May 15, 2019
Jessica Sardina abusing her boyfriend’s dog.
Take a look at this display of women’s famous lack of scruples.
A woman who’s seeking custody of Honey, the Lab-boxer mix she shared with her former boyfriend, asked the Supreme Judicial Court to declare her the rightful owner and to provide updated guidance to judges for the pet custody.
The appeal by Jessica Sardina, 25, of Bangor, challenges the notion that pets should be treated simply as property when a relationship terminates. She contends she’s the one who cared for the dog and said the dog “means the world” to her.
This is insane.
They were not even married.
If her ex-boyfriend wanted to give her the dog, he’d have done that already. The fact that he didn’t give her the dog suggests he’s attached to the dog too. Why would her attachment to the dog take precedence over his attachment to the dog?
She isn’t even attached to the dog though.
She just wants to fuck with her ex-boyfriend’s life.
A lower-court judge ruled Sardina’s former boyfriend, Kelvin Liriano, also 25, is Honey’s sole owner because his signature appeared on adoption papers.
His attorney, Jonathan Hunter, contends there’s no legal precedent for treating pets differently than they have for hundreds of years: as property.
But Sardina’s attorney, Gene Sullivan, suggested to skeptical justices that the judge relied on antiquated property law.
Look, pal. This isn’t the time of the Roman Empire anymore. Property is meaningless. What matters is women’s feelings, and this woman’s feelings dictate that the dog is hers because she feels she owns it.
The man should be grateful she only feels she owns his dog and not his house and car too.
Chief Justice Leigh Saufley said she understood how the case tugs at heartstrings but asked whether it’s a good use of time for judges to spend more time analyzing pet custody in cases involving unmarried couples.
Sullivan said it’s a worthwhile time investment.
“Hey, this is not a toaster. This is not a blender. This is a living, breathing animal that these parties, especially my client, grew an attachment to,” he said afterward.
OH SHE GREW AN ATTACHMENT!?
STOP THE WORLD!
CHANGE THE RULES!
Pointing out that this is a living being here is meaningless unless they intend to let the dog choose. It would be interesting to see them try that, but it most likely won’t happen.
The whole thing is ridiculous, but it shows you the lengths to which women will go while trying to destroy the life of a man.
Women are very insecure creatures. After a breakup, a woman needs constant reassurance that she’s better off without her ex, which in most cases translates to her trying to ruin the life of the poor man in an attempt to leave no room for doubts about whether or not he is the best she can get. The thought of their exes possibly being better off without them after the breakup drives women insane.
Doubt eats them from the inside. Their attempts at destroying their exes’ lives are attempts at silencing those doubting voices inside of themselves that whisper all kinds of horrors to their minds.
“Is he the best I can get?”
“Will I ever be with someone better than him?”