- Jul 12, 2020
- 14,407
- 35,635
- 997
well..he is...better...but being better when the bar was so low in the first place...
Still worth playing, though you may start to end up skipping Frank's epic monologues.
- Thread starter Crazygamer43
- Start date
Still worth playing, though you may start to end up skipping Frank's epic monologues.
He treated woman with respect did not want to sleep with his step daughters. He jumped at the opertunity to sleep with a client.
Many think these are bad things I think it just means he us not a predator
BoosterGold74
Member
- May 22, 2020
- 131
- 335
- 208
While I agree with most of his actions, he was a complete and utter wimp when it came to his cheating ex. He knew that even her own children hated her so there really was never any reason to "protect" them during the divorce. He should have called her out for her cheating in court. Apart from that I think the rest of his characterization is that of a normal man, not the jerk alpha and not the total wimp/simp that so many of these games put at a protag.
- Jul 12, 2020
- 14,407
- 35,635
- 997
Most folk on F95 I would assume are pretty young. There is a big differnce between between being a wimp and just being passive.
Protecting the girls? Takes the bigger man (much bigger) to keep quiet, not blow up and call her all the names under the sun. That in itself is part of the reason the girls like him so much....he is not darr dumm big ass alpha male...which many here I feel think they are, but really aren't....and need to actually find a woman to be in a relatrionship with instead of pretending they know what adult life is like and actually being a man.
There's a reason there are so many idiot dumb as fuck 18yo protags in VN's...because most are probably written by the same demographic
BoosterGold74
Member
- May 22, 2020
- 131
- 335
- 208
- Jul 12, 2020
- 14,407
- 35,635
- 997
I think he means sceaming and shouting and/or calling your soon to be ex out in court.
Something judging from your prior post, you seem to know little about
BoosterGold74
Member
- May 22, 2020
- 131
- 335
- 208
I would not suggest name calling or any kind of retaliation other than what was needed in court to get away from her. The girls weren't even at the proceedings so there was absolutely no reason to not tell the court that infidelity on her part was the reason for the divorce. I've known friends that have gone through this and you are not the bigger man for sitting on the truth while she throws out lies.Most folk on F95 I would assume are pretty young. There is a big differnce between between being a wimp and just being passive.
Protecting the girls? Takes the bigger man (much bigger) to keep quiet, not blow up and call her all the names under the sun. That in itself is part of the reason the girls like him so much....he is not darr dumm big ass alpha male...which many here I feel think they are, but really aren't....and need to actually find a woman to be in a relatrionship with instead of pretending they know what adult life is like and actually being a man.
There's a reason there are so many idiot dumb as fuck 18yo protags in VN's...because most are probably written by the same demographic
- Jul 12, 2020
- 14,407
- 35,635
- 997
That's what you have a legal representative for.
Anyone saying anythimg different is either an idiot, thinks he a big man, or never experienced it. Saying anything in court other than when you are directly asked to by a judge...is pretty dumb, whether it's the truth or not, especially in a divorce court where tempers are already (usually) naturally frayed.
MrLKX
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2021
- 1,761
- 2,866
- 397
And at the risk of being wrong, I'm pretty sure the judge was more or less aware of the situation, that Shannon's infidelity was the reason for the divorce. I don't have any experience with the matter, but I think that some filings and preliminary discussions were held in advance so that the judge could get an idea in advance and not go into the situation completely unprepared. We only see how the end of the divorce plays out, but it won't have happened overnight.
I did some research and found the following. It refers to British Columbia, but it's better than nothing:
2. adultery
A divorce for adultery has more hurdles than a separation. The difficult part is that you have to prove that the adultery occurred. While the court will not force you to identify the person involved with your spouse, you must base your allegations on clear factors that the court can substantiate.
The best way to obtain a divorce decree based on adultery claims is for your spouse to admit it in a sworn statement. Other methods, such as investigating for discovery and appearing in court, require a thorough consultation with your family law attorney before seeking a divorce decree on these grounds.
Pursuing a divorce on the grounds of adultery also requires that both parties swear that there was no collusion. In addition, the adultery must have taken place without the consent of the second spouse. The court will not consider the duration of the affair as long as there is reliable evidence of adultery.
Typically, courts will grant a divorce on the grounds of adultery if the affair involves an extramarital sexual relationship. Keep in mind that the BC Supreme Court does not allow extramarital sex in open marriages as a legal basis for divorce.
