Monday, November 20, 2006

Finally-- Justice has It's Day in Court

It's about time that this common sense step has been taken.

I'm 1000% behind this woman and am hoping she wins her case.

Men have been cheating on their wives for centuries and getting away with it. They have even profitted from no-fault divorce today, as it makes no distinction on custody and/or marital property issues for 'bad boy' behavior. A husband can be cheating on his wife for years and when she finally gets fed up with it and files for divorce, the cheater can still get custody of any children, alimony and a 50/50 split of marital property with no penalties whatsoever for his bad behavior...

Bad behavior get rewarded everyday of the week in this context.

A good example of this is Hallie Berry, whose husband cheated on her 29 times before she finally filed for divorce. YET he was still eligible for alimony, even though it was a short-term marriage, both had careers, no kids...

All I can say is Thank God Hallie you didn't have any kids with him. OTHERWISE you would have been facing the dreaded "Fed-ex" syndrome...

It's like PAS, the same but different...

Generally exhibited by greedy men trying to get custody so they can juice the mother for money, the state for tax credits and benefits; but most importantly they don't have to pay child support themselves. It's a dirty living but some men have to do it, as they are so worthless they aren't good for much else...

Anyway, I receive emails constantly from mothers who have told me they lost custody of their children to some empowered by the courts monster, who cheated on them constantly...AND when they finally dared to try and do something about it, they lose their children...

So we see where no-fault divorce has morphed into another tool used as a club by men against women.

Even though originally no-fault divorce was supposed to be about 'helping' women get out of abusive marriages easier...

As usual every law made to help women has been seized upon and misused by men to help themselves...

Well what else is new????

Anyway, allowing women to take these cases, of disease spreading through careless sexual behavior by cheaters, to civil court ensures that justice MIGHT finally be served.

Many will say that women can be taken to court as well under these circumstances and yes, that's true. But somehow I have a feeling that the vast majority of these cases will see men as defendants...as history has a way of repeating itself over and over and over again. Thus, I believe men will continue being the primary cheaters as they have been throughout the ages and I don't care how many 'empowered women' newspaper columns or magazine articles claim are out there cheating...

So we'll see, but for the time being I say THIS is a good thing for women. A very good thing.

Actually you should be able to take men to civil court for POTENTIALLY spreading an STD to you...POTENTIALLY...through irresponsible sex with someone they hardly know...

Again, a good thing to do to cheaters.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/16057207.htm

STD suit could set precedent in state
By Leslie Parrilla

lparrilla@thetribunenews.com

A former San Luis Obispo County resident is suing her ex-husband, claiming he negligently infected her with a sexually transmitted disease in what experts say could be a precedent-setting case in California.

Legal experts say the case between Janet Smith and Patrick Neiland Smith is significant because many people do not realize passing on an STD could pose a legal liability.

The San Luis Obispo case could set a precedent because it may be the first in the state to be resolved after a California Supreme Court ruling this year stating that people are liable not only when they know they have an STD, but also when they should have known.

"People are not as careful perhaps as they need to be," said Loyola Law School professor John T. Nockleby. "People probably aren’t thinking about potential legal liability when they’re having casual sex."

The Smiths were married in 1979 and lived in San Luis Obispo County. They are completing divorce proceedings.

Janet Smith, 52, now a resident of Nevada, is asking for an unlimited amount of compensation in the lawsuit, claiming her ex-husband was unfaithful during their marriage, contracted the human papillomavirus, or HPV, and negligently infected her.

She underwent a hysterectomy and was left fearful of having contracted other STDs, the suit states.

Civil suits represent only one side of the story.

San Luis Obispo attorney Mark B. Connely, who is representing Patrick Neiland Smith, now a resident of Santa Barbara County, argued during a jury trial this week that his client did not negligently infect his ex-wife with HPV and that Smith did not know he had the virus.

The jury will decide whether Smith is negligent and whether he should have known he had an STD.

Nockleby said the Supreme Court decision in John B. v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County "says you can sue somebody else for giving you an STD, not only if they know they have the STD, but if they had symptoms" that would have caused a reasonable person to go and find out whether they were infected.

That is something Nockleby believes the general public does not know.

"Not that I want to make sexual relationships about law, but I do think people who engage in casual sexual encounters ... need to know about this kind of thing," he said.

The Smith case is expected to continue with closing arguments today.

Leslie Parrilla can be reached at 783-7645.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

They all say that men's biological connection to children is unimportant, your kids or someone else's, it doesn't matter. What's important they say is that a man should take on the responsibility of "social" father and slave and pay for any slut's kids. Biological paternity, they say, is of no consequence whatsoever to a man and is a load of crock. They say, shut up, get to work slave, pay for the whore's kids, and don't complain - but if you do, then the CSA will come and get you and shove you in jail.

That's their ethics.

How long are you men going to put up with this rubbish?

What are you? Men, slaves or just gutless idiots?

NYMOM said...

This has NOTHING to do with the article I posted, nothing.

This article is about a man who cheated and then brought a disease home to his wife which resulted in her needing a hysterectomy...

If she was younger and didn't have any children yet, he might have ensured that she would never have any, even if she remarried.

Just like that Lee Marvin did to his live-in girlfriend pressuring her into all those abortions and then dumping her when she was too old to have any hope of a marriage and children with someone else...

Typical selfish behavior from men which you have gotten away with in the past as you fixed the whole court system to benefit yourselves...well this case will put a little crimp in your style finally...

Not permanently; however, as I'm sure you all will be figuring a way to manipulate the system before the ink is even dry on the judgment...

