Past Due Support

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Beverly wrote:

Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to
hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be
providing regular support.

Un, no. Supporting a child is NOT **paying** the bitch who broke up the
child's family. Paying females has NOTHING to do with supporting a child.

You support a child by putting a plate on the table at dinner, and
providing a place on your home to sleep.

You whinny greedy bitches always pretend that men paying women is
"supporting a child" but you lie a lot.

It amounts to nothing more than backdoor alimony.


Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Beverly wrote:

Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to
hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be
providing regular support.

Un, no. Supporting a child is NOT **paying** the bitch who broke up the
child's family. Paying females has NOTHING to do with supporting a child.

You support a child by putting a plate on the table at dinner, and
providing a place on your home to sleep.

You whinny greedy bitches always pretend that men paying women is
"supporting a child" but you lie a lot.

It amounts to nothing more than backdoor alimony.


Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

"Bob" wrote in message
...
Beverly wrote:

Just to empower you, I'd like to warn you that any father willing to
hide for 6 years to avoid supporting his child will most likely not be
providing regular support.

Un, no. Supporting a child is NOT **paying** the bitch who broke up the
child's family. Paying females has NOTHING to do with supporting a child.

You support a child by putting a plate on the table at dinner, and
providing a place on your home to sleep.

You whinny greedy bitches always pretend that men paying women is
"supporting a child" but you lie a lot.

It amounts to nothing more than backdoor alimony.


Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob wrote:

Beverly wrote:
My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my
representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good
game player and knew how to cause continuances... including hiring
an
attorney who sat on the board of Legal Aid which created a conflict
which caused MY need to change attorney who needed a continuance to
catch up on the case. Anyway, I suspect it is because I used Legal
Aid that a temporary order of support was never asked for. I didn't
have to chase my ex for several years, but I did have to ride out
the
court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were
divorced,
not the month I filed.


And never once did you consider getting a job and supporting YOUR
kids.
YOU are 100% responsible for the support of the kids that YOU choose
to bear. The co-equal responsibility of their fathers does not excuse
you from your 100% responsibility for their support. Like all whiny
bitches you expect men-pay, women-get-paid.

Pound sand bitch.

Excuse me? What caused you to have the impression that I didn't work
or that I don't take 100% responsibility for the support of my
children? Having not gone on welfare after splitting, who do you
think supported the children 100% until there was an order? Who do
you think supports the children 100% when their father is "between
jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my
ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway.

If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"?

A piece of writing that should be filed under fiction, specifically
fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the
division of financial responsibility.

Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it.



In
fact, I have subsidized my ex's existence, too, because he gets the
tax dependencies whether or not he pays support... and he had been
"between jobs" for a very long time.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob wrote:

Beverly wrote:
My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my
representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good
game player and knew how to cause continuances... including hiring
an
attorney who sat on the board of Legal Aid which created a conflict
which caused MY need to change attorney who needed a continuance to
catch up on the case. Anyway, I suspect it is because I used Legal
Aid that a temporary order of support was never asked for. I didn't
have to chase my ex for several years, but I did have to ride out
the
court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were
divorced,
not the month I filed.


And never once did you consider getting a job and supporting YOUR
kids.
YOU are 100% responsible for the support of the kids that YOU choose
to bear. The co-equal responsibility of their fathers does not excuse
you from your 100% responsibility for their support. Like all whiny
bitches you expect men-pay, women-get-paid.

Pound sand bitch.

Excuse me? What caused you to have the impression that I didn't work
or that I don't take 100% responsibility for the support of my
children? Having not gone on welfare after splitting, who do you
think supported the children 100% until there was an order? Who do
you think supports the children 100% when their father is "between
jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my
ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway.

If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"?

A piece of writing that should be filed under fiction, specifically
fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the
division of financial responsibility.

Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it.



In
fact, I have subsidized my ex's existence, too, because he gets the
tax dependencies whether or not he pays support... and he had been
"between jobs" for a very long time.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob wrote:

Beverly wrote:
My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my
representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good
game player and knew how to cause continuances... including hiring
an
attorney who sat on the board of Legal Aid which created a conflict
which caused MY need to change attorney who needed a continuance to
catch up on the case. Anyway, I suspect it is because I used Legal
Aid that a temporary order of support was never asked for. I didn't
have to chase my ex for several years, but I did have to ride out
the
court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were
divorced,
not the month I filed.


And never once did you consider getting a job and supporting YOUR
kids.
YOU are 100% responsible for the support of the kids that YOU choose
to bear. The co-equal responsibility of their fathers does not excuse
you from your 100% responsibility for their support. Like all whiny
bitches you expect men-pay, women-get-paid.

Pound sand bitch.

Excuse me? What caused you to have the impression that I didn't work
or that I don't take 100% responsibility for the support of my
children? Having not gone on welfare after splitting, who do you
think supported the children 100% until there was an order? Who do
you think supports the children 100% when their father is "between
jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my
ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway.

If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"?

A piece of writing that should be filed under fiction, specifically
fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the
division of financial responsibility.

Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it.



In
fact, I have subsidized my ex's existence, too, because he gets the
tax dependencies whether or not he pays support... and he had been
"between jobs" for a very long time.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob wrote:

Beverly wrote:
My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my
representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a good
game player and knew how to cause continuances... including hiring
an
attorney who sat on the board of Legal Aid which created a conflict
which caused MY need to change attorney who needed a continuance to
catch up on the case. Anyway, I suspect it is because I used Legal
Aid that a temporary order of support was never asked for. I didn't
have to chase my ex for several years, but I did have to ride out
the
court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were
divorced,
not the month I filed.


