Twitter: 25 yr old woman suing Jerry Jones

[FanofJerry]

lol

I liked your post. Not because Im choosing sides...but because I thought it was funny ha

 

[OmerV]

I went to law school for a year.... couldn't finish due to wife and 2 kids and just too much with a family. So, I know a little. One, if you haven't looked up specific laws for a particular state, you can't really say what will happen. We assume things are black and white. Parents are responsible for their children up through age 18.... uhm it isnt that simple. There have been some crazy cases of kids suing parents and winning that I was like, huh?

I can play this out for you.
Kid sues Jerry for emotional distress due to the "Trauma," this NDA has forced her through. In the report, it states something about the stress of seeing her siblings very public life. Stress?? what stress??? Well, Ive been told those are my siblings. My father is a very public figure in Texas and only a few short miles from where I live. Jerry is my dad... im 12 years old. I want to share this with my friends, but I have this enormous pressure on me that if I share this info with ANYONE my family will lose the money we live on. This is a DAILY emotional mountain I am carrying around on my back EVERY DAY...... as she cries on the stand. You cant imagine what my life has been like.... as she wipes more tears from her eyes. Then the psychiatrist takes the stand and testifies for hours what this kind of situation can do to a young child. What growing up without a child does to a child's emotional stability and sense of self worth. Now you think Jerry is gonna have a lawyer go up there and cross examine this person and try to tear them to shreds and only reinforce that the defendant is the monster they say he is. What kind of man would just throw their child in the corner all those years?

Now we put Jerry on the stand and he is depicted as this MONSTER that made an agreement that has caused great pain and suffering on this young woman for what? Only because she was his child?... oh the horror, oh the anger that the jury has inside towards this monster billionaire. If you dont think this exact scenario is possible, I think you are very naive when it comes to how this kind of civil suit could play out.

Likely income? Jerry in no way wants his public image on trial in this scenario and settles this out of court.

I don't buy any of this. The mom had full custody, so she had responsibility for the child's welfare, both mental and physical. And a court allowing this would go against long standing legal precedent, and turn the law on it's ear. No judge is going to turn that and determine that custody settlements are no longer valid. If they did even custody battles settled in a courtroom where a judge awarded custody to one parent wouldn't hold up, even if the non-custodial parent lived up to every provision of the award.

 

[OmerV]

What you are saying seems to make sense...I just know next to nothing about law and how courts rule.

Sorry for being unable to read...but can you clarify second sentence. I think I get it but might not. What do you mean "she couldnt rely on her mom's settlement if shes bound by it"? And..."if she is not a subject...there is no obligation"?

I mean she couldn't rely on the settlement the mom reached with Jerry to make a claim for the payments as an adult because she is asking the court not to be bound by that settlement.

 

[FanofJerry]

I mean she couldn't rely on the settlement the mom reached with Jerry to make a claim for the payments as an adult because she is asking the court not to be bound by that settlement.

Man...nothing against you...its probably me...but that sentence is hard me to understand.

If youre willing...can you spell it out for me like im blithering fool?

I get the "she couldnt rely on the settlement the mom reached with Jerry" but dont understand the "to make a claim on those payments as an adult" part. I thought it was a trust and she gets lump sums every couple of years. What is she trying to claim? The payments earlier?

 

[Reid1boys]

I don't buy any of this. The mom had full custody, so she had responsibility for the child's welfare, both mental and physical. And a court allowing this would go against long standing legal precedent, and turn the law on it's ear. No judge is going to turn that and determine that custody settlements are no longer valid. If they did even custody battles settled in a courtroom where a judge awarded custody to one parent wouldn't hold up, even if the non-custodial parent lived up to every provision of the award.

who said anything about the original agreement not being valid???? The emotional "Trauma," that WILL BE claimed is 100% separate from the original agreement. The court can rule the original agreement perfectly valid and she could still sue and get paid by Jerry in the future. They are not connected.

 

[FanofJerry]

who said anything about the original agreement not being valid???? The emotional "Trauma," that WILL BE claimed is 100% separate from the original agreement. The court can rule the original agreement perfectly valid and she could still sue and get paid by Jerry in the future. They are not connected.

I agree you are making sense. But if this is how courts rule these NDA's...why would anyone create one? It worked for a while...it brushed off the initial shock 25 years...and Jerry is probably more in a IDGAF stage of his life than then...so it worked for him I assume. But I still dont get why you create an NDA if the court doesnt back it up.

Maybe they do and Im speculating too much

 

[OmerV]

She is getting some amount of money from Jones and she wants more. It's that simple.

She's not a minor, therefor he doesn't have any financial responsibility for her, so how could she get more?