STD Scared said...

I couldn't agree more! It is high time for this to happen. I have been contemplating a civil suit against not only my fiance', but his mistress as well. I was lucky and did not contract an STD. However I had to pay for testing, suffer unbelievable humilation going to my family doctor. I don't think it is just the man, but the mistress that should be responsible.

NYMOM said...

Yes, you're right.

BOTH should be held liable. But the complications for that would be so unbelievable that realistically we have to be satisfied if we get just one...

~ Linda Blue said...

My feelings about what Janet Smith did here are very sad. Trying to shame someone for a wrong doing, has no happy ending for the one who was wronged to begin with. She wanted to take from Patrick Neiland Smith his good name and an unlimited amount of compensation for what he had stolen from her through betrayal. This is to no avail.

I think it is very sad that some women believe leaving this type of legacy to our children is actually the right thing to do. I do not want my children to live in an America that uses the government to control their life, including their moral and ethical decisions, by making them a criminal offense. Nor do I want them to use the judicial system to seek revenge for a heartache unjustly caused.

Irrespective of gender, it is very dangerous to use the judicial system of a Free country to control its citizen's level of morals and values. At that point you are risking the deterioration of a government for the people, by the people, & of the people; in lieu, leaving the system vulnerable to exploitation and excessive controls.

In that vein: Kudos to the Superior Court Jurors for the verdict. (NO LIABILITY FOUND IN STD CASE by Leslie Parrilla Published on 2006-11-25, Page B1, Tribune, The (San Luis Obispo, CA)).

I believe that information about this particular STD needs more exposure. HPV causing Cervical Cancer is much like HIV causing full-blown AIDS in the sense that it can lie dormant for years before manifesting itself as a fatal disease.

Here is some information found on www.healthywomen.org

"How is HPV spread?

HPV is spread by skin-to-skin contact with an HPV-infected area. Infections can be subclinical, meaning the virus lives in the skin without causing symptoms. This is why many people with HPV do not know they have it or that they could spread it. It can take weeks, months or years for genital warts to surface after sexual relations with an infected person.

Researchers already know that condoms don't always protect against the virus because warts can grow on areas of the genitals not covered by a latex barrier. A study in Great Britain, for example, found evidence that HPV may be transmitted from one's hands to a partner's genitals. Consequently, some lawmakers are pushing for better labeling of condoms so the public knows that no barrier contraceptive method can completely safeguard against the virus.

Researchers don't know whether people infected with genital HPV but who don't have symptoms are as contagious as people with symptoms. They also don't know how much HPV is transmitted through sexual contact versus skin-to-skin contact."

I am one more of the many single parents out there, just not so bitter as most. I celebrate my life as a woman! ~ Linda Blue

NYMOM said...

Actually you just made a stronger case for a husband or wife that cheats to be held liable, since the damage can be years in the making before it finally impacts someone's life.

BTW, they have ways of identifying strains of HIV, herpes, etc., so they can pretty much pinpoint who passed it along to you. They simply compare the strains through blood samples. They have convicted a number of people (both men and women) of passing AIDs by using these markers.

So don't act like this woman could have had it for a decade or more and suddenly it flared up and she just blamed her ex. These diseases have markers and are identifiable.

This case might have been overturned but there are hundreds more waiting in the wings and people are already in jail for knowingly passing AIDS. It might eventually be considered a lesser crime to do through cheating, more negligence then intent. But it will someday be looked upon as exactly what it is in this day and age: risking your partner's health through negligent behavior. Even the Gay community is exploring having laws passed where you are liable for the medical bills of a partner if you infect them with an STD.

~ Linda Blue said...

If you want to see it as making a stronger case, then that is fine with me. You can also choose to say that she holds no liability herself, but I believe your need to be the one in the "right" keeps your eyes from seeing the truth. Passing on to our children a legacy of "victim" only perpetuates societal dysfunction and using our judicial system to seek personal revenge or liability is not what it is there for.

NYMOM said...

I think you have the Marks situation a little confused.

It was John Aylsworth who was 'using' the judicial system. Bridget Marks was unemployed, it's rare that an unemployed person with two kids is going to start a custody battle that could cost her upwards of $50,000. That's a pretty common dollar amount for a contested custody fight in New York City...

The false charges, if they were false, we'll never know the truth, well they came out when Marks saw she was in danger of losing her children, which is not unusual. Many women enter the courts unaware of the changes that have taken place over the years in family law. They assume that only unfit mothers lose their children. Some grow desperate and this is the result.

Like I said, it's the reaction of the weak against the strong...

Of course I wish women wouldn't do this sort of thing making false accusations. Probably if they were more aggressive like men, for instance, they would just murder the other party. So I guess we'll know gender neutral feminism has succeeded once women begin reacting more like men and just kill the other party instead of making a false accusation against them.

Okay.

Happy now.

Anonymous said...

This is nothing new for Pat Smith. He is now in the middle of a divorce with his current wife, Susan. Reasons being because he is unfaithful and has had numerous affairs with his wife, including a close friend of hers who he is NOW living with in their family home while his wife has moved out. If justice doesn't prevail, then karma certainly will for Patrick Smith.

NYMOM said...

The problem with waiting for so-called karma to address these issues is that many of these creeps have a long and happy life and then karma kicks in when they are 60ish or so...I don't consider it justice when the last 10 or so years of their life they are unhappy while they damaged countless other people along the long long path waiting for some sort of justice to catch up with them...

It's like that show Cold Cases. What's the point of solving a 30 year old case??? There's no justice even if you catch the perpetrator. He's already beat the system so to speak.