Any lawyers want to sue to make child support unconstitutional?

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
YooperBoyka wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction,

Try doing some reading on the subject.
I provided info from my jurisdiction that directly contradicted your major
premise.

At the risk of sounding like Andre,...anecdote does not equal evidence.


You provided nothing.

I wasn't the one who made a broad claim of negative certitude.
"It doesn't happen"
It does,...and I've seen example after example of it in here and out in the
world.
You having your head up your ass doesn't change that.


I guess that says all that needs be said.

Wow,...you aren't one of those that sees winners and losers
in a discussion, are you?
How sad.


Have a nice day.

Bank on it.
:^)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hey Fred?
Take a ****in' pill.


"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
YooperBoyka wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
YooperBoyka wrote:

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my
constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child
support, which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.
Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to
pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two.
Why not?
The courts do often enough.
So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same
mistake?

That doesn't make sense ... (8-(
What doesn't make sense is that an inability to pay can and WILL
get you incarcerated.
Pretending it won't will solve nothing.
I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction,

Let's look at the entire passage that I wrote:

"I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, but as to the jurisdiction in
which I reside (Minnesota), an inability to pay will NOT get you
incarcerated. It might get your child support reduced if you make a motion
to that effect, and/or it might result in establishment of a payment plan,
but it will NOT get you incarcerated. Only if you have the ability to pay
and are not doing so MIGHT you be incarcerated.

"If you want to cite a jurisdiction that has a policy of incarcerating
based on inability (not refusal; inability) to pay, please do so. But
knock off the glittering generalities; they are not appropriate. "

Then you might want to start reading on the subject.

I did, as to my jurisdiction. I also invited you to cite a jurisdiction
that supports your contention. You, in turn, ignored what I provided and
refused to provide info in kind.

You are being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you.

"Inability" can be defined in oh-so-many wonderful ways, donchaknow.

Then provide information regarding a jurisdiction that supports your
position.

And can the glittering generalities, which I have already demonstrated are
not valid.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

YooperBoyka wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
YooperBoyka wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction,
Try doing some reading on the subject.
I provided info from my jurisdiction that directly contradicted your major
premise.

At the risk of sounding like Andre,...anecdote does not equal evidence.

What anecdote? My information comes from the State Of Minnesota web
site. It's a very long URL, but I'll try pasting it in:

http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/idcp...Name=id_008810

If that doesn't come through correctly, go to
http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/ , click on Children, then work your way to
the page entitled "Child Support – Enforcing Orders"

You provided nothing.

I wasn't the one who made a broad claim of negative certitude.

You were the one who made the broad claim that "the courts do"
incarcerate due to inability to pay. I cited a jurisdiction, Minnesota,
where, as a matter of both fact and law, this is not the case. You, in
turn, are doing the best you can to ignore this fact.

And just so that there is no misunderstanding, my only issue with what
you said is the broadness of it.

"It doesn't happen"
It does,...and I've seen example after example of it in here and out in the
world.

Anecdote does not equal evidence.

I have provided evidence. I have invited you to do the same. You have so
far refused. I think that it is time that you do so.

Put up or shut up.

"YooperBoyka" ) writes:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
YooperBoyka wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction,

Try doing some reading on the subject.
I provided info from my jurisdiction that directly contradicted your
major premise.

At the risk of sounding like Andre,...anecdote does not equal evidence.

And, regardless of who says it, it remains utterly true.

You provided nothing.

I wasn't the one who made a broad claim of negative certitude.
"It doesn't happen"
It does,...and I've seen example after example of it in here and out in
the world.

Indeed. As have I.

You having your head up your ass doesn't change that.

Agreed.

I guess that says all that needs be said.

Wow,...you aren't one of those that sees winners and losers
in a discussion, are you?
How sad.

Indeed. Its easy to actually be right in a discussion; simply have
enough of the facts to be at least accurate enough.

Have a nice day.

Bank on it.
:^)

g

Andre