort to turn this situation around. So much for looking out for the child's best interest. Lawyers only do that when it conveniently fits in with their defense strategy. Gloria Allred was not up there explaining the law in some none bias manner (she had an agenda), but was rather grandstanding on so-called "women's rights" and "deadbeat dads" which, again, is not what this case was about really. She is a publicity hound and her presence here added nothing to the debate and was used to promote her book, not once, not twice, but three times in the 15 minutes she was on the show (a requirement for her presence, I'm sure). I think it was pretty evident what her purpose on the show really was, and it wasn't to simply explain the law. Finally, a lawyer is sometimes the worst person to explain the law because they are so busy perverting and twisting it to their advantage in order to win a case at all costs, and Allred did that at every turn on this show. To her, winning is everything; hence, the title of her own book, but she wants to masquerade as a defender of the rights of children and women (as if men don't count). She was an embarrassment to the legal profession in this particular instance. In any event, I continue to read and enjoy your posts and look forward to bumping into you again on here. Sorry, if I went off on my own rant here. This really is a touchy topic for all the posters on here. I think you are right that this must be some kind of record. Hopefully, Dr. Phil will have a follow-up on this as I think he really didn't handle this show very well. Respectfully, Steve
i just want to say that i do not agree with the fact that once a MAN finds out that he is not a childs father that he should continue to pay for that child. yes he did think the child was his but man has not ever been in that situation where the woman said baby im pregnant and the child is yours just to find out years later that it is not theirs. I am a feman and mess like that makes me mad. If that guy wants to stay in the childs life then thats something that he and his ex wife needs to work on but for him to continue to pay child support that is out of the question why pay for a child that is not yours all becase the nasty girlfriend or wife wanted to cheat. we all need to stop sleeping around and hurting one another. i have a son now and i am pregnant now both my kids are by the same man. does he want my kids no does he have other kids yes. am i mad that he doesnt want to be there no thats on him not on me so men what you all need to do is first off stop sleeping around with every thing that walks and put a comdum on make sure the girl is on the pill or something if you dont want to have kids or you know that the girl you are sleeping with is out there plain and simple. as far as the courts go i dont think that he should have to pay for this child becase at the time he thought the child was his and to come to find out the child is not how is that fair. put your self in their shoes whould you want to pay for a child that is not yours no becase in know if i were a man i would be pissed the hell off. also too i just want to say that most of you have questions as to why he waited so long to find out. maybe he didnt know at that time and as time went on he started to look at the child and realized this child does not look like me he said that he did not know that his ex-wife was cheating on him. and i get tired of people say the hell with everyone else what about the child. yes we need to keep the childs interest at heart but what about the men who are paying for these kids and who have a bond with them just to find out that the child is not theirs how is that fair. all i am saying is that if that man wants to be in the childs life who ever he or she is then so be it. but i do not think that they should continue to pay for a child that is not theirs key word here people is child support. support of a child that a man father not oh your the father and years later find out that they are not just to still pay. not fair and women wonder why so many men are just giving up their rights they dont want the BS |
|
|
October 30, 2007, 2:21 pm PDT
Quote From: lighthouseguy HI There, I've read lots of your posts on here and find you to be one of the more balanced and fair people who take the time to post insightful comments rather than long ponderous rants. I respect you for that. Even in this post noted above you are attempting to be fair, but I think you are giving the lawyer too much credit. I honestly found Gloria Allred replusive as she continued to shift the argument around other issues NOT related to this one. For example, when the other guest who was victimize over paying child support noted that 1 out of every 3 men is falsely accused of being a father to someone's baby (a true stat by the way), Allred rebutts with "The real issue in America is deadbeat dad's." Huh???? How is this related to paternity fraud and why isn't paternity fraud a "real" issue to her? Is this some kind of "payback" for deadbeat dads? How dismissive and callous on her part, but what she did was a typical lawyer's trick (I've taught debate tactics), it is called non-sequitor argumentation which is designed to redirect the jury's attention elsewhere when the other side has a solid point that can't be countered. She couldn't counter that gentleman's point, so she attempted to redirect the attention elsewhere. If she was only explaining the law, she wouldn't have such a vested interest in defending Maria's indefensivable position. I wouldn't be surprised if she picked up her case after all this publicity. This particular case had much more to do with paternity fraud than anything else as this man, Enrique, was duped into paying child support for a child that wasn't his and the mother knew it and was clearly proud of her actions as Dr. Phil appropriately pointed out, but Allred knew that she didn't have much of a legal leg to stand on there and redirected the argument to a topic most women would holler "you go girl" about (deadbeat dads), but that didn't happen here as most saw through her and her shallow attempts to "rally the troops." This was a step back for "women's rights" if children are going to be used as pawns like Selina was by her mom who has thwarted every effort to turn this situation around. So much for looking out for the child's best interest. Lawyers only do that when it conveniently fits in with their defense strategy. Gloria Allred was not up there explaining the law in some none bias manner (she had an agenda), but was rather grandstanding on so-called "women's rights" and "deadbeat dads" which, again, is not what this case was about really. She is a publicity hound and her presence here added nothing to the debate and was used to promote her book, not once, not twice, but three times in the 15 minutes she was on the show (a requirement for her presence, I'm sure). I think it was pretty evident what her purpose on the show really was, and it wasn't to simply explain the law. Finally, a lawyer is sometimes the worst person to explain the law because they are so busy perverting and twisting it to their advantage in order to win a case at all costs, and Allred did that at every turn on this show. To her, winning is everything; hence, the title of her own book, but she wants to masquerade as a defender of the rights of children and women (as if men don't count). She was an embarrassment to the legal profession in this particular instance. In any event, I continue to read and enjoy your posts and look forward to bumping into you again on here. Sorry, if I went off on my own rant here. This really is a touchy topic for all the posters on here. I think you are right that this must be some kind of record. Hopefully, Dr. Phil will have a follow-up on this as I think he really didn't handle this show very well. Respectfully, Steve I guess that Gloria Allred touched a lot of nerves. You make a very valid point. For years we have dogged after dead beat dads. This appears to be the other side of the coin. It is equally immoral to me. If it is true that 30% of births involve paternity fraud (which seems high) then certainly for the sake of the children we should not allow fraud to cause the pain it caused here. Legislators will need to work on that. If Dr. Phil has a follow up maybe he should pick a different attorney. You think? Kathy |
|
Return to the Message Board
