CSE implying falsehoods to NCPs? No wayyyyyy!!!!!!

http://www.parkrapidsenterprise.com/...2a9bc445203120

you mean to say that CSEAs will lie to a person by omission in order to
get a fatter paycheck? Why they're government workers, why would they
lie to the people they are supposed to serve? Next thing you will be
telling me is that Congressmen are abusing pages, or immigration
officials will be padding their already thick salaries with bribes to
let illegals into this country.

JOhn, some of these articals force you register!

Coudl you just cut and paste the text in question?


"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.parkrapidsenterprise.com/...2a9bc445203120

you mean to say that CSEAs will lie to a person by omission in order to
get a fatter paycheck? Why they're government workers, why would they
lie to the people they are supposed to serve? Next thing you will be
telling me is that Congressmen are abusing pages, or immigration
officials will be padding their already thick salaries with bribes to
let illegals into this country.

DB wrote:
JOhn, some of these articals force you register!

Coudl you just cut and paste the text in question?



Yep. However, most of the places are free. So I'll post on this one.

Child support law

allows discretion

The article by James Bordewick on the new child support laws has an
incorrect statement.

The article states that a qualification for modification of a child
support order includes among other things that an income change of at
least 20 percent for the owing party must occur. This comes from what I
assume was a Department of Human Services fact sheet under the heading -
Modification of Existing, but this statement is incorrect.

Minnestoa Statute 518A.39 Subd. 2 actually states: “The terms of an
order respecting maintenance or support may be modified upon a showing
of one or more of the following, any of which makes the terms
unreasonable and unfair: 1) substantially increased or decreased gross
income of an obligor or obligee; 2) substantially increased or decreased
need of an obligor or obligee or the child or children that are the
subject of these proceedings…�

The biggest thing obligors and obligees should be aware of is Minnesota
Statute 518.553 which has been renumbered 518A.69 but has remained
unchanged.

518A.69 states, “In proposing or approving proposed written payment
agreements for purposes of this chapter, the court, a child support
magistrate or the public authority shall take into consideration the
amount of the arrearages, the amount of the current support order, any
pending request for modification, and the earnings of the obligor. The
court, child support magistrate or public authority shall consider the
individual financial circumstances of each obligor in evaluating the
obligor’s ability to pay any proposed payment agreement and shall
propose a reasonable payment agreement tailored to the individual
financial circumstances of each obligor. The court, child support
magistrate or public authority also shall consider a graduated payment
plan tailored to the individual financial circumstances of each obligor.�

All too often a county child support worker will tell someone that is in
arrears that you must agree to pay something they arbitrarily come up
with. That number in a majority of cases is more than the child support
amount the obligor fell behind with in the first place. In statute keep
in mind that in legislative terms “shall� means “must.�

David Anderson

Lonsdale

The article by James Bordewick on the new child support laws has an
incorrect statement.

All too often a county child support worker will tell someone that is in
arrears that you must agree to pay something they arbitrarily come up
with. That number in a majority of cases is more than the child support
amount the obligor fell behind with in the first place. In statute keep
in mind that in legislative terms "shall" means "must."

Believe it or not, I've seen Virginia caselaw which says that "shall"
doesn't always mean "must"...if I can find it, I'll post it.

wrote:
The article by James Bordewick on the new child support laws has an
incorrect statement.

All too often a county child support worker will tell someone that is in
arrears that you must agree to pay something they arbitrarily come up
with. That number in a majority of cases is more than the child support
amount the obligor fell behind with in the first place. In statute keep
in mind that in legislative terms "shall" means "must."

Believe it or not, I've seen Virginia caselaw which says that "shall"
doesn't always mean "must"...if I can find it, I'll post it.

From the dictionary:

Note: [Shall is defective, having no infinitive, imperative,
or participle.]
1. To owe; to be under obligation for. [Obs.] "By the faith I
shall to God" --Court of Love.
[1913 Webster]

2. To be obliged; must. [Obs.] "Me athinketh [I am sorry]
that I shall rehearse it her." --Chaucer.
[1913 Webster]

So a bunch of Virginians think that having an obligation doesn't mean
you must do something? Wow. Now all of a sudden Bill's go around with
the word is doesn't seem that surprising.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
The article by James Bordewick on the new child support laws has an
incorrect statement.

All too often a county child support worker will tell someone that is
in
arrears that you must agree to pay something they arbitrarily come up
with. That number in a majority of cases is more than the child support
amount the obligor fell behind with in the first place. In statute keep
in mind that in legislative terms "shall" means "must."

Believe it or not, I've seen Virginia caselaw which says that "shall"
doesn't always mean "must"...if I can find it, I'll post it.

From the dictionary:

Note: [Shall is defective, having no infinitive, imperative,
or participle.]
1. To owe; to be under obligation for. [Obs.] "By the faith I
shall to God" --Court of Love.
[1913 Webster]

2. To be obliged; must. [Obs.] "Me athinketh [I am sorry]
that I shall rehearse it her." --Chaucer.
[1913 Webster]

So a bunch of Virginians think that having an obligation doesn't mean
you must do something? Wow. Now all of a sudden Bill's go around with
the word is doesn't seem that surprising.

Welcome to the world of twisted logic.

In my state "half" (as in half of the marital assets) doesn't mean divided
equally. There is a "long half" and a "short half" according to the appeals
court.

In my case I got the "short half" which was about 35% of the total amount of
assets.