₦airaland Forum

FortuneTeller:
Google does not have all the information. I live in the US and one of these cases hit the news every year. I know one man in this situation. If you are married when the child is conceived, the court views you as the father. The ones who normally get out of this scenario, do so when the woman identifies another man as the father through the birth certificate or a request for child support from the other man. If this does not happen, the court views the husband as the father regardless of DNA. He will pay child support for a child that is not his.

My dear, those people you know are also mumu. In many states in that same USA, infidelity is criminal. If the judge can force you to pay child support because the child was born during marriage and you have DNA evidence to the contrary, you have a prima facie evidence for infidelity. In okhlahoma....Not only do adulterers face fines of up to $500 but also incarceration for up to five years. GOOGLE THE PENALTIES AGAINST ADULTERY. By the time the woman faces up to five years in jail she will drop tbe child support. Get a good lawyer. Even if you dont pursue the criminal case of infidelity against her, you can take up another civil case for breach of trust against her and sue for damages and recover the useless child support. If you are troublesome and ready to pursue your case, no judge, i mean no judge will ask you to pay child support for a child not yours and if they do, they provide you with evidence to pursue a criminal case or another civil case against the cheating wife

delishpot:
I said in some cases. Abeg go back and read my past posts. People said once it's confirmed that a child does not belong to a man He is not expected to pay and I said in some cases he is made to pay. Tell me where I was wrong again? Plus go online and see some other cases abound under different circumstances. So there is. Possibility and we can not decide online what may or may not be. He should get a lawyer and get the best advice for the case at hand

the bottomline....if it is established the child is not his....that is paternity by deception. If the case is well pursued, no judge will ask you to support a child not yours.

delishpot:
https://www.google.rs/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4117362/amp/Oklahoma-man-forced-pay-child-support-s-kid-didn-t-girlfriend-cheating-time.html
Thomas did not think his wife was cheating on him when she became pregnant
He asked for a DNA test when the child turned three which proved he wasn't the father
Oklahoma law says someone must ask for a paternity test within two years or be forced to pay child support
An Oklahoma man is being forced to pay child support for another man's child because he ordered a paternity test too late.

Thomas, who did not give his last name, asked for a paternity test for his three year old son when his marriage fell apart.


I want to believe this ops man is abroad and I did not say he will definitely be forced to pay. I clearly said in some instances he may be forced to pay. So it's not impossible.
Plus alimony is not judged by cheating, unless they had a prenup she still could get half of his property depending g on their marriage and things that happened while they were married.

you are using a single case that is subject of petitions to the state lawmakers to change the law. Even the judge earlier ruled that he cant pay child support...but he later changed it saying tbe laws says he must have challenged within 2yrs but the guy is saying he had no reason to be suspicious. And mind you...this is only okhlahoma and this is the only known case in the whole world and that useless law will be changed. Note...assuming tbe guy discovered it earlier than 2yrs you wont pay too. So the bottomline is this....you are not supposed to pay child support for a child not yours but in oklahoma if you dont discover early you may till you chsllenge the decision to supreme court

delishpot:
Simple research on Google na! Let me help you half way, type can a 'man be forced to pay child support for a baby that is not his' and you will get some feedback.

statistic which some may find surprising, a full third of all children born in the United States each year are born to unmarried parents. Historically, the only way to definitively prove paternity was for the mother of the child to file a paternity suit, however more recently, the laws have changed to allow either parent to file a paternity suit to establish the father-child relationship. Depending on the results of the DNA test, the child’s birth certificate will be changed to reflect—or remove—the name of the father. If paternity is definitely established, child support will be ordered by the state.


The Legalities of Fatherhood



THIS is what the research on Google brought. Study it well....once paternity is established using DNA, they remove the name of the fathet from the birth certificate and the man is absolved from child support. So brother...nobody can force you to pay child support for a child not yours if you pursue the case

delishpot:
If the child had known him as father, if he has given the child his name, if he has signed to be the child's father, he may be forced to pay child support. Law takes the child into consideration in some cases.



