Conference quark::mennotes

    Which all goes to show, that men are capable of having emotions, having
    conserns over children. The myth is now broken!

    
    
    Well if I were to use the "feminist" argument here, I would say that
    the child should remain with the men to prevent "disrupting" the
    life of the child with people that the child has "know as a family
    all his life".
    
    fred();

    
    Unfortunately by todays rules these men who are not the biological
    parents to the child have almost no chance for custody or stopping the 
    move out of state with the boy.
    
    Too bad because it sounds like they give the child lots of love.
    
                       Bill
    

    
    The mother's promiscuity should be a factor in deciding whether she
    gets custody of the child.
                           
    -john

    
    If so, the men's sexual histories should be brought up as well.
    

    
    Thing is, the men's will,  the woman's won't.
    
    fred();

    re .5
    
    Agreed.
    
    re .6
    
    You're probably right. Sadly.
    

    
    The men's sexual histories won't come up in court unless they get
    the same idea that John S. had just now about bringing up the
    woman's sexual history.

    
    Given the history of such fights, the two men will probably be 
    accused of mollesting the child.
    
    fred();

    
    I do think that in this type of case the woman's obvious promiscuity
    should be brought up. She doesn't even know for sure who the father is,
    for goodness sake. What kind of moral values would she be exposing her
    child to?
    
    Suzanne, the title to your .8 refers to cases of rape, I assume?
    Because I know for a fact that once a woman is married, her sexual
    habits are of no concern to the divorce courts in matters of custody.
    
    -john

    
    The men in this case are not under attack.  The woman *is* under
    attack.

    However, if the two men also had at least three lovers during the 
    year the child was born, then they don't have much to say about 
    the child's mother.

In this case, as heartbreaking as it may seem, I don't think the men have
a valid claim.  The story does not indicate that either of them is listed on
the boy's birth certificate as the father nor does it indicate that there
had been any official finding of paternity or court-ordered support payments.

In essence, Ms. Scott scammed these two men who nobly tried to do "the right
thing".  As is often the case, it came around to bite them in the end.

Given the limited facts as presented in the article, I don't think the men 
have much hope of trying to recover any support costs either. 

I do think that this is a message to men that they should take responsibility
for where their sperm ends up - and that if a woman claims that he fathered
her child, he should insist on paternity tests and not assume ANYTHING.

				Steve

P.S.  I find it curious that this story came out when the movie Father's Day,
which has strong plot similarities, was playing in the theater.

    In custody cases any and all issues that may effect the well being of
    the child are subject to scrutiny - medical, mental, the whole works.
    
    I'm not in favor of examining the parties sex lives normally. I guess I
    assume that most adults are responsible. But we have a case in Lowell
    right now where Mom and Dad fed coke to the kids before having sex with
    them so there can be good cause. Nice. Hope they get life.
    
    Martin                         

    
    I am curious as to what will happen to the woman for fraudulently
    extracting "child support" from these men.
    
    fred();

    
    If mommy is doing 5-10 for felony fraud, then, unless the real father
    comes forward, the two may actually have a shot at getting custody.
    At least until mommy gets out of the slammer.  Then you have the 
    "Why take the child away from the only parent's he's known" argument.
    
    fred();

    
    How can it be proven that the woman knew for certain that neither
    of these men were the father?  Apparently, they both knew they
    were both candidates (since they joined forces for custody.)
    
    The big surprise was that neither man was the father.  There's
    no way they will put someone in prison for 10 years for being
    mistaken about paternity.
    

    
    By the way, 'the only parents the child has ever known' is not
    a feminist argument.

    In such cases, a man and a woman are going up against a man and
    a woman (at least in all the famous instances of this scenario.)
    Neither side was a 'feminist' side in particular.

    
    
    Well, I' would think that she would have to know for certain that
    at least one of them wasn't the father.
    
    fred();

    
    The fathers both knew that one of them wasn't the father, yet
    they sought custody together (knowing this.)

    Obviously, they each wanted to support and love the child, even
    though at least one of them was not biologically related to the
    child.

    They still want custody now, even though neither of them is related
    to the child.  They would not be able to charge the woman with
    fraud unless they wished to disclaim the child now (which doesn't
    seem to be their intention.)

    >
    >By the way, 'the only parents the child has ever known' is not
    >a feminist argument.
    
    Oh but it was very much the feminist argument in the case where the
    father was given custody because the mother was going to college.
    
    Then there was the case where the mother had lied to the father
    and gave the child up for addoption,  then the father found out
    and wanted custody.
    
    fre();

    
    re .20
    
    That still doesn't change the fact that she committed fraud.
    At the time both were paying support, neither knew the other was
    also being scammed.
    
    fred();

    > Oh but it was very much the feminist argument in the case where the
    > father was given custody because the mother was going to college.
    
    You're mistaken.  The argument in that case was that 'day care'
    was not sufficient reason to remove custody.
    

    In the 'two dads' case, their whole point is that they want to love
    and support the child.
    
    They aren't going to charge fraud when they willingly joined forces
    to love and support the child after they learned of each other.
    

    
>    They aren't going to charge fraud when they willingly joined forces
>    to love and support the child after they learned of each other.
    
    Sez who?
    
    fred();
    

    
    They haven't done it so far - be sure to post something if they
    ever do.
    

    
    
    Why shouldn't they?  Neither one of the guys had anything to do with
    the fraud being perpetrated on the other.  Unless they are trying to 
    be "nice guys" and not appear to be filing simply to gain the upper
    hand in the custody fight.  After all, a woman would never do such
    a thing just to gain the upper hand in a custody fight--right?

    These guys are making the claim that they consider themselves
    to be the child's fathers even though they have no biological
    relation.

    If they see themselves as responsible for the child, they aren't
    in a position to claim (at the same time) that they have no
    financial responsibility for the child.

    Meanwhile, until something changes in this case, return to the
    scintillating conversation that ensued between men here while
    women were not responding to all the notes to (or about) women.

    It was fascinating stuff.  :>

    
    re .28.
    
    Still has nothing to do with  whether or not they could file, or whether
    the D.A. would file, or whether they should file.  The fact that the
    woman perpetrated fraud on the two men has nothing to do with the men's
    relationship to each other or to their realationship to the child.
    
    fred();

   > It was fascinating stuff.  :>

    Try not to confuse quantity with quality.

She led each man to believe he was the father and then collected 
support from each. That's fraud, pure and simple. It has NOTHING 
to do with the child.  It was a deliberate deception for unlawful 
gain. It fits the legal definition of fraud to the letter.

    And the defense would be that she was upset and not thinking straight,
    that she truly didn't know who the father was but she was certain it
    was one of them, that she did not want to keep the real father from
    his child so she told them both the same story.
    
    She is very sorry for what she did, when they both knew about the other
    they did not stop their support and they then became party to it, now
    they both know that neither is the father they are still continuing
    their complicity in the situation by seeking custody.
    
    Jeez guys, unless there is a smoking gun around here then this is going
    no where. It isn't my idea of happy families but they are all grown, so
    its up to them what they do.
    
    Martin  

    
    What they are doing now is still irrelevant to what happened to them
    before.  As they pointed out in the "Rodney King" trials, just which
    whack of the baton was "excessive force".  The fact that others were
    not excessive force is irrelevant.  
    
    If the guys want custody, file charges against mommy and throw her
    in the slammer.  Of course then they will be villified in the press
    for being so nasty, because a woman would never, ever do such a thing.
    
    fred();

    If the case comes up at all (which is very doubtful), it will be
    a civil suit.
    
    No way is this woman going to jail because a bunch of men are angry
    at her.
    

    I see nothing in the article to indicate that the mother requested or
    received support payments from the men.
    
    She might well NOT have known that neither man was the father,
    especially if (as appears to be the case) that she had additional 
    sex partners at that time.  It would appear she told the men that one
    of them was the father, concealing the existence of additional
    partner(s).
    
    This is similar to adoption cases where the biological parent "wants
    their child back" - but with even less legal standing than adoptive
    parents might have.  No, these honorable men will lose what they
    thought of as their child - I see no plausible alternative.
    
    					Steve

    My understanding is that she was living with one of the men shortly
    after the start of the pregnancy, so the 'support' was in the form
    of living together.  
    
    It isn't illegal to tell more than one man that he is probably the
    father of a given child.
    
    As Steve indicates, these men probably have little or no legal
    recourse.
    

    
    
    There were other reports that she had told both men that they were
    the father.  Had requested support from both and was receiving
    support from both.  
    
    I ageree, since this is a woman that pulled this there will likely
    not be charges brought, but IMNSHO, there should be.
    
    fred();

    
    She convinced both men to support her child - there is no law against
    this, no matter what she told them.

    It's personal stuff.  At the very most, some sort of civil suit might
    be possible - but cops don't arrest and try people for convincing other
    private citizens to do stuff for them within the context of ALL the
    parties' private lives.

                                

If she convinced both men to support the child by leading each to 
believe that they were the father then it's fraud. It's most 
certainly illegal. Convincing someone to support your child is 
not illegal. Doing so by lies and deception is. If that's the 
case here and the men chose to press charges, she'd be arrested 
and charged.

    
    Daryll, we have no laws against lying (in private) about the
    paternity of a child and asking for support.

    We do have this thing called 'small claims court' where people 
    who believe they've been treated unfairly by another private
    person can go to try to get their money back.

    The police do not arrest people for 'small claims' stuff.
    It's entirely a civil matter.

    
    If you knowingly sell a sick pet to someone and it dies, it's fraud.

    They can take you to small claims court to try to get their money
    back, but no cop is going to arrest you for it.

    CIVIL law is different from CRIMINAL law.  Cops do not arrest people
    for CIVIL matters.

        If you lie to someone in order to extract money from them it is fraud.

    Random House Dictionary defines:

    Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence used to
    gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 

    Sounds like it fits to me.

    If you got to someone and say, "invest your money with me and I'll
    return double your money in 6 mo." then abscond with the money it
    is fraud.  

    If you go to someone and say "I need $10,000 because I have cancer
    and need surgery", and there is nothing wrong with you and no surgery,
    it is fraud.

    If you go to someone and say "this is your child, I need money to
    support the child", knowing full well that the child is not that
    persons child, it is fraud.  

    All of which can get you sent on a long vacation to the Greybar Hotel

    fred();

                      <<< Note 266.41 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
  >   -< Pls try to understand the diff between CIVIL and CRIMINAL law... >-

    You try it. Go see if fraud is a criminal offense.

    Get back to us.

    
    It doesn't matter what it 'sounds like' to you, Fred.
    
    We have no criminal statutes against lying about paternity (or lying
    about anything else personal that relates to what people do in their
    relationships - and supporting a child upon request is part of a
    personal relationship.)
    

    
    The law is not based on how you guys happen to feel about anything
    (or what anything sounds like to you.)
    
    If you want a cop to arrest someone, the cop must have a very specific
    law to enforce (not just some vague thing about 'fraud' when one private
    person tells another private person a lie.)
    

    
    
    >    It doesn't matter what it 'sounds like' to you, Fred.
    
    All it matters is what it sound like to you?
    Regardless of what the dictionary says?
    
    I didn't seen anything in the definiton that exempted women.
    
    fred();

Lying is not a crime.

Lying in order to cheat someone out of their money is a crime. 

Simple enough?

    Fred, the dictionary is not a law book.

    Our criminal justice system is based on actual criminal statutes,
    not someone's dictionary definition of what he thinks OUGHT to be
    an actual crime.

    Even some things we all commonly regard as 'illegal' (such as slander,
    libel, and racial discrimination) are handled in civil courts.

    When the National Enquirer lies about someone in print, they are sued
    for millions in civil law suits.  Cops don't show up at their doors
    to arrest them.

    The difference between criminal law and civil law is not that hard to
    understand, really.

    Make an effort, folks, at the very least.

    
    
>    If you want a cop to arrest someone, the cop must have a very specific
>    law to enforce (not just some vague thing about 'fraud' when one private
>    person tells another private person a lie.)
    
    If that private person uses that lie to extract money from another 
    private person person, then it is fraud.  And it _is_ a very specific 
    law.  No matter how you try to delude yourself that this woman did
    nothing wrong.
    
    fred();

    
>    When the National Enquirer lies about someone in print, they are sued
>    for millions in civil law suits.  Cops don't show up at their doors
>    to arrest them.
    
    That is a very different situation.  The lie was not used to extract
    money.  In this case it is called "slander" and is a civil law.
    
    fred();

    
    When a private person convinces another private person to give them
    money, it doesn't matter what they say (unless they are threatening
    bodily harm or death, which *is* a crime.)

