A New Wrinkle In Paternity Fraud
Find a good guy, have sex with him, tell him you're pregnant, and keep out of sight. Robert Franklin blogs at GlennSacks.com about a woman named Carmen Johnsen who told her ex-boyfriend that he was the father of the child she was having. Being a responsible sort, he started forking over $700 a month to help Johnsen with medical expenses and so she could buy toys, clothes, and furniture for his child:
But then, five months and $3,500 later, he happened to see her in the flesh and, lo and behold, she didn't look pregnant. When he confronted her, she claimed she'd miscarried, a fact she apparently didn't deem worthy of mentioning to him.Unconvinced, he went to the police, but Johnsen produced hospital records that showed she had in fact been pregnant. But when police checked further and obtained their own records from the hospital, they determined that Johnsen's "records" were fakes.
...Backed against the wall, Johnsen played the abuse card, claiming that her ex was in some way abusive even though the two hadn't set eyes on each other in months. She attempted to get several restraining orders issued, but all were denied.
In the face of almost certain proof that she's been lying all along, Johnsen has changed her story yet again, claiming her ex had given her the money as a gift. Yeah, right. Let's see. The two broke up, he started paying her money only after she told him she was pregnant, she fabricated documents to 'prove' that she was, as soon as he learned she wasn't, he stopped paying and now she wants us to believe that he just gave her $3,500 out of the goodness of his heart. Please.
Carmen Johnsen is charged with forgery, perjury and theft. The boyfriend would like her to repay him the money she scammed. My guess is that she will. Somewhere somehow she'll find that money and repay him. That'll be called "restitution" and she'll make it rather than go to jail. That's my prediction. We'll see how it shakes out soon enough.
For years now I've been arguing for laws that require women to identify the father of any child they carry to term. If there's more than one possibility, both or all should be informed so that genetic testing can sort out the child's actual paternity. That's always seemed one of the simplest ways in which fathers can protect their parental rights. But now I'm forced to add a caveat; when the mother identifies the father, she needs to actually be pregnant.
Restitution should also be made in cases where the mother lies to a man and says children are his when they are not. Don't you think so? And if you're a man, and you want to be sure you're raising children that are actually yours, get a DNA test.
Behavioral ecologist Marlene Zuk says paternity fraud doesn't happen as often as people think. Well, perhaps not. But, it happens.
Maybe if enough of this happens, men will stop jumping into bed with a woman until they at least know whether she's the type who would try to scam them for an easy profit.
cpabroker at August 27, 2010 4:40 AM
My younger brother has had this happen twice recently. Girl tells him she is pregnant and they are positive it is his, and so is he. Asks for money then when he wants to go to the ultrasound they have all the sudden miscarried. He keeps sleeping with people and supposedly has a girlfriend in California.
I want to punch him. I can't believe how stupid he acts then when we girls try to explain to him what is going on he says he is certain that we are wrong. He has 4 older sisters and values these female's lies over our word. We his sisters who tell him the truth. There is no logic to it whatsoever. There is no convincing him or reasoning with him.
Worst part is he already has a daughter he doesn't often get to see. We have never been allowed to see her because her family doesn't want her to know anyone they don't. And we can't do anything about this stuff. Yes woman can be sleazy and cruel but they have a plentiful pool of stupid men to pick from. I never knew these woman existed really till I started seeing my brothers more. All 3 of them are ridiculously stupid in the woman they pick.
Josephinmo7 at August 27, 2010 5:33 AM
Cpabroker: "Maybe...men will stop jumping into bed with a woman until they...know she is one who would scam them."
I don't know about that. Con artists can be charming and endearing for months until they score, then, like a chameleon, change colors so fast a normal person would not recognize them.
How many times have you heard "He ( she ) is not the man ( woman ) I married." ?
Nick at August 27, 2010 5:36 AM
Before the standard array of woman bashers come along and vent their spleens, I'd like to share something that occurred to me recently.
All of these men who have been played, scammed, or otherwise harmed by women have one thing in common: they were married to (or dating) progressive/liberal women.
New dating strategy: on the first date (or possibly before it) ask her political self-identification. If she's not conservative or libertarian, don't bother.
brian at August 27, 2010 6:33 AM
@ Nick. Great point.
If she pays restitution all will be forgiven. That's sad. She is a flaming nutcase that will most likely try this scam again.