Sexual frustration or cheating can happen to males and females. Just like men also cheat esp if the wife's job takes her outside 5he home for extended periods of time and people would say sex is important in marriage, so does a wife also need her husband to have sex with her too. So yes, the temptation may come. You don't blame a cheating man when his wife is a workaholic and is always not around why then do you think the woman should be abandoned in a cold bed and the man feigning he doesn't know she misses sex too?

bullshit. So he was deceived into believing the child is his. He was given a bastard as a child and you are saying he xan be forced to pay child support. Just tell me how?

Slow pace of work......rain rain rain

Random pix

Randomn pictures

kopell:
Helpee. Coincidentally its seems you're more active in politics section than properties section.

lol. You know buhari is on sabbatical so we all have to be up and doing

Elcuba:
Lmao oga deji.. inflating figures you said. So Diezani stole some money but not 90 billion..

*in davido's voice.. 90 billion for the account o*

same way buhari stole from PTF.....definately not 90 billion too

ShobayoEmma:
This is not Goodluck era. nobody give a Bleep about you. Enjoy your loot untill the real messaih comes.
Happy birthday to me.

Bros, you deserve more than insult on your birthday. But please, if 90 billion dollars was recovered from that woman and buhari cannot point to a single project done with it....and you are here wishing yourself a birthday, you do yourself a disservice. you are supposed to wish yourself HAPPY SENSE DAY. You need sense my brother

kopell:
I beg how far is this your land from that high tension cable above? I just the fear radiation of those cable ni o.

quite a long distance. I think the camera brought it close. It is a completely free land with c of o already under processing. Tnks for the observation. Apart from radiation, it is generally not safe traversing the law as it relates to proximity of residential plots to high tension cable

kopell:
Welcome back oh DOCTOR /BUILDING ENGINEER. I no blame you jare, you prove them wrong before. So will it be again, hoya go let go. But wait 7 flats of 2 bedrooms, how many floors? if na 2 to 3 floors please get professionals because of all the technicality. You may be in charge of all your purchases, but for building codes and others technical know how. In my opinion you will need those guys .

tnks bro. I am only managing the site. I will leave the technicalities to professional engineers and I will update them here as work is progressing. I will not cut cost to compromise quality only to eliminate waste

mufutau55:
Welcome back... with your past experience and how well you did on that; you will surely do better in this project. Good luck and we shall be lurking around to monitor the progress. But keep in mind, prices of materials are not same as before anymore o; ridiculously high now. Peace!

Hajji M.

this big boss. With the little materials bought already, I am learning the hard way that everything is on the high side. But we have no option. We will wether the storm in sha Allah

This is my own calculations using adulwastex idea..
1)SETTING OUT...25K

2)Digging......total perimeter 260.1
Depth 2 inches (600m)
Rate..250naira/m
260.1×250= 60025

3) foundation strip ( 4 inches x 18)
Volume of concrete 0.1×0.45×260= 11.7mm3
I put my own rate at 3500 naira/mm3= 40950

4) block SETTING
260.1×0.6×10= 1560 blocks
At 50 naira per block= 78000

5) filling of foundation= 25000

6) German floor
DPC=75mm= 0.75×195= 14.625
At 3500/mm= 14.625× 3500= 51100

7) casting of 33 short pillars at 500= 16000
Soaked @ 40k per pair × 2= 80k.

Total ( without SETTING of soakaway and it's plastering) = 379, 975.


