Twitter: 25 yr old woman suing Jerry Jones

[grgnfg420]

Since youre so good with faces...can you clarify if the girl on page 31 of this thread is indeed homegirl? And if so...can you clarify if thats Charlotte with her?

lol

sorry

There’s no picture

 

[FanofJerry]

There’s no picture

It was on page 30, 31, 32 or 33. It was two females looking up and smiling at a camera. The girl looked like she had a cowboy jersey on. Anyway...there was a pic on one of those pages recently. Dont know if its still there.

 

[grgnfg420]

It was on page 30, 31, 32 or 33. It was two females looking up and smiling at a camera. The girl looked like she had a cowboy jersey on. Anyway...there was a pic on one of those pages recently. Dont know if its still there.

She has Jerry’s mouth and smile. Can you see the resemblance?

 

[FanofJerry]

She has Jerry’s mouth and smile. Can you see the resemblance?

The internet was trying to trick...there were two sets of Females people on here were trying to pass off as the Mom and Daughter. I wasnt falling for that game. So I really have no clue what the actual girl looks like or the mom. I did watch a youtube video of the girls birthday but the small snippet i watched didnt give me clear images of them.

 

[nobody]

it has been established as fact that Jerry told the mom he was unable to have children?

I said "Jerry was claimed to have" said it. So no, it's not established as fact.

 

[Reid1boys]

I said "Jerry was claimed to have" said it. So no, it's not established as fact.

I guess the platform isnt very good for what I did. I asked a VERY RHETORICAL question. See that question mark? That means I am questioning this claim of Jerry stating he can not have children. You and I are agreeing here. You just didnt see that.

 

[nobody]

What about my "birth as a mutual decision" idea? You wont touch it either? Seems extremely reasonable to me. More reasonable than "he had unprotected sex...so he should live 25 years in financial and emotional stress with a child" reply. You dont want to extend your unprotected sex argument because I will crush the suggestion that birth was the only or best option. Or you wont be able to reasonably attack the fact that males should not be punished for unprotected sex that leads to pregnancy when there are solutions available. Regardless...falling for temptation should not lead to 25 years of heartache when you have no say so in the outcome. Can you reasonably defend that stance?

Anyone....ANYONE?

Bueller....

Can anyone reasonably tear down my "Birth should be a mutual decision" stance?

Anyone?

The problem is that you're touching on banned subjects on this forum ...that's why nobody will discuss it with you. It's not because they don't have a counterargument. Its simple not important enough for me to argue with you about that because I don't want to get benched because you obviously have a personal stake in this and constantly try to switch the narrative of the discussion.

No, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that he was free to take such action, but he also must face the consequences of his actions. For more reasonable than "he has urges so shouldn't be held accountable."

However, and AGAIN FOR THE LAST TIME: My biggest issue is that Alex should be allowed to do what she's trying to do. She is entitled to no compensation but should be allowed to know who her father is for sure and able to claim it.

You seem to take issue with that and I think it's funny that you assume so many things about why I choose my stance. Nothing will change my opinion about Jerry. You can argue until you're blue in the face. He's wrong. What he did was wrong. I will never accept "men have urges" as a valid excuse. Men have urges and they have the right to take actions, but that doesn't excuse them from having to face consequences. I think we've exhausted the limits of our conversation since you keep trying to change what I am arguing....which is about Alex's rights.

 

[FanofJerry]

I dont see where this ladies claim of Jerry saying this has anything to do with all this unless she can prove he said it and was lying. And even then...I dont think its a big deal unless Jerry has a village of kids out there because he was wreckless and preferred going inside women.

He lied to the lady so he didnt have to wear a condom. Does he have to deal with the heartache of a child over this? Personally...I dont think its fair to punish someone with a child for having or preferring to have wreckless unprotected sex. Its just reasonable. But yes...after a few fun babies its Jerry being unreasonable

 

[Reid1boys]

There’s no law that requires him to make a settlement and set up a trust fund . He did that to avoid public scrutiny and possibly saved his marriage and business interest if wife wanted a divorce.