Is she good mother material? Lock this bitch up and throw away the key.
David M. at August 27, 2010 6:46 AM
I am not sure about that statement that paternity fraud doesn't happen all that often. I seem to recall a study of newborn infants that showed pretty consistently that 10-15 percent were not the biological child of the named father. That sounds like a lot to me... if true. Who knows. I do know that there are enough women who are not above pulling the maternity card that all men should be really careful about who they hook up with.
My BIL just married some woman who had two kids by her last husband even after the guy told her he didn't want ANY... let alone two. Apparently, after she "oops" him the second time he kicked her lying ass to the curb. She convinced my BIL to marry her after knowing her for less than 6 months... can't wait to see what plans she has for him in the years to come... we are already starting to see bad signs...
sheepmommy at August 27, 2010 6:52 AM
Con artists can be charming and endearing for months until they score, then, like a chameleon, change colors so fast a normal person would not recognize them.
How many times have you heard "He ( she ) is not the man ( woman ) I married." ?
Nick
_________________________
Exactly. Think of "Clark Rockefeller" or Henry Hill (as in "Goodfellas").
OK, so Karen wasn't unaware that Henry could be violent, per se, but he didn't show that many "signs" of being a gangster - granted, she was about 20 when they married, so she had to be a bit naive - until afterward. Plus, when young, he was just as handsome as Ray Liotta - and very charming and articulate. Scary.
And, in fairness, a bride who swears at 23 that she will never want children just might change her mind with a vengeance when she's 35.
When is Pro-Vas going to get more publicity? Or, more to the point, when are men going to start DEMANDING it? It annoys me to no end whenever the general subject of male birth control gets discussed (rarely) at Men's News Daily. The readers always start cackling and counting their chickens about how, when all men start using the new methods, the patriarchy will rise again - and yet they fail to notice that about 90% of the COLUMNISTS for the MND refuse to talk about it (or help fund-raise) at all! Especially the hothead columnists Marc Rudov and Bernard Chapin. My guess is they don't think men should have that responsibility for their own fertility; if a man says he doesn't want children, it's the woman's job only to make sure it doesn't happen. Sheesh. Of course, single men already use condoms, generally, and how many would be willing to use TWO male methods at once? No wonder Big Pharma doesn't see the industry as profitable.
lenona at August 27, 2010 7:22 AM
I just wanted to say that if paternity fraud is even as low as 1%, that still some 40,000+ men being defrauded.
It's absurd that with the ease of genetic testing, it isn't required for proof in those cases where the man clearly isn't in the woman's life.
flighty at August 27, 2010 7:58 AM
Wait why is no one cheering? She pulled all the feminist tricks and got bitch slapped by the justice system. 5 years ago he would have gotten corn holed. Not to sound like an optimist but I see this as good news.
"If she's not conservative" Ah hell no. That mean no nasty before you buy, Missionary only and the bitch won't go out and work after producing a litter. Libertarians and the more right leaning liberals are fun. Progressives scare the living shit out of me so absolute agreement there. Though it really depends on the definition of liberal and conservative. Progressive has NO ambiguity.
"When is Pro-Vas going to get more publicity?"
http://www.pro-vas.com/faqs.asp Look at Point 1,4 and 5. The effectivness is unknown, the reversibility is unknown and it takes up to three months to work.
vlad at August 27, 2010 8:10 AM
My friend's wife got pregnant and despite his suspicion that they had always used birth control, he made the announcement. We had a shower for her, gifts when the baby was born, gifts, gifts, and more gifts. The baby was almost 1 when he discovered a journal in the laundry basket that confessed her feelings for another man. A paternity test later she confessed that she really loved the other man, the real father of her baby. My friend gave her the boot, but it wasn't even the financial toll taken. The emotional toll was very hard for him to recover from.
Kristen at August 27, 2010 9:23 AM
heh, Vlad, I'm cheering...
as for the rest, if you are sure you don' want kids, you have to get snipped. There is no other way... except to swear off women altogether. There is a tiny chance that someone will pick your name from a phonebook, but if you are snipped at least you have some kind of [lack of] ammunition.
Now obviously that's the nuke option, and you may expect that hot 23 year old to leave you over it, married or no.
And Leona? The reason "big Pharma" isn't persuing this stuff, isn't to do with men not taking it. It's to do with it NOT WORKING. Shutting off a guy non-mechanically is not as straightforward as for a woman. We don't have a finite number of seeds dropped in small numbers. we make millions a day for a lot of our lives, and our bodies aren't designed to start and stop like a woman.
SwissArmyD at August 27, 2010 9:34 AM
Vlad wrote: She pulled all the feminist tricks and got bitch slapped by the justice system.
-----------
Please explain what 'feminist tricks' she pulled?
Ingrid at August 27, 2010 10:11 AM
"when the mother identifies the father, she needs to actually be pregnant"
BRILLIANT!!
I'd love to meet the mental giants who repeatedly fork over money to women they barely know and don't even bother meeting with face to face to discuss a plan for parenting the "baby".
Are you kidding me?
Marina at August 27, 2010 10:25 AM
Sheesh, and nowadays a guy can get a DNA test to determine almost beyond a doubt whether he's the father.
Or is that just too rude?
carol at August 27, 2010 10:28 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/a-new-wrinkle-i.html#comment-1747267">comment from MarinaI'd love to meet the mental giants who repeatedly fork over money to women they barely know and don't even bother meeting with face to face to discuss a plan for parenting the "baby".
Apparently, this was the guy's ex, and he worried more about doing the right thing by her and the supposed baby than about wondering whether the baby actually existed. Maybe he didn't want to see her, but wanted to do the right thing. Not a thing to attack the guy for.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2010 10:50 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/a-new-wrinkle-i.html#comment-1747268">comment from carolSheesh, and nowadays a guy can get a DNA test to determine almost beyond a doubt whether he's the father. Or is that just too rude?
Nobody needs to know except the man and the DNA lab worker.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2010 10:52 AM
"Please explain what 'feminist tricks' she pulled?"
"claiming that her ex was in some way abusive"
"produced hospital records that showed she had in fact been pregnant."
"She attempted to get several restraining orders issued"
"her ex-boyfriend that he was the father of the child she was having"
The term is tainted. It hasn't meant equality in over a decade. It has been turned into getting even with "the man" at any cost. No act is too evil so longs as men suffer, preferable white ones.
vlad at August 27, 2010 10:54 AM
Those aren't "feminist" tricks. Those are con artist tricks.
MonicaP at August 27, 2010 11:00 AM
The abusive and restraining order are classic feminist tactics particularly in cases of divorce. It's almost accepted as a legit legal tactic so she get the house, the kids and the alimony. It's now bordering on cliche. Feminist web sites scream that it's too hard to get a restraining order, or that even the accusation of abuse should be enough to lock a guy away.
vlad at August 27, 2010 11:10 AM
Amy, I'll grant that he wanted to do right by the baby and all that. But, not wanting to see her? How would he have any sort of relationship with his child for the next 18 years without seeing its mother? I'm thinking that if I were in his situation, I would at the very least have a sit down with her and figure out how to handle the logistics.
Marina at August 27, 2010 11:14 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/a-new-wrinkle-i.html#comment-1747279">comment from MarinaHello? Marina, you're making vast suppositions about the guy. Maybe he was out of town, maybe he was trying to see her and she was ducking him. He's the victim here.
Amy Alkon at August 27, 2010 11:21 AM
And, in fairness, a bride who swears at 23 that she will never want children just might change her mind with a vengeance when she's 35.
That's exactly what happened in my first marriage, only she changed her mind six years sooner than that.
Nobody needs to know except the man and the DNA lab worker.
Wouldn't the mother of the baby need to know as well? Testing the man's DNA doesn't tell you much unless you compare it with the baby's.
And on the subject of DNA tests, who pays for the test if a man disputes paternity? From what I've heard, those things aren't cheap. This is a question of some interest to me, as my stepson's girlfriend is pregnant and there's a possibility that he's not the father.
Rex Little at August 27, 2010 11:23 AM
"Apparently, this was the guy's ex, and he worried more about doing the right thing by her and the supposed baby than about wondering whether the baby actually existed. Maybe he didn't want to see her, but wanted to do the right thing. Not a thing to attack the guy for."
He sounds like a good guy, but I'm astonished that he wouldn't have thought this through a little further and at least asked for SOME proof that she was a) pregnant and b) the baby was his. It's like those little old ladies that give $20,000 to bogus contractors to "get their roof fixed." You can't attack them, but you can shake your head and wonder why anyone would be so gullible.
Shannon at August 27, 2010 11:25 AM
Vlad,
So what you are saying is that every time a female behaves contrary to how you believe she should behave, it is because of feminism? Or is it just whenever a female breaks the law that she is acting like a feminist?
Ingrid at August 27, 2010 11:34 AM
What Shannon said.
Marina at August 27, 2010 11:36 AM
"And on the subject of DNA tests, who pays for the test if a man disputes paternity?"
Whoever is most invested in finding out the real father of the baby should pay. If it was me, I'd pay in a heartbeat because I'd want to know the father of my child, and I'd consider it my *fault* if there were multiple candidates. But if the woman is trying to scam the guy then there's no chance she's going to offer to pay for a paternity test. In that case, the man accused should insist on getting a paternity test and paying for it. It's a whole helluva lot cheaper than 18 years of child support, and he should just consider it a cost of being sexually active (similar to getting regular STD testing, buying condoms/BC pills, etc).
Shannon at August 27, 2010 11:37 AM
Sorry MonicaP but when the feminist hieracrcy demands that restraining oreders be given upon asking and that the fact they were issued be taken as proof of abuse, it sadly has become a 'feminist' tactic
Lets play a word association game. What does the word 'skinhead' mean to you? Your first reaction upon hearing or seeing the word?
lujlp at August 27, 2010 11:52 AM
All of these men who have been played, scammed, or otherwise harmed by women have one thing in common: they were married to (or dating) progressive/liberal women.
Huh? Where was that in the story? None of the "progressive/liberal women" I know would stoop to that sort of thing. I suspect that the person who posted that comment just uses "progressive/liberal" as a label for any kind of bad behavior. Ya think?
Steve H at August 27, 2010 11:54 AM
lujlp wrote: when the feminist hieracrcy demands that restraining oreders be given upon asking and that the fact they were issued be taken as proof of abuse, it sadly has become a 'feminist' tactic
-----------
except that no restraining orders were issued
Ingrid at August 27, 2010 11:59 AM
"And on the subject of DNA tests, who pays for the test if a man disputes paternity?"
My friend paid the paternity test cost. While he was attached to the child, when he booted the wife, the paternity test was nothing compared to the years of support he wasn't paying now that paternity was established. My friend has money. The real baby daddy did not.
On another note, my brother had a paternity test done on his daughter because his wife became pregnant during a trial separation. They got back together because of her pregnancy and he wanted to be sure. The baby was his, he has peace of mind, and his wife never knew.
Kristen at August 27, 2010 12:38 PM
Shannon and Marina seem to forget that we live in a society that screams for the heads of "deadbeat dads" if they don't support their kids and the women they knocked up. Its called social pressures. Not saying the guy wasn't dumb to an extent but you can't ignore the shaming factors.
---------------
except that no restraining orders were issued
Posted by: Ingrid at August 27, 2010 11:59 AM
----------------
In this case anyway. Look up David Letterman's nightmare from a few years ago with a gal in New Mexico he'd never met. Courts hand out restraining orders like candy.
Sio at August 27, 2010 1:31 PM
Kristen, your friend and your brother have the right idea. I know I'd rather pay the price of a DNA test than be shelling our $700.00 a month on the word of someone I was no longer with and didn't even see.
Sheesh, I don't want to pick on the guy but how long would he have let this go on? I hope he realizes how lucky he was.
Pricklypear at August 27, 2010 1:59 PM
Well Shannon, having a DNA test doesn't always get you off the hook... sometimes the courts still will expect you to pay, and they sometimes thoriw you in jail if you don't. I'm sure Amy has a file of stories about that...
SwissArmyD at August 27, 2010 2:01 PM
Sio, I'd have to disagree with you about the court handing out restraining orders like they're candy. That hasn't been my experience. And while I'm sure there are gross cases of misjustice, I know that it was hard work getting a restraining order despite proof of abuse. It was even harder getting a satisfactory resolution in court. I'd detail my experience but its too long and tedious, but know that it was enough to make me never want to go back just due to the sheer frustration of the legal system.
Kristen at August 27, 2010 2:27 PM
While nothing excuses Carmen's behavior, there are many other factors involved. FIrst, David Bork (the ex and alleged victim) has a lengthy criminal history. She alleges that he was abusive and that was why she didn't want to have any contact. Second, all states offer a free paternity testing. No man is ever "made" to pay support. There are many other factors involved, such as it is well known that Carmen has had mental issue's and been under care for those for years.
bellacanucci at August 27, 2010 2:30 PM
"except that no restraining orders were issued" Not for lack of trying.
"She attempted to get several restraining orders issued, but all were denied."
That's why I see this case as progress, previously they would have been issued without hesitation and then used as proof of abuse.
"None of the "progressive/liberal women" I know" You never know until it happens. You have no idea what these people will do if their comfortable lives are threatened. Also liberal is a really skewed word (to a lesser extent progressive as well). Social liberal are pro choice pro gay rights etc. There the term comes from liberated from government. Political liberal (and progressives) are the spend crazy free shit for the indigent punish those who dare succeed. Since of course they all got there for screwing the poor.
vlad at August 27, 2010 2:37 PM
I looked at the blog and saw the guys name but it was in someone else's comment so I left it alone. I did look up the name David Bork and was amused to see it's the name of a family counseling professional as well as several doctors. Could all be the same guy, I guess. I didn't look very hard.
Pricklypear at August 27, 2010 2:52 PM
bellacanucci what planet are you from?
No one offers free paternity testing let alone the state, and people are forced thru threat of jail to pay child support all the time? Why else would they arrest and jail men for failure to pay child support?
lujlp at August 27, 2010 3:00 PM
Ingrid, it's true that Carmen did not get a restraining order, but not for lack of trying on her part. She bungled the job -- she didn't start with the abuse accusations until it was already clear that she had committed extortion. Had she made the accusations right after they separated, chances are her restraining orders would have sailed right through the system. Gender feminists regard abuse allegations and restraining orders as one of their main tools, and they are constantly fighting to make restraining orders easier to get, and to shame people who question any allegation of abuse, no matter how dubious. The fake hospital records, I will grant you, was just plain ol' forgery.
Vlad, I would be surprised if the guy actually ever gets any of his money back. She probably spent it all as fast as it came in. And yes, she'll probably skate with a plea on a misdemeanor charge and a little bit of community service. Anyone committing any other crime involving extortion and forgery would probably be looking at 2-5 years.
Cousin Dave at August 27, 2010 3:02 PM
Whoever is most invested in finding out the real father of the baby should pay.
What I'm really getting at is, if the mother names a particular man as the father and he disputes it, will the state assume he's the one (with all that implies in terms of child support) unless he pays for a test which proves he's not? Or will it tell the mother she has to get him tested if she wants to prove it's him?
(I'm not going to rely on any answer I get here; we're going to talk to a lawyer to get the definitive word.)
Rex Little at August 27, 2010 7:34 PM
Rex: From what little research I did, each state has its own rules. Some of the rules I thought were interesting such as if the man & women are married the man is presumed to be the legal father unless someone else claims to be the father or woman was married to some one else during any part of the pregnancy.
In general it looks like if all the possible parents don't agree on who the father is than it goes to court.
From what I have personally observed, emergency restraining orders are almost always granted - just fill out the sheet of paper. Temporary restraining orders are also very easy to get against a man - fill out the 2 page form - show up in court (or have your lawyer show up - or your free legal counsel from the domestic violence prevention program). Permanent restraining orders are more difficult.
The Former Banker at August 28, 2010 1:24 AM
vlad: About Pro-Vas: Point taken. Now, why aren't American men clamoring for those methods that have been around a bit longer and have a better reputation - namely, RISUG and the IVD? (Maybe because, unlike Indians or the Chinese, American men on average are neither poor nor threatened by one-child laws? Not a good enough reason, IMO.)
Oh, and strictly in terms of fraud regarding pregnancies that never EXISTED, 5 years ago or so, the law DID punish Violet Treviño of New Mexico. (There used to be videos on Youtube regarding her attempt to prove she had a kid by bringing a stranger's kidnapped(!) baby into court, but I can't find them anymore.) Granted, the law made life hell for the ex-husband, who, IIRC, knew from the start she wasn't pregnant and tried to prove it. But he still won.
SwissArmyD said: "The reason 'big Pharma' isn't persuing this stuff, isn't to do with men not taking it. It's to do with it NOT WORKING. Shutting off a guy non-mechanically is not as straightforward as for a woman. We don't have a finite number of seeds dropped in small numbers. we make millions a day for a lot of our lives, and our bodies aren't designed to start and stop like a woman."
Um, from what I remember, those are references to the male pill. That is, hormonal methods. Again, Pro-Vas, RISUG and the IVD are, in effect, reversible vasectomies. So why aren't men asking for them and/or demanding improvements in the designs? (There are pretty mixed reports of Western demands, but one thing's for certain - you DON'T see men in America going on national TV or the radio to ask for them. If I'm wrong, link, please?)
Rex Little: Just a reminder - while it may not give a man a definite negative, of course, a blood type test is a LOT cheaper than a DNA test. Maybe one can even find out the first two blood types for free. (As I remember, regarding paternity, the only possible answers with the former are "no" and "maybe." So one might need a follow-up test.)
lenona at August 28, 2010 7:34 AM
Leona, the problem with the mechanical methods is that in about 25% of cases, when the vas is blocked, the testicles shut down permanently. No one knows yet why this happens, but the fact remains that if you get one of those implants, you stand a one out of four chance of being rendered permanently sterile. So it's not much of an improvement over a standard vasectomy, and it's a lot more expensive.
Interesting point about the blood typing, and if you want it just for your own peace of mind, that might work (it depends on the blood types involved). However, if you want evidence that will stand up in court, you'll still need the DNA test. I know that courts around here no longer accept blood typing as evidence, given that DNA testing is available.
Cousin Dave at August 28, 2010 9:18 AM
Cousin Dave: Link, please? Preferably from one of those two main websites devoted to male contraceptives. (I have to run.)
lenona at August 28, 2010 12:48 PM
Leona, I can't find the exact thing that I mentioned earlier. It was something I read some time ago, and it appears that it was not quite correct as written. I was just reading this page from Johns Hopkins on vasectomy reversal. It appears that sperm production declines gradually over time after a vasectomy; after five years, the article says that the odds of a successful reversal (meaning that sperm are found in the ejaculate after the operation) is 86%, getting lower the longer the vasectomy is in place. It's not clear to me from reading the article exactly how and where the decline takes place, although it does mention that an autoimmune response develops in some men after a vasectomy. When the vas is blocked, the sperm produced has to go somewhere, and apparently oftentimes the vas wall blows out and a nodule develops at that point where the body attacks the leaking sperm. The article also mentions that the rate of successful pregnancy after a vasectomy reversal is only 60%, and it has a statement that the maximum possible success rate is probably around 67%. I'm not sure what accounts for the difference between these numbers and the 86% reversal success rate.
I was reading about the new IVDs -- one variety they mentioned is silicone plugs that can be easily inserted and later removed. The article I saw mentions that the rate of autoimmune response is much lower than for traditional vasectomy, although I'm not sure how this can be since the vas is blocked in either case. But I'm not a biologist; maybe there's something about it that I'm missing.
RISUG is interesting because it doesn't block the vas; instead, it lines it with a chemical that renders the sperm cells dysfunctional. Apparently, it's been shown to be highly reliable in trials in India. However, reversal is still experimental and has not yet been done successfully in humans, although it has been tested with good success in primates.
Cousin Dave at August 28, 2010 9:30 PM
Anytime a woman knowingly lies about paternity, she should go directly to jail and the child should automatically go to the father. If the father does not want the child, it should be put up for adoption.
This keeps going on despite being called out by Father's Rights organizations. When you start jailing people and taking their money this nonsense will stop.
Guys, don't be stupid. Any time a child is involved, even if it is your wife, ALWAYS get a paternity test. Buck up and pay for the test. These days, if you start being a parent to a child who is not yours you will be stuck. Always test.
That being said, automatic equal shared parenting with no child support should be the norm. This will drop the divorce rate and stop false paternity when these lousy women realize there are no automatic entitlements for divorce and for lying.
mike at August 29, 2010 12:46 PM
Well, it turns out that that criminal's name is VIOLA Treviño. That helps a lot (I found plenty on Youtube and Google). It seems her sentence was cut short, so if she isn't out already, she'll likely be out next year. (She finally got caught in Dec. 2004, when she kidnapped the stranger's baby to bring to court.) Her fraud victim, her ex-husband, is Steve Barreras.
In the meantime, why, again, are men not demanding improvements in male BC? Visibly, that is?
lenona at August 31, 2010 9:45 AM
Leave a comment