The above calculations actually meant nothing to me but the bricklayet thought an engineer gave me the breakdown. I just followed how adulwastex did his analysis and used it to manipulate my own. Na so the builder just dey look me. I will post the plan soon

The bricklayet gave me his bill as stated below for the ist stage..
Setting out_ 50k
Digging- 110k
Blinding- 135k
Setting of block- 250k
Casting of short pillars- 35k
Gérman floor- 150k
Filling of foundation- 40k
Digging of soakway- 150k
Setting and plastering soakaway- 110k
Total- 1030000

I laughed in Chinese and came to look for adulwastex analysis....hope I got his moniker right. I used his analysis to create my own bill and told the bricklayet that was my final answer. I will post how I did my own calculations now

I bought half ton of 16mm, half ton of 12mm, 20 dozens of 10mm ring, two loads of stonedust, one sharp sand, one granite, one dull/plaster and 1000 blocks of 9 inches block on site even before pegging.

Earlier pix

Back to site. I have this plot in a well developed area of alimoso. I want to build 7 flats of 2 bedroom each. A build to let project. I want to build on my previous experience in self supervision. Everything is set for foundation. I already built a 3 bedroom BQ on the property. Some family members are living there so I have a 24hr policing on site. I am buying all materials myself. I have professionals too but I am the site manager. Wish me happy building experience

seunmsg:
Legally, the state executive council stands dissolved and the commissioners remained sacked. If he wants some of them back in office, he should present their names to the state house of assembly and get them confirmed again. Telling them to go back to office without clearance from the state assembly is illegal and unconstitutional.

dont worry. They will keep acting till magu is confirmed. Hypocrite

ExInferis:
It really saddens me to see how glaringly stupid you're. You're so full of crap you're painfully incoherent.

Magu's issue is a legal gray area, hence the meeting between osinbajo and some SANs.


GEJ's apparent complicity in the malabu scam is one that beggars questions and probes.

The past US presidents you mention as having scandals have not broken any laws.

Nixon, who for a long while obfuscated his complicity in the watergate break-in was guilty of questionable conduct unbecoming of his office, and was thus to be impeached before he resigned. His accomplices, the ones who sanctioned the break-in, were jailed.

Reagan had iran contra, questionable yes, but no US law was broken.

Bush had nothing illegal, nor clinton besides the perjury case, Bush Jr had nothing besides bankrupting America in foolhardy wars authorized by capitol hill, obama had nothing, so far Trump is under investigation for possible collusion with Russia and probable obstruction of justice.

So what do you have? Know of any past US president who broke the law, was supposed to be summoned to senate, but wasn't?

I've given you examples where presidents from Ford to Clinton were deposed under oath. But you've given me nothing besises the vacuity of your ill-informed opinions.

As for my post you quoted, i was basically referring to assholes such as your humble self, who delusionally believe the current crop of leaders would want to restructure nigeria and give up their profligate lifestyle.

Where the context eludes you is in this: the lawlessness and incompetence of saraki and co is not synonymous with the sanctity of the law.

If saraki breaks the law or acts in a manner that questions hia powers, it does not mean the same senate he leads cannot invoke valid portions of the law to investigate GEJ and crew.

Get that point into your thick useless skull, you demented halfwit.

Your entire worldview is predicated upon a few US tv shows and a flimsy grasp of world affairs, yet that somehow validates your misinformation in the wedge-shaped core of darkness that constitutes your feeble, pathetic, ignorant life.

You're less than the yellow pus of a squished zit. Now go hug your scabrous mother for comfort. Because your miseducation is leaking.

Ignorant jackass.

lol. You are such an slowpoke. You are the one that decides which law Senate evoked that is valid and which one is not valid. Coincidentally all the laws they invoked against your Apc led govt is invalid while all the ones against the former regime is valid. Professor of law....you are insane

ExInferis:
There it is!

The gross exhibit of your metal incapacity hewned by the bigotry of your background.

You keep braying like a constipated donkey about former US presidents. Tell me what scandal trailed one that would warrant a summon, and where the US congress/senate waived it off on account of "respect".

You can't provide any instance. Instead, being a bush boy, you keep carping on about it.

From your very first comment i suspected you were an utter fool.

But i indulged you thinking perhaps you were just naive.

Thank you for removing all doubts and confirming my suspicions.

Now fukk off, you dolt.

Go read a book or two and learn something, you stupid clod.

i just have a little time for a slowpoke today. So the same saraki led Senate that you never believed could lay a golden egg for restructuring nigeria because they insisted on magu sack is the same you are now hailing as the law because they summoned a past president. When they said the executive should remove magu, they are lawless but when they summoned former president it is the law. Confirmed you are stupid. And for your information, there is no past American president that don't have enough scandals following their presidency to warrant a summon. Just that you are stupid not to know is nobody's fault. Afterall, you are a only a rabbid fool. Idiot

ExInferis:
You've betrayed your ignorance by your statement:

"Bill Clinton was not an ex president that time. He was a president facing impeachment proceedings."

A sitting president facing impeachment charges because he supposedly denigrated the office of the President and was guilty of perjury.

A sitting president was made to face the law.

And you're here spouting nonsense about an ex-president.

In any sane society no one is above the law. Whether ex-president or sitring president, you contravene the law and you face its wrath, respect or not.

If Obama or any past president has any case, congress will summon him in his capacity as a private citizen.

That's how a sane society functions.

But you're too clouded by your stupidity to see that.

I don't discuss with fools. I was asking you normal questions like a gentleman. Most of you guys on nairaland have empty brains. Once you see somebody calls you out, you resort to insult. I asked you, have you ever seen any former American president faced a committe following a summon before . Capital no. Sitting presidents face congress at different times so it is nothing. They face congress to defend budgets etc . And if you are to be impeached, it is left for you to honour invitation wether you like it or not. If the Senate decide to say Buhari must come out and face them today to prove he is medically fit or get impeached, the cabal will organise a kangaroo show. It is different from summoning else president. And next time don't argue with me again if you know you have no other sense that to start throwing insults. Baboon

ExInferis:
Bill Clinton-- Deposition in the Jones and Lewinsky cases, after an independent counsel was setup by congress. It might not be technically a summon but it is essentially the same.

His wife deposed in the Whitewater case.

US presidents tend to be more professional and courteous in their dealings because they obey the law. And that's why they hardly have scandals to warrant summons.

Also, i find it laughable anytime someone uses the US as an example to counter every debate about Nigeria.

You think the US is the shining beacon of democracy or rule of law?

Please take a trip to scandinavian countries.

It'd also be helpful if you point out sections of the constitution that prohibits a past president from being summoned, or where it spells out that former HoS are no longer citizens, or have perpetual immunity from the laws of the land.

you have said nothing. Bill Clinton was not an ex president that time. He was a president facing impeachment proceedings. Just name a single former president of America that has been summoned by a house committee before? The office of the president is the highest office. Ex president are respected out of courtesy. It has nothing to do with being above the law like you were insinuating. And my trip to Scandinavian countries will tell me exactly what?

ExInferis:
And herein is evidence that Nigeria is led and peopled by idiots equally.

What else can explain the fallacious mindset that a former president cannot be invited to a panel of inquiry in the nation's congress?

You idiots assume the mentality of the rogues and defend them on the basis of some primitive tribal considerations, and later you all complain about being broke, jobless, and hopeless.

Doesn't matter who in the past was summoned or not, who appeared or not.

The law supersedes everyone and everything.

Unless we accept that fact, we'll forever be lawless and backward.

And you'll forever remain lingering here incessantly arguing about trivial things while your commonwealth is hauled off in the background.

Fools.

Even in America, can you tell us how many ex president has been summoned by a Senate committe? Just name it and give us link to the summon

Oblang:
The senate can only refuse to confirm but cannot sack someone appointed in acting capacity...

That is only applicable if they are yet to send his name for confirmation. This is abuse of our constitution. The constitution envisaged that some people chosen to act in some sensitive post by the executive may not be in the best interest of all that is the essence of confirmation. You can't be rejected for a substantive position and now claim to exercise same powers only in acting capacity. You yourself knows this is an aberration but i wonder when nigeria will ever be ok if we all see that this is not right but based on our partisan stand we close a blind eye. If the executive can keep people perpetually in position without confirmation by the Senate the essence of checks and balance is defeated we will never grow as a nation

It is sagay himself that is confused. The Senate can't decide for executive who to nominate for a position but the executive too can't decide for the Senate who to confirm and as long as you are not confirmed as an EFCC chair, you can't hold on to the office illegally. The law envisaged a situation whereby the president may eventually nominate his wife as EFCC chair for vendetta and personal reasons so it created a check and balance via confirmation with the Senate which are representatives of the people. Once the Senate says no, it means no. If you are not happy with your senator decision you can recall him but whatever he does in his capacity today as your senator is legal and must be respected. So it is partisan sagay that is a comedian

yarimo:
Please get it right, senate can't disqualify a candidate and can't order any arm of government to sack or suspend any one as long as Nigeria constitution is concern.

i cant believe anybody will keep arguing with you. From your first response I knew i was dealing with somebody that can't apply knowledge so i passed. But you kept saying the same thing that somebody re- nominated somebody so it means the Senate don't have powers. If these are the kind of youths supporting govt in power we are in trouble cos they will be acting like zombies without ability to apply the knowledge. So if you fail exam that will qualify you as a doctor for example, can you start practising as a doctor? No. You may write the exam more than 3 times and fail but as long as you are yet to pass you can't practise. Meanwhile the fact that you didn't pass doesn't mean you were disqualified or sent away from school but you can't practise till you pass. If the exam body finally says you are not trainable and they wont allow you to write exams again, can your parent say since they are the one paying school fees you shouldn't mind them but just go ahead and open a hospital? So those ones whose names were submitted a second time were finally confirmed after repeat exams and that's what makes it legal. The executive can send names as many times to senate for confirmation but until the person is confirmed if he acts in that capacity then it is illegal. So even if the Senate can't disqualify magu, magu can't act as the EFCC chair until he is confirmed so he can wait till he is confirmed before parading himself. Till then he can't be EFCC chair. This is simple common sense. You dont need to be a lawyer to know that. I know you won't still understand from your responses so far. That was why i didnt bother arguing with you when I said i thought I was discussing with an educated fellow

yarimo:
in your mind abi? The senate can only reject but not disqualify, kaduna state house of assembly members rejected a nominee 3 times and the governor re nominated him again and they later confirm him because they lack the powers to disqualify candidates . Read the constitution and understand it before commenting in a public forum

I even thought I was discussing with an educated person.

yarimo:
just post the section that gives the senate the power to disqualify candidates or order any arm of government to sack any individual constitutionally ?

what is this one saying? The constitution gave them power to screen and confirm presidential nominee. Any nominee not approved by the Senate is automatically disqualified so since the Senate rejected the nomination of magu, he is automatically disqualified

authority2006:
In Pakistan, he will stoned to death.
In Iran, he will be stoned to death.
In America, he's likely to lose everything that gives him joy because the media will hunt him down.
Now, why the question that you asked?

in Pakistan they can rape you to death in the name of honour killing for refusing to marry a suitor self. An Afghan MP even confessed to raping a minor. They said once he agrees to marry her , no problem. He is still a member of MP. In America, the nude pictures of the wife of the president is all over the internet. Infact, the present FLOTUS is a former stripper...i mean prostitute. The opposition tried to use it against trump but today he is the president with the same former prostitute.

adedayoa2:
that is what people fail to understand, I wonder how they reason. This man is 74, he's not too young to die tho.

the way you reason is what I dont understand. He is 74 so he is not too young to die. Yes I agree with you. What you need to tell us is....at 74, is he too young to resign since he is obviously incapacitated?