Man sued for having affair with another man's wife, has to pay money - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15303949
Those on the Progressive Left have been misusing the civil court system to make perpetrators have to pay large amounts of money for alleged "wrongs", even though the court system was never clearly designed to do that. It's basically been a backdoor way of enforcing new progressive policies without actually having to pass new laws.

Well, now it looks like conservatives are figuring out ways to fight back with the same dirty tactic.

I notice that many on the Progressive Left seem to have a hard time understanding or caring about principles, all they care about is the end outcome. If they don't like something, they don't care what sort of tactics are used, or what the legal reasoning is, so long as it results in the desired outcome in that specific case.
What they don't realize is the absurd and highly questionable types of lawsuits that the Left has normalized can also end up being used to push policies they don't like.

I know many progressives will never admit how ridiculous the weaponization of lawsuits has become unless it is used to push an agenda in opposition to their own.


Man sues other man for money in court for having affair with his wife


link to YouTube video
Jilted husband sues wife's lover for millions 23 ABC News | KERO

transcript from video (in case video later stops working)

Jilted husband is getting a multi-million dollar payday, from a man he says ruined his marriage. Keith King sued his wife's lover, after a dramatic confrontation, and won.
ABC's Diane Macedo has that story.
[video shows the wife's lover using physical force to hold the husband away from the door, away from his wife who is standing inside]
husband: 'Why are you taking my wife?!'
wife: 'Guys, come... take...'
husband: 'Why are you taking my wife from me?!'
It's a final plea from a desperate husband.
husband: 'Steenie, you're picking him over me?'
This video shows BMX Stunt Show owner Keith King fighting for his wife, Danielle. The man holding him in the doorway, is Francisco Huizar, his wife's lover.
[video shows husband trying to talk to his wife, Huizar holding him back]
Huizar: 'Stop trying to enter!'
You can hear Danielle in the background as she films the whole ordeal.
wife: 'I don't want this. I don't want it to be like this.' (she says whimpering, discontent with the situation)
husband: 'Steenie, why did you lie to me?!'
Now in an unusual court case, the judge is ordering Huizar to pay more than eight and a half million dollars for the affair.
husband: 'Francisco, she's my wife, man.'
husband (now in separate interview) : 'I felt like we were the perfect pair, we were a team.'
Kind said he found out about the betrayal in 2015, after seeing phone records to a number he didn't recognize. He decided to confront Huizar directly.
'So when he answered, I simply said 'She is a married woman, do not contact her ever again.'
Instead Huizar rented a motel room less than a mile from King's home, and the affair continued.
That's when King filed a civil complaint against Huizar, citing an obscure law: Alienation of affection. The law requires that (1) you and your spouse had a happy marriage, (2) the love and affection between you and your spouse was destroyed, and that (3) the defendant and their wrongful or malicious actions were the reason the marriage was destroyed.
King gathered text messages, Facebook posts, phone records, and hotel receipts, aiming to prove Huizar's actions drove a wedge between him and his wife.
legal expert: 'The difficulty is proving that first element, that the plaintiff and his (his or her) spouse actually did have a happy marriage, when this affair happened.'
The Alienation of affection law exists in six states, including North Carolina, where King made his claim. (map also shows Mississippi, Hawaii, Utah, New Mexico, South Dakota)
husband: 'What I've endured, I'd compare it to a nuclear bomb going on around my surroundings.'

from another article:

"I called him from her phone and I said, 'She's a married woman, leave her alone. Don't you ever contact her again,'" King told Inside Edition.

He says the affair continued for months in secret. Then last year, she moved out of their home. Soon after, he went to her new apartment and was shocked to find the lover there.

"She's my wife man -- she's my wife!" King says in footage of the confrontation.
"I felt like I just witnessed her die," he said of confronting her lover.

Danielle claims King was a control freak who made her dye her hair blonde and work without pay, but he calls her claims "100 percent false."

King says he considers the $8.8 million dollar award to be a hollow victory because he'd give anything to have his old life back. "There isn't a dollar amount that you can put on it for what I think my family's worth," he said.

Jilted Husband Sues Wife's Lover for Nearly $9 Million - and Wins - in 'Alienation of Affection' Case, Inside Edition, July 30, 2018

Here's another story:

Greensville, North Carolina -
A man just won a big payout against the man he says wooed his wife and broke up their marriage.
Under the "Alienation of Affection" law, Kevin Howard was able to sue the man his wife had an affair with.

"He came to my house and ate dinner with my children, and I and her. We shared stories we talked about personal lives," Howard said.

Although he says it did not heal his heart, Howard walked away with $750,000.

"I filed this case because I believe it's very important that people understand that sanctity of marriage is important. Especially in this day and age when people question everyone's morals, people questions everyone's liability of a person and the state-backed me up on it," Howard told WITN.

The Alienation of Affection law is from the 1800s, following an English law that dates back to 1745.
The law exists in five other states.

Man wins $750K lawsuit against wife's lover, ABC 7 News October 3, 2019
#15303965
In civil cases, damages are the remedy that a party requests the court award in order to try to make the injured party whole. Typically damage awards are in the form of monetary compensation to the harmed party. Damages are imposed if the court finds that a party breached a duty under contract or violated some right. The sum of money included in the damages can be compensatory damages that are calculated based on the harmed party’s actual loses, or punitive damages intended to punish the wrongdoer. The term "actual damages" is synonymous with compensatory damages and excludes punitive damages.


I took this from the Cornell University site. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/damages ... me%20right.

Law exists to establish order in the land. A man can sue his wife's lover because the lover offended his honor. He could also sue his wife if he wanted. As I quoted above, damages are repaid by a monetary sum. Or would you rather the man be repaid with camels or sheep? Yeah...we don't do that in the US or in many countries in the world. Not everyone has livestock to give away like that.
#15303971
MistyTiger wrote:"In civil cases, damages are the remedy that a party requests the court award in order to try to make the injured party whole. Typically damage awards are in the form of monetary compensation to the harmed party. Damages are imposed if the court finds that a party breached a duty under contract or violated some right."

The obvious issue is how "damages" are defined. Obviously we are talking about supposed "damages" that do not have an obvious monetary equivalent. Where no real actual physical damages exist, in the way people normally and ordinarily understand physical damages.

Saying "It's the law because it says you can sue for damages" is disingenuous.

Well I'll tell you one thing, I find the idea of a man suing another man because he stole his wife away from him less crazy than a woman trying to get money for an alleged sexual violation.

Or even discrimination lawsuits, where the money a person wasn't able to earn because they didn't get the job is viewed as a "damage", that you think the person deserves to be 100 percent compensated for.

Or those lawsuits over a business being unwilling to sell someone something, even though that person could have just as easily bought it from some other business.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 10 Feb 2024 17:40, edited 2 times in total.
#15304027
This is another example of how someone can be legally PUNISHED for having consensual sex!

Another example of that here:
Police officer jailed for misconduct (13 Dec 2022)
(original title of the thread: "Police officer jailed for consensual sex")


You can also read the story in post #4 in this thread:
The issue of sexual consent for elderly with impaired mental functioning (26 Jan 2024 in Morals & Ethics section)

In that case I suspect some of the additional factors that went into why they chose to find the woman guilty was she was a married woman having an affair, the age difference (41 years old and 30 years old), and the fact that it was an interracial relationship.
(Of course the legal excuse to justify the punishment was that he was mentally disabled)
#15304030
Puffer Fish wrote:This is another example of how someone can be legally PUNISHED for having consensual sex!

Another example of that here:
Police officer jailed for misconduct (13 Dec 2022)
(original title of the thread: "Police officer jailed for consensual sex")


That person was not punished for having sex.
#15304100
Puffer Fish wrote:On the contrary, he was very much punished for having sex, within that context, in that particular situation.

You wouldn't try to argue he would have been punished if he had not had sex, would you?


No, he was punished for abusing his position as a cop.

Your own evidence contradicts your statement.
#15304105
In this story too, the man was punished for having sex, sex that led the wife away from her husband.

Yes, there is what the law literally says, and then there is how things actually work.

Imagine if a man launched an "alienation" lawsuit against a gay man who was just a friend of his wife, claiming that the gay friend led to the breakup of the marriage because he did some activities with her and told her her husband was not a good match for her.
Such a lawsuit would be totally absurd, and there's no chance the husband would get any money.

It comes down to the sex.
#15304121
Pants-of-dog wrote:I can also accuse you of playing word games.

More importantly, you are ignoring the fact that he was not charged with sexual assault.

