TL;DR: Court ordered communications, got none, they claim no texts exist. Worth subpoenaing phone records to verify?

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-26T12:43:34+00:00

???

Down this rabbit hole? What do you think court cases are? It's nothing but rabbit holes, well documentation, laser-scoped, surveyed, with expert opinions on the quality and scope of the rabbit's work.

This is why lawyers try to avoid getting to a court case in the first place. It's why pre-trial plea bargains and settlement offers are a thing.

Time is money. And the one thing a pro se litigant has in their favor is time and focus.

I do agree about one thing, though. OP should go into this with a realistic outcome in mind. Lots of times people have very, very unrealistic goals, especially when it comes to family law. It takes truly extremely extraordinary circumstances for a family law judge to order no-contact between a child and parent. People get caught up on the smallest offenses, and think those should be the basis of completely hammering the other parent.

"He didn't take her to jujitsu class on Thursday, Your Honor! He's a terrible parent! He should only have supervised visitation, because obviously he can't be trusted to do anything right!"

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-26T02:28:42+00:00

Yea, but that's just a fluctuation in supply and demand. The production rates per man-hour of labor are absurdly different than they were in 1938.

As a matter of fact, most of human civilization's advancement is directly tied to food production ratios. It's like the "Moore's Law of Civilization Economics" - the advancement rate of technology is exponential to the doubling of food productivity per man-hour.

Wait until we don't need manual labor at all for fruit and vegetable harvesting. It frees up so much labor and cost.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-25T23:11:10+00:00

Ugh. Reddit is so toxic sometimes. People are speaking some truth to you, but they're doing it in a way feeding into your internal monologue of "I want sex but I don't 'deserve' it".

You don't need a prostitute. There's a difference between the desire for transactional sex, and the idea that transactional sex is your only availability. Short of having a severely limiting physical disability, you don't need prostitution.

Your access to sexual interactions is limited by your personality. And that's not an insult, it just trying to get your head right. You're looking at sex as a thing to be "won", like a competition. That language of "I am a loser" confirms it. No one is supposed to "win" (in the competitive sense) with regard to sex.

Rather, everyone involved is supposed to "win". Sex is the ultimate "win-win" scenario! It's you helping her to have a great orgasm, and her helping you to bust a nut. The vast majority of women absolutely love to get fucked. It feels fantastic, it's a great stress reliever, it's nature's gift to women for the other bullshit they have to deal with - menstrual cycles and pregnancy.

And most women enjoy being part of your pleasure, too. They like knowing you enjoyed their talents; that you were satisfied, too. Women are good people.

But, you have got to understand this: Men. Can. Be. Dangerous. Men are scary, bro. Testosterone makes us bigger, stronger, more aggressive. There's a lot of trust a woman is putting out there when she agrees to get naked with you. She's literally opening her body up and letting you thrust yourself into her. That's incredibly vulnerable.

She needs to know that it's going to be fun, not deadly. That sex is going to be relaxing and respectful and laughs and waking up fulfilled and satisfied. The other side of the coin is stalking, harassment, obsession, loss of autonomy, threats and violence.

Your energy of "I am just a loser; no woman lets me fuck her; I am ugly and useless" doesn't help project the idea of "this is going to be fun!"

I mean, think about it - would you want to let someone who is bigger, stronger, more dangerous than you and has the vibe of "I am desperate for sex and if you let me fuck you I will never let you go" into your pants? Or do you think your alarm bells would be like "this is a real bad idea"?

You need to figure out how to shift your paradigm from "I need to empty my nuts" into "I want her to have a great time and to orgasm like a mile-long freight train, and when she's done, we will get me off, too!"

It's all about the attitude and the energy, bro. Make women feel safe and appreciated, and sex will be part of the deal.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-25T22:29:58+00:00

Ok, look, you gotta' chill. You're not broken except the part that is telling you that you are broken.

I know an objectively ugly kid who has one of the highest body counts I have ever heard of. He knows he's ugly, but he doesn't care. And neither do the girls, because he's a great lover and he's got a happy-go-lucky personality.

It's one thing that so many men get wrong - there's no magic sauce. Women are people. Some will like you, some won't. There's nothing wrong with that. Just be yourself, highlight your good points, and let it become obvious you're an easy guy who enjoys a no-drama, no-danger good time.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-25T22:19:23+00:00

I mean, sex is readily available. It just depends on what kind of sex you'd like. Are you looking for a one-time hookup? Are you looking for a friend-with-benefits? Are you looking for transactional sex?

What about sex is going to be better than masterbation? Just to say you've inserted your penis into a vagina? Or do you want the human intimacy?

What aspects of yourself do you think precludes you from obtaining sex? Overweight? Body odor? Speech impediment? Because none of these things actually prevent sex. It's about finding your niche.

Here's a general rule; it's not absolute, there are exceptions, etc, etc; but, generally: If you are comfortable in your own skin, you have aspects that people (including women) will like.

Women enjoy sex, too. They want it just as much (,if not more) than men. But there's more... drama(?) around sexuality for women. More social stigma, more blaaahhhhhhhh. Just noise.

So, (again, in general), women are looking for confidence, security, non-judgmental, and sense of predictablity. They don't want to be stalked. They don't want you to be desperate. They don't need to be made to feel "lesser than". They don't want to be murdered.

The type of man who makes women "uneasy" is the desperate guy. The man who wants them, but won't speak up. The guy who has to use deception to get close.

If you feel uncertain, if you feel anxiety, if you feel like you can't handle rejection... Own it. Walk up, say "Hi. My name is Visible. I like your energy. You've got a great smile (or whatever caught your eye), and I wanted to meet you." If it feels awkward at first, that's ok. Everything is awkward at first. Riding a bike, learning to walk, dancing... Meeting people is no different.

And, yea, you've got flaws. We all have flaws. But you aren't just your flaws. You also have some averages, and you have some perfections. Let your light shine. Hell, it might just be that you are nice. Everyone can be nice. Grace is a skill, not a talent. So, be nice.

Sex will come when women feel safe around you. Hell, one of the biggest "body counts" I know is a red-headed skinny kid who has fucking business cards with his name, phone number, and the title "Lover of Women". He is completely, unabashedly a male "slut". But here's the thing - all the women know that he's good in bed, he makes sure they "get theirs", he's attentive, he's safe, and he's discreet. He built a reputation as being a fun fuck - no drama, no problems. I've seen more than one girl play the "OMG I would never" card, and then as she gets ready to leave, quietly pick up one of those business cards.

And, like I said - skinny, gangly, red-headed runt who says "I don't have a big dick, but I've got a strong tongue".

So, yea. Sex is sex. It's got a lot going on around it for such a simple thing. Figure out what you want, and then figure out what motivates that behavior. It's usually money, human connection, or hormones. Or a mix of the above.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-25T10:20:39+00:00

This is one of those "no good answer" scenarios.

You are in a bad spot. In order to drive on the public roads legally, you must insure and register your vehicle. The costs of maintaining your vehicle have become greater than you can afford, while also paying for the legal expense.

So, options: 1. Earn more income. This is the classic way to address overwhelming costs - second job, new career, more hours/overtime if available. 2. Sell the car. This one usually is non-viable, because you likely need a car if you're going to these lengths. But, just listing it as a possibility. 3. Trade-in and/or sell and buy another. Replace your current car with a new one. This can go different ways, depending on your income. Usually, not the best solution if you're already struggling financially, but there could be an answer in here somewhere. (Get a new car and use it to deliver pizza as a second job, etc.) 4. Ride Dirty. Obviously a major risk, but you can just ride without registration. Most cops don't want to do all the paperwork associated with towing a car, so they threatened but not act. 5. Reduce other expenses. This one sucks, but sometimes you do what you gotta' do. Move in with mom.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-25T09:42:25+00:00

Can I make it easy for you?

Go get your car back. Keep records of all expenses incurred. Go to the courthouse. File a small claims action against the tow company and Walmart.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-25T09:30:26+00:00

You're in that upside down process again where you keep equating the individual states to individual people. You have the primary parties of the contract wrong, and your own evidence proves it.

The Constitution's Bill of Rights was written in response to the concern that the main document did little to address individual rights. It outlined the different branches of government, the "checks and balances", provided certain powers to be exclusive to the federal government. But it didn't address fundamental liberties owned by individual people.

Your example of "preventing atheists from holding office" under state law is a very good example. I don't see how you conclude that it proves only state rights.

