Did any know?

Besides, Dusty, I am on your side.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference
with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50
states
and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the
aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort.
Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts)
have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able
to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it
as a
a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie
case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make
them
try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they
just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the
tide.

Of course you are, read the "theoretically" in there. The precedent
could be overturned and noone would care. I would like to know if any
suits have been won based on this though.

Do a Google search on it, or head over to the local law libarary (you
might
find it in the courthouse) and look it up.

Do you know what a recognized case of action is?

Ok, here is a breakdown . . . . intentional interference with
noncustodial parents visitation rights by custodial parent is not
recognized as a cause of action in the following states:

Louisiana, no.

New York, no.

Missouri, no.

Wisconsin, no.

Maryland, no.

Wyoming, no.

Delaware, no.

Florida, no.

Oklahoma, no.

You look up the rest down at your local law library, I am bored. Make
sure to distinguish between interference by a third-party as more
courts allow this. I wanted to pointed out an anamoly, and a positive
one at that, in the law. You need to step down about three notches...

Oh yeah, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Hey, you're the one who aske the question.. I just made a suggestion on how
to find it. Unless you feel like paying me to do the looking for ya...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Besides, Dusty, I am on your side.

Well, don't get so testy, jeesh!

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference
with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50
states
and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the
aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort.
Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts)
have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able
to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it
as a
a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie
case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make
them
try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they
just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the
tide.

Of course you are, read the "theoretically" in there. The precedent
could be overturned and noone would care. I would like to know if any
suits have been won based on this though.

Do a Google search on it, or head over to the local law libarary (you
might
find it in the courthouse) and look it up.

Do you know what a recognized case of action is?

Ok, here is a breakdown . . . . intentional interference with
noncustodial parents visitation rights by custodial parent is not
recognized as a cause of action in the following states:

Louisiana, no.

New York, no.

Missouri, no.

Wisconsin, no.

Maryland, no.

Wyoming, no.

Delaware, no.

Florida, no.

Oklahoma, no.

You look up the rest down at your local law library, I am bored. Make
sure to distinguish between interference by a third-party as more
courts allow this. I wanted to pointed out an anamoly, and a positive
one at that, in the law. You need to step down about three notches...

Oh yeah, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Hey, you're the one who aske the question.. I just made a suggestion on how
to find it. Unless you feel like paying me to do the looking for ya...

I asked if anyone knew that you could use that cause of action in South
Dakota, I knew that the case authority said you could. I think you read
"Did anyone know" as "Does anyone know."

So that is the whole reason for the misunderstanding, I believe. I wish
other states would recognize this cause of action (some may). It would
give another remedy for the NCP who is denied visitation habitually and
methodically. The current remedy of contempt is useless because it is
rarely enforced on CP's.

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

I asked if anyone knew that you could use that cause of action in South
Dakota, I knew that the case authority said you could. I think you read
"Did anyone know" as "Does anyone know."

No, I got it the first time. Hence the reply given.

So that is the whole reason for the misunderstanding, I believe. I wish
other states would recognize this cause of action (some may). It would
give another remedy for the NCP who is denied visitation habitually and
methodically. The current remedy of contempt is useless because it is
rarely enforced on CP's.

Contempt, as well as perjury, are (nearly) universally never enforced. This
includes NCP's (namely: Dad) not being notified of parent-teacher meetings,
doctor's office visits, school open houses, plays, track meets, band / choir
concerts, etc.. The list is nearly endless. And (almost) never enforced by
the courts. The only thing that is enforced is non-payment of C$ - the rest
is swept under the rug and forgotten about since it's not in the best
interest of the CP (namely: Mom) - or anything else that goes against the CP
and feminazi interests.

J, for every time an NCP finds a way around the redfems, they come up with
20 ways to block anyone else from using that loophole ever again - in each
and every state. Trust me, I've been there.

The only thing I've (so far) found that eventually works, is time. And the
kids attitude that the only one that can keep them in line is their father.
Why? Because (at least in my own case) they actually -listen- to their
father - because I listen to them, and make certain that they know that I'm
trying to understand them and what they're going through. Their mother
rarely, if ever, makes even an attempt at it. And the kids know it. Seems
that everything goes into one ear and out her (name your favorite orifice).