And never once did you consider getting a job and supporting YOUR
kids.
YOU are 100% responsible for the support of the kids that YOU choose
to bear. The co-equal responsibility of their fathers does not excuse
you from your 100% responsibility for their support. Like all whiny
bitches you expect men-pay, women-get-paid.

Pound sand bitch.

Excuse me? What caused you to have the impression that I didn't work
or that I don't take 100% responsibility for the support of my
children? Having not gone on welfare after splitting, who do you
think supported the children 100% until there was an order? Who do
you think supports the children 100% when their father is "between
jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my
ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway.

If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"?

A piece of writing that should be filed under fiction, specifically
fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the
division of financial responsibility.

Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it.



In
fact, I have subsidized my ex's existence, too, because he gets the
tax dependencies whether or not he pays support... and he had been
"between jobs" for a very long time.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:FBFAc.10749$ey.650@fed1read06...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob
wrote:

Beverly wrote:
My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my
representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a
good
game player and knew how to cause continuances... including hiring
an
attorney who sat on the board of Legal Aid which created a
conflict
which caused MY need to change attorney who needed a continuance
to
catch up on the case. Anyway, I suspect it is because I used
Legal
Aid that a temporary order of support was never asked for. I
didn't
have to chase my ex for several years, but I did have to ride out
the
court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were
divorced,
not the month I filed.


And never once did you consider getting a job and supporting YOUR
kids.
YOU are 100% responsible for the support of the kids that YOU
choose
to bear. The co-equal responsibility of their fathers does not
excuse
you from your 100% responsibility for their support. Like all whiny
bitches you expect men-pay, women-get-paid.

Pound sand bitch.

Excuse me? What caused you to have the impression that I didn't work
or that I don't take 100% responsibility for the support of my
children? Having not gone on welfare after splitting, who do you
think supported the children 100% until there was an order? Who do
you think supports the children 100% when their father is "between
jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my
ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway.

If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"?

A piece of writing that should be filed under fiction, specifically
fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the
division of financial responsibility.

Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it.

I dunno, Chris. Sounds like Dad had a hand in it, too. He, after all, gets
the income tax deductions every year. And he doesn't pay a penny for the
privilege. How do you feel about that?

"Chris" wrote in message
news:FBFAc.10749$ey.650@fed1read06...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob
wrote:

Beverly wrote:
My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my
representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a
good
game player and knew how to cause continuances... including hiring
an
attorney who sat on the board of Legal Aid which created a
conflict
which caused MY need to change attorney who needed a continuance
to
catch up on the case. Anyway, I suspect it is because I used
Legal
Aid that a temporary order of support was never asked for. I
didn't
have to chase my ex for several years, but I did have to ride out
the
court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were
divorced,
not the month I filed.


And never once did you consider getting a job and supporting YOUR
kids.
YOU are 100% responsible for the support of the kids that YOU
choose
to bear. The co-equal responsibility of their fathers does not
excuse
you from your 100% responsibility for their support. Like all whiny
bitches you expect men-pay, women-get-paid.

Pound sand bitch.

Excuse me? What caused you to have the impression that I didn't work
or that I don't take 100% responsibility for the support of my
children? Having not gone on welfare after splitting, who do you
think supported the children 100% until there was an order? Who do
you think supports the children 100% when their father is "between
jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my
ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway.

If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"?

A piece of writing that should be filed under fiction, specifically
fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the
division of financial responsibility.

Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it.

I dunno, Chris. Sounds like Dad had a hand in it, too. He, after all, gets
the income tax deductions every year. And he doesn't pay a penny for the
privilege. How do you feel about that?

"Chris" wrote in message
news:FBFAc.10749$ey.650@fed1read06...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:43:33 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:26:48 -0600, Bob
wrote:

Beverly wrote:
My divorce took over 3 years and I was using legal aid for my
representation for all but the last few months. My ex was/is a
good
game player and knew how to cause continuances... including hiring
an
attorney who sat on the board of Legal Aid which created a
conflict
which caused MY need to change attorney who needed a continuance
to
catch up on the case. Anyway, I suspect it is because I used
Legal
Aid that a temporary order of support was never asked for. I
didn't
have to chase my ex for several years, but I did have to ride out
the
court schedule. Support was ordered from the month we were
divorced,
not the month I filed.


And never once did you consider getting a job and supporting YOUR
kids.
YOU are 100% responsible for the support of the kids that YOU
choose
to bear. The co-equal responsibility of their fathers does not
excuse
you from your 100% responsibility for their support. Like all whiny
bitches you expect men-pay, women-get-paid.

Pound sand bitch.

Excuse me? What caused you to have the impression that I didn't work
or that I don't take 100% responsibility for the support of my
children? Having not gone on welfare after splitting, who do you
think supported the children 100% until there was an order? Who do
you think supports the children 100% when their father is "between
jobs?" I have enabled myself to provide for my children without my
ex's help AT ALL since that is what I do most of the time anyway.

If you support your children 100%, then what's up with this "order"?

A piece of writing that should be filed under fiction, specifically
fantasy? It is the court's fantasy on how they would like to see the
division of financial responsibility.

Don't play games. There would be NO order if you didn't have a hand in it.

I dunno, Chris. Sounds like Dad had a hand in it, too. He, after all, gets
the income tax deductions every year. And he doesn't pay a penny for the
privilege. How do you feel about that?