The law requires you support your children financially. he did that. I then added, "and then some," meaning he did more than the law requires. Cmon man, I was pretty clear in what I said.

The reasons he did MORE... I couldnt care less. Did he do it for his own selfish reasons? Probably... who cares?

 

[nobody]

I dont see where this ladies claim of Jerry saying this has anything to do with all this unless she can prove he said it and was lying. And even then...I dont think its a big deal unless Jerry has a village of kids out there because he was wreckless and preferred going inside women.

He lied to the lady so he didnt have to wear a condom. Does he have to deal with the heartache of a child over this? Personally...I dont think its fair to punish someone with a child for having or preferring to have wreckless unprotected sex. Its just reasonable. But yes...after a few fun babies its Jerry being unreasonable

Actually, it's unreasonable to take the stance of people not being accountable for their actions. Nobody is saying that they can't do something. But if you do something, you are responsible for what you do. That's not unreasonable. That's fact.

 

[Reid1boys]

I dont see where this ladies claim of Jerry saying this has anything to do with all this unless she can prove he said it and was lying. And even then...I dont think its a big deal unless Jerry has a village of kids out there because he was wreckless and preferred going inside women.

He lied to the lady so he didnt have to wear a condom. Does he have to deal with the heartache of a child over this? Personally...I dont think its fair to punish someone with a child for having or preferring to have wreckless unprotected sex. Its just reasonable. But yes...after a few fun babies its Jerry being unreasonable

Funny, I assumed the comment about not being able to have kids had zero to do with the night the deed was done, but more to do with Jerry denying he could possibly be the childs father.

 

[Reid1boys]

Actually, it's unreasonable to take the stance of people not being accountable for their actions. Nobody is saying that they can't do something. But if you do something, you are responsible for what you do. That's not unreasonable. That's fact.

Responsible in what way?

 

[nobody]

Responsible in what way?

In general, you must face the consequences of your actions. It's that simple. In Jerry's case? In my opinion he dropped the ball. He provided for her financially, sure. That's good, but I disagree that it was enough. That's just my opinion.
It's just the straw that broke the camel's back for my respect for the man. I think he's scum...but that is irrelevant. This is about Alex's rights...or it's currently about that since no monetary compensation is listed in the lawsuit as far as we know. (I strongly suspect it's about money down the road, but I'm not going to state it as fact and willing to give the benefit of the doubt for now).

 

[FanofJerry]

Getting banned for making sense. I respect it. People enforcing things like that should be proud of themselves. And people refusing to talk about it are probably the same people that follow some "leaders" orders to go kill and steal others resources because someone told them to. Its reasonable.

Mutually agreeing to pleasure is not the same as mutually agreeing to a child. FFS lol.

You do you man.

Ban me. Because everything trying to be used as an argument seems like a desperate attempt to talk around whats reasonable. No one wants to touch the "mutual birth" stance even though it makes sense. No one seems to mention the mom doing anything wrong. Everyone wants to be unreasonable and just pass things off with excuses like "well thats how the court sees it"...whether its reasonable or not. Would you kill your neighbor if your boss told you to? You probably would.

I slayed this whole board.

 

[plymkr]

You make good points...but youre still excusing the mother and placing blame on Jerry. Jerry...the guy with successful businesses and a wife and kids on the line. All because he fell for temptation. Like...what else can you do when you are powerless and are possibly the father of an unborn child with someone not your wife...you try and make a deal that benefits the mother and daughter and lessens your blow and sweetens their life. Jerry is the Devil here, right?

Does a good mother have a child with a side dude that wasnt in it for a child or relationship with the mother yet a long living child that needs to be brought up and cared for? Does a good mother have a child with a man she is divorcing? Or are you going to spit out the "ol' trusty" religious excuse? Abortion isnt evil and a lot of times the right decision.

