A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

denying visits



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 8th 07, 09:13 PM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default denying visits


"Gini" wrote in message
news:HSaSh.1689$FC5.1338@trndny06...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"teachrmama" wrote
"Dusty Steenbock" wrote

"fathersrights" wrote
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise
you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings
it
is obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by
listening to

what the hell Is a nort?

I think it's a typo--he really meant "snort".


Obhiviously.

==
Heh, I wonder if he uses that word in his "briefs."



Most likely, yes. It is a highly technical legal term, after all.


  #22  
Old April 8th 07, 09:22 PM posted to alt.child-support
Relayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default denying visits

On Apr 8, 3:13�pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message

news:HSaSh.1689$FC5.1338@trndny06...







"Bob Whiteside" *wrote


"teachrmama" wrote
"Dusty Steenbock" wrote


"fathersrights" wrote
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise
you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings
it
is obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful *by
listening to


what the hell Is a nort?


I think it's a typo--he really meant "snort".


Obhiviously.

==
Heh, I wonder if he uses that word in his "briefs."


Most likely, yes. *It is a highly technical legal term, after all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I don't think this guy is a lawyer, but rather someone who fancies
himself some kind of expert, and who really does nothing more than
post the link to his website to sell high cost books. He does "broker"
consultations between NCP's and the people who wrote the book at a
$150 a an hour though.

  #23  
Old April 8th 07, 11:19 PM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default denying visits


"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 8, 3:13?pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Gini" wrote in message

news:HSaSh.1689$FC5.1338@trndny06...







"Bob Whiteside" wrote


"teachrmama" wrote
"Dusty Steenbock" wrote


"fathersrights" wrote
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise
you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own
postings
it
is obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by
listening to


what the hell Is a nort?


I think it's a typo--he really meant "snort".


Obhiviously.

==
Heh, I wonder if he uses that word in his "briefs."


Most likely, yes. It is a highly technical legal term, after all.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I don't think this guy is a lawyer, but rather someone who fancies
himself some kind of expert, and who really does nothing more than
post the link to his website to sell high cost books. He does "broker"
consultations between NCP's and the people who wrote the book at a
$150 a an hour though.

How sad. But every episode of injustice toward a specific group of people
has spawned a substrata of slime willing to make money off of the misery
engendered by the injustice.


  #24  
Old April 8th 07, 11:54 PM posted to alt.child-support
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default denying visits


"Relayer" wrote
.................
I don't think this guy is a lawyer, but rather someone who fancies
himself some kind of expert,
==
No....He's not a lawyer--A lawyer-wannabe spamming loser trying to
profit off NCPs by making them think he has some magic snake oil when he
hasn't
even the most rudimentary knowledge of family law, courts or procedure.


  #25  
Old April 9th 07, 02:41 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default denying visits


"Gini" wrote in message news:GoeSh.913$Lm.23@trndny05...

"Relayer" wrote
................
I don't think this guy is a lawyer, but rather someone who fancies
himself some kind of expert,
==
No....He's not a lawyer--A lawyer-wannabe spamming loser trying to
profit off NCPs by making them think he has some magic snake oil when he
hasn't
even the most rudimentary knowledge of family law, courts or procedure.


Gini - He claims to be JD "licensed" to practice law in Illinois and several
other states plus federal jurisdictions. Yet his name is not listed under
any of the state or federal bar association membership lists. Does that
mean he has been disbarred or he's just full of it?

I thought a lawyer had to be a member of the bar to practice law in any
state. The "licensed to practice" claim is cute but so far as I know
doesn't meet the technical criteria to actually practice law by having a bar
membership number.


  #26  
Old April 9th 07, 03:16 AM posted to alt.child-support
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default denying visits


"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Gini" wrote
"Relayer" wrote
................
I don't think this guy is a lawyer, but rather someone who fancies
himself some kind of expert,
==
No....He's not a lawyer--A lawyer-wannabe spamming loser trying to
profit off NCPs by making them think he has some magic snake oil when he
hasn't
even the most rudimentary knowledge of family law, courts or procedure.


Gini - He claims to be JD "licensed" to practice law in Illinois and
several
other states plus federal jurisdictions. Yet his name is not listed under
any of the state or federal bar association membership lists. Does that
mean he has been disbarred or he's just full of it?

==
He's full of it. I've seen him make too many elementary mistakes.


  #27  
Old April 9th 07, 05:13 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default denying visits


"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
It is obhvious you have not studied custody law for years.Otherwise you
could recognize how valuable my advice has been.By your own postings it is
obvious you lost your case. One does nort become successful by listening

to
losers.You either had a poor or unpaid attorney, a meritless case for your
custody or tried to run your case yourself.


False dilemma. (see below)

Just because you or a group of
losers that gather on a newsgroup dont win your cases doesn't mean a

father
with a good case and a good lawyer cant win his case.


...... assumung there is a good judge and a good legal system.


oe"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
With your attitude you are guaranteed to lose which you obviously have

if
you think this is false hope.


You are obviously not aware the people who disagree with you have been
through the system, have experience as custodial parents and

non-custodial
parents, and have studied family law issues for years.

Your spamming of this group always seems to come down to basic

differences
in your theories versus our knowledge of practice. It's like going to a
fathers rights attorney who claims to had made sophisticated and complex
legal arguments on behalf of clients. When asked for examples of how

they
worked to change how judges normally rule, the attorneys cannot produce
any
anecdotes about how the outcomes were influenced by their arguments.






  #28  
Old April 9th 07, 06:07 PM posted to alt.child-support
fatherforever
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default denying visits

If you argue that your spouse is unfit because her own pleadings and actions
try to minimize vice maximize your time with the children while your
pleadings ask for maximum involvement of both parents, you place your spouse
in a legal box. She will either increase her offers or look foolish trying
to explain to a cross examiner why she should have more time with the
children than you and would run a serious risk of losing or not obtaining
custody. Either way, you better your position and minimize emotional damage
to the children. Even if you don't win custody, you will enjoy much more
visitation than fathers usually are awarded.

"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
Case law is what was quoted in the original post. Common sense confirms
the courts ruling that you cant make a logical case to deny a parent the
RIGHT to babysit over third parties.
"Relayer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 6, 8:44?pm, "fathersrights" wrote:
Me thinks you protest too much. If the materials weren't effective you
feminists wouldnt hate them so much. You totally neglect all the FREE
help
for fathers available at http://www.fathersrights.org;And fathers,if you
think custody law doesn"t control in custody cases, no wonder you lost
your
case."Gini" wrote in message

news:QBrQh.2833$gb6.2603@trndny07...





"Chris" wrote


"fathersrights" wrote
................


NOT when the custodial parent is the mother.
==
Chris, fathersrights is a long time scammer/spammer who is a for-profit
peddler
of worthless crap to NCPs. If you feel compelled to engage him, please
at
least
trim his posts to as not to perpetuate his BS.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


999/1000 times custody is decided by case law, not state statute.




  #29  
Old April 10th 07, 02:03 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default denying visits


"fatherforever" wrote in message
...
If you argue that your spouse is unfit because her own pleadings and

actions
try to minimize vice maximize your time with the children while your
pleadings ask for maximum involvement of both parents, you place your

spouse
in a legal box. She will either increase her offers or look foolish trying
to explain to a cross examiner why she should have more time with the
children than you and would run a serious risk of losing or not obtaining
custody. Either way, you better your position and minimize emotional

damage
to the children. Even if you don't win custody, you will enjoy much more
visitation than fathers usually are awarded.


Assuming you are dealing with a sane "family court" system.


"fathersrights" wrote in message
...
Case law is what was quoted in the original post. Common sense confirms
the courts ruling that you cant make a logical case to deny a parent the
RIGHT to babysit over third parties.
"Relayer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 6, 8:44?pm, "fathersrights" wrote:
Me thinks you protest too much. If the materials weren't effective you
feminists wouldnt hate them so much. You totally neglect all the FREE
help
for fathers available at http://www.fathersrights.org;And fathers,if

you
think custody law doesn"t control in custody cases, no wonder you lost
your
case."Gini" wrote in message

news:QBrQh.2833$gb6.2603@trndny07...





"Chris" wrote

"fathersrights" wrote
................

NOT when the custodial parent is the mother.
==
Chris, fathersrights is a long time scammer/spammer who is a

for-profit
peddler
of worthless crap to NCPs. If you feel compelled to engage him,

please
at
least
trim his posts to as not to perpetuate his BS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


999/1000 times custody is decided by case law, not state statute.







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
6 mo dental visits 00doc Kids Health 2 April 3rd 05 04:11 PM
NICU visits DBB3 Spanking 14 May 28th 04 01:58 PM
dental visits? Shena Delian O'Brien Pregnancy 37 March 22nd 04 04:41 PM
Should I suggest next visits? Andrew Single Parents 4 January 7th 04 04:25 PM
Well child visits amidst the flu Denise General 40 December 14th 03 04:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.