Plan B Forum

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:22 am**

Far more interesting than this Obama vs Romney stuff

The former French justice minister Rachida Dati had up to eight lovers, including Nicolas Sarkozy's brother, in the year she fell pregnant with her daughter, a lawyer for the alleged father has claimed.

Dominique Desseigne will use the fact that Ms Dati had several lovers as one argument to refuse to take a paternity test, Le Monde reported.

Mr Desseigne's lawyer "counted eight" lovers about the time she fell pregnant, including a television broadcaster, a minister, a Qatari attorney-general and a brother of the former president Mr Sarkozy, the newspaper reported.

Ms Dati, 46, a former minister in Mr Sarkozy's government and now an MEP, filed a paternity case in October to oblige Mr Desseigne, the chief of the Lucien Barriere casino and hotel group, to acknowledge he is the father of three-year-old Zohra.
Advertisement

A court hearing is scheduled in Versailles on Tuesday. There has been intense speculation as to who Zohra's father is. Mr Desseigne, 68, says he does not know who the father is, and refuses to co-operate with Ms Dati's demand for a paternity test.

"I won't give in on anything, because I have behaved correctly, and done nothing wrong," he told friends, according to Le Monde, which noted that he repeatedly referred to Miss Dati as "la dame" ("the lady").

Mr Desseigne's friends say Ms Dati "sent him threatening letters on several occasions", asking for money, and offered to stop legal proceedings in exchange for a negotiated settlement. Ms Dati's lawyer is expected to demonstrate the affection Mr Desseigne has shown her, including paying for her rented apartment at one point, and presenting witness statements showing he often came to visit Zohra.

Mr Desseigne's wife died in 2001 from injuries sustained in a plane crash six years earlier.

"He categorically told Rachida Dati he didn't want a child," an unnamed friend said. "That is why they broke up." Ms Dati's lawyer declined to comment on the claim she had several lovers in 2008.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:34 am**

Just another desseigneing woman!

Not to divert attention from this saucy but scrawny French poulette, but isn't "fell" pregnant such an endearing term? She "fell" pregnant. No idea - one minute walking along quite nicely and the next... whoops! I've fallen pregnant and how did that happen?

Too, it is an amazing thing to fall pregnant with one's daughter. Perhaps Dominique should insist on a maternity test. Perhaps this is par for genesis and he is not pa at all.

Meade

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:38 am**

Dominique Desseigne will use the fact that Ms Dati had several lovers as one argument to refuse to take a paternity test, Le Monde reported.

Uh, wouldn't the fact that the woman in question had multiple lovers at the time make the need for a paternity test more logical? I'm not following Dom's reasoning here....

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:27 am**

(a) The existence of eight lovers as candidates to be papa are not yet a proven fact but a claim made by Le Dom.

(2) I am sure he believes he is justified in refusing the paternity test because other alleged lovers are not named and are not being sued by his former huitheart.

(iii) it is totally against his interest to be proven the father.

IMO

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:57 am**

Well I don't know the mechanics of French law (God has been kind to me) but Dom should be required to take a paternity test, as should any of the other relevant time line paramours, (if such there be)

What should the central focus of this is the well being of the innocent party here, namely the child....

Not Rachida's, not Dom's, and not any of the rest of the baseball team's starting line up....

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:35 pm**

As Jim pointed out there is a disconnect in his logic. Plus If the man did not want children he should have got zee snip-snip or kept the pants in the upright and zipped position.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:08 pm**

In a civil case in the USA, could a man being sued for paternal support be compelled by the court to take a paternity test? Would that be self-incrimination? Maybe that only applies in criminal cases.

Dom should be required to take a paternity test, as should any of the other relevant time line paramours,

Well yes LJ that seems to be his thinking (or that of his legal team). All should be tested (if there are any and he's not simply lying) and absent that, none should be tested.

If the chap is a rat-bastard (which the surface appearance certainly indicates) I'm not sure why the lady is so keen on having him be an integral part of her daughter's life. One wonders why she waited three years. Are French government ministers (and members of the European Parliament) that hard up for a few bob?

Meade

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:31 pm**

I would think M Desseigne would want to take the paternity test to prove himself NOT the father, if that is what he truly believes. If he cannot be compelled by French law to take the test, then the paternity case would have to be proved by circumstantial evidence. It would seem that M Desseigne's legal strategy is to try to muddy the waters of the circumstantial case with the multiple-lovers theory. But even if it were true, it's not a very good justification for avoiding the paternity test; he is the only one being sued, so he either did it or didn't, and everything else is immaterial.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:If the chap is a rat-bastard (which the surface appearance certainly indicates) I'm not sure why the lady is so keen on having him be an integral part of her daughter's life. One wonders why she waited three years. Are French government ministers (and members of the European Parliament) that hard up for a few bob?