I've lost plenty of battles (both in and out of court), not unlike G.W. (no,
not Bush - think the first Pres..). And, like him, I intend to win the war.

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

I asked if anyone knew that you could use that cause of action in South
Dakota, I knew that the case authority said you could. I think you read
"Did anyone know" as "Does anyone know."

No, I got it the first time. Hence the reply given.

So that is the whole reason for the misunderstanding, I believe. I wish
other states would recognize this cause of action (some may). It would
give another remedy for the NCP who is denied visitation habitually and
methodically. The current remedy of contempt is useless because it is
rarely enforced on CP's.

Contempt, as well as perjury, are (nearly) universally never enforced. This
includes NCP's (namely: Dad) not being notified of parent-teacher meetings,
doctor's office visits, school open houses, plays, track meets, band / choir
concerts, etc.. The list is nearly endless. And (almost) never enforced by
the courts. The only thing that is enforced is non-payment of C$ - the rest
is swept under the rug and forgotten about since it's not in the best
interest of the CP (namely: Mom) - or anything else that goes against the CP
and feminazi interests.

Perjury is the SOP in family court.

Actually, the funny thing is, that looking through the cases, you can
smell the gender bias. Anytime a NCP gets something it is always an NCP
mother. Feminazi politics are the problem. Do you know who was on the
last committee to review CS guidelines in your state? Probably a bunch
of feminists, judges, a few divorce attorneys (weak attorneys tend to
love mothers in custody battles, makes real losers feel like real
winners), maybe one lonely NCP dad who just wants to see his kids and
not have more of his money confiscated.


J, for every time an NCP finds a way around the redfems, they come up with
20 ways to block anyone else from using that loophole ever again - in each
and every state. Trust me, I've been there.

I am not suprised at all. It starts with the judges, legislatures, and
lawyers (often combined). Go to a law schools website, pick one at
random, then go look at the "qualifications" of these professors.
Chances are at least one in three women is a feminazi. Why? Because
they are defective women who can only succeed in a structured
environment. They just cannot handle the real world. I am woman, hear
me cower behind my desk in the ivory tower and waste students time with
my wild-eyed "scholarship," "critical thinking skills," "enlightening
lectures," and huge amount of Freudian penis envy.

The only thing I've (so far) found that eventually works, is time. And the
kids attitude that the only one that can keep them in line is their father.
Why? Because (at least in my own case) they actually -listen- to their
father - because I listen to them, and make certain that they know that I'm
trying to understand them and what they're going through. Their mother
rarely, if ever, makes even an attempt at it. And the kids know it. Seems
that everything goes into one ear and out her (name your favorite orifice).

Nothing in between to stop it, perhaps? I feel ya. My little girls
mother is a total loser. No education, ****ty job, lives with her
mother (who I keep having the feeling is really raising my kid), etc,
etc, etc.

I've lost plenty of battles (both in and out of court), not unlike G.W. (no,
not Bush - think the first Pres..). And, like him, I intend to win the war.

The problem is NCP's are not an "interest group." The Democrats are
beholden to their femiratic supporters, so you are left with
Republicans, and they don't give a **** about you either, raise CS to
cut welfare is all they can think of (hint: it doesn't work, if you
want to lower welfare payments, give fathers custody). Organization is
needed. Now, how does one get a mailing list of every NCP in a certain
state paying CS so that direct mailings can be sent out? Just imagine
the clout one could pull with 5,000 or so members in a small state,
then move it to another state, repeat. Then hope like hell national
child support guidelines are not set. (This, like most things in CS,
makes no economic sense at all).

This whole thing is a huge scam. Enron ain't got ****. Set the
guidelines artifically high, demand inflation and cost of living
adjustments, and collect. Maximus and PSI can rich, your ex gets paid
for doing something you would do for free, the Feds reimburse the state
(so it still uses tax dollars), and you get ****ed. End of story.