HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Judge orders father of 9 ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:53 PM

Judge orders father of 9 to stop having children until he can provide for them

Judge orders father of 9 to stop having children

RACINE, Wis. (AP) A Wisconsin father of nine who's behind on child support payments has been ordered by a judge not to have any more children until he can show he can provide for them.

Corey Curtis, who fathered the children with six women, owes nearly $100,000 in back child support and interest, according to Racine County prosecutors.

In sentencing the 44-year-old father Monday in Racine County Circuit Court for failing to pay support, Judge Tim Boyle lamented that he didn't have the authority to order sterilization for Curtis.

"Common sense dictates you shouldn't have kids you can't afford," the judge said.

Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Sommers told the judge he did have some authority regarding Curtis' reproduction rights. Sommers cited a 2001 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling upholding a judge's power to order a defendant, as a condition of probation, to not procreate again unless he can show he can financially support the child.

"I will make that a condition of the probation," Boyle said immediately, sentencing Curtis to three years' probation.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Judge-orders-father-of-9-to-stop-having-children-4089938.php#ixzz2E7etHSlN

86 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
good for the judge
73 (85%)
inappropriate sentence
10 (12%)
Other
3 (3%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

135 replies, 9007 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 135 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge orders father of 9 to stop having children until he can provide for them (Original post)
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 OP
unreadierLizard Dec 2012 #1
Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #2
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #4
atreides1 Dec 2012 #7
Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #17
HonEur12 Dec 2012 #41
LiberalAndProud Dec 2012 #73
BainsBane Dec 2012 #77
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #91
BainsBane Dec 2012 #93
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #94
intheflow Dec 2012 #97
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #106
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #109
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #123
RobinA Dec 2012 #127
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #131
BainsBane Dec 2012 #98
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #108
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #110
BainsBane Dec 2012 #124
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #132
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #113
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2012 #118
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #22
patrice Dec 2012 #44
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #54
tama Dec 2012 #83
dballance Dec 2012 #80
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #53
patrice Dec 2012 #71
gollygee Dec 2012 #20
LadyHawkAZ Dec 2012 #30
mike_c Dec 2012 #35
Gregorian Dec 2012 #40
patrice Dec 2012 #46
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #67
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #75
Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #76
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #107
Live and Learn Dec 2012 #86
Union Scribe Dec 2012 #89
mike_c Dec 2012 #128
stevenleser Dec 2012 #38
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #50
defacto7 Dec 2012 #82
Live and Learn Dec 2012 #85
ashling Dec 2012 #117
Third Doctor Dec 2012 #3
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #6
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #33
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #95
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #114
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #112
noamnety Dec 2012 #12
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #15
noamnety Dec 2012 #34
closeupready Dec 2012 #47
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #56
Live and Learn Dec 2012 #87
Beaverhausen Dec 2012 #5
peacebird Dec 2012 #9
closeupready Dec 2012 #13
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #14
MrDiaz Dec 2012 #11
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #27
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #96
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #115
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #121
closeupready Dec 2012 #8
Quantess Dec 2012 #10
Rider3 Dec 2012 #28
Cayenne Dec 2012 #84
Live and Learn Dec 2012 #88
Quantess Dec 2012 #101
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #122
closeupready Dec 2012 #16
NightWatcher Dec 2012 #18
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #23
alphafemale Dec 2012 #42
ToxMarz Dec 2012 #102
alphafemale Dec 2012 #130
treestar Dec 2012 #65
joeunderdog Dec 2012 #134
treestar Dec 2012 #135
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #19
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #36
zipplewrath Dec 2012 #21
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #29
closeupready Dec 2012 #32
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #37
me b zola Dec 2012 #78
backtoblue Dec 2012 #24
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #26
backtoblue Dec 2012 #39
Rider3 Dec 2012 #25
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #31
backtoblue Dec 2012 #45
patrice Dec 2012 #70
patrice Dec 2012 #72
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #43
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #48
Angleae Dec 2012 #99
closeupready Dec 2012 #49
alphafemale Dec 2012 #51
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #59
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #52
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #55
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #57
Ya Basta Dec 2012 #58
Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #60
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #61
kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #104
arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #129
jwirr Dec 2012 #62
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #63
treestar Dec 2012 #64
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #66
Angleae Dec 2012 #100
Care Acutely Dec 2012 #68
Spirochete Dec 2012 #69
KitSileya Dec 2012 #74
BainsBane Dec 2012 #79
AllyCat Dec 2012 #81
blueamy66 Dec 2012 #90
slackmaster Dec 2012 #111
TexasBushwhacker Dec 2012 #92
hamsterjill Dec 2012 #119
kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #103
Ferretherder Dec 2012 #105
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #116
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #120
cecilfirefox Dec 2012 #125
Throd Dec 2012 #126
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #133

Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:53 PM

1. Common sense indeed.

What an idiot.

I mean mr baby factory, here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:54 PM

2. BIG slippery slope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:56 PM

4. ^ This. This again. Still this. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:57 PM

7. Really?

There's a Constitutional guarantee to have children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:01 PM

17. I'd file it under

reproductive choice myself. We may not agree with it but it is his right to have as many children as he can talk women into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:19 PM

41. +1

 

agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:29 AM

73. When the burden of feeding and housing those children falls to the state,

shouldn't the state have some authority to say, "no more"?

http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-owes-k-in-back-child-support-has-paternity-cases/article_1d5850a9-f107-5e4f-80ce-0f865e2c04cc.html

I'm counting 25 offspring in the linked story. This guy is a predator -- a con man. And part of the con is leaving the mark pregnant. It's probably best that I am not in the position to impose punishment on this one. Can't there be a point where reproductive rights are forfeited for dereliction of parental duties?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:46 AM

77. Reproductive rights involve caring for children

Not just siring them. He walks away from the consequences of procreation. A woman cannot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:58 AM

91. Yes, a woman can

It's called adoption or abortion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:13 AM

93. Those are consequences

And a man faces neither unless compelled to do so by a personal sense of responsibility or, in this case, the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:22 AM

94. Then why sleep with a man who already has 9 children?

Women aren't stupid. We know what is going on.

So, who files for this "taxpayer" assistance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:55 AM

97. "Women aren't stupid."

Uh, yeah, some are. Just as some men are. They are all people and some people are stupid. Also, stupid people tend to run in the same circles, just as smart people do.

Then there's the point that some people are really good fucking liars. Are the women who have gotten pregnant by this asshat to be blamed if he lied to them or withheld the information that he had xx number of children he was ignoring prior to shagging them?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intheflow (Reply #97)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:19 AM

106. Why not use protection?

The guy's an ass, but the women need to take some of the blame too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:40 AM

109. Np, a woman doesn;t take ANY blame for someone not paying support

That is beyond ridiculous.

Interesting to me how you are placing the supermajprity of the blame on the woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:23 AM

123. Last time I checked, support was based on both the mother and the father's salaries

Did that change sometime recently?

And what is supermajpity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:14 PM

127. Yeah, the Woman Does

Why doesn't the same position apply to her? Don't have chidren you can't support. They are as wrong as he is. Not supermajority wrong, but wrong in equal parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:31 PM

131. Who says she can't support her kids???

Why are so many posters saying the mothers cannot support their kids? Whether they can or cannot on their own doesn't mean the father doesn't have to pay support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:19 AM

98. The issue is the children

Not that the woman deserves what she gets because she sleeps with him. If mothers behave irresponsibly, the courts take their kids away. Why shouldn't this guy face up to his responsibilities? If he can't, he needs to keep his fly zipped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:34 AM

108. True that, I guess.

If a mother behaves irresponsibly, their children are taken away....okay. In what world do you live?

Sure, he should live up to his responsibilities, but so should the mothers. Why not use protection?

