Until the presumption of equally shared parenting time law is passed in your state, you can PUT A STOP TO HIGH CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS.

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

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".

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!

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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?

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..

"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.