DNA Test Vindicates Chris Rock After Woman Harasses Him for Child Support

awesome…chris rock would be the perfect MRA!!

Yes she is a liar and a fraud and if she were a man she would be sued, prosecuted, jailed and berated in the press. But nooooo.. she is a woman and is not subject to the same standards of conduct men have always had to follow. Maybe it is time we make women like her accoutable . If we start treating them like men when the lie and atempt fraud, maybe we could stop alot of them. Going to jail, paying massive fines and penalties and having everyone know what they done might just deter some of them.

From Glen Sacks blog, words from the dreaming grifter herself:

“Bowyer, 35, said she met Rock at a Los Angeles nightclub when she was living in California 13 years ago.”

Hmmm…He was so fun to be with and so full of life. He had to be the one. My son’s father!

“I am sick and tired of being made out to be a liar and a fraud,” she said.

Oh how so unfair! How could any family court treat her like this. To impugn her feelings as a fraud!

“She denied making any money from the case despite offers of thousands of dollars from television shows and tabloid magazines.”

Darn! No interview with Oprah either.

Failing the legal system doings the right thing and if Rock can just put his money where his mouth is, he will initiate a private prosecution for attempted extortion. We certainly cannot rely on the first, so it is up to him to show some leadership as well as self-interest.

‘I am sick and tired of being made out to be a liar and a fraud,’ she said.

If she was speaking the truth, then she may be a whore. That she had sex with a few guys just before she learned that was pregnant.

I suspect that it cost Rock a lot of money in legal bills because of this false allegation.

People who lie in court ought to charge with false witness against another to receive the similiar penalty as the falsely accused.

Clearly, this woman is a fraud and a liar. If she were honestly trying to locate the father of her son and get support, she’d have brought suit against all the possible fathers. She only sued Rock which means this is nothing but a money grab.

If a woman “believes” you are the father (even if she slept with half the Russian army), then stating in court that you “are” the father is not a lie.

This explains a lot of this behavior the past few years as far as pressure.. though on a nicer front, we can be sure of a great comedy routine covering the farce that law has become thanks to radical feminine jurisprudential .

Amount That Can Be Withheld Under The Income Withholding for Support Act.

Section 505(g-5) of the Illinois Income Withholding for Support Act does not limit the amount that can be withheld from an obligor’s wages for payment of support and maintenance arrearages after the emancipation of children to the amount that had been withheld for support before emancipation.

Pursuant to the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, which is incorporated in the Illinois Income Withholding for Support Act, the maximum withholding for support and maintenance is 50% of the obligor’s wages if he/she has a dependant spouse or child; otherwise it is 60%.

Therefore, the Third District Appellate Court held that ordering $300 per week (50% of wages) on an arrearage exceeding $200,000 was neither illegal nor improper. Crank v. Crank, No. 3-06-0907, 2007 Ill. App. LEXIS 763 (3d Dist. July 11, 2007).

Jurisdiction to Consider Post-Decree Petition for Parentage

In re Marriage of Mannix and Sheetz, No. 1-06-2130, 2007 Ill. App. LEXIS 659 (1st Dist. March 30, 2007), which held the divorce court had jurisdiction to consider a husband’s petition to determine paternity in post-decree dissolution of marriage proceedings under the IMDMA, even though the child was born to the wife seven months after entry of the parties’ divorce judgment.

The Appellate Court’s decision was modified upon denial of rehearing on June 18, 2007, and can be found on Westlaw at 2007 WL 1745636.

The modified opinion does not change the Court’s ultimate holding that the divorce court correctly applied the Parentage Act in rendering its decision, especially in light of the parties’ admissions that the husband was the child’s father.