As I have stated before, I have 2 nieces with 3 children each and they work their asses off to provide for them. They knew/know what they got into and are happy and successful and don't whine about the fathers.

I hate this debate. I'm out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:41 AM

110. You stated this so-called "debate"

ie blaming the person not being paid support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:22 PM

124. obviously the women are responsible

No one is saying they aren't. Nor do we have information that those women tried to evade their responsibility. The law requires that men pay child support, even if women are "stupid enough" to sleep with them. You're assuming they knew he had 9 kids, or the other guy linked in one of the threads had 15. If he doesn't tell them, they aren't likely to know. If there is some pre-approved list of responsible men we can consult before dating, I'd love to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #98)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:32 PM

132. This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:43 AM

113. Some of them may not have known of his other children

I don't think it's a leap to say that a guy with 9 children of which he supports none, might actually lie to a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:31 AM

118. "So, who files for this "taxpayer" assistance?" Exactly. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:05 PM

22. Its called the 9th amendment

 

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:22 PM

44. Only if it is, in fact, a right. Is it a right to create life and then violate its right to life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by abandoning it?

You ever read a book about fascism called Perfume by Patrick Suskind? or see that movie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:33 PM

54. only corporations have the right to create life. and destroy it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:02 AM

83. Define right

 

Life procreates life; and also social structures that can try to define and limit rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ya Basta (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:13 AM

80. Using the 9th Amendment is a BIG slippery slope

One could infer it implies unlimited rights for everyone. I doubt that's what the founders meant. I'm pretty sure what they meant was just because they didn't enumerate something as a right in the Constitution or Bill of Rights doesn't mean people don't have that right. Like the right to get married for instance. Not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but pretty commonly accepted as a right.

There is also the fact that the constitution does give the federal government the power to enact laws. State constitutions also empower their legislators to enact laws. There are the executive and the judicial branches to overrule legislators when they cross the line.

If this guy has had so many children and cannot care for them then I think it's fine to prohibit him from fathering more children. Why exactly should the tax payers have to support his offspring when it truly was a choice on his part to impregnate six different women?

I doubt you'd have a problem with the court ruling a landlord cannot buy anymore properties until and unless they brought all of their currently-owned properties out of slum conditions and provided tenants with running water and heat. So how would it be different or wrong for this guy to be expected to be responsible for the human lives he already created or stop creating them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:33 PM

53. no, the constitution only guarantees reproductive freedom to corporations, as well as the

 

freedom to rachet down wages and generally steal the means of survival from workers.

everybody else is on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:03 PM

71. +++1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:02 PM

20. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:09 PM

30. Yep n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:12 PM

35. one that badly needs to be slid down, IMO....

If by "slippery slope" you mean the evils of state regulation of reproductive "rights," I advocate curtailing human reproduction and so I'm all for it. State regulation, that is. There are way too many humans making more humans than the planet can support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:16 PM

40. I've read a few of your posts lately, and we've got quite a lot in common.

I want to post "more than one should be a crime", but the world isn't ready yet. We'll have to be swimming in the rising waters before anyone realizes what is happening.

Anyways, it's good to have vigilant company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:24 PM

46. There's a lot of confusion out there about the differences between liberty and freedom. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:57 PM

67. not to mention the Judge's inability to enforce the order.

What's he gonna do, shove the baby back up the birth canal?
'Cause the only way to show a violation of the order is by a woman giving birth.
or 10 woment giving birth.
etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:43 AM

75. No just throw his sorry arse in jail if he does.

 

Won't make a whit of difference for the kids he's not paying for anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMadMonk (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:46 AM

76. Is he on probation for life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:21 AM

107. Why not? He's probably sentenced his kids to life behind the 8-ball.

 

These sort of scattershot serial breeders, generally target women at the bottom end of the socio-ecconomic scale with serious self esteme issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:28 AM

86. I'd agree as long as it was the same for everyone.

The problem with this ruling is that is is based on his not being able to support the children. That is a slippery slope. Who determines how many children one can afford? And do the rich actually have a right to more children than the poor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:27 AM

