Need real help?

I didn't know that about you. Impressive. Wanna be my lawyer?


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Layne Barlow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:17:33 -0700, "Father Drew"
wrote:

Well, I for one would not trust someone who plays a sympathy card with
the
goal of getting someone's money. At least with an attorney, they screw
you
up front. What you are saying is that you are a paralegal service
plain
and
simple, so technically this is spam. I was just digging trying to
figure
out if you were about the love or the money. You answered that
question.
Nothing is wrong with making money, we all gotta eat, but not at the
expense
of suffering NCPs.

I share my knowlege for free.

-Drew


This isn't spam. I didn't individually email you nor a group. I offer
a service, period. No banners, no pop-up ads.

Whatever.

I won't get into this with you and the bug up your ass on a tit for
tat basis any further. I'll just end this conversation with this bit
of fact: there's a lot of difference between answering someone's
question or two, like I do here and the occasional email, and spending
20-60 hours in deep research pulling someone's ass out of the legal
fire. If you can't see the difference you're too naive to be worth
listening to.
===
Layne,
The difference is:
You are soliciting *paying* clients for "legal services" that you are not
qualified to provide--and you have been wrong in some of the legal
information you have posted to this group. Further, many of us here have
extensive legal research and experience in family court. Having been a
pre-law/political science major in undergrad school, I also have a law
library and still do a lot of online research. That doesn't qualify me to
give legal advice, free or paid, any more than it does you. When you move
to soliciting money for "legal services" from NCPs who are already
struggling financially, you go over the line. It *is* spam. In this group,
we help each other navigate the pitfalls of family court--We do it because
we have a common interest in surviving the system and making change, not
because we want to act like lawyers. None of us has ever engaged in
commercial solicitation from our commiserates. That is the difference.
BTW,
if you wanted to practice law, why didn't you go to law school? What is
your
undergrad degree in?
===
===

Layne,
The difference is:
You are soliciting *paying* clients for "legal services" that you are not
qualified to provide--and you have been wrong in some of the legal
information you have posted to this group. Further, many of us here have
extensive legal research and experience in family court. Having been a
pre-law/political science major in undergrad school, I also have a law
library and still do a lot of online research. That doesn't qualify me to
give legal advice, free or paid, any more than it does you. When you move
to soliciting money for "legal services" from NCPs who are already
struggling financially, you go over the line. It *is* spam. In this group,
we help each other navigate the pitfalls of family court--We do it because
we have a common interest in surviving the system and making change, not
because we want to act like lawyers. None of us has ever engaged in
commercial solicitation from our commiserates. That is the difference. BTW,
if you wanted to practice law, why didn't you go to law school? What is your
undergrad degree in?
===
===



The difference is there is no difference. What I've seen from the
lawyer wannabes here is they seem to think and act too much like
lawyers. And lawyers seem to have a universal habit of doing a leap
frog over the Bill of Rights -- the very law meant to stop government
abusers in their tracks.

Mostly what happens here is noise. A lot of people have opinions and
nothing more. Those with "extensive legal research and experience in
family court" of course have qualified opinions.

As for over the line, that's for individuals to decide. It takes a
lot of work and time to unravel the damage done by courts and their
officers. If you truly have the experience and credential you claim
to have, you should know that.

Yes, I am soliciting paying clients. I take issue with you about my
qualifications. I got a decade behind me of doing what I do. I am
entirely self-taught. The experience didn't come from winning a
hearing or two and thinking I can now take on the world. It comes
from thousands of hours studying law and drafting briefs, hundreds of
hours in courtrooms and other judicial haunts, and a minor bit of that
self-litigating my own case, a two-state child support mess of a case.

If you take issue with that, so what. Since you didn't add
"moderator" to your credentials, you don't speak for the group. Since
I haven't found a web-based service offering experienced and competent
people to deal with the problems only courts, lawyers and
bureaucracies can entangle people into, I think I'll just start one
up. And the marketplace will tell.

I've observed your opinion is occasionally valuable here. In this
instance it is not.

I'm not saying your service is bad or that you don't know what you are
talking about. I'm simply saying that your goal is different. We want to
change the laws and many of us do work outside of this chat room to do just
that. You on the other hand have the goal of getting money, not what the
majority here are about. You should try some legal service newsgroups. No,
I'm not a moderator either, but I have been here long enough to know that
the gang would agree.

Drew

"Layne Barlow" wrote in message
...

