Cuckold taken for a ride!

[lifelong cuck]

Saw this and thought we'd all enjoy seeing how someone can pay to be Cuckold and both him and his wife get taken for a ride!
Editor's Corner - Yahoo! News UK

Details in case the link ceases!
Editor's CornerBack to Editor's Corner home


Strangest lawsuit ever?
Tue Apr 21 01:28PM

I see a lot of strange news stories in this job and this one, which was featured recently in a German newspaper, is up there with the strangest.

A judge in Stuttgart, Germany, is currently trying to decide on a lawsuit in which a man hired his neighbour to impregnate his wife.

It gets weirder.

Demetrius Soupolos, 29, and his former beauty queen wife, Traute, were very keen to have a child together, but Demetrius was Sterile so they began to seek out other possible options.

The option the couple eventually decided on was to hire their neighbour Frank Maus, 34, to impregnate Traute.

Maus, who was already married with two children agreed to do the job for the fee of €2,000. For three evenings a week for the next six months, a total of 72 different times, Maus tried to impregnate Traute.

When his own wife objected, Maus explained that he was "only doing it for the money."

After the unsuccessful six-month period Soupolos insisted that Maus take a medical examination. The doctor concluded that Maus was also sterile, which ****** his wife into admitting that their two children did not belong to him.

Soupolos is now suing Maus in an effort to get his money back. Maus' argument is that he did not guarantee conception, only that he would try his hardest.

I wonder what solution the judge will cum up with?

 

[Custer Laststand]

Lifelong,

Thanks for bringing this outstanding case to the attention of all us legal aficionados.

When his own wife objected, Maus [who had accepted 2000 euros from Soupolos to compensate him for the physical hardship and inconvenience of repeatedly attempting to impregnate Soupolos' wife] explained he was "only doing it for the money."

After the unsuccessful six-month period, Soupolos insisted that Maus take a medical examination. The doctor concluded Maus was also sterile, which ****** his wife to admit their two children were not his.

Soupolos is now suing Maus in an effort to get his money back. Maus' argument is that he did not guarantee conception, only that he would try his hardest.

I wonder what solution the judge will cum up with?

The probable ruling is obvious. If the judge is rational — always an open question, of course — she or he will rule that the mere fact Maus and his wife had two children did not imply Maus was potent, because he might have had a vasectomy afterwards (but he accepted the 2000 euros from Soupolos anyway because, as Maus argued in response to his wife's objections, "he needed the money"). Alternatively, Maus' wife may have been impregnated by one or more of her lovers.... which suitable tests showed to have actually been the case.

Soupolos could have ruled out both of these obvious possibilities by requiring Maus to present the results of a fertility test before paying him 2000 euros.... but he didn't do that. Thus, his financial loss can be attributed to foolish neglect to adhere to the well-known dictum of the marketplace, "let the buyer beware." Thus, the probable ruling will be that Maus does not owe Soupolos a refund.

The outcome for Maus vis-a-vis his wife — whom he now realizes is his cuckoldress, as does everyone else in Germany who follows the news — seems less clear, given that she made him her cuckold (without his knowledge), but then he made a fool of her (with her knowledge).

Perhaps you could pass along both outcomes, when the court rules on this... well, from the point of view of cuckolds, anyway... "important" legal matter.

—Custer

 

[macylay]

Interesting case.... and another thing... I always notice that, you, Custer Laststand, will piece out quotes.. along with references and links on a lot of your posts, which makes me feel that you are in law, just as my husband is. ..lol .

Macy

 

[Custer Laststand]

Off-topic, but here goes....

Hi Ms. Macy,

Interesting case....

Yes, I agree.

....and another thing: I always notice that you, Custer Laststand, will piece out quotes, along with references and links on a lot of your posts, which makes me feel that you are in law, just as my husband is. Macy

No, I'm not a lawyer nor am I formally associated with "the law" in any other way. I find it interesting, though, because laws constitute the rules civilized societies play by, so having knowledge of the law and the formalisms of applying and/or manipulating it are the way those in positions of power often increase their wealth and/or power and quash their competitors.

I also find it interesting because running afoul of the law often results in extremely adverse consequences.... a long prison sentence, financial and/or personal ruin, sometimes (esp. here in the U.S.) even being sentenced to death, after evidence formally presented in court by a prosecuting attorney seemingly shows the defendant "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Increasingly, though, DNA evidence is showing many prisoners serving long sentences, including significant numbers of those on death row, are not guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. They may not be what most people would consider "nice guys," but the "evidence" used to convict them did not represent the truth. Rather, they were convicted because police were under heavy pressure to arrest a suspect (for a crime that may have been egregious); a prosecuting attorney was able to indict them with a grand jury because, as one judge put it, any half-way competent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich; and the prosecutor was then able to convict them in court because the citizens who serve on juries are often susceptible to accepting inference as fact and circumstantial evidence as real evidence.... and also because the primary motivation of many prosecutors is to advance their careers by securing convictions no matter what, rather than establishing the truth. Subsequent appeals-court judges, if a defendant is fortunate enough to be able to appeal, are often very reluctant to acknowledge "the system" may have got it wrong. Rather, they rule only on whether the legal rules were properly followed in bringing about the conviction.

A relatively recent study and report by the U.S. National Research Council found that many time-honored, "tried and true" police methods have only a low probability of yielding correct conclusions re. the perpetrator of a crime — yet police, prosecutors, judges and juries routinely accept the results of such methods as "proof." It was only a brief flash in the news, though; one doesn't hear much about it. It's too disturbing, I guess.

Sorry, Ms. Macy, about this lengthy and irrelevant soliloquy in response to your brief comment.... you sort of got me going. Here in "the land of the free," we've imprisoned a higher percentage of our population *by far* than any other country in the world. I mean, 1 in 100 people in prison is a *huge* percentage of Americans, but even that doesn't show the real picture. When you include those awaiting sentencing and those released but on probation, the number is apparently closer to 1 in 30. A whole lot of these people, beyond those who are innocent but were convicted anyway, are in prison because they committed victimless crimes but ran afoul of the so-called "war on drugs." This whole scene bothers me. A lot.

Best regards—
Custer

 

[Susan's Slave]

This is certainly not the forum for talking politics or moralizing, but Custer (as always) makes some good points.

Personally, I feel we (the American people) have lost our sense of personal responsibility and (very strange to say here) our moral compass. It seems we are passing new laws every day so that our government can "protect" us. As Custer has pointed out we have a very large percentage of our population in jail and we are making it harder and harder for those that want to repent to make it once they are released.

At the same time we are giving away more and more of our "rights" and allowing the government greater authority and greater access to our homes, our children, and our ability to protect ourselves. George Orwell is beginning to look like he was just a little too early in his vision of the future. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't really matter, someone is going to come along soon and convince us that, for our protection, we need a king, or president for life, or a dictator.

My rant is over. Is anyone's wife out fucking someone else right now?