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
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay for one for me, I'd do it too. I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which effectively makes it a debtor's prison. Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay will not. Don't confuse the two. If after the sadness of losing losing your wife to divorce, you slip through the cracks in depression and don't qualify for any financial assistance and resort to dumpster diving to support yourself, you obviously have no means to pay child support. You will not go to prison not having the means to pay child support. This is the SOLE reason I choose not to have children. It is a good reason not to have children and there are many more good reasons, too. But with the million of good women who don't want to get married, why even bother with that. The child support laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it puts poor men at risk of prison, while wealthy men do not have this risk. Poor men in any society can only afford to work and have a few beers because the rest of the money must to support the wife and kids. That is true in all cultures on the planet. Wealthy men can by anything they want and make as many mistakes as they wish because they have the money or pay for whatever they want. If such men are in no condition to support a child, they should use a little thing called a CONDOM... or abstain from sex completely. Abstain from eating you tub of lard. And yes, the same applies to women... it's called BIRTH CONTROL... use it. Birth control is the Female's duty since she's the one who gets pregnant. -- "Eloquence is hard!" - Talking G.I. Joe "Fact-free cow**** claim fails" - Andre sympathises with Joe FACT: Female is Nature's default gender setting -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
"enquiring minds" wrote in message ... Ray Gordon wrote: I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay for one for me, I'd do it too. I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which effectively makes it a debtor's prison. Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay will not. Don't confuse the two. Why not? The courts do often enough. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
YooperBoyka wrote:
"enquiring minds" wrote in message ... Ray Gordon wrote: I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay for one for me, I'd do it too. I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which effectively makes it a debtor's prison. Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay will not. Don't confuse the two. Why not? The courts do often enough. So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same mistake? That doesn't make sense ... (8-( |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
"Fred" wrote in message . net... YooperBoyka wrote: "enquiring minds" wrote in message ... Ray Gordon wrote: I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay for one for me, I'd do it too. I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which effectively makes it a debtor's prison. Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay will not. Don't confuse the two. Why not? The courts do often enough. So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same mistake? That doesn't make sense ... (8-( What doesn't make sense is that an inability to pay can and WILL get you incarcerated. Pretending it won't will solve nothing. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
YooperBoyka wrote:
I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which effectively makes it a debtor's prison. Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay will not. Don't confuse the two. Why not? The courts do often enough. So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same mistake? That doesn't make sense ... (8-( What doesn't make sense is that an inability to pay can and WILL get you incarcerated. Pretending it won't will solve nothing. I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, but as to the jurisdiction in which I reside (Minnesota), an inability to pay will NOT get you incarcerated. It might get your child support reduced if you make a motion to that effect, and/or it might result in establishment of a payment plan, but it will NOT get you incarcerated. Only if you have the ability to pay and are not doing so MIGHT you be incarcerated. If you want to cite a jurisdiction that has a policy of incarcerating based on inability (not refusal; inability) to pay, please do so. But knock off the glittering generalities; they are not appropriate. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
"Avenger" wrote in message news:ZkxYg.303$4T6.91@trnddc02... I'd be willing to be the Plaintiff. If you're not a lawyer, and want to pay for one for me, I'd do it too. I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which effectively makes it a debtor's prison. Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay will not. Don't confuse the two. If after the sadness of losing losing your wife to divorce, you slip through the cracks in depression and don't qualify for any financial assistance and resort to dumpster diving to support yourself, you obviously have no means to pay child support. You will not go to prison not having the means to pay child support. This is the SOLE reason I choose not to have children. It is a good reason not to have children and there are many more good reasons, too. But with the million of good women who don't want to get married, why even bother with that. The child support laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it puts poor men at risk of prison, while wealthy men do not have this risk. Poor men in any society can only afford to work and have a few beers because the rest of the money must to support the wife and kids. That is true in all cultures on the planet. Wealthy men can by anything they want and make as many mistakes as they wish because they have the money or pay for whatever they want. If such men are in no condition to support a child, they should use a little thing called a CONDOM... or abstain from sex completely. Abstain from eating you tub of lard. And yes, the same applies to women... it's called BIRTH CONTROL... use it. Birth control is the Female's duty since she's the one who gets pregnant. Classic hiding one's head in the sand. Bull**** to you, boyo. If being pregnant is ONLY a woman's concern, then you wouldn't be complaining about having to support your *******s. Of course, any child of yours might be better off never knowing who fathered it. CWQ -- "Eloquence is hard!" - Talking G.I. Joe "Fact-free cow**** claim fails" - Andre sympathises with Joe FACT: Female is Nature's default gender setting -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
"Fred" wrote in message . net... I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, Try doing some reading on the subject. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
"Fred" wrote in message . net... YooperBoyka wrote: I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which effectively makes it a debtor's prison. Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay will not. Don't confuse the two. Why not? The courts do often enough. So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same mistake? That doesn't make sense ... (8-( What doesn't make sense is that an inability to pay can and WILL get you incarcerated. Pretending it won't will solve nothing. I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, Then you might want to start reading on the subject. "Inability" can be defined in oh-so-many wonderful ways, donchaknow. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
YooperBoyka wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message . net... I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, Try doing some reading on the subject. I provided info from my jurisdiction that directly contradicted your major premise. You provided nothing. I guess that says all that needs be said. Have a nice day. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?
YooperBoyka wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message . net... YooperBoyka wrote: I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my constitutional rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support, which effectively makes it a debtor's prison. Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay will not. Don't confuse the two. Why not? The courts do often enough. So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same mistake? That doesn't make sense ... (8-( What doesn't make sense is that an inability to pay can and WILL get you incarcerated. Pretending it won't will solve nothing. I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, Let's look at the entire passage that I wrote: "I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, but as to the jurisdiction in which I reside (Minnesota), an inability to pay will NOT get you incarcerated. It might get your child support reduced if you make a motion to that effect, and/or it might result in establishment of a payment plan, but it will NOT get you incarcerated. Only if you have the ability to pay and are not doing so MIGHT you be incarcerated. "If you want to cite a jurisdiction that has a policy of incarcerating based on inability (not refusal; inability) to pay, please do so. But knock off the glittering generalities; they are not appropriate. " Then you might want to start reading on the subject. I did, as to my jurisdiction. I also invited you to cite a jurisdiction that supports your contention. You, in turn, ignored what I provided and refused to provide info in kind. You are being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you. "Inability" can be defined in oh-so-many wonderful ways, donchaknow. Then provide information regarding a jurisdiction that supports your position. And can the glittering generalities, which I have already demonstrated are not valid. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NJ: Ruling on indigent parents reversed | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | March 13th 06 10:32 PM |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case | Fern5827 | Spanking | 8 | October 4th 05 03:43 AM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |