Fake is you and your Cantonese chicken mother that open leg big big gave birth no teach raised bastard you Jeremy Quek of SUPERFUTUREKIDS,TINITECH CO & SKINNYFATKIDS WORLDWIDE
hide in rat hole smearing Gansiokbin hokkien virgin as chicken
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Woman : 'Can I fake my virginity?"
- Thread starter gsbslut
- Start date
hide in rat hole smearing Gansiokbin hokkien virgin as chicken
@ginfreely the serial liar and cheat.
She fake marriage to cheat angbao from guests. She fake virginity to cheat more angmoh on top of her blowjob fees.
This is understandable since she's a shameless whore. If I see her in kinjokar, I will cut off her cheebye, take a photo and post here. Let everyone see this dirty whore.
She fake marriage to cheat angbao from guests. She fake virginity to cheat more angmoh on top of her blowjob fees.
This is understandable since she's a shameless whore. If I see her in kinjokar, I will cut off her cheebye, take a photo and post here. Let everyone see this dirty whore.
@ginfreely fake virgin, kan phua chao cheebye
@ginfreely must cut off her stinky cheebye and seal up the hole to be virgin.
machiam so innocent. unbelievable. rofl
I will use torchlight and a knife to find her hole or make a new hole.
This is your typical example of "using a lie to cover another lie".
The first lie was the claim of annulment on the grounds of non-consummation of marriage. However, who would believe that you had been married for years and your marriage was not consummated, right?
To make her lie appear more believable, she decided to add limbs to the snake. Now she could justify that the non-consummation was a result of the husband not being able to find the hole. However, this time round the second lie appeared more ridiculous than the first lie.
Then a member of this forum innocently asked her the legal reason for non-consummation, as the Women's Charter made it abundantly clear that the non-consummation must either satisfy the condition of "one party's willful refusal" or "one party's incapacity".
She knew she couldn't justify her non-consummation on the basis of one party's willful refusal as the second lie about the then husband failing to find the whole encompassed an admission about both parties actively seeking to consummate the marriage - an admission that would contradict the notion of willful refusal. It came to a point where the only justification was "one party's incapacity" and in this case it would have to be her own incapacity because the elusive hole that evaded the then husband was in her body.
Surprisingly, instead of justifying the non-consummation on the basis of her incapacity, she claimed she could not remember the details and pushed everything to the lawyer. It has to be emphasized that the role of divorce lawyer is not to verify the hymen of the client. You would have thought that if it was the elusive hole that turned away the then husband and precipitated the breakdown of the marriage, she would remember it for life. But no, she could not remember on what legal basis she claimed the marriage was not consummated. That is to say, her incapacity was not the basis of the non-consummation.
There was also the fear that if she had proclaimed that the elusive hole was the culprit, the Court would have called for some medical evidence, as simply swearing to die a violent death adds nothing whatsoever to the truth. And if the Court had already called for evidence, believed the claim of non-consummation and proceeded to issue a decree of annulment, then the Cantonese dogs in this forum would be barking for more evidence.
The one thing that she has been getting it right all this while is this - she knows adducing evidence is her death knell. First, she relied on annulment of marriage as the basis of her virginity; then annulment on non-consummation; then non-consummation on the elusive hole ... but finally she found herself in a cul de sac. She realized she had nowhere else to defer the production of evidence, and this is why she invented her "swear to die a violent death" stunt.
I must admit, she has been using it to great effect, constantly baiting the Cantonese dogs to bite and perpetually postpone the production of evidence to infinity.
You may ask : "Why is she not afraid of dying a violent death?"
The answer is simple - 死猪不怕开水烫
The first lie was the claim of annulment on the grounds of non-consummation of marriage. However, who would believe that you had been married for years and your marriage was not consummated, right?
To make her lie appear more believable, she decided to add limbs to the snake. Now she could justify that the non-consummation was a result of the husband not being able to find the hole. However, this time round the second lie appeared more ridiculous than the first lie.
Then a member of this forum innocently asked her the legal reason for non-consummation, as the Women's Charter made it abundantly clear that the non-consummation must either satisfy the condition of "one party's willful refusal" or "one party's incapacity".
She knew she couldn't justify her non-consummation on the basis of one party's willful refusal as the second lie about the then husband failing to find the whole encompassed an admission about both parties actively seeking to consummate the marriage - an admission that would contradict the notion of willful refusal. It came to a point where the only justification was "one party's incapacity" and in this case it would have to be her own incapacity because the elusive hole that evaded the then husband was in her body.
Surprisingly, instead of justifying the non-consummation on the basis of her incapacity, she claimed she could not remember the details and pushed everything to the lawyer. It has to be emphasized that the role of divorce lawyer is not to verify the hymen of the client. You would have thought that if it was the elusive hole that turned away the then husband and precipitated the breakdown of the marriage, she would remember it for life. But no, she could not remember on what legal basis she claimed the marriage was not consummated. That is to say, her incapacity was not the basis of the non-consummation.
There was also the fear that if she had proclaimed that the elusive hole was the culprit, the Court would have called for some medical evidence, as simply swearing to die a violent death adds nothing whatsoever to the truth. And if the Court had already called for evidence, believed the claim of non-consummation and proceeded to issue a decree of annulment, then the Cantonese dogs in this forum would be barking for more evidence.
The one thing that she has been getting it right all this while is this - she knows adducing evidence is her death knell. First, she relied on annulment of marriage as the basis of her virginity; then annulment on non-consummation; then non-consummation on the elusive hole ... but finally she found herself in a cul de sac. She realized she had nowhere else to defer the production of evidence, and this is why she invented her "swear to die a violent death" stunt.
I must admit, she has been using it to great effect, constantly baiting the Cantonese dogs to bite and perpetually postpone the production of evidence to infinity.
You may ask : "Why is she not afraid of dying a violent death?"
The answer is simple - 死猪不怕开水烫
Last edited:
walao u very talented person. u must be a big time lawyer to know all these laws. i kowtow to u. really damn solid analysis based on facts and legalities.This is the typical example of "use a lie to cover another lie".
The first lie was the claim of annulment on the grounds of non-consummation of marriage. However, who would believe that you had been married for years and your marriage was not consummated, right?
To make her lie appear more believable, she decided to add limbs to the snake. Now she could justify that the non-consummation was a result of the husband not being able to find the hole. However, this time the second lie appeared more ridiculous than the first lie.
Then an innocent member of this forum asked her about the legal reason for non-consummation, as the Women's Charter made it sufficiently clear that the non-consummation must either satisfy the condition of "one party's willful refusal" or "one party's incapacity".
She knew she couldn't justify her non-consummation on the basis of one party's willful refusal as the second lie about both parties actively seeking to consummate the marriage (a prelude to the then husband failing to find the hole) would contradict the notion of willful refusal. The only justification is "one party's incapacity" and in this case it would have to be her own incapacity because the elusive hole that evaded the then husband was in her body.
Instead of justifying the non-consummation on the basis of her incapacity, she claimed she could not remember the details and pushed everything to the lawyer. You would think that if it was the elusive hole that turned away the then husband and catalyzed the breakdown of the marriage, she would remember it for life. But no, she could not remember. That is to say, her incapacity was not the basis of the non-consummation.
There was also the fear that if she had proclaimed that the elusive hole was the culprit, the Court would have called for some medical evidence, as simply swearing to die a violent death adds nothing whatsoever to the truth. And if the Court had already called for evidence, believed the claim of non-consummation and indeed issued a decree of annulment, then the Cantonese dogs in this forum would be barking for more evidence.
The one thing that she has been getting it right throughout these years is this - she knows adducing evidence is her death knell. First, she relied her virginity on annulment of marriage; then annulment on non-consummation; then non-consummation on the elusive hole ... and finally she found herself in a dead end. She realized she had nowhere else to defer the production of evidence, and this is why she invented her "swear to die a violent death" stunt.
I must admit, she has been using it to good effect, constantly baiting the Cantonese dogs to bite the bait and perpetually postponing the production of evidence to infinity.
You might ask : "Why is she not afraid of dying a violent death?"
The answer is simple - 死猪不怕开水烫
Google will tell you, no need lawyer. I'm striving to become an air con technician.walao u very talented person. u must be a big time lawyer to know all these laws. i kowtow to u. really damn solid analysis based on facts and legalities.
I have friends who are divorced, and they all know
Last edited:
Similar threads