And here's probably the part that Shannon and her lawyer were trying to get at:
Mental or physical cruelty
Toxic marriages involving mental and physical cruelty are not tolerable in BC. The court will allow you to get out of these relationships by divorcing on the grounds of abuse. A divorce on grounds of cruelty will only be granted if the extent of the abuse makes continued cohabitation intolerable.
However, the courts will require you to provide any evidence that proves instances of cruelty. The court also requires that all cruelty claims be subjectively interpreted and free of inconsistencies. If you have enough evidence to prove physical or mental cruelty, the courts will likely grant you a divorce decree.
The BC Supreme Court and the family law system were set up to ensure no-fault divorce. As such, shallow allegations of cruelty and adultery are dismissed. The courts favor no-fault divorces as they are less emotionally charged and controversial and are ideal for maintaining co-parenting relationships.
My conclusion:
1. Shannon either didn't find a good lawyer or found one who is trying to get as much money out of her as possible, as the judge suspects. It's also pretty obvious that Shannon didn't prepare well, I found that within a few minutes as a non-Canadian.
2. yes, the judge did tend to rule pro-Frank, but as she herself says everything within the scope of her possibilities, whereby Shannon, if we look at point 1, made it very easy for her.
I did some research and found the following. It refers to British Columbia, but it's better than nothing:
2. adultery
A divorce for adultery has more hurdles than a separation. The difficult part is that you have to prove that the adultery occurred. While the court will not force you to identify the person involved with your spouse, you must base your allegations on clear factors that the court can substantiate.
The best way to obtain a divorce decree based on adultery claims is for your spouse to admit it in a sworn statement. Other methods, such as investigating for discovery and appearing in court, require a thorough consultation with your family law attorney before seeking a divorce decree on these grounds.
Pursuing a divorce on the grounds of adultery also requires that both parties swear that there was no collusion. In addition, the adultery must have taken place without the consent of the second spouse. The court will not consider the duration of the affair as long as there is reliable evidence of adultery.
Typically, courts will grant a divorce on the grounds of adultery if the affair involves an extramarital sexual relationship. Keep in mind that the BC Supreme Court does not allow extramarital sex in open marriages as a legal basis for divorce.
And here's probably the part that Shannon and her lawyer were trying to get at:
Mental or physical cruelty
Toxic marriages involving mental and physical cruelty are not tolerable in BC. The court will allow you to get out of these relationships by divorcing on the grounds of abuse. A divorce on grounds of cruelty will only be granted if the extent of the abuse makes continued cohabitation intolerable.
However, the courts will require you to provide any evidence that proves instances of cruelty. The court also requires that all cruelty claims be subjectively interpreted and free of inconsistencies. If you have enough evidence to prove physical or mental cruelty, the courts will likely grant you a divorce decree.
The BC Supreme Court and the family law system were set up to ensure no-fault divorce. As such, shallow allegations of cruelty and adultery are dismissed. The courts favor no-fault divorces as they are less emotionally charged and controversial and are ideal for maintaining co-parenting relationships.
My conclusion:
1. Shannon either didn't find a good lawyer or found one who is trying to get as much money out of her as possible, as the judge suspects. It's also pretty obvious that Shannon didn't prepare well, I found that within a few minutes as a non-Canadian.
2. yes, the judge did tend to rule pro-Frank, but as she herself says everything within the scope of her possibilities, whereby Shannon, if we look at point 1, made it very easy for her.
Cartageno
Devoted Member
- Dec 1, 2019
- 8,920
- 15,057
- 876
This may vary widely by where you are. Here (Germany) infidelity may cause somebody to want a divorce and show a "Zerrüttung" (loosely "disruption") of a marriage, but there is no decision on guilt or similar anymore, and there doesn't have to be a reason for the "disruption" in the first place.
Granted, the BC example above is more relevant to this game, but laws are different on this.
And I very thoroughly second the statement that - when in court, whatever court - you keep your mouth shut unless being asked a direct question and let your lawyer handle the stuff. They also will tell you before what you should and should not say.
Edit to add: you also will not get a lot of chances to make extensive statements. The court is almost exclusively interested in facts. So you may get in - after being questioned - that you think she betrayed you and maybe tell why you think that is. That is two sentences max.
Last edited:
BoosterGold74
Member
- May 22, 2020
- 131
- 335
- 208
Sounds like courts really do vary around the world. But it still has little bearing on the fact that he wasn't protecting the girls from anything by not bringing it up during the proceedings (him or his lawyer, who was not referenced at any time). Not bringing it up would normally hurt him in a U.S. court where women hold most of the power in divorce proceedings even when there is a prenup.
I hesitate to engage in this debate, but though he may not have had to, or needed to, protect them from legal issues, proceedings or claims there is the much more simple angle of just trying to do his best to shield them from the drama that is generally ever present in any acrimonious split. The jury may be out on whether he succeeded in that endeavour but he tried. Think about those divorces in real life where the custody of children is involved and how often both sides use the kids as a weapon to hurt the other party. He didn't want to be that sort of divorcee parent I think. There is such a thing as magnanimity after all.
Last edited:
- Jul 12, 2020
- 14,407
- 35,635
- 997
Not according to some
Basically, hold your head high and have some class and show your kids at least one of your parents has some decorum.
Last edited:
MrLKX
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2021
- 1,761
- 2,866
- 397
I think the following things will have played a very relevant role in the divorce:
1. Shannon's poor preparation (both herself and her lawyer), such as false accusations of I believe domestic violence and assault against the girls without evidence (such as statements from the daughters)
2. Shannon's daughters who testified AGAINST their mother in advance with the judge. The judge will also have had a pretty good instinct that Becca and Lilly would not be persuaded by the stepfather to make false statements.
3. Frank's hunch to sign over the apartment to Abby. Kudos at this point.
4. that Shannon earns significantly more than Frank.
And I think the fact that Frank also referred to Becca and Lilly as his daughters must have impressed the judge. Although I'm not sure whether it came up during the situation or only in the follow-up conversation that Becca and Lilly are also his daughters. I remember her mentioning it to him afterwards and I'm pretty sure she (the judge) was impressed.
The fact that Frank never mentions a lawyer during the divorce itself I would interpret as him not having a lawyer because he didn't have the money for it at that point (unlike Shannon).
But who knows, maybe the judge just had an aversion to non-professional actors who you get the feeling are from reality TV (Shannon and her show).
1. Shannon's poor preparation (both herself and her lawyer), such as false accusations of I believe domestic violence and assault against the girls without evidence (such as statements from the daughters)
2. Shannon's daughters who testified AGAINST their mother in advance with the judge. The judge will also have had a pretty good instinct that Becca and Lilly would not be persuaded by the stepfather to make false statements.
3. Frank's hunch to sign over the apartment to Abby. Kudos at this point.
4. that Shannon earns significantly more than Frank.
And I think the fact that Frank also referred to Becca and Lilly as his daughters must have impressed the judge. Although I'm not sure whether it came up during the situation or only in the follow-up conversation that Becca and Lilly are also his daughters. I remember her mentioning it to him afterwards and I'm pretty sure she (the judge) was impressed.
The fact that Frank never mentions a lawyer during the divorce itself I would interpret as him not having a lawyer because he didn't have the money for it at that point (unlike Shannon).
But who knows, maybe the judge just had an aversion to non-professional actors who you get the feeling are from reality TV (Shannon and her show).
rudy007
Engaged Member
- Mar 17, 2021
- 2,647
- 7,418
- 637
I'm not sure what strategy has Shannon's lawyer suggested; hear the judge out and then bring your A game in crying? She was guilty... She was too passive in the beginning. Her lawyer didn't prepare her at all. And that lawyer is famous for being no bullshit one. All in all, bad.
But I was laughing after MC thought "and that's where I get screwed..."
Last edited:
If Frank didn't at least let the lawyer know what he saw, then he was an idiot; your lawyer can't protect you if he doesn't know what's going on. Unless your attorney has a record of claiming he couldn't give you effective council because you told him you were guilty, so he couldn't put you on the stand. (There was a story in the US TV show from the 1980s or 1990s, Picket Fences). Anyway, as someone noted, it may have been alluded to (or come out somehow) in such a way that the judge might not be able to take absolute official notice, but may still have factored it into things.
We also don't know just how long the divorce took (as best I can recall). Not sure just how long Lilly and Abby have been over 18. If things started before, and there was a chance Shannon might have had gotten custody of Abby, even just for a short while, then trying to make things as calm as possible might actually have been warranted. Weird things can happen....
We also don't know just how long the divorce took (as best I can recall). Not sure just how long Lilly and Abby have been over 18. If things started before, and there was a chance Shannon might have had gotten custody of Abby, even just for a short while, then trying to make things as calm as possible might actually have been warranted. Weird things can happen....
Even those of us who don't find Frank's mental progress frustrating would admit that he's likely to err on the side of caution. Shannon has acted as her mother for over a decade. Even assuming she never adopted Abby, Shannon could (and probably did) make up some lies that might make leaving her in Frank's care seem like a bad idea.