Free Yourself From Child Support Tyranny!!

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message
t.com...
Hey there Gini sockpuppet.

Gini's diversionary tactic was quite obvious in this post, as all it said
is, "that is illegal". Nothing to support the claim.

The posting original posting was indeed quite legal (nothing wrong with
having a business and setting up a payroll for yourself in the business),
thus it was an obvious attempt from a liberal non-thinker just expressing
an
unsupported opinion, because she just didn't "like" the answer given.

The poster who called your plan "illegal" was Relayer, not Gini.
--
Thanks Bob--I have Anon killfiled so never saw this til now and had no clue
what he was talking about. Guess the killfile was a good call on my part.

"Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message
t.com...
Hey there Gini sockpuppet.

Gini's diversionary tactic was quite obvious in this post, as all it said
is, "that is illegal". Nothing to support the claim.

The posting original posting was indeed quite legal (nothing wrong with
having a business and setting up a payroll for yourself in the business),
thus it was an obvious attempt from a liberal non-thinker just expressing
an
unsupported opinion, because she just didn't "like" the answer given.

The poster who called your plan "illegal" was Relayer, not Gini.

What I would like to know is how do you argue in court to get around state
administrative rules on how to determine gross income in single
proprietorships, partnerships, and closely held corporations?

I understood you to say how an LLC or corporation is set up is a key factor.
But state CS laws are set up to defeat any income sheltering schemes. You
suggested money deposited into a corporate bank account does not belong to
the individual. But an LLC is not a corporation. And a closely held
corporation gets different scrutiny for CS calculations than a public
corporation.

How do you convince a judge an LLC or closely held corporation is not a
scheme to shelter income?

"Gini" wrote in message
news:6aiJh.5908$vb.1570@trndny04...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message
t.com...
Hey there Gini sockpuppet.

Gini's diversionary tactic was quite obvious in this post, as all it
said
is, "that is illegal". Nothing to support the claim.

The posting original posting was indeed quite legal (nothing wrong with
having a business and setting up a payroll for yourself in the
business),
thus it was an obvious attempt from a liberal non-thinker just
expressing
an
unsupported opinion, because she just didn't "like" the answer given.

The poster who called your plan "illegal" was Relayer, not Gini.
--
Thanks Bob--I have Anon killfiled so never saw this til now and had no
clue
what he was talking about. Guess the killfile was a good call on my part.

Talk about sock puppets. I'm beginning to think Mr. Anonymous and Child
Support Sux are the same poster. Both are both peddling CS avoidance
schemes that are inconsistent with federal and state CS laws.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
........................

Talk about sock puppets. I'm beginning to think Mr. Anonymous and Child
Support Sux are the same poster. Both are both peddling CS avoidance
schemes that are inconsistent with federal and state CS laws.
==
Hmm...Good sleuthing, Bob. It appears there is that "diversionary tactic"
phrase they are both apparently using. Odd
that we never heard it from anyone and now these two. I'm sensing a written
voice alert.
Thanks for the heads-up.

On Mar 12, 4:02�pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

Talk about sock puppets. *I'm beginning to think Mr. Anonymous and Child
Support Sux are the same poster. *Both are both peddling CS avoidance
schemes that are inconsistent with federal and state CS laws.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I would say the probably of that is ..oh...100%

child support sux wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:54 pm, "Gini" wrote:

"Relayer" wrote

"Mr. Anonymous" wrote:

Your "system" is illegal and potentially dangerous, you imbecile.
==
And you just reposted it all.


For all who read this. GINI is a spammer in this group. Lurking for
threads that don't suit her opinion, then when she finds one, launches
an abusive diversionary attack.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Good one!

Truth is, Gini is a regular here with good advice and generally good
eyes for spotting trolls. She used to catch me at it fairly often,
although she doesn't usually catch me anymore. The wonders of modern
technology! ;^)

- Ron ^*^

"Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message
t.com...
Hey there Gini sockpuppet.

Gini's diversionary tactic was quite obvious in this post, as all it said
is, "that is illegal". Nothing to support the claim.

The posting original posting was indeed quite legal (nothing wrong with
having a business and setting up a payroll for yourself in the business),
thus it was an obvious attempt from a liberal non-thinker just expressing
an unsupported opinion, because she just didn't "like" the answer given.

You're weird.

"Werebat" wrote


child support sux wrote:
..........................


For all who read this. GINI is a spammer in this group. Lurking for
threads that don't suit her opinion, then when she finds one, launches
an abusive diversionary attack.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Good one!

Truth is, Gini is a regular here with good advice and generally good eyes
for spotting trolls.
=
Now I suppose I owe you a beer, too.
=
She used to catch me at it fairly often,
although she doesn't usually catch me anymore.

The wonders of modern
technology! ;^)
==
Or I just don't give a ****?
==

Gini wrote:

"Werebat" wrote


child support sux wrote:

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


For all who read this. GINI is a spammer in this group. Lurking for
threads that don't suit her opinion, then when she finds one, launches
an abusive diversionary attack.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Good one!

Truth is, Gini is a regular here with good advice and generally good eyes
for spotting trolls.

=
Now I suppose I owe you a beer, too.
=

Neh... Just being honest. You ARE a regular here. CSS is being funny
in his implications.


She used to catch me at it fairly often,

although she doesn't usually catch me anymore.


The wonders of modern

technology! ;^)

==
Or I just don't give a ****?
==

Ah, but if you didn't, you wouldn't expose me when you could. Heh.

- Ron ^*^

If someone else is the owner of the LLC, how are you supposed to own the
money?

Suit yourself, perhaps this posting isn't for you. I'm not selling
anything, I'm just offering hope to those who have been enslaved.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Anonymous" wrote in message
t.com...
Hey there Gini sockpuppet.

Gini's diversionary tactic was quite obvious in this post, as all it said
is, "that is illegal". Nothing to support the claim.

The posting original posting was indeed quite legal (nothing wrong with
having a business and setting up a payroll for yourself in the business),
thus it was an obvious attempt from a liberal non-thinker just expressing
an
unsupported opinion, because she just didn't "like" the answer given.

The poster who called your plan "illegal" was Relayer, not Gini.

What I would like to know is how do you argue in court to get around state
administrative rules on how to determine gross income in single
proprietorships, partnerships, and closely held corporations?

I understood you to say how an LLC or corporation is set up is a key
factor.
But state CS laws are set up to defeat any income sheltering schemes. You
suggested money deposited into a corporate bank account does not belong to
the individual. But an LLC is not a corporation. And a closely held
corporation gets different scrutiny for CS calculations than a public
corporation.

How do you convince a judge an LLC or closely held corporation is not a
scheme to shelter income?






--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95