Layne,
The difference is:
You are soliciting *paying* clients for "legal services" that you are not
qualified to provide--and you have been wrong in some of the legal
information you have posted to this group. Further, many of us here have
extensive legal research and experience in family court. Having been a
pre-law/political science major in undergrad school, I also have a law
library and still do a lot of online research. That doesn't qualify me to
give legal advice, free or paid, any more than it does you. When you
move
to soliciting money for "legal services" from NCPs who are already
struggling financially, you go over the line. It *is* spam. In this
group,
we help each other navigate the pitfalls of family court--We do it
because
we have a common interest in surviving the system and making change, not
because we want to act like lawyers. None of us has ever engaged in
commercial solicitation from our commiserates. That is the difference.
BTW,
if you wanted to practice law, why didn't you go to law school? What is
your
undergrad degree in?
===
===



The difference is there is no difference. What I've seen from the
lawyer wannabes here is they seem to think and act too much like
lawyers. And lawyers seem to have a universal habit of doing a leap
frog over the Bill of Rights -- the very law meant to stop government
abusers in their tracks.

Mostly what happens here is noise. A lot of people have opinions and
nothing more. Those with "extensive legal research and experience in
family court" of course have qualified opinions.

As for over the line, that's for individuals to decide. It takes a
lot of work and time to unravel the damage done by courts and their
officers. If you truly have the experience and credential you claim
to have, you should know that.

Yes, I am soliciting paying clients. I take issue with you about my
qualifications. I got a decade behind me of doing what I do. I am
entirely self-taught. The experience didn't come from winning a
hearing or two and thinking I can now take on the world. It comes
from thousands of hours studying law and drafting briefs, hundreds of
hours in courtrooms and other judicial haunts, and a minor bit of that
self-litigating my own case, a two-state child support mess of a case.

If you take issue with that, so what. Since you didn't add
"moderator" to your credentials, you don't speak for the group. Since
I haven't found a web-based service offering experienced and competent
people to deal with the problems only courts, lawyers and
bureaucracies can entangle people into, I think I'll just start one
up. And the marketplace will tell.

I've observed your opinion is occasionally valuable here. In this
instance it is not.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:42:50 -0400, "gini52" wrote:


"Layne Barlow" wrote

Gini wrote:
Layne,
The difference is:
You are soliciting *paying* clients for "legal services" that you are not
qualified to provide--and you have been wrong in some of the legal
information you have posted to this group. Further, many of us here have
extensive legal research and experience in family court. Having been a
pre-law/political science major in undergrad school, I also have a law
library and still do a lot of online research. That doesn't qualify me to
give legal advice, free or paid, any more than it does you. When you
move
to soliciting money for "legal services" from NCPs who are already
struggling financially, you go over the line. It *is* spam. In this
group,
we help each other navigate the pitfalls of family court--We do it
because
we have a common interest in surviving the system and making change, not
because we want to act like lawyers. None of us has ever engaged in
commercial solicitation from our commiserates. That is the difference.
BTW,
if you wanted to practice law, why didn't you go to law school? What is
your
undergrad degree in?
===
===



The difference is there is no difference. What I've seen from the
lawyer wannabes here is they seem to think and act too much like
lawyers.
===
Umm, Layne--You're the only "lawyer wannabe" here. Oh, yeah--and that girl
who
came in and declared herself capable of giving legal advice and assistance
because
she "worked at a lawyer's office for many years."
===


That's not what I've seen. Can't speak to "that girl," since I don't
recall seeing her posts.

I have never held myself out to be an lawyer, nor to represent
anybody. Not all lawyers research their own cases or draft their own
pleadings. They have staff to do that. Why can't an ordinary person
do the same?

...................
As for over the line, that's for individuals to decide.
==
Of course--and don't forget the Oregon Bar.

And they haven't forgotten be. You seem to hold the Bar in some kind
of reverential awe. There's not much to be in awe of. It's turned
into a private club with the purpose of covering each other's butts.
The typical lawyer, particularly in family law matters, is borderline
if not completely incompetent. Their oaths seem to mean nothing to
them.

==
.........................
Yes, I am soliciting paying clients. I take issue with you about my
qualifications.
==
You aren't a lawyer.

I don't need to be.


==
I got a decade behind me of doing what I do.
==
You aren't a lawyer.

I don't need to be.