The story didn't say anything about Mlle Dati wanting M Desseigne to be an integral part of her daughter's life. She only wants an acknowledgemnt of paternity, presumably to make him pay child support, as far as I can gather. As for "waiting three years," is there some sort of time limit on paternal responsibility? Moreover, the story indicates that there apparently was not a problem until some time more recently, since M Desseigne allegedly was paying for Mlle Dati's apartment and often came to visit the daughter.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:23 pm**

Perhaps so. What would be the compulsory DNA position in your state in a civil case?

Surely, everyone suspects that he at least thinks he is the father. If he was secure in his own mind that he wasn't, he'd take the test, win and go home.

I see what you mean about the three years. But on the 'integral part' - if I were paying child support (as I once was) you can bet I'd be an integral part of my child's life. It kind of goes with the territory does it not?

Meade

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:25 pm**

Perhaps her delay was to see who the child favored so she would know
where to start?

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:49 pm**

Here's the naughty chappie ca. 1993-5 with his wife (who sadly died in 2001) and one of the stars of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" (a woman claiming to be his mother).

According to that suppository of wisdom the Daily Mail, French law does allow the man to refuse the paternity test. It also alleges that prior speculation as to the little girl's father "included a chief executive office, a Spanish prime minister and the heir to a luxury goods empire" in addition to those in the OP.

It has certainly been a blood sport in France, Germany and Spain

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm**

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Perhaps so. What would be the compulsory DNA position in your state in a civil case?

If a paternity claim is made in NJ, the county welfare agency or the family court (depending on where and how the claim arises) reviews the case and makes one of two recommendations: 1) that the claim be dismissed, or 2) that the purported father voluntarily acknowledge paternity. If either party rejects the recommendation, then:

". . . the county welfare agency shall require or the court shall order the child and the parties to submit to blood tests or genetic tests unless a party claims, and the county welfare agency or the court finds, good cause for not ordering the tests. The court may hear and decide motions to challenge a directive issued by the county welfare agency requiring a party to submit to blood or genetic tests. A genetic test shall be ordered upon the request of either party, if the request is supported by a sworn statement by the requesting party which alleges paternity and sets forth the facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the requisite sexual contact between the parties or denies paternity and sets forth the facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the nonexistence of sexual contact between the parties. If a party refuses to acknowledge paternity based upon the blood or genetic test results, the action shall be set for a hearing."

NJSA 9:17-48(d).

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I see what you mean about the three years. But on the 'integral part' - if I were paying child support (as I once was) you can bet I'd be an integral part of my child's life. It kind of goes with the territory does it not?

For you and me, maybe, but not for everyone -- including M Desseigne, apparently.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:02 pm**

Thank you!

edit: Wait! What do you mean "for you and me"???? I deny this and will fight extradition!

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:11 pm**

Interesting point re forced testing; I once heard of alawyer who was ordered by the court to undergo testing. He said he would, but refused to sign the consent form for the lab (which said he agreed to allow the lab to draw the blood and understood the risks). the court ordered him to sign but he refused and asserted he could not sign because he did not agree to allow the blood to be withdrawn--he said he would allow it as ordered, but wouuld not acknowledge any agreement. Not sure where it ended up.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:41 pm**

In Massachusetts the court may order a genetic marker test, refusal to submit to genetic marker testing is admissible and the court may draw an adverse inference against anyone who so refuses, any evidence that other unidentified men had sexual access to the mother is inadmissible, unless offered by the mother, and the court may view the mother, child, and putative father and take into account any observations regarding resemblance.

Mass. General Laws Chapter 209C, sections 16 and 17.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:59 pm**

What happened to "fairness," ladies?

If he was one of a series of casual copulatory partners, and he told the sperm receptacle that he DID NOT WANT children, and if - one can presume - artificial birth control is universally available in the libertine streets of France, then,

Why the fuck should he be compelled to pay anything at all? He lost the lottery?

She was in complete control of whether or not she conceived, or after having conceived, whether to give birth. In fact, she could easily have refused his advances and not fcuked him at all.

What's fair about that?

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:18 pm**

Fair? Wel if he didn't want children there were precautions available to him as well--he could have had a vasectomy, used a condom, or, to paraphrase you, not have had sex at all. when you make a choice you live with the consiequences.

but the point is this--it's not money fr the woman, it's for the child who had no say in the matter and deserves to be supported by its parents whether they wanted it or not.

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:39 pm**

But why should only one of the two people involved in the making of the child have total control over the consequences for both of them?

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:45 pm**

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Wait! What do you mean "for you and me"???? I deny this and will fight extradition!

You know the truth of it!!

Posted: **Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:21 pm**

What total control Andrew? He had the ability to take precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancy as well.

Plan B Forum

French Politics, a welcome diversion

French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion

Re: French Politics, a welcome diversion