 

[OmerV]

who said anything about the original agreement not being valid???? The emotional "Trauma," that WILL BE claimed is 100% separate from the original agreement. The court can rule the original agreement perfectly valid and she could still sue and get paid by Jerry in the future. They are not connected.

The original agreement is what establishes the payment requirement. If the original agreement is still valid, and Jerry has made the agreed payments, then Jerry has lived up to his responsibility. Courts have always allowed one parent to sign over custodial rights as long as both parents agree, and in many of those cases without any financial requirement at all. In some cases the custodial parent just wants the other out of the picture, and, again, if both parties agree the law allows that. Even in the case of an absentee parent the only recourse imposed by the courts is child support payments.

If you can find a precedent for what you are suggesting I will consider it. I cannot find one.

And there is still the difficulty that she would have to argue she has been harmed even though she has, by all accounts we've seen, healthy family relationships plus she did well in school, graduated college, and has consistently held a good job.

 

[FanofJerry]

The original agreement is what establishes the payment requirement. If the original agreement is still valid, and Jerry has made the agreed payments, then Jerry has lived up to his responsibility. Courts have always allowed one parent to sign over custodial rights as long as both parents agree, and in many of those cases without any financial requirement at all. In some cases the custodial parent just wants the other out of the picture, and, again, if both parties agree the law allows that. Even in the case of an absentee parent the only recourse imposed by the courts is child support payments.

If you can find a precedent for what you are suggesting I will consider it. I cannot find one.

I assume what Reid is saying has been ruled before...with all these babies from Famous/Rich folk. Maybe Im being ignorant for assuming and not knowing the law. Very likely the case.

Are you suggesting this kid cant sue for trauma caused by having to remain silent while watching your famous father and siblings from afar? It seems like a reasonable excuse/angle to go after money with...but I dont think the court should back it up if someone paid out money for the NDA. It pretty much waters down NDA's. The trauma angle just seems like something thats probably been used a million times and probably successful a number of times.

Either back up NDA's or they shouldnt exist. Im sure there are extreme, unique situations where you should be able to go around NDA's...but I dont think this is one that should allow the kid to take Jerry to the cleaners. Because every NDA has a level of emotional trauma attached to it.

 

[FanofJerry]

Now I know you're just trolling...because literally not one person excused the mom's behavior and most stated she's just as guilty as Jerry yet you claim they didn't. Claiming your reasonable doesn't make you reasonable. In fact, you constantly ignore what people say and merely respond to what you think someone implied instead of what was explicitly stated. You haven't proven anything. You haven't slayed anything. You're trolling. You're glossing over people's points to rant your little misogynist view and putting words into people's mouths.

You seem to be of the opinion that women should be responsible for their actions but men shouldn't. You claim Jerry is a family man yet he 1) cheated on his wife and risked his family's well-being, and 2) ignored a potential daughter, who would be family.

So yeah, you're entire argument? Shot.

Nice troll job though. I'm putting you on ignore now. Bye bye.

:golfclap:

Youre still not answering any of the questions I asked. Youre avoiding being reasonable.

Impressive existence.

Im the unreasonable one here. For sure.

 

[OmerV]

Man...nothing against you...its probably me...but that sentence is hard me to understand.

If youre willing...can you spell it out for me like im blithering fool?

I get the "she couldnt rely on the settlement the mom reached with Jerry" but dont understand the "to make a claim on those payments as an adult" part. I thought it was a trust and she gets lump sums every couple of years. What is she trying to claim? The payments earlier?

You suggested they could set aside the settlement mom entered into because now that Jerry has more money those payment amounts would be low.

My point was that if they set aside the mom's settlement agreement then Jerry would have no obligation to pay anything at all going forward because now that the girl is no longer a minor Jerry has no financial responsibility for her. In short, the only obligation for Jerry to make payments at all at this point is through that settlement with mom.

Contracts don't work the way you suggested anyway. If a person willingly agrees to a settlement it is done - it's a binding legal contract and a person can't renege later because one party becomes wealthier in the future.

 

[FanofJerry]

You suggested they could set aside the settlement mom entered into because now that Jerry has more money those payment amounts would be low.

My point was that if they set aside the mom's settlement agreement then Jerry would have no obligation to pay anything at all going forward because now that the girl is no longer a minor Jerry has no financial responsibility for her. In short, the only obligation for Jerry to make payments at all at this point is through that settlement with mom.

Contracts don't work the way you suggested anyway. If a person willingly agrees to a settlement it is done - it's a binding legal contract and a person can't renege later because one party becomes wealthier in the future.

Ok...now I get it. You were talking about 1996 money vs his current wealth. Thanks for responding.