==
I am
entirely self-taught.
===
See above.
===
The experience didn't come from winning a
hearing or two and thinking I can now take on the world. It comes
from thousands of hours studying law and drafting briefs, hundreds of
hours in courtrooms and other judicial haunts, and a minor bit of that
self-litigating my own case, a two-state child support mess of a case.
==
So, besides yourself, whom have you represented in
those hearings you won?

I represent nobody. That means I don't hold myself to be a lawyer.
In Oregon, unfortunately, we haven't changed the law to be in step
with other states, such as Washington, where anybody can represent
anybody else before an administrative tribunal.

My wins have come from providing paper to those who self-litigate.

==

If you take issue with that, so what. Since you didn't add
"moderator" to your credentials, you don't speak for the group.
==
Sure don't.

Thank you!

==
Since
I haven't found a web-based service offering experienced and competent
people to deal with the problems only courts, lawyers and
bureaucracies can entangle people into, I think I'll just start one
up. And the marketplace will tell.
==
Or the Oregon Bar.

Again with the Bar. Why are you in such awe of them? Read the Bill
of Rights! You appear to have swallowed their line totally, that they
have a monopoly over all activities regarding law. There's an old
maxim: "Every man is presumed to know the law ..." The early civil
rights movement (well, the one in the 50s - 60s, anyway) ran afoul of
the southern states' attorneys general for UPL because they instructed
their members how to secure their rights under laws and constitutions.
The U.S. Supremes shot them down. _NAACP v. Button_, 371 U.S. 415
(1963), is probably the most important of those decisions.

Read _Faretta v. California_, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Hating lawyers is
not only an American tradition, several of the original colonies
actually outlawed them. In one colony the people were so outraged by
the conduct of lawyers and judges they nailed the courthouse doors
shut. In another they burned it down.

The Bar is a quasi-state agency which acts as the corporate arm of our
state supreme court. It's sole purpose is to license, educate and
discipline lawyers. So far they're silent on why they think they have
jurisdiction over me.

==

I've observed your opinion is occasionally valuable here. In this
instance it is not.
==
Not to you. However, my intention was to inform others that in spite of your
offer
of paid legal services, you are a not an attorney and your solicitation is
illegal.

Again, I've never held myself out to be an attorney (except in our
justice courts where I do act as an attorney, which statute allows).
So you're not informing them of anything except your own bias.

As for being illegal, check the First Amendment again: "Congress
shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Oregon's Bill of Rights gives more protection. Article I, § 8:
"Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the
free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write,
or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be
responsible for the abuse of this right."

§ 21: "No ex-post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts shall ever be passed, nor shall any law be passed, the
taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority,
except as provided in this Constitution * * *."

§ 26: "No law shall be passed restraining any of the inhabitants of
the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner to consult
for their common good; nor from instructing their Representatives; nor
from applying to the Legislature for redress of greviances (sic)."

You've fallen into the usual trap of assuming statutes trump the Bill
of Rights. It's the other way around.

I'm exercising what the Bill of Rights secures to me, and I don't need
the state's approval to do it.


That's been accomplished. If someone chooses to pay you to do for them what
they can do themselves
with a little research, that's their option. However, filing for child
support and/or custody modification
is a fairly straightforward process and I can direct them to online
resources if need be (at no charge, of course).

Finally! Something we can agree on!

Modifications are meant to be easy. But there's still dinosaurs in cs
caseworker seats who still turn away those seeking to modify based on
all kinds of excuses. They have the attitude of "pay up or start
walking" (drivers' license suspension). Been fighting them for years
in the political arena.

Appellate court is a whole different ballgame--but, you can't represent them
there, anyway.

Appellate courts are paper chases. The only true disadvantage to not
having an attorney is no attorney, no oral argument. Since family law
cases are in equity, and in this state at least appellate review is de
novo, there's no disadvantage at all -- barring judges individual
biases.

Of all the appellate paper I've written, only once have I come up
against an attorney who stumped me. Otherwise my people have always
been on solid legal foundations. Problem is, as anyone who watches
the courts should know, a lot of decisions are not based on law at
all. And when a judge signs his or her name to a judgment against
you, all the lawbooks in the world won't help you as long as that
judgment stands. Even though by signing a judgment not supported by
law that judge stopped being a judge and became a lawmaker, something
every constitution forbids in its separate powers clause.

The big picture problem is this: we as a people have allowed the rule
of law to be replaced by the rule of men. It's up to us to restore
the rule of law. It's very much our business to do so. The Bar and
the courts are not policing themselves well enough to keep the
judiciary independent, impartial and faithful to the law. They are a
branch of government which, like much of government, has become
predatory. The source of power is still with the people ... if they'd
just get off their butts and get involved. Unfortunately most of
them, like you, have the attitude there are parts of government that
are untouchable and all powerful.


