Thursday, January 30, 2014

GERMAN MAN DID NOT PAY NEIGHBOR TO SHOOT BLANKS INTO HIS WIFE 72 TIMES, SUES TO GET MONEY BACK

Paid $2,500 to do it, but fails to make his neighbor’s wife pregnant after 72 attempts

The Unconventional Gazette
January 29, 2014

In Stuttgart, Germany, a court judge must decide on a case of honorable intentions in a situation where a man hired his neighbor to get his wife pregnant.

It seems taht Demetrius Soupolos, 29, and his former beauty queen wife, Traute, wanted a child badly, but Demetrius was told by a doctor that he was sterile.

So Soupolos, after calming his wife's protests, hired his neighbor, Frank Maus, 34, to impregnate her. Since Maus was already married and the father of two children, plus looked very much like Soupolos to boot, the plan seemed good.

Soupols paid Maus $2,500 for the job and for three evenings a week for the next six months, Maus tried desperately, a total of 72 different times, to impregnate Traute.

When his own wife objected, he explained, "I don't like this any more than you. I'm simply doing it for the money. Try and understand."

When Traute failed to get pregnant after six months, however, Soupolos was not understanding and insisted that Maus have a medical examination, which he did.

The doctor's announcement that Maus was also sterile shocked everyone except his wife, who was forced to confess that Maus was not the real father of their two children.

Now Soupolos is suing Maus for breach of contract in an effort to get his money back, but Maus refused to give it up because he said he did not guarantee conception, but only that he would give an honest effort.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While this story is most likely a hoax, I thought it was funny enough to post it anyway.

According to one source, this story had originally started as an article in Jet Magazine, written in 1978. While it doesn't prove that it's not a "hoax", that does help to explain why, even though this story has been repeated countless times on the internet, you will be unable to find anything on Google search relating to the court case.

No comments: