A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OK, let's play the Legal System Game!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 14th 09, 03:18 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
OK boys and girls, here's today's question..

What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise
snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't
the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..)

Any one?
Any one?

OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must
admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a
few years back. Now for the real question..

What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives
42 it's teeth.

Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even
in the USC-book! (ha!)

I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the
answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you
already know?

42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages,
unemployment compensation, and workers compensation.

45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the
procedures to be followed.

15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the
Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds
the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the
first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which
is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to
42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581.

The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what
monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly
extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104
and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of
law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to
garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment.

So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross
income", guess what? No, they can't.

Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an
employee of the Federal government, or in the military.

Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html

5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
AND/OR ALIMONY

I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the
federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders
received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand
where the states would have any reason to use the federal
government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581
basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be
subjected to state court garnishments.

Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the
states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of
the employee.

For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is,
before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court
order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR
581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines
& forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before-
the garnishment can happen.

The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH
(housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581
says that these are things that must be removed and are to be
disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to
work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else.

What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or
net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders.
Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to
establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are
used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on
adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state
income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each
parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline
is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax
positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS.

Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent
exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions.
Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no
dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the
mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration
when setting CS guidelines it is bogus.


Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can
only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support
or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to
support.

In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a
change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was
a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit
more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same
situation.

I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants.

Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set.
CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits.
If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the
withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he
pays more than the withholding order voluntarily.

Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just
about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is
that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on
this rollercoaster ride from hell.

And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do
about it.


I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS
order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance
premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with
the court's order.

My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was
limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments
(the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of
50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because
the wage withholding made my payments go down.

So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the
court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order
that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in
contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld
and what the court order said.

My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose
CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order
states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit
withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes
an arrearage.


Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by the
short hairs.


If they don't grant you a modification they have you by the short hair. I
recall seeing a statistic a some point that indicated downward modifications
are approved in less than 10% of the filings.


As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same
judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something
my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where
they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully
remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a tendency
to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next time you're
standing in front of them.


You can't judge shop where I live. The court rules say once a judge is
assigned to your case they are on your case forever. You can ask a judge to
recuse themselves for their previous bias, but unltimately the same judge
you want recused decides whether they should be recused or not. Of course,
they rule they weren't biased.


Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges
decision and move it up a notch.


Appeals are a trickly issue. You can't appeal a decision because you don't
like it. Appeals have to be based on legal reasons for failing to follow
the law. In my state 85% of all appeals, including those in areas other
than family law, are AWOP'd. AWOP stands for Affirmed Without Opinion.
That means 85% of all appeals are rejected without any reason given. Unless
you have a serious legal issue the appeals court decides to address you end
up paying for the appeal and getting no comment back on why they won't
consdier your arguments.


Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they
did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators
and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can.


One of the serious shortcomings in family law is the federal government sets
up the broad guidelines for CS program administration. But the federal
courts have refused to get invloved in CS cases because they consider those
cases to be a state's rights issue. The feds want it both ways - In the
game when they want to be in it, and out of the game when they don't want to
be in it.


There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they
don't get it.

The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town is
an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and take
it.

It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that judges
and politicians really can't stand.


This is the area where an aggressive father gets sucked into their game. I
raised a stink. I ended up paying over $20,000 in attorney fees for my ex's
attorneys for raising the issues I raised. It's a no-win situation and they
slam-dunk fathers for being assertive. I had the judge in my case tell me I
would have been "better served to have spend my $5,000 on law school tuition
instead of paying the attorney fees." The attorney fees for the issue
before the court were more like $1,500 but I was forced to pay an extra
$3,500 to clear off my ex's attorney fees for other legal work.


So go make the biggest stink you can!

It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got
the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies, bias
and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while
getting pelted with rocks from every angle.


Not even close to the reality I went through. A feminist judge doesn't need
a "bigger set of balls" to make you lose big time.

  #12  
Old February 14th 09, 04:52 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
OK boys and girls, here's today's question..

What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise
snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't
the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..)

Any one?
Any one?

OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must
admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a
few years back. Now for the real question..

What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives
42 it's teeth.

Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even
in the USC-book! (ha!)

I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the
answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you
already know?

42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages,
unemployment compensation, and workers compensation.

45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the
procedures to be followed.

15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the
Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that
adds the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use
the first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest.
Which is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash
attached to 42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581.

The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what
monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly
extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104
and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of
law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to
garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment.

So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross
income", guess what? No, they can't.

Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an
employee of the Federal government, or in the military.

Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html

5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
AND/OR ALIMONY

I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the
federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders
received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand
where the states would have any reason to use the federal
government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581
basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be
subjected to state court garnishments.

Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the
states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages
of the employee.

For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay
is, before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your
court order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income.
5CFR 581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare,
fines & forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other
things -before- the garnishment can happen.

The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH
(housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581
says that these are things that must be removed and are to be
disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to
work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else.

What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income
or net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders.
Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to
establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are
used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on
adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state
income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each
parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline
is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax
positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS.

Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent
exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax
deductions. Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent
exemptions, no dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax
deductions the mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into
consideration when setting CS guidelines it is bogus.


Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can
only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to
support or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second
family to support.

In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a
change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person
was a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a
little bit more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in
the same situation.

I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants.

Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set.
CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits.
If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the
withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he
pays more than the withholding order voluntarily.

Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just
about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is
that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on
this rollercoaster ride from hell.

And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do
about it.

I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and
SS order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical
insurance premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay
current with the court's order.

