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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
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. 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) I am an advocate of the site I listed (not the owner), I also just explained in my last post that they gave me a job. (Why else would I take the time out to do this? DUH!) I would like to suggest you look up the word spam in the hopes that you will realize that NOTHING I have done here is actually SPAM. I would also like to point out how unfriendly you are. Im sure plenty of people have read these posts by now. Nothing you have said to me illustrates anything other than discord & combative behavior. On top of that, I did not post here to have this discussion with you directly. You in fact engaged in conversation with me. Do you simply enjoy arguing? If so, maybe you should consider a career as an attorney. God Bless |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
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". |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
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! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
"child support sux" wrote "Gini" wrote: ................... 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. 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, == Oh really? Perhaps you can point us to a case citation in which an NCP has successfully argued any CS statute that violated the 14th Amendment? FYI--There are rampant constitutional violations in the CS system. We all know about that. We also know that when the constitutionality of a statute has been tested, the courts have decided....No wait, give me 20 bucks first. == .............................. I would also like to point out how unfriendly you are. Im sure plenty of people have read these posts by now. Nothing you have said to me illustrates anything other than discord & combative behavior. On top of that, I did not post here to have this discussion with you directly. You in fact engaged in conversation with me. Do you simply enjoy arguing? == I'm not friendly with spammers and those who prey on NCPs. I get real testy about that. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
On Mar 10, 8:23 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"child support sux" wrote "Gini" wrote: .................. 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. 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, == Oh really? Perhaps you can point us to a case citation in which an NCP has successfully argued any CS statute that violated the 14th Amendment? FYI--There are rampant constitutional violations in the CS system. We all know about that. We also know that when the constitutionality of a statute has been tested, the courts have decided....No wait, give me 20 bucks first. == ............................. I would also like to point out how unfriendly you are. Im sure plenty of people have read these posts by now. Nothing you have said to me illustrates anything other than discord & combative behavior. On top of that, I did not post here to have this discussion with you directly. You in fact engaged in conversation with me. Do you simply enjoy arguing? == I'm not friendly with spammers and those who prey on NCPs. I get real testy about that. I believe I have proven myself to NOT be spamming. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
On Mar 10, 8:23 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"child support sux" wrote "Gini" wrote: .................. 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. 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, == Oh really? Perhaps you can point us to a case citation in which an NCP has successfully argued any CS statute that violated the 14th Amendment? FYI--There are rampant constitutional violations in the CS system. We all know about that. We also know that when the constitutionality of a statute has been tested, the courts have decided....No wait, give me 20 bucks first. == ............................. I would also like to point out how unfriendly you are. Im sure plenty of people have read these posts by now. Nothing you have said to me illustrates anything other than discord & combative behavior. On top of that, I did not post here to have this discussion with you directly. You in fact engaged in conversation with me. Do you simply enjoy arguing? == I'm not friendly with spammers and those who prey on NCPs. I get real testy about that. Because everyone's situation is unique, charging a fee is the only possible way. It's only 20 bucks. I don't see what the problem is. Ever think that some people might not like the questions they have to be posted for anyone to see? I believe PRIVACY is important to most. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
"child support sux" wrote "Gini" wrote: ........................ == I'm not friendly with spammers and those who prey on NCPs. I get real testy about that. I believe I have proven myself to NOT be spamming. == To whom? BTW, where's that case citation? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
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.. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
SPAM Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time
"child support sux" wrote ......................... Because everyone's situation is unique, charging a fee is the only possible way. == It is certainly *not* the only way. We have resided here for years analyzing individual cases and haven't gotten in over our heads yet. BTW, where's that case citation? == It's only 20 bucks. I don't see what the problem is. == Well, the main problem is that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. == Ever think that some people might not like the questions they have to be posted for anyone to see? I believe PRIVACY is important to most. == Yeah. There is no privacy on usenet. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time law is passed in your state, you can PUT A STOP TO HIGH CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS. | [email protected] | Child Support | 1 | March 10th 07 09:43 PM |
Presumption of Equal Shared Parenting After Divorce | Henry | Child Support | 0 | March 10th 07 10:56 AM |
MS - Do 'child support' payments stop if child is in prison? | Dusty | Child Support | 21 | October 4th 06 05:39 PM |
Child Support and Parenting Time | angelena | Child Support | 1 | January 13th 05 03:12 PM |
Deadbeats - filing a motion to stop child support payments | Moon Shyne | Child Support | 1 | August 7th 04 11:55 PM |