Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time law is passed in your state, you can PUT A STOP TO HIGH CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS.

On Mar 10, 8:41 pm, "Relayer" wrote:
On Mar 10, 7:12?pm, "child support sux" wrote:



On Mar 10, 7:56 pm, "Relayer" wrote:

On Mar 10, 6:30?pm, "child support sux" wrote:

On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, "Gini" wrote:
??Another important part to
consider is the fact that BOTH parents are responsible to support the
child/children. ?The system currently only goes one way, and is
UNCONSITITUTIONAL. ?Read the 14th amendment if you want to know more.
(or you could just spend the 20 bucks and get personal help, some
people consider their time valuable because they offer what they
believe to be valuable services)

That is insane. As an example, NO WHERE in Illinois law does it state
both parents are responsible to support the children. NO WHERE...the
CP, who recieves CS is not required to provide proof of income, proof
of employment, proof of how the money is used for the kids. If fact,
it's quite the OPPOSITE..the LESS financial resources the CP has, the
MORE money the NCP pays..the 14th amendment doesn't even play into
this. I assume you mean "deprived of life, liberty, property"..blah
blah..with the key word "property"..what you are forgetting is the
other part..you know "due process"..and if you walked into a courtroom
and quoted the 14th amendment and tried to mount some kind of
constitutional challenge against child support, you would
last ..oh..about 1.321 seconds before the judge said NEXT...and then
he would laugh about it to his wife over dinner that night..it says
"due process" and laws are enacted (fair or otherwise) in regards to
child support.

Here is the Illinois code..show me where it states BOTH parents are
required..I could use the information..

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...000050k505.htm

Illinois spcifically states "the court may order either or both
parents owing a duty of support to a child of the marriage to pay an
amount reasonable and necessary for his support", with the operative
word being "OR"...

The only thing your spam has done is made me doubt ?the owners of the
websites decision making ability in their hiring process if they in
fact gave you a "job".

Please take the time out to re-read my posts. ?Your emotions seem to
be getting in the way as I am now having to take time out to take the
words you put into my mouth out. ?I never said anyone would win in any
circuit, I believe I said FEDERAL LAW. ?In fact, you need the judge in
a circuit court to act the way you explained they would act. ?That way
a person can appeal it at a higher court. ?DUH! ?You should try being
polite, you catch a lot more flies with HONEY, sweet cheeks!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ok, so according to you, I can spend $20 to learn how to mount a
constitutional challenge? If I spend $200, will you teach me how to
successfully challenge amendments 1 though 10, so I can overthrow the
federal government and install myself as the Grand All High Exulted
Ruler of the United States and It's Vast Minions? Or does that require
additional amendments be thrown out? I am willing to pay up to $300...

Gini- give him another $20 and YOU can be Second In Command -King of
Hawaii. You TOO cn be only a heartbeat away from REAL power...hehe

Listen doorknob..my point was more about Illinois law more than
anything..I pointed you to the statute, quoted from it, yet you didn't
answer my question. If I am going to give YOU $20, how can I make my
ex wife pay? She hasn't worked in 21 years..so please enlighten me..

Hear Ya GO NUMBNUTTS!

Massachusetts Court Of Appeals:
Sylvia -vs- Sylvia
400 North East
2nd 1330

Ruled that the ex wife and the father owe a duty of support. The
judge further ruled that the original judge DENIED the father his
rights under the 14th Amendment. "No person shall be denied the EQUAL
protection of the law in the defense of his life leberty or property."

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!

Please, NOBODY here send us $20, try this on your own if you'd like.

On Mar 10, 8:35 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"child support sux" wrote "Relayer" wrote:

............................

The only thing your spam has done is made me doubt the owners of the
websites decision making ability in their hiring process if they in
fact gave you a "job".

Please take the time out to re-read my posts. Your emotions seem to
be getting in the way as I am now having to take time out to take the
words you put into my mouth out.

==
Damn, you better raise your fee!
==
I never said anyone would win in any circuit, I believe I said FEDERAL LAW. In fact, you need the judge in
a circuit court to act the way you explained they would act. That way
a person can appeal it at a higher court. DUH!

==
LOL..So, what you've basically told us is to appeal to a federal court? Gee,
that tidbit was worth 20 bucks.
You are aware, of course, that federal courts consistently deny hearing
family law cases, right? Of course you do,
you're a paid consultant (who has just proven him/her self useless).
==
You should try being polite, you catch a lot more flies with HONEY, sweet cheeks!

==
No can do, Don. We have a Do-Not-Feed-Honey-to-Spammers rule.

It's mighty CLEVER of you to re-use my line!

"Relayer" wrote
.....................

Ok, so according to you, I can spend $20 to learn how to mount a
constitutional challenge? If I spend $200, will you teach me how to
successfully challenge amendments 1 though 10, so I can overthrow the
federal government and install myself as the Grand All High Exulted
Ruler of the United States and It's Vast Minions? Or does that require
additional amendments be thrown out? I am willing to pay up to $300...

Gini- give him another $20 and YOU can be Second In Command -King of
Hawaii. You TOO cn be only a heartbeat away from REAL power...hehe
==
Do I get a thatched hut on the beach and unlimited Kona?

On Mar 10, 8:51 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote
....................

Ok, so according to you, I can spend $20 to learn how to mount a
constitutional challenge? If I spend $200, will you teach me how to
successfully challenge amendments 1 though 10, so I can overthrow the
federal government and install myself as the Grand All High Exulted
Ruler of the United States and It's Vast Minions? Or does that require
additional amendments be thrown out? I am willing to pay up to $300...