My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was
limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments
(the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of
50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because
the wage withholding made my payments go down.

So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the
court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order
that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in
contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50%
withheld and what the court order said.

My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose
CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order
states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit
withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference
becomes an arrearage.


Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by
the short hairs.


If they don't grant you a modification they have you by the short hair. I
recall seeing a statistic a some point that indicated downward
modifications are approved in less than 10% of the filings.


As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same
judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something
my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where
they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully
remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a
tendency to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next
time you're standing in front of them.


You can't judge shop where I live. The court rules say once a judge is
assigned to your case they are on your case forever. You can ask a judge
to recuse themselves for their previous bias, but unltimately the same
judge you want recused decides whether they should be recused or not. Of
course, they rule they weren't biased.


Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges
decision and move it up a notch.


Appeals are a trickly issue. You can't appeal a decision because you
don't like it. Appeals have to be based on legal reasons for failing to
follow the law. In my state 85% of all appeals, including those in areas
other than family law, are AWOP'd. AWOP stands for Affirmed Without
Opinion. That means 85% of all appeals are rejected without any reason
given. Unless you have a serious legal issue the appeals court decides to
address you end up paying for the appeal and getting no comment back on
why they won't consdier your arguments.


Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they
did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators
and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can.


One of the serious shortcomings in family law is the federal government
sets up the broad guidelines for CS program administration. But the
federal courts have refused to get invloved in CS cases because they
consider those cases to be a state's rights issue. The feds want it both
ways - In the game when they want to be in it, and out of the game when
they don't want to be in it.


There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they
don't get it.

The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town
is an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and
take it.

It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that
judges and politicians really can't stand.


This is the area where an aggressive father gets sucked into their game.
I raised a stink. I ended up paying over $20,000 in attorney fees for my
ex's attorneys for raising the issues I raised. It's a no-win situation
and they slam-dunk fathers for being assertive. I had the judge in my
case tell me I would have been "better served to have spend my $5,000 on
law school tuition instead of paying the attorney fees." The attorney
fees for the issue before the court were more like $1,500 but I was forced
to pay an extra $3,500 to clear off my ex's attorney fees for other legal
work.


So go make the biggest stink you can!

It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got
the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies,
bias and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while
getting pelted with rocks from every angle.


Not even close to the reality I went through. A feminist judge doesn't
need a "bigger set of balls" to make you lose big time.


Indeed! Bigger guns are sufficient.



  #13  
Old February 14th 09, 06:23 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!



--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
OK boys and girls, here's today's question..

What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise
snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't
the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..)

Any one?
Any one?

OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must
admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a
few years back. Now for the real question..

What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives
42 it's teeth.

Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even
in the USC-book! (ha!)

I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the
answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you
already know?

42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages,
unemployment compensation, and workers compensation.

45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the
procedures to be followed.

15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the
Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds
the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the
first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which
is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to
42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581.

The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what
monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly
extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104
and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of
law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to
garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment.

So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross
income", guess what? No, they can't.

Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an
employee of the Federal government, or in the military.

Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html

5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
AND/OR ALIMONY

I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the
federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders
received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand
where the states would have any reason to use the federal
government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581
basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be
subjected to state court garnishments.

Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the
states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of
the employee.

For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is,
before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court
order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR
581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines
& forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before-
the garnishment can happen.

The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH
(housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581
says that these are things that must be removed and are to be
disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to
work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else.

What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or
net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders.
Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to
establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are
used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on
adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state
income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each
parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline
is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax
positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS.

Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent
exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions.
Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no
dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the
mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration
when setting CS guidelines it is bogus.


Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can
only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support
or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to
support.

In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a
change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was
a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit
more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same
situation.

I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants.

Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set.
CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits.
If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the
withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he
pays more than the withholding order voluntarily.

Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just
about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is
that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on
this rollercoaster ride from hell.

And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do
about it.


I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS
order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance
premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with
the court's order.

My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was
limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments
(the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of
50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because
the wage withholding made my payments go down.

So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the
court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order
that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in
contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld
and what the court order said.

My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose
CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order
states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit
withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes
an arrearage.


Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by the
short hairs.

As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same
judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something
my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where
they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully
remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a tendency
to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next time you're
standing in front of them.

Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges
decision and move it up a notch.

Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they
did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators
and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can.

There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they
don't get it.

The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town is
an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and take
it.

It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that judges
and politicians really can't stand.

So go make the biggest stink you can!

It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got
the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies, bias
and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while
getting pelted with rocks from every angle.


Bear in mind that even though you may "win" by continuing to play their
game, you can never REALLY win (meaning defend your inherent rights) because
they have BIGGER guns. Needless to say, it's extremely dangerous to
appeal/challenge any judge's decision simply becaues (as you stated) one may
find themself facing such judge once again; and vengence is a terrible
thing! Even if you never again stand before that particular judge, their
brotherhood is such that they make sure you pay the price by informing the
new judge of your defiance. Usually, paying now is far better than paying
later. Not unlike the guy in Tijuana who says he will guard your parked
vehicle for a small fee. Think about it.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Divorce, the game anyone can play - even Grandma!! Dusty Child Support 0 January 16th 09 11:37 AM
Time Travel Role Play Game for Everyday Peacemakers [email protected] General 0 March 27th 07 11:03 PM
Come and play the Spot the Spin game!! Dusty Child Support 0 September 8th 06 11:23 PM
Come and play the Spot the Spin game!! Dusty Child Support 0 September 8th 06 10:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.