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
  #1  
Old February 10th 09, 06:48 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!

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!)



  #2  
Old February 10th 09, 08:19 PM 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
...
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.

  #3  
Old February 11th 09, 06:52 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!

"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


  #4  
Old February 11th 09, 08:50 PM 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
...
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.

  #5  
Old February 11th 09, 11:05 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!


"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.

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.

  #6  
Old February 12th 09, 04:56 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
...
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.

  #7  
Old February 12th 09, 10:35 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!


"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.

  #8  
Old February 12th 09, 10:58 PM 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
...
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.

  #9  
Old February 13th 09, 09:52 AM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!

"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.

  #10  
Old February 13th 09, 03:27 PM posted to alt.child-support
Kenneth S.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default OK, let's play the Legal System Game!

The following news story has nothing to do with "child
support," but everything to do with the caliber and ethics of the
judges who typically administer these matters. Fathers in
Pennsylvania who have to deal with any of the state's judges will want
to be warned. These judges were taking big kickbacks from a juvenile
boot camp operator to send children convicted of minor offenses to his
boot camp.

For their crimes, these judges apparently will get sentences
of less than eight years. Compare their sentences with the 18+ year
periods of paying "child support" that many fathers face as a result
of the rampant anti-male bias (another form of corruption) that
pervades family courts.

This story is from the New York Times. However, another story
on the same matter quotes the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania as appealing for people to step forward if they have
information about "activity that seems wrong, illegal or inconsistent
with the oath of office that judges take." (see
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427800493).

What oath of office do judges in Pennsylvania take? Does it
include promising to administer the law without any form of prejudice?

If Pennsylvania resembles other states, the glass ceiling on
paternal custody is still firmly in place. "Most often, children
still end up living primarily with the mother; according to the most
recent census, moms are the official primary residential parent after
a divorce in 5 out of 6 cases, a number that hasn't changed much since
the mid-'90s." (From a Newsweek article of Dec. 15, 2008, by Susanna
Schrobsdorff)

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Pennsylvania judges plead guilty to fraud in kickback scheme
By Ian Urbina and Sean D. Hamill


New York Times

Posted: 02/12/2009 06:12:52 PM PST


By Ian Urbina and Sean D. Hamill

At worst, Hillary Transue thought she might get a stern lecture when
she appeared before a judge for building a spoof MySpace page mocking
the assistant principal at her high school in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

She was a stellar student who had never been in trouble, and the page
stated clearly at the bottom that it was just a joke.

Instead, the judge sentenced her to three months at a juvenile
detention center on a charge of harassment.

She was handcuffed and taken away as her stunned parents stood by.

"I felt like I had been thrown into some surreal sort of nightmare,"
Hillary, 17, said. "All I wanted to know was how this could be fair
and why the judge would do such a thing."

The answers became a bit clearer Thursday as the judge, Mark
Ciavarella, and colleague Michael Conahan appeared in federal court in
Scranton, Pa., to plead guilty to wire fraud and income tax fraud for
taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to two
privately run youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and a
sister company, Western PA Child Care.

While prosecutors say Conahan, 56, secured contracts for the two
centers to house juvenile offenders, Ciavarella, 58, was the one who
carried out the sentencing to keep the centers filled.

"In my entire career, I've never heard of anything remotely
approaching this," said Senior Judge Arthur Grim, who was appointed by
the state Supreme Court this week to determine what should be done
with the estimated 5,000 juveniles who have been sentenced by
Ciavarella since the scheme started in 2003. Many of them were
first-time offenders and some remain in detention.

The case has shocked Luzerne County, an area in northeastern
Pennsylvania that has been battered by a loss of industrial jobs and
the closing of most of its anthracite coal mines. It raised concerns
about whether juveniles should be required to have counsel either
before or during their appearances in court and whether juvenile
courts should be open to the public or child advocates.

If the court agrees to the plea agreement, both judges will serve 87
months in federal prison and resign from the bench and bar. They are
expected to be sentenced in the next several months. Attorneys for
both men declined to comment.

Since state law forbids retirement benefits to judges convicted of a
felony while in office, the judges also would lose their pensions.

With Conahan serving as president judge in control of the budget and
Ciavarella overseeing the juvenile courts, they set the kickback
scheme in motion in December 2002, authorities said. They shut down
the county-run juvenile detention center, arguing that it was in poor
condition, officials said, and maintained that the county had no
choice but to send juveniles to the newly built private detention
centers.

Prosecutors say the judges tried to conceal the kickbacks as payments
to a company they control in Florida.

Though he pleaded guilty to the charges Thursday, Ciavarella has
denied sentencing juveniles who did not deserve it or sending them to
the detention centers in a quid pro quo with the centers.

For years, youth advocacy groups complained that Ciavarella was
unusually harsh. He sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to
detention centers from 2002 to 2006, compared with a state rate of 1
in 10.








On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:52:33 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:

"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.

 




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 03:20 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.