Gini- give him another $20 and YOU can be Second In Command -King of
Hawaii. You TOO cn be only a heartbeat away from REAL power...hehe
==
Do I get a thatched hut on the beach and unlimited Kona?

Your ridiculing isn't even remotely clever.

On Mar 10, 8:51 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote
....................

Ok, so according to you, I can spend $20 to learn how to mount a
constitutional challenge? If I spend $200, will you teach me how to
successfully challenge amendments 1 though 10, so I can overthrow the
federal government and install myself as the Grand All High Exulted
Ruler of the United States and It's Vast Minions? Or does that require
additional amendments be thrown out? I am willing to pay up to $300...

Gini- give him another $20 and YOU can be Second In Command -King of
Hawaii. You TOO cn be only a heartbeat away from REAL power...hehe
==
Do I get a thatched hut on the beach and unlimited Kona?

I also find your behavior in these posts both questionable, and
unsavory.

On Mar 10, 7:51?pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote
....................

Ok, so according to you, I can spend $20 to learn how to mount a
constitutional challenge? If I spend $200, will you teach me how to
successfully challenge amendments 1 though 10, so I can overthrow the
federal government and install myself as the Grand All High Exulted
Ruler of the United States and It's Vast Minions? Or does that require
additional amendments be thrown out? I am willing to pay up to $300...

Gini- give him another $20 and YOU can be Second In Command -King of
Hawaii. You TOO cn be only a heartbeat away from REAL power...hehe
==
Do I get a thatched hut on the beach and unlimited Kona?

Sure..for another $20

"child support sux" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"child support sux" wrote
......................

My site? No, it's not my site, although I wish it were.
==
If it weren't your site, you wouldn't be defending it or spamming this
group, unless you are just a complete fool.
The purpose of this newsgroup is to engage in dialog and support for
those
dealing with the system. Many of us have been here
for years and have extensive experience and legal research in family
law. We
work for free and don't take kindly to spammers
who try to take financial advantage of NCPs already broke from the
system.
Now, if you have information to share freely, feel
free to share it by engaging in meaningful dialog with the group.
Otherwise,
peddle your crap elsewhere. So come on, Don--Tell
us how to get arrears reduced. Oh yeah, it must exclude negotiating with
the
CP, mathematic/posting errors, and such. We already know about
those. See, if you aren't willing to post *real info* here, you are a
spammer and a parasite of NCPs, no better than CPs, the courts, and CSE.

To directly answer the question for you about arrears. Federal Law
prohibits "interest", each state ignores this law until pointed out by
the payor.

So if Federal law prohibits interest, please explain why the Federal
definition of child support found at Title 42 chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D
Section 659 (i) (2) includes "interest and penalties."

People do win this way. Another important part to
consider is the fact that BOTH parents are responsible to support the
child/children. The system currently only goes one way, and is
UNCONSITITUTIONAL. Read the 14th amendment if you want to know more.
(or you could just spend the 20 bucks and get personal help, some
people consider their time valuable because they offer what they
believe to be valuable services)

CS is not unconstitutional and has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.
The equal privileges and immunities clause in the 14th Amendment scrutinizes
benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular
class by the Federal government rather than discrimination against a
particular class.

"child support sux" wrote
...................
I also find your behavior in these posts both questionable, and
unsavory.
==
Heh, that's a riot coming from a usenet spammer.

"child support sux" wrote
On Mar 10, 8:51 pm, "Gini" wrote:
.........................
==
Do I get a thatched hut on the beach and unlimited Kona?

Your ridiculing isn't even remotely clever.
==
And your credentials for critiquing cleverness are?

On Mar 10, 9:46 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"child support sux" wrote in oglegroups.com...



On Mar 10, 6:59 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"child support sux" wrote
......................

My site? No, it's not my site, although I wish it were.
==
If it weren't your site, you wouldn't be defending it or spamming this
group, unless you are just a complete fool.
The purpose of this newsgroup is to engage in dialog and support for
those
dealing with the system. Many of us have been here
for years and have extensive experience and legal research in family
law. We
work for free and don't take kindly to spammers
who try to take financial advantage of NCPs already broke from the
system.
Now, if you have information to share freely, feel
free to share it by engaging in meaningful dialog with the group.
Otherwise,
peddle your crap elsewhere. So come on, Don--Tell
us how to get arrears reduced. Oh yeah, it must exclude negotiating with
the
CP, mathematic/posting errors, and such. We already know about
those. See, if you aren't willing to post *real info* here, you are a
spammer and a parasite of NCPs, no better than CPs, the courts, and CSE.

To directly answer the question for you about arrears. Federal Law
prohibits "interest", each state ignores this law until pointed out by
the payor.

So if Federal law prohibits interest, please explain why the Federal
definition of child support found at Title 42 chapter 7 Subchapter IV Part D
Section 659 (i) (2) includes "interest and penalties."

People do win this way. Another important part to

consider is the fact that BOTH parents are responsible to support the
child/children. The system currently only goes one way, and is
UNCONSITITUTIONAL. Read the 14th amendment if you want to know more.
(or you could just spend the 20 bucks and get personal help, some
people consider their time valuable because they offer what they
believe to be valuable services)

CS is not unconstitutional and has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.
The equal privileges and immunities clause in the 14th Amendment scrutinizes
benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular
class by the Federal government rather than discrimination against a
particular class.

The system is biased against fathers. Until the presumption of
equally shared custody is in place, the law is unconstitutional. I
also provided you with that case citation you all asked for. I
believe your statements to be diversionary.