PS How is it that you manage to "pull asses out of the fire" while you admit
your own ass is still in the fire
after your kids are grown?


Are you actually serious with this question???

Any bureaucrat/caseworker/prosecutor can file a case against you. You
then have to deal with it, whether you want to or not.


It seems the only way you can pull anyone is into the fire with you.
==


Your last line is slanderous and not worth retorting.

Adult children and your still going through it. It doesn't look as though
your success rate is very high.


Layne Barlow wrote in message
...
If you're serious about defending your rights or offending your
opponents in court or administrative cases, but don't know where to
start, what laws to use, how to write your papers, etc., *real* help is
just an email away.

I'm not a lawyer, never been one, don't pretend to be one. I'm just a
dad who's been through it and still going through it. Although my kids
are all adults now, the child support case just never seems to die.
I've been through the entire administrative process in the original
state (Washington) and now fighting punitive contempt in my state of
residence (Oregon). Following the law and their own rules just doesn't
seem to be on anyone's agenda but mine.

I've been studying the law for more than ten years. My personal library
includes my own set of Corpus Juris Secundum (it's like the
Encyclopaedia Britannica of law and takes up 26 feet of shelf space). I
maintain an extensive personal database from over a decade of being an
underground paralegal on our kinds of issues. I've worked on cases in
Oregon, Washington, California, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana and
Missouri. I'm able to go as deep into the law as needed. I've written
many briefs and writs to Oregon's appellate and supreme courts. I've
taken two cases all the way through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
and two all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I write better paper
than all but one lawyer I've been up against.

Specialty cases are child support, custody, restraining orders -- all
the usual family law issues. Also some experience with common civil
(tort), civil rights, criminal, and a little environmental law.

I do charge -- it's how I pay the rent -- but it's a lot less than
lawyers do.

You may discover what untold thousands have -- you don't start winning
until you fire the lawyer and start using the law.

Email me and let's get started on your case today!

Layne Barlow

gini52 wrote in message
...

"Layne Barlow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:59:58 -0700, "Father Drew"
wrote:

And do you charge for your service, or are you just an
ambulance-chasing
paralegal?

-Drew

And what do you mean by "ambulance-chasing"?

Until someone wins the lottery and independently funds the think tank
needed to deal with these issues and publish useful findings to all,
those few of us who are actually technically competent to deal with
someone's case have to pay the rent with something besides our boyish
good looks.

I am technically competent and, as my post shows, have the library and
database resources to deal with just about any kind of case this group
deals with at any level.
===
It seems that if you have such a thorough knowledge of the law, you would
know that what you are doing is "illegal practice of law" and if the
Oregon
Bar
monitors usenet, you are in big trouble.
===
===

If he does right, he may not be violating any law. He probably can legally
charge for research and legal writing, as long as the client files the court
papers or briefs, pro se. The only thing he can't do is enter an appearance
in the case.

"Layne Barlow" wrote
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:42:50 -0400, "gini52" wrote:


"Layne Barlow" wrote

Gini wrote:
Layne,
The difference is:
You are soliciting *paying* clients for "legal services" that you are
not
qualified to provide--and you have been wrong in some of the legal
information you have posted to this group. Further, many of us here
have
extensive legal research and experience in family court. Having been a
pre-law/political science major in undergrad school, I also have a law
library and still do a lot of online research. That doesn't qualify me
to
give legal advice, free or paid, any more than it does you. When you
move
to soliciting money for "legal services" from NCPs who are already
struggling financially, you go over the line. It *is* spam. In this
group,
we help each other navigate the pitfalls of family court--We do it
because
we have a common interest in surviving the system and making change,
not
because we want to act like lawyers. None of us has ever engaged in
commercial solicitation from our commiserates. That is the difference.
BTW,
if you wanted to practice law, why didn't you go to law school? What
is
your
undergrad degree in?
===
===



The difference is there is no difference. What I've seen from the
lawyer wannabes here is they seem to think and act too much like
lawyers.
===
Umm, Layne--You're the only "lawyer wannabe" here. Oh, yeah--and that
girl
who
came in and declared herself capable of giving legal advice and
assistance
because
she "worked at a lawyer's office for many years."
===


That's not what I've seen. Can't speak to "that girl," since I don't
recall seeing her posts.

I have never held myself out to be an lawyer, nor to represent
anybody. Not all lawyers research their own cases or draft their own
pleadings. They have staff to do that. Why can't an ordinary person
do the same?

...................
As for over the line, that's for individuals to decide.
==
Of course--and don't forget the Oregon Bar.

And they haven't forgotten be. You seem to hold the Bar in some kind
of reverential awe.
===
Not at all--In fact I agree with you in most of your assessment of the state
bar--any state bar. As far as I'm
concerned, their only legitimate function is to keep non-lawyers from
screwing up people's cases.
===
..........................................
...........................
You've fallen into the usual trap of assuming statutes trump the Bill
of Rights. It's the other way around.

I'm exercising what the Bill of Rights secures to me, and I don't need
the state's approval to do it.
===
Layne,
Almost everyone here agrees that the Bill of Rights has been so stomped on
that it becomes less
meaningful with time. But, for change to happen, the change agent must have
solid legitimacy. I admire your desire to fight and respect your liberty to
do so. But, I do not
wish to see unsuspecting NCPs get trapped with you--and you will get
trapped. I understand
that you don't care about that and appear to consider it part of the fight.
I just want others
to understand the pitfalls.
==
==

If I don't qualify as "one of the gang", Drew, it's a pretty small gang... And
as one of the gang, I have to disagree. I don't believe Layne's goal is to get
money...it's just a necessary evil along the way. Yeah, he could drive a taxi
or flip burgers to support his habit, but his habit is one that I'd just as
soon he was using to support itself - I'd rather have my shadetree mechanic
making his living fixing cars than stocking shelves at Safeway. Just seems
that somebody who spends 8 hours a day stocking shelves and and additional 4
hours as a mechanic is not going to be equal to the guy who spends 8 hours a
day as a mechanic and an additional 4 hours also as a mechanic.

I'd just as soon Layne be able to keep his fingers right where he's had them
the last few years full time plus overtime - and feed himself in the process -
than to have him pull out of it for 8 hours a day just to pay the rent and hope
for the best from the time he has left.

Mel Gamble.

I'm not saying your service is bad or that you don't know what you are
talking about. I'm simply saying that your goal is different. We want to
change the laws and many of us do work outside of this chat room to do just
that. You on the other hand have the goal of getting money, not what the
majority here are about. You should try some legal service newsgroups. No,
I'm not a moderator either, but I have been here long enough to know that
the gang would agree.

Drew

"Layne Barlow" wrote in message
.. .

Layne,
The difference is:
You are soliciting *paying* clients for "legal services" that you are not
qualified to provide--and you have been wrong in some of the legal
information you have posted to this group. Further, many of us here have
extensive legal research and experience in family court. Having been a
pre-law/political science major in undergrad school, I also have a law
library and still do a lot of online research. That doesn't qualify me to
give legal advice, free or paid, any more than it does you. When you
move
to soliciting money for "legal services" from NCPs who are already
struggling financially, you go over the line. It *is* spam. In this
group,
we help each other navigate the pitfalls of family court--We do it
because
we have a common interest in surviving the system and making change, not
because we want to act like lawyers. None of us has ever engaged in
commercial solicitation from our commiserates. That is the difference.
BTW,
if you wanted to practice law, why didn't you go to law school? What is
your
undergrad degree in?
===
===



The difference is there is no difference. What I've seen from the
lawyer wannabes here is they seem to think and act too much like
lawyers. And lawyers seem to have a universal habit of doing a leap
frog over the Bill of Rights -- the very law meant to stop government
abusers in their tracks.

Mostly what happens here is noise. A lot of people have opinions and
nothing more. Those with "extensive legal research and experience in
family court" of course have qualified opinions.

As for over the line, that's for individuals to decide. It takes a
lot of work and time to unravel the damage done by courts and their
officers. If you truly have the experience and credential you claim
to have, you should know that.

Yes, I am soliciting paying clients. I take issue with you about my
qualifications. I got a decade behind me of doing what I do. I am
entirely self-taught. The experience didn't come from winning a
hearing or two and thinking I can now take on the world. It comes
from thousands of hours studying law and drafting briefs, hundreds of
hours in courtrooms and other judicial haunts, and a minor bit of that
self-litigating my own case, a two-state child support mess of a case.

If you take issue with that, so what. Since you didn't add
"moderator" to your credentials, you don't speak for the group. Since
I haven't found a web-based service offering experienced and competent
people to deal with the problems only courts, lawyers and
bureaucracies can entangle people into, I think I'll just start one
up. And the marketplace will tell.

I've observed your opinion is occasionally valuable here. In this
instance it is not.

Layne,

Where is your expertise?

I know the issues we face most often a

1) Support guidelines do not take into account the once "intact" family now
has TWO homes.
2) Breastfeeding has expanded from 2 years in the early 1900's to this
concept (case law?) of a nurturing mother that lasts for years and years.
3) "Status Quo" being more important than a loving parent (i.e.: Fake
domestic violence charge leads to one year separation of kids and NCP, then
judge rules "status quo" and says "best interest of kids" to keep as is: ncp
and kids apart).
4) Current body of psychological evidence points to "joint custody" as best
for kids, yet it is not into mainstream case law yet.


"Layne Barlow" wrote in message
...
If you're serious about defending your rights or offending your
opponents in court or administrative cases, but don't know where to
start, what laws to use, how to write your papers, etc., *real* help is
just an email away.

I'm not a lawyer, never been one, don't pretend to be one. I'm just a
dad who's been through it and still going through it. Although my kids
are all adults now, the child support case just never seems to die.
I've been through the entire administrative process in the original
state (Washington) and now fighting punitive contempt in my state of
residence (Oregon). Following the law and their own rules just doesn't
seem to be on anyone's agenda but mine.

I've been studying the law for more than ten years. My personal library
includes my own set of Corpus Juris Secundum (it's like the
Encyclopaedia Britannica of law and takes up 26 feet of shelf space). I
maintain an extensive personal database from over a decade of being an
underground paralegal on our kinds of issues. I've worked on cases in
Oregon, Washington, California, Iowa, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana and
Missouri. I'm able to go as deep into the law as needed. I've written
many briefs and writs to Oregon's appellate and supreme courts. I've
taken two cases all the way through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,
and two all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I write better paper
than all but one lawyer I've been up against.

Specialty cases are child support, custody, restraining orders -- all
the usual family law issues. Also some experience with common civil
(tort), civil rights, criminal, and a little environmental law.

I do charge -- it's how I pay the rent -- but it's a lot less than
lawyers do.

You may discover what untold thousands have -- you don't start winning
until you fire the lawyer and start using the law.

Email me and let's get started on your case today!

Layne Barlow

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:02:04 -0400, "Freedom"
wrote:

Layne,

Where is your expertise?


Physically, philosophically, or ...? Or do you mean in what areas?

I thought I explained in the original post.

I know the issues we face most often a

1) Support guidelines do not take into account the once "intact" family now
has TWO homes.

Support issues are incredibly more complicated, twisted and deep than
just how much should dad pay mom. I know people who have worked their
entire professional careers in the Child Support Collection Machine
and still don't understand everything about it.

I spent some time on our state's last guidelines advisory committee.
Reality isn't something they're overly concerned with -- best example
is imputed or potential income. If you make $0 per month, they decide
you can make at least minimum wage. Worse, if you're in a state like
Washington, they'll actually set your income by your age, whether you
make that kind of $$ or not.

It's hidden in the laws the obligor has to retain enough $$ to support
himself. Lots of good stuff is hidden in the law -- estoppels, full
faith and credit tests, resulting and constructive trusts.

2) Breastfeeding has expanded from 2 years in the early 1900's to this
concept (case law?) of a nurturing mother that lasts for years and years.

In Europe it's not unusual for a child to nurse through age 4-5.

The concept your talking about is a holdover from the tender years
doctrine that dominate most of the last century. This is an
abrogation of the common law, where the father's right to custody was
"paramount."

3) "Status Quo" being more important than a loving parent (i.e.: Fake
domestic violence charge leads to one year separation of kids and NCP, then
judge rules "status quo" and says "best interest of kids" to keep as is: ncp
and kids apart).

This is a common scenario, repeated thousands of times every day in
courtrooms all across this country. Should've reserved your federal
rights and removed the case outta the state's hands..

4) Current body of psychological evidence points to "joint custody" as best
for kids, yet it is not into mainstream case law yet.


Screw "psychological evidence." A custody award in itself usually
violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That's why
*everyone* should put some thought into their federal questions --
based mostly if not entirely on the 14th Amendment -- and remove their
cases to their local U.S. District Courts.

Anyone who wants one, email me, let me know what format you use
(WordPerfect, Word, etc.), and I'll be thrilled to send you a raw form
to use.

Layne