The Congressional jobs angle is so weird to me. I cant argue with you on this. Its pretty much a bullet proof excuse to get out of an NDA like the one she is in. If this is in fact the true intention of this...she should not be allowed to sue in the future. AND...lawyers need to be educated on this angle so they can counsel their clients that there is a weird way this NDA can be worked around. I still feel that this should be able to be done privately without the Father being known. For legal NDA purposes and to uphold the NDA...if the girl wants a job that would jeopardize the NDA...she should be able to claim her dad is high level CIA or something like that so the public cant probe about it. Just seems like there should be plenty of ways she could have this job without it being known whom her father is.

Hey, man...if you think Jerry wasnt trapped in that situation...whether he lied about being fertile or not...giving birth is not the same as falling for temptation. Children are precious and should be planned. They are extremely stressful if you are not financially set. Sticking males with the financial, emotional or both responsibility when you had no say so what so ever in possible alternatives is pretty close to a trap if you ask me. To suggest men be starched because they indulged in pleasure mutually with a baby not intended to be the outcome will never be reasonable in my opinion.

Jerry should have taken the paternity test...I agree. For the kids sake. The mom dropped the ball big time morally as well. Any reason why you left that out?

Listen...Im defending reasonable in this. Looks like the mom used a baby to live the life she wanted and gets to tell the kid "I did it for you". I do find it funny that no one on here is even touching my "birth should be mutual" stance. Its like the most reasonable solution to all this. Yet people want to attack me and claim im being unreasonable.

Whats unreasonable is...a father and a daughter having to stress about some situation that never should have been because of a decision to have an un-mutual child. Sex is SOOOOO SINFUL....JERRY IS THE DEVIL. Father and daughter have to fight each other in court, stress about the situation...all over a mutual sexual experience. Are you going to address that or not? Or you think sex is sinful and should be a risky game? Should women be able to lie about their intentions and sitck the men in court? That sounds reasonable doesnt it?

If Im the unreasonable one here...you can continue to troll me. It was fun winning the argument I guess.

Ok, at this point I can't tell if you're trolling or serious. If you're serious you are presenting a contradicting argument. You're stating Jerry has his wife and other kids on the line and he shouldn't be held accountable for falling into temptation. Well if he truly loved his wife and kids he wouldn't have risked his family to have sex with this woman, and other women. That's a contradicting thought and faulty logic.

 

[plymkr]

Disagree.

Jerry is and was emotionally involved with the Gene 3 before this kid was ever conceived.

That doesnt include what Jerry may have or may not have promised the Gene 3 for years. I AM ASSUMING...but I bet Jerry has spent much time with the Gene 3 before all this happened. He had a lot invested with them.

You can claim Jerry abandoned ol' girl and could have included her yada yada yada...

What I am saying is that Jerry has built and Empire for all we know with all intentions of giving it to the Gene 3...the kids he planned for and intended on having.

Im not trying to abbreviate this girls value...but I dont think its reasonable to take away a large chunk of the Gene 3's inheritance for a child Jerry had no say so in birthing when there were alternatives available. When I say large chunk...Im talking equal distribution amongst the 4 known children.

Should the kid get something reasonable? Sure. Equal seat at the table? Nah. And she should blame her mom for that. Jerry and the Gene 3 shouldnt take an unreasonable financial kick in the nuts because some lady trapped Jerry. Thats not unfair or unreasonable. Couldnt care less what the courts think.

And...as far as the Cowboys side of the Empire...Charlotte, Stephen and Jerry Jr have worked on building that Empire for years. And this kid just gets to have equal share in that too? Unreasonable.

Please come back with something more reasonable.

Again you're basing your argument on Jerry being this great family man who loves his kids and wife and built an empire, and now has this other person trying to take it away or want a piece of it. If Jerry is so invested in his family and loves his wife and kids why is there proof in this thread that Jerry has had multiple women? If Jerry loves his wife and other kids he wouldn't have put his family, and empire, at risk by having affairs. Again I can't tell if you're trolling or serious when you're basing your argument on Jerry and his family are being attacked by an outside force to tear down his empire. When the person who is suing Jerry is a product of his own seed and wouldn't be in existence if he didn't create her outside of marriage. And if he loves his wife and kids he wouldn't have put them at risk by having an affair. Jerry wasn't forced to have sex with that woman. He did that willingly.