    'Fraud' is not a catchall which can be charged for anything you feel
    like calling by the term 'fraud'.

    This woman did not break the criminal law with her actions.

    
>    When a private person convinces another private person to give them
>    money, it doesn't matter what they say (unless they are threatening
>    bodily harm or death, which *is* a crime.)
    
    If they convince them by telling them a lie, then it's fraud.
    
    If someone convinces your grandmother to turn over her life savings
    so that they can get medical help when they know they do not need
    medical help, should they be prosecuted?
    
    fred();

    
    By the way, the whole point of going to civil court with a 'slander'
    suit is that a person has been DAMAGED (usually financially) by the
    knowingly false remarks given in the slander.

    The damages are assessed by the court and given to the plaintiff
    if the court finds in favor of the suit.

    Civil suits are about *** MONEY ***.

    The only way these two dads could possibly recover their *** MONEY ***
    would be to sue the woman in civil court.  Criminal law is not involved.

    in other words, suzanne, you would say the woman is guilty of lying,
    but not fraud?

    
    Lying is not a crime, so the word 'guilty' does not apply here.
    If it were a crime, she's innocent until proven guilty.

    We do not know what she said to these men (or what she knew to
    be the truth when she spoke to them.)

    One thing we do know is that the cops can't arrest her for lying,
    even if they suspect her of doing so.

    
    So I guess if I walked into a bank and told them I was xxx and they
    turned over xxx's life savings to me, then according to you the worst
    that could happen to me was that I could be sued for the return of the
    money?
    
    fred();

    
    Bank robbery is a very specific crime.  If you get them to give you
    money that isn't yours, it is bank robbery (or check forgery, depending
    on how you did it.)
    

    
    Suzanne, if I were you I'd quit before I dug myself any deeper.
    fred();

  >  Civil suits are about *** MONEY ***.

    *REWARDS* are about money. Civil Suits are not always settled 
     in monetary terms.

The legal definition of fraud:

"Inducing a course of action by deceit or other dishonest 
conduct, involving acts or omissions or the making of false 
statements, orally or in writing, with the object of obtaining 
money or benefit from, or of evading a liability to another."

It's really quite simple to grasp.

    
    You could provide the legal definitions for slander, libel and
    racial discrimination, too.

    They would still be handled in civil courts.

How do you explain that people get sent to jail for fraud?

Since when do people get sent to jail in civil suits?

    
    We do have SOME criminal statutes which relate to fraud.

    Lying in ones personal life is not one of them, though.

Fraud happens everywhere. What she did fits the legal definition 
of fraud to the letter. The US Supreme Court page guidlines on the 
USSC web page detail them quite clearly. I'll defer to their 
opinion, unless, that is, you have a degree in law as well?

    
    Show me a precedent for someone being charged and prosecuted
    with fraud in a case exactly like this one.

    Otherwise, you have no legal basis for your claim (regardless
    of your opinion about how this woman's actions fit the guidelines
    offered by the US Supreme Court.)

    
    Or, you could go back to the scintillating conversations with other
    men that Fred begs to have here.

    You won't change my mind by written poundings on me, so you might as 
    well find some subject you can actually discuss with other men.

         

Try not to confuse quantity with quality.

    
    > Try not to confuse quantity with quality.
    
    I'm not.  The sarcasm fits on both counts.  
    
    
    So why don't you take the opportunity to work on it?
    

    forgive my use of the word 'guilty'. as i thot you would probably have
    understood, i didn't refer to it in the legal sense.  more idomatic,
    such as, 'yes, i'm guilty of mailing that reply out late'.
    
    to better phrase my question, then, would you say that she is perhaps
    responsible for lying and not responsible for fraud?
    
    i do believe daryll is correct in stating that fraud can be criminal,
    as for precedents relating to the current situation, i think we all 
    need to have a lot more infor than what's been posted.

    Christine, I've agreed that fraud **CAN** be criminal.  Lying in ones
    personal life is not one of these instances, though.

    > to better phrase my question, then, would you say that she is
    > perhaps responsible for lying and not responsible for fraud?

    We don't know what she actually said to these men, nor do we know
    what she believed to be the truth when she said it.