89. So you're anti-choice. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #89)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:32 PM

128. only to the extent that, say, Garrett Hardin was "anti-choice...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:16 PM

38. Yes. There are a lot of seemingly good 1 offs to violate Constitutional Freedoms. 99.99999% are bad

ideas and slippery slopes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:31 PM

50. How?

 

He does not have to accept the conditions of probation. Probation is giving a convict a break. The convict is still free to reject the conditions of probation and serve his time in prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:36 AM

82. Unfortunately, rejecting the conditions of his probation

could possibly affect an awful lot of people over a couple of years before he would be caught, and then there's the money on the public bill to prove it.

No, this guy has a mental problem and should be in jail or getting treatment. It's a bad call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:23 AM

85. Agreed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:30 AM

117. Life is a slippery slope and

it's terminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:56 PM

3. I agree.

You should not have one kid unless you can support one barring accidents let alone 9.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Third Doctor (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:57 PM

6. 9 children by 6 women. Seems like the women should get the same sentence...no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:10 PM

33. are they each having nine children? moreover are they not providing for their kids?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:25 AM

95. I don't know

Are they providing for their kids?

Do they have jobs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:44 AM

114. Who cares -- the guy is 100K in support arrears

Why do you think that's something to defend?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:43 AM

112. Why?

He is the one not paying support. I didn't read that the women are abusive and neglectful parents like the father is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Third Doctor (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:59 PM

12. Is this a "poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids" post?

That's ... unfortunate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noamnety (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:00 PM

15. isn't that what the judge is saying with the sentence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:11 PM

34. Yep, but I expect that from some judges,

not from DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noamnety (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:25 PM

47. You don't know DU very well then, I guess.

These types of topics always bring out the contrarians, those who like to argue, and genuine conservatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noamnety (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:36 PM

56. yes, and getting lots of support from the good liberals here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noamnety (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:29 AM

87. That could be the result and why it is a very poor decision. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:56 PM

5. So, if he fathers another child, thats a violation of his probation and he goes to jail?

And how will he make the child support payments from jail?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:58 PM

9. Apparently he is not making them out of jail either...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:59 PM

13. So why not jail him now?

And prohibit conjugal visits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:59 PM

14. he's behind 50K and 40K is interest (that's student loan type interest accrual)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:59 PM

11. doesn't

 

matter because he OBVIOUSLY is not paying them now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:08 PM

27. Not making them now. At least that way he's not making babies anymore. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:31 AM

96. Doesn't it take two people to make a baby?

Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:46 AM

115. Where did it state the mothers are neglectful and not caring

For their children? I didn't read that.

You are slagging the moms and defending this guy all over this thread. Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #115)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:17 AM

121. I'm not slagging moms

just saying that it takes two people to make a baby

Did we check into how many children each of the mothers have and by how many Daddys and how many are on public assistance?

Sure, the guy is an ass. But let's put the responsibility on both parents.

The judge said....."common sense dictates you shouldn't have kids you can't afford"....hmmmmmmm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:57 PM

8. Stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:59 PM

10. I would say the same thing for a mother of 9

Don't have any more, until you can support the ones you've got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:08 PM

28. Absolutely, 100% correct!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rider3 (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:10 AM

84. Octomom should be in the klink?

Ridiculous. Sorry but he has a right to bodily autonomy as any woman has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:32 AM

88. So, exactly where would you put the limit on kids for the poor?

And what penalty would you support for the mother that dared to get pregnant again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:36 AM

101. Nobody would listen to me anyway, when policy is made.

I don't have a problem with sterilization, in some cases. Especially not if they already have several children and appear to have difficulty stopping. That is my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:18 AM

122. Yeah.....I totally agree

I think deadbeat Dads are wrong, but Moms that keep procreating aren't helping the situation either.

on edit: and yes, many here know that I have a personal interest in this....but I've held this opinion since I was a young teenager....my Mother told me that if I was going to have sex, protect myself and if I didn't and I became pregnant, don't expect help from anyone....you may be on your own....she told me to THINK about my actions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:00 PM

16. I'm glad people on DU don't make laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:01 PM

18. legislating reproductive rights, and based on finances?

What's next, what if someone is too poor to have 9, or 8, or 7, or 6.... or 1?

I know that this is not purely based on finances, but civil court penalties. But if he had a few hundred thousand dollars and paid it to the mothers, it wouldnt be an issue.

It just sets a weird benchmark in my opinion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:06 PM

23. it seems that the the fact that there are 6 mothers makes the guy look like a bum. if it

were a father unable to support 9 kids by 1 woman, I bet he would not receive the same sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:21 PM

42. If he were not married to her he would.

Although that scenario seems very unlikely.

I've never understood some of the attraction to breed with proven useless lowlifes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:51 AM

102. Well apparently he's good at something.

A true progressive would find an outlet for his talents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ToxMarz (Reply #102)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:45 PM

130. An outlet for his "talent"

Talent? Outlet?

hmmm...

Sating cats in heat maybe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:00 PM

65. Exactly - it treats poor people differently

Must be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:48 PM

134. In most cases of fines and fees and so forth, I'd agree with your rationale.

But whether it's unwillingness or inability to pay for the care of a child, the bottom line remains the same. With rights come responsibilities. I feel that it is unfair for this man to place (by default) his burden on others, on the mother of his children or on his own children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Reply #134)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:03 PM

135. You're right re: fines

They should be proportionate to income.

Children are not entirely a burden though. We do benefit from other people having children. Taxpayers, future and future workers, soldiers. We can't do it all on our own. These are fellow Americans too. We don't need all from well off backgrounds. I think there's an argument they are not a burden.

The man in the story is unusual too. General rules should not be made for this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:02 PM

19. I would say... Though almost appropriate in this case, too dangerous a road to go down...


Imagine wingnut judges getting that power. The Suffragettes of the early 20th century could tell stories about that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:13 PM

36. agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:04 PM

21. What is the criteria?

The problem here is that there is really no criteria for determining what economic conditions should prohibit someone from having children. Plenty of people have children that can't really afford them. What role should government have in determining before the fact that someone should not have children?

It's not that I don't think we can create such laws, standards, or regulations. I just don't think we have and judges should be trying to do it in our stead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:08 PM

29. How about complying with court orders and legal obligations?

If you can't feed your kids, they get taken away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:10 PM

32. Right, where they are neglected by state child welfare agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:13 PM

37. You think he gives a shit about having his kids taken away?

How many of them do you think he can name?

The legalities and legal implications of this are obviously complex, but I wanna register my complete disgust with all 7 parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:50 AM

78. Ah, the answer to poverty!

Jonathan Swift had some thoughts on this:

A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick (1729)

~snip~

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years, upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of our projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in their computation. It is true, a child just dropt from its dam, may be supported by her milk, for a solar year, with little other nourishment: at most not above the value of two shillings, which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner, as, instead of being a charge upon their parents, or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall, on the contrary, contribute to the feeding, and partly to the cloathing of many thousands.

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expence than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couple, who are able to maintain their own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom) but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders. I again subtract fifty thousand, for those women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remain an hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, How this number shall be reared, and provided for? which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses, (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing till they arrive at six years old; except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier; during which time they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers: As I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me, that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

~more @ link~

http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/modest.html


The meeting of satire and reality is occurring far too often afaic.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:06 PM

24. reproductive rights should be equal across the board. period.

if this man owes money for not taking care of his kids, then he needs to be in jail on a work program paying as much as he can to help out with the kids. too many kids? yes. too little money? yes.

the bottom line is the courts should not have control over anyone's reproductive rights, be it man or woman.

perhaps if this man had insurance that provided coverage of a vesectomy, he could make that decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backtoblue (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:07 PM

