#2 2008-10-02 17:25:33
Saw that story a couple days ago and was predictably revolted enough not to give a shit.
The Father Of Evil Is Dead....
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#3 2008-10-02 17:46:12
Oh... the Compassion of the Conservative. Yeah, Bill, good on you. I hope you are enjoying being buggered by demons.
Offline
#4 2008-10-02 18:57:41
Total fucking assbag.
Offline
#5 2008-10-03 04:31:51
I’ve never heard of a Caucasian father* asking a court to absolve him of any obligation to visit or communicate with his child. Unless he knows the child isn’t his, there’s no excuse for this.
*Negro bucks usually refuse to acknowledge paternity of the bastards they father.
Offline
#6 2008-10-03 10:17:17
News flash: Kid isn't his, it's his sons. Christopher is more than capable of cutting out a piece of his share and giving it to his lust-spawn.
Buckley is a tool for 101 reasons, you don't have to dig this far to find something to snicker at his corpse about.
Offline
#7 2008-10-03 10:53:03
GooberMcNutly wrote:
News flash: Kid isn't his, it's his sons. Christopher is more than capable of cutting out a piece of his share and giving it to his lust-spawn.
Buckley is a tool for 101 reasons, you don't have to dig this far to find something to snicker at his corpse about.
Look, he doesn't want the little bastard to have his money, cool, just leave him out of the will. Saying, in the fucking will, that as far as he's concerned the 7 year old is dead is a bit of a dick move.
Offline
#8 2008-10-03 16:38:44
GooberMcNutly wrote:
News flash: Kid isn't his, it's his sons. Christopher is more than capable of cutting out a piece of his share and giving it to his lust-spawn.
Buckley is a tool for 101 reasons, you don't have to dig this far to find something to snicker at his corpse about.
The suit, which was obtained by the Courant, pins the blame for some of the boy's behavioral problems on Christopher's complete lack of involvement.
"The father is notably absent from the minor child's life," despite the mom's efforts to try to get him involved, the suit says.
"It is in Jonathan's best interest and welfare for this court to impose a contact and access schedule on the father, so that Jonathan can establish a relationship with his father and extended paternal family."
Jonathan's grandfather wasn't alone in turning his back on the boy, the report says.
In his original settlement agreement with Woelfle, Christopher did not want visitation rights. The deal prohibited Woelfle from contacting Christopher directly about Jonathan, and said all communication should go through their attorneys.
I was referring to Christopher when I expressed surprise that a father would specifically ask not to see his child. I’ve known many men who have fought long court battles in an attempt to see their children.
Offline
#9 2008-10-03 17:46:43
OK, point taken. It sounds like they are both douches. Imagine being the kid whose father HAS to spend time with him or be in contempt of court. That sounds like a fun outing to the park...
Offline
#10 2008-10-03 21:02:08
orangeplus wrote:
GooberMcNutly wrote:
News flash: Kid isn't his, it's his sons. Christopher is more than capable of cutting out a piece of his share and giving it to his lust-spawn.
Buckley is a tool for 101 reasons, you don't have to dig this far to find something to snicker at his corpse about.Look, he doesn't want the little bastard to have his money, cool, just leave him out of the will. Saying, in the fucking will, that as far as he's concerned the 7 year old is dead is a bit of a dick move.
It's a little extreme, but if he doesn't mention the kid at all the will is likely to be contested successfully.
Offline