    Men here are accusing her of lying, but it's only an accusation
    about a matter that would be handled in a civil court (if it comes
    up at all with the men who are involved in this situation.)

    

    Suzanne,  I've already stated numerous times that I'm not going to 
    play "you must prove your point to my satisfaction or else you lose"
    with you.   You are _way_ out in left field on this one and I think
    everyone but you realizes it.  But then, __again__ of you want to 
    keep exposing your ideology and agenda, be by guest.
    
    fred();

    well, yes, some men here are saying she's lying.  and no, we don't
    know exactly what she said to either one.  however, the fact that
    she told both men they were responsible seems to me pretty indicative
    that she lied (knowingly) to at least one of them.  it may be that
    she lied (knowingly) to both of them.  while we don't know what she
    believed to be the truth at the time of telling, my guess is it's
    higly unlikely that she believed both men to be the father of her
    baby.

That's entirely your opinion. I've posted a legal definition 
according to the US Supreme Court. It is a felony offense. 
Her actions appear to fit perfectly. They make no distinction 
between private or public.

You can believe anything you like.

    
    Fred - way out in left field?  What a laugh.

    Name ONE CASE where a woman has been thrown in prison for lying in
    her personal life (as opposed to lying under oath in court) about
    the paternity of a child, even if support is involved?

    Name ONE CASE where a man has been thrown in prison for lying to a
    woman in his personal life to get hold of her money?


    You're the ones out in left field.  People simply aren't thrown in
    jail for what they tell their lovers about their situations.

    
    Daryll, you can believe anything YOU like.
    
    You can take the statutes against 'bank robbery' and claim they fit
    this situation, too, if you want.
    
    It doesn't make it so.  It won't send a single, solitary woman to
    prison for lying to her lover(s).
    

    
    
    Does the term "con artist" mean anything to you?  There have been a 
    _lot_ of women and men sent to jail for fraud.  I'm sorry I left my
    list in my other wallet.  
    
    
    However, If you would like to test your theory by extracing money
    from someone by lying to them and see what happens, be my guest.
    
    fred();

    
    People lying to their lovers does not make them 'con artists', pal.
    People do not go to jail for this.
    
    Dream on.
    

People who lie to other people, no matter who they are, to get 
their money are guilty of fraud in th eyes of the law. There have 
been plenty of people, as Fred stated, that have conned money 
from others and were convicted and sent to jail. Those people 
have done it to their family and friends as well as strangers.
The law makes no distinction on _who_ you cheat.

    
    Name one case of a person lying to his or her lover (for the
    purpose of getting hold of the lover's money,) then being sent 
    to jail for it.
    
    Make it a case that can be verified in the press or in court
    records (not a personal anecdote.)
    

    
>    People lying to their lovers does not make them 'con artists', pal.
>    People do not go to jail for this.

    If they lie to them to extract sex, it's rape.  If they lie to extract
    money, it's fraud.
    
    If a guy lies to a woman that he will marry her, but first he needs
    a loan of a few thousand, then leaves with the money, he can and will
    go to jail (provided the law catches up with him).
    
>    Dream on.

    My dreams aren't this good.  Never in my wildest dreams did I believe 
    you'd be so blatant in your agenda.

    fred();

    RE: .82  Fred

    >> People lying to their lovers does not make them 'con artists',
    >> pal.  People do not go to jail for this.

    > If they lie to them to extract sex, it's rape.  

    Not true.  If they engage in sex without the person's CONSENT 
    (including cases where legal consent is not possible, such as
    when the person is underage) - it's rape.

    Lying to someone to get sex does not make it rape.

    > If they lie to extract money, it's fraud.
        
    It's not a criminal act unless certain conditions are met.
    The current case does not meet these conditions.

    > If a guy lies to a woman that he will marry her, but first he needs
    > a loan of a few thousand, then leaves with the money, he can and
    > will go to jail (provided the law catches up with him).

    If he defaults on the loan, he can be taken to civil court (just as
    any bank can do when a person defaults on a loan.)

    He'll only go to jail if THEFT can be proven (which is not the same
    thing as lying.)

    > My dreams aren't this good.  Never in my wildest dreams did I believe 
    > you'd be so blatant in your agenda.

