View Single Post
Old January 16, 2020, 08:31 PM   #9
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 13,922
mehavey, we already know that she claims to have a child in common with the officer. That document only confirms that she made the claim, it doesn't explain how or why she doesn't think making the claim was perjury. I suspect that you and I pretty much agree what "have a child in common" means. Apparently the woman has another view, which so far she has declined to explain.

If you read the definitions on page 2 of the law, they imply the customarily-accepted view that having a child in common means both parties are the parents:

Quote:
(b)
PERSON WHO HAS A CHILD IN COMMON WITH THE RESPONDENT,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN MARRIED TO THE
RESPONDENT OR HAS LIVED TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONDENT AT ANY TIME;
Since it's unlikely that the mother bore the deceased son as a result of a relationship with Corporal Morris 21 years ago, it follows that she has come up with her own creative idea of what "have a child in common" means. I was speculating (as I am wont to do) on what I think her [alleged] reasoning might be.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02924 seconds with 8 queries