26. off topic: your sig line is cute. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:16 PM

39. thanks! lol

i was pointing to equal rights as a whole on reproductive rights. in no way should this set precedence for women to be forced into not having children or forced TO have children against their wishes.

just a broader view than necessary, i suppose.

btw: i do not post much, but i read DU alot and have agreed with almost every point that you have made over the years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:07 PM

25. Good!

Some people should never have children. He's one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:09 PM

31. sometimes what seems like a commonsensical decision, would be extremely

problematic if generalized.

this sentence to me seems like good old fashioned common sense, however disallowing people to have children based on finances seems extremely problematic overall

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:24 PM

45. i agree

it could be used as precedence in future court rulings on reproductive rights of both men, women, rich, and poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backtoblue (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:00 PM

70. Love! that sig! such a darling little stick-person!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:11 PM

72. Are we sure that it is about finances? or the level of personal responsibility for those lives?

Must admit, I've just been kind of scanning, but didn't pick up anything that said that the fellow, though financially delinquent, was/is physically active in the care and upbringing of those lives, which to me would seem to suggest that whatever he claims his rights are in the matter, those rights are violating the rights of the babies to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, much of which is damaged MORE by physical delinquence than it is by financial delinquence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:21 PM

43. Obviously you can't outlaw consensual fucking, so what if

 

he wears a condom but the condom breaks? How would that violate this Nazi judge's order?

Big, big, big slippery slope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:26 PM

48. Unless the judge plans to have him castrated, I don't see how he can enforce this

He/she (the judge) can only punish him after-the-fact. A judge can impose any restriction he/she likes, but it's always up to the one having the rules imposed, to either obey, or not..

Anytime someone goes against a court order, they are accepting whatever punishment may follow, but just having the restriction rarely keeps them from re-offending..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:20 AM

99. The judge said (in the article) that he didn't have the authority to have him sterilized.

If he violates this court order, he goes to prison. If he continues to fail to pay child support, he goes to prison. Either way, it's looking bad for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:27 PM

49. I hope he appeals, and that part of the ruling overturned.

His body - his choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:31 PM

51. Most communities wouldn't allow you to have 9 CATS if you couldn't take care of them.

But these are just human beings hes supposed to neglect because he just has that right to stick unwrapped plow in any fertile ground.

It's a term of probation and that is all.

Lot's of things can be termed probation violations.

I don't think this is that out of line given the circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:38 PM

59. Cats can be euthanized, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:32 PM

52. Good for the judge. Subsidizing those that overpopulate is ridiculous. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:35 PM

55. yes, only the reproduction of those who can afford to consume 100 times their weight

 

in resources should be subsidized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:37 PM

57. At best, this man is a bit player in his children's lives--

six households means that he is probably not really a parent figure in any of them. Nine children without a real father, the least he can do is provide financial support--and he can't even manage that. He is extremely irresponsible, just spreading his seed around and leaving the consequences behind. I understand that this order sounds harsh and would be hard to enforce, but he appears unable to control himself and think of anybody besides himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:37 PM

58. Stay the fuck out of my bedroom!

 

#1 issue here IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:38 PM

60. As almost a pure aside: Technically, this deadbeat dad is genetically WAY ahead of the game.

I have one son, my girlfriend has two. This guy has FUCKING NINE KIDS. That's crazy good coverage for ensuring your genetic material continues. This guy is hardcore winning at a really old competition which is, in fact, so removed from our everyday existence that we don't think about it consciously. He's ensuring his genotypic traits continue.

Somehow I have a feeling that the deeper nature of all this may be lost on him.

Or, just watch the first few minutes of Idiocracy.

Of course, the gamble is that with fewer resources the children will be less likely to live long enough to reproduce themselves.