    What agenda?  My argument applies to men and women.  (Men can't be
    thrown in prison for lying to women, either.)

    
    So let's get all these fascinating discussions among men going!!
    
    Fred, you hate it when women are involved in this notes conference.
    You can change this by addressing your next 50 notes to men only.
    
    Surely you guys have something to talk about to each other.
    
    SOMETHING!!!!!  :>
    

    
    re .84
    
>    Fred, you hate it when women are involved in this notes conference.
>    You can change this by addressing your next 50 notes to men only.
    
    Did you have yourself cloned?  
    
    Actually most women that notehere I don't mind at all.
    
    
    >    Surely you guys have something to talk about to each other.
    
    Well, I guess we could talk about----you. :^)
    
    fred();

    
    Fred, guess what!!

    Daryll entered a note (one of the rare ones here) that is NOT about women.

    Have a field day - your wildest dreams just came true!!  You have the
    rare opportunity to do something here which does not involve trashing
    women (in general, or a particular woman personally.)

    Aren't you thrilled???  I'm so happy for you!

    Go have fun, now!

    
    I have no doubt that you will find some way to trash it.  But then
    again you _could_ prove me wrong (for a change :^)).
    
    fred();

    
    Fred, I've been suggesting that you guys find a way to talk to each
    other all day - if you pass up the opportunity (after all the times
    you've begged for it), you only have yourself to blame.

    
>if you pass up the opportunity (after all the times
>    you've begged for it), you only have yourself to blame.

    Well as the saying goes, when you're up to your a** in alligators
    it's hard to remember that your original intention was to drain the
    swamp.

    fred();

    
    Fred, as always, you're on the offensive - you have all the freedom
    in the world to go chat with the guys instead.
    
    It's up to you.
    

    
    Suzanne, freedom from harassment to write is also freedom from
    haressment to not write if we so choose.  Right now I don't see
    a lot of freedom from harassment to start with.
    
    Also, as someone else stated earlier, don't confuse quantity with 
    quality.
    
    > -< Your dream has come true -
    
    and for goodeness sakes, try to come up with something original
    if you are going to continue this childishness.
    
    fred();

    
    Fred, you're still on the offensive.  The choice is yours.
    
    >> -< Your dream has come true -
        
    > and for goodeness sakes, try to come up with something original
    > if you are going to continue this childishness.
    
    You're on the offensive yet again.  The choice is still yours.
    

    
    >You're on the offensive yet again.  The choice is still yours.  
    
    I see you have just as much trouble witht he definition of "offensive"
    as you have with the definition of "fraud".  And I didn't see any one
    focing you to type in OPEN MENNOTES.
    
    fred();

    
    Fred, I returned to this file by direct invitation, and I'm staying
    here by your repeated direct invitations.
    
    You guys have very little to say to each other, so you need the extra
    company.  :>
    

                      <<< Note 266.94 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

    
   > You guys have very little to say to each other, so you need the extra
   > company.  :>
    
    You think so? Guess again.

    
    Suzanne,
    
    No need to put us all down because you and Fred have a disagrement.
    
    You always have the option of deleting MN if you don't find our 
    discussions scintillating enough for your intellect.
    
                                            Bill

    
    Well, I've been fighting the fight for more years than I care to think
    about.  I've won my battles.  My last daughter will be a senior in
    h.s. next year.  I think I'll retire from this conference and leave
    all you who complain so much about my notes to the tender mercies of
    Suzanne's minor in logic.
    
    fred();

    Fred, your women co-workers who happen to disagree with your political
    views have never been your enemies.

    I'm glad you won your personal family battles - I've won my battles, too. 

    I raised a son on my own in a society and a species that far too often 
    creates hostile environments for women (which is supposed to be illegal 
    to do.)

    My education - two Bachelors degrees, one as a Philosophy major (with
    the specialty in symbolic logic) and the other in Computer Science, and
    my continuing work on my Masters in Computer Science - are other things
    I've won in my life.

    Nothing is black and white.  I wish you the best in your personal life,
    as I'm sure you wish me the best in mine.

    Disagreeing over politics is part of what makes us human, though.
    If we weren't free to disagree without being persecuted for it,
    we wouldn't really be free at all.

    Sounds like a write lock sound be coming down on this string soon. Dam.
    I love pain. I answer phones too!