Aaron's "This is our state" Issue 2

[aaron]

Sure, we're the most corrupt. And that leads to judgments like these:

A plumber and a millionaire squared off in Mississippi over a woman. The woman chose the rich guy. The plumber sued the millionaire and won more than $750,000.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iFkg05PN361reUpYAF9hGHIWeiXw

P.S. Vote third-party/independent.

[Baloo]

Wow! Aaron, I would not have believed that something like that could even go to court in today's society! I am ambivalent about the case... Half of me thinks "what a rediculous waste of our court's time and money! I am shocked that such frivilous law suits are allowed to go to court. I understand that the husband was spurned in this case and that he was upset, but suing the new husband???? What a joke... Adultery charges maybe, but a lawsuit for money??? That is just insane!"

While the other half of me thinks: "Good job buddy, that'll teach 'em!"

[BlueDogDemocrat]

P.S. Vote third-party/independent.

Herein lies the problem with that: Most third party/independent candidates all to often represent the extreme polar caps of political thought...from the conservative, theocratic-like constitution party, all the way to the tofu eating, greasy haired green partiers, they are even crazier than the D's and R's.

What we need is a mainstream, credible candidate to take the plunge and risk running as a independent. Will it happen? Only time and money will tell.

[Hob684]

can i say it again?

[BlueDogDemocrat]

Ron Paul, you mean?

[Scipio]

There's nothing corrupt about this. Fitch should have settled the case well before it went to the jury. Oh, and he shouldn't have been shtupping another man's wife. Yes, I'm sure that's the cause of this.

[jojobeans1120]

It is crap like this that takes away and makes it more difficult for those with legitimate claims....

[58ford]

I vote, I sign petitions, I make phone calls, I send emails, but nothing ever changes in this state. We just keep getting more & more screwed by who ever we send to represent us. At least we usually vote for the right pres. candidate.

[Scipio]

It is crap like this that takes away and makes it more difficult for those with legitimate claims....

I'm pretty sure that it's a legitimate claim, until the law allowing suits for alienation of affection is changed. After all, Fitch did hold improper congress with the plumber's wife.

[58ford]

Why in these cases why is the extramarital party considered the offender? It was the fence jumper's fault. They're suein' the one that just happened to be in the next pasture.

[jojobeans1120]

I'm pretty sure that it's a legitimate claim, until the law allowing suits for alienation of affection is changed. After all, Fitch did hold improper congress with the plumber's wife.


It is. It just ticks me off that they're not a more balanced system concerning lawsuits.

[Scipio]

Why in these cases why is the extramarital party considered the offender? It was the fence jumper's fault. They're suein' the one that just happened to be in the next pasture.

Presumably, the other party is the reason they jumped the fence. You have to prove that you're entitled to divorce by reason of adultery before you can succeed at an alienation claim. It's an entirely separate cause of action, brought in circuit court, after the fact.

[aaron]

Hmm, I wasn't aware that cheating was an actionable civil defense claim. That would really seem to open the doors to fraud.

[Scipio]

Hmm, I wasn't aware that cheating was an actionable civil defense claim. That would really seem to open the doors to fraud.

Alienation of affection (the other guy seduced her) is independent of adultery as a grounds for divorce. But generally, the one follows the other.

Of course, if your spouse moves out and takes up with dozens of sex partners over a period of months, that amounts to adultery, but you'd have a hard time proving that there was an alienation of affection.

[SueScribe]

:smt118At least we usually vote for the right pres. candidate.

And when would that have been?

After all, Fitch did hold improper congress with the plumber's wife.

Improper congress with ?? ;) That is wonderful. I never really thought of Jane Austin in contemporary civil actions. What a breath of fresh air in an otherwise polluted process. By the way, an alienation suit is taken in circuit court? Why's this? Isn't it ancilliary to a chancery matter?

(Mississippi's circuit/chancery thing is sooooo confusing . . .)

Why . . . is the extramarital party considered the offender? It was the fence jumper's fault. They're suein' the one that just happened to be in the next pasture.

You see, Scipio? Now we're talking boundary disputes. You SURE it isn't a chancery matter?

It just ticks me off that they're not a more balanced system concerning lawsuits.

Oh, but there is. You have your Plaintiff, and then you have your Defendant, and then you have Your Honor. Or, Your Jury. Fair & Balanced. Like FOX News.

Flea Bailey said it best: (and I paraphrase) "This country might not have a perfect system of laws, but it has the best." Of course, Flea was probably roaring drunk when he said that.

Hmm, I wasn't aware that cheating was an actionable civil defense claim. That would really seem to open the doors to fraud.

How? Oh !! Ah !! You mean . . say . . Miz Galore seduces . . excuse me . . congresses with Mr. Goldfinger, and she does so purposefully, knowing that partner-in-boondoggle husband will sue Mr. Goldfinger for alienation of affection. Verdict comes in, jury award for mucho dinero, complainant husband gets mucho dinero and then ---- Miz Galore dumps Mr. Goldfinger, goes back to complainant husband and all's well that ends well.

Is this the fraud of which you type? If so, there is a little gimmick in law known as criminal conspiracy through wanton congressing (or something similar), and any number of other disincentives to hoodwink unsuspecting millionaires.

I'd think a man (or woman) would be reluctant to sue for alienation for no other reason than to salvage a remnant of pride in oneself. Unless there are folk who love to put themselves through not just one, but two exhaustive, emotionally wrenching legal processes wherein the thrust (yeah, I meant that) of the complaint is sexual. But . . times are tough, I reckon, and when the opportunity arises - jump on it fast and milk it for what it's worth. (My apologies to Scipio.)

Sue

[threekidspa]

But . . times are tough, I reckon, and when the opportunity arises - jump on it fast and milk it for what it's worth. (My apologies to Scipio.)

Sue

:laugh::laugh: Do you have a book with these in them or are you making them up as you go? Too funny!

[Elle May]

Good to see you posting Sue. I can always be assured at least one chuckle.:smt023

[Conveyor Belt]

I think we should enforce more of these old 'stupid' laws or get rid of them. The law books are full of laws that 'modern' society doesn't deem necessary any longer. What good is a law if it's not enforced?

BTW, I'm a virgin angel if anyone comes snooping around about any of those sodomy and adultery laws...

[SueScribe]

The law books are full of laws that 'modern' society doesn't deem necessary any longer.

"Necessary" sounds seditious. "Applicable" might be (in Scipio's parlance) more genteel, and less noxious to the ears. :smt118

What good is a law if it's not enforced?

Ah. It's sitting there ready to be enforced, perhaps? Should the need arise or the fence get jumped, as in an alienation of affection suit ?

However, archiac laws do exist and they become archaic because society simply out distances them. Case in point: The scientific advances in DNA technology have rendered a fistful of laws archiac, primarily in family law.

Each state in this union has laws on the books regarding presumptions of paternity, for instance. These laws were initially devised to prevent a married woman's honor from being besmirched, to impose fiscal responsibilities upon paternal co-creators, to minimize bastardy sanctions (and there were sanctions), and, generally, to lessen financial burdens on the states.

However, the advent of DNA technology rendered many of these "presumptive" laws of paternity little more than absurdities. State by state, the concrete presumption of paternity (particulary as applied to the offspring of the husband of the mother), fell. They fell because society became aware of the outrageous result of applying a presumptive fiction when scientific proof lay open the truth.

Okay, then. I climbed up on that soap box without so much as a single step.

Before I climb down, though - the next time a "strict constructionist" begins the drill on why the U. S. Constitution is not a "living, breathing document", think again. If laws did not change with significant societal shifts, whether technological and scientific OR cultural, we'd all be potential defendants in tribunals aimed at witches.

Sue

[TheKing]

theres also some 'distrubance of the family' law floating around

[SueScribe]

theres also some 'distrubance of the family' law floating around

"Disturbance" of the family, or "Disturbed family" ?? :smt118