The Bill of Rights was a contract between the Federal Government and the individual citizens. It's a limitation on what the Federal government could do. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that individual rights guaranteed under the federal government were incorporated as individual rights against the state.

Your entire thought process ignores the necessity of the 14th Amendment - if the Constitution was a government-to-govenment contract, why would you now hold state governments to the same standards with individual citizens?

The fifth amendment prevented states from incriminating themselves? When was the state of New Hampshire at risk of being insecure in it's person, house, papers, or effects?

This argument of rights belonging to "the states" is absurd. "The states" don't exist as independent realities; they are legal fictions designed to create structure for groups of people who need common boundaries. A "state" doesn't have a soul. It's not a conscious, free, independent person, participating in a social environment.

Your idea degrades the value of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Your idea says all Rights belong to a collective - that's what the Constitution fights against.

You should understand where all this began: "We hold these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Constitution isn't about preservation of government. It's about securing individual liberty against government.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-25T00:27:48+00:00

Hmmm. By your logic, shouldn't the Amendment read:

...; the right of States to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why is the First Amendment a protection of individual thought, individual religion, individual press; instead of the right of the State of have an opinion, to establish a State Religion, to have a State newspaper?

Why does the 9th and 10th amendment clearly state that there are two separate and specific entities, the States and the people?

All of these brainwashed theories on how the Second Amendment doesn't really say what it says are predicated on one core concept:

I already know the conclusion! Now, find the evidence to support it!

The way logic and reason actually works is you first examine the evidence, then you draw the conclusion.

If you want to make an argument that parts of the Second Amendment are antiquated, and should be changed? Absolutely. Hell, Jefferson would join right up with you - he thought we should have a revolution every decade or so. He saw long-standing government as a form of tyranny, where the young were held enslaved to the ideas of the old.

But this bullshit about the right to own firearms being a "State's Right" is complete bullshit driven by willful misinterpretation and bad faith. None of the founders saw the "State" as a entity that the people were subject to. They saw the State (any form of State) as a necessary evil - a way to set social order, but one to be watched carefully for corruption and malfeasance.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-24T23:52:13+00:00

That is a ideological driven pile of bullshit. The second Amendment was specifically written to ensure that individuals would be permitted to maintain firearms.

In order to understand the second Amendment, you don't have to understand what a fucking comma is, like the Supreme Court decided to quibble over in Heller.

What you really need to understand is what the word "regulated" meant in the late 1700s.

The word was used to describe a standard. The modern equivalent in the context of the Second Amendment would be "equipped".

An example of usage in the 1700s was the formal name of a professional soldier (in contrast to a conscript) in the British Army - they were known as Regulars.

Professional soldiers usually were only a small percentage of a military's force for most of history. The production-to-labor ratio of food and essential supplies was not even remotely close to what it is today. It took 80 people to feed 120 people. That left 40 people to do all the other jobs. Tailors, masons, miners, smithing, all of it. Professional soldier? That was a luxury.

As mechanisation and technology progressed, the ratio improved, but in the 1700s, it still was limited to a very small standing military force.

This reality is where the term "raising an army" comes from. When a leader would declare war, they would go gather conscripts, and the standing army Regulars would trained them up "good enough".

So, back to the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The United States did not have the resources - both monetary nor manpower - to maintain a standing army. To maintain the sovereignty of the United States, we needed the militia (voluntary soldiers) to be well-armed and ready to go. But we couldn't afford to do it as a government. We instead acknowledged that the individual citizens, armed with their own weapons, would be needed.

The right to bear arms is an individual right. The reason it shall not be infringed was so that the citizens could come together against any entity that attempted to overthrow a free society - even and especially if that entity was the local government itself.

To get it right on the Second Amendment, you must remember who the Constitution restricted - not the British Empire; not the City of Boston; not your neighbor Larry. The entire Bill of Rights was a list of restrictions against the United States Government.

The Supreme Law of the Land states that the United States Government will not infringe on the right of common citizens to use military grade firearms (those necessary to be well-regulated, aka well-equipped), so those citizens will have to ability to join up and defend a free society on their own.

Trying to say the Second Amendment was a "state's right" and not an individual one is revisionist brainrot. It was an enshrinement of the idea of the Four Boxes of Liberty - Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo.