You're being ridiculous. My claim was he was punished for what was consensual sex.
The fact everyone agrees it was not sexual assault has nothing to do with anything.
Now you seem to be making the presumption that a person can only be legally punished for sex if it is considered sexual assault.
That completely ignores the whole point I have been trying to make, which is that some situations do exist where individuals can be punished for consensual sex. And no, I am not talking about cases where some think it is sexual assault. I am talking about cases where everyone agrees it was not sexual assault.
#15304122
Puffer Fish wrote:You're being ridiculous. My claim was he was punished for what was consensual sex.
The fact everyone agrees it was not sexual assault has nothing to do with anything.
Now you seem to be making the presumption that a person can only be legally punished for sex if it is considered sexual assault.
That completely ignores the whole point I have been trying to make, which is that some situations do exist where individuals can be punished for consensual sex. And no, I am not talking about cases where some think it is sexual assault. I am talking about cases where everyone agrees it was not sexual assault.


Again, he was not charged with a crime for having sex.

He was punished for abusing a position of authority and trust.
#15304123
Pants-of-dog wrote:I can also accuse you of playing word games.

There is a logical error called an "equivocation fallacy".
You seem to be doing the total turnaround of that. What I might call an "anti-equivocation" fallacy, where you refuse to see two things as equivalent.

He had sex with a woman, in a particular situation, and that was viewed as "misconduct", so he was punished.

What you seem to be attempting to argue is that he was punished for misconduct, therefore he was not punished for sex.

Tell me what the "misconduct" consisted of, what the "misconduct" actually was.

Let me clarify that I never meant to claim that all consensual sex or consensual sex in general can be legally punished, but just that there do exist situations where consensual sex can be legally punished.

In some situations that sex might be viewed as "misconduct". In other situations "spousal alienation".
Yet another example is many states have laws that make it a criminal offense to knowingly expose someone to a sexually transmitted disease. So that is yet another way consensual sex could potentially be criminalised.
#15304143
Pants-of-dog wrote:By manipulating an emotionally traumatized woman in his care.

By manipulating her to do what? To have sex with him, of course!

Are you seriously going to tell me that you think he would have been punished for misconduct if he had not had sex with her?

Having sex with her is the entire centerpiece, the "steak and potatoes" of this issue.

If you have sex -- and we're talking about consensual sex -- and that sex ends up causing some sort of emotional damage, and society views that as a situation you really should not have had sex in, you can be prosecuted!
#15304151
Puffer Fish wrote:The obvious issue is how "damages" are defined. Obviously we are talking about supposed "damages" that do not have an obvious monetary equivalent. Where no real actual physical damages exist, in the way people normally and ordinarily understand physical damages.

Saying "It's the law because it says you can sue for damages" is disingenuous.

Well I'll tell you one thing, I find the idea of a man suing another man because he stole his wife away from him less crazy than a woman trying to get money for an alleged sexual violation.

Or even discrimination lawsuits, where the money a person wasn't able to earn because they didn't get the job is viewed as a "damage", that you think the person deserves to be 100 percent compensated for.

Or those lawsuits over a business being unwilling to sell someone something, even though that person could have just as easily bought it from some other business.


If you want to understand about damages, why don't you study American law? I did. After just one class, I had a good understanding of what constituted a damage. If you just read about damage from urban dictionary or some right wing conservative site, you'll have some weird conception that a damage is some arbitrary concept when it's fact it's not arbitrary, it's based on fact - based on a contract or a legal understanding or code like how a marriage is a sacred and legal compact and a woman/man should be faithful to the spouse and should honor them and respect them.

Why did a man have to steal another man's wife? There are more women out there. Why couldn't that stupid man find some single woman? That's not right. A wife should not let herself be stolen away either so she's in the wrong as well.
#15304154
MistyTiger wrote:If you just read about damage from urban dictionary or some right wing conservative site, you'll have some weird conception that a damage is some arbitrary concept when it's fact it's not arbitrary, it's based on fact - based on a contract or a legal understanding or code like how a marriage is a sacred and legal compact and a woman/man should be faithful to the spouse

It is arbitrary! Surely you can see that.

Oh, certainly it is based on some "understanding", but that understanding is not some obvious common law one which most everyone in society agrees on.

There are "obvious" damages, like if I defraud you of money, damage your car, or even cause you injury putting you into the hospital and out of work. No one disagrees with that.
But we're talking about other types of supposed "damages".

Most of which were never specifically voted and agreed upon in law. (But also some that actually have been)

Care: 73 Fairness: 77 Liberty: 83 In-group: 70 Pur[…]

Left vs right, masculine vs feminine

You just do not understand what politics is. Poli[…]

Are you aware that the only difference between yo[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'm just free flowing thought here: I'm trying t[…]