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:39 PM

61. I agree with the Judge but how do you enforce it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:36 AM

104. Ball peen hammer, hatchet, anvil, scalpel............

 

lot of ways.....take away tax deduction & make'em pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kooljerk666 (Reply #104)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:41 PM

129. Penis belt?;). n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:41 PM

62. I understand this but it scares me. This can be turned around against the mothers of these children

as well. Does this apply to children born after your cannot afford them or is it retroactive. When I got a divorce my children automatically became unaffordable for me. Especially since our disabled daughter had already placed us in that position long before the divorce. How far can this be taken?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:55 PM

63. Can't he just say he aborted them (financially)?

His body, his choice - why should he have to go to work for 18 years to support something he does not want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:58 PM

64. Uh, no

Right wing talking point. There are no limits on procreation and his use of it as a condition of probation - subject to challenge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:10 PM

66. It is a patently illegal order...

but it makes many feel good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:21 AM

100. The alternative was prison time.

Which is likely his next destination anyway for either violating the court order or for continuing to fail to pay child support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:18 PM

68. Other.

Common sense? Most certainly.

Legislatable? Not a good idea.

Will it matter? Doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:30 PM

69. How can that be done?

Men don't even have children. Sure, he needs to pay up and stop fathering any more of them them, and maybe should be treated to a free vasectomy, courtesy of the courts, but I don't think they can force this guy to stop being selfish and stupid. He'll just end up going back to jail for non-payment anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spirochete (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:39 AM

74. I too don't see how this can be enforced.

In fact, I doubt the judge can make it impossible to father children since he cannot order the man to have a vasectomy (thank goodness! That would be a slippery slope indeed.)

If there is a website dedicated to deadbeat dads, the mothers should definitely put him up there, perhaps then more women won't be charmed into having unprotected sex with him. I guess I'm a prude that wouldn't consider having sex with a man without knowing him so well that I knew that he had 9 kids with 6 women. It's such a sad commentary on our messed up gender relations that this guy can con that many women into having a baby with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:59 AM

79. I don't know if the ruling is legal or not

He can appeal the order, and the courts can decide its constitutionality. But the guy's behavior is irresponsible, and he should be called to task for it. The court is acting as the voice of community standards here, which this guy has clearly violated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:34 AM

81. Is the court going to provide free birth control for the man and any potential

female partners? Jeez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:55 AM

90. Common sense dictates that you don't have another child with a dude that already has 9

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueamy66 (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:43 AM

111. It would be wonderful if more people applied some common sense to their family planning decisions

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:59 AM

92. He should have given him 5 years probation and reduce it to 3 if he'd get a vasectomy

Seriously, the guy has fathered enough children. That way the sterilization would still be voluntary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #92)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:57 AM

119. I think that's a wonderful solution.

Give the guy some incentive to stop breeding, and solve the problem for good instead of just the amount of time the guy would spend on probation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:34 AM

103. Take away tax deuction for more than 2 children ok maybe 3 thats it........

 

Hasn't everyone seen Idiocracy??

Seriously CLimate Change is coming fast & we need less people & to burn less carbon.

3 children max then u pay should be a great way to get to ZPG (zero pop. growth).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:36 AM

105. I agree with the judge on this one.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:52 AM

116. The problem I have with this is that

he's really sentencing the guy not to have sex. Yes, he can put on a condom but they are not 100% effective as bc measures. The only 100% effective measures are ones that the woman uses.

So this guy may face prison based on factors he cannot control other than simply not sleeping with any woman of childbearing age, and this I do not think can be constitutional.

There are a long line of SC cases that have set forth the doctrine that the government does not have the right to control citizen's sex lives, and this type of sentence runs counter to the doctrine that the choice of sex partners is private and the choice of whether or not to bear children is private.

I seem to be greatly in the minority, but I think this sentence is unconstitutional and should be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:15 AM

120. Bad sentence because it is near impossible to enforce

 

Either jail him or offer him a few thousand $ to get a vasectomy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:25 PM

125. Law student here, support the judge, totally- and I think within his power. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:06 PM

126. Support your kids, you fucking loser!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:32 PM

133. As Judge Judy says, "Snip it or zip it"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread