News: PFT: Jerry Jones heads to court again soon -- as the plaintiff

[Reid1boys]

Yes he was ordered to take a test but then that part of the case was stalled as Jones filed an amended complaint.

Lets say he take sthe test and it shows he is the father. Ok, now what? NOTHING, thats what. The man had sex with a woman. he made it clear to her he wanted no part of being Daddy Brady. Like it or not, it is what it is. If he wanted the baby and she had an abortion..... everyone would be ok with that. So how is it different when the man says nope. He did as he is legally required and then some financially. But at this point, this is about one thing. Daughter trying to get in the family vault.

She has never had a relationship with him, appears she never cared to much when the cash was flowing... but now the cash has run dry ad girl wants a daddy and siblings.

 

[Sydla]

Lets say he take sthe test and it shows he is the father. Ok, now what? NOTHING, thats what. The man had sex with a woman. he made it clear to her he wanted no part of being Daddy Brady. Like it or not, it is what it is. If he wanted the baby and she had an abortion..... everyone would be ok with that. So how is it different when the man says nope. He did as he is legally required and then some financially. But at this point, this is about one thing. Daughter trying to get in the family vault.

She has never had a relationship with him, appears she never cared to much when the cash was flowing... but now the cash has run dry ad girl wants a daddy and siblings.

Not really sure where you are going with this.

I am just providing you with information - the paternity part of the case has been on hold after a judge ruled he had to take a DNA test because Jones filed an amended complaint.

 

[zrinkill]

He is trying to stall until he is dead

 

[Ghost12]

Great.

But what does this actually do for him to push this? He spent all this time trying to make all this go away and now he's just continuing it. For what? So he can tell you I told you so to the Davis'? Just seems odd to me.

I don't know why this seems odd to you.

If you paid someone money to do something, and they don't do whatever it is they agreed to do, aren't you going to demand your money back?

Which is why I asked about the other case - if he somehow wins this, does that mean the paternity test case gets tossed as well?

My understanding is that is an entirely separate case so whatever happens here does not directly impact that. However, it certainly could potentially be a bargaining chip for an overall settlement. As others in here have pointed out, that part is on hold.

 

[Ghost12]

Lets say he take sthe test and it shows he is the father. Ok, now what? NOTHING, thats what. The man had sex with a woman. he made it clear to her he wanted no part of being Daddy Brady. Like it or not, it is what it is. If he wanted the baby and she had an abortion..... everyone would be ok with that. So how is it different when the man says nope. He did as he is legally required and then some financially. But at this point, this is about one thing. Daughter trying to get in the family vault.

She has never had a relationship with him, appears she never cared to much when the cash was flowing... but now the cash has run dry ad girl wants a daddy and siblings.

I think she is throwing everything she can think of against the wall hoping that something sticks.

She first went to him for more money in exchange for keeping it all quiet. (Of course that was the original deal but I digress....) When that didn't work, she went public with the whole thing.

If she can establish she is indeed his daughter, that opens up the possibility to sue for back child support. Yes that is a longshot but she has nothing to lose and maybe Jerry would settle just to make the whole thing go away. She also could sue in the future to challenge Jones' will. Again, another long shot where she has nothing to lose and has the hope that this phenomenally wealthy family will just throw her a couple mil to shut up and go away (and not risk the $4 billion they would lose if she actually managed to win her case). 1% of 1% of Jerry's estate would be a life changing amount of money for the rest of us.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

When you mention it repeatedly, you care.

But as for Jerry, he wants it on record that they violated the agreement and also yank back the money he gave "for her care?" Is that not petty as a billionaire?

And scummy imo

 

[Reid1boys]

I think she is throwing everything she can think of against the wall hoping that something sticks.

She first went to him for more money in exchange for keeping it all quiet. (Of course that was the original deal but I digress....) When that didn't work, she went public with the whole thing.

If she can establish she is indeed his daughter, that opens up the possibility to sue for back child support. Yes that is a longshot but she has nothing to lose and maybe Jerry would settle just to make the whole thing go away. She also could sue in the future to challenge Jones' will. Again, another long shot where she has nothing to lose and has the hope that this phenomenally wealthy family will just throw her a couple mil to shut up and go away (and not risk the $4 billion they would lose if she actually managed to win her case). 1% of 1% of Jerry's estate would be a life changing amount of money for the rest of us.

Past Child support? Not a chance. He already paid well above anything the state would have required.

Contest his will? Again, not a chance she wins... zip.

 

[Ghost12]

Past Child support? Not a chance. He already paid well above anything the state would have required.

You don't know that; you're just making stuff up out of thin air. Fact is he likely paid far, far less than the state would have required because if he was indeed paying child support, his obligations would increase as his net worth/income increased. So even if the original deal was higher than what the state would have required based on Jones' 1998 income, there would no doubt have been sizeable increases over the years which he apparently avoided.

Contest his will? Again, not a chance she wins... zip.

You should never say "not a chance" in a jury trial (which is what it would be in Texas). Even if the law is on your side, would you be comfortable with 12 total idiots selected completely at random having absolute control of your financial future? I know I sure wouldn't. Most jurors are morons who are far, far more swayed by emotion than logic.

Besides, just the filing of a lawsuit could be a major headache for the Jones family. Like I said, it just might be worth 1% of 1% to make the darn thing go away.

 

[Reid1boys]

You don't know that; you're just making stuff up out of thin air. Fact is he likely paid far, far less than the state would have required because if he was indeed paying child support, his obligations would increase as his net worth/income increased. So even if the original deal was higher than what the state would have required based on Jones' 1998 income, there would no doubt have been sizeable increases over the years which he apparently avoided.

You should never say "not a chance" in a jury trial (which is what it would be in Texas). Even if the law is on your side, would you be comfortable with 12 total idiots selected completely at random having absolute control of your financial future? I know I sure wouldn't. Most jurors are morons who are far, far more swayed by emotion than logic.

Besides, just the filing of a lawsuit could be a major headache for the Jones family. Like I said, it just might be worth 1% of 1% to make the darn thing go away.

People like Jerry dont cave to frivolous garbage. Hed fight it and crush her.

 

[gtb1943]

People like Jerry dont cave to frivolous garbage. Hed fight it and crush her.

UNLESS fighting it might bring out worse things....

 

[Reid1boys]

You don't know that; you're just making stuff up out of thin air. Fact is he likely paid far, far less than the state would have required because if he was indeed paying child support, his obligations would increase as his net worth/income increased. So even if the original deal was higher than what the state would have required based on Jones' 1998 income, there would no doubt have been sizeable increases over the years which he apparently avoided.

You should never say "not a chance" in a jury trial (which is what it would be in Texas). Even if the law is on your side, would you be comfortable with 12 total idiots selected completely at random having absolute control of your financial future? I know I sure wouldn't. Most jurors are morons who are far, far more swayed by emotion than logic.

Besides, just the filing of a lawsuit could be a major headache for the Jones family. Like I said, it just might be worth 1% of 1% to make the darn thing go away.

AI is your friend:

No, a jury would not determine the amount of back child support owed in a civil trial for child support in Texas. In Texas, child support matters, including back child support, are decided by a judge.


Now what was that you were saying?

 

[Reid1boys]

UNLESS fighting it might bring out worse things....

you guys just keep searching and searching. This entire episode isnt too complicated.... including the part where mama knew she hit the cash cow getting pregnant.

 

[Ghost12]

AI is your friend:

AI might be my friend but NI (natural intelligence) doesn't seem to be yours.

No, a jury would not determine the amount of back child support owed in a civil trial for child support in Texas.

I never said a jury would determine child support. My comment about a jury was clearly made in direct response to you writing "Contest his will? Again, not a chance she wins... zip." In the state of Texas, someone contesting a will is entitled to a jury trial.

Now, what was that you were saying?

 

[Reid1boys]

AI might be my friend but NI (natural intelligence) doesn't seem to be yours.

I never said a jury would determine child support. My comment about a jury was clearly made in direct response to you writing "Contest his will? Again, not a chance she wins... zip." In the state of Texas, someone contesting a will is entitled to a jury trial.

Now, what was that you were saying?

What was I saying? That so many of you are searching and searching to make something out of this. This kid was paid handsomely over the years, including college. You can say anything you want, but this mom and daughter isnt going to get another penny, and the fact they violated the agreement is gonna hurt them in the future.

Tell you what, when they get some more money out of Jerry, you come back and let me know. Ill be waiting.

 

[speedkilz88]

AI might be my friend but NI (natural intelligence) doesn't seem to be yours.

I never said a jury would determine child support. My comment about a jury was clearly made in direct response to you writing "Contest his will? Again, not a chance she wins... zip." In the state of Texas, someone contesting a will is entitled to a jury trial.

Now, what was that you were saying?

I think you underestimate the wealthy and their lawyers ability to make their wills virtually bulletproof. She wouldn't get anything.

 

[Reid1boys]

AI might be my friend but NI (natural intelligence) doesn't seem to be yours.

I never said a jury would determine child support. My comment about a jury was clearly made in direct response to you writing "Contest his will? Again, not a chance she wins... zip." In the state of Texas, someone contesting a will is entitled to a jury trial.

Now, what was that you were saying?

I actually attended McGeorge school of law, and while I certainly am not a lawyer and dont live in Texas, it isnt hard to research some texas law. You are sadly mistaken in your assumptions. Here are the legal reasons a child can contest a will. You cant just contest a will because you dont like the fact you got nothing:

• Pretermitted Child: This is the most common reason for a child to contest a will in Texas. A pretermitted child is one who was born after the will's creation and was not mentioned in the document. Pretermitted children are entitled to receive a share of the estate as if the deceased died without a will (intestacy).
• Omitted Child: Similar to a pretermitted child, an omitted child was alive when the will was created but unintentionally left out. However, unlike pretermitted children, omitted children have a higher bar to contest. They need to prove the omission was unintentional and due to oversight or mistake, not intentional disinheritance.
• Lack of Testamentary Capacity: If a child can show that the testator (the parent who wrote the will) lacked the mental capacity to understand the will's contents when creating it, the entire will could be challenged. This could be due to dementia, mental illness, or substance abuse.
• Undue Influence: A child can contest if they have evidence someone pressured or manipulated the testator into changing the will in a way that doesn't reflect their true wishes. This could be a caregiver, sibling, or another party.
• After-Born or Adopted Child Not Provided For: If the will was created before the adoption of a child and doesn't make provisions for them, the adopted child may have grounds to contest, especially if the testator intended to include them in the inheritance.
• Insufficient Support: While not a direct challenge, a minor child who is not adequately provided for in the will can petition the court for additional support from the estate if their needs are not met through other means.

So using Texas law, which of those seem to fit this kid? actually, this woman, she is not a child.

 

[Sydla]

I don't know why this seems odd to you.

If you paid someone money to do something, and they don't do whatever it is they agreed to do, aren't you going to demand your money back?

My understanding is that is an entirely separate case so whatever happens here does not directly impact that. However, it certainly could potentially be a bargaining chip for an overall settlement. As others in here have pointed out, that part is on hold.

Because the goal from the start was to bury this thing. If the money was inconsequential to me, I’d seriously consider not prolonging this thing. To me, making this just disappear is worth more than recouping a couple million.

I think this is just ego here for Jerry. He wants to squash these two, which also isn’t a good look since one of the parties is likely his daughter.

Frankly, I think it makes him look like a jackass.

 

[Ghost12]

What was I saying?

First you said the payments were done when she went after Jerry for more money. You were wrong.

Then you said potential future lawsuits this wouldn't be settled by a jury. You were wrong again because a challenge to a will goes to a jury in Texas.

Anything else you want to say on this subject that is wrong?

That so many of you are searching and searching to make something out of this. This kid was paid handsomely over the years, including college. You can say anything you want, but this mom and daughter isnt going to get another penny, and the fact they violated the agreement is gonna hurt them in the future.

Tell you what, when they get some more money out of Jerry, you come back and let me know. Ill be waiting.

I never said she was going to get any more money. You seem awfully angry about this whole thing, especially since nowhere did I say she would get paid.... might I suggest you step away from the computer for a while?

The question was put forth what could she possibly gain by establishing paternity, and I answered that question. If paternity is established, do you think she will quietly disappear into the night? I stated any lawsuits she filed would be tremendous longshots, no doubt filed with the hope of settling. I also stated if she challenges Jones' will, that trial goes before a jury.

This also explains why Jerry is pressing the advantage he currently holds. He has been called "petty" and "a piece of trash" but he (his lawyers) are wisely playing the long game.

 

[Ghost12]

I think you underestimate the wealthy and their lawyers ability to make their wills virtually bulletproof. She wouldn't get anything.

I'll ask you the same question Reid1Boys ignored: Even if the law is on your side, would you be comfortable with 12 total idiots selected completely at random having absolute control of your financial future?

And even if it is a hopeless, losing battle, she can still be a HUGE PITA by holding the whole thing up in court for years.

 

[speedkilz88]

I'll ask you the same question Reid1Boys ignored: Even if the law is on your side, would you be comfortable with 12 total idiots selected completely at random having absolute control of your financial future?

And even if it is a hopeless, losing battle, she can still be a HUGE PITA by holding the whole thing up in court for years.

It's not just a jury. There are judges involved. They throw out anything they see wrong by a jury. They can also throw out the case before it even sees a jury. Then there is the appellate judges. It just wouldn't pass through all that. It's Texas, not NY.