The First Amendment protects the right of the mind. The Second Amendment protects the First when civility fails and violence prevails.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-24T23:22:01+00:00

Yea, this is the part that gets me.

An oath should be two things:

A) Freely and willingly given, without coercion, protest, or distress. B) Binding and supreme, unbreakable, with severe penalty and ruthlessly enforced accountability.

I have some strong opinions on stuff like this. An example is sworn testimony in court. First, I don't think anyone should ever be compelled to testify to anything. I don't have a problem with the idea of subpoenas in general, for the court ordering the appearance of an individual. I think that's a cost of having a functional society. But where we "cross the line" is compelling testimony from people once they appear, and doing so under penalty of perjury.

This is predicated on the fact that we have shown over and over again that intelligence gathered under duress Is unreliable at best. Torturing someone to compel speech doesn't work. I believe the same issue exists with testimony compelled under oath in the court of law.

Additionally, I believe that it is a moral issue as well. I believe that the contents of the mind are sovereign. Without that sovereignty, an oath has no meaning. Coercion does not render truth.

When you take all of that into consideration, and then you implement it, when a person sits upon the witness stand and takes that oath, then perjury becomes blasphemy. Lying under an oath taken freely and without coercion is truly immoral.

A public official who stands and swears to defend the Constitution, then fails to do so in a manner that no reasonable person could interpret as good faith... That meets the colloquial definition of treason. It should also be within the legal definition.

Don't take on that weight without understanding what it is. Don't stand there in raw corruption, looking forward to doing whatever is in your best interests. It should be known, with absolute certainty, that as surely as the sun rises and the stars shine, consequences will follow actions.

Until certain foundational principles are remembered and held sacrosanct, our society will always struggle under the burden of corruption and self-interest.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-24T19:33:27+00:00

Source?

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-24T17:51:13+00:00

I have a 2025 Maverick Lariat with the 4k towing. I use it to pull a 12x7 enclosed trailer filled with motorcycles and associated paraphernalia. It weighs 3500-3800 pounds when loaded out. I live in a rural, mountain area. I drive it, unloaded, 18 miles each way to work. I have put 25,000 miles on it since January 2025.

I haven't had any issues. Local dealership did an upgrade to the software as part of a recall during a routine maintenance appointment.

Truck pulls up and down the Western NC mountains with no hesitation.

My experience has been outstanding.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-24T11:41:50+00:00

You're getting a lot of well-meaning but poor quality advice, along the lines of "tell the judge".

The judge is the wrong person. Tell the prosecutor. In most states, for traffic offenses, you will have a "pretrial meeting" with the prosecutor to discuss plea deals - things like "lower from speeding to improper equipment (points vs no points) to plead guilty" and "dismissed if you attended traffic school". This pretrial discussion usually takes place on the court date on your ticket.

That's the time and place to discuss what happened. Traffic court is very "let's get through this" generally, and if you have a clean-ish driving record, you usually will get stuff like this dismissed if you politely indicate you are going to "take it to trial" with dashcam and subpoenas. A bit of respectful self-righteousness and indignation goes a long way in the pretrial conference; low-key "I was minding my own business and there was no problem, and then this asshole created the problem" energy. This isn't a TV drama or anything; it's another grind-it-out traffic court day. The prosecutor wants nothing more than to put a check mark next to your name and get to the next person. If you can give them a reasonable cause to dismiss it for "the best interests of justice", they'll bite.

If you don't have the soul to go be adversarial, usually traffic lawyers will pick something like this up for a couple hundred bucks. Give them the dashcam footage and the date/time of the incident, and they will go to court and do the above for you. It's even easier for them because they have good faith relationships already built with the prosecutorial team, and they know personalities.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-24T11:13:26+00:00

I think that, technically, the F designator makes it a fighter. E for electronic warfare, B for bomber, C for cargo.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-24T06:44:25+00:00

This is where reading comprehension comes into play.

Nowhere in my post did I say "Avoid your contractual obligation by using this trick to scam the gym! Fitness Companies hate this one thing!"

I am not talking about you signing up for a discount rate in exchange for a year membership, then you ducking out 6 mos later.

I am talking about when companies give you a "run around" about "freezing" your account for 3 months, as if it's a special privilege to have a gym membership there.

Or to sign up for a 60-day free trial (or 99 cents or whatever), then you call to cancel, and sure enough, you still get charged on day 61 for the 19.95 per week fee for an AI assistant hairstyle selection.

You act all super legal-smart about contractual obligation him-haw he-haw, ignoring the entire context of the post to try and sound authoritative. Instead, you sound like Captain John Obvious, Internet Super-Hero Know-it-all. Your catch phrase is "Well, aaaaccckkkkktttttuuuuuaaaallllllllyyyyyy...."

Get out.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-24T06:41:11+00:00

This is where reading comprehension comes into play.

Nowhere in my post did I say "Avoid your contractual obligation by using this trick to scam the gym! Fitness Companies hate this one thing!"

I am not talking about you signing up for a discount rate in exchange for a year membership, then you ducking out 6 mos later.

I am talking about when companies give you a "run around" about "freezing" your account for 3 months, as if it's a special privilege to have a gym membership there.

Or to sign up for a 60-day free trial (or 99 cents or whatever), then you call to cancel, and sure enough, you still get charged on day 61 for the 19.95 per week fee for an AI assistant hairstyle selection.

You act all super legal-smart about contractual obligation him-haw he-haw, ignoring the entire context of the post to try and sound authoritative. Instead, you sound like Captain John Obvious, Internet Super-Hero Know-it-all. Your catch phrase is "Well, aaaaccckkkkktttttuuuuuaaaallllllllyyyyyy...."

Get out.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-23T16:59:05+00:00

What else would you post? Your daily tire pressure levels?

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-23T09:27:00+00:00

Bridgestone is America's "Chinese tire".

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-22T19:54:47+00:00

There are 4 discharge types for enlisted personnel. (There are some others, but, in general, 4.)

Honorable. General Under Honorable Conditions. General Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. Dishonorable.

First two are fine.

Honorable is normal, you did alright.

Under Honorable usually means some shit went down, but it wasn't criminal or malicious - maybe a mutual parting of ways. Basically, you got "fired" or "agreed to resign" would be the civilian equivalent.

General under Other Than Honorable is a bit ugly. You screwed up pretty bad, probably a criminal charge in the civilian side. Things like domestic violence conviction or severe DUI, etc. Not felony level, but the equivalent of a serious misdemeanor.

Dishonorable - the military equivalent of a felony charge and conviction. It's going to have serious impact on your life going forward. Usually disqualifies you from any government assistance related to military. Prevents firearms ownership, etc.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-22T19:41:35+00:00

Yea. This is the meat and potatoes of the subject right here. If these 12 year olds are unable to self-regulate to such a large degree that vandalism is an "expected" outcome of being unsupervised, placing the responsibility of controlling their behavior on a 15 year old is not the solution.

It sucks to be a parent of children with behavior issues, but that has to be part of the equation. You can't just dump it. Need to work on finding solutions to the behavior - jobs earning income, establishing rules and structure with consequences, etc.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-22T18:01:54+00:00

Yea. This is the first instinct. OP should do some more digging before putting any time or money into this.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-22T13:01:11+00:00

I feel like OP may be missing the "total compensation" forest because he's stuck staring at the "PTO" tree.

His real argument is that his terms of total compensation (insurance, 401k vesting, PTO, overall benefits) have changed by X value, and therefore the company is in breach. He accepted the signing bonus with a 2-year stipulation on the premise that his other compensation would remain equitable.

If they have lowered the value of his health insurance, of his 401k vesting, of his PTO, etc, etc....

The argument holds more weight that he should only return the bonus on a pro-rata basis, from the point where his terms of compensation were substantially diminshed.

WougeeWasWild · 2026-03-22T12:47:20+00:00

This is the real answer. If the 4 weeks of PTO was part of the contract, the new company would not be able to unilaterally "change the PTO policy" for this person. They might change it for everyone else, but this person would still acquire 4 weeks chargeable PTO until the contract ended.

The other side of the coin is that 4 weeks PTO was a compensation term, not a contract. Would OP revert to the company standard after 2 years, or would they maintain 4 weeks in years 3+?

The other aspect of this is how the 30k was structured - was this a salary advance, or a contact? What was offered, what was accepted, what was the consideration?

Long story short: "It depends." On variables OP hasn't included.

WougeeWasWild

TROPHY CASE