 

[csirl]

There are always exceptions (which is why we have judges and courts of law, and this situation may very well be considered such an exception by whatever court rules on it) but, generally speaking, parents are responsible for negotiating contracts on behalf of their children, acting in their child's best interests. Children cannot enter into legal agreements on their own, so someone has to be responsible.
I am not going to argue opinions but if you are trying to state that children have a legal right to know their parents' identities, then you should be aware that that is very much disputed all across the country with no unanimous verdict one way or the other.

Because she and her mother accepted a large amount of money in exchange for forgoing that ability. Working against her is the fact that she continued to accept such payments for 7 years as an adult.

There are always exceptions (which is why we have judges and courts of law, and this situation may very well be considered such an exception by whatever court rules on it) but, generally speaking, parents are responsible for negotiating contracts on behalf of their children, acting in their child's best interests. Children cannot enter into legal agreements on their own, so someone has to be responsible.
I am not going to argue opinions but if you are trying to state that children have a legal right to know their parents' identities, then you should be aware that that is very much disputed all across the country with no unanimous verdict one way or the other.

Because she and her mother accepted a large amount of money in exchange for forgoing that ability. Working against her is the fact that she continued to accept such payments for 7 years as an adult.

Where I am, its a topical issue. Legislation going through giving everyone the right to have a correct birth cert with the real parents names included. Those, e.g. adopted people, who have been denied this will also get compensation. Your identity = your own personal data.

 

[Cowboysfandarin]

Again you're basing your argument on Jerry being this great family man who loves his kids and wife and built an empire, and now has this other person trying to take it away or want a piece of it. If Jerry is so invested in his family and loves his wife and kids why is there proof in this thread that Jerry has had multiple women? If Jerry loves his wife and other kids he wouldn't have put his family, and empire, at risk by having affairs. Again I can't tell if you're trolling or serious when you're basing your argument on Jerry and his family are being attacked by an outside force to tear down his empire. When the person who is suing Jerry is a product of his own seed and wouldn't be in existence if he didn't create her outside of marriage. And if he loves his wife and kids he wouldn't have put them at risk by having an affair. Jerry wasn't forced to have sex with that woman. He did that willingly.

Men have been doing this since the beginning of time. It is quite possible to love your wife and kids and family completely and still think with the little head and the wrong end from time to time. It’s been known to happen since the dawn of man. Of course what Jerry did is wrong. But this is a classic “let he who has not, cast the first stone“
I believe most men and women cheat at sone point in long term relationships. Just seen it so much.

 

[Diehardblues]

The law requires you support your children financially. he did that. I then added, "and then some," meaning he did more than the law requires. Cmon man, I was pretty clear in what I said.

The reasons he did MORE... I couldnt care less. Did he do it for his own selfish reasons? Probably... who cares?

But that makes all the difference in why he paid hush money. If you want to parade around that this is normal legal child support behavior , go right ahead. Lol

What you’re avoiding here is Jethro hadn’t legally been determined he’s the father and was under no legal obligation to support the girl or her mother.

 

[Diehardblues]

In general, you must face the consequences of your actions. It's that simple. In Jerry's case? In my opinion he dropped the ball. He provided for her financially, sure. That's good, but I disagree that it was enough. That's just my opinion.
It's just the straw that broke the camel's back for my respect for the man. I think he's scum...but that is irrelevant. This is about Alex's rights...or it's currently about that since no monetary compensation is listed in the lawsuit as far as we know. (I strongly suspect it's about money down the road, but I'm not going to state it as fact and willing to give the benefit of the doubt for now).

I’ve come to the conclusion he’s simply defending Jethro to all corners of the discussion at this point. It’s really becoming quite disgraceful.

Hey, if he wants to support Jethro for buying their silence off with hush money, go right ahead. Lol

I’ll let public opinion decide for themselves.