It's "for the children"

Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right". The unscrupulous outfit claims that it will assist in such
collections. The advertisement ends with the sound of a child giggling. I
would have more respect for these yahoos if they solicited car thiefs; and I
HATE a thief! But hey, it's "for the children".

"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

The unscrupulous outfit claims that it will assist in such
collections.

They are helping someone collect a legal obligation. In precisely what way
is this unscrupulous?

The advertisement ends with the sound of a child giggling. I
would have more respect for these yahoos if they solicited car thiefs; and
I
HATE a thief! But hey, it's "for the children".

"Moon Shyne" wrote in


If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

Legal right?

In this country, it was a person's legal right to own another human being.
In this country, it was a person's legal right to burn another human being.
In this country, it was a person's legal right to exterminate another human
being & take their land.
In this country, it is a person's legal right to extort money or threaten to
imprison another human being
In this country, it is a person's legal right to commit adultery & then
extort money or threaten to imprison another human being.

This country doesn't exactly have a grand history of high moral values, the
legal system is nothing more than a sham that the politicians use for their
false platform of the minute.

Anything for a vote, what whores they are!

Moon Shyne wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

No it is not. The legal right attaches to the child, not to the
custodial parent. If child support was the right of the custodial
parent, it would be called alimony. If you lose the child, the child
support goes with the child. Some "right."

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

What kind of "right"?


The unscrupulous outfit claims that it will assist in such
collections.

They are helping someone collect a legal obligation. In precisely what
way
is this unscrupulous?

You have been informed of the answer MANY times in the past. If you still
don't understand, then I doubt you will EVER understand.


The advertisement ends with the sound of a child giggling. I
would have more respect for these yahoos if they solicited car thiefs;
and
I
HATE a thief! But hey, it's "for the children".

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

The "legal order" is not technically the vehicle used to assign, collect,
and dispurse CS. The legal designation is the assignment of CS obligation
to the judgement debtor payable to the judgement creditor. If the
designation of either the judgement debtor or judgement creditor is
different than the "legal order" the money judgement overrules the legal
terms in the "legal order." (I found this out the hard way.)


The unscrupulous outfit claims that it will assist in such
collections.

They are helping someone collect a legal obligation. In precisely what
way
is this unscrupulous?

They are unscrupulous because they claim to be acting in the best interest
of children, but they keep a percentage of the CS collected for their
services. States perform the same services without any charges being
assessed against the children's intended CS amount.

I find it a gross contradiction the courts allow these CS collection
services to ciphon off CS in total contradiction to the methodology behind
establishing and setting appropriate CS awards.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

They are unscrupulous because they claim to be acting in the best interest
of children, but they keep a percentage of the CS collected for their
services.

Are they any different than state sponsored extortion?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Moon Shyne wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

No it is not. The legal right attaches to the child, not to the
custodial parent.

Read the court order. It will tell you who the funds get dirbursed to (the
custodial parent) - they then have the fiduciary responsibility to manage
the funds.

If child support was the right of the custodial
parent, it would be called alimony. If you lose the child, the child
support goes with the child. Some "right."

You're attempting to compare apples and figs here.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

The "legal order" is not technically the vehicle used to assign, collect,
and dispurse CS.

This is true. It's the vehicle that gives the legal right to the funds that
are assigned, collected and disbursed.

The legal designation is the assignment of CS obligation
to the judgement debtor payable to the judgement creditor. If the
designation of either the judgement debtor or judgement creditor is
different than the "legal order" the money judgement overrules the legal
terms in the "legal order." (I found this out the hard way.)


The unscrupulous outfit claims that it will assist in such
collections.

They are helping someone collect a legal obligation. In precisely what
way
is this unscrupulous?

They are unscrupulous because they claim to be acting in the best interest
of children, but they keep a percentage of the CS collected for their
services.

As do most, if not all, other collection agencies.

But if at least *some* of the child support is obtained, and it helps the
child, then the agency has done what they represented.

Did you see any that represented themselves as working for free, perhaps?


States perform the same services without any charges being
assessed against the children's intended CS amount.

Some states, when the child support agency pursues a tax intercept, in order
to collect past due child support, they keep a percentage, up to a maximum
flat rate amount - at least in some states, because mine is one of them.
This percentage is taken out of the money collected via tax intercept, yet
the full amount is credited to the NCP - thereby being "assessed against the
children's intented CS amount".


I find it a gross contradiction the courts allow these CS collection
services to ciphon off CS in total contradiction to the methodology behind
establishing and setting appropriate CS awards.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

The "legal order" is not technically the vehicle used to assign, collect,
and dispurse CS.

This is true. It's the vehicle that gives the legal right to the funds
that are assigned, collected and disbursed.

There you go again talking about legal rights, state sponsored extortion is
not a right and a direct violation of trust between the people and it's
government. I would bet that if the general public were fully informed on
the activities and policies of these CSE agencies and family kourt
atrocities, they wouldn't be allowed to operate for a day. The government
has clearly abused it's power and abandoned any hope of common sense rules.